Deletion is too extreme for most people. More reasonable: escalating partial dis-engagement. Here's what my friends and I did, sequentially, over the years:
1. Turn off notifications for the Facebook app on your phone;
2. Turn off notifications for the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps on your phone;
3. Delete the Facebook app from your phone;
4. Delete the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps from your phone; and finally
5. Log out of Facebook on your desktop.
It took me 2 years to go through from step 1 to step 5. It has made me happier and more productive. I still have a Facebook account. But the friction of grabbing my laptop and logging in forces me to consider "is this what I want to do? Or am I thoughtlessly reaching for the crack pipe?"
Deleted my account nearly a year ago. I don’t miss it at all. For the first few months, I definitely felt like I was missing out on things. But since then I’ve taken a bunch of classes, read a bunch of books, and enjoyed my other hobbies more. It’s hard to do that when wasting time on Facebook. Also I’ve avoided all the bullshit arguments and much of the debates with extremists on all sides of the political spectrum.
I want a social network that encourages human interaction in the real world - not one that turns friends into enemies, feeds narcissism, and provides a platform for corporations and hostile governments to spy on us and manipulate us. Facebook cannot and will not ever be that network.
I realized Facebook had become the digital equivalent of walking into the kitchen and opening the fridge. You know what's inside, but you still end up looking.
I've mostly done this but landed on still keeping a facebook tab on the laptop -- quarantined in its own container using the excellent Firefox Multi-Account Containers extension.
Most "friends" unfollowed except a handful of close people. Some less connected but more interesting people pop up in the feed for a bit but then get put back in 30 day snooze with their first new less-than-interesting post.
I won't interact with posts that are world-viewable, but might like or comment on some that are more restricted.
This brings it down to just one or two posts a day in my facebook tab. Something I can spend one or two minutes on in the morning or evening. I mostly see my sister's new baby, and that's fine :)
I've done all the same steps over a number of years. One more item I'd add is that mbasic.facebook.com still allows you to get messages.
For no valid technical reason I'm aware of, they removed the ability to view messages in the standard mobile site. It used to work, and frankly it worked really well. But I'm sure the engagement and quantity of data they sucked up were orders of magnitude better with Facebook Messenger.
For me, it was the mobile interface interlaced with so many video ads that killed my usage. I do open the app sometimes to check what some of my distant friends post, but my usage has drastically gone down. I think 5 years back I spent at least 30 mins on the app every day, now I don't even open it on a few days. To top that, the Cambridge Analytica incident.
That said, I remain invested in FB, since my hypothesis was that 'a majority of people are not like me'. Looks like I am being proven wrong, but let's see the long term impact.
The only regret I have about deleting my FB account is that I forgot it was attached to a mobile game account that my partner plays... when she lost her tablet, she lost the account and could no longer recover or login because the FB account attached to it was long gone. Oops.
I did 1 and 3, for 2 I've switched off audible notifications but not visual for the messenger apps. Unlike the others I actually feel that I get real value from those but that's because they're more inherently participatory than FB itself.
I only look at my phone to see if there are new messages a few times a day, usually right after I've done an email check (I don't keep an email client permanently available either unless I'm in a rare window when I have to be quickly reachable).
The few extra steps it takes me to log in on my laptop mean that I check FB two or three times a week - down from two-three times an hour. When I do use it, I usually scroll through invites (the only real reason that I wouldn't delete my account).
The gradual de-escalation works well because social media does have real value but it's a good idea to test what that value is against the attention costs it imposes.
Turning off notifications for messenger ("We noticed notifications are off, would you like to turn it on? Yes/No), I kid you not, took at least 30 to 40 times as of a few months ago for it to stop bugging me to turn it back on. Few months before that, 25 times at least. Who knows what that number is now. That kind of engagement should be flat out illegal or regulated.
> Wehner also said Facebook still expects expenses to grow 50% to 60% from last year
> “But as I’ve said on past calls, we’re investing so much in security that it will significantly impact our profitability,” Zuckerberg said. “We’re starting to see that this quarter.”
That sounds like a big 1-year jump. From what I can tell, the big Facebook scandals (fake news, Cambridge Analytica) came from faults in company policies rather than security glitches.
I wonder if labeling it "security" is a PR thing as their web ads all focus on FB taking active steps to make sure those types of scandals don't happen again.
Faacebook is hugely overvalued. Its actual value for its users is far less then perceived. You can't fool all the people all the time, and the day will come that people will realize it.
I'm all for social networks (and making good profit from operating them), they have a key role in democratizing the global society, its just that facebook is abusing our basic psychological needs to make money.
What I would really like to know, is the correlation between the FB IPO and the rental prices around the valley going up at the time.
Just prior to the FB IPO, I lived about two blocks from the then CIO or CTO of FB (cant recall his name - this was just as Asana was getting a lot of buzz as well) -- and I was looking for a new apartment in Noe Valley.
I recall that a place that I saw going for $3,000 per month took an immediate jump to $7,000 per month days after the IPO and they wanted a $10,000 security deposit...
Other rents went up as well.
My overall point being, that it sucks, but is interesting, to see how tech company IPOs impact overall COL - but when comments such as "FB is hugely overvalued" are made, and instances where FBs value drops - the damage to real COL has an impact radius thats already happened and far more reaching than simply to those who benefit/suffer from their personal stock holdings' value...
Its the reality of the world/market - but lets imagine FB ceasing to exist magically... COL/rents will not adjust accordingly.
So, while I don't personally care about FB's value - I am interested in how much the entirety of COL is affected by any tech success/failure throughout silicon valley...
How are these types of factors evaluated by economists?
Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke I’ve disabled notifications on my phone and find myself pressing it perhaps 30 minutes a week rather than what was probably almost an hour a day. Even giving it half an hour of my time seems like a bit of a bad habit I should cut out. I never relied on it for news, ignored the ads, and generally really tried to use it exclusively to maintain the potential for contact with the diaspora of worldwide friends and acquaintances and their sometimes-shifting contact details.
Its difficult to give it up completely (without loosing something). I tried, but it is a useful place for contacts that you don't see often and are in different parts of the world. It stays current, which phone numbers and email address don't.
I'm inclined to agree, but am reminded of the Dropbox Vs rsync post on HN. The value to me from it is okay groups family and friends. I can write a facebook clone which does all the things I like in a month or so, but that's kind of missing the point.
Facebook is very valuable in countries where press freedom is not good (if facebook is not blocked yet). My country (Azerbaijan) is one of the worst countries in terms of press freedom. The only “free press” we have is a facebook. There are many goverment’s trolls, but everybody understands when trolls write something (trolls get average salary). On the other hand, goverment follows oppositions’ discussions on facebook and responds accordingly. That is the only platform we have now goverment and oppositions speak with each other.
Facebook is about looking at hot girls from your college, well, that's how it started out. It's a social network where you and your data are the product. It's not about free press.
Facebook can't be doing well: they're running ads on the New York Times app, trying to convince me to join.
And these aren't flattering ads either: they emphasize that I'd be joining "2 billion users" and that "it's free to sign up." They're bargain basement and have a desperate vibe.
I get that big brands often advertise for pure brand awareness and associated reasons not necessarily tied directly to growth in new users or their bottom line.
This makes me wonder what it must be like being a marketing executive for Facebook at the moment. In advertising one usually promotes USPs and benefits to sell the product - in this case - a social media platform. The FB marketing execs must sit there thinking, how the fuck do we sell Facebook when everybody knows about Facebook, and most people know it's garbage?
This is especially true when you consider there's 7 billion or so people on the planet, and FB already has 28% of the total population using their app. They surely can't believe that they're one day going to have much more than their current market share?
I guess the 'free to sign' up and 'join 2 billion users' was the best they could manage given the circumstances.
I'd love to hear from a marketing exec at a big corp to understand their take on it. The idea of having to market Facebook at this stage in their lifecycle is very intriguing to me.
I'm a young millennial and I'm sure that I'm suffering from a bias here* -- but I'm actually surprised they would need to take out ads in the NYT, given what their product is. I just find it so hard to believe that a significant number of people in the US haven't heard of Facebook or haven't any close friends who use Facebook. If the number wasn't significant, then I don't know why they would need to take out ads. Unless you've been living under a rock, if you're my age, then you have had more than enough time to figure out whether Facebook is your cup of tea.
*I am probably underestimating how many older folks are completely out-of-the-loop with Facebook.
I haven't logged into facebook in 6 months or so, and in the last couple of weeks, I've gotten about 5 emails a day about things my facebook "friends" just posted, and reminders to come back; The usual rate is about 2-3/week.
I assumed I wasn't personally targeted, and that it's part of a "increase monthly and daily now!" campaign FB is running. Seems like they had a good reason to try.
From the article: ``The company reported 1.47 billion daily active users, while Wall Street expected 1.49 billion; it logged 2.23 billion monthly active users, as analysts expected 2.25 billion.''
It doesn't feel like the results justify the 20% drop.
The market has expected this for years. Look at Facebook's declining P/E ratio.[1] 81 in 2005. 22 now. Successful established companies have P/E ratios in the 10-20 range. Facebook is coming in for a landing as an established company, ending its growth company phase. This is a normal part of the corporate life cycle.
The pessimistic guidance dovetails well with Zuckerberg's recent, wide-ranging interview with Kara Swisher[1]. FB has been the darling of tech and general media, until the last 2 years--turning a great brand to an increasingly toxic one. By Zuckerberg's own estimation, FB's "retooling" needs 3 years, and they are about 1 1/2 years in, so the guidance reflects that timeline. If they deliver on that timeline, a rough 2nd half of 2018 and all of 2019 is to be expected.
>"and at the same time, it was encouraging to see the vast majority of people affirm that though want us to use context, including from web sites this they visit, to make our ads more relevant and improve their overall product experience.”
I assume the vast majority clicked 'Agree' or similar on prompts about updated policies, but it's funny to phrase it this way. Obviously if asked directly, the vast majority would't actually affirm that.
I'm seeing a lot of "I deleted and I don't even miss it" comments. I haven't deleted my account just yet, but I only check the news feed once a week.
Taking this anecdotal evidence into account, I wonder if it's just Facebook's core audience growing out of social media. Sure, Zuckerberg has a bazillion users, but his site started by selectively inviting college students in the early 00's. Those early adopters are now all in their 30s and have better things to do than gossip and post vanity shots all day. Maybe the older audience who joined the site later are losing interest because that core was less active.
And then there's the younger generation who actively avoid Facebook and stay connected through a massive spread of other apps/games/sites that are not outright social media outlets. Without a major pivot, this could be big trouble for FB.
2007
High school acquaintance: Join us on facebook!
Me: What for? So you can treat me like shit like you did in high school?
2008
Cousin: Join us on facebook, so you can stay in touch.
Me: Why don't you just tell me what's happening like you always have?
Then we can shoot the shit and laugh and talk and gossip, just us two, like we always have?
2009
Neighbor: Why don't you join our community group on facebook so you can see what's going on?
Me: I'll just pay my dues and spend my time on what's really important to me.
2010
Work associate: Why don't you work at facebook? Everywhere else is lame.
Me: Because lots of other places are doing cool stuff that really matters.
2011
Friend: I can't believe you're still not on facebook. Everyone is!
Me: Your 2 sentences contradict each other.
2012
Me: Why didn't you invite me to your wedding?
Fraternity brother: Because you're not on facebook.
Me: Lame. And classless.
2013
Sister-in-law: Your business cannot succeed unless it has a presence on facebook.
Me: Really? I just had my best year ever.
2014
Local business: See what we're up to on facebook.
Me: I just go somewhere with their own website.
2015
Me: Why didn't you answer my emails?
Friend: Why didn't you just message me?
Me: What's that?
2016
Work friend: How do you manage to get so damn much work done?
Me: Because I'm not spending hours every day on facebook on my phone.
I'm too busy building stuff.
2017
Business guru: A following on facebook is not nearly as effective as a good email list.
There's too much noise for the signal.
Me: You don't say?
2018
Almost everyone: What have we done?!?
facebook is ruining everything!
Our privacy is gone! How do we get off?
Me: I get off every day. The old fashioned way.
> Wehner said a combination of currency headwinds, new privacy controls, and new experiences like Stories will contribute to the deceleration
I remember the day Chambers Saif Cisco hit an air pocket. Since then it has only been layoffs, cuts and austerity for Cisco. Never really recovered. Is it the same day for FB?
> Cisco on Wednesday reported healthy profit and sales gains for its fiscal first quarter, in line with Wall Street expectations. But a host of challenges -- including losses in public sector accounts and in specific product areas like set-top boxes -- coupled with a less-than-invigorating sales forecast for the current quarter, were enough to send Cisco's shares tumbling.
> Cisco CEO John Chambers, on Cisco's Q1 conference call, described the challenges as hitting an "air pocket," and was bullish on many of the areas in which Cisco excelled. But he set a subdued tone for the call, especially with the forecast that second quarter revenues would increase only about 3 to 5 percent, and a forecast that revenue growth for fiscal 2011 overall would be 9 to 12 percent, well below both the 13 percent for Q2 and the 13.1 percent for FY11 predicted by analysts.
> Specifically, said Chambers, orders came in over $500 million below Cisco's initial Q1 sales forecast.
I deleted my Facebook account more than 2 years ago. Installed Instagram to test what the fuss was about. But uninstalled it in a day.
The thing that's still Facebook and major part of my life is WhatsApp. Chit chats, group discussions, and calls with family back home all happen through WhatsApp.
Couldn't transition to other apps because most people in my family and friends circle don't really care about privacy or data security. They prefer convenience.
Without them switching, it's going to be hard for me to switch.
I think the stock price is finally catching up to reality and public perception. I've noticed a huge resistance to using Facebook in recent years within my social sphere. Professionally, I'm one of the few that I know that still use the service; I think it's FOMO keeping me on, but I find it extremely difficult to add content to my profile and find myself mostly acting as a passive consumer of others' content.
When Facebook posted good returns and stock didn't drop right after Cambridge Analytica many were gloating about how that is "proof" that the privacy scandal didn't affect Facebook and that no privacy scandal will ever affect Facebook.
But they were simply not looking closely enough. And as I said back then, you need to give this sort of things time to see the real effects, like at least until the end of the year. Because I believe the worst is still ahead of Facebook. Facebook is now on a downwards path, and it's irreversible.
Facebook is now officially Blackberry. And just like with Blackberry before, many dismissed the fundamental issues of the company while blindly following the "record quarters" Blackberry kept having until 2009.
If they had just looked closely enough, they would've seen that BB's core North American market was on a steep decline path and it was also obvious that its phones were nowhere near as good as iPhones or Android phones.
Just look at what's happening to Facebook engagement. Ignore Facebook's sugarcoating. Look how the people around you are using Facebook and what they say about it.
* There are 4.16 billion Internet users worldwide.[a]
* 26.3% of the world's population is under 14 years old, close to Facebook's minimum age of 13.[b] This means 73.7% of the world's population is at least 14 years old.
* If we assume the population of Internet users has a similar age distribution as the world's population, that means there are around 4.16 * 73.7% = 3.07 billion Internet users who are at least 14 years old. This is a rough estimate of the maximum possible number of people who can have an account with Facebook today, i.e., the size of the company's addressable market (in users, not dollars).
* The true size of Facebook's addressable market could be higher (for example, if the age distribution of Internet users is different)... but it could also be significantly lower (for example, if a substantial number of Internet users cannot or will not join Facebook due to religious, cultural, or governmental restrictions, or due to the availability of established regional alternatives).
* Facebook just reported monthly active users of 2.23 billion, up only 11% from 2.01 billion a year ago.[c] This isn't exactly stellar user growth. The company now has around 73% penetration of every person in the planet who can join Facebook today. Again, this is a rough estimate.
* The company's CFO disclosed in today's quarterly earnings call that the company expects a "deceleration" in growth.[d]
EDITS: I updated the global Internet usage figures based on dooglius's comment below (the Wikipedia page is outdated). I also expanded significantly on my original post to make my facts and reasoning as clear as possible to others here.
Well, the stock dropped a bit after the report, but then it fell off a cliff during the call. It must be the forecast and not the results that is really spooking people.
The guidance is nice. It resets expectation, especially amongst the analyst community. Makes it easier for FB to beat expectations the next time around.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
1. Turn off notifications for the Facebook app on your phone;
2. Turn off notifications for the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps on your phone;
3. Delete the Facebook app from your phone;
4. Delete the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps from your phone; and finally
5. Log out of Facebook on your desktop.
It took me 2 years to go through from step 1 to step 5. It has made me happier and more productive. I still have a Facebook account. But the friction of grabbing my laptop and logging in forces me to consider "is this what I want to do? Or am I thoughtlessly reaching for the crack pipe?"
[+] [-] ashelmire|7 years ago|reply
I want a social network that encourages human interaction in the real world - not one that turns friends into enemies, feeds narcissism, and provides a platform for corporations and hostile governments to spy on us and manipulate us. Facebook cannot and will not ever be that network.
[+] [-] puranjay|7 years ago|reply
I haven't missed a single thing.
I realized Facebook had become the digital equivalent of walking into the kitchen and opening the fridge. You know what's inside, but you still end up looking.
[+] [-] grappler|7 years ago|reply
Most "friends" unfollowed except a handful of close people. Some less connected but more interesting people pop up in the feed for a bit but then get put back in 30 day snooze with their first new less-than-interesting post.
I won't interact with posts that are world-viewable, but might like or comment on some that are more restricted.
This brings it down to just one or two posts a day in my facebook tab. Something I can spend one or two minutes on in the morning or evening. I mostly see my sister's new baby, and that's fine :)
[+] [-] froindt|7 years ago|reply
For no valid technical reason I'm aware of, they removed the ability to view messages in the standard mobile site. It used to work, and frankly it worked really well. But I'm sure the engagement and quantity of data they sucked up were orders of magnitude better with Facebook Messenger.
[+] [-] deepGem|7 years ago|reply
That said, I remain invested in FB, since my hypothesis was that 'a majority of people are not like me'. Looks like I am being proven wrong, but let's see the long term impact.
[+] [-] krtkush|7 years ago|reply
1. Unsubscribe everyone's feed. This way when you open FB all you see is a blank feed.
[+] [-] mancerayder|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lainproliant|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mvandenbergh|7 years ago|reply
I only look at my phone to see if there are new messages a few times a day, usually right after I've done an email check (I don't keep an email client permanently available either unless I'm in a rare window when I have to be quickly reachable).
The few extra steps it takes me to log in on my laptop mean that I check FB two or three times a week - down from two-three times an hour. When I do use it, I usually scroll through invites (the only real reason that I wouldn't delete my account).
The gradual de-escalation works well because social media does have real value but it's a good idea to test what that value is against the attention costs it imposes.
[+] [-] bariswheel|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lcedp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everdev|7 years ago|reply
> “But as I’ve said on past calls, we’re investing so much in security that it will significantly impact our profitability,” Zuckerberg said. “We’re starting to see that this quarter.”
That sounds like a big 1-year jump. From what I can tell, the big Facebook scandals (fake news, Cambridge Analytica) came from faults in company policies rather than security glitches.
I wonder if labeling it "security" is a PR thing as their web ads all focus on FB taking active steps to make sure those types of scandals don't happen again.
[+] [-] yotamoron|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samstave|7 years ago|reply
Just prior to the FB IPO, I lived about two blocks from the then CIO or CTO of FB (cant recall his name - this was just as Asana was getting a lot of buzz as well) -- and I was looking for a new apartment in Noe Valley.
I recall that a place that I saw going for $3,000 per month took an immediate jump to $7,000 per month days after the IPO and they wanted a $10,000 security deposit...
Other rents went up as well.
My overall point being, that it sucks, but is interesting, to see how tech company IPOs impact overall COL - but when comments such as "FB is hugely overvalued" are made, and instances where FBs value drops - the damage to real COL has an impact radius thats already happened and far more reaching than simply to those who benefit/suffer from their personal stock holdings' value...
Its the reality of the world/market - but lets imagine FB ceasing to exist magically... COL/rents will not adjust accordingly.
So, while I don't personally care about FB's value - I am interested in how much the entirety of COL is affected by any tech success/failure throughout silicon valley...
How are these types of factors evaluated by economists?
[+] [-] qubex|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempodox|7 years ago|reply
I suspect you can, with the equivalent of survivor bias. Those who can't be fooled don't have Facebook accounts.
[+] [-] flycaliguy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] therealdrag0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkingemote|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jsharm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slantaclaus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alismayilov|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scandox|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TomK32|7 years ago|reply
To prove the point, in Myanmar the social network facebook has helped to spread hat speech that led to riots and violence between Buddhist and Moslims. https://www.wired.com/story/how-facebooks-rise-fueled-chaos-...
If you want free press, change the government, whether it's Azerbaijan or Malta, a better government is necessary.
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ardy42|7 years ago|reply
And these aren't flattering ads either: they emphasize that I'd be joining "2 billion users" and that "it's free to sign up." They're bargain basement and have a desperate vibe.
[+] [-] simonswords82|7 years ago|reply
This makes me wonder what it must be like being a marketing executive for Facebook at the moment. In advertising one usually promotes USPs and benefits to sell the product - in this case - a social media platform. The FB marketing execs must sit there thinking, how the fuck do we sell Facebook when everybody knows about Facebook, and most people know it's garbage?
This is especially true when you consider there's 7 billion or so people on the planet, and FB already has 28% of the total population using their app. They surely can't believe that they're one day going to have much more than their current market share?
I guess the 'free to sign' up and 'join 2 billion users' was the best they could manage given the circumstances.
I'd love to hear from a marketing exec at a big corp to understand their take on it. The idea of having to market Facebook at this stage in their lifecycle is very intriguing to me.
[+] [-] anonytrary|7 years ago|reply
*I am probably underestimating how many older folks are completely out-of-the-loop with Facebook.
[+] [-] puranjay|7 years ago|reply
Meaning they're losing this all-important audience
[+] [-] beagle3|7 years ago|reply
I assumed I wasn't personally targeted, and that it's part of a "increase monthly and daily now!" campaign FB is running. Seems like they had a good reason to try.
[+] [-] utopcell|7 years ago|reply
It doesn't feel like the results justify the 20% drop.
[+] [-] Animats|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/pe-ratio
[+] [-] ceohockey60|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.recode.net/2018/7/18/17575156/mark-zuckerberg-in...
[+] [-] drewmol|7 years ago|reply
I assume the vast majority clicked 'Agree' or similar on prompts about updated policies, but it's funny to phrase it this way. Obviously if asked directly, the vast majority would't actually affirm that.
[+] [-] schnevets|7 years ago|reply
Taking this anecdotal evidence into account, I wonder if it's just Facebook's core audience growing out of social media. Sure, Zuckerberg has a bazillion users, but his site started by selectively inviting college students in the early 00's. Those early adopters are now all in their 30s and have better things to do than gossip and post vanity shots all day. Maybe the older audience who joined the site later are losing interest because that core was less active.
And then there's the younger generation who actively avoid Facebook and stay connected through a massive spread of other apps/games/sites that are not outright social media outlets. Without a major pivot, this could be big trouble for FB.
[+] [-] edw519|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noncoml|7 years ago|reply
I remember the day Chambers Saif Cisco hit an air pocket. Since then it has only been layoffs, cuts and austerity for Cisco. Never really recovered. Is it the same day for FB?
> Cisco on Wednesday reported healthy profit and sales gains for its fiscal first quarter, in line with Wall Street expectations. But a host of challenges -- including losses in public sector accounts and in specific product areas like set-top boxes -- coupled with a less-than-invigorating sales forecast for the current quarter, were enough to send Cisco's shares tumbling.
> Cisco CEO John Chambers, on Cisco's Q1 conference call, described the challenges as hitting an "air pocket," and was bullish on many of the areas in which Cisco excelled. But he set a subdued tone for the call, especially with the forecast that second quarter revenues would increase only about 3 to 5 percent, and a forecast that revenue growth for fiscal 2011 overall would be 9 to 12 percent, well below both the 13 percent for Q2 and the 13.1 percent for FY11 predicted by analysts.
> Specifically, said Chambers, orders came in over $500 million below Cisco's initial Q1 sales forecast.
[+] [-] patrickg_zill|7 years ago|reply
Then today or yesterday their permission to do so was yanked by Chinese authorities.
EDIT: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-25/just-hours-after-a... summary of stories from NYT, Reuters, etc. on this matter
[+] [-] adarsh_thampy|7 years ago|reply
The thing that's still Facebook and major part of my life is WhatsApp. Chit chats, group discussions, and calls with family back home all happen through WhatsApp.
Couldn't transition to other apps because most people in my family and friends circle don't really care about privacy or data security. They prefer convenience.
Without them switching, it's going to be hard for me to switch.
[+] [-] bradenb|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|7 years ago|reply
But they were simply not looking closely enough. And as I said back then, you need to give this sort of things time to see the real effects, like at least until the end of the year. Because I believe the worst is still ahead of Facebook. Facebook is now on a downwards path, and it's irreversible.
Facebook is now officially Blackberry. And just like with Blackberry before, many dismissed the fundamental issues of the company while blindly following the "record quarters" Blackberry kept having until 2009.
If they had just looked closely enough, they would've seen that BB's core North American market was on a steep decline path and it was also obvious that its phones were nowhere near as good as iPhones or Android phones.
Just look at what's happening to Facebook engagement. Ignore Facebook's sugarcoating. Look how the people around you are using Facebook and what they say about it.
[+] [-] yalph|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cs702|7 years ago|reply
* There are 4.16 billion Internet users worldwide.[a]
* 26.3% of the world's population is under 14 years old, close to Facebook's minimum age of 13.[b] This means 73.7% of the world's population is at least 14 years old.
* If we assume the population of Internet users has a similar age distribution as the world's population, that means there are around 4.16 * 73.7% = 3.07 billion Internet users who are at least 14 years old. This is a rough estimate of the maximum possible number of people who can have an account with Facebook today, i.e., the size of the company's addressable market (in users, not dollars).
* The true size of Facebook's addressable market could be higher (for example, if the age distribution of Internet users is different)... but it could also be significantly lower (for example, if a substantial number of Internet users cannot or will not join Facebook due to religious, cultural, or governmental restrictions, or due to the availability of established regional alternatives).
* Facebook just reported monthly active users of 2.23 billion, up only 11% from 2.01 billion a year ago.[c] This isn't exactly stellar user growth. The company now has around 73% penetration of every person in the planet who can join Facebook today. Again, this is a rough estimate.
* The company's CFO disclosed in today's quarterly earnings call that the company expects a "deceleration" in growth.[d]
[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage#Internet...
[b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_world#Age_...
[c] https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...
[d] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/facebook-warns-investors-of-...
--
EDITS: I updated the global Internet usage figures based on dooglius's comment below (the Wikipedia page is outdated). I also expanded significantly on my original post to make my facts and reasoning as clear as possible to others here.
[+] [-] ebikelaw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geetfun|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gnopgnip|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2sk21|7 years ago|reply