Social Apps are Big Business
While a lot of my blogs criticize Facebook for a plethora of reasons, I think we all know that it isn’t going anywhere. While the IPO did not go as planned, the fact remains that the company still has 900 million users. Yes, advertising dollars are down as more people shift to mobile; however, when you have 900 million users and growing, it is impossible not to make a profit. The company needs to change its profit model, and pivot a little bit, but I am confident that it will be back on track-financially speaking. Anyway, while Social “Giants” like Facebook and Twitter get all of the attention, a different social networking channel is growing at an unprecedented rate. “Last month, Vitrue — the social media marketing firm for Facebook advertising — was acquired by Oracle for $300 million. And just this week, customer relations giant Salesforce gobble up Buddy Media, another social media marketing platform, for a cool $745 million. Both Vitrue and Buddy Media happen to be social enterprise apps: tools geared toward helping big businesses capitalize on social media.” These social media tools are being adopted by Big Businesses and Corporations, globally. These social media apps aren’t used to simply keep in touch with existing customers/clients, they expedite a myriad of other functions:saving time, money and energy. Company departments such as Research and Development and Marketing implement these Social Apps in every facet. Social Apps are “Big Business” and are being adopted by “Big Businesses.” Do you think social apps streamline company objectives? Do they help generate more revenue? Have you been engaged by a company’s social app platform, and what was your experience? Love to hear feedback.
D. Spinelli
Why NOW?
The other night I watched “Midnight In Paris,” for what must be at least the fifth time. Another brilliant piece of artwork by Woody Allen, the movie stars Owen Wilson and sheds light on human nature. Own Wilson is infatuated with the intellectual culture that encapsulated Paris in the 1920’s. He admired the geniuses (Picasso, Fitzgerald, Hemingway etc.), the artwork they produced and the overall culture that thrived at this specific place in time. Magically, Owen Wilson’s character (a Hollywood Screenplay writer, but aspiring novelist) is catapulted back in time at the strike of midnight each day he stays in Paris. He mingles with a myriad of these admirable artists and even gets feedback from the famous literary critic Gertrude Stein. Wilson becomes infatuated with a beautiful model from that era, which is paralleled as antithetical to his relationship to his fiancé (a typical arrogant and ostentatious contemporary American woman). However, the climax occurs when Wilson’s character is confronted by a pivotal question by his new found love; she believes that the era before the 1920’s is really the “Golden Age,” and she wants Wilson to come with her. It is at that moment that his character has an epiphany: everyone believes that a different era, a different time or a different place would enhance life. Now let’s segue from the message of the movie to the point that I am trying to convey. Sometimes I look back on the past and wonder if life would be easier, smoother, or less stressful. Would I be better off living during the “Enlightenment?” Would I be better off living in the 1950’s when industry was booming and jobs were plentiful, and life was simpler? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I would like to give my sentiments. I believe that it is human nature to latch on to things, and believe that these “things” would lead to happiness. It’s a fundamental flaw in human reasoning. If only I had this girlfriend, if only I made X amount of dollars, if only I were a famous writer; this type of reasoning is not only flawed, but it is a recipe for unhappiness. When one thinks this way, they don’t take the holistic view of life into account- it’s this belief that, once I get “there” I will be happy; if only I had “this” I would be happy. One does not ARRIVE at happiness through superficial channels. Happiness is available to all of us NOW. The constant denial of the present moment and need to fulfill an insatiable void that lives in all of us cannot be conquered through people, places or things. Happiness can be obtained by accepting the present moment for what it is. Everything is what it is, and if human beings could intuitively accept this simple concept, there would be much less angst and significantly more peace-internally as well as externally. So just for shits and giggles, say I lived in the 1950’s. I truly believe that times were simpler then. People were not constantly inundated with cell phones buzzing and news feeds slapping them in the face: can technological innovation be directly correlated to unhappiness? Nowadays, everyone and their moms is medicated for something. Dr. I’m anxious um, Xanax. Dr. I’m depressed, umm Prosaic. Dr. my eight year old son is spending too much time outside playing and can’t focus on his SAT preparation, ADERALL. Dr. I can’t get my dick up- that’s a simple remedy right? Is the pervasion of anxiety and depression in other medical “conditions,” connected to the overwhelming nature of technology? Or is the DSM constantly progressing so that more Drs. can diagnose patients and make more $$$$. Americans in the 1950’s weren’t prescribed these medications, and while they weren’t around, I don’t think that they were necessary. In today’s society is the prescription epidemic necessary? And if it is necessary, what accounts for it. As I write this commentary, my smartphone has gone off 15 times-that shit makes me anxious. The need to constantly check my email, apps, Facebook, Linked In accounts etc. adds to the stress in my life: and I can only speak for myself. Too much anxiety can transmute into depression. Is technology creating anxiety, and therefore espousing more cases of depression. Were people just as depressed in the past, or were simpler times easier on the human psyche. I don’t know the answers to these questions, and no matter how much data I look at, I don’t think the question can ever be definitively answered. If I lived in the 50’s I guess I’d miss my PS3; but then again I wouldn’t know that it existed. Hemingway blew his brains out with a shot gun in his early 60’s. So obviously depression has existed for some time. So the big question remains; are anxiety and depression innate conditions that cannot be avoided if you are in that unfortunate state: or is one’s environment the key factor in determining whether one suffers from a psychological ailment. I’m sure it’s a combination of both. Would you be happier in the past? Are you looking for salvation in the future? Is technology making our citizens more anxious/depressed? As always I’d love to hear thoughts, opinions etc. Until next time.
D. Spinelli
Drawing the parallels between Facebook and ‘The Matrix’: Is Zucky the ‘Architect’…
“You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.” -Morpheus, The Matrix
I’m sure many of you have seen this film. Keanu Reeves plays the part of Tom Anderson, an average office-rat by day, and Neo, a computer programmer/hacker by night. He is recruited by a group of ‘rebellions’ and eventually takes the ‘red pill’ (over the ‘blue pill’: ignorance is bliss?), thus embracing the painful truth that the world as he knows it is one big computer program. He is told that his mind has been controlled by intelligent machines for the duration of his life, as well as the fact that these machines harvest the bioelectrical energy of humans, who are kept docile within the Matrix, a simulated reality of the world (sound familiar). Without this ‘bioelectrical energy’, the machines would cease to live.
The idea of ‘The Matrix’ has been influenced by numerous religious beliefs and philosophies including those of Abbott, Plato, and Descartes. The thought of our world being controlled and monitored by intelligent machines is both scary, yet highly unlikely.
However, as the internet becomes an increasingly habitual platform for facilitating communication and personal relationships, there are an increasing number of parallels that can be drawn between the giant social networking sites and ‘The Matrix’.
“Your appearance now is what we call “residual self image”.
-Morphues, The Matix
Yesterday, we had posted an editorial detailing the unsettling news that Facebook, the site that serves as a platform for creating and maintaining your ‘residual self-image’, may allow children under the age of 13 to use the social networking service. This move was inevitable, though the dropping stock price has served as a catalyst. Facebook has been keeping tabs on it’s users for years, and now it is moving on to children, and FB most likely knows more about you and me than our closest friends. Furthermore, the social networking service sells this information, one of it’s biggest money makers. It’s other revenue sources include advertisements, and online games. All these sources of revenue rely on the continued and consistent use of the service by it’s user base. No users, no money…Can you see the parallels?!? Let’s break it down:
Facebook: Users + Activity = Money.
Matrix Intelligent Machines: Humans + Bioelectric Energy = Life.
Now, let’s not be too cynical…doesn’t every company rely on this equation? Without users/humans/consumers, the company has no market to sell it’s products, and without these users/humans/consumers putting in some energy, the products the company is selling won’t be bought. However, what other company has the vast knowledge of it’s userbase like Facebook does? Furthemore, what other company makes billions of dollars selling this information? Answer: None…
Do you control your information on Facebook, or does Facebook control the information on you??
-C. Sullivan
Look Ma! 2000 Friends!
I am always perplexed and yet simultaneously curious when I see a child walking around with an iPad, smartphone, or any other type of mobile device. Are these items making children more savvy? Maybe parents want their children to become technologically proficient to stay ahead of the curve-especially in such a competitive work environment. In case you didn’t realize, I am being overtly facetious. Anyway, when I was eight, I was outside playing backyard football, shooting hoops and doing what normal children do: or did? In any event, a rumor has surfaced that Facebook now intends on allowing users under the age of thirteen to use the social platform. Sounds like a fantastic idea to me! What an altruistic move by Facebook; they definitely want to extend their service to younger people so as to enhance their lives. Since the company went public, the companies stock has precipitously declined. As we all know, and as I have stated time and time again: Facebook lacks a steady stream of REVENUE, as people continue to move to mobile devices. So what does the company do? The answer is so simple: exploit the youth – a completely untapped goldmine. With users under the age of thirteen, the company will surely increase its 900 million users significantly. Of course, the company says that the kids accounts will be linked to their parents, so as to provide protection. However, this possible move is clearly a ploy to generate more money. More children than adults will be using Facebook from a browser. That means that the company will be able to generate more advertising dollars, as well as make money from games that children will surely nag their parents to buy. The ironic thing is that I write this blog as I develop my own smart phone product. So I guess it’s not in my interest to rag children for carrying smartphones, tablets, etc. On the other hand, I don’t think that youngsters should have these devices. I think that they subject themselves to things that they are not ready to see, and should not see. Furthermore, it makes children vulnerable to sick people that are on the web simply to associate with kids. If less children carried smart phones correlated with OptiLaunch making less money off our products, I have no qualms: good! I’d rather children be safe than exploit them to the myriad of liabilities they face on the web.
Bottom line is this…Facebook knows that the majority of everyday interactions between children under the age of 13 are mediated by the childrens’ parents. Once the parents lose this control, there is no telling what kind of serious danger children can put themselves in (they don’t know any better!!).
Facebook…Zucky…Take a step back and think of a better way to rake in profits than exploiting youths.
-D. Spinelli
Spinelli Sunday Commentary
I was excited when my friends and I decided to go to a club last night. Every time I envision a bar/club I have this illusion of an oasis teeming with women dying to meet me. I guess it is this myth that keeps me coming back. Sure I’ve picked up some women from bars, but the fact is (at least for me) the majority of women that I’ve had any type of physical relationship with were not from bars or clubs- nor did I meet them them at a nightlife spot. Even though the same result happens time and time again, the illusion is still well alive in me, and in most single men (especially one’s in their 20’s). I compare it to gambling; you go to the casino thinking you’re going to win, which statistically speaking happens rarely. However, you might have one night where you do win big: that memory becomes entrenched in your mind and you forget all about the numerous times that you lost. The two fallacies run parallel to one another. Just like a gambler, I fondly remember the nights that I did pick up a woman at a club or bar. Every time I go out I am chasing that result which rarely occurs. My working definition of insanity is, “doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.” So, what accounts for this insane epidemic amongst men in my age bracket. A recent poll found that, less than 6 percent of women report having had sex with their partners within 2 days or less of meeting them, and less than 20 percent of adults say they first met their most recent sexual partner in a bar. A survey of 1,034 women by StrategyOne, a market research agency, reveals that nearly one in four women would be embarrassed to admit that she met a mate in a bar. The statistics speak for themselves. Not only are there a dearth of women looking to go home with a man after a first encounter, but the majority of relationships are not cultivated or sparked at a bar-like scene. I have been a culprit of this fallacy for far too long: going home by myself, waking up in the morning and pulling a crumbled receipt out of my pocket for 1,200 bills. The biggest joke of it all is that so many women flock to these bars and play on like they intend on going home with you. However, in most cases women are just playing us. They get fed free drinks all night and pretend to be interested, as they utter a few words to you over the penetratingly loud music, and maybe they even grind up on you for a little bit. But, in most cases, that’s the end of it. You (I) go home alone and wake up with the painful feeling of rejection, an injured bank account, and a shitty hangover. Let me know your thoughts and feelings about any of this. Have a good Sunday. Take it easy and think before you start shelling out money at a dimly lit bar for some girl you just met.
D. Spinelli
Technology=Depersonalization?
Last night I went out to dinner with a few of my best friends. We went to a wonderful Asian-fusion restaurant that has always been a favorite of mine. The ambiance was nice: music in the background, and a very avant-garde, and cosmopolitan visual experience.My compadres and I conversed and laughed as we ate our appetizers and imbibed our drinks. Just after the appetizers came, I had to use the bathroom. As I walked past the other tables, I noticed a dearth of engagement between various patrons. In fact, the majority of people were not even looking at each other. What were they looking at? Their smart phones obviously. I made a mental note, but did not think much of it until I sat back down at my own table. Even my friends, my best friends in the world, were glued to their phones. What did I do? Obviously I followed precedent and began checking my ever-so-important emails and Facebook messages. I felt like an asshole, but then again, isn’t that the norm these days? People glued to whatever mobile device they are using, while ignoring others thoughts or feelings. My favorite is the “head nod,” where you act like your’re listening to the person speaking with you, when in reality you are not hearing a word they say and definitely don’t care-nod on, and hopefully they’ll shut up! Why am I talking about all of this? I guess what I’m trying to insinuate or at least shed light upon, is the fact that tech company’s and social networking sites want us to believe that they are making the world an easier place to live and making us “more connected.” I believe that the antithesis is true. The rapid advancement of technology and its domineering presence in all facets of our lives is leading to extreme depersonalization. This hypothesis runs completely contrary to common perception. I could be completely wrong, but it makes sense to me. I have seen it, lived it and have been and continue to be a culprit of “technological depersonalization.” Can I coin that expression? I’m sure some scholar has shed some light on the situation- so it may not be an original concept. In any event, as I sit and ponder, I think about the past decade, as technology has rapidly grown and how human interaction has changed. I think it has changed for the worse. Although friends and family may think that they are more connected,
it is my contention that they are not. I used to sit down with my family every night, my mom prepared dinner, and the whole family discussed life: how school was going, how friends were doing, politics, etc. But over the years, these family gatherings became more and more uncommon. Even when we did sit down, dinners were shorter, maybe even rushed. I’m not quite sure where I’m going with that, but I want to segue into why we as human beings think technology is enhancing our lives. In society today, having the most friends on Facebook is an accomplishment. Technology is meant to make life easier, not define us as human beings. For example, I write, I develop Mobile Apps, but that is not WHO I AM. Who I am as a person is completely disparate from what I do for a living, who I interact with, what I do in my spare time. I envy people who lived in the early twentieth century: devoid of overwhelming technology, and the strangle hold that it now has on humans. While advancements in technology are obviously helpful,
have answered innumerable questions, as well as assuaged a myriad of problems: at what point is enough, enough? Is the progression of technology actually helping us, or is it hindering us. I majored in history, so I’m going to use a historical reference to demonstrate a point. During World War II the United States Military Industrial Complex underwent a complete metamorphosis. Subscribing to the “Total War” paradigm, meant that bigger was better, as armies still fought head to head. Therefore, the U.S. increased production of heavily armored tanks, bombers, and increased our nuclear capabilities (mechanization of our military was in full effect) ; obviously this worked out for us. This theory of, “Total War,” was increased evermore, as Atomic Technology progressed and all emphasis was on Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (IBM’s). This war doctrine worked out for a while: at least until Vietnam. The U.S. was now fighting a different type of enemy-one that’s best interest was not to fight head to head, but instead prescribe to insurgent tendencies “jungle warfare.” The U.S. Military’s technology was trivial in the face of an enemy hid in the jungles, and hid amongst the civilian population-we were over qualified technologically and too highly reliant on head to head warfare, “Total War,” AKA head to head combat. It’s no wonder that Vietnam was a disaster. Currently, our military endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan are having the same problem. The military is too reliant on technology, that it is ill-equipped to partake in counterinsurgency operations. Nowadays our enemies are furtive, patient and hard to detect-big tanks and big bombs don’t are obsolete in this type of warfare. To connect this back to technology in our everyday lives, I guess I’m attempting to rear an important question-at what point will technology become more of a hinderance than a help? I think that is an imperative question to explore, and while there is no definitive answer, I think that it is something we must keep in mind. Life is so complicated now. A lot of people are under the impression that it is about money, flash, success etc. While these things may enhance our lives, they will never define it, and most importantly never fill the void that we every human being strives to do. I think life is about passion and more importantly love. Kierkegaard, one of my favorite philosopher was adamant about the need for love in our lives (and I couldn’t agree more). Love for another and its reciprocation creates a bond: an affirmation that is stronger than anything in this world- It transcends everything else. I hope my readers find something hear to think about. As always, agree, disagree, love, hate-I always value feedback.
D. Spinelli
Limitations of Technology, or Marketing Conspiracy?
For the past five years or so I have bought a number of computers (both PC and Mac) and smartphones (Blackberries, iPhones, Androids) and have disposed of each and every single one within a couple of years after purchase. Up until a few months ago, I have always assumed that that there was some inevitable hardware or software issue that caused most of these devices to become nearly incapacitated after a couple years of use. Only recently have I realized that this problem applies to technology as a whole. Is this issue an actual shortcoming of current technology?? Or is it a grand marketing scheme?? Whatever the case may be, American consumers quickly abandon “devices” for the new “new” thing. According to a Forbes article, Americans spend $35 billion annually on mobile devices. Personally, I have abandoned plenty of technology that worked just fine, for the newest device. Is this an extension of good marketing or is technology increasing so quickly that we are forced to keep up or be left in the dust? Besides scrapping devices that worked for ones that are dubbed “better”, I have also had a myriad of devices that have failed on me, and therefore forced me to either buy a new one or switch to a different device (I don’t even want to divulge the number of PC’s or iPhones that I’ve been through – #thankgod for insurance. When a device fails on you, then you have two choices: (1) buy the same one, or (2) spend the extra bucks and get the newest edition. The fact that computers, tablets and mobile devices tend to have problems makes me wonder if technology is made to fail. It makes complete sense. Why would Apple or Dell make a product that will last a decade, and always run like it’s fresh out of the box? It is not in a technology company’s best intrest to create a product that has an extremely long life span. Big tech companies need to sell tablets, laptops, smart phones, iPods, etc., and therefore must continue to put out products that are not made to last, or that will soon be replaced by a “better” product. These “better” products are usually nothing more than a nuance on a previous one. Americans are more guilty than any other people for falling into the trap of abandoning perfectly good tech for a newer version. Why do we do this? Also, on a side note, I had the privilege of working for a very large commercial insurance company in the Extended Warranty Department (as an underwriter). I know from experience that all those mobile devices that you trade in are “refurbished” and resold (BIG MONEY!). American retailers learned early in the 20th century that consumers will readily buy disposable products. Is that the case today with technology? I truly believe so.
-D. Spinelli
Zucky not so Lucky
If Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t already stressed out enough with the issues pertaining to the recent IPO fiasco, as well as the escalating patent wars between Facebook and Yahoo, then Steve Bezos has just added the cherry. Amazon stated today that they had extended their patent portfolio to include ‘digital gift giving’, a service that allows Amazon users to send digital gifts (e.g. downloadable books, music for the Kindle Fire). Some of the claims of this issued patent include allowing the gift-giver to forego paying for the digital ‘goody’ until the user has accepted it. Sounds like a pretty broad set of claims in an age where an issued patent is becoming increasingly hard to come by.
Karma Science, a service founded less than a year ago and funded by Kleiner Perkins, one of the largest and most established venture capital firms in the world (other investments include Zynga, Google, AOL….and Amazon), is a social gifting site that runs on mobile devices. Karma was recently acquired by Facebook, on the day of the social networks not-so-mammoth public offering, for $80 million. Now, less than two weeks after the multi-million dollar acquisition, it seems like Facebook may be headed for further patent litigation – though not with a struggling company (i.e. Yahoo), but with Amazon (AMZN has twice as much cash on hand than YHOO). It is still a bit early to tell whether or not the service that Karma provides will indeed infringe upon Amazon’s newly issued patent, though this is just another setback for the social networking site which has seen nearly a 30% drop in value since going public.
Will Zuckerberg stand-up to Amazon and fight for his newly acquired company, Karma? Or will actual ‘karma’ bite the young and inexperienced CEO in the ass and force him to license the ‘digital gift giving’ service from Amazon? Furthermore, if Amazon did indeed win the potential ensuing patent battle, would Bezos license the technology to Facebook, or would he keep this golden-goose for himself, thus creating somewhat of a modern day monopoly?
I’m not sure anything, especially not a digitalized e-commerce company (not even Amazon) will be able to replace that “magical” feeling one gets when he or she goes to Macy’s in New York City in mid-December – though, why even make the trek to West 34th when you can do all your shopping in the comfort of your own bed (#obesity).
Facebook may not be in as much trouble as Macy’s, but they are starting to feel the heat of larger, more well-established companies, and Zuckerberg may be beginning to realize that the transition from a mere social-networking site (which, by the way was worth $100 BILLION at its peak), to a possible mobile phone provider and even an e-commerce .com, may turn out to be a much more tedious journey than he had originally anticipated.
Should investors keep their faith in Zuckerberg, the original mastermind behind Facebook, or may it be a good idea to nip the problem in the bud (inexperience), and find someone who is better fit to run the company. The only way to achieve the latter would be to actually convince Zucky to step down (Zuckerberg may only own 28% of the company, but in actuality he owns over 57% of the voting rights).
Either way, Facebook needs to come up with a concrete plan for the future, and creative pivoting options in the case that they run into any more problems like the ones that have arisen in the recent past. Let’s hope Zucky isn’t too over his head.
-OptiLaunch Team
NBA is Fixed
I don’t know about most people, but the NBA regular season could potentially be the most boring sport to view. There’s no defense, and star players are constantly calling for the ball so that they can increase their stats-even if it’s detrimental to the team’s performance. Carmelo Anthony will drop 38 points on 15 for 45 shooting (very commendable Carmelo). I might as well watch the AND 1 Mix Tape Tour (“SPYDAAAAAA!”). At least the viewer knows what he or she is getting into. The commentary is more exciting and the trick shots are pretty damn cool. In any event, I am writing to comment on the NBA as a whole and the controversy that has surrounded it for some time-especially during the current playoff season. On a side note, I was happy to see Michael Jordan’s Bobcats not receive the first overall pick in next years draft (side note: the New Orleans Hornets, who are owned by the NBA, had a 14% chance of getting the #1 pick, and they got it….fixed??). There’s something about Jordan’s aloof attitude that makes me cringe. If you don’t agree, watch his Hall of Fame induction speech – it’s pretty comical. I’m sure Jordan rushed off to the casino after last night’s disappointment to gamble away his feelings. Anyway, while watching this years playoffs, I can’t help but wonder if it’s rigged. Did anybody see the five technical fouls that were awarded to the Celtics in game 1 against the favored Heat. Ray Allen was given a technical for jumping in the air with his back turned to the referee. I’m not quite sure, but isn’t jumping a big part of basketball? Kevin Garnett was given a technical for flicking the ball back to the referee. I’m calling BS on those techs. However, the controversy extends so far beyond the ill-advised techs given in Game 1. Last night I was astounded by the incompetence that the referees displayed. With the came tied in overtime Rondo went up for a layup and was clearly slapped in the face by Dwayne Wade – no call!?!? That led directly to a fast break and a dunk by Haslem. Not only did the refs blow that call, but later in OT Wade drove to the basket and used his legs to create separation between himself and Kevin Garnett (basket and foul – count it!) Why is it that referees can look at Flagrant 2’s, but not Flagrant 1’s. The myriad of questionable calls makes me ponder the motives of the officiating crews – Tim Donaghy, remember that clown? But the dearth of good officials is an extension of the NBA hierarchy. Simply put, David Stern is either lackadaisical, or has ulterior motives. It’s no secret that advertising is where the big money comes from: not only for the networks, but for the NBA itself. So, the best match ups between the most hyped up teams, with the most loyal fans, equals more viewers, which in turn leads to more advertising revenue. Are these games a self-fulfilled prophesy:it makes complete sense. Why isn’t David Stern doing anything about these abysmal calls? Maybe I’m cynical or downright paranoid, but something is awry; I can feel it. Thoughts? Sentiments? Rebukes? I’m all ears.
-D. Spinelli
Facebook Has their Evil Eye on Chomping It’s Way Towards a Mobile Phone
I don’t know exactly what Mark Zuckerburg’s vision was when he came out with ‘The Facebook’ (a minimal viable product) that cost about twenty thousand dollars to get off the ground. However, as the site evolved and grew, so did its advertising revenue. When Facebook was a private company its revenue model was quite simple; with 900 million users in roughly eight years, companies wanted to advertise…makes sense, right? But now, after the stock has trickled down from it’s original $38 dollar IPO (Down near $28 on the day), investors want to know how the company is going to generate revenue. Clearly advertising dollars are down, which makes complete sense, as mobile phone sales significantly out-do desktops and laptops. It’s hard to advertise on mobile phones – fact. Investors don’t give a shit about how Facebook is going to increase revenue and adapt to an ever-changing marketplace – they just want results. Therefore, Facebook has already announced its desire to tap into the mobile phone market and produce its own device. Now that the company has gone public and has an arsenal of billions at its disposal, it makes complete sense for them to move in that direction. How should they go about it? Creating a mobile device isn’t simple, and to make matters worse, Facebook has absolutely no experience in the field. The idea is excellent; Facebook operating on its own phone could do wonders for the publicly traded company. However, with no experience, it will be a daunting task for Facebook to develop a device that has the hardware, and operating system that will run smoothly with the sites social functionality. Research In Motion (RIM) – the producer of the “CrackBerry” is a logical acquisition for Facebook. Or is it? RIM is at a nine year low, however it still has a large consumer base. It is still widely used in the corporate world, because of its email security, sleek look, arguably the easiest keyboard to use, and not to mention, the wealthiest people in the world. Is RIM a good buy for Facebook at this point? Should Facebook wait for the floundering company’s stock to drop even lower, or does it risk another company furtively buying the company. Will RIM continue to flounder, or will it reposition itself and adapt (most likely not)? I think Facebook would be smart to buy it while the stock is at $10.73. Let me know your thoughts. Love feedback!
OptiLaunch 