<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Google going to drop $2 Billion on the Facebook? No Way!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/</link>
	<description>We Are The Mole!!!</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:26:20 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: themole</title>
		<link>http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>themole</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/#comment-56</guid>
		<description>Alex, obviously 6 billion pageviews a day is a lot, but that doesn't mean that it has 6 billion users. The Facebook is a web social network and a lot of the pageviews come from looking at profiles and posting changes and such. I have no idea how many tens or hundreds of thousands of active users Facebook has, but it's important to keep in mind that people aren't clicking on ads when they update their profile or posting on someone else's. If half of the pageviews come from updating profiles, uploading pictures, and posting on someone else's wall then you aren't going to get a very high advertising conversion. Granted, with that big of an audience you don't need a very high conversion ratio for the site to rake in lots of money, but $2 billion is a lot of money and realistically, if they are really capable of making that kind of money why would Facebook sell out? They'd be better off going public and making a killing on an IPO. 

Also, HopeSeekr the point I was making about AOL was that they survived the dot-com bust because they have a huge customer base and that they get a recurring monthly revenue from each customer. If Google had their own super-high speed broadband service, it could provide excellent recurring long-term income. That is something that Facebook would not be able to provide 5 years down the road when it's no longer "cool" to post on Facebook. Also, a Google online service would provide another way for Google to promote it's software and services. All in all, it just seems like a Google internet service would be a smarter investment than Facebook would be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex, obviously 6 billion pageviews a day is a lot, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that it has 6 billion users. The Facebook is a web social network and a lot of the pageviews come from looking at profiles and posting changes and such. I have no idea how many tens or hundreds of thousands of active users Facebook has, but it&#8217;s important to keep in mind that people aren&#8217;t clicking on ads when they update their profile or posting on someone else&#8217;s. If half of the pageviews come from updating profiles, uploading pictures, and posting on someone else&#8217;s wall then you aren&#8217;t going to get a very high advertising conversion. Granted, with that big of an audience you don&#8217;t need a very high conversion ratio for the site to rake in lots of money, but $2 billion is a lot of money and realistically, if they are really capable of making that kind of money why would Facebook sell out? They&#8217;d be better off going public and making a killing on an IPO. </p>
<p>Also, HopeSeekr the point I was making about AOL was that they survived the dot-com bust because they have a huge customer base and that they get a recurring monthly revenue from each customer. If Google had their own super-high speed broadband service, it could provide excellent recurring long-term income. That is something that Facebook would not be able to provide 5 years down the road when it&#8217;s no longer &#8220;cool&#8221; to post on Facebook. Also, a Google online service would provide another way for Google to promote it&#8217;s software and services. All in all, it just seems like a Google internet service would be a smarter investment than Facebook would be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:14:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/#comment-55</guid>
		<description>Facebook currently gets about 6 billion pageviews per day, and is a phenomenon better compared to the likes of AIM or Yahoo messenger than ePets or eToys. Nonetheless, I don't think an acquisition of Facebook for 2 billion is the best idea ever...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Facebook currently gets about 6 billion pageviews per day, and is a phenomenon better compared to the likes of AIM or Yahoo messenger than ePets or eToys. Nonetheless, I don&#8217;t think an acquisition of Facebook for 2 billion is the best idea ever&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HopeSeekr of xMule</title>
		<link>http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>HopeSeekr of xMule</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:51:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-mole.org/2006/03/29/is-google-going-to-drop-2-billion-on-the-facebook-no-way/#comment-54</guid>
		<description>You do realize GOOG spent 1/2 the 2 billion on purchasing 5% of AOL...That makes your last paragraph RICH!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You do realize GOOG spent 1/2 the 2 billion on purchasing 5% of AOL&#8230;That makes your last paragraph RICH!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
