News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by lubos on Friday February 05, 2016 @08:30PM (#11046048)
> SF can't expand easily since it's water 3/4 all around. Demand still high and supply very low.

That might easily change.

If average salaries go down, people won't be able to afford pay rent they once used to. There will be less people living on their own and more people sharing with others. This will create oversupply of rental properties which means rent prices will go down.

If rent prices go down, property prices will go down too as property investors won't be able to justify holding a relatively expensive property yielding low rental returns. So they might as well put the property on the market creating more supply of properties for sale. Thus bursting the bubble.

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by yeukhon on Friday February 05, 2016 @08:41PM (#11046086)
SF is heavily relying on the high-tech, high salary population to sustain its high market value. So SF is always at risk of having market breakdown. But because giants like Google and Facebook have offices in SF, or near SF, as long as that population remain, SF market will survive, no matter what. If SF only relies on startup, SF will doom. Startup population, however, is dragging the price higher, so high that even the workers from the giant tech feel wallet drain, and that's really bad, because Google wouldn't pay everyone $200,000 annually, and even if Google does, only a handful of companies can, thus the market will bloat with a huge economic gap.
Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by marincounty on Friday February 05, 2016 @09:47PM (#11046285)
I'll get hammered for this, but I just wonder if we will be talking about Google, and Facebook ten years from right now?

I know both have diversified, and Google has become best friends with the Obama administration.

I just wonder if they will be relevant? These tech companies main reason for living is advertising, and their algorithms.

I look back, and Apple had a physical product. Other than Apple, exactly what companies will be here in a decade?

Actually, I don't think I would buy another new Apple product for myself. I still buy them as presents. It's a nice gift. For myself, I will still buy used while their is a surplus of parts.

I went into my Corte Madera Apple Store on 2-1-16. There's no cash registers. A few printers are attached under the counters for receipts. It's ambience was that of a operating room. I walked out, with a $39.00 iPad mini case. I said to myself, "Is this my last visit?" The case was not the quality I expected from Apple either.

Please don't beat me up. I won't even be back. Just thinking out loud. My prediction of future events have a poor track record.

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by aws_ls on Saturday February 06, 2016 @04:02AM (#11047069)
Google and Facebook are completely different animals. They both make money through advertising[1], but the use cases are different. Even their algorithms have different implications. In Google's case for example, their search is like an ever improving AI, increasingly hard to overtake. And assuming search is going to continue to be a need, it may become increasingly hard for a competitor to overcome them. I do understand nothing lasts forever, but only thing is I don't see it coming yet.

Sibling comment, compares Goog with MS 10 years back. My humble submission is several people saw it coming even then. I remember reading a book called 'The Search', and also having some discussions with friends, where we felt that Google will overtake MS. But there is no such thing in the horizon, which challenges Google. And people tried - Blekko was noteworthy. DDG is also liked by hackers, but it remains to be seen in the long term.

Now talking about FB's algos (or AI). Its purely anecdotal, but till I was using FB, I found it highly irritating. Imagine if your email was trying to guess which email you like to read, rather than simple time sorted one (and brief categorization, which gmail does).

[1] This analogy of comparing Google to advertising company has become a bit tiring now as well. I think, thats their current way of making money, we should judge them by what their intrinsic value is - Search/self-driving cars/Youtube/etc. As the means may change (micro-payments via Bitcoin/etc who knows?)

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by johnyzee on Saturday February 06, 2016 @06:34AM (#11047323)
The Google <-> Microsoft analogy is especially relevant with Google becoming the owner of the operating system of the world's most dominant computing platform. The resemblance of Microsoft of the nineties is uncanny; commoditized hardware made by a plethora of companies at razor-thin margins and Google sitting on top of all of them collecting the profits. Funny enough, both of those operating systems were arguably ripped off from Apple. History does rhyme.

Only Google is a lot more diversified than MS was back then, since Android isn't even their main business.

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by jfb on Saturday February 06, 2016 @08:09AM (#11047622)
Ownership means something different when you charge for it, however.
Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by DougN7 on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:21PM (#11046537)
I think you might be right. I remember about 10 years ago having a discussion with a coworker. He was bemoaning the fact that Microsoft was so far entrenched that nobody would ever be able to challenge them. Back then Microsoft looked like Google does today. Nobody stays on top forever.
Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by jsudhams on Saturday February 06, 2016 @05:16AM (#11047190)
I agree with @monkeywork, i think Microsoft is now in better than what it was in 2003/4, At the time when i worked there we knew Linux was a challenge, MSSQL, AD, Exhcange all had still competition(sun one Ldap, domino mail/workflow) and was fighting hard in fact i would say Domino with it's workflow was in better position. With Azure, SQL Always on, .net and solid Windows server i expect Microsoft to be around for long atleast another 1o to 12 years in dominant position in enterprise segment.
Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by monkeywork on Saturday February 06, 2016 @01:25AM (#11046791)
but Microsoft is still in top in terms of market share on desktop, and they have started to put a dent into the prosumer tablet market, and they compete well in the gaming market. I'd say they are still "on top"
Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by angelbob on Saturday February 06, 2016 @04:26AM (#11047111)
Microsoft is long past "nobody would ever be able to challenge them." Maybe on desktop, provided you exclude the server market.

You didn't used to have to exclude the server market. They owned that too. Then Linux challenged them and won.

In fact, they used to own all PCs. Then Apple challenged them for laptops and won.

Microsoft isn't doing badly, but it's not an unchallengeable juggernaut any more.

And Google won't be forever either.

Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by pacala on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:21PM (#11046535)
Advertisement is relevant. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KO produces nothing of intrinsic value, yet it is valued at $185B. Why? Because they've built and maintained a very valuable brand, via advertisement. The day CocaCola is headed for bankruptcy is the day I start worrying about Google and Facebook.
Re:LinkedIn shares drop 40%, erasing $10B of company's value by cplease on Saturday February 06, 2016 @01:01AM (#11046752)
Market cap is not the same thing as book value, and the book value of the Coca Cola brand is less than $80 billion.

Google is up with Apple and Coca Cola as most valuable brands, but Facebook is not even top 10.