undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjurjenh15y ago0 comments

Mind you, back in its infancy you could very much have said the same thing about Google (search? how can you even begin to make money off that?) - and Facebook has been acquiring rather a lot of talented engineers.

Assuming that the core priority is to maintain and optimise their core business to a certain point of stability, they can then look at branching out into other areas that present attractive opportunities.

Of course Google has developed a very specific method to encourage this kind of behaviour (80/20) and Amazon has yet again quite a different process, so it would be very interesting to see how Facebook will go about this in the next few years.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

Unseelie15y ago

I think there's a strong argument to be made for the case that anything based on social is ephemeral. Facebook may be hiring a lot of engineers, but it is also, really very young, and networks change over time. There's a reason the post office doesn't own telecoms, and there's a reason Ma Bell doesn't own facebook, and didn't own Myspace (aside from the fact that they got trust-busted).

Anyhow, it could well the world's greatest computer engineers, but I doubt even that will allow it to survive the shifting sands of both fashion and technology over the next hundred years. Its not that facebook is bad, just that I very much doubt it'll be plugged into the technology that my children use to communicate in high school, twenty to thirty years from now. It may be telepathy.

Sandman15y ago

Facebook has been acquiring rather a lot of talented engineers.

True, but staying relevant in the field is not an engineering problem, it is a managerial problem. Microsoft had (and still has) a lot of talented engineers, yet they missed out on some great opportunities because of poor managerial decisions. That's why in 2011 they are not as relevant as they were in the 90s.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse