Everyone remember: Bebo

[ChrisAITY]

I just wanted to start a thread about Bebo. It was a massive internet hit for social networking, it was acquired by AOL for around $850 million, and then they sold it for under $10 million, so I thought I would have a look at the site....

I remember being a member of Bebo years and years ago, and how things have changed on there now. Just looking at the homepage shows what a decline it has had. If everyone remembers the old Bebo, it is very stylish, professional, probably looked better than Facebook in terms of appearance..

Just goes to show, business can be tough sometimes and AOL has lost out big time.

I just wanted to know, are there any other companies/businesses you remember in the last 10 years that made a massive hit on the internet, only to now be scrapping pennies of the floor?

 

[bjg123]

The obvious one is Myspace - acquired for $580m by Newscorp in 2005, they've just laid off half their work force and are looking for a buyer, they've also rebranded it My____

 

[gordano]

Bebo is a good example, others are in decline like Friends Reunited. In the e-world business can grow fast, but customers can move away just as quickly.

It makes you think about valuations for the likes of Facebook, IMO a great website and service, but what if someone comes along with a new and better idea? I think it will be interesting to reflect back 10 years from now.

 

[wizzard]

I always thought bebo was aimed at the teenage market? Also the well publicised suicide pacts using the service hasn't helped its cause either.

 

[ChrisAITY]

I think Facebook has been over rated to an extreme. Valuations of £50 BILLION.. as you said My Space (or My____) was a massive hit, until Facebook come along. I think all these social networks have a beginning and also have an end. Facebook I think will be phased out just like the others.

Bebo was aimed towards the teenage market, but a lot of 'older' people also had accounts and celebrities for that matter.

Companies see major social networks growing, purchase them, only to see a decline in them a few years later. AOL purchased Bebo in 2008 (3 years after Bebo launched).. 2 years later, sold it and lost $840 million along the way.

Bono from U2 was in the paper today, 1.5% he has shares in Facebook, he invested something like $170 million, and his 1.5% is now worth $750 million or something.. I mean it's ridiculous..

 

[J-Wholesale]

The one constant when it comes to social media is that they all fall in the end. Facebook will too, and something else will rise up to take its place. Even forums like this have their day - 5 years from now this forum will probably still exist, but chances are it will be as good as dead.

 

[Olly Culverhouse]

The one constant when it comes to social media is that they all fall in the end. Facebook will too, and something else will rise up to take its place. Even forums like this have their day - 5 years from now this forum will probably still exist, but chances are it will be as good as dead.

Thats a very cynical view of things. I do agree that the odds are against any website lasting 5-10 years but I wouldn't say all do.

Facebook is different to the others, it has a well proven business model (web advertising) which is much better than its competitors due to the targeted nature of it.

Maybe you could compare Bebo, MySpace, Friends Reunited with Facebook as it was when it started but its a lot different now and can't be compared.

 

[J-Wholesale]

Thats a very cynical view of things. I do agree that the odds are against any website lasting 5-10 years but I wouldn't say all do.

Facebook is different to the others, it has a well proven business model (web advertising) which is much better than its competitors due to the targeted nature of it.

Maybe you could compare Bebo, MySpace, Friends Reunited with Facebook as it was when it started but its a lot different now and can't be compared.

But it's true. People don't want to be one of a 100 million. They want to join the cool club, and the cool club is always selective - at least at the beginning. Just like Facebook was when it started. Once these social sites become part of the mainstream, once everyone is a member, they're no longer cool. And once the early adopters start leaving Facebook, it won't be long before the herd follows them.

Facebook is not that different. They could fall in a single year just like all the sites that came before them. Every year someone is saying that this technology company is 'different' and that old rules don't apply to them. And they are always wrong.

As for Facebook's business model, that may keep their bank balances healthy, but it doesn't do a single thing for keeping their users happy. And that's where future success or failure lies.

This is not cynicism - the beauty of this short-termism when it comes to social media is that there is nothing stopping you from starting new communities. Competitors may exist and appear to have it sown up, but a new site with a new angle or approach could take their crown at any time.

 

[AntoniaLuella]

Social Media websites come and go.

Facebook seems to be the one with the most staying power.

How long do you think twitter will last ? I give it 4 years.

 

[crossdaz]

Facebook is different to the others, it has a well proven business model

Revenue of 2 billion (revenue - not profit). Actual profit - none. I don't call that a business model?

The current astronomical valuation comes from a 1% investment which is leading up to a stock market float. The float will be successful (because the business has been hyped out of all proportion) and that investment will be cashed in very quickly.

 

[ChrisAITY]

To me, Twitter is a complete waste of time.. What is the point in tweeting what your doing.. I think this social network is mainly for people who want to follow celebrities.. I don't think that was the plan, but that's how it's turned out..

I couldn't give a date on Twitter, because I think they are unpredictable.. I think they are working to develop Twitter into something much bigger and better for future.

Agree with Crossdaz..

 

[redtigerdesign]

I think Facebok have done really well to maintain their position, and increase it.

What makes them different is there ability to consistently focus on giving users different, and usuall better experiences. They're generally concise about it, work off the community and give a level experience (the 'skinning' of profiles on MySpace etc was just too much and dilluted/destroyed the experience of the site, IMO).

What's more is they don't charge for use of features, they have several versions for a variation of people and although their use of Java can be a bit of a burden on computers, it means things are updated and seen near instantly. This just feeds modern society's need for fast, updated information.

What's more is they've built a superbrand - and that'll be harder to kill off that any of the predecessors. I think they may just survive, as long as they stay on the ball and keep innovating...

Alex

 

[redtigerdesign]

I think they are working to develop Twitter into something much bigger and better for future.

I think the problem with that is dilluting something which is successful because of it's very simplicity.

 

[Newcott]

Facebook will be the constant - its too well seeded and has too much going for it.

It cleavily has all the features that most the others had. MySpace to promote your band - Facebook Fan Page. Discussion groups & Forums = Facebook Groups. Business, hobbies and developers are tailored for.

It allows my 15 year old cousin to use it with out having to abide by the same rules or user experince that my parents have. Its very good at being a universal service and with its userbase I can connect to anyone around the world.

Its a fantastic website and doubt its going anywhere in a hurry.

On a side note:

Bono from U2 was in the paper today, 1.5% he has shares in Facebook, he invested something like $170 million, and his 1.5% is now worth $750 million or something.. I mean it's ridiculous..

Is that true ?

 

[ChrisAITY]

According to this report.....

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrities/2011/01/14/16883851-wenn-story.html

 

[papverpoppies]

Bono and facebook.


POPPY XX

 

[Newcott]

humm - he annoys me with his hypercritical charity bull

Anyways back on target - be interesting to see what happens to twitter. I love it for following people I look up to but long term i just don't know.

 

[crossdaz]

Bono and facebook.


POPPY XX

I never had you down as a Sun reader Poppy?

 

[papverpoppies]

I never had you down as a Sun reader Poppy?

Oh my little secret is out.

Truth, I was searching on Yahoo and it had the details with that link to the Sun - honest

What I want to know is, did the shares rise in price, because of the Bono connection, or did they just rise anyway.

I don't have a favourite newspaper, they never write about happy stuff.

Poppy xx

 

[luvbusiness]

Would rather put a positive up....I think Youtube will have a lot of staying power...I dont use twitter or facebook

 

[Newcott]

YouTubes got some big plans in the next couple of years which sound very exciting

 

[crossdaz]

Oh my little secret is out.

OK I believe you.

What I want to know is, did the shares rise in price, because of the Bono connection, or did they just rise anyway.

This is where the hype comes into play because it's a private company so the shares don't go up and down in value like that. If, however, facebook does float on the stock market as expected then those shares can go up in value and can be sold in the blink of an eye.
I wouldn't be surprised to read a lot of these kinds of stories in the coming months - it's in a few people's interest after all?

 

[Esk247]

YouTube is a more powerful platform in comparison to Facebook or Twitter.

Facebook has holes. The search function is next to useless, if you delete a friend by mistake or you're looking to add someone they better be in the US or you won't find them. It cannot identify a lot of british locations either, only the major cities, most of the search function is US based too.

Bebo really has gone to the dogs hasn't it. I remember it being up there for the 10 year olds and if you were 15 upwards you'd have a MySpace for your band. Both Bebo and Myspace have dropped off the radar a little. Bebo is dying, the homepage is advertisement filled, James Caan AGAIN!!! which smacks of desperation to draw any money at all.

MySpace is still good for unsigned artists and such but it has a confusing layout and again the search function is purely for the american audience, useless if you live in europe, can't find anyone as it puts american profiles first.

Friends ReUnited was a waste of time because it was limited and was preferred by the older generation. It had limited use for a teenager other than some kind of weird stalking background, where you'd add people from your school, after that..it's useless.

 

[ChrisAITY]

It's just funny how things change so much, in such a small amount of time these days. And it all seems to be internet based, because as stated, something bigger and better comes along and steals the limelight of the big boys.

When I was a teenager of around 13 years old, I was constantly on MSN Messenger.. even though it still has a huge base, MSN (Windows Live Messenger) has rapidly decreased due to chat on Facebook and Skype.

I also think Facebook will soon see a major decline, it would be hard to say when, but I think it will happen one day or another. At the end of the day, people need to get out more, and even when they are out, they are on Facebook telling people what they are doing, I mean, that is actually quite sad.

Twitter is very simple, and I think they will build around that, but I think they could have some nice little tricks up there sleeves, but who knows, only time will tell..

 

[Liybpg]

Youtube, don't know about now, but last year it was loosing about $1bn a year. I am sure they are in a better position now as they've rolled out proper ads, but still I don't believe they are very profitable.

Facebook, maybe a good potential business but fundamentally overvalued. Twitter - waste of time and wont last 5 years - its valuation of $3.7bn is beyond rediculous.

As far as the theme of this topic is concerned, extract from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble - scroll down):

• Boo.com, spent $188 million in just six months[17] in an attempt to create a global online fashion store. Went bankrupt in May 2000.[18]
• Startups.com was the "ultimate dot-com startup." Went out of business in 2002.
• e.Digital Corporation (EDIG): Long term unprofitable OTCBB traded company founded in 1988 previously named Norris Communications. Changed its name to e.Digital in January 1999 when stock was at $0.06 level. The stock rose rapidly in 1999 and went from closing price of $2.91 on December 31, 1999 to intraday high of $24.50 on January 24, 2000. It quickly retraced and has traded between $0.07 and $0.165 in 2010 .[19]
• Freeinternet.com - Filed for bankruptcy in October 2000, soon after canceling its IPO. At the time Freeinternet.com was the fifth largest ISP in the United States, with 3.2 million users.[20] Famous for its mascot Baby Bob, the company lost $19 million in 1999 on revenues of less than $1 million.[21][22]
• GeoCities, purchased by Yahoo! for $3.57 billion in January 1999. Yahoo! closed GeoCities on October 26, 2009.[23]
• theGlobe.com - Was a social networking service, that went live in April 1995 and made headlines by going public on November 1998 and posting the largest first day gain of any IPO in history up to that date. The CEO became in 1999 a visible symbol of the excesses of dot-com millionaires.
• GovWorks.com - the doomed dot-com featured in the documentary film Startup.com.
• Hotmail - founder Sabeer Bhatia sold the company to Microsoft for $400 million;[24] at that time Hotmail had 9 million members.[25]
• open.com - Was a big software security producer, reseller and distributor, declared in bankruptcy in 2001.
• InfoSpace - In March 2000 this stock reached a price $1,305 per share,[26] but by April 2001 its price had crashed down to $22 a share.[26]
• lastminute.com, whose IPO in the U.K. coincided with the bursting of the bubble.
• The Learning Company, bought by Mattel in 1999 for $3.5 billion, sold for $27.3 million in 2000.[27]
• Think Tools AG, one of the most extreme symptoms of the bubble in Europe: market valuation of CHF 2.5 billion in March 2000, no prospects of having a substantial product (investor deception), followed by a collapse.[28]
• Xcelera.com, a Swedish investor in start-up technology firms.[29] "greatest one-year rise of any exchange-listed stock in the history of Wall Street." [30]

 

[crossdaz]

Youtube, don't know about now, but last year it was loosing about $1bn a year. I am sure they are in a better position now as they've rolled out proper ads, but still I don't believe they are very profitable.

When you consider how many people watch TV and how many people pay for the privilege it's not hard to imagine how youtube can become very profitable one day?
As for the social networks - they will continue to come and go. Peoples views change quick when something becomes heavily monetised. I wonder how many facebook devotees there will be when they have to pay to use it?

 

[garyk]

To me, Twitter is a complete waste of time.. What is the point in tweeting what your doing.. I think this social network is mainly for people who want to follow celebrities.. I don't think that was the plan, but that's how it's turned out..

I couldn't give a date on Twitter, because I think they are unpredictable.. I think they are working to develop Twitter into something much bigger and better for future.

Agree with Crossdaz..

Agree 100% th unless you want to follow a celebrity who *might* lead an interesting life why the average Joe posts about what they are doing/have done seems of little interest/relevance to most people, I really don't get it!

I do go on facebook a little more, usually from my iphone than online but probably still less than 1 hour a week. I think the key success of FB and Twitter are the APIs. Allowing other people to hook into your platform (something the others didnt do) helps to spread it.

Gary

 

[DotNetWebs]

...I think the key success of FB and Twitter are the APIs. Allowing other people to hook into your platform (something the others didnt do)...

Exactly

Facebook in particular have really changed the game.

Facebook is now more than just a 'social network' it is a platform in it's own right.

It also has approaching 600 millions users, the majority of which are regular users who have registered with their real names.

I am not saying it will be around for ever but it is much more engrained into people's daily life than anything that has come before it so it is a different league to the likes of MySpace or anything else that has come before it.

Regards

Dotty

 

[mike.davis]

I wonder if someone started a thread saying Aol just bought Bebo couple of years ago, and some people said it was a stupid mistake they would be bombarded by people saying that big companies know what they are doing

 

[crossdaz]

I wonder if someone started a thread saying Aol just bought Bebo couple of years ago, and some people said it was a stupid mistake they would be bombarded by people saying that big companies know what they are doing

It's hard to think of anything that AOL have done which has turned out to be a good move?

 

[crossdaz]

I do go on facebook a little more, usually from my iphone than online but probably still less than 1 hour a week.

Does it cost you money to do this ?

 

[DotNetWebs]

Does it cost you money to do this ?

Why would it cost anything?

Most smartphones are sold with inclusive data contracts so as long as you don't exceed this it won't cost you anything.

Regards

Dotty

 

[crossdaz]

Most smartphones are sold with inclusive data contracts so as long as you don't exceed this it won't cost you anything.

I knew that much but wasn't sure if an hour of interaction on facebook might exceed the the bundled data package.
From what I've witnessed while out and about people are spending a lot more than an odd hour - so I wondered if the mobile operators were making a lot out of it?

 

[DotNetWebs]

...wasn't sure if an hour of interaction on facebook might exceed the the bundled data package...

If you use an 'App' (or to a lesser extent a mobile-formatted website) the amount of data exchanged will be significantly lower than an equivalent use of the 'regular' website.

Most data contracts would allow for most 'average' users Facebook use IMO.

You would only really risk exceeding your limit with very heavy 'multimedia' use such as spending hours watching videos etc.

Regards

Dotty

 

[crossdaz]

If you use an 'App' (or to a lesser extent a mobile-formatted website) the amount of data exchanged will be significantly lower than an equivalent use of the 'regular' website.

Most data contracts would allow for most 'average' users Facebook use IMO.

You would only really risk exceeding your limit with very heavy 'multimedia' use such as spending hours watching videos etc.

I had overlooked the 'app' thing - was thinking along the lines of a regular web session.
I have a blackberry and have no idea what my data limit is but as someone who used to use a regular mobile for data transfer I'm still smarting from some of the bills I used to run up.

Maybe I ought to investigate - I probably have gigabytes of allowance that I've never used?

 

[Liybpg]

When you consider how many people watch TV and how many people pay for the privilege it's not hard to imagine how youtube can become very profitable one day?
As for the social networks - they will continue to come and go. Peoples views change quick when something becomes heavily monetised. I wonder how many facebook devotees there will be when they have to pay to use it?

YouTube may be profitable, but it has a big big disadvantage of having to host the data indefinitely, TV companies don't do this. I am not sure for how long YouTube will be able to sustain this kind of database (same as Facebook, they have a lot of issues with that).

I think services like facebook shouldn't be free. People pay for mobile phones, which are arguably bring less value that facebook. I don't think facebook is a sustainable business based on advertising only.

 

[mike.davis]

I wonder how many facebook devotees there will be when they have to pay to use it?

Facebook will never ever charge to use, I don't know where you got that from.

YouTube may be profitable, but it has a big big disadvantage of having to host the data indefinitely, TV companies don't do this. I am not sure for how long YouTube will be able to sustain this kind of database (same as Facebook, they have a lot of issues with that).

I think services like facebook shouldn't be free. People pay for mobile phones, which are arguably bring less value that facebook. I don't think facebook is a sustainable business based on advertising only.

So you're saying Facebook and Youtube will become too big therefore making even more money and that won't workout?

Of course Google are probably just going to abandon Youtube when it gets too busy, noone likes that many people on there site, and as for Facebook - they're forecast to turnover $1 billion this year (from advertising) but i'm sure they won't be able to find the hosting so they will go aswell.

Facebook is free and always will be, and it will be around for a very very long time, and the same with Youtube - now there advertising is in place they are becoming very profitable.

I'm sorry but your comment was incredibly stupid.

 

[crossdaz]

Facebook will never ever charge to use, I don't know where you got that from.

It was more of a TV analogy than a prediction. My point was that youtube can make money as a broadcaster because people already pay for TV content - BBC, SKY and HBO are just three examples.


However, Facebook already sells advertising and it still doesn't make any money so what do you think they are going to do that actually does. They can either go behind a paywall or think of a unique way of monetizing a website that nobody has thought of yet?

 

[MASSEY]

However, Facebook already sells advertising and it still doesn't make any money so what do you think they are going to do that actually does. They can either go behind a paywall or think of a unique way of monetizing a website that nobody has thought of yet?

They don't place the ads very well though do they, if they aligned the ads over to the left i reckon there would be more clicks.

I think everything is doomed other than google.

 

[crossdaz]

They don't place the ads very well though do they, if they aligned the ads over to the left i reckon there would be more clicks.

I think everything is doomed other than google.

They might get more clicks but it's the conversions that will kill them because people are not going there to buy stuff.
It would be nice if a credible alternative to google came about but I don't think facebook is it?