Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MySpace's Melting Makes Murdoch Mad

Comments Filter:
  • Mad? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stoolpigeon (454276) * <bittercode@gmail> on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:33AM (#23904063) Homepage Journal

    I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad. Nice use of alliteration though. I did find this article about the difference in growth [zdnet.com.au] between the two sites and it has a lot more information about the situation in general, though nothing about Murdoch's reaction. I couldn't find anything more about that - like where and when he said the things they say he said, what the tone was, etc.

    • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hyppy (74366) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:42AM (#23904209)
      FTA:

      Facebook has overtaken rival social network MySpace for the first time - provoking an angry outburst from the man who paid $580m for MySpace only three years ago
      They don't seem to detail the contents of his outburst, or at least the angry part. However, these lines indicate that the journalist is reporting Rupert Murdoch as "angry", which is closely synonymous with "mad."
      • by urbanriot (924981) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:50AM (#23904373)
        Maybe Rupert Murdoch wrote conveyed his anger with Facebook's success in REALLY BIG LETTERS!!!111oneoneone
        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @01:51PM (#23906177)

          Or maybe he took some photos of himself pouting with a camera held at arms length and used some program to overlay them with sparkly letter lyrics from taking back sunday, describing how much of a self-sacrificing saint (in sepia) he is for a world that just doesn't care.

          Of course he already does this somewhat with the WSJ...

        • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by joocemann (1273720) on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:13PM (#23907593)

          Maybe Rupert Murdoch wrote conveyed his anger with Facebook's success in REALLY BIG LETTERS!!!111oneoneone
          I would guess it is more related to the fact that Myspace is ALWAYS HAVING UNEXPECTED ERRORS. Furthermore, their videos never stream well, the pages load very slowly when compared to almost any other website, and oh, some people care that Rupert Murdoch owns it and don't want to be part of it. I know I personally considered getting rid of my myspace account for that reason alone, but I kept it due to the exposure I get (band page).

          I actually only have a myspace account, but from the very limited experience I had clicking around on FaceBook, I already know it is a much cleaner platform.

          Maybe if Murdoch put some damn effort into fixing Tom's millions of bugs he'd get people to give a crap.

      • by InlawBiker (1124825) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:26PM (#23904913)

        "Murdoch Mostly Mopes; Missing Money Makes Monday More Melancholy."

        Slashdot submission sure sucks.

    • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gnick (1211984) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:43AM (#23904215) Homepage

      I've read the linked article a few times and I'm not sure where there is anything to indicate he is mad.
      Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace"

      =)

      • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @03:05PM (#23907435) Homepage

        Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace"
        Yeah, Facebook gives me gas, too! *rimshot*

        (that's right, mod me funny, you know you wanna)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tyrione (134248)

          Duh. The title: "Murdoch fumes as Facebook overtakes MySpace"

          Yeah, Facebook gives me gas, too! *rimshot*

          (that's right, mod me funny, you know you wanna)

          Worthy of every humor mod point allowable.

          Besides, any puke who uses their "Socal Web clicking" site to politically drive a candidate amongst the masses of highschool and college age kids as the next JFK really is a tool.

          The highschool click part of Facebook strikes me as very Anti-Social. Don't get me wrong, MySpace is littered with people doing the same approach and hanging with people they often do in their real lives.

          Social Networking strikes me more useful for businesses than consumers.

    • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by urbanriot (924981) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:44AM (#23904263)
      No kidding, most of the emotion seems to come from the article writer, using terms like 'fumes', 'angry outburst' and 'exasperated'. Does PC Pro actually know Rupert Murdoch enough to know that he's exasperated? They seem to be creating emotion and their own context.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Well, that's because Rupert is the Evil (tm) owner of Fox News (Faux for lefties), so anything that makes him look More Evil (TM)(C) is okay.

        Duh!

        • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:18PM (#23904771)

          We call it "Faux" news because it is. Learn this: Fox went to court and defended its right to knowingly broadcast untruth as news because the law does not specifically say they can't. Again, in case you still don't get it: Fox defended its right to broadcast lies that they knew were lies.

          And that, among other reasons*, is why it is "faux".

          http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf [2dca.org]

          http://www.foxbghsuit.com/ [foxbghsuit.com]

          * blending opinion with news and calling it objective
              putting only one political view on the air and calling themselves "balanced"
              reporting as factual news (and almost verbatim) the "talking points" released by the GOP

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by siphonophore (158996)

            I don't revel in being a defender of big media, but those who pan Fox News never seem to understand what they're criticizing. Fox's primetime lineup consists of personality-driven opinion shows. They've got a right-leaning megalomaniac, a debate show, and a liberal who have control over the content and accuracy of their respective shows. It was a novel thing on a 24/7 news channel when Murdoch started it, and I think it has a place in the discourse. If and when that discourse lacks value, the host is to bla

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              And during the day, their shows always have two opposing viewpoints. And neither are doormats, most of the time--Susan Estridge or other Democratic strategists are common left-wing guests, and half the time the Republican guests are complete no-names.

              The channel sucks--come on, I don't need 24/7 Disaster Coverage From The Leading Name In News--but not because they're "unbalanced." At least no moreso than, say, MSNBC (hi, Keith Olbermann!).

              • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Count Fenring (669457) on Monday June 23, 2008 @01:03PM (#23905483) Homepage Journal

                Except that there's consistent support from the hosts on one side of the debate, thus making it invariably two on one.

                And that's ignoring that their NEWS shows also show rampant bias, poor to nonexistant fact-checking, and deliberate propaganda reporting, as well as just plain dirty tricks (Such as their constant "Obama/Osama" name slip-ups. I'm not saying that they can't have pundits, I'm saying that their regular newscasters, who are positioned as NEWSCASTERS, are engaging in propaganda and punditry while claiming to be delivering factual and unbiased coverage.

                As for Keith Olberman... even while delivering an opinion column, the man has an infinitely better record on vetting his sources and producing factual, correct news than Fox News ever has. That's a bad sign, that is.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by dfn_deux (535506)

                We did not actually conclude that NPR is skewing more to the right than it did when we studied it in 1993. We compared the tilt toward Republicans in 2003 (61 percent to 38 percent) with that found in 1993 (57 percent to 42 percent) to indicate that the tilt is not based on which party is in power--with control of the White House and both houses of Congress reversed, the imbalance remains.

                - Steve Rendall Senior Analyst FAIR [fair.org]

                This discussion just reminded me about the bias study that fair has conducted a

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Scudsucker (17617)

                And during the day, their shows always have two opposing viewpoints

                The regular networks have 2:1 biases in favor of conservative commentators, much less on Fox News. And as someone else pointed out, the hosts are invariably spouting the GOP talking points.

                left-wing guests

                Democrat != left wing.

                And neither are doormats

                There are three types of Democrats on Fox: doormats who get humiliated, those who get shouted over, and DINO's like Joe Lieberman.

                At least no moreso than, say, MSNBC (hi, Keith Olbermann!).

                Fals

            • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by hedwards (940851) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:59PM (#23905403)

              That's not true, while I'm not an expert on news, I did spend some time in college studying it.

              As any journalist knows having two extremists from both sides does not constitute balance. It just means that you've got extremists from both sides. No reputable news organization would employ the individuals that Fox news does. The appearance of bias, even if it isn't real, is something which damages the credibility of a network.

              Fox got in trouble because they weren't giving equal air to the other side of issues while at the same time professing to be the most fair and balanced news network on TV. Anybody who's seen the programming knows that's not the case. If it were the case there'd be a more diverse group objecting to it. Rather than just one side of the political spectrum.

              Just look at the Dan Rather incident, he wasn't even responsible for that content, and he got shit canned for it. Rather's job on the show was to read the news, whatever was given to him and do the show, shows like that never have the anchor do much beyond that and a few interviews.

              As far as myspace goes, it was obvious at the time that he over payed for the site. IIRC at the time myspace was hugely popular, but was somewhat lacking in profitability. For it to have been a decent deal, it would have had to have been making at least 40m a year with a strong brand. And as it turned out the brand just wasn't that strong. I'm sure it can still earn a decent profit, but it was a poor investment in the first place.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                Just look at the Dan Rather incident, he wasn't even responsible for that content, and he got shit canned for it

                He wasn't responsible? So he is nothing more than a news reader? That and after it was exposed, he continued to shill the party line given in the original piece, which means he believed the piece in the first place.

                Or he wanted to believe the piece, so that he didn't bother getting second sources or anything of the sort. Followed by CBS hounding an old lady to get her to say she did write the letter, even when it became clear it was a forgery.

                Sorry, but I have no sympathy for Rather. He should have been sh

              • Dan Rather (Score:5, Informative)

                by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp@NOsPam.Gmail.com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:41PM (#23907075) Homepage Journal

                "Just look at the Dan Rather incident, he wasn't even responsible for that content, and he got shit canned for it. Rather's job on the show was to read the news, whatever was given to him and do the show, shows like that never have the anchor do much beyond that and a few interviews."

                That's a crock, sir. Dan Rather was not an innocent bystander in the reporting of that story. He wasn't a stiff mannequin that simply read what the teleprompter told him to say. He was deeply involved in the preparation of that story, and got fired because he refused to refute it, even when evidence proved the documents were faked with a word processor. And to this day, he still defends the writers and fact checkers of that story, all evidence that they screwed up to the contrary.

            • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday June 23, 2008 @01:19PM (#23905737)

              I don't revel in being a defender of big media, but those who pan Fox News never seem to understand what they're criticizing.

              What does this have to do with it. They went to court and Newscorp lawyers argued that their program "which they call news" had the right to broadcast information they knew was false and the right to fire journalists with enough integrity to refuse. Whatever else that makes them, it is completely untrustworthy as a source for facts.

              If and when that discourse lacks value, the host is to blame.

              Who picks the hosts? Who fires the people who refuse to tell lies. Sorry, you can't shift the blame away from a corporation that is not trying to inform, but persuade. They just aren't news.

          • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:48PM (#23905231) Journal

            Fox news isn't doing anything different from NBC, CBS and ABC. Most notably, exploding trucks, and fake documents. And these are the cases where they got caught.

            I'd rather get my news and opinions from people who are knowingly biased, than from people who try to say that they are reporting the news unbiasedly. At least I know the slant, and it makes it easier to dismiss the BS.

            The point is, take the news you get with a grain of salt, no matter what your source is. Additionally, get your news from a variety of Points of View, as the truth usually lies (pun intended) in between.

            The only idiots I know, get all their news from single sources. They don't listen to alternative views because they can't actually use their heads to filter the news. This goes to both lefties and righties.

            I also suggest that if you're railing against "Faux News", that you also rail against the others that end up doing the same thing, manufacturing "news" and "facts".

            • by Sloppy (14984) on Monday June 23, 2008 @01:19PM (#23905741) Homepage Journal

              Fox news isn't doing anything different from NBC, CBS and ABC.

              Yes, but try to give those companies some names as clever as "Faux." Whenever I turn my parody-demon loose on "CBS" I draw a blank. (Yes, comedians, I'm issuing you a challenge.)

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by demachina (71715)

              "Fox news isn't doing anything different from NBC, CBS and ABC."

              Exploding trucks and Rather's "fake documents" just somehow don't match up against 8 years of continuoys Fox propaganda leading the way in suckering the U.S. in to Iraq, and doing everything in their power to elect one of the worst Presidents in our history...twice. If you want I'll make a list of all the bone headed things Bush and Cheney have done, with the help of Fox and Rupert Murdoch, which have nearly destroyed the U.S. and may well suc

          • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:5, Informative)

            by operagost (62405) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:53PM (#23905303) Homepage Journal
            WTVT is a local Fox affiliate, not the Fox News cable channel. Claiming they are the same is like claiming everything on MSNBC must be biased in favor of Microsoft. FAIL.
      • Never let (Score:3, Funny)

        by OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)

        facts get in the way of a good bit of sensationalism.

    • Re:Mad? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bombula (670389) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:08PM (#23904623)
      Nice use of alliteration though

      Speaking of alliteration, I think one reason why MySpace is doomed to play second fiddle is because it's simply harder to say to someone that you put your pictures "on my MySpace page" than "on my Facebook page."

      Or maybe I'm just being silly, who knows.

  • Post... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mr_nazgul (1290102) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:34AM (#23904073) Homepage
    Maybe he should rant about it on his Facebook page.
  • Facebook won't last (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:36AM (#23904105) Homepage Journal
    Facebook is on it's way out too. I stopped using it when the plethora of stupid dirty looking applications starting taking over everybody's pages making facebook look more like myspace.

    Now facebook is even spammier than myspace, with hundreds of applications I can't stand, and all their invites. I have to "add" an application in order to view it. I don't want to view it. I don't want a "drink" invitation, or a "pirate" invitation. Leave me alone.

    This is why I quit Facebook [fredrickville.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ShieldW0lf (601553)

      The moral of the story is, if you're going to do the bait and switch thing on the internet, you better get your money back out faster than Mr Murdoch did.

    • by Psx29 (538840) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:46AM (#23904287)
      You can actually opt out of the Facebook API entirely and then you won't recieve anymore invites or anything else since the applications can't "see" you.
    • by cowscows (103644) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:50AM (#23904363) Journal

      All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. And that's what happens. The advertisers and spammers move in in full force, deals are made in order to afford all the new servers needed to keep up with traffic, and more and more people keep joining just because their friends told them they should.

      The ratio of signal to noise gets skewed to the point where it becomes hard to use, and that combined with the general fickleness of people (especially the younger people that make up a significant portion of the userbase), means that the eyeballs go elsewhere. And at the end of the day, nothing that myspace or facebook or any social networking site does is really all that complicated. There are plenty of other websites out there that are offering ways to communicate with other people.

      I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but the churn and turn over seems to be pretty consistent. Before facebook everyone talked about myspace. Before myspace everyone talked about orkut. Before orkut everyone talked about livejournal, etc... All those sites still exist, but today facebook is the one that people are writing headlines about. A couple years down the line some new upstart will be getting all the attention. It's just the way it is, and investing in one of these sites like it's going to be the next amazon or google is pretty silly.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Candid88 (1292486)

        "The advertisers and spammers move in in full force, deals are made in order to afford all the new servers needed to keep up with traffic"

        In my experience, once the profiteering mentality starts, website costs have absolutely nothing to do with increased advertising and commercialisation.

        Unless you're running a site like youtube or a warez site etc., server & bandwidth costs are never that significant and a simple unobtrusive banner ad or 'donate' button pays for it. It's people trying to convince inves

      • by WilyCoder (736280) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:20PM (#23904815)
        "All of these sorts of things tend to collapse under their own weight. When they start out, they're being created by people who are passionate about it and doing it because they care/enjoy working on it. Then it grows and more people sign up and suddenly there's a potential for some money to be made exploiting it. "

        You just summed up almost all businesses in general, not just social networking ones.....
        • by robertjw (728654) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:49PM (#23905243) Homepage
          Actually, not always. I think Google is a good example of a company that hasn't done that. Their ads are relatively unobtrusive, and even useful. They don't do pop-ups or flashing ads or other irritating things that Myspace and Facebook are doing. Their model is quite sustainable and seems to work.

          Sites collapse under their own weight when people get greedy. If the advertising remains reasonable the provider can make money and have some longevity.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by robertjw (728654)

        It's just the way it is, and investing in one of these sites like it's going to be the next amazon or google is pretty silly.

        The only argument that I have about that is achieving 'critical mass'. Myspace is successful due to it's large userbase. Same thing with Facebook. Retail sites, like Amazon, only need to drive buyers to the site to be successful. A social networking site really has to have everybody on it to be successful. If your friends aren't on Myspace, you probably won't use it. The more entrenched social groups are in one site, the more difficult it is to build a competitor and be successful.

    • by ProfessionalCookie (673314) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:13PM (#23904685) Journal

      Leave me alone.
      Not feeling social?
    • by UltraAyla (828879)
      They've implemented a way to block requests from specific people or applications now. I mostly just ignore them because I hate them too, and they've made it very easy for me to do this.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lena_10326 (1100441)
      N00b alert. Just what is the point of using MySpace or Facebook?

      I don't get how they're worth putting up with the "junk" when every feature they provide can be gotten elsewhere for free without the cruft. Sure, I understand that everything is integrated on those sites, but it's my opinion that level of tight integration is over-hyped.

      I gave MySpace a try, mainly because I wanted to checkout the chatroom so I created an account. It seemed like it was nothing more than a beauty contest with everyone try
  • Maybe it's because (Score:5, Insightful)

    by initdeep (1073290) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:38AM (#23904129)

    People are tired of being linked to a page that has crappy layout, crappy embedded video or music that plays automatically, is full of lolspeak and/or textype, and is so random that it makes a schizophrenic feel confused.

    oh wait.......

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JCSoRocks (1142053)
      You forgot about the part where everyone's page has got black text over a black and white background so you can only read every other word... as if anything on there were worth reading anyway. :P
    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:18PM (#23904767) Journal
      I have this line in my user CSS:

      A[HREF*="myspace.com"]:after { content: " [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING]"!important ; color: red }
      It puts a nice read [BRAIN DAMAGE WARNING] after any link to MySpace. I stopped accidentally clicking on them after I added that.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:32PM (#23905019)
      But every day I get another invite from a hot girl who really wants to be my friend. She even gives me a link to her website where she keeps all the pictures myspace won't let her post. I never got this kind of attention before myspace
  • Boohoo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Oh the joys of investing in a fad. I find it hard to feel for Murdoch. The years when such ventures were risk-free no-brainers are ca. 10 years past (if they ever existed).

  • Rupert Murdoch has made his millions by becoming a shill for the State. That's a given. He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be.

    MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.

    Murdoch overpaid for something that can probably never make a reasonable profit. It's like trying to commercialize peer groups. It doesn't

    • by gnick (1211984) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:45AM (#23904271) Homepage

      MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.
      They can take our lives, but they'll never take our MySpace?
    • by griffjon (14945)

      It's like trying to commercialize peer groups.

      It IS trying to commercialize peer groups.

      Fixed that for you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kellyb9 (954229)
      As much as I hate Murdoch and all he stands for. Here's a list of everything thats wrong with your post:

      He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be.

      You have proof of this? Somebody actually paid him for his investments, or he just got stinking rich off of them?

      MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.

      You really think people stopped using MySpace because of their corporate ties. I'm sure some did, but most probably just hated their clunky Web 1.0 design. An easier explanation is something else moved into the market and took over. Somehow, someway, Facebook has a better product. MySpace nee

    • by Bedemus (63252) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:08PM (#23904619) Homepage

      MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom. People don't necessarily realize that, but that's the end result from allowing people to freely communicate, gather and entertain.

      You may want to find a new line of reasoning. I think that argument is more likely to turn someone against freedom than it is to win someone over to MySpace.
    • by Dachannien (617929) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:17PM (#23904759)

      MySpace, though, is the anti-thesis of government. It's about freedom.
      Indeed. It's about giving the technologically inept individual the power to suck total ass on the intarweb, because Geocities never made it easy enough back in the day.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Candid88 (1292486)

      "Rupert Murdoch has made his millions by becoming a shill for the State. That's a given. He promotes big, lovely government, and he was paid well by the Powers that Be."

      I can't stand Murdoch one bit, but that is just complete & utter rubbish. Who are these "Powers that Be"? the Bavarian Illuminati?

      In reality, he's "paid well" by all the suckers like you & me who pay for over-priced Fox, Foxtel, Sky and the plethora of other cable/satellite TV companies he part-owns.

  • aargh (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrDoh! (71235) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:41AM (#23904185) Homepage Journal

    No more pirate/vampire/werewolf invitations, please...

    Facebook started off a great site, fast, clean design, it's now incredibly slow and hard todo anything, whereas myspace actually is improving.
    Still waiting for a mybook, or facespace to integrate the messaging.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by urbanriot (924981)
      Why not just block the apps you don't like? Or block all third party apps altogether? I haven't seen a pirate/vampire/werewolf invitation since 2007. Come, join us in 2008, it's nice here.
    • by Culture20 (968837)
      You can block all invitations from certain people now, but you still can't block their adding of apps from showing up in your news feed unless you block all the apps.
    • Re:aargh (Score:5, Funny)

      by vistic (556838) on Monday June 23, 2008 @02:28PM (#23906837)

      Merge facebook and myspace? Yes! Everyone will want to come on MyFace!

  • Even if it is a REALLY big flash in a REALLY big pan, how can they not realize it is just that.
  • by FurtiveGlancer (1274746) <AdHocTechGuy.aol@com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:43AM (#23904221) Journal
    I thought he was already mad. Hmmm.
  • Duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ilan Volow (539597) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:43AM (#23904225) Homepage

    How could a UI disaster that informs a user who has problems logging in that "you must be logged in to do that?" and that lacks any kind of official published API possibly win?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by oahazmatt (868057)

      How could a UI disaster that informs a user who has problems logging in that "you must be logged in to do that?" and that lacks any kind of official published API possibly win?

      It relies on the "0MG P0ni3s!!!" principle. It's complicated, but it basically states: Provide one location with availability for publication of emo-centric blogging with equal possibility of generic, monosyllabic, glitter-font responses.
  • hey murdoch (Score:5, Insightful)

    friendster

    xanga

    geocities

    tripod

    etc.

    and don't worry about facebook, in a few short years, it too will be a hasbeen, replaced by whatever site is the new trend

    social networking sites are nothing but trends. they have the limelight for a few years, then they fade. think of them as the bell bottoms and ankle warmers and member's only jackets of the web. here today, master of everything, gone tomorrow, utterly forgotten

    so how do you make money off of them?

    you make money off of social networking sites by becoming extremely powerful, then seducing some tragically unhip media conglomerate to buy you for gabazillions, then you sleep all day and party all night

    so congratulations murdoch, you have a place in "new media" after all: the patsy left holding the bag

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by griffjon (14945)

      We should start a social networking site that is tragically and intentionally UNhip, outdated, and technologically in the dark ages, and is rude, and full of google ads. It'd become an overnight antihero sensation.

    • Re:hey murdoch (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bedouin X (254404) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:00PM (#23904519) Homepage

      You speak truth, but the hard reality here is the 500 million plus that Murdoch paid for MySpace was an absolute steal.

      If Facebook is valued at $15 billion, it's very safe to assume that MySpace is worth at least half that. Odds are it's closer to twice that but, even with this hyper-unrealistically conservative measure, it's clear that Murdoch made a good investment.

      • the error is in how murdoch quantified what he was purchasing, the perception of what he was actually getting for his money: the error is in thinking you are buying a permanent piece of major real estate on the web. no, what you are buying is a major marketing and branding tool for a few years... which is indeed still worth $500 million

        for his $500 million, he gets a few years of ad revenue, some "showing soon" movie marketing hype, some cross-branding possibilities, steering a few kids towards a fox reality show, etc. but after a few years run, the site is worth bupkus

        as for facebook's $15 billion, all i can do is laugh. $15 billion?! insane. because facebook too will be worth the gum on my sneaker in a few years. facebook is worth what myspace is worth: $500 million

        zuckerman or zuckerberg or whatever the kids name: he should have sold facebook out. hes going to be like that friendster guy is today in a few years: the friendster guy daily kicks himself in the ass for not selling out when he could have. zuckerdude is thinking he has the next google on his hands. no, he has the next xanga. sell out kid, asap

        thats how you really make money on social networking sites: you sell out to established media conglomerates, and then go play frisbee. to keep a hold of the site, and thinking you are going to become a permanent internet portal, like google, is hubris, arrogance, egotism. unless you are planning to seque into becoming a search engine, and somehow actually take out google... heh, googd luck. but that's the only sound strategy to take if you plan on keeping the social networking site rather than selling out, upping the ante and going for the diamond ring

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rsborg (111459)

          thats how you really make money on social networking sites: you sell out to established media conglomerates, and then go play frisbee. to keep a hold of the site, and thinking you are going to become a permanent internet portal, like google, is hubris, arrogance, egotism. unless you are planning to seque into becoming a search engine, and somehow actually take out google... heh, googd luck. but that's the only sound strategy to take if you plan on keeping the social networking site rather than selling out,

  • by SirLurksAlot (1169039) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:47AM (#23904313)

    That investing extremely large sums of money based on the momentary whims of teenagers and early twenty-somethings wasn't such a great idea? The winds of the internet can shift in an instant, and it seems like Murdoch hasn't caught on to that yet. Of course, it won't be long before The Next Big Thing comes along, and Facebook will be in the same spot that MySpace is right now.

  • All alliterations are actually anterior assonance, after all. The article wasn't nearly as entertaining as the title...
  • MySpace is already slow with the existing demand. If they manage to gain more visitors, the situation will only get worse. Add some servers and cleanup the horrible HTML.

  • Facebook and Myspace are both cr@p (as all the other imitator sites are also cr@p). Did my statement of fact make you more happy Rupert, or are you just sore on loosing all that money?

  • Idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by legoman666 (1098377) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:54AM (#23904443)
    So I was sitting in my cube on this fine Monday afternoon, eating my lunch, when I had a brilliant idea.

    FlashFaceSpace. It will combine the wonderful-nonannoying-awesomeness that is Flash, the unobtrusiveness of Facebook applications, and the customizability of MySpace to create the ultimate social networking site of DEATH. This will blow MySpace, Facebook and every other social networking site out of the water.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Cygfrydd (957180)
      I felt a great disturbance in the Flash, as if millions of browsers suddenly cried out in terror and suddenly dumped core. I fear something terrible has happened.

      --@yg
    • Test run (Score:4, Funny)

      by game kid (805301) on Monday June 23, 2008 @01:06PM (#23905523) Homepage

      You have 1 new invitation (25% of 3.5 MB loaded) but you must be logged in to do that!

      (note the completely ambiguous use of MB that might mean million-byte or 2^20 depending on whether Murdoch and his code-slaves are RAIDophiles or TCP/IP fanatics)

  • cold fusion FTL (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mabu (178417) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:55AM (#23904449)

    The fact that the site was developed using Cold Fusion should have signaled the first sign of its impending demise.

  • by bsDaemon (87307) on Monday June 23, 2008 @11:55AM (#23904451)

    Murdoc's corporation, owns many dozens of news papers, magazines, TV and radio stations.

    He just bought the Dow Jones Corporation, including the Wall Street Journal, for fsck's sake!

    You would think that he has enough experience and market knowledge to know to to spend half a billion dollars on something targeted at 15 year olds who wear pants made for the opposite gender.

    Kids change fads more often than they change their underwear some times. Eventually, some of those grow up, go to college, and want something a little more serious and less... dumb.

    Then they abandon myspace.

    Oh well. Better luck next time, dude!

  • Hey, FaceBook isn't mentioned in this song, so it can't be cool enough to survive :-)

    (And as a FaceBook user ... as soon as something as slick comes along that actively
    manages the flood of craptastic add-ins ... I'll jump ship.)

  • just maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moracity (925736) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:00PM (#23904517)

    If myspace pages didn't suck so bad, there wouldn't be a problem. I don't even consider Facebook and MySpace rivals. Facebook is so far beyond MySpace, it isn't even worth discussing.

    Facebook's days are numbered, I'm sure. Something will come along to replace it in the next couple of years...unless it is able to evolve.

  • Predators (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _14k4 (5085) <sullivan.t@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:18PM (#23904773)

    Of course your site is going to eventually fail when it is constantly linked to online predators, and the "security" is built on top of Real Ultimate Freedom(tm). Compared to Facebook where you have to "link" to each other in greater detail, before actually being able to do much. I would assume that predators don't have that sort of patience. I don't really know, I don't have a myspace page. Just facebook.

  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:26PM (#23904917) Journal

    I don't know how bad Facebook is, but think of every story, every complaint you've ever had about Myspace, technology-wise.

    It's worse than that.

    Simple example: Trying to pull tour dates from Myspace. Too much to expect that they'd have a working iCal feed, or that they'd put hCal on the page. Fine, we'll scrape the HTML, no problem...

    No, the real WTF moment was the month (I think, might've been more) during which none of the calendars worked.

    People joke about Twitter being unable to scale, but really, you'd think with the amount of money Myspace pulls in, they'd be able to hire one good tech person? I'm guessing that's a major reason people are going to Facebook.

    • A feature, not a bug (Score:4, Informative)

      by acb (2797) on Monday June 23, 2008 @01:43PM (#23906061) Homepage

      The lack of proper calendar formats on MySpace is a deliberate feature, much like the way that notification emails from MySpace omit the actual details (i.e., the message someone sent you, whose birthday you're being reminded of), to oblige you to log in, click through an interstitial ad and view some more ads.

      If MySpace allowed you to see your data through any means other than their ugly ad-plastered web pages, they'd lose ad impressions.

  • by DigitalisAkujin (846133) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:29PM (#23904949) Homepage

    A lot of the comments I'm seeing assume that Murdoch somehow lost money on the deal. In reality after he bought MySpace: "On August 8, 2006, search engine Google signed a $900 million deal to provide a Google search facility and advertising on MySpace."

    And I'm sure that's not the only way MySpace has made Murdoch even richer.

  • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Monday June 23, 2008 @12:34PM (#23905039) Homepage Journal
    I have both a MySpace page [myspace.com] and a FaceBook page [facebook.com] to promote my music. It just takes a glance to distinguish the clean, tasteful design of FaceBook from the garish, ad-ridden MySpace.

    I've had no end of trouble with MySpace. I'm not able to prevent my music from playing when you load my page, even though that's how I set it in my profile. I've always allowed downloads of my MP3s, but at some point they stopped being downloadable. I had to delete them all and re-upload them to get the downloads back.

    I have actually found MySpace pages that had been customized in such a way as to make FireFox crash just by loading the page!

    My only complaint about FaceBook is that it doesn't allow for downloading MP3s - but that's a lack of a desired feature, and not an actual bug.

    Most young people these days are trying out both. I don't think it takes much time for them all to figure out which one is better.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...