I know someone who did because they had grown quite a bit since they had originally applied to YC. I guess Quora demonstrates how you can never be too big for YC, though :)
The methuselahs[1] always amazed me in Conway's Game of Life. If anyone's interested, here's the population growth (number of live cells in a given state) of the R-pentomino: http://i.imgur.com/lR3i9.png
As most of the HN crowd is skeptical of Facebook's future stock performance, I'd like to offer another perspective.
1980: Underwriters Morgan Stanley and Hambrecht & Quist take Apple
Computer public in the largest IPO since Ford Motor Company went
public in 1956. Originally filed to sell at US$14 a share, the stock
opens at $22 and all 4.6 million shares sell out in minutes. The stock
rises almost 32 percent on its first day of trading to close at US$29,
giving the company a market valuation of US$1.778 billion. For fiscal
year 1980, Apple showed a profit of US$11.7 million, or 24 cents a share
on revenue of US$118 million (compared to US$8.3 billion in fiscal
2004), giving the IPO a P/E ratio of 92. Of Apple's 1,000 employees,
more than 40 become instant millionaires thanks to their stock options.
[1]
Facebook's P/E ratio today (5/29/12): 92.31
Apple's P/E ratio in 1980: 92
Fun fact: Apple's stock was down 20.44% a year after they went public.
Can't really pinpoint it to one thing. What I was trying to get across was the fact that numbers (P/E ratios, etc.) should only be a factor in one's purchases. I think that when you look at Facebook, the market it is in, and its revenue model, and then compare it to Apple back in 1980, there are some stark contrasts you'll find. Sure, there's hindsight bias and all, but I personally feel that Facebook has entered a market where making money is a lot harder that it was for Apple. In order for Facebook to grow a few order of magnitudes, I feel that there would need to be a radical shift in the way we Internet users feel about spending money online or else the way advertisers reach potential customers.
But I just looked at your profile... and wow! That's one impressive resume! I'd be a lot more interested in hearing your perspective on Facebook and its financial strength, etc. This is one of those moments where I'd really wish HN had a PM system.
Their ad system is going to make them a lot of money someday. I'm going to buy when I see the early signs of them finally figuring out how to bring their ad system up to par with Google Adwords, before the mainstream realizes it. It will definitely get there, it's just a matter of time.
This is interesting. So you think that being a good speaker negatively impacts one's ideas, although it won't necessarily be noticeable to others? That is because those who are good speakers have counteracted the negative impact with more practice.
I think that this paragraph from the appendix is the real gem:
Currently, the predominant business model for commercial search engines is advertising.
The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality
search to users. For example, in our prototype search engine one of the top results for
cellular phone is "The Effect of Cellular Phone Use Upon Driver Attention", a study which
explains in great detail the distractions and risk associated with conversing on a cell
phone while driving. This search result came up first because of its high importance as
judged by the PageRank algorithm, an approximation of citation importance on the web [Page,
98]. It is clear that a search engine which was taking money for showing cellular phone ads
would have difficulty justifying the page that our system returned to its paying
advertisers. For this type of reason and historical experience with other media [Ba2dikian
831, we expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the
advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.
Interestingly the top result for Cell Phone Use now is, "NTSB recommends full ban on use of cell phones while driving - CNN" http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-13/us/us_ntsb-cell-phone-ban... And appearing just below the ads for T-mobile, Sprint and AT&T Cell plans. :)
> Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?
> The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we’re seeing the development of legislation seeking to regulate the Internet in other ways while hurting our online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
> On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.
