Mark Zuckerberg was named Time Magazine’s person of the year in 2010 (found this in my drafts). Looks like there are a lot of good pieces in the Time spread. From the article by Lev Grossman:
Mark Zuckerberg – Person of the Year 2010 – TIME.
Crazy post from Fast Company blog on a recent 3 part series by Business Insider tracing the early days of Facebook (oh about 6 or so years ago I think). Good stuff.
Haven’t had time to read all three fully, but apparently it covers Mark Zuckerberg and hacking and yes, Facebook has settled lawsuits with some of the people named in these stories. Can’t wait to read the rest of the stories.
Got this from Dan Nosowitz over at Fast Company. Lets not forget, that during the period of these stories, Facebook was an unfunded dorm room project — it was not a 400 million user juggernaut.
The Heady Days of Facebook’s Formation: Hacking Competitors and Smack-Talk Over IM | Dan’s FC Blog | Fast Company.
Wandering in Barnes & Noble today I noticed a new non-fiction book called, The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook a Tale of Sex, Money, Genius, and Betrayal. The cover looked like something I remember for the Nanny Diaries or some other kind of chick lit.The author is Ben Mezrich of Bringing Down the House fame.
It seems reviewers of the book on Amazon are equally mixed. I am probably not going to read this one, but I am happy to see campus based entrepreneurs getting the attention of major non-fiction writers. BTW, the book is selling on Amazon and doing pretty well in various business categories. Let us know what you think if you read it.
Our most recent poster-boy for campus entrepreneurs has been Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, and social media. But, with nearly 100 million users and almost $350 million in revenues, Facebook is a giant.
An article in the WSJ by Guth and Vascellaro explores the recent departures of Facebook co-founder and head engineer, Dustin Moskovitz, and other high level employees. According to the article, “As a number of Facebook’s earliest employees move on, its ranks are being stacked with Senior Executives from Google Inc., Yahoo Inc., and other established technology firms.”
It interesting that Yahoo and Google (firms that were also founded by campus entrepreneurs) execs are specifically mentioned. The article goes on to explain that most of the changes they bring are related to managing of employees — “Among the changes they’ve brought are new guidelines for performance reviews, new recruiting processes and training programs.”
In researching what makes the campus a unique place to uncover opportunities and create new firms, we will also have to wonder at what point a successful firm will ‘grow beyond the campus’ and perhaps change into an entity that can no longer fully take advantage of the campus. Does that venture become a more ‘traditional’ firm?
Though I am stumbling with this new question — it boils down to whether or not there is a life cycle for certain successful campus ventures. When they leave their status of campus venture or campus entrepreneurs behind them.
It could be when the firm and entrepreneur move from their college/campus town to some ‘better’ location (ie Facebook’s move to Palo Alto from Boston). Or perhaps it is when they move beyond the original ‘campus as market’ model that they used (ie Facebook opening to the whole world). Or perhaps it is when they take venture funding and have serious board members and professional managers brought it (Facebook took its first real funding in the summer of 2005, one year and 4 months launch).
This life cycle question is important as is the question of whether a campus birth will have lasting effects on a firm (and its founders) even when it matures beyond being a campus venture? Any thoughts?
Pretty interesting piece in today’s WSJ by Riva Richmond about successful and unsuccessful Facebook applications. At this point, Zuckerberg and Facebook are the kingpins of the campus entrepreneur space. While Gates, Brin, Dell, Smith, and others have far more money and reach, Zuck/Fbook are as hot as a pistol.
Its amazing how many other businesses have formed and are forming around Facebook. A ‘new’ industry or cluster in the way that the iPod opened incredible opportunity to other firms and to customers. Clusters are huge in economic growth theory (see Porter), but they are usually geographically (and industry) centered.
The facebook and ipod clusters center around a specific product/lifestyle. I will have to think about this a bit and whether and how these types of clusters — distributed clusters if you will — differ from more traditional clusters.
From the piece (which is worth reading and is full of great cases and stats) by Richmond:
In May 2007, Facebook Inc. invited software developers to create free software programs that members of the social-networking site could use to entertain and inform each other.
A year later, it’s time to ask: What has worked and what hasn’t?
There’s plenty to pick from. So far, more than 250,000 developers have requested the Palo Alto, Calif., company’s tools for building such applications. And more than 24,000 programs have been created, allowing Facebook users to send each other virtual hugs, share movie picks and play games, among other things. Continue reading
According to Del Jones at the USA Today;
Billionaires are getting younger. Forbes magazine released its list of the world’s mega-rich Wednesday and said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, 23, became the youngest ever self-made billionaire.
Zuckerberg, born during the Ronald Reagan presidency, is worth $1.5 billion four years after launching the social-networking site and the third-youngest to crack the billionaire list since Forbes began tracking ages a decade ago. The other two inherited their money. Facebook did not respond to requests for comment.
The Forbes list often reflects the times. Bill Gates was once himself like Zuckerberg and dropped out of Harvard to launch a technology upstart. Gates is now 52 and slipped from first place in the rankings after being the richest person in the world for 13 straight years. In 1995, Gates replaced Yoshiaki Tsutsumi, a Japanese real estate investor who subsequently fell on hard times and was removed from the Forbes list in 2007.
Gates is worth $58 billion, $2 billion more than last year, but he is now third on the list. He was dislodged by Warren Buffett ($62 billion) and Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim Helu ($60 billion). Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway stock climbed $10 billion; Slim’s fortune rose $11 billion.