Somewhat revisionist it seems from the WSJ, I can't recall any point in the lead up to IPO that they published anything that alluded to problems on the near horizon.
I'm saying that the fact that the WSJ published something which was negative to the stock (by the same author) in advance is not conclusive in helping you make a decision. You can read pieces that are pro and con to a particular product, service, stock all the time (remember the publicity surrounding iphone as one example). You can always go back and say "see here is what I said I was right". The question is how many things has someone said (or a newspaper) and what percentage turned out correct. My point is it was great that there was that info saying "stay away" in advance. But there have also been those writings that have turned out wrong.
I don't think this is done anymore but stock brokers used to call prospects with hot stock tips saying "not asking you to buy this today". Not everyone got the same tip of course. They would then call back weeks later but only call the people who they had told about a stock that increased saying "see I was right, now buy this stock from me now". (A variation was in "Boiler Room" I believe).
Facebook's mobile problem was widely published before the IPO. Do a Google News search on "Facebook mobile" and you'll find stories from two weeks ago where Facebook admitted that they don't know how to monetise mobile on their S-1 filing.
In 2009, 2010, and 2011, advertising accounted for 98%, 95%, and 85%, respectively, of our revenue.
...
increased user access to and engagement with Facebook through our mobile products, where we do not currently directly generate meaningful revenue, particularly to the extent that mobile engagement is substituted for engagement with Facebook on personal computers where we monetize usage by displaying ads and other commercial content;
...
Growth in use of Facebook through our mobile products, where we do not currently display ads, as a substitute for use on personal computers may negatively affect our revenue and financial results.
Loving the app, but all of a sudden today one of my streaks went to -4 and another -2 even though I've only been using it for 48 hours... I'll send in an email with details.
A SpySpace style add on for Facebook (a hacked together java/action/?script exploiting piece of code that trapped users viewing your page, their ip, clipboard, etc) would net Facebook a large chunk of revenue as an add on feature.
I loved having SpySpace installed, certainly made MySpace, and trolling friends based off the contents of their clipboards, a whole lot of (somewhat nebulous) fun.
Well, if Apple want to win the [OS/hardware/whatever] war then all they need to do spend a chunk of their cash stockpile and ensure that Episode 3 launches on OSX first.
Or more seriously, if Valve wanted a hardware partner then why wouldn't they work with Apple?
Your comment reminds me of when Bungie went up for sale. They'd found success making great games for the Mac, and were showing the early work on Halo to great acclaim. When Apple had the chance (I presume) to buy them they assumed that it didn't matter who bought them because they were a Mac only shop... then Microsoft bought them and Halo never made it to the mac.
I hope Apple has learned from that lesson, but on the other hand, Apple is an environment focused on operating systems and hardware, and not necessarily run by the right people to be deciding which games to green light.
That's pretty much the same as "never" being released. After that much time games lose their steam and people start talking about a sequel instead.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it still sells after two years, but the whole "brand new game that takes the market with storm" phrase has long since passed.
Why wouldn't it be relevant? It emphasizes that SQL Server has been a product longer than Google has been a company. Moreover, there's still Sybase code still in the project.
Is the Sybase code the biggest problem? Hell no. How about the fact that there is no "standard library" and there are no less than four different hash table implementations written by different people at different times -- only one of which you should probably use, although you wouldn't know it from the "documentation"? That's a pretty big one and almost definitely what I'd characterize as "historical baggage."
It's been through massive rewrites, but they didn't throw away the code and start from scratch. They took five years (between SQL 2000 and SQL 2005) and completely revamped the offering. Looking at SQL 2012, it's really quite impressive how far they've come along, albeit in 12 years.
