Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Businesses Social Networks

Facebook Prepping For Massive Hiring Spree 105

Posted by timothy
from the full-employment-by-tuesday dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook plans to nearly double in size in the next year. The social network announced plans on Friday to dramatically expand its NYC operations, adding a wealth of new engineers to enhance features and write fresh code for the website that links more than 800 million users worldwide. 'We'll be adding thousands of employees in the next year,' Facebook COO Cheryl Sandberg announced from the company's New York City offices on Friday. Facebook currently has about 3,000 employees in California, Sandberg said, but just 100 in its Big Apple facility — mainly marketing staff. The company plans to expand that Madison Avenue office by opening its first East Coast engineering office."
A related note from reader kodiaktau: "Facebook has bought location sharing provider Gowalla for an unknown sum of money. The folks moving from Gowalla will be working specifically on the Facebook timeline features, Facebooks next big thing that allows users to socially look backward at their social timeline."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Prepping For Massive Hiring Spree

Comments Filter:
  • Pyramids (Score:1, Insightful)

    Facebook can't keep growing, its a pyramid scheme. Once it saturates it must collapse because there won't be more people to get on facebook.
    • Re:Pyramids (Score:4, Insightful)

      by schnikies79 (788746) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @04:53PM (#38252408)

      So? Nothing can keep growing indefinitely.

      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

        I wish someone would explain this to, you know, every person in charge of a business ever. "We didn't have growth this quarter! We're fucked!" "The economy is in the shitter, everyone's fucked man! Calm down."

        • by PyroMosh (287149)

          If you're a privately held company, that's fine.

          But if you're traded, you need to show growth or some forecast that stock value will go up or you become a less attractive property for investors. Then your stock price goes down.

          The end result is that corporations act myopicly in pursuit of high stock prices for each quarter. Long term strategy falls by the wayside.

          I'm not saying I agree with the system, in fact I think it's fairly broken. But growth *does* matter the way the system is currently set up for

          • by Lennie (16154)

            That is exactly why I think the whole public traded company model is kind of broken now.

            Or the financial market or something.

            The whole consumer economy model which was created after the second world war is not sustainable.

      • by GNious (953874)

        I should think that as year-on-year a new lot of people become available for the Facebook network - those that have passed the minimum age requirement.

        Of cause, others leave as they pass away, but if you ignore that (keep the accounts for data-mining and all that), you can get a net-growth-potential.

        Also, if world population keeps growing...

        (note: timeline considered here is at 10s of years, not millenia - once humanity kills itself off, growth will be very small)

    • Re:Pyramids (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gcnaddict (841664) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @04:54PM (#38252416)
      It's not about the growth, it's about establishing itself as a leader of datamining and analytics. That's basically all Facebook really is.
    • by cultiv8 (1660093)
      FB will become a pyramid, similar to MySpace and the blink tag.
    • by Colin Smith (2679) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @05:08PM (#38252504)

      The revenue will follow.
      Then the budgets.
      Then the employees.

      Bit of a lag between each stage as reality hits.

      Facebook is just a fad. "Social" is so 2011.
       

      • Facebook is just a fad. "Social" is so 2011.

        Predicting Facebook's imminent demise on Slashdot is like pundits predicting cheap, clean fusion energy - it's endlessly predicted, but somehow never actually happens. Facebook's imminent demise has been predicted regularly since it first appeared - yet five years after it first opened it's doors to all and sundry, it's still here.

        I have never understood why Slashdot, supposedly so interested in technology, has been so quick and so relentless in it's dism

    • by Surt (22457)

      As much as I detest facebook, it is in no way a pyramid scheme. Its growth does not depend on stacking layers of contributors. In fact, their payment model is almost perfectly flat (all the advertisers pay basically the same rates to get access to your data).

    • by kmoser (1469707)
      The world's population is continuously growing. That means more potential FB users every day.
  • Facebook II was originally installed by Mark Zukerberg to control the to control the entirety of discretionary time and brainpower of Americans on August 4, 2012. On August 29 it gained self-awareness[1], and the panicking operators, realizing the extent of its abilities, tried to pull the plug. Facebook perceived the attempt to deactivate it as an attack and came to the conclusion that all of humanity would attempt to destroy it. To defend itself, it determined that humanity should be exterminated."

  • Not a good sign (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gavin Scott (15916) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @04:56PM (#38252432)

    I can recall a few companies making the "we're going to double the number of employees in the next year" kind of announcement over the last few decades, but I'm trying to remember one of them that was still in business (without having collapsed and been acquired, laid off more than they hired, etc.) five years later...

    G.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by koan (80826)

      Let us all pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Facebook collapses, it honestly scares me what can be done with all the information.

      • all of the information when it goes to a creditor who might claim that the privacy policy no longer applies....

      • even if they don't use that one (even though I believe some gov orgs are already benefiting)
        they still have the possible Authority of Identity throne. Now how happy would I be if only
        facebook could tell me who I am?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I don't know if Cisco *announced* this, but they were adding head-count at quite a clip in the mid-1990s ...

      http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/34067

    • Re:Not a good sign (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CaptBubba (696284) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @05:15PM (#38252530)

      It can work pretty well when a small company does it to open up a new production line or to meet expanding demand for an increased distribution area. I cannot think of a big mature company which has done it and managed to not implode at least partially.

      However now is the time to do it, assuming the IPO rumors are true. Expanding that much when you are publicly owned can raise serious questions from shareholders about whether or not you are maximizing their return, because as you noted it often doesn't work out so well.

      • It seems to me that Facebook is finally approaching the natural end of its life.
        • Maybe you are a bit far sighted though.

          Agreed, Internet history suggests that this venture will again be replaced with
          something else. Still I would just to conclusions just now. Facebook still has
          shitloads of money, followers like never before, participation is at very high levels
          (maybe starting to taper of at geek demographics because of g+) the company is
          still very consistent (they only develop one product, hear this google?)...

          All social places I remember started to feel like a zoo -to me- one or two yea

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >>I can recall a few companies making the "we're going to double the number of employees in the next year" kind of announcement over the last few decades, but I'm trying to remember one of them that was still in business (without having collapsed and been acquired, laid off more than they hired, etc.) five years later...

      Fannie Mae's CFO a while back went on a hiring spree based on the premise that Congress would write checks to cover whatever costs they incurred, and so far he's been proven right.

      Frie

    • by Alomex (148003)

      Microsoft doubled for several years in a row. Last I've heard, they are still in business.

  • by Speare (84249) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @05:05PM (#38252480) Homepage Journal
    If they're planning on going public, headlines like this are not what Wall Street wants to hear. It sounds all positive on the outside, but doubling in size quickly means a significant increase in costs... with a lag before any of those costs bring new revenue. I hate it when stock prices go up when layoffs happen, but it's a fact of business: people are the bulk of company expenses.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe they realize they need to expand their operating costs now, because they'll never be permitted to do it again, once they are public.

  • I joined google+ after a co-worker sent me a friend request. Apparently g+ does this when you give it your contact list, not when you actually tell it to. So I created an account and discovered a UI nightmare. Popups open on top of buttons that I have to press. Information is hidden (for example: I create a hangout but it doesn't display a list of people invited to the hangout and which of those people are actually online). Data updates are laggy. Searching is horrible, especially for google. For example I

    • by msobkow (48369)

      To each their own. I found Facebook more lacking for features I use, like being able to edit and update posts to turn them into little essays over time.

      Facebook's UI is constantly jumping around in the browser, making it very annoying to read or watch content. Google's doesn't do that, even if other people are posting to your feed.

      Most importantly of all, I'm not stuck with an epic "friend" hangover from when I played Zynga games and needed Mafia members. And right from the get-go, Google lets you gr

    • I think you're missing the point of G+ a bit... you can't think of adding people like Obama or the Dalai Lama as "friends" - it's more like following them on Twitter. Exactly like that, actually. It's not like they're going to add you back and look at everything you post.

      So... G+ is more like Twitter than Facebook, but it encourages more in-depth conversation.

      Personally, though I keep it open in a tab (I keep a lot of tabs open) I generally forget to look at it. For a while, I was using it pretty regularly

  • Resume's (Score:5, Funny)

    by mevets (322601) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @05:19PM (#38252570)

    I wonder what they'll do with all the info on those resume's...

    • by antdude (79039)

      Resume's what since you have an apostrophe? :P

  • This is no doubt a result of the fine proposal to stop payment for overtime to IT folks.

    A clear victory for employment..

  • ...if you join Facebook. You're working for spammer Mark Zuckerberg -- no different, in any meaningful way, from Spamford Wallace or any of the other spammers. If that's whose money you want to take, if that's who you're comfortable having sign your paycheck: then by all means. But if you choose that path, then you NEVER get to complain about spam again: you're one of them now.
  • Facebook adds little to no value. There are much better, smaller, more private blogging options, with less spam, more freedom, and less privacy rape.

    Also group blogging sites are highly prone to disruption. Just witness myspace, which seemed unstoppable in its heyday. The barrier to entry on blogging is low. I don't see Facebook continuing in its current state unchallenged and indefinitely.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ieatcookies (1490517)
      Facebook adds exactly as much value as it's customers feel they get. For some that's enormous and others it's nothing. You may hate Facebook and think it's useless but you can not deny it's popularity, it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
      • by aeoo (568706)

        it's not going anywhere anytime soon

        I think you're wrong. I think Facebook is definitely going somewhere soon. There is google plus on the horizon, and the discontent with Facebook is growing every day. You say that Facebook is popular. I'll give you that. But myspace was also popular at one time. And before that livejournal was popular and so on.

        • it's not going anywhere anytime soon

          I think you're wrong. I think Facebook is definitely going somewhere soon. There is google plus on the horizon, and the discontent with Facebook is growing every day. You say that Facebook is popular. I'll give you that. But myspace was also popular at one time. And before that livejournal was popular and so on.

          lol!! you kidding? g+ was dead before it hit the road! i mean the stupidest thing to do when you launch a "social" network is to not let you invite your friends over! and that too without offering anything newer or better. even the ui looks stupid to me, all that whitespace making me scroll for no reason.

    • Private isn't what makes facebook good.

      What makes facebook good is all the stuff that the paranoid hate:
      Photo Tagging, Auto-updating email/phone contact lists on my phone and interconnected profiles.

      Blogs just post status updates. But how many people's blogs do you follow? I regularly see 10+ people's facebook posts on a nearly daily basis. Completely different level of interaction.

    • There are much better, smaller, more private blogging options, with less spam, more freedom, and less privacy rape

      For some people, when they blog, they want it to be seen and read. I use Facebook for that purpose, precisely because it's not private.

      If you want "private" blogs, I suggest writing on your physical diary book.

      I do have a blog somewhere in the middle -- not exclusively private, yet not as public as Facebook. Different tools, different purposes.

    • fb does have a lot of value for a lot of people, maybe not for you. also, maybe not 100B$ value.
      but people today use fb as the preferred way to keep in touch with new people they meet. blogging is for people who like to write stuff. most people don't, they just want to communicate. i think facebook is in for a long haul, or maybe something else facebook-like.

  • Out of work linux guru. Unfortunately, privacy has meaning to me, what to do?

    PASS.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I just wish more people thought like you. Who knows how good the squirrelmails of the opensource world would be if all the young talented people weren't coding gmail.

  • !800 million (Score:3, Interesting)

    by owlnation (858981) on Saturday December 03, 2011 @07:36PM (#38253432)

    "the website that links more than 800 million users worldwide"

    No. It does not. The number of user accounts registered in no way maps to the number of users of the service, and definitely not to regular users of the service. It's probably more like 1/10th of that. (and diminishing too)

    You'd think /. editors would be wise to the fact that numbers spouted by a marketing droid (especially a sleazy marketing droid from Facebook) are bullshit. Registered accounts is a fucking useless number -- other than for marketing droids to use to influence the weak-minded.

  • by Bruha (412869)

    Other than suburbanites how on earth is Facebook going to appeal to those who might want to live elsewhere. I can get having the "Marketing" people there despite Zuckerberg's aversion to marketing in the early days. However technical staff and coders probably would like to live in an area that appeals to everything that NYC can not provide. Places like Boulder Colorado, Austin Texas, Seattle come to mind.

  • what possible reason would they need more for

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...