This is untrue on so many levels, and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how innovation should take place. Facebook's perceived success thus far has engendered a series of investments in startups that (in Facebook's image) produce next to nothing, and its failure might come as a needed wake-up call to venture capitalists and journalists alike, who have forgotten what it is to start a real technology company.
Facebook doesn't produce "next to nothing." Its traffic clearly shows they have produced something a lot of people want. Whether or not they succeed in extracting money from that (and I'd bet they will), there's no question that they've made something valuable.
I wrote that startups crafted in Facebook's image often produce next to nothing, but I think the same statement is actually also valid when applied to Facebook, now that you mention it. Attracting people's attention (as evidenced by traffic) is not the same as producing a valuable product, no matter the company. If Facebook did actually produce something of value, it probably would not have had any trouble extracting money from the site in the first place. As it so happens, the lack of an obvious, sustainable business model was the reason I decided to work on other things, instead.
Facebook does "attract people's attention", but it does far more than just that. Attracting attention is important to get users to make their first visit, but if Facebook doesn't provide something valuable, how do you explain the unbelievable amount of repeat traffic it sees?
I know dozens of non-tech-savvy people who visit Facebook every day. I know people who check Facebook more often than their e-mail. I certainly have issues with aspects of Facebook as well and everyone on this board probably has a list of things they'd change if they were in charge (I know I do), but Facebook's breakneck growth and absurdly high visitor loyalty show that they absolutely produce something of value.
