Facebook CEOMarkZuckerburg 在Stanford的演讲稿由刀豆文库小编整理，希望给你工作、学习、生活带来方便，猜你可能喜欢“facebook新手入门指导”。
So when we're designing stuff, we look not necearily just about what any given users going to experience but what's going to be better for the whole community and the whole product.And i main, it's probably a lot of this straight-ups are going all over the place in a product.Probably the most what you see every day is that you can't see the profiles of people at other schools.That's a really a major trade-off in the application.For those of you who aren't familiar with this, we split up the user base by what school they go to and we make it so that people at a given school can only see the profiles and contact information of people at their school.And the reason for this was mostly to, because we realized that the people around you, at your school, are the people who you want to look atmostly anyway.And if we made the space too broad and let anyone see your information, then that probably fine.I main, look up some people but you also probably not look up your cellphone.More than a third of people on Facebook have their cellphone up there and that's something that's useful for the application.So in designing it, this was a trade-off that we made.I kind of thought of what was wrong.I said, well, what would be more useful ? Would it be better for people to be able to see everyone and maybe not fell like this is a secure environment in what they can share their interests and what they thought and what they care about ? Or would be better that more information and more expreion was available but to a smaller audience which is probably the relevant audience for any person? So, there are a lot of decisions like that, that are getting made and a lot of them gut level.So i main, we tired to be as academic about it as poible in trying to think rigorously through the different results that will guide if we go to different directions.But a lot of it is just like you define your objective what you're going for.In this case, to optimize for the best of the whole community and the whole user base and over the long term and that's important too, your long ever short term.And then, you just kind of operates and do what you think will be best along that line.When i started off i was programming for Sygen and i wrote the first version.I main we haven't, we don't really have a second version which is constantly....So i gue for most of last school year i just worked on scaling and kind of trying to make it keep up with the increasing load and trying to make it so that we can expand more, adding more schools, And we're kind of making infrastructure all that stuff.But as time is going along, we were also kind of opportunistic.We hired people who we thought were really smart and for also last year we were just a few guys working around my kitchen and that was pretty fun.But i gue around in February, we got an office and then we kind of take all these people who we're been hiring and brought them into one space, which is interesting, because that for the first time, i kind of looked up and just like, wow , you know i have a team of engineers here and like a lot of smart people who can start building a lot of stuff in a different way that is currently being done.You know, i main right now it's me and whoever it was and me and my roommate Dustin and just come sitting there work serially on a new project and then finishing it.And then planning how on doing the next project.And with like little help from the other people who are around but trying to figure out how to manage the transition from doing that most especially within the period of one of the people's programming.Just way, OK, we have eight real intelligent people here.What's now the most efficient use of people's time, like how can people maybe working stuff not serially but i didn't say someone's working on launching a high school product over here and someone else is working on the photos and someone else is working on the thing every launch next to each, you know.What's , like what's the most efficient use of people? I mean, so that's kind of an interesting problem and then it's something that i don't really kind of get inside for you guys.I mean i'll maybe have to check that in the years.But, but i think that one thing that Jim was getting at was sort of the dynamics between people and the dynamic of managing people and being CEO in the company is a lot different than being college roommates with someone and when you go into something and your expectations for that, you know this is going to be a site of maybe a few a thousand people around and you they got dropped out of school to come out to California to work with you, it just kind of changes things off.And i don't know i think that it definitely, you kind of have to think it like a higher level about how the landscape is playing out and in terms of like, you need to normally have engineers you can directly work on the products that you're working on but then you need to start having a finance department or something that's i'd never thought that i would never need, you know, in terms of running a website in order to power the infrastructure or just having a 20-or 30-person engineering team.And then, so ok , so we have all these people then, like how to you come watch what they're dong and i'm not trying to control too much what they're doing.These, they are all really smart people, which is why we brought them and we want to leverage the fact that they have a lot of really good ideas and can do a lot of the stuff themselves, but how you make sure that it's conforming to standards, you know.Or that it's being done well enough both from product perspective and engineering perspective.So i think that they stole our thought.The two most important things that i look for are : number one is just raw intelligence, right? Because you can hire someone who is a software engineer and he's been dong it for 10 years and of they're dong it for 10 years that's probably that they're dong for their life, you know, and i mean that's cool.But there's somethings that , that person can do and they're definitely useful in an organization and can do a lot of stuff.But if you find someone who is raw in intelligence exceeds theirs but has 10 years lots of experience then they can probably adopt and learn way quicker.You know, and within a very short amount of time be able to do a lot of things that(that)person may never be able to do.And so, i think that's the most of important thing that i look for.And the second is just alignment with what we're trying to do.So i mean, people can be really smart or have skills that are directly applicable but if they don't really believe in it, then they're not going to really work hard and they're not going to even if they're smart guy who doesn't have the relevant experience, they're not going to care enough to develop the relevant experience in order to succeed.So i think that the best people who i've hired so far have been people who didn't really have that much engineering experience.I hired a couple of electrical engineers out of Stanford's new programming staff and they had very little programming experience going in but just really smart, really will to go at it, and the guy who just work photos was one of those guys, and if you're will to just go and so whatever it takes to get photos out, then they you're probably more valuable than someone who's just a career software engineer.So those are things that i'm looking for and why i would rather look for people in college.When you are running a site and you're four people, are on the kitchen table, your operating expenses are relatively low.So traditionally, what we're done was we had a very small sales force and we sell some ads.You might see them on the site and we just keep our operating expenses low so far and by doing that, we've been able to stay cash flow positive for basically the entire existence of the company.After we took some from these guys, we decided that it is OK to go a few months in cash flow negative while···But very barely cash flow, Yeah, at a point, you know.Losing like a $100,000, not million, but now we're back.And we do a lot of page views, i think that it's not something that you really think about because you probably just think about this as a Stanford site.But everyday, we got more than 200 million page views.I think recently were up to 230 million.By the end of, like two weeks from now or so, we're going to pa Google in page views.And that's a lot, right? You don't normally think about it in that kind of application.Like, i think, you know, i was pretty surprised when i heard that.But when you have many page views and that many people spending much time on the site, you can monetize it pretty easily just by putting matters on there.The revenue, we're generating over a million dollars a month in revenue, and well more, and that way covers our expensives and we're not even doing anything cool yet.I actually studied Psychology in Harvard, not computer science.Although a little bit of computer science.I've been programming since i was ten.And i think it kind of like went, kind of reach the point where it's my intuition now.I'm not really thinking that much about it consciously.So that was pretty good.And then, i mean when i started thinking about all the people iues and doing Psychology, it was like being in the university interacting with lot of people that it kind of occurred to me that.This would be something i was interested in and like i knew how to do it so i just did.I mean, it took me like a couple of weeks there, even le, putting together the site.And i remember that by the time i was done putting together the site, i had no idea how succeful it could be.And i was actually thinking that after day in and day out, i had different idea that i wanted to do and i was going to scrap it after that.So i'm happy that i didn't do that.So i think that it's more like how you spend your time doing stuff to have an answer than like something that i've learned specifically from college.I made a ton of random things when i was at Harvard and most of them no one ever saw.A lot of them just weren't meant for people to see.And there are thing that i made for myself because i thought they'll be cool.I used to make stuff like the natural language interface to play my MP3s.Or a thing i made before, this was a HotOrNot program out of everyone's IDs at Harvard that almost got me kicked out.So i don't know, i actually spend a long time random stuff.I think that that definitely made it.So by the time it came, more like, by the time i came to meet this random project that was pretty well change where it's making that, you know in terms of managing this whole proce, nothing.Like i have no idea what i'm doing, you know.Mark has a skill which, a number of skills, which one rarely sees in an entrepreneur no matter what the age is.He's a great listener and he learns by listening.I'm still stunned to see how many entrepreneurs come to our offices in Palo Alto and it's all output and there's no thoughtfulne.And it is amazing that the very best entrepreneurs are very proactive.They're very courageous.They deal with tension.But they're great listeners and then they translate that into interactive learning and the organizations tend to be great listening organizations.And Mark is extraordinary that way as we many of the best entrepreneurs or executives that we've met.There is also the constant creative tension around experimentation and making sure everyone in the organization feels it's better to experiment fail and then move on and experiment again than to not do that.And in something like a consumer internet company like Facebook, that constant real time interaction and experimentation is something that the very best entrepreneurs do.They have the paion.They have an innate feel for it and it happens organizationaly that it happens from a leadership standpoint.That's something that can to some extent be taught.It can be honed but those are some of the skills for a consumer internet company and one that is growing this quickly that is just eential.And it needs to be embodied in the entrepreneur.That's something that we see again and again and it's remarkable how little common sense is often applied.If somebody just steps back and truly listens and watches the customers rapidly iterates, good things need to happen.One of the most interesting questions we continuously ask ourselves at Accel over the last year and nine months why didn't we see the Facebook earlier? I think it's a remarkable dynamic that Mark started this company in 2004 and that first generation the first nine a ten years of the Internet did not have a Facebook-like company that was thinking through it in a simple way.Sometimes it's remarkable for all of us if we try to be very prepared-mind-oriented, very proactive around where the most interesting opportunities.It's often these very simple but powerful ideas that really take off.And there's some other ideas like that where we step back and really try to understand these investors and hopefully partners with entrepreneurs.Where do we see the most compelling next generation ideas? And it's usually something that's very simple that's embodied in the personality of an entrepreneur.A lot of the stuff that goes on with the company is really organic right now and isn't necearily formalized.Although, maybe it will be in a short period of time as we continue to grow.I think that as organizations grow, a lot of the iues and structure that's put in place is put there because a comfort level breaks down and people communicating freely in a way that they can when they're friends.And if you're working with your friend, you can tell him or her whatever you're thinking and it's not going to offend him or her and they'll probably comprehend it similarly to how you imagined it in languages that really are a perfect idea of transmiion vehicle.And i think that along that stuff, take 20% of your time to go put into action an idea that you might have, is neceary in a large organization where people can't necearily speak the same language or ideas can't get out freely.So i think one of the things that i do focus on at Facebook is making sure that culture is very friendly and that people hang out.So instead of having 20% of people's time spend on their own projects, i make people hang out with each other.I mean, i don't make people be friends with each other but i mean, you know.What's up ? So i think that by doing that, i can't force you to hang outside of work, but i can make it so that people are more with each other and can communicate more freely.This isn't really a formal thing i put in place.This is like kind of my answer at the top of my head.So i gue, by doing this we kind of create a culture where people just talk to each other about stuff and get what each other is thinking more clearly than they would if the organization is more bureaucratic or if like people wouldn't be heard.Since people are always talking, ideas get down stuff each other and then eventually, someone starts making something, and then we're done.The two things that you focus on are maintaining what you have now that's good and growing, all right? What we have now is a pretty good utility.And then, going back to the first question that you ask me, what's the thing that i measure the most? It's that 70% of the people come back to the site everyday and making sure that that remains, not just because we're doing some gimmicky thing.But i mean, if you launch a feature, obviously retention is going to go up.Alright, so i mean,retention has been up recently because of the photos.But focusing on things that are sustainable and scalable so that when we launch more schools or go into the next market or whatever we do, we're going to set ourselves up to have the same succe that we've had without hurting our self in the current position.Mark is incredibly good at keeping the bar very high on new hires.When you're quadrupling in size in terms of people, there's always a tendency.You see it again and again and i know Tom Byers and many of you in the audience always talk about quality of people and maintaining the bar.But in practice, it's really easy to say this person doesn't match in there but does match up along so many dimensions.It would takes six moths to find the right person.And Mark has been extraordinary, as a leader, in maintaining a very high bar and at times walking alway from people who are receiving outstanding recommendations but either don't fit from a cultural stand point.Or they're not going to scale and they'd be the wrong person a year or two from now.And that is certainly, as an investor and board member an ongoing challenge.How do you deal with that trade-off where you absolutely need an ad sales force but at the same time, if one person at a time, you just can't say let's go out and hire five good engineers or five good ad sales people and not have them be great? Because the B+ or A-people, you know it, they'll hired B's and B minuses.And this a time in the company where you just have to aspire with each hire to get an A rate plus person and it's easier said than done.I think that is one of the fundamental ongoing challenges.
