91–100 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could cut costs and just try to be good at being a better Facebook. I know that is heresy in the stock world.
I think they effectively cannot. There would be a shareholder's revolt.
As I was watching their 'keynote' I couldn't help but wonder about the many companies that took a similar approach and then died. Spending a ton of money on something doesn't make it automatically successful. [1] In fact, history has shown the opposite to be true. Take Facebook itself for example, it succeeded, not because it poured Billions into building its social network. Mark built something small, for a small ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a ton of money and there's a ton of money. Facebook has a ton of money to spend. Whether they succeed or fail is anybody's guess but this kind of investment can't help but move the needle on AR/VR tech.
Not necessarily so if it’s all closed sourced proprietary tech. For example I don’t think Newton had accelerated pda tech probably the opposite
I really hope he isn’t successful.
Why? Even if you don't take part, it would arguably create advantages for many, especially those in the developing world.
To me, this is just a particularly garish example of what a lot of tech seems like these days: very expensive solution in search of a problem.
As I was watching their 'keynote' I couldn't help but wonder about the many companies that took a similar approach and then died. Spending a ton of money on something doesn't make it automatically successful. [1] In fact, history has shown the opposite to be true. Take Facebook itself for example, it succeeded, not because it poured Billions into building its social network. Mark built something small, for a small ma…
Is that not pretty much the story of Oculus so far? There are 2 million oculus quest 2 devices out there now and they're getting to the point where they have a monopoly in VR
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe Facebook needs to find a company like Skype to buy for $8.5B
They did so with Instagram and Whatsapp and those are arguably their most successful product today.
As I was watching their 'keynote' I couldn't help but wonder about the many companies that took a similar approach and then died. Spending a ton of money on something doesn't make it automatically successful. [1] In fact, history has shown the opposite to be true. Take Facebook itself for example, it succeeded, not because it poured Billions into building its social network. Mark built something small, for a small ma…
If you haven't seen it yet, you might appreciate this slide deck about how organizations are like slime mold. Slide 57 main image "0.60=0.95^10", text "And thanks to that non-linearity, even a small decline in individual likelihood [of success] leads to a much lower overall decline in the likelihood of success." https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/
I think our industry has a huge "boulder" - we often work on useless software that is far too removed from real world applications, which causes us to lose our passion.
When you have 50 engineers maintaining a boring piece of crap software which can be maintained by 5 engineers, you will start noticing the productivity going down. Engineers who used to be very productive will slow down to meet the low expectations.
Brainstorming a way to avoid this problem:
- working on things we're passionate about with real-world impact
- having a bunch of small organizations with small number of employees (maybe Mark should break down facebook into 50 smaller companies)
- stop creating redundant jobs; if things are not going well, adding 100 people to a project isn't going to fix the delayed project