471–480 of 556 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The founder of Oculus admits it sucks. Palmer Luckey? I believe you, but I was wondering if you had a quote/reference for that.
https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1487335783522390016 I will admit it's possible I'm putting words in his mouth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AT&T
Do you have more information about how Apple disrupted Ma Bell? It is also worth noting that the iPhone was originally released as an AT&T exclusive...
The deal was done with Cingular ( Later acquired and merged with AT&T ). Neither AT&T and Verizon wants to deal with Apple at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FB has Audience Network which extends their targeting off platform. But yes, Google’s acquisition of Doubleclick and investment in video through YouTube has allowed them to capture the publisher and buyer side of much of the open web (and use the data to cut out competition - cf. Project Bernanke)
Audience network just took a big hit from apples privacy policy changes. Google controls the entire ecosystem for many users and most of the ecosystem for pretty much all of them, so they can never get blindsided like Facebook did.
1. The CEOs insistence on "Competition" as the cause for the increased focus on short term impression rates seems pointed at regulators and Congress rather than at investors. This is silly too, Google had no such pressure on impressions and performed rather well just days before.
2. The cat is out of the bag. Facebooks secret sauce was their very HEAVY focus on bottom funnel advertising where they would ascribe suspect numbers that were not Industry standard to "Conversion" objectives (RoAS anyone?). Anyone, anywhere sees an ad at any point in their conversion journey and Facebook would assign a large weighted portion of conversions leading from that individual in their reporting.
3. The big scary underlined headline here should be HOW POWERFUL APPLE IS. They sneeze and change one small thing in the way apps can access their platforms and we see an entire industry shaken.
4. They won't die out quick. These numbers, though not "Growing" as fast as befor or expected to grow as fast (which is the bigger concern), still is much, much , much higher than they need to sustain their business over the next two decades. The big risk though, is the stock price drop which is how the bulk of their pricy talent is paid dropping. Everyone there is currently staring at a 25% pay cut on their stock based comp and that is not a pretty picture for attracting the best kids graduating this year with ambitions of joining a fast growing tech firm or pulling in talent from places like MSFT or GOOG or AAPL who will not want to jump aboard a perceived sinking ship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who has been proven wrong are all the pundits who proclaimed their monopolies were unstoppable. Other giant companies have fallen as well. RCA, Xerox, GE, Kodak, on and on. The reasons are well known. They become bureaucratic, wasteful and ossified, and become unable to adapt to a changing marketplace. I've seen this play out again and again and again in my lifetime.
Which sort of pundits? You said "pundits...their monopolies". Are you referring to people with a vested interest in the companies/monopolies? If so, that makes sense. They have no reason not to say that, whether they believe it or not. Yes you're right. However on HN and similar tech/geek areas, the common theme regarding FB for a decade now has been direct or indirect implying of its coming demise. Which was what I…
The data center infrastructure that Facebook (Meta) has is probably in the top 5 in this world (behind only Amazon, Microsoft, Google). They might want to become a cloud infrastructure provider for some side money and buy themselves some time to figure out this Metaverse fantasy :) Hey, AWS started because Amazon wanted to lease out their spare infrastructure capacity.
So if FB doesn't need the capacity, why do they have it? Retail obviously has a big push in the ramp up to the holidays, so there's a reason to have had more capacity than always required. Does FB see spikes like that, or is it more consistent? I don't see FB having "spare" capacity to lease. Then again, I'm not a data center manager type, and just sit here in my comfy armchair playing QB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If a stock is priced at a huge multiple to earnings and sales... FBs P/E ratio was well into the value stock territory of ~22 before this dip. They were trading at the lowest multiple of any other big tech company by far, now they're even more insanely undervalued from a fundamentals perspective. I realize that doesn't matter in the age of the meme stock, but personally I'm still pretty bullish in the long term and…
For reference the S&P average P/E is ~25.96. FB at it's worst is growing much faster than average, it's balance sheet is healthier than almost every other company beside MAAG, and yet it is valued below average.
Historically, around 15 is the mean, not 25
Big Takeaways: 1. The CEOs insistence on "Competition" as the cause for the increased focus on short term impression rates seems pointed at regulators and Congress rather than at investors. This is silly too, Google had no such pressure on impressions and performed rather well just days before. 2. The cat is out of the bag. Facebooks secret sauce was their very HEAVY focus on bottom funnel advertising where they woul…
I highly doubt all of the Apple defenders would feel the same way if Microsoft was charging 30% fee for substantially all commerce on windows. It's a huge transfer of wealth from the entire ecosystem of developers to a single company, when that company added very little marginal value to the developer's offering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google has Android, Google Workplace, GCP, etc. Alphabet is more than 80% advertising: https://searchengineland.com/google-q4-2021-earnings-379735 . They are good at skewing how they are perceived but they are very close to being a one-business company. Not defending Facebook, but Google is not much better.
That's actually a spectacular improvement (82% ad revenue)... it was more like 98% not that many years ago. So while it's taking them years, they are slowly diversifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Google is 90% ads. OP wanted to use "cool" companies as examples but the actually diversified giants are Microsoft and Amazon.
Saying Google is "just" ads seems a bit disingenuous. Google controls the entire stack for ads, from the all important search, to Google network and YouTube, all the way to operating systems and the browser. That last part is important because Facebook got absolutely fucked by apples privacy changes on iOS. Google has diversified, but more importantly they're not reliant on another company's users.