Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook loses users for the first time

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#681

Post by motoboi »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #641

I always find the constant expectation of growth puzzling. and that it is a regular occurrence. For a long time, DELL grew and grew and got bigger. Then they plateaued (for a while) and the investors were mad. There are only so many people in the world who want an FB account. and only so many companies and people who need a DELL computer. Infinite high growth is impossible to sustain. Physically.

Growth means a share bought today will have a bigger value tomorrow.

Investors (people) expect a remuneration for their money. So, a public company can only survive with growth.

Growth and risk/reward balance is what keep companies alive.

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#682

Post by tonyedgecombe »

kinnth wrote: post #651

The number 1 reason FB has missed is the IDFA change from Apple. It has completely crippled their ad business and their effectiveness and the majority of spend I know has gone to Google. When FB was clearly 1st or 2nd in all GEO's around the world, they now are not even in the top 3 in many GEOs.

Why would that affect the number of users?

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#683

Post by IAmNotAFix »

Calist0 wrote: post #208

They lost 3 million active users out of 1.93 billion active users. That's 0.15%? As countries are opening up more. And that's newsworthy? I don't see how that justifies the stock crashing -25% in 15 minutes.

Their users growth has been lowering towards 0 for a few years and it's expected that users will eventually shrink. It's just symbolic when you pass the tipping point (although this might be local and not be the definitive tipping point).

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#684

Post by amelius »

DrBazza wrote: post #679
netcan wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft, for all its flaws, has strengths. They're grittier than most and ultimately, know how to deliver software products and build businesses around them... very different products and very different businesses. Leadership was a lever to these, but there was something to lever FB have never built a successful product besides Zuck's original. They have never created a good business besides the FB and program. The…

Microsoft has multi-billion dollar branches - Office, OS, Azure, XBox, Activision, I'm sure I've missed one. It also completely fluffed Nokia. And dodged the bullet that is Yahoo. It's pretty resilient. FB? Like others have said, the social media FB itself is pretty weak, and like you also said - addiction, and walled garden are the locks in. It can only grow financially by (more) acquisitions.

FB has Oculus, which could be compared to XBox (though not yet in size).

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#685

Post by aloer »

randomsearch wrote: post #504

This is how the narrative of Facebook looks to me: Zuckerberg got lucky and then executed brilliantly, transitioned from nerd hacker to CEO amazingly well. He deserves a lot of credit for that. Since then, Facebook have innovated very little. Zuckerberg recognised this, and bought Instagram and Whatsapp in lieu of building an innovative company. The latter is clearly really difficult to do. Without a stream of new id…

I’ve always thought one possible next step for Facebook would be in the cloud business. Among the big tech companies they are the only ones not reselling their platform expertise but perhaps it’s just not worth it

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#686

Post by JamesGi »

Brotkrumen wrote: post #645
mettamage wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am both a fan of blockchain and VR. I also have a strong cynic inside of me that trashes on both of them whenever it can. It's fun being me I suppose :) Blockchain is IMO in a much much much more questionable state of relevancy and usefulness than VR. Why? I workout in VR (supplemental workouts by playing Eleven Table Tennis to the max). I boardgame in VR (Demeo). My GF picks up my headset and plays Beatsaber. You…

I rented a VR headset for a month a while ago. I think I bought most of the top games to play around with, but all feel a bit gimmicky and lacking depth. I'd claim that VR will be niche until it becomes AR. When I can see my keyboard and get multiple floaty screens,that will be productivity. Pokemon Go in AR? Skyrim AR? AR shooters in converted warehouses? Horror games in my house? That'll be games.

you can already see your keyboard, table, sofa, as well as have multiple floaty screens.

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#687

Post by Breza »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #655
netcan wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft, for all its flaws, has strengths. They're grittier than most and ultimately, know how to deliver software products and build businesses around them... very different products and very different businesses. Leadership was a lever to these, but there was something to lever FB have never built a successful product besides Zuck's original. They have never created a good business besides the FB and program. The…

> Controlling the VR metaverse... I just don't see it. Too much innovation. Too much invention. Remember FB can always purchase themselves into the market - pick up a few startups and bodge together a consistent product. I think the problem is that VR tech and apps will take too long to arrive to gain any traction with the wider public, before FB needs it. FB needs hundreds of millions/billions of users, VR hasn't pu…

I'm curious if you have any thoughts on why VR remains so niche. Decent VR hardware has been available for years. And yet relatively few people use it.

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#688

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #641

I always find the constant expectation of growth puzzling. and that it is a regular occurrence. For a long time, DELL grew and grew and got bigger. Then they plateaued (for a while) and the investors were mad. There are only so many people in the world who want an FB account. and only so many companies and people who need a DELL computer. Infinite high growth is impossible to sustain. Physically.

Yes, but the stock market works on the premise of growth, they try to raise money by virtue of being on the stock market, in order get the money required to finance that growth.

I would think, that a company that has plateaued should take itself off the stock market, however this doesn't seem to be happening. Such a move would probably imply some drastic changes in how a company is goverend.

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#689

Post by karatinversion »

motoboi wrote: post #681
ThinkBeat wrote: post #641

I always find the constant expectation of growth puzzling. and that it is a regular occurrence. For a long time, DELL grew and grew and got bigger. Then they plateaued (for a while) and the investors were mad. There are only so many people in the world who want an FB account. and only so many companies and people who need a DELL computer. Infinite high growth is impossible to sustain. Physically.

Growth means a share bought today will have a bigger value tomorrow. Investors (people) expect a remuneration for their money. So, a public company can only survive with growth. Growth and risk/reward balance is what keep companies alive.

This is true of Facebook and many other tech stocks, but that is because these companies have never paid dividends. Investors have put up with that because the expectation of higher future profits (and thus higher cash piles for dividends or stock buybacks). A shrinking company that has never paid a dividend is much less attractive from this point of view.

Re: Facebook loses users for the first time

#690

Post by yason »

cloutchaser wrote: post #653
yason wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since then, Facebook have innovated very little. I hope they hadn't even tried. Initially, Facebook offered lots of value in the early years in the form that users were actually able to follow their friends' lives and stay connected. You had a bunch of friends and you would see a mostly chronological list of what they had posted that you read until you recognized something you had already seen. If they had kept it th…

Well, I dunno. My friends don't post anything any more. Maybe to instagram, but even that is less now. Facebook needed to fill that gap with content from elsewhere. That's where influencers and content creators came in. Who are way less interesting than your friends, but they do post content regularly. I don't think facebook had a choice.

Why don't they post? For the same reason I don't post much if anything on Facebook: my posts won't reach my friends except by happenstance. Everyone I know has observed that when you go to look at your friend's profile you will see posts that you've missed because they have never been shown to you before.

It's like only one in ten SMS texts would actually reach the other party: people would complain about SMS being broken just like they complain Facebook doesn't show them what they want to see.

Instead of your friend's posts you will see half a dozen random posts from your friends each day, too often from one prolific poster, and the rest is ads or group spam. Why bother writing anything relevant, deep, or fun when only a fraction of your friends will ever see it.

Post reply on HN