Meta Myths
stratechery.com
Meta Myths
1–10 of 210 posts
Re: Meta Myths
#2Surprised at this post. Arguing against that meta is dying is a straw man. It’s not a myth that the growth thesis from here is weak and there’s a massive headwind on cash flow from all the money being thrown at the metaverse projects with no foreseeable revenue upside.
Re: Meta Myths
#3The article talks about the long term focus but I always felt there's a better way to achieve a long-term foothold in VR.
The key is to build up a set of patents so that you can enter the market when the tech is there. This takes some investment but not nearly as much as trying to force the metaverse to happen now.
So I disagree with idea that the leadership has a long term focus. They are trying to make the metaverse happen before it's ready. This is very shortsighted. They could scale back and maintain a holding pattern for far less cost.
Re: Meta Myths
#4Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
But the real story is simply Human Nature at work. Everyone ( or at least a sufficient amount of people with Power ) hates Facebook. And they need a good story to shit on it.
Re: Meta Myths
#5Surprised at this post. Arguing against that meta is dying is a straw man. It’s not a myth that the growth thesis from here is weak and there’s a massive headwind on cash flow from all the money being thrown at the metaverse projects with no foreseeable revenue upside.
According to the article, this is a myth.
> Myth 5: Meta’s Spending is a Waste
Any rebuttal to the arguments he makes?
Re: Meta Myths
#6Surprised at this post. Arguing against that meta is dying is a straw man. It’s not a myth that the growth thesis from here is weak and there’s a massive headwind on cash flow from all the money being thrown at the metaverse projects with no foreseeable revenue upside.
According to the article, this is a myth. > Myth 5: Meta’s Spending is a Waste Any rebuttal to the arguments he makes?
He doesn’t defend the metaverse spending. He argues it’s not that much comparably but a) that’s kinda subjective. Is 10 out of 40 billion a lot? and b) that’s no defense really.
Re: Meta Myths
#7A good article.
> This level of investment simply isn’t viable for a company like Snap or Twitter or any of the other also-rans in digital advertising (even beyond the fact that Snap relies on cloud providers instead of its own data centers)
Let's change the industry to autos: "Funbag Autos has a massive investment in aluminum companies. This level of investment simply isn’t viable for a company like Tesla ... (even beyond the fact that Tesla relies on outside aluminum companies instead of its own"
In other words: "vertical integration is good." It can also weigh you down and keep you from advancing your technology.
As for Metaverse: he admits it's a loser, but maybe not that terrible in the grand scheme of things.
Re: Meta Myths
#8I quiet quite Facebook about a year ago. This wasn't intentional or purposeful, the platform was just no longer serving content that I found interesting.
My browers is still logged in though and I see ads by Facebook while browsing other sites. Am I still considered a DAU? If so, is Facebook the new DoubleClick?
Re: Meta Myths
#9A good article. > This level of investment simply isn’t viable for a company like Snap or Twitter or any of the other also-rans in digital advertising (even beyond the fact that Snap relies on cloud providers instead of its own data centers) Let's change the industry to autos: "Funbag Autos has a massive investment in aluminum companies. This level of investment simply isn’t viable for a company like Tesla ... (even…
> In other words: "vertical integration is good." It can also weigh you down and keep you from advancing your technology.
Counterexample: Apple.
Re: Meta Myths
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the article, this is a myth. > Myth 5: Meta’s Spending is a Waste Any rebuttal to the arguments he makes?
He doesn’t defend the metaverse spending. He argues it’s not that much comparably but a) that’s kinda subjective. Is 10 out of 40 billion a lot? and b) that’s no defense really.
>The problem with this line of reasoning is that Meta’s capital expenditures are directly focused on both of the two main reasons for alarm: TikTok and ATT. That is because the answer to both challenges is more AI, and building up AI capacity requires a lot of capital investment.
>In the long run, though, this investment should pay off. First, there are the benefits to better targeting and better recommendations I just described, which should restart revenue growth. Second, once these AI data centers are built out the cost to maintain and upgrade them should be significantly less than the initial cost of building them the first time. Third, this massive investment is one no other company can make, except for Google (and, not coincidentally, Google’s capital expenditures are set to rise as well).