A Meta Analysis on Meta • Hacker News Board

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#11

Post by runevault » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:45 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #7

echelon wrote: post #3

> First, I would not have let the Apple relationship slide so far down. I don't like Meta, but this is an unfair assessment. Meta saw Google's deal and likely tried to pay these fees. They've been trying desperately for years - they knew this was possible and saw the writing on the well. They tried launching their own phone product and learned firsthand how difficult to impossible it was to compete in that space. And…

> With one flip of a switch, Apple wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars. The entire business of a company. This is monopoly. You can easily re-frame this as: with the flip of a switch Apple single handedly stopped anti-consumer practices by some of the most manipulative and nefarious companies in the world, like Facebook. Companies don’t have some inherent right to exist. Facebook turned off their game integrati…

It is good Apple (and Google since last I heard they put similar functionality in place or would be soon) are doing this. That doesn't remove the concern that one or two companies deciding to do something can be so damaging to another megacorp who isn't competing in the same space really. Both can be true, speaking as someone who doesn't care for FB or Apple (or Google really either but to have a smartphone you basically have to pick one of the two).

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#12

Post by peppertree » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:46 PM UTC

Meta also let Facebook rot. Didn't come up with anything competitive against TikTok. Couldn't monetize Whatsapp and turn it into a superapp like WeChat. There are just failures on every front.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#13

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #6

mkl95 wrote: post #2

> Meta needs to generate $200B+ of profits on metaverse during 2030-2039 to make it worth it Is it too late for Meta to admit the Metaverse has been a mistake and shift their efforts to something else? And what would that something else be?

I’m not sure it was a mistake though. You have to ask yourself what marks goals are here. To me, being cash flow positive is pretty far down the list. Meta could have results like the one last week for a decade and mark would still be a billionaire. He’d still be the ceo of his company. Pleasing Wall Street is not a priority for him. To me the main goals here are first creating a hardware platform meta controls in or…

This isn't an especially useful frame. Lots of things make sense if you put yourself in Zuckerberg's shoes and assume he minmaxes for whatever random thing has captured his attention.

The real question is, what should Meta shareholders do in response to this stuff? What would happened with respect to the shareholders if Zuckerberg took his foot off the gas pedal with the "Metaverse" stuff?

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#14

Post by Guthur » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:47 PM UTC

I think the idea was ok but the execution was terrible.

VR was too extreme and narrow a view. The meta verse should have been the extending the space where people and technology over lap, not trying to force everyone to move into frankly terrible VR.

Meta should have went all in on wearable and other augmented reality stuff, hook that into people's Facebook etc.

Imo, HN is probably the only social media I actually use. Sparingly as I'm more certain that much online discourse is pure fabrication.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#15

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:48 PM UTC

csdvrx wrote: post #4

mkl95 wrote: post #2

> Meta needs to generate $200B+ of profits on metaverse during 2030-2039 to make it worth it Is it too late for Meta to admit the Metaverse has been a mistake and shift their efforts to something else? And what would that something else be?

I don't think it's a mistake. They are just too early. Look at how Microsoft correctly identified tablet and smartphone as part of the future, as early as 20 years ago when they had special Windows XP tablet and custom Windows CE environment. People often talk about the first mover advantage, but it can also be a curse: that's why Google ate Microsoft lunch, and why Facebook ate Myspace lunch, and why Microsoft ate I…

Just like a baseball bat swinging at a pitch, too early is just as much a mistake as too late. Microsoft is indeed a good reference point here.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#16

Post by colinmhayes » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:50 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #13

colinmhayes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it was a mistake though. You have to ask yourself what marks goals are here. To me, being cash flow positive is pretty far down the list. Meta could have results like the one last week for a decade and mark would still be a billionaire. He’d still be the ceo of his company. Pleasing Wall Street is not a priority for him. To me the main goals here are first creating a hardware platform meta controls in or…

This isn't an especially useful frame. Lots of things make sense if you put yourself in Zuckerberg's shoes and assume he minmaxes for whatever random thing has captured his attention. The real question is, what should Meta shareholders do in response to this stuff? What would happened with respect to the shareholders if Zuckerberg took his foot off the gas pedal with the "Metaverse" stuff?

I mean they only really have two choices. Stick with meta and hope mark gets distracted from the reality labs stuff or sell. Most seem to have chosen to sell.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#17

Post by TigeriusKirk » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #13

colinmhayes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it was a mistake though. You have to ask yourself what marks goals are here. To me, being cash flow positive is pretty far down the list. Meta could have results like the one last week for a decade and mark would still be a billionaire. He’d still be the ceo of his company. Pleasing Wall Street is not a priority for him. To me the main goals here are first creating a hardware platform meta controls in or…

This isn't an especially useful frame. Lots of things make sense if you put yourself in Zuckerberg's shoes and assume he minmaxes for whatever random thing has captured his attention. The real question is, what should Meta shareholders do in response to this stuff? What would happened with respect to the shareholders if Zuckerberg took his foot off the gas pedal with the "Metaverse" stuff?

It's an incredibly useful frame if the question is "Should Meta admit the metaverse is a mistake?"

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#18

Post by andsoitis » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #6

mkl95 wrote: post #2

> Meta needs to generate $200B+ of profits on metaverse during 2030-2039 to make it worth it Is it too late for Meta to admit the Metaverse has been a mistake and shift their efforts to something else? And what would that something else be?

I’m not sure it was a mistake though. You have to ask yourself what marks goals are here. To me, being cash flow positive is pretty far down the list. Meta could have results like the one last week for a decade and mark would still be a billionaire. He’d still be the ceo of his company. Pleasing Wall Street is not a priority for him. To me the main goals here are first creating a hardware platform meta controls in or…

As a publicly traded company, there’s a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#19

Post by colinmhayes » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #18

colinmhayes wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure it was a mistake though. You have to ask yourself what marks goals are here. To me, being cash flow positive is pretty far down the list. Meta could have results like the one last week for a decade and mark would still be a billionaire. He’d still be the ceo of his company. Pleasing Wall Street is not a priority for him. To me the main goals here are first creating a hardware platform meta controls in or…

As a publicly traded company, there’s a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

Which is why mark leaves the credible deniability of saying he believes reality labs is an investment that will pay off for shareholders. My reading of corporate fiduciary responsibility cases is that believing your actions are in the shareholders best interest is all that is required and proving that mark doesn’t seems impossible.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#20

Post by cma » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 10:54 PM UTC

Guthur wrote: post #14

I think the idea was ok but the execution was terrible. VR was too extreme and narrow a view. The meta verse should have been the extending the space where people and technology over lap, not trying to force everyone to move into frankly terrible VR. Meta should have went all in on wearable and other augmented reality stuff, hook that into people's Facebook etc. Imo, HN is probably the only social media I actually us…

> Meta should have went all in on wearable and other augmented reality stuff, hook that into people's Facebook etc.

Their new headset does grainy color AR passthrough and lots of the reports on how much they wasted on VR were actually on products like Portal and bringing AR filters onto their snapchat/tik tok clone attempts, they were in the same category on the earnings report without being broken out.