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

Instagram’s CEO

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#121

Post by pas »

tardo99 wrote: post #117
emtel wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hysteria. Do you know any teenagers? I have a teenage daughter. She's not on instagram, but most of her friends are. They have rich, full lives, are engaged at school, spend tons of time together in person, play sports, decorate each other's lockers on birthdays, etc. Is instagram a net negative? Maybe. Are they zombies? No.

I realize the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but more than once I've watched 20-something women spend hours on end swiping through Instagram and commenting on photos. One particular time I sat on a train in Europe for 4 hours while a woman did that the entire time. Wall to wall. I respect the fact that you have countervailing experiences, but I do think you're underestimating the negative impact here.

Some people spend that much time reading books printed on deas trees. Is that better?

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#122

Post by pas »

rajacombinator wrote: post #89

What a silly article with a preposterous attempt to define “CEO.” IG would have had access to unlimited funding if they wanted. I’m sure they were under a lot of pressure from FB to sell when they did, but it was a clear blunder. And one of Zuck’s best moves as CEO. The train had already left the station at that point and IG could have been sold for $20 billion a year or two later.

Who knows. Startups are require very high degree of focus, long hours, etc. not everyone can do that for just one more year.

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#123

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

mandeepj wrote: post #42
disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sheryl Sandberg, a really good sales team, and a bunch of shit-hot engineers in ads built IG, the business. Zuckerberg tends to avoid monetisation, leaving that to Sales (i.e. Sheryl) and Ads.

Sorry, you got it wrong. Sheryl is not in to sales. And, zuck is all about business but he don't think about monetisation until that product have at least a billion users [1]. The real person behind instagram's monetisation success - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-man-helped-facebook-brin... [1] - https://www.businessinsider.com/zuckerberg-products-need-1-b...

No offence, but Sheryl heads up sales and ops (the head of Sales, David Fischer, reports to her), and will go visit big clients to sell them on FB ads/new products (of which IG was a good case).

I'm aware that Mark (he doesn't like zuck anymore, apparently) thinks that, but he focuses on product much much much much more than monetisation (there's an apocryphal story that suggests he said that ads weren't part of his vision for FB to an internal sales conference in about 2009-10).

Finally, I would credit the engineers in Ads a whole lot more than Mr Weil (to my recollection, all of the stuff that ended up making IG money was in place before he joined).

Source: worked for FB for a long time.

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#124

Post by tomnipotent »

charlesism wrote: post #115
tomnipotent wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you think of any examples where great technology or product compensated for bad strategy? I can't. But I can think of MANY examples of where great strategy compensated for bad technology or product.

> I can think of MANY examples of where great > strategy compensated for bad technology Well, there's never a compelling argument that someone had a bad strategy once their product is a financial "success." They may have simply won a lottery, by the argument won't sound convincing. Another thing that bothers me is: if you're making a shitty project, what is the point? You become what you do. If your project is bullsh…

> if you're making a shitty project, what is the point? You become what you do

This is silly hubris. Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project before it was a multi-national conglomerate.

> idiots as customers, and scumbags as employees

Everyone deserve a chance to earn a living. Your opinion of the worthiness of a project doesn't really factor much into peoples considerations.

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#125

Post by charlesism »

tomnipotent wrote: post #124
charlesism wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can think of MANY examples of where great > strategy compensated for bad technology Well, there's never a compelling argument that someone had a bad strategy once their product is a financial "success." They may have simply won a lottery, by the argument won't sound convincing. Another thing that bothers me is: if you're making a shitty project, what is the point? You become what you do. If your project is bullsh…

> if you're making a shitty project, what is the point? You become what you do This is silly hubris. Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project before it was a multi-national conglomerate. > idiots as customers, and scumbags as employees Everyone deserve a chance to earn a living. Your opinion of the worthiness of a project doesn't really factor much into peoples considerations.

    > Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project 
    > before it was a multi-national conglomerate.
Facebook is a shitty project. What Zuckerberg gained in the short term he is paying for now: he will spend the next decade of his life dodging tomatoes as Facebook craters.

And honestly, that might be worth it for him. He'll also be extremely wealthy. My argument isn't so much that "it's not strategy that matters" instead of "it's not technology that matters" but rather that making pronouncements like that is bullshit.

Apple comes to mind. Using Ben's logic, Tim Cook's Apple is superior to Steve Job's Apple. The new Apple cares more about strategy and more MBAs work there. The new Apple has made more money. But at the end of the day, for a lot of people, it was more rewarding to work at SJ's Apple. And SJ's Apple still did plenty well financially.

    > Everyone deserve a chance to earn a living. Your
    > opinion of the worthiness of a project doesn't really
    > factor much into peoples considerations.
No, but my opinion exists in the world, as do many other opinions: Ben's personal preferences do not suit everyone. What his maxim assumes is that the only metric for "success" is his. I think for many people, it is better to do work of which one is proud. Not all people, but enough that Ben's advice is BS. For people like me, it's like saying "making 2x more money from your business, and wind up 10x less satisfied with your work."

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#126

Post by spr1ted »

1290cc wrote: post #95

They traded their company for hundreds of millions of dollars. Good on them for turning a product into something that was so lucrative for FB and a real enjoyment for so many people the world over. I think it can't be understated how Instagram has become a pillar of so many brands and online businesses today. But in reality their departure is really part of the business of software, the founders sell out, become exce…

Timing; Law signed to penelize social sites that facilitate sex trafficking. Instagram founders step down https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-instagram-execut... and more CEOs will follow..

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#127

Post by overcast »

rokhayakebe wrote: post #108
overcast wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg wanted power, not money, that's the difference. Only a fool turns down a billion dollars. That's live the rest of your life doing whatever the hell you want money. Holding out for more billions won't change that.

What if what you want to do for the rest of your life is run the company the way you see it fit for as long as you want?

That's fine, also not about more money.

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#128

Post by tomnipotent »

charlesism wrote: post #125
tomnipotent wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're making a shitty project, what is the point? You become what you do This is silly hubris. Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project before it was a multi-national conglomerate. > idiots as customers, and scumbags as employees Everyone deserve a chance to earn a living. Your opinion of the worthiness of a project doesn't really factor much into peoples considerations.

> Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project > before it was a multi-national conglomerate. Facebook is a shitty project. What Zuckerberg gained in the short term he is paying for now: he will spend the next decade of his life dodging tomatoes as Facebook craters. And honestly, that might be worth it for him. He'll also be extremely wealthy. My argument isn't so much that "it's not strategy that matters" instead of "it'…

> Facebook is a shitty project.

Hard to take you take this seriously with a comment like that. It's a technical marvel what they've accomplished and at the scale they've been able to take it. I'm not a fan myself, but I'm not going to crap on what they've pulled off because I don't like the service.

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#129

Post by charlesism »

tomnipotent wrote: post #128
charlesism wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook seemed like a "shitty" project > before it was a multi-national conglomerate. Facebook is a shitty project. What Zuckerberg gained in the short term he is paying for now: he will spend the next decade of his life dodging tomatoes as Facebook craters. And honestly, that might be worth it for him. He'll also be extremely wealthy. My argument isn't so much that "it's not strategy that matters" instead of "it'…

> Facebook is a shitty project. Hard to take you take this seriously with a comment like that. It's a technical marvel what they've accomplished and at the scale they've been able to take it. I'm not a fan myself, but I'm not going to crap on what they've pulled off because I don't like the service.

I don't even know what we are discussing at this point. As far as I can see, it would be a debate over various meanings of the word "shitty." If we brought it back to something tangible, I doubt we've even have any real disagreement. I don't like just bickering with people on the internet for its own sake. Cheers

Re: Instagram’s CEO

#130

Post by amadeuspagel »

beenBoutIT wrote: post #102
kevincrane wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> spearhead a transit project in your hometown > build 100 libraries with your name on them > fund the cure for the rare disease that killed your mother Tax them at 90% and the government can and should do that all for them.

I like Jimmy Kimmel's proposal to tax the richest person in America at 90%(something along those lines). This way everyone at the uppermost top gives away more money in the process of avoiding the number 1 spot.

Or, you know, they could not try to make money in the first place.
Post reply on HN