21–30 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words: "vertical integration is good." It can also weigh you down and keep you from advancing your technology. Counterexample: Apple.
It's not a "counterexample" because I didn't give an example. In any case, it's never a simple answer: vertical integration has advantages and disadvantages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words: "vertical integration is good." It can also weigh you down and keep you from advancing your technology. Counterexample: Apple.
a company succeeding with it is not a counterexample to a statement saying basically it can be advantageous but it’s hard to do well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words: "vertical integration is good." It can also weigh you down and keep you from advancing your technology. Counterexample: Apple.
It's not a "counterexample" because I didn't give an example. In any case, it's never a simple answer: vertical integration has advantages and disadvantages.
Which Jobs acknowledged in his 1997 WWDC talk before becoming CEO (again).
There's an execution burden with integration and it has to be overcome with solid execution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 ju…
And? Neither of those quotes mentions metaverse spending.
I joined to work on meta ads semi-recently. My thinking was that they were under invested in techniques I knew were successful from my time at Google.
What I found was a lot of smart people who knew they were under invested and we're capable of closing the gap, but the infrastructure they sat upon was too hard to use to do anything different, and management that rewarded the appearance of great work more than great work. The result was a lot of config changes making noise in metrics that could be read positively, without implementing the state of the art systems that took a year before you could write a fancy success workplace post about it. That would risk poor performance reviews and the shuffling of reasources away from your team as a result.
And now, it's becoming apparent that the very very smart people started leaving after the stock dropped and the replacements are both more expensive and less able to get used to Facebook's infra. The result on the ground looks like a very serious engineering death spiral that management has not signaled they understand or have a grip on.
“The long-term solution to ATT, though, is to build probabilistic models that not only figure out who should be targeted, but also understanding which ads converted and which didn’t.” What does this even mean? Is it really possible to build models where the conversion label itself is not deterministic due to ATT and has to be predicted by another probabilistic model?
1. You purchase ads on FB
2. You tell FB how much a conversion is worth to you (let's call that $W)
3. You link your site to FB (via a pixel etc) so that they can automatically measure conversions. They say this is for you so that you can see which ads are actually working.
4. In reality, FB now knows what a conversion is worth to you so they can keep upping the price per ad till it gets as close to $X as you can take before you stop advertising.
If ATT is in play now, FB doesn't know the conversion rate and then can't tell how much to "squeeze" you by raising the price.
That would therefore incentivize them to figure out other ways to figure out that rate otherwise how can they maximize advertising revenue if they can't squeeze you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In other words: "vertical integration is good." It can also weigh you down and keep you from advancing your technology. Counterexample: Apple.
It's not a "counterexample" because I didn't give an example. In any case, it's never a simple answer: vertical integration has advantages and disadvantages.
A counterexample is not a counter to an example. It is an example that counters a point, which you did give.
(That said, Apple is still not really a counterexample because clearly vertical integration can weigh you down even if others have pulled it off successfully)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a "counterexample" because I didn't give an example. In any case, it's never a simple answer: vertical integration has advantages and disadvantages.
A counterexample is not a counter to an example given, but an example that counters or refutes what has been stated.