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

A Meta Analysis on Meta

depression2022.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#21

Post by Bubble_Pop_22 »

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?

> 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?

Meta shareholders signed up for the double class share agreement which enables Zuck to do whatever he wants.

And besides it's is kind of right, given the past execution ever since 2004 he kinda earned the right to bet the company on something new. Billions of people use the different flavors of Meta , and they do sohundreds if not thoudands of times per day. Nobody else can claim to having provided quality of life to so many people.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#22

Post by sp332 »

nvarsj wrote: post #9
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…

It’s bizarre to me that Apple has had no antitrust allegations yet. The way they manage iOS and the App Store is like a much worse version of Microsoft in the 90s.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/15/apples-antitrust-... Those are up to 2020. Last year there was a spotify complaint, and this year the DOJ said they're looking into the 30% cut the app store takes.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#23

Post by andsoitis »

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…

Windows CE released in 1996.

Apple Newton (hardware & OS) released in 1993 and discontinued in 1998.

Palm Pilot introduced in 1997.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#24

Post by Rebelgecko »

moolcool wrote: post #10
mathattack wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not too late. The money they spent is a sunk cost. If all they did was say, “We are going to milk advertising and give our cash to shareholders” they would do just fine. Or they could focus on creating the next social network. But… Maybe just maybe they pull this off. I just have a great idea on Mark’s product intuition, since so much of Meta’s growth has been data analysis driven.

> But… Maybe just maybe they pull this off It would be bad if they pull it off. I dread the day draconian call center employers make their workers put on headsets and track their eye movements for 8 hours a day, all while charging them for a virtual cubicle with a view. Look at the marketing materials for their latest headset, that's the way it's going.

Granted in more bullish on VR than most, but I'm skeptical of the scenario you're dreading- outside of the world "virtual" I think that entire situation is possible today, but it hasn't happened yet. Call center employees are already required to wear headsets, and if you're sitting in front of a laptop there's nothing technical preventing your employer from implementing an eye-tracking computer vision powered panopticon.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#25

Post by tptacek »

colinmhayes wrote: post #16
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. Over the coming years, the number of people who choose to sell, buy, or hold will determine the outcome of the Metaverse experiment. So that's the right frame here, not whether Zuckerberg can continue pursuing it --- if only because the Zuckerberg question is much less interesting to think about.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#26

Post by kypro »

I'll provide an opinion I think is likely untrue, but interesting to consider here. I think there is a small but possible chance that these moves from Zuck coupled with the rebrand are possibly attempts to intentionally scare of investors and evade some of the regulatory scrutiny Facebook attracts.

In my opinion Zuck has been acting weird since the Apple's privacy change announcement. I'm not a long-term shareholder of META/FB, but I have followed the companies IR material for some time and I've never seen Zuck act like this before. On the last few earnings calls it's hard at times not to wonder if he's trying to make investors nervous...

For example, telling investors that they didn't see the Tiktok threat coming. Or that Apple's privacy change is a serious threat to their business. Or just recently that he "thinks" (very unconvincingly) that their huge Metaverse investments will pay off.

One of the main problems Meta has today is that despite their relatively weak moat compared to other big tech companies is that they're treated with far more scrutiny from regulators. And on the flip side you have for dominant companies like Apple which are literally destroying the ad business model that many tech companies rely on while demanding a 30% tax from developers and attracting relatively little regulatory attention while doing so.

One of the things that has made Meta such a strong player historically has been their ability to make very smart accusations, but this is no longer possible because regulators see them as such a dominant player. In some ways Meta was actually strategically stronger as a smaller player.

So perhaps this is just part of the strategy. Historically if you want Western governments to give you a bit of a hand then being out competed by companies in hostile countries isn't a bad move. Similarly if you want to stop companies like Apple from targeting you then making it look like they're doing an unreasonable amount of damage to your business, probably isn't a bad move either.

And Zuck is an interesting position given the share structure of the company. Where other companies would have to bend to investors, Zuck can force down the stock price and ignore investor demands. Again, I'm not saying I think he is doing this, but it's an explanation I'm beginning to weight heavier.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#27

Post by tptacek »

Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: post #21
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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? Meta shareholders signed up for the double class share agreement which enables Zuck to do whatever he wants. And besides it's is kind of right, given the past execution ever since 2004 he kinda earned the righ…

They gave up one means they had to influence Meta's behavior: they can't vote him out. But shareholders almost never vote anybody out regardless of how the share class structure is set up. So the real question is: will they continue to hold Meta's stock?

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#28

Post by lotsofpulp »

runevault wrote: post #11
nwienert wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 basic…

> 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.

Why is this a problem? If a business does something that obviated another business, that is the obviated business’s problem.

Websites and computers displaced travel agents, streaming displaced cable/satellite tv middlemen, etc. If a business suffers because they are providing less utility to customers than another business, that is a sign of a functioning market.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#29

Post by nwienert »

runevault wrote: post #11
nwienert wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 basic…

They should be damaging each other more if anything, I see 0 problem with that. Apple launching a search engine would be the best possible thing for the world any of these companies could do, given how terrible Google has become.

And Google is by far the worst of the bunch, closest to 1984 mixed with some of the worst of old Microsoft and a splattering of pure degradation of societal fabric though incessant advertising. They have no taste, no ideals, they have suffocated all competition in the most important industry we have (information gathering) systematically and then turned the entire thing into pay to play.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#30

Post by colinmhayes »

kypro wrote: post #26

I'll provide an opinion I think is likely untrue, but interesting to consider here. I think there is a small but possible chance that these moves from Zuck coupled with the rebrand are possibly attempts to intentionally scare of investors and evade some of the regulatory scrutiny Facebook attracts. In my opinion Zuck has been acting weird since the Apple's privacy change announcement. I'm not a long-term shareholder…

I think this is a pretty interesting idea. I think it’s less about business strategy/acquisitions and more about increasing buyback power. Meta took a $10 billion loan this year in order to increase buybacks, my understanding is that that’s the first long term loan they’ve ever taken. They bought back 2% of their stock last year and I suspect the buybacks will only increase now that the stock is sub $100.
Post reply on HN