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

Meta Myths

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 210 posts

Re: Meta Myths

#31

Post by throwthere »

PaulWaldman wrote: post #8

I 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?

"Daily Active Users (DAUs). We define a daily active user as a registered and logged-in Facebook user who visited Facebook through our website or a mobile device, or used our Messenger application (and is also a registered Facebook user), on a given day. We view DAUs, and DAUs as a percentage of MAUs, as measures of user engagement on Facebook."

So, no.

Re: Meta Myths

#32

Post by uniformlyrandom »

ksec wrote: post #4

Markets 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.

> Everyone hates Facebook

No, not everyone. Everyone on Reddit, and 50% on HN hate Facebook. All the power they have is to post snarky comments, upvote, and (maybe) downvote.

Re: Meta Myths

#33

Post by mjr00 »

Interesting article. People really want Meta to fail because the "metaverse" is one of the dumbest pivots of an established company of all time. Since the pivot and rename happened a year ago, the metaverse has probably bombed -- and I say probably only because nobody can define exactly what it is, still, beyond people having VR meetings with odd pseudo-Mii avatars -- and the investors convinced that Zuckerberg was having a Jobs-esque visionary moment have realized, "Wait, maybe the critics were right and this is bullshit."

But as the article points out.. maybe none of this matters. Advertising spend is still going up, the recession may or may not be turning a corner, and there's enough cash buffer to walk things back and refocus on Meta's core advertising business and products that support that.

Re: Meta Myths

#34

Post by atirip »

> Reels usage is still growing

But of course, as Meta put gun to the head of everyone - you WILL make Reels, or else - and now all the people I follow, increasingly make Reels. I hate Reels.

Re: Meta Myths

#36

Post by stephc_int13 »

I am pretty sure that Kodak or Nokia had pretty healthy results when the wind turned for them.

Those kinds of ships are so big that it is very easy for managers, investors and employees to convince themselves that everything is _fine_.

The biggest problem, for Meta, in my opinion, is not the brand, not the business model and not the competition. The problem is much worse because it is internal and probably too late to fix.

Their engineering culture as a whole is a one trick pony.

Re: Meta Myths

#37

Post by alerter »

I always wondered if it was a mistake for Facebook to try to rapidly casualise VR after acquiring Oculus. If they spent even a small fraction of their metaverse billions developing high-end, niche products (flight/mech sims etc.) then they could cultivate a loyal base of affluent users. It probably wouldn't be profitable by itself, but it would grow their user base and act as a nice showcase of what VR is capable of. More so than the cartoon office space vibe.

Re: Meta Myths

#38

Post by tokai »

bee_rider wrote: post #30
tokai wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counterexample is not a counter to an example given, but an example that counters or refutes what has been stated.

It seems impossible that a single example could counter a statement that is basically "it is good but also has some downsides."

I'm just correcting AlbertCory's wrong understanding of the word counterexample. I don't care for their discussion.

Re: Meta Myths

#39

Post by tangue »

uniformlyrandom wrote: post #32
ksec wrote: post #4

Markets 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.

> Everyone hates Facebook No, not everyone. Everyone on Reddit, and 50% on HN hate Facebook. All the power they have is to post snarky comments, upvote, and (maybe) downvote.

I actually did love Facebook and had success with ads in the past but there were so much redesigns in the ad manager that I can’t use it anymore

Re: Meta Myths

#40

Post by stevewatson301 »

sathish316 wrote: post #11

“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?

They’d probably use old conversion data to train their model. With time, it’ll be less useful but they only need a short term solution for now.
Post reply on HN