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

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#31

Post by colinmhayes »

tptacek wrote: post #25
colinmhayes wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But I’m saying that’s not true. My thesis is that meta’s share price has next to 0 effect on how much mark chooses to shove into reality labs.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#32

Post by hyuuu »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #5
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. This is a ridiculous way to characterize a business presenting its customers an option to not be tracked by other businesses.

I hope you realize that Apple is creating its own ad exchange business. Their messaging of caring about user privacy is a sham though I have to admit, masterfully executed.

If you read the leaked email of wanting to take a cut from FB business should tell you that their first and foremost intention is to take a cut from the ads and their latest jab at Meta was for the cut in boosting post ads. This is monopoly 101.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#33

Post by moolcool »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #24
moolcool wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 panopti…

All I'm saying is that it's not a coincidence that Adobe Acrobat and Dropbox are the top-billed apps for Meta Quest Pro

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#34

Post by tptacek »

colinmhayes wrote: post #31
tptacek wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But I’m saying that’s not true. My thesis is that meta’s share price has next to 0 effect on how much mark chooses to shove into reality labs.

We're talking past each other. I agree with you. But the ultimate benchmark will be the stock performance, not Zuckerberg's willpower.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#35

Post by echelon »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #5
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. This is a ridiculous way to characterize a business presenting its customers an option to not be tracked by other businesses.

If Apple didn't have an App Store and behave monopolistically, it wouldn't be ridiculous.

Apple lets your competitors purchase ads in the name of your trademark.

Apple makes you jump through hoops to develop, doesn't let you deploy at will, forces your technology choices, and can unilaterally destroy your business.

Apple purposefully cripples web to force app development.

Apple forces you to model your customer relationship in their system, which they can sever. Thinking forward, they'll probably start to charge access to this too.

Apple has 50% of American consumer computing. As Microsoft and Facebook and many others have shown, this market is now impossible to enter.

All companies need access to computing. They've captured something as essential as air and hobbled it all up.

Apple takes 30%.

Apple isn't using these proceeds to advance mobile computing, and small companies need these margins to fund their own teams and developments. This singular dynamic is an unnatural weight and strain on the free market and how technology is supposed to develop. It's a calcified ISP move.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#36

Post by zmmmmm »

You really can't evaluate what Meta is doing unless you adopt a particular perspective on the future of computing, and I think there's a fairly stark divide between a minority of people and the rest on this: either you think VR/AR is the future of computing or you don't. You can have a big argument about that, but once you "red pill" yourself and become convinced that one way or another this tech is the future of computing, just about everything Zuckerberg is doing makes sense.

I think Zuckerberg sees it as totally inevitable that VR/MR/AR is the future of computing and he also sees from living through the iOS/Android experience that there is really only room for two players in a space like that. Given Apple will cruise into one of those, it simply comes down to, who is number two? Mark wants to be number two. Who could stop him? There isn't really anybody. In theory Google could have but they've chose to stand by the sidelines. They appear to be making the lazy assumption that, since they are smarter than everybody else in the room, if it turns out to be a mistake they can come back in and overtake - that looks delusional to me but it fits with Google's character. If you're Zuckerberg this looks like utter foolishness and the most important thing right now is to race to cement as much of an advantage before they come to their senses.

Another interesting feature of the iOS/Android comparison is that arguably Google has never really made much money from Android. It has worked for them defensively but it hasn't ever really done more than support their other businesses. Mark doesn't want to be in that position. So he's going to make an open ecosystem play but he's going to do it by owning the hardware and hence a vastly greater share of the profits.

The author asks whether Meta can earn $20B/year from the metaverse. I would say that Mark is shooting here at a 30% chance of making $200B/year. Which is to say in a completely different way, to him at least, it's a no-brainer. However he's effectively taking Meta back to being a startup. So it's right for conservative investors to leave - they never really should have been there in the first place. But it's not necessarily an indictment of his strategy if they do. It's just the wrong risk profile for such investors.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#37

Post by zmmmmm »

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…

> The meta verse should have been the extending the space where people and technology over lap

it's interesting because what you say is actually highly aligned with the vision Zuckerberg has stated. Whether he really does it or not, who knows. But, for example, Horizon Workrooms let's you participate equally in 2D or 3D, and they are already shipping unintrusive "smart glasses" as wearables [0].

[0] https://www.meta.com/us/glasses/

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#38

Post by zmmmmm »

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…

> They are just too early

I think this is part of the dilemma though. Apple has been rumoured to be on the verge of releasing their AR solution for several years now. It looks even more likely next year. If they do, Meta will be behind. So in one sense you can say they are too early, in another you can say they are already too late. So if you're both too early and too late, maybe you are actually at least trying at the peak of your opportunity to execute. It may come off or it may not, but the odds are not going to be better a year from now if Apple releases and captures the whole premium tier for itself.

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#39

Post by voisin »

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?

Isn’t the better question “what should Meta employees do?”

Shareholders have zero power given the corporate structure. Employees can leave to greener pastures and leave Zuckerberg to wallow with the B-players that are only in it for the paycheck. How many A-players want to tilt at windmills with him?

Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta

#40

Post by likpok »

voisin wrote: post #39
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? Isn’t the better question “what should Meta employees do?” Shareholders have zero power given the corporate structure. Employees can leave to greener pastures and leave Zuckerberg to wallow with the B-players that are only in it for the paycheck. How many A-players want to tilt at windmills with him?

Wouldn't the people only in it for a paycheck leave (because the stock becomes less valuable), leaving only the mission-oriented true believers?
Post reply on HN