A Meta Analysis on Meta
depression2022.substack.com
A Meta Analysis on Meta
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#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?
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#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 unlike with Microsoft, this was an existential issue for Meta. That's largely what Metaverse itself is.
Apple has 100% of the leverage and is building their own ad product, so they likely turned Meta down with zero recourse.
Apple has too much power.
With one flip of a switch, Apple wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars. The entire business of a company. This is monopoly.
Apple captured half of American computing and taxes everything that can possibly be done. Subscriptions, social networking, dating, movies, you name it.
At no point in American history has a company had this much power.
Meta is trying to build the next platform so that they can be the ones to control it. These sorts of total platform monopolization plays are bad for technology, smaller businesses (even 10B market cap ones), and innovation. The DOJ needs to step in and do its job.
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#4> 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 IBM lunch etc.
If Microsoft hadn't thrown the tower with Windows Phones, the present could have been very different!
Now they are playing catchup, and I think that's what FB (now Meta) wants to avoid.
Some companies manage to pivot (ex: Netflix did) but most can't: for example, Palm who couldn't leave PalmOS behind. Nokia also fumbled, even with the help of Microsoft, because they couldn't bear sacrificing their Symbian cash cow.
Same for Microsoft actually: Windows 8 was too little too late, and the switch from CE to Windows Mobile 6 then 7 then 10 did spread too thin the developer attention: having to use a different language + UI each time required too much effort for too little gains.
Windows 10 managed to correct the course, and Windows 11 is surprisingly good, but it may be too late and playing catchup with Android is not a nice position.
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#5> 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.
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#6> 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’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 order to ensure his company can’t be destroyed by other companies taxing him like apple did, and second I do think that mark is legitimately committed to connecting people whatever that means to him. Reality labs still seems like a good way to accomplish these goals even if it isn’t financially worth it.
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#7> 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.
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 integrations and killed thousands of companies overnight. And that doesn’t make either a monopoly. None of your statements add up to the other.
> At no point in American history has a company had this much power.
This is funny. Google has more power by a large margin (influencing opinion, killing off entire industries on a nearly yearly basis), and has engaged in much more nefarious anti-competitive behavior.
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#8> 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?
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.
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#9> 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.
Re: A Meta Analysis on Meta
#10> 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?
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.