4 ms·

I don't disagree. I think Zuck is the face of the Facebook brand, but I don't think he's the right guy to run a company of this size. He was instrumental in two

by debt 9y ago

I don't disagree. I think Zuck is the face of the Facebook brand, but I don't think he's the right guy to run a company of this size. He was instrumental in two great acquisitions: WhatsApp and Instagram. Other than that, many of his initiatives are nearly complete failures: Internet.org, Facebook drone internet, Oculus, Portal, Facebook Phone, the developer program, the cloning of Snapchat, his own national press tour, etc. Not to mention, he's had numerous serious public-facing, brand-devaluing flubs that are literally too innumerable to list here. For some reason, he doesn't surround himself with the best people anymore. I think because he's surrounded by an army of comms/PR people rather than actual scientists and engineers at this point.

camillomiller 9y ago
The cloning of snapchat has succeded though, Instagram is doing great and it’s actually stealing users from that platform
- debt 9y ago
  I agree it was a business success. It's just not very innovative. But in business a lack of innovation is sign of decline. It signals to people that a company has become reactionary rather than revolutionary. I don't know if it matters, but it could be a cause for concern.
  - EpicEng 9y ago
    I'm fairly certain you would characterize nearly all of the world's largest and most successful companies as "not innovative" and therefore on the decline.
  - camillomiller 9y ago
    Samsung. :)
sidlls 9y ago
Actual scientists and engineers (I'm both of these) often are too narrowly focused on their own interests to be good at business at the scale of Facebook (or anything else for that matter). Scientific and engineering acumen are signs of intelligence, but not indicative of being "the best" in most contexts.
ojr 9y ago
GraphQL and React are some solid initiatives coming out of Facebook though
- debt 9y ago
  They don't make any money within themselves and those were engineer-driven initiatives.
lalos 9y ago
How close is Zuck to Thiel? I see some strong parallels to his initial mentor and would think he still supports him. You are right, maybe he should've surrounded himself with more variety of people.
adventured 9y ago
If you're not failing occasionally or perhaps regularly, you're likely not often attempting anything difficult. Amazon & Bezos, as one example, has failed at several very prominent efforts over the years, from competing with eBay in auctions, to competing with Google in traditional search, to the Amazon phone. Companies should not succeed at every venture. Not only is it impossible, it's undesirable for them to succeed like that. By that standard there has never been a successful company, because nobody has managed to own everything yet. The measure is overall value creation by the business for shareholders. Facebook is one of the greatest success stories in world business history by any reasonable measure of value creation, both in regards to its profit levels and balance sheet value increases. And they've done that in a shorter amount of time than any other company before them, with perhaps only Google a close second. FB net tangible assets have increased from $41 billion to ~$58 billion in the last year, that's twice the net tangible assets of Microsoft. Not only does Facebook have a healthier balance sheet than Microsoft, they're going to catch them on quarterly profits within about ~18 months. Microsoft is 42 years old, Facebook is 15 years old. Facebook's net tangible assets match that of Walmart. Here's what the balance sheets of other blue chips look like: Coca Cola: zero net tangible assets McDonald's: negative $5.6 billion Oracle: negative $1.5 billion Netflix: negative $6.7 billion Starbucks: positive $831k Comcast: negative $46 billion Boeing: negative $7.7 billion GE: negative $40 billion AT&T: negative $78 billion Verizon: negative $84 billion Procter & Gamble: negative $15 billion IBM: negative $22 billion Pfizer: negative $33 billion Johnson & Johnson: negative $25 billion Lockheed: negative $15 billion Home Depot: negative $821k 3M: negative $1.8 billion Delta Airlines: negative $731k UPS: negative $4.8 billion PepsiCo: negative $17 billion Walgreens: negative $590k
- rubyn00bie 9y ago
  Where are you getting this data from? None of it matches anything I'm seeing or is even close... Additionally, without knowing what is listed as a tangible asset there is very little way to compare them to businesses in completely different markets/industries.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

by debt 9y ago

camillomiller 9y ago

The cloning of snapchat has succeded though, Instagram is doing great and it’s actually stealing users from that platform

debt 9y ago
I agree it was a business success. It's just not very innovative. But in business a lack of innovation is sign of decline. It signals to people that a company has become reactionary rather than revolutionary. I don't know if it matters, but it could be a cause for concern.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  I'm fairly certain you would characterize nearly all of the world's largest and most successful companies as "not innovative" and therefore on the decline.
- camillomiller 9y ago
  Samsung. :)

sidlls 9y ago

Actual scientists and engineers (I'm both of these) often are too narrowly focused on their own interests to be good at business at the scale of Facebook (or anything else for that matter). Scientific and engineering acumen are signs of intelligence, but not indicative of being "the best" in most contexts.

ojr 9y ago

GraphQL and React are some solid initiatives coming out of Facebook though

debt 9y ago
They don't make any money within themselves and those were engineer-driven initiatives.

lalos 9y ago

How close is Zuck to Thiel? I see some strong parallels to his initial mentor and would think he still supports him. You are right, maybe he should've surrounded himself with more variety of people.

adventured 9y ago

If you're not failing occasionally or perhaps regularly, you're likely not often attempting anything difficult. Amazon & Bezos, as one example, has failed at several very prominent efforts over the years, from competing with eBay in auctions, to competing with Google in traditional search, to the Amazon phone. Companies should not succeed at every venture. Not only is it impossible, it's undesirable for them to succeed like that. By that standard there has never been a successful company, because nobody has managed to own everything yet. The measure is overall value creation by the business for shareholders. Facebook is one of the greatest success stories in world business history by any reasonable measure of value creation, both in regards to its profit levels and balance sheet value increases. And they've done that in a shorter amount of time than any other company before them, with perhaps only Google a close second. FB net tangible assets have increased from $41 billion to ~$58 billion in the last year, that's twice the net tangible assets of Microsoft. Not only does Facebook have a healthier balance sheet than Microsoft, they're going to catch them on quarterly profits within about ~18 months. Microsoft is 42 years old, Facebook is 15 years old. Facebook's net tangible assets match that of Walmart. Here's what the balance sheets of other blue chips look like: Coca Cola: zero net tangible assets McDonald's: negative $5.6 billion Oracle: negative $1.5 billion Netflix: negative $6.7 billion Starbucks: positive $831k Comcast: negative $46 billion Boeing: negative $7.7 billion GE: negative $40 billion AT&T: negative $78 billion Verizon: negative $84 billion Procter & Gamble: negative $15 billion IBM: negative $22 billion Pfizer: negative $33 billion Johnson & Johnson: negative $25 billion Lockheed: negative $15 billion Home Depot: negative $821k 3M: negative $1.8 billion Delta Airlines: negative $731k UPS: negative $4.8 billion PepsiCo: negative $17 billion Walgreens: negative $590k

rubyn00bie 9y ago
Where are you getting this data from? None of it matches anything I'm seeing or is even close... Additionally, without knowing what is listed as a tangible asset there is very little way to compare them to businesses in completely different markets/industries.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]