8 ms·

I said this before here in HN and I'd said it again. Facebook is a freaking money making machine and will be that for many years to come. Feel whatever you wan

I said this before here in HN and I'd said it again. Facebook is a freaking money making machine and will be that for many years to come. Feel whatever you want about Zuckerberg, the company, their products and anything else, but what they created is simply the best digital distribution channel besides Google. Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads. Putting opinions about privacy and politics aside (which are definitely topics that should be discussed), Facebook was the last Silicon Valley company to create something that literally has disrupted the way we live and interact. All the other ones that supposedly were on that road are barely alive (e.g: Uber). In contrast many of the current public tech companies with promising trajectories of global disruption (for example Shopify) were created outside of Silicon Valley. This is my personal opinion, but I think the golden Silicon Valley days are way in the past.

dvt 6y ago
> Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads. Completely agreed. Not to mention that their M&A strategy has also been nothing short of a master class: from Instagram, to WhatsApp, to Oculus. Money making machine indeed.
- sneak 6y ago
  To that end: is it possible today to build a major VC-funded consumer facing tech company (eg Oculus) without being forced to sell to an “evil” (privacy/human rights-disrespecting amoral multinational) acquirer? Snap is the only example I can think of that remained independent so far, and even they are one App Store flipped bit away from being out of business. Are there “never Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon” startups that have or would be able to raise nine figures to pursue big projects? Is that even a viable path, or is the winning endgame always just being acquired by Big Tech and Big Tech only? I guess my question is “Is avoiding major/typical VC funding the only way to “win” and not end up as FAANG staff?” The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path?
  - kgraves 6y ago
    No. But there are some different (and new) approaches / alternatives to the VC surveillance capitalist cycle we see when it comes to building a business. Be bootstrapped and profitable (Basecamp/Indie Hackers) or independent and ethical (Small Tech) [0]. You don't need to have the same goals as cancer to win in the tech space. [0] https://small-tech.org/ https://small-tech.org/
    - sneak 6y ago
      I believe this is a false dichotomy. It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, et c). I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. OWS has done it (in a strange way), so there are definitely some paths, if a bit weird.
      - kgraves 6y ago
        Those are just quick examples I listed, (you could have both or utilise crowdfunding!) I do find that companies that need to continuously raise cash from venture capitalists (as many startups do) don't have the customers (not users) interests at heart and are already financially and morally bankrupt. (They are already thinking about a 10x exit rather than focusing on building a great profitable business!) > It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, etc). All of this (and every startup needs this to grow) is usually at the cost of the customers privacy. All the time. > I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. You don't have to sell out to the big tech companies, just be a regular profitable business from the start and don't spy on your customers.
  - dvt 6y ago
    > The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path? You mention Snapchat, and I think that's a great example. I'm somewhat cynical, having tried (and failed) several times launching a consumer-facing social-style app, but Snapchat gives me hope. For years, it was a pretty mediocre one-trick-pony, but it just goes to show how important user metrics are. It didn't start out with millions of dollars (like TikTok) and it didn't start out with influencers (like Clubhouse). It just resonated with high school and college kids, and that was enough.
- tqi 6y ago
  Some hits for sure, but also a lot of duds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The tbh acquisition was a complete waste of time and money. Time will tell how giphy works out...
  - robterrell 6y ago
    Hard disagree. TBH had great disruptive potential -- it was huge in middle/high schools. If someone else acquired it, FB was looking at possible a re-run of the Snapchat playbook, where a younger audience not yet on FB was lost to them.
perl4ever 6y ago
>simply the best digital distribution channel besides Google It appears Google just had their first revenue decline ever. I guess it was anticipated, and people aren't particularly freaking out, but I wonder if it will be a turning point in hindsight a year from now.
- cma 6y ago
  Travel ads/flights are huge for them compared to Facebook.
dcolkitt 6y ago
Personal opinions aside, it's amazing how little credit Zuckerberg gets as an executive. At least compared to Bezos, Gates, Jobs, Musk, even Larry&Sergei. I think it's pretty hard to identify even a single major strategic decision that Zuckerberg didn't get right given enough hindsight.
- throwaway_fb730 6y ago
  I recently read Steven Levy's _Facebook_, which I thought was a well-balanced history of the company. Some mistakes he highlights that resonated with me: Facebook Platform, Beacon, Cambridge Analytica, foreign expansion without native language support, release of private Messenger records to 3rd parties, placing Security within the business rather than engineering organization and failing to respond to state-actor threats
- johnfn 6y ago
  I'd suspect this is because we evaluate CEOs not just as ruthless money maximizers but as people who use their outsized leverage and influence to create a positive impact on the world. It's hard to argue that Facebook has given us anything of the degree of benefit that, say, Google has, or Tesla could.
  - s1t5 6y ago
    Personality and public image play a big part too. Zuckerberg has the charisma of a head of lettuce on his best days.
    - CerealFounder 6y ago
      True, but dont underestimate how little effort he's made to anything but growing revenue.
  - SirensOfTitan 6y ago
    Asking out of curiosity, not sarcastically: how has Google made a positive impact on the world?
hrktb 6y ago
> Facebook was the last Silicon Valley company to create something that literally has disrupted the way we live and interact. I feel completely out of the loop. What has facebook created that is so impactful ? I see them as a company that incrementaly executed better than the previous social networks and successfully killed/absorbed competition. But is there any critical thing they really created from the end user point of view ?
- mdoms 6y ago
  > What has facebook created that is so impactful ? facebook.com
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hrktb 6y ago
  I don’t mind the downvotes, but would want some guidance. I don’t use facebook, so I’d genuinely want to know what it has disrupted in the way you live that the other SNS won’t do.
  - whoisjuan 6y ago
    They are so incredibly large in user numbers that they have the ability to reach almost anyone in developed countries through their platforms. It's not the product but its magnitude. That's the disruption IMO.
    - hrktb 6y ago
      But is it a disruption if they operate as a larger version of an already successful phenomenon ? I’d see how a service like Streetview would be seen as disruptive because of bringing a fringe fonctionnality to a mass market in a unprecedented scale. But I feel like calling Facebook disruptive is like saying Samsung is revolutionnary, by the sheer massive number of smartphones they sell.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ytpete 6y ago
> Facebook was the last Silicon Valley company to create something that literally has disrupted the way we live and interact. All the other ones that supposedly were on that road are barely alive (e.g: Uber). I don't know... * Apple disrupted the way we live and interact more recently (iPhone). * Uber & Lyft may be barely alive currently, but mostly/only because of Covid - they were doing decently enough before then. Same for AirBnb, though IMHO they're not as disruptive. * If Facebook counts despite poorly executed earlier companies attempting the same idea, then Netflix probably counts for this list too - crappy cable TV on-demand existed before them, but widespread changes in how we consume video didn't occur until the rise of Netflix streaming. * Amazon didn't really take over all of online shopping until around the same time Facebook was exploding, if I remember. * Widespread consumer access to GPS - starting with Garmins in cars, then later smartphones - didn't really happen until well into the Facebook era as well. * The dominance of the SaaS model mostly came after Facebook too.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  Yeah I understand all your points. But I'm saying that no company has been able to replicate the rapid rise and dominance of Facebook since the latter went public. Maybe in the next decade Uber or AirBnB or one of these SaaS players will have a major explosive new product or service, like Apple had with the iPod and later with the iPhone, and become a real tech behemoth. Time will tell.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  Amazon isn't a SV company.
  - ytpete 6y ago
    I was interpreting it as a metonym (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy) for tech startups in general. Uber, Lyft, and AirBnb aren't literally "Silicon Valley" companies either since they are based in SF.
rhizome 6y ago
>what they created is simply the best digital distribution channel besides Google. Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads. Facebook cheated. They stole the advertising industry from print and broadcast with lies. Google helped, but AFAIK with fewer lies. Facebook doesn't have a Jeff Dean (or pg/Yahoo for that matter), they had the Napster guy. Facebook created nothing more than an attractive nuisance. Facebook is an object lesson in the amorality of capital. As long as they maintain an agreeable narrative to smooth over questionable ethics along the way, they will be called a miracle. Capitalism is defined as a system inclined to accept success on its terms without question, and someone like Zuck who tells a vague story about FB's purpose just seems like gravy, feels like transparency.

dvt 6y ago

> Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads. Completely agreed. Not to mention that their M&A strategy has also been nothing short of a master class: from Instagram, to WhatsApp, to Oculus. Money making machine indeed.

sneak 6y ago
To that end: is it possible today to build a major VC-funded consumer facing tech company (eg Oculus) without being forced to sell to an “evil” (privacy/human rights-disrespecting amoral multinational) acquirer? Snap is the only example I can think of that remained independent so far, and even they are one App Store flipped bit away from being out of business. Are there “never Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon” startups that have or would be able to raise nine figures to pursue big projects? Is that even a viable path, or is the winning endgame always just being acquired by Big Tech and Big Tech only? I guess my question is “Is avoiding major/typical VC funding the only way to “win” and not end up as FAANG staff?” The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path?
- kgraves 6y ago
  No. But there are some different (and new) approaches / alternatives to the VC surveillance capitalist cycle we see when it comes to building a business. Be bootstrapped and profitable (Basecamp/Indie Hackers) or independent and ethical (Small Tech) [0]. You don't need to have the same goals as cancer to win in the tech space. [0] https://small-tech.org/ https://small-tech.org/
  - sneak 6y ago
    I believe this is a false dichotomy. It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, et c). I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. OWS has done it (in a strange way), so there are definitely some paths, if a bit weird.
    - kgraves 6y ago
      Those are just quick examples I listed, (you could have both or utilise crowdfunding!) I do find that companies that need to continuously raise cash from venture capitalists (as many startups do) don't have the customers (not users) interests at heart and are already financially and morally bankrupt. (They are already thinking about a 10x exit rather than focusing on building a great profitable business!) > It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, etc). All of this (and every startup needs this to grow) is usually at the cost of the customers privacy. All the time. > I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. You don't have to sell out to the big tech companies, just be a regular profitable business from the start and don't spy on your customers.
- dvt 6y ago
  > The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path? You mention Snapchat, and I think that's a great example. I'm somewhat cynical, having tried (and failed) several times launching a consumer-facing social-style app, but Snapchat gives me hope. For years, it was a pretty mediocre one-trick-pony, but it just goes to show how important user metrics are. It didn't start out with millions of dollars (like TikTok) and it didn't start out with influencers (like Clubhouse). It just resonated with high school and college kids, and that was enough.
tqi 6y ago
Some hits for sure, but also a lot of duds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The tbh acquisition was a complete waste of time and money. Time will tell how giphy works out...
- robterrell 6y ago
  Hard disagree. TBH had great disruptive potential -- it was huge in middle/high schools. If someone else acquired it, FB was looking at possible a re-run of the Snapchat playbook, where a younger audience not yet on FB was lost to them.

perl4ever 6y ago

>simply the best digital distribution channel besides Google It appears Google just had their first revenue decline ever. I guess it was anticipated, and people aren't particularly freaking out, but I wonder if it will be a turning point in hindsight a year from now.

cma 6y ago
Travel ads/flights are huge for them compared to Facebook.

dcolkitt 6y ago

Personal opinions aside, it's amazing how little credit Zuckerberg gets as an executive. At least compared to Bezos, Gates, Jobs, Musk, even Larry&Sergei. I think it's pretty hard to identify even a single major strategic decision that Zuckerberg didn't get right given enough hindsight.

throwaway_fb730 6y ago
I recently read Steven Levy's _Facebook_, which I thought was a well-balanced history of the company. Some mistakes he highlights that resonated with me: Facebook Platform, Beacon, Cambridge Analytica, foreign expansion without native language support, release of private Messenger records to 3rd parties, placing Security within the business rather than engineering organization and failing to respond to state-actor threats
johnfn 6y ago
I'd suspect this is because we evaluate CEOs not just as ruthless money maximizers but as people who use their outsized leverage and influence to create a positive impact on the world. It's hard to argue that Facebook has given us anything of the degree of benefit that, say, Google has, or Tesla could.
- s1t5 6y ago
  Personality and public image play a big part too. Zuckerberg has the charisma of a head of lettuce on his best days.
  - CerealFounder 6y ago
    True, but dont underestimate how little effort he's made to anything but growing revenue.
- SirensOfTitan 6y ago
  Asking out of curiosity, not sarcastically: how has Google made a positive impact on the world?

hrktb 6y ago

> Facebook was the last Silicon Valley company to create something that literally has disrupted the way we live and interact. I feel completely out of the loop. What has facebook created that is so impactful ? I see them as a company that incrementaly executed better than the previous social networks and successfully killed/absorbed competition. But is there any critical thing they really created from the end user point of view ?

mdoms 6y ago
> What has facebook created that is so impactful ? facebook.com
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hrktb 6y ago
I don’t mind the downvotes, but would want some guidance. I don’t use facebook, so I’d genuinely want to know what it has disrupted in the way you live that the other SNS won’t do.
- whoisjuan 6y ago
  They are so incredibly large in user numbers that they have the ability to reach almost anyone in developed countries through their platforms. It's not the product but its magnitude. That's the disruption IMO.
  - hrktb 6y ago
    But is it a disruption if they operate as a larger version of an already successful phenomenon ? I’d see how a service like Streetview would be seen as disruptive because of bringing a fringe fonctionnality to a mass market in a unprecedented scale. But I feel like calling Facebook disruptive is like saying Samsung is revolutionnary, by the sheer massive number of smartphones they sell.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ytpete 6y ago

> Facebook was the last Silicon Valley company to create something that literally has disrupted the way we live and interact. All the other ones that supposedly were on that road are barely alive (e.g: Uber). I don't know... * Apple disrupted the way we live and interact more recently (iPhone). * Uber & Lyft may be barely alive currently, but mostly/only because of Covid - they were doing decently enough before then. Same for AirBnb, though IMHO they're not as disruptive. * If Facebook counts despite poorly executed earlier companies attempting the same idea, then Netflix probably counts for this list too - crappy cable TV on-demand existed before them, but widespread changes in how we consume video didn't occur until the rise of Netflix streaming. * Amazon didn't really take over all of online shopping until around the same time Facebook was exploding, if I remember. * Widespread consumer access to GPS - starting with Garmins in cars, then later smartphones - didn't really happen until well into the Facebook era as well. * The dominance of the SaaS model mostly came after Facebook too.

whoisjuan 6y ago
Yeah I understand all your points. But I'm saying that no company has been able to replicate the rapid rise and dominance of Facebook since the latter went public. Maybe in the next decade Uber or AirBnB or one of these SaaS players will have a major explosive new product or service, like Apple had with the iPod and later with the iPhone, and become a real tech behemoth. Time will tell.
thehappypm 6y ago
Amazon isn't a SV company.
- ytpete 6y ago
  I was interpreting it as a metonym (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy) for tech startups in general. Uber, Lyft, and AirBnb aren't literally "Silicon Valley" companies either since they are based in SF.

rhizome 6y ago

>what they created is simply the best digital distribution channel besides Google. Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads. Facebook cheated. They stole the advertising industry from print and broadcast with lies. Google helped, but AFAIK with fewer lies. Facebook doesn't have a Jeff Dean (or pg/Yahoo for that matter), they had the Napster guy. Facebook created nothing more than an attractive nuisance. Facebook is an object lesson in the amorality of capital. As long as they maintain an agreeable narrative to smooth over questionable ethics along the way, they will be called a miracle. Capitalism is defined as a system inclined to accept success on its terms without question, and someone like Zuck who tells a vague story about FB's purpose just seems like gravy, feels like transparency.