3 ms·

They were great acquisitions because Facebook failed to compete in those markets. Facebook continues to fail to compete in the youth market. I don't think faili

They were great acquisitions because Facebook failed to compete in those markets. Facebook continues to fail to compete in the youth market. I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen. And they're still failing to innovate. Facebook now will be "retooling" toward "serving young adults the north star, rather than optimizing for older people." https://twitter.com/sarafischer/status/1452744573084708869 https://twitter.com/sarafischer/status/1452744573084708869 In practice what this means is that they have the same problem they did before, but antitrust scrutiny means they can't buy their way out of it this time.

tubby12345 5y ago
>I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen. I mean this is classic moving of goals posts - the only measure of acumen the CEO of a publically traded company is that little number called the share price. whether he buoys that number by brain-genius innovations or by brain-genius acquisitions, he's still demonstrating brain-genius business acumen (the proof of this seemingly tautological claim is that there are plenty of other companies that have failed to acquire their way out of irrelevance).
- wpietri 5y ago
  Not at all. I consider this in particular deeply incorrect: "only measure of acumen the CEO of a publicly traded company is that little number called the share price". And I'm hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason Facebook is in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's focus on dominance and profit without regard to little externalities like genocide. So you may have different goalposts for him, but that doesn't mean I've moved anything. If I'm trying to understand somebody's acumen, I want to see what they can do on their own. As someone else pointed out, Zuckerberg didn't even really have the one idea that he successfully exploited. He's rich, sure, but, "He's so rich that he must be a genius" is pretty far from my criteria for genius.
  - tubby12345 5y ago
    >And I'm hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason Facebook is in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's focus on dominance and profit without regard to little externalities like genocide. So you may have different goalposts for him, but that doesn't mean I've moved anything. you are moving goalposts you just don't see it. We're talking about business acumen, not scientific acument or mathematical acumen or ethics acumen. That FB is in the "public doghouse" is about as meaningful an observation as "the post office loses money every year" or "NASA can't afford to pay its engineers as much as FAANG" or "the ACLU has never successfully tried a personal injury case". The only public that matters here are the public markets and they think zuckerberg is a genius (this recent blip not withstanding). >I want to see what they can do on their own. I mean that's your definition and you're welcome to it but for the rest of the world there is M&A. >"He's so rich that he must be a genius" is pretty far from my criteria for genius. to which i leave you with a quote >Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?
    - wpietri 5y ago
      >Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? But that's exactly my point. Zuckerberg isn't starting fresh every year. That's the sort of comparison I'd love to see. He's a guy who won very big based on some lucky choices at 19. And he's never started a fresh tournament since. In contrast, look at Steve Jobs. He's a fine example of "Once you're lucky, twice you're good." And more than twice, really. Started Apple, got pushed to the side Created the Macintosh and the LaserWriter and got booted. Helped get Pixar going. Started NeXT, which was a relative failure, but whose tech set him up nicely for an acquisition. Acquihired back at Apple and turned it into the juggernaut it is today. Say what you want about him, and I'll say plenty negative, but he clearly has skills. That's the kind of writeup I'm looking for about Zuckerberg. That all I'm getting is bluster and "but he's very rich" is its own kind of answer, I guess. > We're talking about business acumen Yes, we are. But your definition is a relatively narrow one where dominance and profit are the only measures of business success. I get why that's a popular definition here. But even here, it's not the only one. If the public markets are all that matter to you, fine, but at least try to recognize their are other criteria.
- freewilly1040 5y ago
  Even granting him that WhatsApp and Instagram were indeed savvy purchases, I think it is fair to say that purchasing nascent competitors is no longer a tool available to Facebook. Both because antitrust scrutiny and because those competitors likely don’t fear Facebook’s copycat routine like they once did. New product launches have indeed gone poorly. This certainly looks terrible to my eyes. Time will tell but skepticism is warranted.
prewett 5y ago
Not that I want to compliment Zuckerberg, but "buy what you can't build", "know what you can't build", and "reasonably estimate the value of a young company" all seem like business savvy to me. Warren Buffet could be accused of simply buying his way into a huge conglomerate, but instead he's celebrated as a wise investor...
rvz 5y ago
> I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen. I guess Apple failed to compete and innovate when they acquired NeXT and Beats. Or Microsoft failed to innovate as soon as they acquired GitHub and Xamarin. /s Very senseless acquisitions that have no long term strategy or reason behind it to sustain the future of the business or to compete in the market. /s
- wpietri 5y ago
  The reason that Apple had to buy NeXT was that they were absolutely failing internally to innovate. They tried for years to build a next-generation OS and were incapable. The acquisition was not a sign of success, but desperation. Indeed, part of that acquisition was firing the then-current CEO. So as an example, I think it better serves to point out why we should question Zuckerberg's performance.

tubby12345 5y ago

>I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen. I mean this is classic moving of goals posts - the only measure of acumen the CEO of a publically traded company is that little number called the share price. whether he buoys that number by brain-genius innovations or by brain-genius acquisitions, he's still demonstrating brain-genius business acumen (the proof of this seemingly tautological claim is that there are plenty of other companies that have failed to acquire their way out of irrelevance).

wpietri 5y ago
Not at all. I consider this in particular deeply incorrect: "only measure of acumen the CEO of a publicly traded company is that little number called the share price". And I'm hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason Facebook is in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's focus on dominance and profit without regard to little externalities like genocide. So you may have different goalposts for him, but that doesn't mean I've moved anything. If I'm trying to understand somebody's acumen, I want to see what they can do on their own. As someone else pointed out, Zuckerberg didn't even really have the one idea that he successfully exploited. He's rich, sure, but, "He's so rich that he must be a genius" is pretty far from my criteria for genius.
- tubby12345 5y ago
  >And I'm hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason Facebook is in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's focus on dominance and profit without regard to little externalities like genocide. So you may have different goalposts for him, but that doesn't mean I've moved anything. you are moving goalposts you just don't see it. We're talking about business acumen, not scientific acument or mathematical acumen or ethics acumen. That FB is in the "public doghouse" is about as meaningful an observation as "the post office loses money every year" or "NASA can't afford to pay its engineers as much as FAANG" or "the ACLU has never successfully tried a personal injury case". The only public that matters here are the public markets and they think zuckerberg is a genius (this recent blip not withstanding). >I want to see what they can do on their own. I mean that's your definition and you're welcome to it but for the rest of the world there is M&A. >"He's so rich that he must be a genius" is pretty far from my criteria for genius. to which i leave you with a quote >Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?
  - wpietri 5y ago
    >Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? But that's exactly my point. Zuckerberg isn't starting fresh every year. That's the sort of comparison I'd love to see. He's a guy who won very big based on some lucky choices at 19. And he's never started a fresh tournament since. In contrast, look at Steve Jobs. He's a fine example of "Once you're lucky, twice you're good." And more than twice, really. Started Apple, got pushed to the side Created the Macintosh and the LaserWriter and got booted. Helped get Pixar going. Started NeXT, which was a relative failure, but whose tech set him up nicely for an acquisition. Acquihired back at Apple and turned it into the juggernaut it is today. Say what you want about him, and I'll say plenty negative, but he clearly has skills. That's the kind of writeup I'm looking for about Zuckerberg. That all I'm getting is bluster and "but he's very rich" is its own kind of answer, I guess. > We're talking about business acumen Yes, we are. But your definition is a relatively narrow one where dominance and profit are the only measures of business success. I get why that's a popular definition here. But even here, it's not the only one. If the public markets are all that matter to you, fine, but at least try to recognize their are other criteria.
freewilly1040 5y ago
Even granting him that WhatsApp and Instagram were indeed savvy purchases, I think it is fair to say that purchasing nascent competitors is no longer a tool available to Facebook. Both because antitrust scrutiny and because those competitors likely don’t fear Facebook’s copycat routine like they once did. New product launches have indeed gone poorly. This certainly looks terrible to my eyes. Time will tell but skepticism is warranted.

prewett 5y ago

Not that I want to compliment Zuckerberg, but "buy what you can't build", "know what you can't build", and "reasonably estimate the value of a young company" all seem like business savvy to me. Warren Buffet could be accused of simply buying his way into a huge conglomerate, but instead he's celebrated as a wise investor...

rvz 5y ago

> I don't think failing to innovate and then buying your way out of the hole is a sign of particular acumen. I guess Apple failed to compete and innovate when they acquired NeXT and Beats. Or Microsoft failed to innovate as soon as they acquired GitHub and Xamarin. /s Very senseless acquisitions that have no long term strategy or reason behind it to sustain the future of the business or to compete in the market. /s

wpietri 5y ago
The reason that Apple had to buy NeXT was that they were absolutely failing internally to innovate. They tried for years to build a next-generation OS and were incapable. The acquisition was not a sign of success, but desperation. Indeed, part of that acquisition was firing the then-current CEO. So as an example, I think it better serves to point out why we should question Zuckerberg's performance.