7 ms·
Zuck is a pretty uninspiring orator, with a tendency to use flat metaphors and bland platitudes. He's also not much of a creative visionary. His version of what
by netcan 5y ago
Zuck is a pretty uninspiring orator, with a tendency to use flat metaphors and bland platitudes. He's also not much of a creative visionary. His version of what "metaverse" will be has Jetsons sort of logic. You get up, have some virtual toast and commute in a virtual car to a virtual office, then go home and feed your virtual pet. ... I'm exaggerating, but you get my meaning. JC, is, in contrast, quite inspiring.
Anyway, Zuck's easy to make fun of. Easy to underestimate too.
Back in the 90s, it was thought to have been proven that an AOL-like attempt to top-down control the WWW was doomed to failure. An open web was too powerful. Well... that was before Zuck.
In many countries, FB-only internet is free and that means FB-only internet is the internet for like a billion people. Meanwhile, lots of unsophisticated users who's first and only device is a smartphone are mostly just FB users. He defied conventional wisdom, made FB a walled garden. Zuck really did "do AOL."
Meanwhile, the IG & WA acquisitions are strategically flawless in retrospect. With his tactical skills in the early days, Zuck's managed to keep more shares and control over FB than other CEOs. He may not have style and he's not quite hip, but Zuck is effective in his strategies.
I'd like to believe Carmack is right and Zucks' lame, top-down VR metaverse is doomed... pun intended. But I also recall that Zuck bought John out, and he's the boss. That may not be coincidence.
- mmffrrss 5y agoAlthough Zuck is easy to mock about this move proves courage for a company as big as Fb. In the end, zuck understands that the risk of not changing is much greater than the risk of staying the same. Technology is unstoppable
- philjohn 5y agoMuch like Microsoft's misstep in not taking the internet seriously in the 90's, and not taking smartphones seriously in the 2000's.
- gjvc 5y agoPerhaps they thought they could deal with it in their own time. Instead, the world marched on.
- tim333 5y agoI think Microsoft did take them seriously. They just screwed up the execution. Like here's a "Microsoft’s Windows Mobile 2003 for Pocket PC Phone Edition" phone out a couple of years before the iPhone https://www.zdnet.com/product/anextek-sp230/ https://www.zdnet.com/product/anextek-sp230/
- fragmede 5y agoTheir problem with execution was the plan of vertical integration that Apple is known for. In particular, there's little that the first iPhone could do that Blackberry didn't already do at the time - except for one thing. Cost. Blackberry was a victim of their success in the business market segment, and Microsoft wanted to join them there. The iPhones initial launch included a deal with AT&T to make it a relatively affordable, consumer facing device, thus expanding the market as a whole, to the success we see today.
- marcodave 5y agoAs I recall, the iPhone originally had little to none integration with enterprise infrastructure, as Blackberry and Windows Phone had . In my view, The iphone was just too cool not to be in the hands of CEOs and CTOs , which most likely managed to bend companies rules to start allowing usage of iphones and basically making blackberry superfluous
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ootsootsoots 5y agoIt proves he thinks everyone will follow along anyway It proves Apple’s data labels and growing awareness digital ads drive little business, which proved Facebook is a non-contributor to the economy in a real way Zuck is just looking to keep his good times rolling as interest fades. This isn’t courage, this is “the writing is on the wall, let’s try something sooner than later.”
- rubyfan 5y agoThat’s how I read the situation. I think FB is cool for Gen-X and above and they are trying desperately to appeal to a younger audience. They have no where to go but down if they don’t figure that out.
- xattt 5y agoIs underwhelming performance/delivery a deliberate strategy? Carmack vs Zuckerberg I think can be summed up as follows: one builds things things people will genuinely like, and the other one force-feeds people until they like it and know no other option.
- netcan 5y agoPerformance & delivery are, to an extent, in the eye of the beholder. Success is relative to whatever you're trying to achieve.
- ootsootsoots 5y agoThere’s no real obligation to view Zuckerberg as a success at anything. Behavioral economics of the preceding decades trained people to sit and stare. His success is due to a shared idea lots of money = positive contributor
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- SPBS 5y ago> In many countries, FB-only internet is free and that means FB-only internet is the internet for like a billion people. I'm not so sure that this shows Facebook pulling off an odds-defying feat. AFAIK Facebook targeted people who would have never touched a mobile phone or have working internet otherwise. Any company with sufficiently deep pockets to subsidise internet for free could roll out a similar locked-down internet for these people.
- bradgranath 5y agoAOL was also ridiculously successful and owned the entire market. Until they didn't anymore because broadband infrastructure, now they're a prefix that you say before you say "Time Warner" How long until we get to say "Meta Disney"