6 ms·

> unlike, say, Google or Apple, I don't think Facebook has really ever had more than one big payoff idea. Interestingly, by revenue Apple is more of a one-tric

> unlike, say, Google or Apple, I don't think Facebook has really ever had more than one big payoff idea. Interestingly, by revenue Apple is more of a one-trick pony than Facebook. iPhone sales are fully half their revenue, and almost all of their software income is totally dependent on iPhones as well. Meanwhile at Meta, Instagram revenue is roughly equal to Facebook revenue.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
The social media website/phone app company gets half its revenue from one of its social media website/phone apps? Feel the diversification!
oblio 5y ago
And Google is 90% ads. OP wanted to use "cool" companies as examples but the actually diversified giants are Microsoft and Amazon.
- sniperjzp 5y ago
  It’s 81% to be precise according to it’s Q4 earnings.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Saying Google is "just" ads seems a bit disingenuous. Google controls the entire stack for ads, from the all important search, to Google network and YouTube, all the way to operating systems and the browser. That last part is important because Facebook got absolutely fucked by apples privacy changes on iOS. Google has diversified, but more importantly they're not reliant on another company's users.
  - oblio 5y ago
    And yet they're paying Apple billions to also be on iOS.
  - BbzzbB 5y ago
    >but more importantly they're not reliant on another company's users. Must be why they paid Apple $15B last year to be default search on Safari, a mob fee that increases by the year.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zepto 5y ago
Facebook is all ads, and Apple is much less dependent on the iPhone than it was before, and is continuing in the right direction.
- kritiko 5y ago
  Probably the most interesting thing Apple has going for investors is their move into advertising within iOS - and they’re kneecapping the competition through ATT.
  - zepto 5y ago
    They haven’t moved into advertising within iOS - that seems to be a popular falsehood these days. And they have steadily introduced new revenue streams such as Watch, Music, TV+. Services is where it is at.
initplus 5y ago
Apple's moat is much larger. The costs involved with hardware manufacture, and the need for a deep software ecosystem are challenging. Meanwhile Facebook is "just" an app. It's pure software, and doesn't have the same ecosystem tie in. It's not a platform in the way that android/ios/windows are. Starting a new social network is much cheaper than creating a new mobile platform.
parkingrift 5y ago
My reading of that comment is that FB itself hasn’t innovated in quite some time. FB “innovation” has come through acquisition. The core company hasn’t produced anything unique or compelling in over a decade. Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus were all acquisitions. I fundamentally don’t think FB can innovate. And I don’t think the regulatory situation will allow them to continue acquiring to grow. An example of this changing landscape is FB failed attempt to acquire Giphy. Can FB survive if they are forced to compete and innovate on their own? I doubt it.
papito 5y ago
Google is search/ads. This is their cash cow. Without it, it would have gone under years ago, just like Yahoo, with a bunch of dead-end project that either make no money or go nowhere.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

The social media website/phone app company gets half its revenue from one of its social media website/phone apps? Feel the diversification!

oblio 5y ago

And Google is 90% ads. OP wanted to use "cool" companies as examples but the actually diversified giants are Microsoft and Amazon.

sniperjzp 5y ago
It’s 81% to be precise according to it’s Q4 earnings.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Saying Google is "just" ads seems a bit disingenuous. Google controls the entire stack for ads, from the all important search, to Google network and YouTube, all the way to operating systems and the browser. That last part is important because Facebook got absolutely fucked by apples privacy changes on iOS. Google has diversified, but more importantly they're not reliant on another company's users.
- oblio 5y ago
  And yet they're paying Apple billions to also be on iOS.
- BbzzbB 5y ago
  >but more importantly they're not reliant on another company's users. Must be why they paid Apple $15B last year to be default search on Safari, a mob fee that increases by the year.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zepto 5y ago

Facebook is all ads, and Apple is much less dependent on the iPhone than it was before, and is continuing in the right direction.

kritiko 5y ago
Probably the most interesting thing Apple has going for investors is their move into advertising within iOS - and they’re kneecapping the competition through ATT.
- zepto 5y ago
  They haven’t moved into advertising within iOS - that seems to be a popular falsehood these days. And they have steadily introduced new revenue streams such as Watch, Music, TV+. Services is where it is at.

initplus 5y ago

Apple's moat is much larger. The costs involved with hardware manufacture, and the need for a deep software ecosystem are challenging. Meanwhile Facebook is "just" an app. It's pure software, and doesn't have the same ecosystem tie in. It's not a platform in the way that android/ios/windows are. Starting a new social network is much cheaper than creating a new mobile platform.

parkingrift 5y ago

My reading of that comment is that FB itself hasn’t innovated in quite some time. FB “innovation” has come through acquisition. The core company hasn’t produced anything unique or compelling in over a decade. Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus were all acquisitions. I fundamentally don’t think FB can innovate. And I don’t think the regulatory situation will allow them to continue acquiring to grow. An example of this changing landscape is FB failed attempt to acquire Giphy. Can FB survive if they are forced to compete and innovate on their own? I doubt it.

papito 5y ago

Google is search/ads. This is their cash cow. Without it, it would have gone under years ago, just like Yahoo, with a bunch of dead-end project that either make no money or go nowhere.