3 ms·

it's still facebook - stop calling it meta

by buggythebug 5y ago

nicce 5y ago
Quite opposite - call it Meta that their name change does not help their brand.
- kangalioo 5y ago
  Switch back end forth between Meta and Facebook to enforce the connection
tentacleuno 5y ago
Genuine question: does Facebook own Meta, or does Meta own Facebook? Or is it Meta Platforms[0]? Will Facebook (the product) as everyone knows it continue to be marketed as Facebook (under the leadership of Meta), or is facebook.com going to be re-branded as Meta? I looked the other day and it still comes up as Facebook... and Meta. What the hell? Addendum: why does meta.com redirect to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms [1]: https://about.facebook.com/meta https://about.facebook.com/meta
- davedx 5y ago
  Meta is like Alphabet. Facebook, Insta, WhatsApp are products under Meta. Facebook the product will stay the same. Where it gets a bit hazy is what the new "Metaverse" product will be exactly, something something VR something AR.
- martin_a 5y ago
  I think it's the same as with Google. Of course there's some "hull" called "Alphabet" who legally owns Google, but what more than a hull is it? Don't know whether it's for tax reasons, spreading the risk, trying to decouple the image in case of failed products, everybody knows that Alphabet == Google. Same goes for Facebook and Meta: There might be a Meta hull but that hull is quite packed with Facebook, so it does not really matter what the hull is called (or does).
  - tentacleuno 5y ago
    Yeah, Alphabet certainly came to mind when I first heard the news about Meta. I'm guessing it's for tax reasons too since they're also (well, Facebook) located in Ireland. There seemed to be a big push to move companies to Ireland a few years back.
  - pooper 5y ago
    I can't exactly explain why but in my mind, Alphabet and Google make sense. My thought process is that Google makes money that it then uses for other things which are not Google. I don't understand Facebook's name change. It is still Facebook. It wants to stay as a cohesive unit and share data across products. It isn't like Facebook will ever voluntarily give up whatsapp or instagram. I can't quite explain it but I am willing to disassociate the stock ticker Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) from Google but not Facebook (NASDAQ:FB)
- dspillett 5y ago
  Meta is a holding company, much like Alphabet for Google, and is intended to limit cross-concern damage. By keeping services as separate entities under the holding company they are shielded from each other to an extent with regard to tax, other financial, regulatory, criminal, and other responsibilities, so a massive problem/scandal in one service can have its blast radius more easily managed. These arrangements also make it easier to close things down if needed: it simplifies redundancy (“why can't you offer me a replacement role over there?”, “that is a separate company”) and so forth, though this is more a concern of smaller organisations than Meta & Alphabet. A company I've worked for once had a significant rearrangement with people signing contracts for specific parts where they had previously been employed by the larger group entity, shortly before “divesting” some of those parts. Shady, but legal.

it's still facebook - stop calling it meta

nicce 5y ago

Quite opposite - call it Meta that their name change does not help their brand.

kangalioo 5y ago
Switch back end forth between Meta and Facebook to enforce the connection

tentacleuno 5y ago

Genuine question: does Facebook own Meta, or does Meta own Facebook? Or is it Meta Platforms[0]? Will Facebook (the product) as everyone knows it continue to be marketed as Facebook (under the leadership of Meta), or is facebook.com going to be re-branded as Meta? I looked the other day and it still comes up as Facebook... and Meta. What the hell? Addendum: why does meta.com redirect to [1]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms [1]: https://about.facebook.com/meta https://about.facebook.com/meta

davedx 5y ago
Meta is like Alphabet. Facebook, Insta, WhatsApp are products under Meta. Facebook the product will stay the same. Where it gets a bit hazy is what the new "Metaverse" product will be exactly, something something VR something AR.
martin_a 5y ago
I think it's the same as with Google. Of course there's some "hull" called "Alphabet" who legally owns Google, but what more than a hull is it? Don't know whether it's for tax reasons, spreading the risk, trying to decouple the image in case of failed products, everybody knows that Alphabet == Google. Same goes for Facebook and Meta: There might be a Meta hull but that hull is quite packed with Facebook, so it does not really matter what the hull is called (or does).
- tentacleuno 5y ago
  Yeah, Alphabet certainly came to mind when I first heard the news about Meta. I'm guessing it's for tax reasons too since they're also (well, Facebook) located in Ireland. There seemed to be a big push to move companies to Ireland a few years back.
- pooper 5y ago
  I can't exactly explain why but in my mind, Alphabet and Google make sense. My thought process is that Google makes money that it then uses for other things which are not Google. I don't understand Facebook's name change. It is still Facebook. It wants to stay as a cohesive unit and share data across products. It isn't like Facebook will ever voluntarily give up whatsapp or instagram. I can't quite explain it but I am willing to disassociate the stock ticker Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) from Google but not Facebook (NASDAQ:FB)
dspillett 5y ago
Meta is a holding company, much like Alphabet for Google, and is intended to limit cross-concern damage. By keeping services as separate entities under the holding company they are shielded from each other to an extent with regard to tax, other financial, regulatory, criminal, and other responsibilities, so a massive problem/scandal in one service can have its blast radius more easily managed. These arrangements also make it easier to close things down if needed: it simplifies redundancy (“why can't you offer me a replacement role over there?”, “that is a separate company”) and so forth, though this is more a concern of smaller organisations than Meta & Alphabet. A company I've worked for once had a significant rearrangement with people signing contracts for specific parts where they had previously been employed by the larger group entity, shortly before “divesting” some of those parts. Shady, but legal.