5 ms·

There was a time where I wanted to work at Meta/Facebook someday - it was actually "next" on my list. I didn't care about the negative press that Facebook got,

by dimmke 4y ago

There was a time where I wanted to work at Meta/Facebook someday - it was actually "next" on my list. I didn't care about the negative press that Facebook got, I felt like they were unfairly targeted because of the 2016 election. And a lot of the engineering work that has come out of Facebook has been excellent, like React/React Native have changed the world. But it's just really hard to see Zuckerberg as a good business leader. When you compare the business to something like Amazon - which has a strong culture around decision making and cultivates a style of leadership in it's executives. So far, it seems like he hit a really good product/market fit and had good timing with Facebook. The strategy since then has basically been to stay ahead by acquiring social platforms that become successful. Until one came along that he couldn't just throw money at and acquire. Oops. And now with the turn on the dime to "Meta" - other companies have been trying to figure out VR for a long time. Apple has reportedly had a VR headset concept going for years and is probably still several years from releasing it. For Amazon to come out with a product like that, it would have to start with a PRFAQ and a lot of vetting just to release the product. To rename the company and start putting all their energy towards it, which letting actual profit centers languish just wouldn't happen. So not only has he not validated this new direction, he's now asking people working comfy FAANG jobs to knuckle down and suffer for it. It works when Elon Musk does it because he can make appeals like "we're going to make humanity multi-planetary" Meta's pitch is "What if we convinced everybody to live in a virtual world controlled entirely by us, where we take 50% of a cut of every digital good that is purchased" - who wants to work 70 hours a week towards making that dystopia a reality? I feel like Epic Games, with Fortnite being basically a social hub for kids and monetizing skins/associating social status with skins is closer to realizing some early version of "the metaverse" then what we've seen from Meta. I think that metaverse behavior is already happening in a lot of ways, it just isn't happening with dorky headsets and probably won't until the tech matures enough to get there.

cableshaft 4y ago
> it just isn't happening with dorky headsets and probably won't until the tech matures enough to get there Zuckerberg is well aware of the technical challenges of VR headsets and they're putting a lot of effort into getting the headsets where they need to be. Seems like they're helping push the technology much further than any other company right now. Here's a 30 minute video where he and Michael Abrash go into the technical challenges, and what they've been doing to address those issues, as well as showing off prototype devices they've been working on[1]. And there's an hour long episode of Adam Savage's Tested series where they get to try the prototypes and go into even more detail[2]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThLeiw8h2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThLeiw8h2Y [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc
- dimmke 4y ago
  >they're putting a lot of effort into getting the headsets where they need to be. 1. Nobody knows "where they need to be" to become suitable for mass adoption. Definitely better than they are now, but personally I highly doubt I'd feel comfortable using a full VR headset regularly unless it was a "full dive" experience where I don't have to use a controller. 2. Hardware is a lot more difficult than software. Facebook's hardware track record is non existent beyond what they acquired with Oculus, which was a startup. Apple has more experience designing and producing hardware than Google, Facebook and Amazon combined and if they don't think the tech is ready, it's probably not ready. 3. Why is Mark Zuckerberg the face of this? People find him talking so uncomfortable that they make memes about him being a lizard person. That more than anything is what makes it feel like a billionaire's vanity project. How is he being allowed to bet the entire company on this? Does the board have any real power? If I had any kind of significant equity in Meta I'd be really concerned right now that the CEO seems to be in la-la land and is issuing missives telling his employees to quit.
  - boloust 4y ago
    > I highly doubt I'd feel comfortable using a full VR headset regularly unless it was a "full dive" experience where I don't have to use a controller. The Quest headsets already have accurate controllerless hand tracking, but not many experiences optimized for the input mode. > Apple has more experience designing and producing hardware than Google, Facebook and Amazon combined and if they don't think the tech is ready, it's probably not ready. Apple is releasing a VR headset next year, which means they think the technology is ready. Apple entering this space will probably do wonders for broader acceptance of the technology, like the dedorkification of smartwatches with the introduction of the apple watch.
    - KerrAvon 4y ago
      You cannot be sure that Apple is releasing anything in any timeframe until it’s actually announced. Things can get scrapped at any point. What secret sauce has Apple found that will make it more compelling than all other solutions which have utterly failed to gain any traction? Cheaply enough that anyone outside early adopters will want it? People don’t want to wear glasses for long periods of time in the first place — it’s why LASIK exists.
deckard1 4y ago
Generally, people seem to enjoy working at Facebook. I knew a director that worked there and he constantly raved about it. Almost cult-like at times. I don't think I've read a single good story about working at Amazon, though. They may have the better business, but they are horrible for employees at all levels. If we're talking ethics and it has to be FAANG... I guess that just leaves Netflix really. And maybe I just don't know their business in detail. But all the rest are ethically compromised. Facebook, to their credit, were the ones that forced higher engineering salaries. We wouldn't even be talking about the stupid concept of FAANG (why anyone took Jim Cramer seriously is beyond me) if it weren't for Facebook. Because Google, Apple, etc. were doing backroom deals to form a hiring cartel[1], to prevent poaching talent and keep salaries artificially low. Facebook refused to play. Even today I hear that if you have a Google offer then you better have a Facebook offer in hand just to get Google to budge on their low-ball. [1] https://pandodaily.com/2014/03/30/court-docs-google-hiked-wages-to-combat-hot-young-facebook-after-sheryl-sandberg-refused-to-join-hiring-cartel https://pandodaily.com/2014/03/30/court-docs-google-hiked-wa...
- nunez 4y ago
  the aws folks seem pretty happy!
- dimmke 4y ago
  I work at Amazon, and do not hate it. But yes I agree it's obvious to anybody that they have the worst reputation as an employer among the biggest tech firms. I felt like I had to write this as a disclaimer but it wasn't really the part of your post I wanted to respond to. >If we're talking ethics and it has to be FAANG... I wasn't really talking about ethics, that was more of an aside. I was trying to make the point that not only is the metaverse (and using metaverse here I mean a virtual reality controlled by a private company) completely unproven ground as a market, and is easily 5-10 years away from being even somewhat practical and not a complete gimmick with technology, it also would make most of the big unsolved problems our society is still grappling with around technology way worse Like platform control. Facebook And Epic both say Apple has too much power. Apple hurt FB's ad business by limiting tracking. Epic sued to try to force a change in IAP rules etc... Then you've got Republicans saying the exact same thing about Facebook and other social platforms - that they have too much power and got mad when they banned Donald Trump. Republicans right now are pressuring Google to stop marking their shady campaign emails as spam in Gmail. And I agree with them, but I also agree with Apple that it would be hard for iOS to be as secure as it is if they didn't have that level of control. Smart phones are computers. And for a lot of people, it's their only computer. It's a really tricky issue that has not been solved yet. In a hypothetical scenario where people spend most of their lives working and after work in a "metaverse" controlled by a private company, that's even worse. What if you get banned from the metaverse, and it effectively cuts off your ability to live a normal life or participate in society? Hey, it's their platform so first amendment doesn't apply but every job in your field uses the metaverse as a remote workplace. You don't get to see your friends or family nearly as much. Your agency and autonomy as a human being is controlled down to what physical movements you can make, who you can speak to, it can all be recorded and controlled. Of course, even if control was handed to the government that would be handing them more direct power over people than any government has ever had. I don't know why Mark Zuckerberg thinks that he would be trusted with this amount of control even if he got the tech down when the level of trust people have in FB as an entity has deteriorated an extreme amount over the last 7 years and they've faced vicious criticism from both parties in the United States. There's a huge "ethics" gulf between writing code that is unambiguously good for the world (or whatever) and building... that. Like I said in my original post, I think a lot of the criticism Facebook got as a result of the 2016 election was unfounded. I don't think Facebook is an "evil" company (whatever evil even means here) but I don't think it's an ethical or moral one either. It's especially odd because when Mark talks, he seems to really make a point to talk about Facebook's "vision" and "goal" to "connect people" - which is super vague. But it's like he expects that to be enough to inspire people. It's not. People choose to work there because they pay more and like you said, have a good rep as being a good place to work for and great on a resume. Which brings me back to my original point: I don't think Mark Zuckerberg is a competent leader for a company of Meta's size and scope. When Bezos wanted to do spaceships, he didn't rename Amazon and start pushing in that direction, he spun off a separate company. It's clear Mark is passionate about this. He's hanging out doing videos with his R&D team. He should find someone else to head Facebook and focus on what he's passionate about. He wouldn't necessarily need to leave Meta, just transition his leadership so he's not CEO anymore. This isn't responsible behavior from someone who leads a very large publicly traded company and I think it's part of why their stock is so volatile. Facebook and it's portfolio of companies is threatened by TikTok and whatever comes next, but not existentially. TikTok will never offer what Facebook does in terms of things like groups, marketplace, a decade + of curated personas that people have on there. I had to create a Facebook account when I moved out of the United States because there were ex-pat groups on there and it was a reliable and non sketchy way to find things like long term housing. One path for Facebook was/still is to become the "Oracle" of social media. Profitable, reliable and dependable but not new and exciting. Instagram, WhatsApp and FB are all profitable and stable businesses. Instead, it's like he's stuck in this mindset where he still thinks social media is all about "what's next" and FB will become MySpace if he can't keep 13-20 year olds on his platforms. Social media as a space has matured. Meta should mature with it. Facebook was severely harmed when Apple made their platform changes. Imagine if Google's only revenue still came from search ads and they didn't have Android, YouTube, Google Cloud, Google Suite or the many other things they've done. Or if Amazon's revenue came from selling products to consumers online instead of AWS and Advertising. Why has Facebook not able to diversify it's revenue and seemingly the only strategy has been acquiring competitors? Bad executive leadership. I don't understand why it's not discussed more.

by dimmke 4y ago

cableshaft 4y ago

> it just isn't happening with dorky headsets and probably won't until the tech matures enough to get there Zuckerberg is well aware of the technical challenges of VR headsets and they're putting a lot of effort into getting the headsets where they need to be. Seems like they're helping push the technology much further than any other company right now. Here's a 30 minute video where he and Michael Abrash go into the technical challenges, and what they've been doing to address those issues, as well as showing off prototype devices they've been working on[1]. And there's an hour long episode of Adam Savage's Tested series where they get to try the prototypes and go into even more detail[2]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThLeiw8h2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sThLeiw8h2Y [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AOwDttBsc

dimmke 4y ago
>they're putting a lot of effort into getting the headsets where they need to be. 1. Nobody knows "where they need to be" to become suitable for mass adoption. Definitely better than they are now, but personally I highly doubt I'd feel comfortable using a full VR headset regularly unless it was a "full dive" experience where I don't have to use a controller. 2. Hardware is a lot more difficult than software. Facebook's hardware track record is non existent beyond what they acquired with Oculus, which was a startup. Apple has more experience designing and producing hardware than Google, Facebook and Amazon combined and if they don't think the tech is ready, it's probably not ready. 3. Why is Mark Zuckerberg the face of this? People find him talking so uncomfortable that they make memes about him being a lizard person. That more than anything is what makes it feel like a billionaire's vanity project. How is he being allowed to bet the entire company on this? Does the board have any real power? If I had any kind of significant equity in Meta I'd be really concerned right now that the CEO seems to be in la-la land and is issuing missives telling his employees to quit.
- boloust 4y ago
  > I highly doubt I'd feel comfortable using a full VR headset regularly unless it was a "full dive" experience where I don't have to use a controller. The Quest headsets already have accurate controllerless hand tracking, but not many experiences optimized for the input mode. > Apple has more experience designing and producing hardware than Google, Facebook and Amazon combined and if they don't think the tech is ready, it's probably not ready. Apple is releasing a VR headset next year, which means they think the technology is ready. Apple entering this space will probably do wonders for broader acceptance of the technology, like the dedorkification of smartwatches with the introduction of the apple watch.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    You cannot be sure that Apple is releasing anything in any timeframe until it’s actually announced. Things can get scrapped at any point. What secret sauce has Apple found that will make it more compelling than all other solutions which have utterly failed to gain any traction? Cheaply enough that anyone outside early adopters will want it? People don’t want to wear glasses for long periods of time in the first place — it’s why LASIK exists.

deckard1 4y ago

Generally, people seem to enjoy working at Facebook. I knew a director that worked there and he constantly raved about it. Almost cult-like at times. I don't think I've read a single good story about working at Amazon, though. They may have the better business, but they are horrible for employees at all levels. If we're talking ethics and it has to be FAANG... I guess that just leaves Netflix really. And maybe I just don't know their business in detail. But all the rest are ethically compromised. Facebook, to their credit, were the ones that forced higher engineering salaries. We wouldn't even be talking about the stupid concept of FAANG (why anyone took Jim Cramer seriously is beyond me) if it weren't for Facebook. Because Google, Apple, etc. were doing backroom deals to form a hiring cartel[1], to prevent poaching talent and keep salaries artificially low. Facebook refused to play. Even today I hear that if you have a Google offer then you better have a Facebook offer in hand just to get Google to budge on their low-ball. [1] https://pandodaily.com/2014/03/30/court-docs-google-hiked-wages-to-combat-hot-young-facebook-after-sheryl-sandberg-refused-to-join-hiring-cartel https://pandodaily.com/2014/03/30/court-docs-google-hiked-wa...

nunez 4y ago
the aws folks seem pretty happy!
dimmke 4y ago
I work at Amazon, and do not hate it. But yes I agree it's obvious to anybody that they have the worst reputation as an employer among the biggest tech firms. I felt like I had to write this as a disclaimer but it wasn't really the part of your post I wanted to respond to. >If we're talking ethics and it has to be FAANG... I wasn't really talking about ethics, that was more of an aside. I was trying to make the point that not only is the metaverse (and using metaverse here I mean a virtual reality controlled by a private company) completely unproven ground as a market, and is easily 5-10 years away from being even somewhat practical and not a complete gimmick with technology, it also would make most of the big unsolved problems our society is still grappling with around technology way worse Like platform control. Facebook And Epic both say Apple has too much power. Apple hurt FB's ad business by limiting tracking. Epic sued to try to force a change in IAP rules etc... Then you've got Republicans saying the exact same thing about Facebook and other social platforms - that they have too much power and got mad when they banned Donald Trump. Republicans right now are pressuring Google to stop marking their shady campaign emails as spam in Gmail. And I agree with them, but I also agree with Apple that it would be hard for iOS to be as secure as it is if they didn't have that level of control. Smart phones are computers. And for a lot of people, it's their only computer. It's a really tricky issue that has not been solved yet. In a hypothetical scenario where people spend most of their lives working and after work in a "metaverse" controlled by a private company, that's even worse. What if you get banned from the metaverse, and it effectively cuts off your ability to live a normal life or participate in society? Hey, it's their platform so first amendment doesn't apply but every job in your field uses the metaverse as a remote workplace. You don't get to see your friends or family nearly as much. Your agency and autonomy as a human being is controlled down to what physical movements you can make, who you can speak to, it can all be recorded and controlled. Of course, even if control was handed to the government that would be handing them more direct power over people than any government has ever had. I don't know why Mark Zuckerberg thinks that he would be trusted with this amount of control even if he got the tech down when the level of trust people have in FB as an entity has deteriorated an extreme amount over the last 7 years and they've faced vicious criticism from both parties in the United States. There's a huge "ethics" gulf between writing code that is unambiguously good for the world (or whatever) and building... that. Like I said in my original post, I think a lot of the criticism Facebook got as a result of the 2016 election was unfounded. I don't think Facebook is an "evil" company (whatever evil even means here) but I don't think it's an ethical or moral one either. It's especially odd because when Mark talks, he seems to really make a point to talk about Facebook's "vision" and "goal" to "connect people" - which is super vague. But it's like he expects that to be enough to inspire people. It's not. People choose to work there because they pay more and like you said, have a good rep as being a good place to work for and great on a resume. Which brings me back to my original point: I don't think Mark Zuckerberg is a competent leader for a company of Meta's size and scope. When Bezos wanted to do spaceships, he didn't rename Amazon and start pushing in that direction, he spun off a separate company. It's clear Mark is passionate about this. He's hanging out doing videos with his R&D team. He should find someone else to head Facebook and focus on what he's passionate about. He wouldn't necessarily need to leave Meta, just transition his leadership so he's not CEO anymore. This isn't responsible behavior from someone who leads a very large publicly traded company and I think it's part of why their stock is so volatile. Facebook and it's portfolio of companies is threatened by TikTok and whatever comes next, but not existentially. TikTok will never offer what Facebook does in terms of things like groups, marketplace, a decade + of curated personas that people have on there. I had to create a Facebook account when I moved out of the United States because there were ex-pat groups on there and it was a reliable and non sketchy way to find things like long term housing. One path for Facebook was/still is to become the "Oracle" of social media. Profitable, reliable and dependable but not new and exciting. Instagram, WhatsApp and FB are all profitable and stable businesses. Instead, it's like he's stuck in this mindset where he still thinks social media is all about "what's next" and FB will become MySpace if he can't keep 13-20 year olds on his platforms. Social media as a space has matured. Meta should mature with it. Facebook was severely harmed when Apple made their platform changes. Imagine if Google's only revenue still came from search ads and they didn't have Android, YouTube, Google Cloud, Google Suite or the many other things they've done. Or if Amazon's revenue came from selling products to consumers online instead of AWS and Advertising. Why has Facebook not able to diversify it's revenue and seemingly the only strategy has been acquiring competitors? Bad executive leadership. I don't understand why it's not discussed more.