4 ms·

this is what happens to companies who don't expand the scope of what they're trying to do. they just keep adding more useless features to their platforms and y

this is what happens to companies who don't expand the scope of what they're trying to do. they just keep adding more useless features to their platforms and yet facebook is still just facebook: a successful cashcow that's aleady so enormous it doesn't have much hopes of growing any larger. If they want to grow they need to get out of doing the same thing over and over. As a consumer, VR is the last thing I want to see. They need to grow into other markets, like Tesla does. Tesla didn't just build a car, they're going after the whole energy market too. And, if FB doesn't want to grow, then they need cut all the useless expenses and just keep milking their cashcow in a slow decline.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
FB did do a lot IMO. They got into IM, into VR and really brought it to the mainstream. Other parties did too but FB really put in the investment to put it on the map. I don't like FB as a company because of their privacy attitude. But I don't think they did anything wrong business-wise. Just morally.
- killerpopiller 4y ago
  IM is not a business for them but another data source for FB. The costs for running WhatsApp must be astronomical yet it is a free service. VR may become the entertainment platform but maybe it doesn’t. AR has a much wider application and is actually needed. It will allow our connected computers to see and hear what we perceive allowing for a much more direct input. I can’t wait for true personal assistants accompanying one throughout life. This data gathering may allow a machine to get to know us and finally even upload us for extended after life. That’s philosophy difference Zuckerberg mentioned. FB just came up with another way to sell ads.
fakethenews2022 4y ago
Facebook grew for years by acquiring other companies for users, business, or talent. See FriendFeed, Instagram, and Whatsapp. Oftentimes, Facebook would help grow the resulting business enormously or deploy the technology to great effect. But with increased antitrust scrutiny and the realization from a few founders that they could do better not selling, Facebook lost much of their potential growth. See Snapchat and TikTok. Snapchat spurned an acquisition offer. Imagine if Facebook owned Snapchat and TikTok. They would be doing a lot better.
- asdajksah2123 4y ago
  Snapchat wouldn't have added anything to FB as far as I can tell. Instagram crushed Snapchat almost instantly once it started doing filters/video. TikTok, OTOH, is a real threat. And it's real threat only because it's an even worse, more cynical social media platform than FB/Instagram.
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    > Instagram crushed Snapchat almost instantly once it started doing filters/video. I don’t find this to be true at all. My cohort of middle class Americans have all been using Snapchat since ~2014, and we’re still using it. More so, the HS-age baristas at the coffee shop I frequent DEFINITELY still Snap the day away. I see Insta and SC as finding an awkward equilibrium, the the overlap of the daily stories functionality. Other than that, their core features are completely different. This is why both are still healthy.
  - 7speter 4y ago
    Tiktok doesn’t have to care about the western shaming and potential impact it could have on its growth and profits like facebook does.
blep_ 4y ago
You seem to be saying two conflicting things: - FB needs to "get out of doing the same thing over and over", but also - FB tries to do new things and that's why they're doing poorly Do you view VR as not a new market for them?
- throw8383833jj 4y ago
  VR is new. But, I don't see it growing into the next big thing. do people really wanna wear a headset all day?
thomassmith65 4y ago
The real problem is that Zuckerberg does not know how to run a business that can sustain itself. The go-to tactics for FB are to lie habitually to the press, fleece customers (ie: advertisers), and urinate all over the faces of FB users. Harvard is the big secret to FB's success, not Zuckerberg. It is the prestige of Harvard that attracted FB's initial users. It is the connections and cachet of Harvard that attracted FB's employees and investors. Zuckerberg is not Augustus Caesar. He is not Steve Jobs. He's a lucky boy who got into an Ivy League school at exactly the right time to create a social network with more prestige than MySpace.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

FB did do a lot IMO. They got into IM, into VR and really brought it to the mainstream. Other parties did too but FB really put in the investment to put it on the map. I don't like FB as a company because of their privacy attitude. But I don't think they did anything wrong business-wise. Just morally.

killerpopiller 4y ago
IM is not a business for them but another data source for FB. The costs for running WhatsApp must be astronomical yet it is a free service. VR may become the entertainment platform but maybe it doesn’t. AR has a much wider application and is actually needed. It will allow our connected computers to see and hear what we perceive allowing for a much more direct input. I can’t wait for true personal assistants accompanying one throughout life. This data gathering may allow a machine to get to know us and finally even upload us for extended after life. That’s philosophy difference Zuckerberg mentioned. FB just came up with another way to sell ads.

fakethenews2022 4y ago

Facebook grew for years by acquiring other companies for users, business, or talent. See FriendFeed, Instagram, and Whatsapp. Oftentimes, Facebook would help grow the resulting business enormously or deploy the technology to great effect. But with increased antitrust scrutiny and the realization from a few founders that they could do better not selling, Facebook lost much of their potential growth. See Snapchat and TikTok. Snapchat spurned an acquisition offer. Imagine if Facebook owned Snapchat and TikTok. They would be doing a lot better.

asdajksah2123 4y ago
Snapchat wouldn't have added anything to FB as far as I can tell. Instagram crushed Snapchat almost instantly once it started doing filters/video. TikTok, OTOH, is a real threat. And it's real threat only because it's an even worse, more cynical social media platform than FB/Instagram.
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  > Instagram crushed Snapchat almost instantly once it started doing filters/video. I don’t find this to be true at all. My cohort of middle class Americans have all been using Snapchat since ~2014, and we’re still using it. More so, the HS-age baristas at the coffee shop I frequent DEFINITELY still Snap the day away. I see Insta and SC as finding an awkward equilibrium, the the overlap of the daily stories functionality. Other than that, their core features are completely different. This is why both are still healthy.
- 7speter 4y ago
  Tiktok doesn’t have to care about the western shaming and potential impact it could have on its growth and profits like facebook does.

blep_ 4y ago

You seem to be saying two conflicting things: - FB needs to "get out of doing the same thing over and over", but also - FB tries to do new things and that's why they're doing poorly Do you view VR as not a new market for them?

throw8383833jj 4y ago
VR is new. But, I don't see it growing into the next big thing. do people really wanna wear a headset all day?

thomassmith65 4y ago

The real problem is that Zuckerberg does not know how to run a business that can sustain itself. The go-to tactics for FB are to lie habitually to the press, fleece customers (ie: advertisers), and urinate all over the faces of FB users. Harvard is the big secret to FB's success, not Zuckerberg. It is the prestige of Harvard that attracted FB's initial users. It is the connections and cachet of Harvard that attracted FB's employees and investors. Zuckerberg is not Augustus Caesar. He is not Steve Jobs. He's a lucky boy who got into an Ivy League school at exactly the right time to create a social network with more prestige than MySpace.