3 ms·

Sure it would remain a cash cow if Meta decided never to take another risk again, but Zuck was trying to avoid Facebook becoming the next Oracle or IBM -- compa

by idrios 4y ago

Sure it would remain a cash cow if Meta decided never to take another risk again, but Zuck was trying to avoid Facebook becoming the next Oracle or IBM -- companies with consistent revenue but thay have lost their ability to innovate. I also don't think the metaverse was doomed to fail from the start -- still not sure if it's doomed now. Based on John Carmack's resignation & letter about how hard it was to get anything done, it sounds like there are some serious cultural or bureaucratic issues getting in the way of progress though

danaris 4y ago
> Zuck was trying to avoid Facebook becoming the next Oracle or IBM -- companies with consistent revenue but thay have lost their ability to innovate. Such sad tales, companies that only make billions of dollars a quarter, with a solid chance of continuing to do so for the rest of our lives... This obsession with growth is deeply unhealthy. "Innovation" can be great, and we certainly need it happening somewhere, but the idea that it's something that any given company needs to be doing or it will die is preposterous, particularly when applied to an established industry giant like Facebook.
ModernMech 4y ago
> Sure it would remain a cash cow if Meta decided never to take another risk again, but Zuck was trying to avoid Facebook becoming the next Oracle or IBM -- companies with consistent revenue but thay have lost their ability to innovate. At some point, I think society is going to have to admit that companies have a lifecycle, and that sometimes a company should die, maybe long before it runs out of money. If the only outcomes are "grow forever" and "become IBM", then I think we should prefer the IBM route, because at least that provides value. Leave the innovation to smaller companies and allow them to thrive or die on their merits. This whole thing where fossils long past their innovative prime are able to control the entire industry, through boondoggles that are kept afloat indefinitely through trillion dollar cash reserves, rent seeking activities, and strategic acquisitions, is just not good for anyone except the people who are able to exit. You want innovation, get FAANG out of the way.

by idrios 4y ago

danaris 4y ago

> Zuck was trying to avoid Facebook becoming the next Oracle or IBM -- companies with consistent revenue but thay have lost their ability to innovate. Such sad tales, companies that only make billions of dollars a quarter, with a solid chance of continuing to do so for the rest of our lives... This obsession with growth is deeply unhealthy. "Innovation" can be great, and we certainly need it happening somewhere, but the idea that it's something that any given company needs to be doing or it will die is preposterous, particularly when applied to an established industry giant like Facebook.

ModernMech 4y ago

> Sure it would remain a cash cow if Meta decided never to take another risk again, but Zuck was trying to avoid Facebook becoming the next Oracle or IBM -- companies with consistent revenue but thay have lost their ability to innovate. At some point, I think society is going to have to admit that companies have a lifecycle, and that sometimes a company should die, maybe long before it runs out of money. If the only outcomes are "grow forever" and "become IBM", then I think we should prefer the IBM route, because at least that provides value. Leave the innovation to smaller companies and allow them to thrive or die on their merits. This whole thing where fossils long past their innovative prime are able to control the entire industry, through boondoggles that are kept afloat indefinitely through trillion dollar cash reserves, rent seeking activities, and strategic acquisitions, is just not good for anyone except the people who are able to exit. You want innovation, get FAANG out of the way.