4 ms·

> Because I believe that Meta as a whole is moving to an open systems approach, not because Mark Zuckerberg is a nice guy, but because he is smart enough to go

> Because I believe that Meta as a whole is moving to an open systems approach, not because Mark Zuckerberg is a nice guy, but because he is smart enough to go open before he is forced to by regulators, (or broken up). I think it's both more than that and less than that. Unless I missed some news, Meta's newfound love for product openness has only really manifested in Llama and Threads—I haven't seen any evidence of shifts in their core products. I think what's happened is that in both cases Meta knows that they don't really stand a chance of actually unseating the big players in that segment on their own, but that Meta can make a dent in their profit margins if they can dilute the value of owning that segment. Llama is squarely targeted at preventing anyone from owning AI. I think Threads is doing the same thing with microblogging. If Meta can't own a segment they're going to make darn sure that no one else can own it and use their profits from it to push Meta out of their core. If it also makes the company look more palatable to regulators, that's a nice side effect, but I'm not sure it would work as the primary goal.

mkarliner 2y ago
Well, personally I think that Meta is taking the threat of regulator action very seriously. You only have to look at how Google and Apple are in trouble. Owning WhatsApp, Threads and Instagram makes them a big target for breakup. And an open system defuses that significantly.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > And an open system defuses that significantly. I'm not sure that it has as much of an impact as you think it does. Threads would not be a significant target for regulator action regardless of openness—it doesn't have enough share of the market to be interesting. Meanwhile, the openness of Threads does nothing to alleviate the concerns of their dominance in every non-microblogging social media category.
  - mkarliner 2y ago
    Meta could link Threads and Instagram in a heartbeat if they chose, and were't scared of the consequences. Threads is small fry at the moment, but a very good test and precursor to making the same play across the other properties. I respect your opinion BTW, I don't like flame wars. :-) It's worth remembering that the Fediverse is not just microblogging, there are platforms for pretty much every kind of social media play.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > Threads would not be a significant target for regulator action regardless of openness—it doesn't have enough share of the market to be interesting Zuckerberg thinks Threads could be Meta's next billion-plus-user product.
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
> If Meta can't own a segment they're going to make darn sure that no one else can own it and use their profits from it to push Meta out of their core. I think it's more about trying to keep your competitors busy defending their moat - so that they don't go on the offense and attack your moat.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Yeah, that also works as an explanation. Same principle—defend yourself by going on the offensive. There's a reason why Threads was only conceptualized after Musk acquired Twitter and started talking about building an everything app. Pre-Musk Twitter was very content with its market and so wasn't a threat to anyone else. Musk's X was a different story (if he could execute on it, which at the time seemed more likely than it does now).
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    I may be wrong but I remember it almost exactly the opposite i.e. that Musk was clearly flailing with Twitter and Meta saw that as an opportunity to move into Twitter's market, which they would have struggled to do with competent management at Twitter.
    - nordsieck 2y ago
      Exactly. I don't think Meta would have been so keen to launch a competitor if people weren't so desperate to leave x (nee twitter) for another platform.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      Yea, lol, Musk's twitter was never, ever a clear threat to any competitor and Zuck smelled blood in the water. Elon fanboism has spun it the other way for obvious reasons.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      I'll also note that Twitter was pretty open and had lots of goodwill, which would have made competing against it really hard. Twitter getting rid of 3rd party clients (pre-Musk), and shutting down API access (post-Musk) burned a lot of goodwill, leading to large spikes of growth of the Fediverse, and creating a window of opportunity for a microblogging service from Meta.
solarkraft 2y ago
> Meta's newfound love for product openness has only really manifested in Llama and Threads They’re also paying lip service to openness by spinning off their VR OS. Of course that doesn’t mean it’ll become any less proprietary, only available on more hardware. It’s smart to join up with others when you’re the underdog. I think that’s all they’re doing.
cooljacob204 2y ago
They have been doing a lot of open source work in the frontend world for a while. Biggest example is React.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Yes, there's a reason I specified "product openness". React isn't a product and never could have been, so while I'm grateful to them for releasing it open source it doesn't really represent the same kind of play as Threads or Llama.
  - breezeTrowel 2y ago
    How is Llama a product? It's more like React, PyTorch, GraphQL, etc.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Meta’s AI offerings are products. They’re featured in Instagram, Facebook and Messenger. They’re part of the Rayban partnership. Imho definitely a product.
      - breezeTrowel 2y ago
        Yes and Facebook uses React and GraphQL. Meta AI uses PyTorch. Does that make them all products?
        dagmx 2y ago
        No, because they’re not exposed to users as features that they interact with. From a user perspective, they don’t ever see if it was made using those tools. They see the AI front and center. I feel like thats a pretty strong distinction.
        breezeTrowel 2y ago
        They see AI features front and center. They dont see the backend (which may or may not be running Llama). Same goes for React although, with React, the framework is what the end user directly interacts with. So, by that logic, React is more of a product than Llama.
tomjen3 2y ago
You are not wrong, but I also think there is another part at play here: Facebook started out quite open and then gradually became closed (just like reddit and twitter). This is a new product, so they start out open and then slowly close down as they acquire marketshare.
mikae1 2y ago
He’s already forced to by regulators[1]. That’s the reason he did this. No love involved, rest assured. [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en
- lolinder 2y ago
  I don't see "Threads" on the list of "Core platform services", and I see no evidence of the services that are so designated becoming part of the fediverse.
  - mikae1 2y ago
    Meta is a gatekeeper, it applies to their services. This (or an alternative) will have to be rolled out to Instagram. I guess now the smaller Threads is testing ground.

mkarliner 2y ago

Well, personally I think that Meta is taking the threat of regulator action very seriously. You only have to look at how Google and Apple are in trouble. Owning WhatsApp, Threads and Instagram makes them a big target for breakup. And an open system defuses that significantly.

lolinder 2y ago
> And an open system defuses that significantly. I'm not sure that it has as much of an impact as you think it does. Threads would not be a significant target for regulator action regardless of openness—it doesn't have enough share of the market to be interesting. Meanwhile, the openness of Threads does nothing to alleviate the concerns of their dominance in every non-microblogging social media category.
- mkarliner 2y ago
  Meta could link Threads and Instagram in a heartbeat if they chose, and were't scared of the consequences. Threads is small fry at the moment, but a very good test and precursor to making the same play across the other properties. I respect your opinion BTW, I don't like flame wars. :-) It's worth remembering that the Fediverse is not just microblogging, there are platforms for pretty much every kind of social media play.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > Threads would not be a significant target for regulator action regardless of openness—it doesn't have enough share of the market to be interesting Zuckerberg thinks Threads could be Meta's next billion-plus-user product.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

> If Meta can't own a segment they're going to make darn sure that no one else can own it and use their profits from it to push Meta out of their core. I think it's more about trying to keep your competitors busy defending their moat - so that they don't go on the offense and attack your moat.

lolinder 2y ago
Yeah, that also works as an explanation. Same principle—defend yourself by going on the offensive. There's a reason why Threads was only conceptualized after Musk acquired Twitter and started talking about building an everything app. Pre-Musk Twitter was very content with its market and so wasn't a threat to anyone else. Musk's X was a different story (if he could execute on it, which at the time seemed more likely than it does now).
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  I may be wrong but I remember it almost exactly the opposite i.e. that Musk was clearly flailing with Twitter and Meta saw that as an opportunity to move into Twitter's market, which they would have struggled to do with competent management at Twitter.
  - nordsieck 2y ago
    Exactly. I don't think Meta would have been so keen to launch a competitor if people weren't so desperate to leave x (nee twitter) for another platform.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Yea, lol, Musk's twitter was never, ever a clear threat to any competitor and Zuck smelled blood in the water. Elon fanboism has spun it the other way for obvious reasons.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    I'll also note that Twitter was pretty open and had lots of goodwill, which would have made competing against it really hard. Twitter getting rid of 3rd party clients (pre-Musk), and shutting down API access (post-Musk) burned a lot of goodwill, leading to large spikes of growth of the Fediverse, and creating a window of opportunity for a microblogging service from Meta.

solarkraft 2y ago

> Meta's newfound love for product openness has only really manifested in Llama and Threads They’re also paying lip service to openness by spinning off their VR OS. Of course that doesn’t mean it’ll become any less proprietary, only available on more hardware. It’s smart to join up with others when you’re the underdog. I think that’s all they’re doing.

cooljacob204 2y ago

They have been doing a lot of open source work in the frontend world for a while. Biggest example is React.

lolinder 2y ago
Yes, there's a reason I specified "product openness". React isn't a product and never could have been, so while I'm grateful to them for releasing it open source it doesn't really represent the same kind of play as Threads or Llama.
- breezeTrowel 2y ago
  How is Llama a product? It's more like React, PyTorch, GraphQL, etc.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Meta’s AI offerings are products. They’re featured in Instagram, Facebook and Messenger. They’re part of the Rayban partnership. Imho definitely a product.
    - breezeTrowel 2y ago
      Yes and Facebook uses React and GraphQL. Meta AI uses PyTorch. Does that make them all products?
      - dagmx 2y ago
        No, because they’re not exposed to users as features that they interact with. From a user perspective, they don’t ever see if it was made using those tools. They see the AI front and center. I feel like thats a pretty strong distinction.
        breezeTrowel 2y ago
        They see AI features front and center. They dont see the backend (which may or may not be running Llama). Same goes for React although, with React, the framework is what the end user directly interacts with. So, by that logic, React is more of a product than Llama.

tomjen3 2y ago

You are not wrong, but I also think there is another part at play here: Facebook started out quite open and then gradually became closed (just like reddit and twitter). This is a new product, so they start out open and then slowly close down as they acquire marketshare.

mikae1 2y ago

He’s already forced to by regulators[1]. That’s the reason he did this. No love involved, rest assured. [1] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/gatekeepers_en

lolinder 2y ago
I don't see "Threads" on the list of "Core platform services", and I see no evidence of the services that are so designated becoming part of the fediverse.
- mikae1 2y ago
  Meta is a gatekeeper, it applies to their services. This (or an alternative) will have to be rolled out to Instagram. I guess now the smaller Threads is testing ground.