3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
theptip 2y ago
“Commoditize your complements” is a related point. Content is the input to the Meta ad engine. You can generate it on-platform, or you can bring it in from elsewhere if it is commoditized. (And commoditizing your complements often looks like breaking down your competitors’ moats.) I don’t think it’s as cynical as a “salt the earth” strategy though, surely they (plan to) make profit from Threads and LLaMa regardless of what their competitors do? Threads users will drive ad revenue, Llama (theoretically, eventually) increases the quality bar for content, driving their main flywheel.
Hoasi 2y ago
If Mark went scorched earth on AI, you can bet it is not for the sake of generosity.

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.

theptip 2y ago

“Commoditize your complements” is a related point. Content is the input to the Meta ad engine. You can generate it on-platform, or you can bring it in from elsewhere if it is commoditized. (And commoditizing your complements often looks like breaking down your competitors’ moats.) I don’t think it’s as cynical as a “salt the earth” strategy though, surely they (plan to) make profit from Threads and LLaMa regardless of what their competitors do? Threads users will drive ad revenue, Llama (theoretically, eventually) increases the quality bar for content, driving their main flywheel.

Hoasi 2y ago

If Mark went scorched earth on AI, you can bet it is not for the sake of generosity.