3 ms·

I think not "zombie", but rather, "mature". Which is almost as bad from the point of view of people who bought their stock thinking it was still a growth stock

I think not "zombie", but rather, "mature". Which is almost as bad from the point of view of people who bought their stock thinking it was still a growth stock. Their user base can't get much bigger, they haven't ever really had a hit product after the first one, and they have a record of pouring billions into things (like AR) that never pay off. Now, they have done ok with buying other companies and keeping them running (Instagram), which to be fair lots of tech companies have failed at. So I don't think they're a zombie. But they may be something more like IBM, Cisco, or Oracle; a mature tech company that will go up and down, but whose big growth days are behind it.

yodsanklai 2y ago
> Which is almost as bad from the point of view of people who bought their stock thinking it was still a growth stock. The stock did +50% in 6 months.
- sghiassy 2y ago
  46.05% in the last 6 months 69.10% in the last year 235.05% in the last 5 years Just the facts
voidfunc 2y ago
The stock went up 70% in the last year. In what fantasy world is Meta not a growth stock?
- tzs 2y ago
  What's the definition of a growth stock? Is Walmart a growth stock, for example (it went up 77% in the last year)?
- kranke155 2y ago
  A growth stock has no relation to being innovative. You could grow by just having a giant patent portfolio and litigating aggressively. I would argue that Meta is just reaping the benefit and profits from some very old IP, some of which they don’t know how to monetise.
jknoepfler 2y ago
A few hours in the "metaverse" destroyed any faith or confidence I might have had in their ability to develop usable products that might interest people. It was like using a product that had been designed and developed by the wrong species with absolutely no interest in the actual user experience. Billions were flushed down a product toilet chasing something that just... stinks. The experience is so overwhelmingly bizarre, frustrating, eery and depressing from a user pov that the only conclusion I could draw was that no one cared, that it was never actually tested, that no one actually was developing it for a user. So I don't know. I don't think the company is functionally capable of developing usable, engaging products for people. If it were, it wouldn't have made that shambling abomination public, or it would have taken a very different form. I think it's just stuck enshitifying itself. Frankly I don't really want to know more than I do about Meta, but it really does make me wonder whether there were actual voices ringing alarms from day one that the product was a dumpster-fire with horrific fundamentals, or if somehow the reporting on it came up all lilies from up-talking yes-yappers.
threeseed 2y ago
> they haven't ever really had a hit product after the first one Threads is the fastest growing app in history. And its insane growth showed quite starkly the raw power of Instagram and Facebook in being able to drive large volumes of traffic and bootstrap new products overnight. I would be surprised if they didn’t try this again to launch a new dedicated TikTok competitor.
- kranke155 2y ago
  Fair. I am on threads and it’s fairly interesting. However it suffers from what I’d call most of the content being unantheutic. No one is making content just for Threads. They’re sharing videos or tweets from other platforms and it’s their secondary platform. I’m not sure there’s some niche this isn’t true. But to me threads feels like the personal version of LinkedIn. Lots of self advertising, very little authenticity.

yodsanklai 2y ago

> Which is almost as bad from the point of view of people who bought their stock thinking it was still a growth stock. The stock did +50% in 6 months.

sghiassy 2y ago
46.05% in the last 6 months 69.10% in the last year 235.05% in the last 5 years Just the facts

voidfunc 2y ago

The stock went up 70% in the last year. In what fantasy world is Meta not a growth stock?

tzs 2y ago
What's the definition of a growth stock? Is Walmart a growth stock, for example (it went up 77% in the last year)?
kranke155 2y ago
A growth stock has no relation to being innovative. You could grow by just having a giant patent portfolio and litigating aggressively. I would argue that Meta is just reaping the benefit and profits from some very old IP, some of which they don’t know how to monetise.

jknoepfler 2y ago

A few hours in the "metaverse" destroyed any faith or confidence I might have had in their ability to develop usable products that might interest people. It was like using a product that had been designed and developed by the wrong species with absolutely no interest in the actual user experience. Billions were flushed down a product toilet chasing something that just... stinks. The experience is so overwhelmingly bizarre, frustrating, eery and depressing from a user pov that the only conclusion I could draw was that no one cared, that it was never actually tested, that no one actually was developing it for a user. So I don't know. I don't think the company is functionally capable of developing usable, engaging products for people. If it were, it wouldn't have made that shambling abomination public, or it would have taken a very different form. I think it's just stuck enshitifying itself. Frankly I don't really want to know more than I do about Meta, but it really does make me wonder whether there were actual voices ringing alarms from day one that the product was a dumpster-fire with horrific fundamentals, or if somehow the reporting on it came up all lilies from up-talking yes-yappers.

threeseed 2y ago

> they haven't ever really had a hit product after the first one Threads is the fastest growing app in history. And its insane growth showed quite starkly the raw power of Instagram and Facebook in being able to drive large volumes of traffic and bootstrap new products overnight. I would be surprised if they didn’t try this again to launch a new dedicated TikTok competitor.

kranke155 2y ago
Fair. I am on threads and it’s fairly interesting. However it suffers from what I’d call most of the content being unantheutic. No one is making content just for Threads. They’re sharing videos or tweets from other platforms and it’s their secondary platform. I’m not sure there’s some niche this isn’t true. But to me threads feels like the personal version of LinkedIn. Lots of self advertising, very little authenticity.