4 ms·

See further below please, I wrote just about this kind of tunnel-vision focus on DAU/MAU vs. a more holistic view ;)

motorest 2y ago
If you're talking about this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43010781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43010781 You wrote a wall of text saying and refuting absolutely nothing. The only remotely tangible argument you made was the blurb on “Specifically, as it pertains to monetization, we don’t expect Threads to be a meaningful driver of 2025 revenue at this time,”. Considering Meta reports revenue around $40B and Threads, considering the EU snag, was basically launched last year, this is far from being the failure you are trying to spin it. But if you had any point worth making, and you didn't had an axe to grind, you wouldn't grasped at straws such as the "As for the wider positive effects to the society at large, feel free to point out any."
- hansmayer 2y ago
  Sure mate, I am definitely the one with an axe to grind here ;) Now prove me stupid and show me and the HN readership how is a product which even it's own management sees as unprofitable for the next three-four quarters, producing any benefits at least to it's shareholders, not even talking about the society. Maybe lean into the argument with a pinch of how the latest Meta "free speech" policies augment it's positive contributions too ;)
  - kridsdale1 2y ago
    Let us know how important a business is WhatsApp. Which has made about zero revenue for Meta in 15 years and yet is utterly dominant globally.
    - hansmayer 2y ago
      Again, the argument for overall net value is not based on a single KPI, be it DAU, MAU or unproven/unsourced "utter global dominance". By focusing on 'dominance', instead of value, you're missing the whole point. You know who also had total communication service dominance (we call that "monopoly" actually) for a good chunk of the 20th century in the US? A little company called AT&T. Look them up and why they were split up. The difference being, at least AT&T was highly profitable at the time. But even if we took your argument as valid, haven't all the MBAs been telling us that unprofitable 'cost centers' should not exist, and should be extinquished, surely you must have heard that argument at some point? So why then are we allowing VC capital to provide a lifeline to some of those utterly unprofitable "businesses" indefinitely? The quotation marks around "businesses" because that's another axiom from business schools - you have a business once you start turning profit. Isn't the point for market to promote the winners and defer the losers? I am afraid the way AirBnB, Uber & co. operate looks a lot like a capitalist version of communist central planning commitees, when we still had independent and free press it used to be called "crony capitalism".
gosub100 2y ago
Someone disputes your claim with actual data, then you move the goalposts and appeal to a "holistic" view.
- hansmayer 2y ago
  Well the thing is, I never argued on the basis of revenue in the first place, and that second argument I wrote in response to someone else, not this person. But even if we did take revenue as sole metric of success (remember kids, revenue!=profits!), well, if the Meta CFO states that they dont see Threads as a driver of their revenue for the whole of 2025, who am I to dispute that really? But maybe you folks have some insider insights ;)

If you're talking about this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43010781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43010781 You wrote a wall of text saying and refuting absolutely nothing. The only remotely tangible argument you made was the blurb on “Specifically, as it pertains to monetization, we don’t expect Threads to be a meaningful driver of 2025 revenue at this time,”. Considering Meta reports revenue around $40B and Threads, considering the EU snag, was basically launched last year, this is far from being the failure you are trying to spin it. But if you had any point worth making, and you didn't had an axe to grind, you wouldn't grasped at straws such as the "As for the wider positive effects to the society at large, feel free to point out any."

hansmayer 2y ago
Sure mate, I am definitely the one with an axe to grind here ;) Now prove me stupid and show me and the HN readership how is a product which even it's own management sees as unprofitable for the next three-four quarters, producing any benefits at least to it's shareholders, not even talking about the society. Maybe lean into the argument with a pinch of how the latest Meta "free speech" policies augment it's positive contributions too ;)
- kridsdale1 2y ago
  Let us know how important a business is WhatsApp. Which has made about zero revenue for Meta in 15 years and yet is utterly dominant globally.
  - hansmayer 2y ago
    Again, the argument for overall net value is not based on a single KPI, be it DAU, MAU or unproven/unsourced "utter global dominance". By focusing on 'dominance', instead of value, you're missing the whole point. You know who also had total communication service dominance (we call that "monopoly" actually) for a good chunk of the 20th century in the US? A little company called AT&T. Look them up and why they were split up. The difference being, at least AT&T was highly profitable at the time. But even if we took your argument as valid, haven't all the MBAs been telling us that unprofitable 'cost centers' should not exist, and should be extinquished, surely you must have heard that argument at some point? So why then are we allowing VC capital to provide a lifeline to some of those utterly unprofitable "businesses" indefinitely? The quotation marks around "businesses" because that's another axiom from business schools - you have a business once you start turning profit. Isn't the point for market to promote the winners and defer the losers? I am afraid the way AirBnB, Uber & co. operate looks a lot like a capitalist version of communist central planning commitees, when we still had independent and free press it used to be called "crony capitalism".

gosub100 2y ago

Someone disputes your claim with actual data, then you move the goalposts and appeal to a "holistic" view.

hansmayer 2y ago
Well the thing is, I never argued on the basis of revenue in the first place, and that second argument I wrote in response to someone else, not this person. But even if we did take revenue as sole metric of success (remember kids, revenue!=profits!), well, if the Meta CFO states that they dont see Threads as a driver of their revenue for the whole of 2025, who am I to dispute that really? But maybe you folks have some insider insights ;)