3 ms·

You ask this question in a way that suggests that you think he got insanely lucky, and that's it. Whereas I actually think he is a great businessman. (I also th

You ask this question in a way that suggests that you think he got insanely lucky, and that's it. Whereas I actually think he is a great businessman. (I also think he got lucky) He could have sold Facebook for billions of dollars at any point. If he felt like he was riding on luck, he should have expected his luck to run out at any moment in the last five years or so, and thus have a strong incentive to sell. So he was either being exceptionally irrational (stubborn, stupid, etc.) or he knows something you don't about the business he's in.

_delirium 14y ago
I don't think the latter part follows: even if Facebook got big (and became worth billions) primarily through luck, it doesn't mean that the rational decision would be to assume it was only luck keeping it afloat thereafter. Once something's already big, it's a whole different game; now you're managing a large company with considerable assets and brand. Presumably at that point he also had lots of paid lawyers and staff advising him.
veyron 14y ago
The "insanely lucky" part focuses more in initial traction and less on future actions. He got in at the right time in the right milieu. THAT part is luck. You take it as a foregone conclusion that the social revolution would happen, but its not clear when or how it would manifest. Later on, even if he made a misstep Facebook wouldn't blow up. If he tried deploying Beacon earlier on, for example, FB might not have proliferated. "He could have sold Facebook for billions of dollars at any point. If he felt like he was riding on luck, he should have expected his luck to run out at any moment in the last five years or so, and thus have a strong incentive to sell." That's true of many people, including the Digg people.
dean 14y ago
Whatever else Zuckerberg is, the fact that he paid a billion dollars for Instagram, makes him a bad businessman.

_delirium 14y ago

I don't think the latter part follows: even if Facebook got big (and became worth billions) primarily through luck, it doesn't mean that the rational decision would be to assume it was only luck keeping it afloat thereafter. Once something's already big, it's a whole different game; now you're managing a large company with considerable assets and brand. Presumably at that point he also had lots of paid lawyers and staff advising him.

veyron 14y ago

The "insanely lucky" part focuses more in initial traction and less on future actions. He got in at the right time in the right milieu. THAT part is luck. You take it as a foregone conclusion that the social revolution would happen, but its not clear when or how it would manifest. Later on, even if he made a misstep Facebook wouldn't blow up. If he tried deploying Beacon earlier on, for example, FB might not have proliferated. "He could have sold Facebook for billions of dollars at any point. If he felt like he was riding on luck, he should have expected his luck to run out at any moment in the last five years or so, and thus have a strong incentive to sell." That's true of many people, including the Digg people.

dean 14y ago

Whatever else Zuckerberg is, the fact that he paid a billion dollars for Instagram, makes him a bad businessman.