4 ms·
> they're back to the same business they've always had: social media. Which is an OK enough business, but not high growth. Amazing that Meta is even mentioned
by thunky 7mo ago
> they're back to the same business they've always had: social media. Which is an OK enough business, but not high growth.
Amazing that Meta is even mentioned in the same breath as Google considering the ocean sized difference in what they do and the services they offer.
I know the reason is market cap. But that's the amazing part. That a company as limp and unimpressive as Meta could have over a trillion dollars in market cap.
- Marsymars 7mo agoThey have pretty similar P/E (currently Meta a bit better). Watching ads on facebook/instagram is addictive/profitable.
- thunky 7mo ago> They have pretty similar P/E That's the baffling part. I would think YouTube alone would crush Facebook in profitability. Then add all the other things Google does and it's not even close. I understand the reality, but I don't get it.
- Marsymars 7mo agoI'm reminded of the Hastings quote about Netflix's biggest competitor being sleep. As far as the various infinite-scrolling ad-machines are concerned, the primary input is users' time, and whatever the service does or looks like is just window dressing in service to triggering dopamine hits to keep users scrolling.
- OrangeDelonge 7mo agoThey are quite similar in the sense that both generate most of their revenue through ads.
- thunky 7mo agoRight but Google has loads of market leading services they use to deliver those ads, and Facebook has a crappy dated website and dumb ideas that lose them money which they brand the company on. I know I'm simplifying, but not by much imo.