8 ms·

As much as I hate Zuck - he's a ballsy CEO, he makes big bets, some work and some don't. Instagram and Whatsapp did! Heck in Asia and Latin America entire econo

As much as I hate Zuck - he's a ballsy CEO, he makes big bets, some work and some don't. Instagram and Whatsapp did! Heck in Asia and Latin America entire economies use Whatsapp for transacting business.

snarf21 6mo ago
I think it is hard to call IG and WA bets. He simply bought the competition that was set to wreck his platform.
- hx8 6mo ago
  Meta actually pioneered the Buy The Competition strategy in a brand new way. 1. Larger acquisitions. IG was $1B for a 13 employee company. WA was $22B. We were all talking about how big those numbers were at the time, but looking back they seem like mid-sized acquisitions. Before, most companies would have looked at these numbers and tried to build it themselves, or underbid, or just not pull the trigger. Blockbuster and Netflix. Yahoo and Google. 2. He meet the user where they were. He made no meaningful and instant change to the apps. There was no rebranding. They still have their own login screens and apps. Many casual users might not notice their major platforms are owned by the same company. Compare this to more old-school tech companies like Oracle buying Sun, or a national cellphone provider buying a regional one, or whatever happens with AOL-Time-Warner-Discovery.
- btian 6mo ago
  Why didn't other CEOs buy them to wreck Zuck's platform?
- sharadov 6mo ago
  Not as easy as it sounds, most acquisitions are not integrated well. He was astute in determining they were going to be 100X what he paid( and he paid a lot by the standards of the day).
  - upupupandaway 6mo ago
    Also extremely astute to stay the hell away from buying Twitter.
pgoggijr 6mo ago
Sure but these are low-risk bets for him personally. When they don't work out 8,000 folks pay the price and he is still one of the richest people on the planet who will never have to worry about money, food, housing, or healthcare.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
benjaminoakes 6mo ago
I know you're right about Asia and Latin America, but should any one platform or person have that much power?
- throwwrwqrqr 6mo ago
  no one can dare to ban an American company unless they want to be invaded or sanctioned
- sharadov 6mo ago
  No I don't that's why I said I don't like him or the platform. But the products are great, and there is no competition. And neither India or Latin America built domestic products to rival Whatsapp/Insta/FB.
whoisrosh 6mo ago
It may be explained more by his FOMO, he tried crypto, NFT, metaverse, VR and now AI. This feels more like correction of mistakes at pandemic than bold bet at future.
officerk 6mo ago
You might want to read Sarah-Wynn Willams 'Careless People' or listen to one of her interviews. Your opinion about him might change.
- sharadov 6mo ago
  I plan to read it, I've no doubt he's a douchebag, but most hyper-successful CEOs are psychopaths.
- upupupandaway 6mo ago
  OP is not saying Mark is a good person, but a ballsy CEO. And he is.

snarf21 6mo ago

I think it is hard to call IG and WA bets. He simply bought the competition that was set to wreck his platform.

hx8 6mo ago
Meta actually pioneered the Buy The Competition strategy in a brand new way. 1. Larger acquisitions. IG was $1B for a 13 employee company. WA was $22B. We were all talking about how big those numbers were at the time, but looking back they seem like mid-sized acquisitions. Before, most companies would have looked at these numbers and tried to build it themselves, or underbid, or just not pull the trigger. Blockbuster and Netflix. Yahoo and Google. 2. He meet the user where they were. He made no meaningful and instant change to the apps. There was no rebranding. They still have their own login screens and apps. Many casual users might not notice their major platforms are owned by the same company. Compare this to more old-school tech companies like Oracle buying Sun, or a national cellphone provider buying a regional one, or whatever happens with AOL-Time-Warner-Discovery.
btian 6mo ago
Why didn't other CEOs buy them to wreck Zuck's platform?
sharadov 6mo ago
Not as easy as it sounds, most acquisitions are not integrated well. He was astute in determining they were going to be 100X what he paid( and he paid a lot by the standards of the day).
- upupupandaway 6mo ago
  Also extremely astute to stay the hell away from buying Twitter.

pgoggijr 6mo ago

Sure but these are low-risk bets for him personally. When they don't work out 8,000 folks pay the price and he is still one of the richest people on the planet who will never have to worry about money, food, housing, or healthcare.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

benjaminoakes 6mo ago

I know you're right about Asia and Latin America, but should any one platform or person have that much power?

throwwrwqrqr 6mo ago
no one can dare to ban an American company unless they want to be invaded or sanctioned
sharadov 6mo ago
No I don't that's why I said I don't like him or the platform. But the products are great, and there is no competition. And neither India or Latin America built domestic products to rival Whatsapp/Insta/FB.

whoisrosh 6mo ago

It may be explained more by his FOMO, he tried crypto, NFT, metaverse, VR and now AI. This feels more like correction of mistakes at pandemic than bold bet at future.

officerk 6mo ago

You might want to read Sarah-Wynn Willams 'Careless People' or listen to one of her interviews. Your opinion about him might change.

sharadov 6mo ago
I plan to read it, I've no doubt he's a douchebag, but most hyper-successful CEOs are psychopaths.
upupupandaway 6mo ago
OP is not saying Mark is a good person, but a ballsy CEO. And he is.