3 ms·

For one thing, I still don't understand Meta as a business. It seems like Zuck refused to accept owning a boring ad business and keeps trying to act like a tech

For one thing, I still don't understand Meta as a business. It seems like Zuck refused to accept owning a boring ad business and keeps trying to act like a tech business. For another, this seems like a move that happens when the bubble pops. The dotcom bubble went from having tons of business raising fortunes on the promise of business models the internet unlocks to having few internet businesses left at that scale and a bunch of unused fiber. Now we're starting to see all the companies claiming AI products will make fortunes to them trying to sell unused hardware capacity.

spacington 3mo ago
He just has that much money and his 'whatever ecosystem this is' continues to work, it has to be a kind a playground for him. He could invest in paying back society but he cares more about continuing his ignorance. Just imagine how his ego got stroked when he was agreeing with trump like a bootlicker but still sitting at a table at the Whitehouse. Even with this clown this has to count for something in his books.
rwmj 3mo ago
The difference is the hardware will become obsolete in a few years, unlike the dark fibre (really, rights of way) that provided cheap connectivity for years after the crash.
- cyanydeez 3mo ago
  not if they completely crash manufacturing with their push for fascism; be more optimistic!
- johndhi 3mo ago
  It's obsolete for training but is it obsolete for inference?
  - disgruntledphd2 3mo ago
    The factories won't be obsolete, even if the chips are.
    - rwmj 3mo ago
      The fabs for current nodes will be obsoleted by newer nodes.
- bwb 3mo ago
  Do we have any good data on how many of the GPU burn out given hard usage? Are we talkinga bout loosing 50% of the hardware as it fails? Or far less?
  - digdugdirk 3mo ago
    It's an inherently different thing. Fibre is infrastructure. It'll still function decades later. GPUs at this scale are consumables. I've heard 3-5 years lifespan before they fail out. This might be a low estimate, but even if you double it - they're 50% of the cost of datacenters. We're flushing entire countries worth of economic value down an Nvidia shaped toilet.
    - bwb 3mo ago
      Anyone got any good testing data? Surely someone knows rough failure rate from constant usage?
      - rwmj 3mo ago
        It's not that they fail (which they also do), it's that they become obsolete. They consume more energy to do fewer operations relative to newer nodes. This is the basis behind Moore's law.
        bwb 3mo ago
        Ah gotcha, ya that will be interesting to see, but does seem like a more likely life of 7 to 10 years is possible. I am curious on actual hardware failure rates due to heat etc.
  - rightbyte 3mo ago
    I tried to do a calculation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48762428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48762428 So 10% failure rate per gpu year. Some might be repairable and there might be a failure rate acceleration as time passes etc. So very approximate numbers.
- Traster 3mo ago
  The hardware will become obsolete but we may end up with an oversupply of cheap power - overbuild on things like Nuclear and solar. That would be nice.
tacker2000 3mo ago
Unfortunately he has too much cash since he owns some of the largest social networks and thus receives insane amounts of ad spend… this will not end soon
- jordanb 3mo ago
  And he can't be fired by shareholders.
gloryjulio 3mo ago
> For one thing, I still don't understand Meta as a business Zuck got spooked by apple ads change a few years ago, which crashed the meta's stock to double digit. So Zuck is trying to own a platform. They want to be a version of openai selling ads
- johndhi 3mo ago
  Good take! I buy it.
- eiejee 3mo ago
  Actually his basket case investments with VR is what led to a loss of investor trust
  - gloryjulio 3mo ago
    That's true. But trying out a new sector is one thing, even apple build their own vr. Zuck took so long to cut loss on vr platform because he wants to have this platform to be solely under his control
- zaphirplane 3mo ago
  How is that different from Facebook
- kombookcha 3mo ago
  This is an interesting angle. I had not considered how fundamentally exposed Meta is, should Apple and Google decide to break omerta.
  - gloryjulio 3mo ago
    Btw I am just quoting someone else. It's in the news in for a long time. Besides ads monetization, Zuck's moves in recent years are mostly about creating their own platform so the Apple incident never happen again
    - 3mo ago
re-thc 3mo ago
> It seems like Zuck refused to accept owning a boring ad business Zuck sees a real problem: not owning the platform. Hence the VR and other attempts. He sees what he has today as a dead end. The fear grips him. In theory Google and Apple could ban Meta’s apps and it would be game over.
- eiejee 3mo ago
  lol that’s charitable The real problem for Zuck is he thinks he’s some grand master who can play 5-d chess, except he can’t
cmiles8 3mo ago
It’s a pretty consistent story in tech. Meta built a successful ads platform. That success went to their head and the company starts acting like it’s just great at tech and innovation and tried to do a bunch of other stuff. Turns out it’s pretty crap at most other things and can’t figure out how to make money from anything other than selling ads. Company is very headstrong and refuses to admit it’s just not good at other stuff. It has enough cash from ads to not go bankrupt and so just carries on with this nonsense on cycle after cycle of crazy side projects that go nowhere.
mrweasel 3mo ago
He might be scared that his ad business won't be as profitable in a few years. He'll still be rich, but perhaps that's not enough for him. He has all the correct number and knows exactly how many of their users are bots and how much of the ad revenue comes from scams. Maybe he sees a potential risk that we can't. Could also be a self-image thing. Facebook isn't exactly young and fashionable anymore, it's more akin to a weird mid-90s idea of a close walled Internet in some sense. Instagram users I'd guess is mostly younger women. None of these really align with Zuckerbergs macho persona.

spacington 3mo ago

He just has that much money and his 'whatever ecosystem this is' continues to work, it has to be a kind a playground for him. He could invest in paying back society but he cares more about continuing his ignorance. Just imagine how his ego got stroked when he was agreeing with trump like a bootlicker but still sitting at a table at the Whitehouse. Even with this clown this has to count for something in his books.

rwmj 3mo ago

The difference is the hardware will become obsolete in a few years, unlike the dark fibre (really, rights of way) that provided cheap connectivity for years after the crash.

cyanydeez 3mo ago
not if they completely crash manufacturing with their push for fascism; be more optimistic!
johndhi 3mo ago
It's obsolete for training but is it obsolete for inference?
- disgruntledphd2 3mo ago
  The factories won't be obsolete, even if the chips are.
  - rwmj 3mo ago
    The fabs for current nodes will be obsoleted by newer nodes.
bwb 3mo ago
Do we have any good data on how many of the GPU burn out given hard usage? Are we talkinga bout loosing 50% of the hardware as it fails? Or far less?
- digdugdirk 3mo ago
  It's an inherently different thing. Fibre is infrastructure. It'll still function decades later. GPUs at this scale are consumables. I've heard 3-5 years lifespan before they fail out. This might be a low estimate, but even if you double it - they're 50% of the cost of datacenters. We're flushing entire countries worth of economic value down an Nvidia shaped toilet.
  - bwb 3mo ago
    Anyone got any good testing data? Surely someone knows rough failure rate from constant usage?
    - rwmj 3mo ago
      It's not that they fail (which they also do), it's that they become obsolete. They consume more energy to do fewer operations relative to newer nodes. This is the basis behind Moore's law.
      - bwb 3mo ago
        Ah gotcha, ya that will be interesting to see, but does seem like a more likely life of 7 to 10 years is possible. I am curious on actual hardware failure rates due to heat etc.
- rightbyte 3mo ago
  I tried to do a calculation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48762428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48762428 So 10% failure rate per gpu year. Some might be repairable and there might be a failure rate acceleration as time passes etc. So very approximate numbers.
Traster 3mo ago
The hardware will become obsolete but we may end up with an oversupply of cheap power - overbuild on things like Nuclear and solar. That would be nice.

tacker2000 3mo ago

Unfortunately he has too much cash since he owns some of the largest social networks and thus receives insane amounts of ad spend… this will not end soon

jordanb 3mo ago
And he can't be fired by shareholders.

gloryjulio 3mo ago

> For one thing, I still don't understand Meta as a business Zuck got spooked by apple ads change a few years ago, which crashed the meta's stock to double digit. So Zuck is trying to own a platform. They want to be a version of openai selling ads

johndhi 3mo ago
Good take! I buy it.
eiejee 3mo ago
Actually his basket case investments with VR is what led to a loss of investor trust
- gloryjulio 3mo ago
  That's true. But trying out a new sector is one thing, even apple build their own vr. Zuck took so long to cut loss on vr platform because he wants to have this platform to be solely under his control
zaphirplane 3mo ago
How is that different from Facebook
kombookcha 3mo ago
This is an interesting angle. I had not considered how fundamentally exposed Meta is, should Apple and Google decide to break omerta.
- gloryjulio 3mo ago
  Btw I am just quoting someone else. It's in the news in for a long time. Besides ads monetization, Zuck's moves in recent years are mostly about creating their own platform so the Apple incident never happen again
  - 3mo ago

re-thc 3mo ago

> It seems like Zuck refused to accept owning a boring ad business Zuck sees a real problem: not owning the platform. Hence the VR and other attempts. He sees what he has today as a dead end. The fear grips him. In theory Google and Apple could ban Meta’s apps and it would be game over.

eiejee 3mo ago
lol that’s charitable The real problem for Zuck is he thinks he’s some grand master who can play 5-d chess, except he can’t

cmiles8 3mo ago

It’s a pretty consistent story in tech. Meta built a successful ads platform. That success went to their head and the company starts acting like it’s just great at tech and innovation and tried to do a bunch of other stuff. Turns out it’s pretty crap at most other things and can’t figure out how to make money from anything other than selling ads. Company is very headstrong and refuses to admit it’s just not good at other stuff. It has enough cash from ads to not go bankrupt and so just carries on with this nonsense on cycle after cycle of crazy side projects that go nowhere.

mrweasel 3mo ago

He might be scared that his ad business won't be as profitable in a few years. He'll still be rich, but perhaps that's not enough for him. He has all the correct number and knows exactly how many of their users are bots and how much of the ad revenue comes from scams. Maybe he sees a potential risk that we can't. Could also be a self-image thing. Facebook isn't exactly young and fashionable anymore, it's more akin to a weird mid-90s idea of a close walled Internet in some sense. Instagram users I'd guess is mostly younger women. None of these really align with Zuckerbergs macho persona.