Hacker News Reader

Comment by gedy | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me - why was Twitter never considered a FAANG? FATNAG, etc.

The way things are trending, it's going to be FAAG soon, which is not so good. I guess, technically, it's not F anymore, so it's MAAG, which is almost as perilous. But if we're truly being technical, it's not G, it's a, in which case it's MAAA, in which case we might as well go with GOAT.

MAAG or MAGA? Oh, wait

I think FAANG should be renamed to MAAG the only companies that will continue to dominate the tech industry at least of the next 2 decades ...

Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google

Everything else ... not so sure ...

I think Meta is probably here to stay, but you're right Microsoft should probably be in there. So, GAMMA.

Cramer used it to refer to high growth tech stocks that dominate their markets and have large market caps, Twitter was none of those.

FAANG was coined by Wall Street and refers to high growth stocks (which is why it didn't also include Microsoft).

msft has grown as much or more than google and apple. (and more than fb and netflix)

Not when the term was coined in 2013. It's honestly outdated.

MSFT stock mostly stagnant during Balmer, growth during Gates and Nadella. Balmer had bad luck expanding into new areas.

At the time MS was old hat. They only grew because Office 365 extended their natural monopoly in enterprise. Definitely a good stock pick in hindsight, but not the new type of ‘new’ platform growth that was going on at FAANG at the time.

For the same reason Microsoft wasn't.

There are only so many letters you can use to make a word and some companies had to be dropped.

The original meaning was a term to describe the big tech companies.

because it never made money and had poor user growth metrics, FAANG companies are like 10x the size

If memory serves it has a much smaller number of employees.

it was a made up stock market acronym. twitter hasnt performed well.

bigger question is why was microsoft not part of it? mainly because it didnt form a catchy word.

Not big enough.

Why not Tesla?

Tesla isn't a mass-market software/online-services business. They manufacture, which means a lot of capital going into factories and a lot higher of material-input costs, and they're kind of a high end brand.

This gives their business different performance characteristics from Facebook (mass market social-media and ads), Amazon (mass market sales and logistics), Apple (which is at least slightly luxury, but contracts out its manufacturing, and does mass market hardware — look at that iPhone sell), Netflix (mass market entertainment), and Google (mass market search, mail, advertising).

Amazon and apple probably both have more capital invested in factories, warehouses, etc than Tesla does. Apple is also kinda a high end brand. They seem a lot more similar than different.

You might be thinking of contract manufacturers like Foxconn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com