Meta shareholders vent anger at Zuckerberg’s spending binge | Hacker News Reader

Meta shareholders vent anger at Zuckerberg’s spending binge

ft.com

29 pointsdoener26 comments

Open articleView on HN

If they are not happy with Zuck's decision, just sell your shares. That's how you can teach him lessons.

Facebook is slowly dying.

Instagram is slowly dying.

WhatsApp makes no money.

The Metaverse has been widely rejected.

I don't understand why the Meta stock hasn't plummeted even more than it already did.

> don't understand why the Meta stock hasn't plummeted even more than it already did.

Because they are still making a lot of money

But that money doesn’t get returned to investors. Additionally, investors in Meta don’t have the power to vote for the money to be returned to investors. A stock without an ROI is worth $0.

I used to be an investor in FB but I sold out of it all in JAN 2020 at $206/share when I didn’t see the point in it.

They've returned 91 billion dollars to shareholders since 2017 by buying back shares [0].

[0]: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/meta-faceboo...

> I don't understand why the Meta stock hasn't plummeted even more than it already did.

Even though growth is slowing/negative at META, they still made $4.5B on $28B in revenue in the previous quarter.

> The Metaverse has been widely rejected.

How can that be, when it doesn’t exist yet?

It has existed for 30 years or more. Perceptual immersion is what companies like FB are commodifying about it. I started my own digital reality separate from my physical world when I first created my 'handle' denuoweb. I have never been able to afford any VR and so what I think is the bubble of wealthy people who work on VR like FB are just completely disconnected with the general populations reality of not being able to afford the equipment. Widely rejected the metaverse, no. Widely rejected expensive equipment and walled garden platforms, yes.

How can Facebook's Metaverse be 30+ years old when Facebook itself was founded 18 years ago?

The 'metaverse' is not owned by facebook nor was it created by facebook. No one said "Facebook's metaverse" except you.

Meta is the context here, so I think “Meta’s Metaverse” is what’s relevant in this discussion, since that’s what they’re investing in and working on. They’re not putting any hours into some existing, apparently rejected, external experience.

> I have never been able to afford any VR and so what I think is the bubble of wealthy people who work on VR like FB are just completely disconnected with the general populations reality of not being able to afford the equipment.

Facebook is one of the main companies that is working on making the equipment affordable. It’s too bad that it’s out of your price range buy it looks like Facebook is working on making this a computer replacement. Their tech is cutting edge technology so imo the $350 they charge seems reasonable.

Their bet on VR/AR (“metaverse”) hasn’t been widely rejected, it’s just growing very slowly. They’re hoping it grows much faster, but there’s very hard technology to figure out before they can unlock the value. Like you said, their other businesses are slowly receding so they’re racing against time. But AR/VR is the only bet they have that’s large enough to keep growth going. The world is still waiting to see what happens, and in the mean time they’re continuing to pump out billions of dollars in profit.

It isn't really the technology that they need. It would definitely be great to have a lighter headset, to have enough computing power to overlay 3D structures onto the existing world, to be all to do full body tracking with an inside-out system, etc, but those things are actually limited to things that you can't really fast track (chip production improvements are moore's law and battery tech is pretty much at a roadblock).

What they need is a 'killer app'. The PC would never have gotten on to a desktop if it weren't for spreadsheets and word processing, and the internet wouldn't have become ubiquitous if it weren't for the web. The metaverse currently has nothing to motivate normal people to want to strap on a headset to use it for more than a few minutes at a time to play a game or maybe watch a movie, currently, so Meta is struggling to find a compelling consumer appeal. Most people who get a Quest end up sticking in their closet after playing with it for a few weeks.

None of that is necessary. They just need one thing: Eye Tracking, for one feature: Eye Contact.

With that, they can be to the early 21st century office what Microsoft was to the late 20th century office.

The problem is Facebook is a consumer company, and VR will be an office tech (at first) and I’m not sure Facebook has the culture to do what Microsoft did. They need to adapt fast.

But technologically, they’re already there. The Meta Quest pro has everything it needs to be what Dell was to business in the 90s and 2000s. At this point Software and Sales is the game they stand to lose.

If I were Slack I would be gunning for the same prize. But I haven’t heard anything about VR at Slack, so it seems like they’re going to lose.

When I tell people that the Quest Pro's new hot feature is 'eye-tracking', then follow up with 'so now Meta knows what you look at and for how long', they are creeped out.

Can you expand on this claim a little? Why does eye contact make a huge difference in a VR office suite software?

The sole reason our eyes evolved whites was to see where other people are looking. It's a valuable and deeply-ingrained instinct.

I notice this trend on hacker news where there are so many pessimistic comments. It's like an ocean of pessimist people.

x is dying, y is dying.

FB is not dying. It is literally a money printing machine and will continue to be for many years.

Instagram, despite being over a decade old (very old in the internet world), continues to grow [quarter over quarter](https://i.gyazo.com/aee60a22bcc2757f446340c51a17b3bc.png). Where in that photo do you come to the conclusion "Instagram is slowly dying"?

Metaverse has not been rejected. If you're like me and follow its progress, you can see making significant improvements year over year but it is still in the early adopter phase. Like it or not, humans want more visceral experiences and putting yourself in a 3D virtual environment is a lot more visceral than staring at a 2D screen. Only a tech boomer would say metaverse is rejected when it's still in its infancy.

FB is not dying. It is literally a money printing machine and will continue to be for many years.

While i agree, it can be both at the same time.

previously Facebook was a money printing machine that was growing, and was valued accordingly.

now when Facebook is slowly shrinking it is valued accordingly.

https://archive.ph/khSt0

I'm surprised Facebook hasn't focused on mobile - they could have a Facebook style Pixel phone, which focus on camera / video quality to encourage more usage towards Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp etc.

WhatsApp/Messenger could have been the meta version of iMessage.

Instagram could have been the Meta version of Google Photos / iCloud.

Facebook could have been the Meta version of a Google account.

Could have offered a fbmail/metamail style Gmail service.

The problem is the original facebook phone had Facebook so in your face it wasn't funny. Meta could be strong on hardware, services etc without disrupting its advertising business.

I personally don't think i'll be using a VR headset while doing virtual meetings, half the time i'm doing something else on another screen. VR doesn't let you do that.

> I'm surprised Facebook ...they could have a Facebook style Pixel phone...

https://www.mobileworldlive.com/devices/news-devices/report-...

Sorry, but this "anger" doesn't mirror reality:

- 10k layoffs

- Product closures (inc. Portal)

- -$1k per FTE

- CapEx reductions

- Travel limitations

The big bets are on AI and VR. AR is the next logical step. The Quest is awesome and under-appreciated in terms of usability: it can replace N screens, has a virtual keyboard, can do meetings with it, and it supports a number of Windows apps.

I don't see what the other options are at this point. You either try to define the future risking failure. Or you just continue flailing your arms in an attempt to beat tiktok at their own game.

Even if they beat tiktok, will this show enough growth to keep investors happy?

Do they need to grow continually, or can they switch to steadily delivering dividends to shareholders and thereby satisfy shareholders?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com