> The way Meta is operating is if they don't know anything beyond two feet in front of them.
Have they had to up until now? Some of these social media companies have had money printer business models for their whole existence, and now they actually have to consider long-term consequences of their actions.
If that is not long term thinking, I don't know what is.
You should have clarified your comment that you want long-term thinking that makes the stock goes up while all of your peer stocks are going down i.e. market crash.
Cool, Zuck definitely isn't that good lmao.
The parent comment talked about how FB never have any kind of long term thinking. I refute that comment with one example.
To address your comment, everything at that level is a survivorship bias since there are only a handful of companies reaching 100b valuation, and each of them took a different path.
Having any amount of successful products is the past. Sure it will continue to give you profits. But that is the past. Making new products is the future.
You will never build a company, let alone a profitable successful one by penny pinching techniques like layoffs. The only real way to build a good company is to build good products. So far Mr Z, has shown he could build only one, and only one moat. Every other product has come from an acquisition. And those acquired companies themselves have been unable to build newer products.
This is a far bigger problem.
Compared this to companies that have survived decades the likes of Apple, Microsoft, Amazon. Even car companies Tesla etc. In general what makes it rain is building products and selling them.
Other products like Instagram and WhatsApp are praised as the most successful acquisitions in the modern history... on par with YouTube and Excel acquisition. Not sure why we downplay it. Zuck was a genius for buying these 2 products where everyone thought they were hugely overpriced.
He was at the right time, at the right place and had the correct skills to take advantage of the opportunity, What's your point?
You don't know me by any other name; you have no other option.
>What's your point?
That he did nothing special. He was a benefactor of circumstance. Further, that we should treat him as such--no one special, just a guy swept up in social media when the social media craze was sweeping people up. One might even say that his methods: bilking Saverin and the Winkelvosses, making what was essentially a hot-or-not clone, point out that he is little more than a slimy con artist. That certainly tracks with his approach to people's privacy.
Everyone is to some degree, even if what he did was nothing special, he was the one that did it. Let's put Neil Armstrong as an example, he just happened to be on the right moment at the right time to be the first human to walk on the moon, it could have been any other astronaut.
I'm not saying he isn't slimy or even a con artist, I'm saying his merit still stands
Regarding my mistake, would you care to tell me how it's supposed to be written? It serves me right for using words that I've only heard