Meta Reports Third Quarter 2023 Results(investor.fb.com)
investor.fb.com
Meta Reports Third Quarter 2023 Results
https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2023/Meta-Reports-Third-Quarter-2023-Results/default.aspx
159 comments
The death of Meta was greatly exaggerated. Wish I had gone in when the stock was taking a beating. They are now up ~250% YoY.
ATT and the metaverse stuff was a tough one two punch for them and then investors got spooked about mark being completely unaccountable. But they always had a strong business, mark just had to remind investors that he still cares about profitability which he did with the layoffs.
With Apple joining in on the space, Valve being there for ages, and Microsoft's being reborn from the dead [1]... one wonders what's this whole thing against VR/AR applications.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/13/23871859/us-army-microsof...
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/13/23871859/us-army-microsof...
I don't think people are against VR/AR, it's just that Horizon was so underwhelming given the hype.
Ideas like the metaverse tap into a lot of established sci-fi, pop-culture concepts which are generally very cool. I genuinely think that people really do want VR worlds to succeed - they do want their own virtual homes, customisable avatars, places to meet and game online in the metaverse, etc.
But instead they got some awkward, low-poly bobbleheads with a side helping of unnecessary crypto crap...
Ideas like the metaverse tap into a lot of established sci-fi, pop-culture concepts which are generally very cool. I genuinely think that people really do want VR worlds to succeed - they do want their own virtual homes, customisable avatars, places to meet and game online in the metaverse, etc.
But instead they got some awkward, low-poly bobbleheads with a side helping of unnecessary crypto crap...
I’d have to disagree given all the adults who have bad opinions of AR / VR, yet ironically have yet to try anything modern; with their only experience being Google Cardboard from a decade ago. It’s easy to find these posts on HN and elsewhere online.
Apple is dipping their toe in and expecting to move 200k units on 2024. VR/AR has legs but still ultimately smacks of being a toy.
Quest3 is GOOD though and I feel people are sleeping on it. It feels like a properly mature product. It’s the rest of the market that looks a little questionable to me.
Not to sound too much like a VC Bro but I also feel the more VR/AR goggles they can push the more appealing the platform will become for developers and as a social platform. They’re just not shipping quite enough units. It doesn’t feel like meta is doing anything wrong, it’s just going to take time to build up enough users to attract developers and more users to attract more users and developers.
Quest3 is GOOD though and I feel people are sleeping on it. It feels like a properly mature product. It’s the rest of the market that looks a little questionable to me.
Not to sound too much like a VC Bro but I also feel the more VR/AR goggles they can push the more appealing the platform will become for developers and as a social platform. They’re just not shipping quite enough units. It doesn’t feel like meta is doing anything wrong, it’s just going to take time to build up enough users to attract developers and more users to attract more users and developers.
I recall seeing all those 'Meta is dead' youtube videos last year. Who cares if you're wrong as long as you get that ad $, right. Even if the Metaverse is a dud and a money pit, the rest of the company is firing on all cylinders.
They're spending $10B/yr on servers alone without any product or plan for their use. It's a waste of money if there isn't a roadmap, which there still isn't.
EDIT: I work for Meta as an IC6.
EDIT: I work for Meta as an IC6.
You're also disparaging your employer on HN and disclosing things they would likely consider company confidential material. Not a great look, and some risk of becoming "Ex-Meta" if you keep doing this sort of thing and they identify you.
They can say whatever they like about their employer. I can’t even begin to imagine the mentality of admonishing a stranger on the internet because you think they said something that Facebook doesn’t like. It’s fine I promise.
Agree to disagree honestly. If you don't like your employer to the point you're going to trash talk on HN, find a new job, do something else, and certainly don't disclose information like $'s being spent on infrastructure with "no plan to use" (this person is inevitably covered by an NDA, and that is very likely considered company confidential information by Meta).
Always best to assume that even if you post attempting to be anonymous and not filling out 'About Me' that one of your 100's of comments on an internet forum may identify you accidentally or intentionally, and that all your comment history may then trace to you.
Always best to assume that even if you post attempting to be anonymous and not filling out 'About Me' that one of your 100's of comments on an internet forum may identify you accidentally or intentionally, and that all your comment history may then trace to you.
You can't imagine why it's wrong for him to sign an agreement undertaking to uphold their good name and not disclose confidential info, only to then go back on his word on both points here?
To make it worse, $META is a public company. Confidential info is even more sensitive for a public company.
Whether you like Meta or not plays no part.
To make it worse, $META is a public company. Confidential info is even more sensitive for a public company.
Whether you like Meta or not plays no part.
This got me interested in what did they spend between the $34B revenue and $11.6B Net income.
Cost of revenue 6,210 Research and development 9,241 Marketing and sales 2,877 General and administrative. 2,070
$9B in Research and Development. About $3B of that still belongs to Reality Lab.
So even without VR, Facebook still seems to spend relatively a lot of money for their revenue generation. I am surprised by this as I thought their net margin would be quite a bit higher.
Cost of revenue 6,210 Research and development 9,241 Marketing and sales 2,877 General and administrative. 2,070
$9B in Research and Development. About $3B of that still belongs to Reality Lab.
So even without VR, Facebook still seems to spend relatively a lot of money for their revenue generation. I am surprised by this as I thought their net margin would be quite a bit higher.
Their profit margins were always around 30% or so, except late-2021 through mid-2022 when it fell dramatically due to higher expenses and (unexpected) flat revenue.
As for $9B in research and development - they have 66K employees now. Say 30,000 of them are in engineering, costing the company $300K on average (salary + bonus + benefits + other expenses), that's $9B right there in research.
As for $9B in research and development - they have 66K employees now. Say 30,000 of them are in engineering, costing the company $300K on average (salary + bonus + benefits + other expenses), that's $9B right there in research.
[deleted]
> No wonder stock is up 4% after earnings.
This was short lived.
This was short lived.
Right; down nearly 8% on the day.
> Net income is up a whopping 143%, from $4.4B to $11.6B
Zuck finally got over his bad VR trip. He was spending current FCF on his bad adventure and it was only a matter of time before someone got him to pull back. They can still do a lot in the space without dropping billions/quarter.
Zuck finally got over his bad VR trip. He was spending current FCF on his bad adventure and it was only a matter of time before someone got him to pull back. They can still do a lot in the space without dropping billions/quarter.
> Zuck finally got over his bad VR trip
Whether the trip was bad or not is up to debate, but what makes you think Zuckerberg is quitting on AR/VR? His recent interviews suggest anything but that.
Whether the trip was bad or not is up to debate, but what makes you think Zuckerberg is quitting on AR/VR? His recent interviews suggest anything but that.
Their VR division is still loosing billions and they guided increased loses as they invest more.
> losing billions
Isn't the word "spending" in this case?
Isn't the word "spending" in this case?
What do people want Zuckerberg to do? Not make bets about future tech?
VR won't happen until we have direct-to-visual cortex connectivity, just as smartphones weren't going to happen before the advent of capacitive multitouch input. It's pointless to try to make something happen before its time. No amount of money or manpower will ever be enough.
The smart money waits by the river until the necessary enabling technology comes floating by, just as Jobs did.
The smart money waits by the river until the necessary enabling technology comes floating by, just as Jobs did.
Creating EM waves to activate the rods and cones in people's retina already works very well for VR.
And I'm sure that after somebody spends another billion dollars or two on goofy-ass goggles, the rest of the world will catch on. This time for sure!
Zuck has been throwing tens of billions of dollars at VR and it still hasn't gone mainstream.
At what point do you decide that the market just isn't there for the product - or, at least, the market will forever be restricted to fairly serious gamers and sundry small other specialized business applications (eg architectural visualizations)?
At what point do you decide that the market just isn't there for the product - or, at least, the market will forever be restricted to fairly serious gamers and sundry small other specialized business applications (eg architectural visualizations)?
It's significantly closer to mainstream since the quest 2 than before. I never saw a VR headset on retail shelves before, and I never heard kids talking about it at all. Now both of those things happen to me occasionally.
Perhaps I’m getting old, but back in the day it seemed like that when a consumer product was going to be a hit, “everybody” would want it watts and all because the good parts were so compelling people would put up with the rough edges.
I mean, I remember when Wolf3D was first released. Some aspects of it - the low-resolution bitmapped NPCs, for instance - were clearly stopgaps. But the over experience was so amazing you were prepared to ignore that.
With virtual reality, the argument seems to be “if we just polish it a bit more it’ll be a compelling consumer product”. How many more years of polishing is it going to take?
I mean, I remember when Wolf3D was first released. Some aspects of it - the low-resolution bitmapped NPCs, for instance - were clearly stopgaps. But the over experience was so amazing you were prepared to ignore that.
With virtual reality, the argument seems to be “if we just polish it a bit more it’ll be a compelling consumer product”. How many more years of polishing is it going to take?
I feel the hardware is already here, it’s the lack of users and software at this point. I struggle to think of what massive hardware improvement could be needed.
I still struggle to see a future where VR/AR headsets don’t have 50m users by the end of the decade. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the Quest3 be a sleeper success once the wave of interest generated by Quest2 materializes in the form of new software.
I still struggle to see a future where VR/AR headsets don’t have 50m users by the end of the decade. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the Quest3 be a sleeper success once the wave of interest generated by Quest2 materializes in the form of new software.
... wolfenstein 3d sold less than a million copies...
With VR I feel like it’s a bit different since fidelity is the product - unless the experience is near real life levels of realistic, there’s not much point. We’re probably a couple of generations away from that, VR will seem a disappointment until one day it’s not.
We play video games that aren't anywhere near real life levels of realistic. IMO the main issue with VR is it makes you feel nauseous
Bad/unoptimized VR makes people feel nauseous. I've never heard of anyone getting nauseous from a polished and performant VR experience like Moss or Beat Saber.
In beat saber you stand in one spot and objects come towards you in a narrow field of vision.
In a lot of VR games you move your character around while you do not and that is what causes a lot of nausea. If games have to be like beat saber for VR/AR to be successful that’s damning.
In a lot of VR games you move your character around while you do not and that is what causes a lot of nausea. If games have to be like beat saber for VR/AR to be successful that’s damning.
I think the Quest2 with its cellphone graphics utterly crushing PCvr put that argument out to pasture. 20 years from now standalone VR is still not going to be near real life levels of realistic.
If the market _does_ work and Zuck gets to own it like Apple and Google own mobile, then it's worth the gamble. You own a "pane of glass" and control and tax all of the commerce through it (unless regulators finally wake up).
The whole endeavor also comes with a great failure mode: Zuck also gets to own lots of the spatial computing, rendering, and multimedia future. We're getting glimpses of what games and films will look like in a decade or two, and it's nothing like what we're used to experiencing today.
Not to mention the industrial applications of spatial computing.
I think he's a genius for investing in this, even if AR/VR/XR fall completely flat.
The whole endeavor also comes with a great failure mode: Zuck also gets to own lots of the spatial computing, rendering, and multimedia future. We're getting glimpses of what games and films will look like in a decade or two, and it's nothing like what we're used to experiencing today.
Not to mention the industrial applications of spatial computing.
I think he's a genius for investing in this, even if AR/VR/XR fall completely flat.
Uber lost 38B so far and still going on with their product: https://uberlosses.com/
Uber is the public company that has lost the most money in the past 5 yrs (in the US).
Second most is Carnival Cruise Lines.
Second most is Carnival Cruise Lines.
The military just gave the go ahead to Microsoft to continue developing their HoloLens. I would say it's a fairly big player on this.
The military has been throwing money at VR and AR for decades, and will continue to do so because fighter pilots need HUDs, but most of us don't pilot F-35 fighter jets for a living.
I was arguing against the idea of only being used in "sundry small other specialized business applications".
So much of computing is still about being chained to a chair and table, using an ill designed keyboard layout, with a pointing device that only really kinda works in 2D. This has had imense repercussions on how we use computers today, it has alienated outsiders for years.
We're at a point where people prefer to search for things rather than using the UI. At some point, certainly, we gotta start questioning how ** stale we are with user interfaces.
I'm sorry for the rant, long day!
So much of computing is still about being chained to a chair and table, using an ill designed keyboard layout, with a pointing device that only really kinda works in 2D. This has had imense repercussions on how we use computers today, it has alienated outsiders for years.
We're at a point where people prefer to search for things rather than using the UI. At some point, certainly, we gotta start questioning how ** stale we are with user interfaces.
I'm sorry for the rant, long day!
This. The question of whether VR/AR finds profitable markets is a separate one from whether it becomes a mass consumer phenomenon on the scale of social media.
...the Internet was also a military project, turns out it also has a little appeal for the civilians.
Nvidia has thrown billions at AI and it hasn’t gone mainstream … people around 2017
What did they spend billions on that didn’t align with other workloads? I think they spent billions on enabling GPUs to become general purpose chips. AI was the workload that came along. Will be interesting to see what the VR workload is that we don’t yet know that blows the roof off demand
Toyota has thrown billions at fuel cell cars and it hasn’t gone mainstream - people around 2017.
Not all bets that look crazy pay off. Sometimes they’re just bad.
Not all bets that look crazy pay off. Sometimes they’re just bad.
And isn't that okay.. Toyota needs to take risks if it wants to be around in 100 years
In this particular case, yes. Battery EVs will clearly win over fuel cell
People are free to sell their stock and invest in a different future tech.
> What do people want Zuckerberg to do? Not make bets about future tech?
Future tech like adding legs to ugly avatars?
Future tech like adding legs to ugly avatars?
At some point it'll work and you'll be forced to use it.
Bring too early is a problem for sure but you can't time everything.
Bring too early is a problem for sure but you can't time everything.
“Forced to use it” is a bold prediction. We’re currently not forced to use anything Meta makes. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Are you forced to use zoom?
I know plenty of people who were staunchly against video calls as an alternative to meetings.
I know plenty of people who were staunchly against video calls as an alternative to meetings.
Don’t even have an account on zoom. Never used it in my life.
Reality labs lost more this quarter than last years.
R&D is not loss. It’s spending or investment. Selling it as loss is investor activism which tends to be motivated by short term thinking and the preference to squeeze whatever you can as a profit since you can always exit your position at any time.
up 4% after a 200% gain over past year...crazy. a year ago ppl were writing the obituaries for Meta, with viral videos on YouTube about Meta's imminent demise getting millions of views...how poorly those have aged. I have never seen as big of a turnround as this...a half a trillion dollar company with as much upside as penny stocks but much smoother, less risk.
> Went from a 15% to 34% profit margin
> Headcount was 66,185 as of September 30, 2023, a decrease of 24% year-over-year.
How to increase profit 101.
> Headcount was 66,185 as of September 30, 2023, a decrease of 24% year-over-year.
How to increase profit 101.
Exactly. But but but we were told that Meta was collapsing 1 year ago for sure due to their massive spending in VR and AR with the stock falling to less than $90.
Its almost as if that full emotion took over the markets over and switched on to complete fear mode and was a complete nothing to see here in the end showing that the so-called death of Meta Platforms Inc was over exaggerated by the media.
Another earnings beat and it is business as usual, just like before. [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32256465
Its almost as if that full emotion took over the markets over and switched on to complete fear mode and was a complete nothing to see here in the end showing that the so-called death of Meta Platforms Inc was over exaggerated by the media.
Another earnings beat and it is business as usual, just like before. [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32256465
Yes and I remember it keeps being repeated since, dare I say the birth of HN? And every few years someone who were happy and bother to summarise how great Facebook is still doing during their quarterly or yearly results, just to irritate the vast majority of HN who wishes to see its death.
It was down 4% earlier today from yesterday. Just back to where it was.
Fun fact, down 4% and then up 4% puts you slightly below where you were, since 4% of 100 is larger than 4% of 96.
> ad impressions delivered across our Family of
Apps increased by 31% year-over-year and the average price per ad decreased by 6% year-over-year.
How the hell do they keep pumping their impression numbers like this? Seriously I have stark memories of seeing these 20%+ numbers on last years earnings and thinking it was a big problem since there's no way it's sustainable at their size but here we go again.
How the hell do they keep pumping their impression numbers like this? Seriously I have stark memories of seeing these 20%+ numbers on last years earnings and thinking it was a big problem since there's no way it's sustainable at their size but here we go again.
The ad density has gone up enormously. They introduced a "suggested for you" feature so they could sparse your friends posts and increase the ad quantity between them without it being perceived as such since they occupy the interstitial slots with viral content. That's why it can't be "disabled" - it's not about keeping you on the platform, it's about subtly increasing ad density between the content you actually want to see in the same way local news uses teasers to string the audience along.
Whether this strategy is a level of abusive that leads to atrophy or is sustainable is yet to be determined.
Whether this strategy is a level of abusive that leads to atrophy or is sustainable is yet to be determined.
Seriously, we're living in a comedy TV show simulation.
"ad density".
"ad density".
How in gods name do they still make such obscene amounts of money?! Like, in my entire social circle including work, no one uses Facebook for more than messaging relatives abroad and most of that has shifted to Whatsapp anyway. Only thing I can imagine is Instagram, but that's gotten completely unusable for me as every second or third post is a fucking ad.
A quick Google gives me:
- Number of Facebook users in the world (monthly active users): 2.989 billion (April 2023)
- Number of people who use Facebook each day (DAU): 2.037 billion (April 2023)
- Size of Facebook's global advertising audience: 2.249 billion* (April 2023)
- These latest figures indicate that roughly 37.2% of all the people on Earth use Facebook today
Even if Facebook is losing active users, it has 2 BILLION users.
Source: https://datareportal.com/essential-facebook-stats
- Number of Facebook users in the world (monthly active users): 2.989 billion (April 2023)
- Number of people who use Facebook each day (DAU): 2.037 billion (April 2023)
- Size of Facebook's global advertising audience: 2.249 billion* (April 2023)
- These latest figures indicate that roughly 37.2% of all the people on Earth use Facebook today
Even if Facebook is losing active users, it has 2 BILLION users.
Source: https://datareportal.com/essential-facebook-stats
If ever you want a data point that HN is an echo-chamber sometimes, this number says it all:
> Number of people who use Facebook each day (DAU): 2.037 billion (April 2023)
If you estimate ~8bn people in the world, then a quarter of every human on earth use Facebook _daily_.
Yet if you just followed HN threads, you would believe that it's a ghost town and that everyone needs to follow whatever teens are doing.
> Number of people who use Facebook each day (DAU): 2.037 billion (April 2023)
If you estimate ~8bn people in the world, then a quarter of every human on earth use Facebook _daily_.
Yet if you just followed HN threads, you would believe that it's a ghost town and that everyone needs to follow whatever teens are doing.
Someone should write a bot to bet against HN average sentiment and see how it fares. Even if with fake money just for the giggles.
I wonder how correct those numbers are.
Looking at the Philippines, it says they have 91.9 million active users. That's for a population of 113.9 million people (estimate, their latest 2020 census only had 109 million). That means 80% of the TOTAL population of the Philippines is active on Facebook?
Then when you look at the population pyramid you have 30% of that 113 million under 14 years old (around 34 million).
Something does not add up here... But then again, I don't know too many Filipino people, so who am I to say that every person in the Philippines capable of holding a phone is not actually an active Facebook user?
Looking at the Philippines, it says they have 91.9 million active users. That's for a population of 113.9 million people (estimate, their latest 2020 census only had 109 million). That means 80% of the TOTAL population of the Philippines is active on Facebook?
Then when you look at the population pyramid you have 30% of that 113 million under 14 years old (around 34 million).
Something does not add up here... But then again, I don't know too many Filipino people, so who am I to say that every person in the Philippines capable of holding a phone is not actually an active Facebook user?
My partner is Filipino and if anything 80% is an under-estimate.
That country literally runs on Facebook. Also, they just elected a dictator's son, which may be related.
That country literally runs on Facebook. Also, they just elected a dictator's son, which may be related.
I guess active users counts anyone that opens Facebook for even one second. Not necessarily people who are using the app in a meaningful way.
That’s not really answering the question though if they are losing users, there is still the question of what accounts for such a surge in revenue.
Layoffs, they let go of around 20 something percent of their people.
That accounts for profit, not revenue
Technically adept people aren't the target market for their advertising platforms but yet they are staffed by ... technically adept people. It confounds me how anyone would want to work there. The money must be really good.
> It confounds me how anyone would want to work there. The money must be really good.
Why does HN always do this, comment up from their moral high horse? Someone works in big tech then they must be a sell out doing it for the money. Also, if big tech is off limits then by that logic I assume so are big banks, big pharma, big oil etc etc. Almost feels like only start ups qualify as employment opportunities then perhaps, but even they most likely are using frameworks/tech by big tech (is that ok or is that selling out too). Where does one work then? Is it that hard to fathom that people have different moral codes and care about different stuff. Such comments almost feel like sour-grapes.
Why does HN always do this, comment up from their moral high horse? Someone works in big tech then they must be a sell out doing it for the money. Also, if big tech is off limits then by that logic I assume so are big banks, big pharma, big oil etc etc. Almost feels like only start ups qualify as employment opportunities then perhaps, but even they most likely are using frameworks/tech by big tech (is that ok or is that selling out too). Where does one work then? Is it that hard to fathom that people have different moral codes and care about different stuff. Such comments almost feel like sour-grapes.
> Why does HN always do this, comment up from their moral high horse?
i think a lot of us were introduced to tech as an extremely liberating thing. the dreams were obvious if you spent time building things as a kid: complete creative direction over your built environment, digital _and_ physical.
and then you reach working age and realize that very, very few people _employed_ in tech share those dreams. the people working to actually make tech liberating are largely the people _not_ being paid to do it (maybe a carveout for grant work there), and a large part of paid tech work is explicitly counter to those liberating ideas: taking a general purpose technology and restricting what the user can do with it (Apple), surveilling the user everywhere (Google, Facebook).
> Where does one work then? Is it that hard to fathom that people have different moral codes and care about different stuff.
not hard to fathom. at the same time, if i told you "my moral code leads me to discredit the idea that anyone can have a private property right to unused shelter" and lived out of your garage while you're out of town, would you really not take issue with that? is "we have different moral codes" really a get-out-of-jail free card? i see the future you're manifesting (via the work your comment suggests that you do) as one which makes my own future more difficult to realize. that puts us in conflict. my future would apparently be better without you in it, but maybe you're offsetting things elsewhere, and i'm not _that_ self-centered anyway. so what would you have me do? i think the most reasonable thing to do is to let it be known to you that this is the case.
i think a lot of us were introduced to tech as an extremely liberating thing. the dreams were obvious if you spent time building things as a kid: complete creative direction over your built environment, digital _and_ physical.
and then you reach working age and realize that very, very few people _employed_ in tech share those dreams. the people working to actually make tech liberating are largely the people _not_ being paid to do it (maybe a carveout for grant work there), and a large part of paid tech work is explicitly counter to those liberating ideas: taking a general purpose technology and restricting what the user can do with it (Apple), surveilling the user everywhere (Google, Facebook).
> Where does one work then? Is it that hard to fathom that people have different moral codes and care about different stuff.
not hard to fathom. at the same time, if i told you "my moral code leads me to discredit the idea that anyone can have a private property right to unused shelter" and lived out of your garage while you're out of town, would you really not take issue with that? is "we have different moral codes" really a get-out-of-jail free card? i see the future you're manifesting (via the work your comment suggests that you do) as one which makes my own future more difficult to realize. that puts us in conflict. my future would apparently be better without you in it, but maybe you're offsetting things elsewhere, and i'm not _that_ self-centered anyway. so what would you have me do? i think the most reasonable thing to do is to let it be known to you that this is the case.
We as a society have defined a legal framework and within the confines of it we are free to live as we please. Working for big tech is legal but choosing not to is one's choice. Judging others for not making the same choice as you is what I was talking about.
Your example of "my moral code leads me to discredit the idea that anyone can have a private property right to unused shelter" is not a moral code, its trespassing and illegal. However, you could always do as you please with your own property and personally, I won't judge you and imply that I am better than you for disagreeing with me.
Your example of "my moral code leads me to discredit the idea that anyone can have a private property right to unused shelter" is not a moral code, its trespassing and illegal. However, you could always do as you please with your own property and personally, I won't judge you and imply that I am better than you for disagreeing with me.
not everything within the law is equally good, and certainly you yourself could think of some things you’d judge as bad even that fall within its boundary, if you try. i think you’re misguided to equate the law with any moral code.
I feel like you are deliberately or inadvertently missing the point. Its simple, The claim was that working for some of the biggest companies in the world that employ hundreds of thousands of people is wrong and called all of them a sellout and I disagree. Feel free to disagree with me, and don't worry I wont judge you for it.
if i'm missing your point, that's an honest miscommunication. i read the conversation like this:
matt_s: devs working for Meta must be sacrificing their values in exchange for money. eilnvlrn: why do HNers always speak from a moral high horse, rather than accept that others operate with other moral codes? colinsane: our different moral codes here do put us in conflict: vocalizing our values is the least destructive way for us to come to terms. eilnvlrn: so long as i act within the law then you're wrong to consider us in conflict.
> don't worry I wont judge you for it.
i don't care if you judge me. if i speak from a "moral high-horse" i don't do it to rub it in your face, or to self-aggrandize, or anything like that. i would do it to make known that your actions are an impediment to the aims i have for my own life -- and hope that you might be compassionate enough to consider such things.
literally just erase every occurrence of "moral" from this thread if it makes it easier to see through to the content. i'm trying to build my own future: it's made difficult by every variant of anti-competitive "moat building", "vendor lockin", "embrace extend extinguish", dragnet surveillance, and so on which is core to the business model of the company (companies) in question.
_forget about morals_: i call that thing out because when you work for this kind of company you are an aggressor to me. if i camped out on the sidewalk in front of your house and watched every action you made, you would find it hard to live a peaceful life. you would call me a stalker and see me as an adversary. yet when i instead design and sell Ring cameras to all your neighbors to achieve that exact same end without a physical human on your sidewalk, suddenly you wouldn't see me as an adversary? that's nonsense. for real though, because some are quick to dismiss it: do you understand how nonsense that type of thinking is?
and yes, i get the nuance about distance. that going way upstream and working for TSMC doesn't erase the link between your work and the harmful end result. but that doesn't mean proximity is irrelevant. a lateral move from Amazon's Ring team to a GoPro team would surely put us in less conflict. an upstream move to some vendor which supplies both Amazon and GoPro puts you closer to the midpoint. just about _any_ move away from the companies in question puts us in less conflict, hence why the heat is focused more specifically on them.
matt_s: devs working for Meta must be sacrificing their values in exchange for money. eilnvlrn: why do HNers always speak from a moral high horse, rather than accept that others operate with other moral codes? colinsane: our different moral codes here do put us in conflict: vocalizing our values is the least destructive way for us to come to terms. eilnvlrn: so long as i act within the law then you're wrong to consider us in conflict.
> don't worry I wont judge you for it.
i don't care if you judge me. if i speak from a "moral high-horse" i don't do it to rub it in your face, or to self-aggrandize, or anything like that. i would do it to make known that your actions are an impediment to the aims i have for my own life -- and hope that you might be compassionate enough to consider such things.
literally just erase every occurrence of "moral" from this thread if it makes it easier to see through to the content. i'm trying to build my own future: it's made difficult by every variant of anti-competitive "moat building", "vendor lockin", "embrace extend extinguish", dragnet surveillance, and so on which is core to the business model of the company (companies) in question.
_forget about morals_: i call that thing out because when you work for this kind of company you are an aggressor to me. if i camped out on the sidewalk in front of your house and watched every action you made, you would find it hard to live a peaceful life. you would call me a stalker and see me as an adversary. yet when i instead design and sell Ring cameras to all your neighbors to achieve that exact same end without a physical human on your sidewalk, suddenly you wouldn't see me as an adversary? that's nonsense. for real though, because some are quick to dismiss it: do you understand how nonsense that type of thinking is?
and yes, i get the nuance about distance. that going way upstream and working for TSMC doesn't erase the link between your work and the harmful end result. but that doesn't mean proximity is irrelevant. a lateral move from Amazon's Ring team to a GoPro team would surely put us in less conflict. an upstream move to some vendor which supplies both Amazon and GoPro puts you closer to the midpoint. just about _any_ move away from the companies in question puts us in less conflict, hence why the heat is focused more specifically on them.
Set aside the moral stuff about bad societal impacts Meta's products have on humans. Am I off in thinking that tech people aren't the target market for Meta's companies? My usual assumption is tech people are keen to run ad and privacy blockers which counter most of the social+ads biz models there. It would be like an ASE certified mechanic that doesn't use a car and rides a bicycle to work. Its kinda odd. Then throw in the moral stuff and I just assume it must be money as a motivator.
There are industries out there other than ad-tech that have a better mission.
There are industries out there other than ad-tech that have a better mission.
> Almost feels like only start ups qualify as employment opportunities
Always good to remember that we are on HN; a lot of entrepreneurs are somewhat frustrated that they have to compete with Big "wtv" for talent.
Always good to remember that we are on HN; a lot of entrepreneurs are somewhat frustrated that they have to compete with Big "wtv" for talent.
Good, let them be frustrated. These are the same people that will make their employees work nights and weekends for a median salary and equity that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on for years only to go under or cash out in an event that only benefits the founders and VCs.
Big tech is a blessing in a market that would further take advantage of tech talent if they could.
Big tech is a blessing in a market that would further take advantage of tech talent if they could.
The money and benefits are good, the prestige is high, and they do technically cool things.
Not always. IC7-9 can make ~$800k-$1.2m TC solving tough, uninteresting problems with massive impact. Most ~IC8's come across as total assholes, which might be a requirement in some tech cultures.
Curious what your sample size is on evaluating IC8s. In my experience the small handful I’ve known have been very pleasant people.
Must be a different fiefdom. There are pockets that are still techbro. (I wished I hadn't picked said fiefdom.)
I have heard Facebook can differ pretty wildly depending on team. 2/3 of the people I know who have worked there hated it and consider it a toxic company, but one had a pretty good time.
All 3 of them would have been ok with a place/team that some people might describe as "tech bro" though--we are talking much worse than whatever you mean by that lol
All 3 of them would have been ok with a place/team that some people might describe as "tech bro" though--we are talking much worse than whatever you mean by that lol
You heard correctly.
Technical teams: There are some pressure-cooker teams where there are micromangers obsessed with counting diff revisions and maximum project impact, a smattering of individuals who are overconfident big fish in small ponds. Most technical teams are normal and helpful. Some are even loosey-goosey and casual. There are a few teams who have no customer service skills or professionalism at all, but those aren't many.
Nontechnical teams: I've observed multiple IRL collections of people who literally go to work to socialize... and do so loudly and not in a conference room. Maybe they do work, but I didn't see any sign of it. Slacking-tolerant areas must have a reporting structure that doesn't have a lot of hard accountability, may not have to produce quantitive impact, and are able to hide in a megacorp when there is sufficient complexity and opacity.
One other thing that ticked me off about IRL Metamates: most volunteers for a home building nonprofit left without coordinating with the site manager, leaving them understaffed for the work and cleanup tasks. It really shows the personal ethics of people who pose for photos for their personal brand but then don't care enough to actually do the work.
Technical teams: There are some pressure-cooker teams where there are micromangers obsessed with counting diff revisions and maximum project impact, a smattering of individuals who are overconfident big fish in small ponds. Most technical teams are normal and helpful. Some are even loosey-goosey and casual. There are a few teams who have no customer service skills or professionalism at all, but those aren't many.
Nontechnical teams: I've observed multiple IRL collections of people who literally go to work to socialize... and do so loudly and not in a conference room. Maybe they do work, but I didn't see any sign of it. Slacking-tolerant areas must have a reporting structure that doesn't have a lot of hard accountability, may not have to produce quantitive impact, and are able to hide in a megacorp when there is sufficient complexity and opacity.
One other thing that ticked me off about IRL Metamates: most volunteers for a home building nonprofit left without coordinating with the site manager, leaving them understaffed for the work and cleanup tasks. It really shows the personal ethics of people who pose for photos for their personal brand but then don't care enough to actually do the work.
Technically adept people also buy things, have family and friends they connect with, want to look at photos, argue on the internet, etc.
Your (and your friends) experience may not be representative of everyone.
Your (and your friends) experience may not be representative of everyone.
Technically-adept people are a tiny minority of society, and also a tiny fraction of UHNWIs.
Pretty sure the money/benefits/ option grants are all ridiculous and world class.
It doesn't need to be about money. Think about research.
They do a lot of it. And honestly? They seem quite more open about it.
They do a lot of it. And honestly? They seem quite more open about it.
They pay as well as any company in Silicon Valley and better than most.
* Marketplace is the defacto place to buy/sell locally
* Groups are about 1000x better in quality and organic posts than Reddit
* Groups are about 1000x better in quality and organic posts than Reddit
> every second or third post is a fucking ad.
Maybe that's where the money is coming from?
Maybe that's where the money is coming from?
Facebook Marketplace is a good product in my opinion. There is a ton of value in ensuring potential buyers/sellers are not scammers.
Instagram. Instagram is hip, college kids today share their "instas" instead of their phone numbers, and it's finally getting monetized.
> every second or third post is a fucking ad
that's how
that's how
> Whatsapp
Which Facebook owns as well, not they actually monetize it though.
Which Facebook owns as well, not they actually monetize it though.
I always saw the WhatsApp and Instagram acquisitions as about acquiring potential competitors (protecting revenue) over a desire to generate revenue in and of themselves.
That may have been the case for Instagram but I think they make a truckload of money through ads now.
How in gods name do they still make such obscene amounts of money?!
Mobile ad CPMS and CPS are insanely high. companies shelling out big bucks for traffic on Meta, Instagram.
Mobile ad CPMS and CPS are insanely high. companies shelling out big bucks for traffic on Meta, Instagram.
Fortune 500 companies have insane advertising spend ... there's not many creative places to park it, so naturally it goes to places like FB.
You’re asking how does Meta make so much money and then you say that most of the people moved to a Meta product, WhatsApp.
Marketplace is really really good for local buying/selling. Pretty much my only use case for Facebook but I love it
> every second or third post is a fucking ad.
Guess there’s your answer — advertisers is the group that actually pays Meta its money.
Guess there’s your answer — advertisers is the group that actually pays Meta its money.
I use marketplace and a few groups because sadly people have migrated to those from other platforms.
I feel the same, I just cannot imagine the value of this product reflecting reality.
I think people are just so addicted to it, but in secret, if you're not an addict, it's confusing.
I think people are just so addicted to it, but in secret, if you're not an addict, it's confusing.
The us is 4% of the world, fb is the internet in many countries.
In many countries, joining certain real world events having a FB account is mandatory. It sucks but it is the way it is.
You could read the linked article and find out.
> Headcount was 66,185 as of September 30, 2023, a decrease of 24% year-over-year.
Huge for a single year.
Huge for a single year.
Somewhat inline with their announcements. Last year they were at 86000 employees, and announced two rounds of layoffs totaling 21000 (11000 followed by another 10000). This number seems to line up with that.
Meta is almost back to 2021 highs, the whole fallout with ATT and the Metaverse debacle seems to be completely in the rear view mirror now.
I should have held the stock, but it seems after the initial panic, it was like trying to catch a falling knife.
I should have held the stock, but it seems after the initial panic, it was like trying to catch a falling knife.
> I should have held the stock
I think the most important wisdom in all of quantitative finance is that the expected future value of a stock it it's current value plus the value from the "risk-free" rate.
It happened that Meta did (for now) come back from it's exaggerated death, but just look at Google which took a major hit today.
I think the most important wisdom in all of quantitative finance is that the expected future value of a stock it it's current value plus the value from the "risk-free" rate.
It happened that Meta did (for now) come back from it's exaggerated death, but just look at Google which took a major hit today.
Inflation adjusted it is still far below 2021 highs.
sep 10, 2021 - $378.69
oct 25, 2023 - $307.77
would need to be $424.91 "to keep up with inflation"
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=378.69&year1=2...
oct 25, 2023 - $307.77
would need to be $424.91 "to keep up with inflation"
https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=378.69&year1=2...
This is why I tune out the financial media. The media a year ago was saying Meta was on death's door.
I actually caught that falling knife at near its exact lowest point ~$90, but then sold it at a 10% gain because I thought it might be a dead cat's bounce.
Point is, hindsight is always 20/20.
Point is, hindsight is always 20/20.
Their new headset is pretty impressive for its features and price.
Specifically the pass through.
Specifically the pass through.
Zuck builds a massive social network. Critics: he'll never monetize it, as soon as I see an ad, I'm out!
Zuck monetizes the social network and makes billions. Critics: he's managing the business quarter-to-quarter with no vision for the future. Pretty soon it'll be milked dry!
Zuck invests billions in potential future hit technology. Critics: he's lost his mind and should focus on the day-to-day!
Zuck monetizes the social network and makes billions. Critics: he's managing the business quarter-to-quarter with no vision for the future. Pretty soon it'll be milked dry!
Zuck invests billions in potential future hit technology. Critics: he's lost his mind and should focus on the day-to-day!
Because no one can predict the future.
Maybe by this time next year it will have lost a bunch of money…
Maybe by this time next year it will have lost a bunch of money…
So is the Metaverse fever dream truly dead? I see the Meta Quest goggles dropping in price but Meta also began promoting the new Ray Ban "smart glasses":
https://about.fb.com/news/2023/09/new-ray-ban-meta-smart-gla...
https://about.fb.com/news/2023/09/new-ray-ban-meta-smart-gla...
So is the Metaverse fever dream truly dead?
But we already have this dream. It's called the internet. And video games. And movies. :)
The question of "metaverse" is: 1. Do we need a head strapped device? Does it add enough to the experience to justify it? 2. Do we need those experiences be more connected and owned by one rent collecting platform?
My answer to both is a firm no, both make it strictly worse. But it's a personal answer, we'll see. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Meta obviously wants it to be double "yes" to sell those head strapped devices and collect this rent. But this doesn't make it true)
The question of "metaverse" is: 1. Do we need a head strapped device? Does it add enough to the experience to justify it? 2. Do we need those experiences be more connected and owned by one rent collecting platform?
My answer to both is a firm no, both make it strictly worse. But it's a personal answer, we'll see. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Meta obviously wants it to be double "yes" to sell those head strapped devices and collect this rent. But this doesn't make it true)
First I don't think "metaverse" is clearly defines as "house". In a way similar to Web3. I think Torrent was already part of Web3 as PET (Privacy-enhancing technologies).
Now, I don't know if metaverse is equal to a head strapped device but I think one part of this umbrella term is some compatibility between games or worlds like a character that could be useful in different games by different vendors with some features embedded.
Regarding VR, I tried the technologies, liked them for "a few minutes", feel the dizziness but mainly the issue I found is a lack of apps. The hardware there is incredible and will be more in the future. But, again, my point is the future, and in the future probably you will just connect it to your brain. Don't know when.
Now, I don't know if metaverse is equal to a head strapped device but I think one part of this umbrella term is some compatibility between games or worlds like a character that could be useful in different games by different vendors with some features embedded.
Regarding VR, I tried the technologies, liked them for "a few minutes", feel the dizziness but mainly the issue I found is a lack of apps. The hardware there is incredible and will be more in the future. But, again, my point is the future, and in the future probably you will just connect it to your brain. Don't know when.
A theoretical metaverse could do a lot of things, but the one thing that made the metaverse economically attractive was essentially becoming a new virtual space for brands to sell. And the excitement for Meta specifically was that they'd get to collect tolls on this new virtual space via hardware and owning the largest properties.
The latter hasn't panned out, but we're seeing the former happen more and more: it's just not as centralized as fantasy versions were.
Fortnite is probably the most successful metaverse at this point, but you see things like Call of Duty placing limited release EVs from GM and famous anime characters being sold as DLC.
Now Prime Video has characters showing up Mortal Kombat as paid extra content, and you're sure to see more and more of these crossovers as brands start to accept the legitimacy of fully immersing their brands in virtual worlds instead of settling for the typical "in-game billboard reference".
The latter hasn't panned out, but we're seeing the former happen more and more: it's just not as centralized as fantasy versions were.
Fortnite is probably the most successful metaverse at this point, but you see things like Call of Duty placing limited release EVs from GM and famous anime characters being sold as DLC.
Now Prime Video has characters showing up Mortal Kombat as paid extra content, and you're sure to see more and more of these crossovers as brands start to accept the legitimacy of fully immersing their brands in virtual worlds instead of settling for the typical "in-game billboard reference".
They released a new headset, meta quest 3. Maybe why older models are dropping in price, not sure.
Meta could probably get by with 30,000 employees let's see if Zuck is that ambitious.
The goal of a company at that scale isn't go "get by" but rather keep growing infinitely. The majority of the workforce at companies like Meta is always working on new, unreleased projects. So yes, you can cut all of them and suffer no immediate consequences (see – Twitter), but then after the revenue numbers stay flat for a few quarters the shareholders aren't going to be too happy.
Everything you say is true, but I should point out that compared to nearly any other CEO, Zuckerberg doesn't have to care what shareholders think.
That’s wrong. The elon failure mode like twitter may not exist, but stock in free fall for tech companies is extremely risky due to how it ties to employee retention and many other operative considerations.
How did Zuck manage to be in such a good position?
"Facebook has what’s called a “dual class” structure of “Class A” shares and “Class B” shares. The Class A shares are what everyday investors on the regular stock market have access to, and they’re one vote per share. The Class B shares, however, are controlled by Zuckerberg and just a small group of insiders. And every Class B share gets 10 votes."
He still owns almost all of the Class B shares, and so has ~61% of the voting power[2].
[1] https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/11/19/18099011/mark-zuck... [2] https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/30303M/20230406/NPS...
He still owns almost all of the Class B shares, and so has ~61% of the voting power[2].
[1] https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/11/19/18099011/mark-zuck... [2] https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/30303M/20230406/NPS...
Amusingly, the S&P 500 index briefly banned new dual-class shares from entering the index (existing ones were grandfathered in) (2017) but then went back and allowed them again (2023).
But how did he manage that? If he could do that why don't all other founders/CEOs?
Essentially, Zuckerberg was forced to IPO. There were too many people who had been granted shares privately, and there is some sort of law that when >500 people have shares it has to be public (IANAL)? Anyway, he showed up to the meeting with bankers wearing a hoody, and generally acted as if he didn't care what the investors thought, because FB was profitable and he didn't need their money. They grumbled a lot, but bought into the IPO anyway. Since Zuckerberg didn't particularly want to IPO anyway, he could make up any rules he felt like (that weren't actually illegal).
Then the shares had been priced so high that ordinary purchasers got a better price a couple months after the IPO, than high-powered financial types got in the IPO itself. Financial types hate it when they do not get a better price than the ordinary investor. I'm not particularly a fan of FB or MZ, but I do have to admit to admiring his behavior during that whole episode.
Then the shares had been priced so high that ordinary purchasers got a better price a couple months after the IPO, than high-powered financial types got in the IPO itself. Financial types hate it when they do not get a better price than the ordinary investor. I'm not particularly a fan of FB or MZ, but I do have to admit to admiring his behavior during that whole episode.
His personality is completely different now, which is very interesting
Because no other founder had the profitably/prospects/timing (market conditions) that Facebook did when it went public.
thats covered in the vox article.
"Outsize control given to corporate executives isn’t unique to Facebook. As Pisani at CNBC pointed out, Rupert Murdoch and his family have all the voting power at News Corp. At Google, there are three classes of stock, but the B shares controlled by Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt account for some 60 percent of voting shares.
Borrus, from CII, told me that about 10 percent of publicly listed companies have a multi-class share setup, but the proportion is growing among newly public companies, especially in tech. Last year, 19 percent of companies that went public on US exchanges had at least two classes of stock with differential voting rights. In 2005, it was just 1 percent, Borrus said. (Snapchat parent Snap was a highly publicized case because the shares it made public didn’t have any voting rights at all.)"
"Outsize control given to corporate executives isn’t unique to Facebook. As Pisani at CNBC pointed out, Rupert Murdoch and his family have all the voting power at News Corp. At Google, there are three classes of stock, but the B shares controlled by Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt account for some 60 percent of voting shares.
Borrus, from CII, told me that about 10 percent of publicly listed companies have a multi-class share setup, but the proportion is growing among newly public companies, especially in tech. Last year, 19 percent of companies that went public on US exchanges had at least two classes of stock with differential voting rights. In 2005, it was just 1 percent, Borrus said. (Snapchat parent Snap was a highly publicized case because the shares it made public didn’t have any voting rights at all.)"
What Zuckerberg did back then, investors have wised up to since then.
Wised up so they can make sure companies only focus on profit.
[deleted]
[deleted]
To do the bare minimum maybe. To remain a viable, innovative company for decades absolutely not.
Net income is up a whopping 143%, from $4.4B to $11.6B - basically went from a 15% to 34% profit margin (and in line with profit margin numbers from 2021 and prior)
No wonder stock is up 4% after earnings.