This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but Meta is in the right direction and has to go on an Amazon type arc to align their employees with their vision. I watched this podcast that released around the same time and Zuckerberg's argument/vision for the future of Meta seems solid[0].
Generally, a large magnitude of value is created during "platform shifts" and they have now placed (really good) bets on VR/AR and AI (LLMs).
> This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but Meta is in the right direction and has to go on an Amazon type arc to align their employees with their vision.
It's not just unpopular, it's just wrong.
Even if Zuckerberg's vision is good (and there's no reason to think it is, because he famously doesn't understand human beings and has never come up with a single product idea that became popular), he clearly has no ability to execute.
Spending $50B in a few years with almost no revenue to show for it has to be the biggest business failure of all time. Can you name a bigger one? Sure, Musk has destroyed roughly that much value on paper, but Zuckerberg actually set that much cash on fire building the Metaverse that no one asked for and no one uses.
> he famously doesn't understand human beings and has never come up with a single product idea that became popular
This point is at least contentious. I am not going to go into weeds, but I fail to see how you can make a product that literally popularizes the term “network effects” without vision. You can say he “stole” the idea for facebook, but what about everything after? Ideas are cheap.
> no ability to execute
I see no evidence of this. How does someone scale from $0 to $1T without the ability to execute?
> Spending $50B in a few years with almost no revenue to show for it has to be the biggest business failure of all time.
I also think the metaverse was a failure. But I think they failed fast and have more experience in that area than any other company. They basically spent $50B to get data on the intial vision for the metaverse. Their stock and business has fully recovered.
It was a hedge against being “too late” and they got the timing wrong.
It’s one thing if you fail and the business goes bankrupt. It’s a completely different scenario when they recover completely. How does “the biggest business failure of all time” not end in that business going bankrupt?
Off the top of my head I am pretty sure hundreds of billions of dollars of value vanished after the Lehman Brothers collapse.
In tech (adjacent) you got worldcom, which was of a similar magnitude but in y2k dollars.
Generally, a large magnitude of value is created during "platform shifts" and they have now placed (really good) bets on VR/AR and AI (LLMs).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX7OduG1YmI