| ▲ | grandempire 18 hours ago |
| Zuckerbeg’s super power is actually operating a giant tech company successfully, executing on multi-year visions, and just barely turning 40. |
|
| ▲ | calimariae 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| You might manage the same if you’re rich enough to hire top-tier advisors. Let’s not kid ourselves—OG Facebook wasn’t a tech marvel or even particularly original. It just landed in the right place at the right time and snowballed from there. |
| |
| ▲ | grandempire 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know too many rich people to know this isn’t true. > hire top-tier advisors The circle of top-tier leaders who know how to manage giant tech companies is a tiny circle with Zuck being one of them. In fact that’s what the board of directors did - they used their money to hire Zuck to run their company. | | |
| ▲ | jasonfarnon 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | "In fact that’s what the board of directors did - they used their money to hire Zuck to run their company." doesn't he still have voting control of the stock? | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You’re right - but the example stands. The CEO is a professional advisor hired to make the rich people money. | | |
| ▲ | Hasu 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: he was never hired by the board and they've never had a chance to fire him. Investors can sell the stock if they don't like what he does, but that is not a "professional advisor" relationship. It's mostly a cult of personality relationship, and you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator. | | |
| ▲ | StopDisinfo910 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Independently on what you think of Zuckerberg as a human being, on the basis of acquisitions alone, he can be judged as an insanely effective CEO. The way Meta managed the shift from Facebook to Instagram is impressive from a strategic point of view. Heck, Meta literally controls the world most popular chat application. I never liked social media, spent most of the past fifteen years avoiding them as much I could while maintaining just enough presence to stay reachable and a Meta application still remain my most used one. Let's not forget that Google, for all their billions, utterly failed to significantly attack Meta market. | |
| ▲ | grandempire 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: I already agreed with the correction - he has voting control. What is still incorrect is imagining that billions of dollars gets you advisors who know how to run a company - and those people aren't just high level executives already running companies. > you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator. The burden is on you to show a successful CEO for over a decade is actually an idiot. | | |
| ▲ | ashoeafoot 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | People like him exist a turtles nest full, but there is only one social network effect to rodeo . |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Apocryphon 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In recent years, operating it successfully despite burning through billions for their metaverse boondoggle, sure |
| |
| ▲ | grandempire 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Should they be holding cash instead? | | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Works for Apple. And other companies seem to be able to do R&D, even at a loss, without burning through billions. | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did you forget that apple also has an AR/VR product and doesn’t report that portion of their R&D separately so we don’t know how much it costs? | | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Cool so even if they burned through $45 billion as Meta did with VR, they still have $53.77 billion on hand as of December | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you just want Meta to carry more cash - the concern wasn't actually about metaverse? | | |
| ▲ | Apocryphon 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don’t want Meta to do anything. All I want to do is mock the idea that Zuckerberg has been some sort of exemplary CEO the last few years in the face of the Metaverse project being such a resounding dud- what’s the punchline, billions spent to add feet to the avatars? Not to mention how he’s allowed his actual site to go fallow, between the Feed being inundated with AI slop and Reels being an imitation of Instagram Shorts being an imitation of TikTok and Snapchat shorts and Vine. | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > what’s the punchline, billions spent to add feet to the avatars? I think the metaverse imagery you are referring to was about 10 years ago. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aeolun 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Maybe he’s just good at not rocking the boat too much? I’m fairly certain these things mostly keep moving without any input. |
| |
| ▲ | vineyardmike 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | The boat is constantly rocking though, and it's actually incredible how he's kept the boat afloat and increasingly profitable. You can despise their impact on society, but he's an incredible example of a very successful CEO. Political investigations, anti-trust, terrible media and brand image. GDPR. DMA. Etc. A literal genocide associated with their product. The shift from desktop to mobile, and the continued evolution of the distribution channel - eg. the "Anti-tracking" requirement on apple devices. The shift from text posts to images, to stories, to short-form video. From broadcast to DMs and groups. The shift from "social" media to celebrity and influencer followings, to a feed entirely algorithmic. The shift in advertisement formats, the shift across what gets advertised (eg. apps didn't exist at all when Facebook started, now they track ad-click-to-install rates through ML models). | | |
| ▲ | Aeolun 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I suppose I just don’t find any of those things very admirable? The fact that their product is associated with so much bad shit and still alive is a terrible thing for society. I just cannot reasonably call someone that led all that a ‘good CEO’, because they represent nothing that I’d like a CEO to be, regardless of what Wall Street things. I’d also argue that it just means that Facebook was very successful at following all the trends and purchasing what they couldn’t replicate. | | |
| ▲ | grandempire 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > associated with so much bad shit Reputation vs harm ethics. > I’d also argue that it just means that Facebook was very successful at following all the trends Yeah foreseeing and executing on those trends is the hard part. | |
| ▲ | lazide 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The CEO is captain of their ship. Saying ‘I hate their ship, and that it hasn’t sunk’ doesn’t mean they are a bad CEO. If anything, it means they might be an even better CEO because it’s still doing well, running around rampaging, despite all the hate. After all - who is the better pirate? The one who is hated and infamous (and still alive pirating), or the one no one has ever heard of? |
| |
| ▲ | someusername321 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I get your point about what he has accomplished. But at the same time, right after saying he's an incredible example of a very successful CEO, you acknowledge "a literal genocide associated with their product." I really wish we could shift how we define success for these CEOs. |
|
|
