|
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That’s because FAANGs are successful due to monopolization and network effects. Not by the quality of their work. This is especially true for Meta. |
| |
| ▲ | ytoawwhra92 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | How did they get there? | | |
| ▲ | strange_quark 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | By being in the right place and right time once, making it impossible for users to leave, and buying up all their competition before they become a serious threat. | | |
| ▲ | woooooo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also, they typically started with much more of a high quality culture when they were small and people's contributions were legible. Once it turns into a giant bureaucracy with people you've never met judging a promo packet by rubrics, while they're unfamiliar with your whole org.. the incentives get diffierent. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | casualscience 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People succeed in spite of these systems. They have resources, tremendous network advantages, and the people at the very top crust of engineers are indeed quite good at their job. |
|
| ▲ | cdf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because big companies can crush competition, either via lobbying for government regulations, acquiring the competitors, or driving the competition out of business by offering something comparable but cheaper or free. It's the old Microsoft playbook of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, but with more finesse. It is also why their acquisitions tend to just die, because once the big company inefficiencies get integrated, the acquired startups just cannot function. |
|
| ▲ | onion2k 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And yet those five companies are among the most valuable in the world. ... after Nvidia. |
