| ▲ | rsanek 3 days ago |
| Meta has about 10% more employees now than they did at the end of 2021. They currently have less than half the employees of Google or Apple; only a third of Microsoft. If you're right, the rest of big tech is in a much worse position. |
|
| ▲ | disillusioned 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah, but, just objectively speaking, look at how many _more_ business lines and units and actual PRODUCTS each of those other companies ship in comparison. Meta has... Facebook. Instagram. Threads, if you want to count it. What'sApp. The ad-tech that powers those things. A black hole of a VR division that has since been eviscerated after billions burned. An AR/device divison that sells glasses. And a burgeoning supernova of an AI division, just one singular hire of which is responsible for $1.5B in pay (over 6 years). Google/Alphabet has........ an entire consumer hardware family ranging from cameras to doorbells to smart displays to streamers, YouTube, YouTubeTV, Android, Chrome, Google itself, Gemini, GCP, Waymo, GoogleFi, Google Fiber, Ads, Infra/Analytics, Maps, dozens of other apps... on and on. Microsoft has Azure, Windows, Office (each of which are obviously _suites_ of more complex software), Xbox, LinkedIn, Dynamics, Surface, etc. If anything, Apple _might_ be a slightly closer analog to Meta in that they're just a bit more limited, but their hardware engineering side is obviously a massive part of that, supply chain, software, MacOS, iOS, all of their adjacent first-party apps, App Store, iCloud, AppleTV, retail... Meta just... isn't in the same league in terms of pure surface area. Mark just leaned extremely hard into acquiring as much nascent talent as possible and hoped he'd have the use cases to make it make sense but was content to spend the money in the meantime on looking busy. Now that CapEx has to go to compute/DCs/GWs for their AI which... kind of no one wants? But he's going to bet as much of the company as possible to stay relevant and try to be a player in the space. He's just doing it in this tail-wagging-the-dog hyper-overpay-individual-researchers approach that, from the outside at least, seems extremely risky... |
| |
| ▲ | akdev1l 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I am convinced Mark Zuckerberg does more harm than good for Facebook like literally they lucked out on the landing the business model early but it feels it has been in an ongoing decline and everything else they have tried has failed spectacularly (and particularly things Mark has put his whole weight behind) They never became anything more than the ad company | | |
| ▲ | rao-v 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Alright, apart from Instagram, WhatsApp, Llama 1 & 2 and somehow managing to sell nearly 10M less nerdy google glasses what has Zuck done for FB? | | |
| ▲ | b00ty4breakfast 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Pretty sure they bought Insta and Whatsapp. I mean, that's not nothing, buying a successful business and keeping it successful for over a decade. But neither Zuck nor Meta made those platforms; they were both established successes in their own right before acquisition. | | |
| ▲ | matwood 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > keeping it successful I’m no Zuck fan, but he’s done much more than keep them successful, they have grown a lot. I remember everyone making fun of him for overpaying for IG and WA. Now both in hindsight look like amazing acquisitions. | | |
| ▲ | alex1138 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The "amazing acquisitions" should be antitrust. Whatsapp is a non starter given what Brian Acton reported. I'll never use it. People widely report they ruined Instagram and Zuck came back furiously explaining in an email chain later "oh sorry I didn't mean to say we're killing the competition" probably after a lawyer scolded him |
| |
| ▲ | stephbook 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Only The Zuck saw the value though. Why didn't MS, Amazon or Google buy insta? Or some Softbank vehicle? | | |
| ▲ | afavour 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m sure the others saw the value too. It just wasn’t worth as much to them as Zuckerberg was prepared to pay. Not surprising given it’s a service that directly competed with FB in the social space. | |
| ▲ | b00ty4breakfast 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably because Instagram wasn't a direct competitor to any of those other companies (except maybe Google+, which wasn't even a year old at the time that FB bought Instagram). I don't know why softbank didn't get them. |
| |
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is the case with most tech companies. Google bought Android, YouTube, DoubleClick, Maps, etc. etc. | | |
| ▲ | happymellon 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Although in this case Meta bought companies that were already established and successful. Google bought Android before it had released products. Google Maps was purchased, but was Where 2 actually a successful product prior to that? | | |
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I feel like you just cherry picked from my examples. YouTube was certainly successful - Google bought them because their own Google Video competitor was a flop. DoubleClick was also obviously huge. Where 2 had a successful product, it just wasn't web based (nor do I think free), so didn't have anywhere near the distribution that Google enabled once the team ported it to run in a browser. | | |
| ▲ | magicalist 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think there is a difference in at least degree here (maybe in kind, idk) that's lost by lumping them purely on acquisition or not, but I do largely agree with your point. But just wanted to correct for the historical record: > Where 2 had a successful product, it just wasn't web based (nor do I think free), so didn't have anywhere near the distribution that Google enabled once the team ported it to run in a browser. Where 2 did not have a product, successful or not. They were an unreleased demo looking for investors and luckily got into a room with Larry Page of 2004. | | |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent [-] | | Indeed, I think they used bad examples as neither Android or Where 2 were successful, but it also shows that Google has done a mix of buying something successful to fill a gap or find someone with a good tech that they help to get over the line and make successful. Meta has not shown the second part. |
| |
| ▲ | happymellon a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I "cherry picked" from your examples because they weren't really good examples. You said > buying a successful business and keeping it successful for over a decade. Meta bought already successful companies. Google has purchased successful businesses, but they also purchased companies that weren't and managed to get them into massive money makers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Instagram had around 10mn users at acquisition, so they might not have gotten to where they are without FB. Whatsapp was a successful product that didn't make any money. | |
| ▲ | eloisant 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They used the Facebook app to spy on smartphone users and detect Instagram and WhatsApp success to decide to buy them. |
| |
| ▲ | qwertybrah 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One step further. Besides Facebook itself whqt has zuck been visionary about ? Instw and WhatsApp was bought. He thought chatbots was the thing in ‘17, then abandoned it for VR and metaverse, all the while chatbots start taking off. Every time he’s in an interview he talks like he’s some savant, really he got lucky with fb and done nothing since | | |
| ▲ | wjeje 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Let’s go another step further! The continual success of fb and instagram has not come from zuck but through glorified A/B testing on steroids whilst lighting employee’s asses on fire each quarter to move the metrics. Visionary genius? My ass. Only Steve Jobs proved he is worthy of that title. Bro is a fraud. He always was - remember he stole the idea for fb. Thankfully he’s getting found out. | | |
| ▲ | philipnee 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | i argue that most ideas aren't necessary novel, so stealing idea isn't necessary bad.... e.g. i don't think google search was entirely novel, but was well executed. honestly - meta has built quite a lot of cool things, but c-suite is probably to be blamed for what's going on today. | | |
| ▲ | wjeje 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No the strategy of having a professional looking social space in the web, specifically focused on college folks solely was novel - this is what he stole and without this it wouldn’t have gotten to the place of success it is today. Knowing about the technology is no good without a solid strategy - with a solid strategy anyone can raise the funding to go build it. It’s easy to know what to build when you have a vision specifically of what you’re building into. Nobody else has this targeted focus. | |
| ▲ | degamad 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Search was not novel, but PageRank was novel. | | |
| ▲ | philipnee 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | was it actually? I don't know the full technical behind this but wiki does suggest: "A search engine called "RankDex" from IDD Information Services, designed by Robin Li in 1996, developed a strategy for site-scoring and page-ranking.." This is before Google. | |
| ▲ | wjeje 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Correct |
| |
| ▲ | subpixel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Stealing an idea is different from lying to people in order to steal their actual business, which is more like what Zuckerberg did. |
| |
| ▲ | hyperhello 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did he really steal the idea? I thought the idea was just a message board for Harvard students. That isn’t novel. | | |
| ▲ | wjeje 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If he didn’t steal anything why did winklevoss and another person at Harvard involved in the original project get a pay off…? Do we really need to discuss this? He tried to screw another founder - the Brazilian - who got a pay off and now has a reported net worth in the billions. | |
| ▲ | razakel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The original idea was this: >I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | red_admiral 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Lots of things, but he then chucked all the profits at a stupid idea that he even renamed the company for. | |
| ▲ | nomel 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Look at Meta's profits by year. | | |
| ▲ | Danox 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Meta profits are good but they’re closing in on the $100 billion dollar mark in their Meta Quest/AI fiasco just because you can afford it doesn’t mean you should do it. See another company called Oracle for a similar path. |
| |
| ▲ | philipnee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | build and tear down metaverse. zero sum. |
| |
| ▲ | flir 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The transition to mobile-first was a good call. Probably the last good call though. Oh, and buying Instagram. | | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it’s hard to not have any kind of boss. There’s nobody to provide the critique needed to improve the products. | | |
| ▲ | matwood 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > to improve the products. Meta had ~100B in EBITDA (or 60B in net income) for 2025. What critique does he need from a product/business standpoint? | |
| ▲ | dpc050505 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everyone has clients and if your employees aren't incompetent sycophants they can give you actionable feedback. | | |
| ▲ | SturgeonsLaw 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not a commentary on Zuck specifically, but many powerful people with fragile egos build an inner circle of incompetent sycophants | | |
| ▲ | OccamsMirror 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | My favorite story from "Careless People," was when his team let him cheat and ultimately win at Settlers of Catan. | |
| ▲ | OccamsMirror 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My favorite story from "Careless People," was when his team let him cheat and ultimately win at Settlers of Catan. | |
| ▲ | Danox 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Very true the White House currently is an example of that. | |
| ▲ | wjeje 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean he’s got boz in his circle - is that short for bozo? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | alper 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The only good things at Meta are the things they bought (Whatsapp and Instagram). They haven't made anything original in a long long time. | |
| ▲ | adi_kurian 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Besides selling democracy for pennies on the dollar, Zuckerberg knew what to buy before everyone else knew what it was worth. In 2012, everyone around me was lauging at the absurdity of a 0 revenue photo app getting acquired for $1bn. My peers/superiors in the ad business thought Facebook would flail in digital marketing. Oops. The metaverse might be a big pile of bollocks, but isn't the whole point of being a billionaire to indulge peculiar unpopular obsessions? | | |
| ▲ | wjeje 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No he bought everything out of paranoia to shut out competition. They tried organically to replicate instagram etc but they failed even though they had wayyyy more resources. Their attempts sucked. So their approach was to target for acquisition or copy features if they couldn’t. There’s plenty of evidence of this re. His comms around those events. | | |
| ▲ | breppp 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Only someone who had so much luck in finding a product that clicks, would know the worth of buying such a product | |
| ▲ | alex1138 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Zuckerberg copied Snapchat like... 5 times at least? It should have signified to EVERYBODY he has sociopath-like behavior (in fact apparently on the Zuckerberg-owned Instagram, Snapchat content got demoted, or something) and how he is absolutely the same person that was willing to fuck the Winklevosses ("in the ear") But I suppose that doesn't count because Winklevii "never would have come up with anything anyway" Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21114106 | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Rapzid 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Totally. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that if I had to pick a FAANG to put all my retirement savings into Meta would absolutely not be my pick. Heck, if I was forced to either short or invest Meta with all my retirement savings now betting on it's value in 25 years.. I'd short it. | | |
| ▲ | dron57 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Meta is going to have higher ads revenue than Google this year. | | |
| ▲ | torginus 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Social media is an extremely competitive landscape, with competitors rising overnight. Google, Apple and Microsoft dominate the world with their products and platforms. Facebook & WhatsApp certainly doesnt. | | |
| ▲ | John23832 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Social media is an extremely competitive landscape, with competitors rising overnight. This is not true at all. There are two players. FB/Instagram and TikTok. Using one does not preclude using the other. Other than tiktok, who was the last new player in social? > Google, Apple and Microsoft dominate the world with their products and platforms. Facebook & WhatsApp certainly doesnt. Whole countries literally run on WhatsApp. | | |
| ▲ | torginus 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_social_pl... There are all kinds of social media, its segmented by userbase, and culture/geography. Telegram has 1B users (which is surprising to me, I thought it was an ex-Soviet thing), and there are entire geographic strongholds, such as Russia and China. Russia and China still use iPhones and Windows, but entirely skipped out on Facebook and Whatsapp. | | |
| ▲ | lmm 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > There are all kinds of social media, its segmented by userbase, and culture/geography. Your own link has Meta with 3 of the top 4 platforms. Can you really see any of the competitors overtaking them in even the medium term? > Russia and China still use iPhones and Windows, but entirely skipped out on Facebook and Whatsapp. China doesn't use Google either, and while they might use Windows they're staying off Azure which is where Microsoft's main business is these days. Yes there are countries which stay off Meta. But they are just as embedded in the workings of the world as any of the companies you mentioned, probably more so. Government decisions are made by people using a mix of Apple, Google and Microsoft hardware - but all of them are communicating over WhatsApp. | |
| ▲ | aworks 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 3B Facebook users! And for all the scorn it gets on HN, Facebook still works for some of my use cases: high school friends, low-contact relatives, obscure geography groups, the Philippines. |
| |
| ▲ | tshaddox 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You don’t consider YouTube to be social media? | |
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wish WhatsApp would get nationalized.
I absolutely hate having to use it. |
| |
| ▲ | canes123456 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That has been the talking point since facebook launched. |
| |
| ▲ | Rapzid 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not diversified enough IMHO compared to those other companies. That makes its market cap fragile and vulnerable to disruption. | |
| ▲ | alex1138 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm convinced all of Meta is fraud though so that's not surprising |
| |
| ▲ | matwood 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Heck, if I was forced to either short or invest Meta with all my retirement savings now betting on it's value in 25 years.. I'd short it. Short of social media being classified as something like alcohol or cigarettes, you will lose money on this trade. You’re betting against ingrained human nature. | |
| ▲ | loeg 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you try and hold a short position for 25 years, you will lose all your money, even if you were right. | | |
| ▲ | seattle_spring 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm convinced that 99.9% of folks online who claim they're going to "short a stock" have never actually shorted anything in their life. |
| |
| ▲ | rvz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Heck, if I was forced to either short or invest Meta with all my retirement savings now betting on it's value in 25 years.. I'd short it. Not a good idea. Meta has hundreds of leavers to find more profits from anywhere. |
| |
| ▲ | snitty 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apple also has an entire international retail arm. | | |
| ▲ | pembrook 3 days ago | parent [-] | | And an entire desktop OS and desktop software suite in pretty much all categories to compete with Microsoft. Also their hardware business is roughly 50-100X the size of Google's hardware business in scale and distribution. The headcount analog for Google is Apple. And if you subtract out the retail employees Apple looks surprisingly efficient, having much less non-retail staff than Google (although both heavily use contractors). Meta on the other hand...is pretty much the definition of bloat. | | |
| ▲ | jballanc 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's been more than a few years since I worked at Apple, but they were always unique in the tech space in that their retail division dwarfed headcount. If I recall correctly all of OS X Lion was produced by around 3,000 engineers (and probably less, since I think that count included iLife and iWork). | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Aren’t they sort of unique in that they… have a retail division, as a real ongoing thing (I’m sure MS tried an MS store but I’ve never seen one). Well, unique other than Amazon I guess. |
| |
| ▲ | BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > And an entire desktop OS and desktop software suite in pretty much all categories to compete with Microsoft. Not even close, if you include Office and Mail/Outlook. And if you include corporate clients, Apple is just not on the map. I've gone from a Windows first company to an Apple first company, and it's a night and day difference when you see how well integrated things were for Windows. I mean, individually you can say Teams sucks (terrible, really). And Outlook sucks as a consumer. But the way you can get all these things working with Office was very convenient. |
|
| |
| ▲ | doublerabbit 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Meta has Facebook which was OG enough. MySpace was the real movement although you could argue LiveJournal was before that. Instagram was bought, WhatsApp was too. So really all Meta has is Facebook, everything else has been synergy. Apple / Google and as I hate to admit are innovators of the modern tech world. While they've bought their fair-share they still produce and create and have existed prior 00's. Two devices dominate the market and it's not going to change any time soon. You either use iOS or Google. Urgh, this is how the world has become. Windows or Linux, X or Y; why did Z have to die. | | |
| ▲ | squiffsquiff 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | By this logic you should factor that android was an acquisition, as were YouTube, doubleclick, deepmind and Waze | | | |
| ▲ | ekropotin 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Apple innovate in hardware. What Google innovated during the last decade? | | |
| ▲ | moosedev 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Apart from the Transformer architecture that enabled the AI boom/singularity/civilization-reshaping-event/whatever-this-is? Not much, I guess... |
|
| |
| ▲ | slashdave 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Apple _might_ be a slightly closer analog to Meta in that they're just a bit more limited Seriously? Walk outside and see what people are holding in their hand. |
|
|
| ▲ | screye 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Meta has 4 identical products, most of which have reached feature complete. They do few things, and make absurd amounts of money from it. Google, MSFT and Apple do a lot more and most of their products have large feature backlogs. Different scenarios |
| |
| ▲ | lmm 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The only part of Google that makes money is their ads business. And Meta is beating them at it. | | |
| ▲ | postexitus 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You are wrong. Google makes ~73% of its revenue from ads compared to 98% in Meta. | | | |
| ▲ | screye 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Google makes money on ads, because its products span the entire internet. Youtube, Gmail, Search, Maps, Android, Devices, Photos and Drive are how they get the data to make money on ads. Cloud, Android & Youtube would be a 2 trillion dollar company even without Google. They don't make money on these, because they don't need to make money on it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | oytis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Apple makes cutting edge hardware, at least two operating systems and lots of user applications. Google makes search, cloud, a decent office suite with the largest mail server in the world and of course cutting edge AI. It's easy to see why either of them needs twice as many people as Meta |
| |
| ▲ | akdev1l 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Also Google has a whole YouTube inside of it | |
| ▲ | fragmede 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whatsapp powers entire economies, outside of North America. And then there's Instagram. If we're going by that reasoning, Meta's undersized. | | |
| ▲ | clickety_clack 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s like saying email powers entire economies. It’s not WhatsApp that’s providing the value there, and if they press to hard to try and pull revenue from it, all that communication would flow into another channel. | |
| ▲ | michaelt 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Whatsapp powers entire economies, outside of North America. Whatsapp had 55 employees when Facebook brought them for $19 billion. | |
| ▲ | oytis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Neither needs a lot of innovation, just some maintenance. How many developers do you think Telegram has? | |
| ▲ | shpx 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | WhatsApp is one of the buggiest UIs I use daily. Random things like images/messages stacking on top of each other, seeing the HD and low definition videos as two separate things in favorites, never being able to view the HD one, sometimes the messages never scrolling quite to the bottom, just amateur level stuff, I'm a bit impressed with how bad it is. | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Whatsapp is 5 years late in terms of features if you compare it to Telegram. It is here simply because of platform economics, nothing else. | |
| ▲ | XorNot 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except those are both done. WhatsApp could not change for the next 50 years, and it would continue doing that just fine. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Macha 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Google and Microsoft have significantly more products. That's even just counting their consumer products, their cloud providers are a whole other kettle of fish. |
|
| ▲ | pizlonator 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would expect a company that makes some web pages to have less than half the people than: - a company that makes the leading search engine, the leading browser, one of the two major mobile OSes, one of the major desktop OSes, some of the best ai hardware, and is in the running to win the ai race - a company that makes the leading mobile and desktop OSes and the leading desktop and os hardware, one of the top consumer cloud offerings, a major online media store, and a popular consumer electronics retail store |
|
| ▲ | pbreit 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "half the employees of Google or Apple; only a third of Microsoft" That sounds like 2-10x too many. Think about what Google, Apple & Microsoft do compared to Meta. |
| |
|
| ▲ | pembrook 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Think about the scope of Apple's business (Hardware, Processors, Operating Systems, Software competitors for every app category, Physical Retail, Global Ecommerce, Global distribution networks, App stores, Payments, Credit cards, Banking, Music streaming, Film/TV studio, etc). Now compare it to Meta, a company where the vast majority of revenue is essentially a few mobile apps with an advertising network. No operating systems, no processor design, and a few hardware boondoggles only 1/10000th the scale of Apple's, etc. Now realize that, if you subtract out Apple's retail employees, they have roughly similar headcount to Meta. Now tell me again that Apple is in a "worse" position than Meta on efficiency. |
| |
| ▲ | kaladin-jasnah 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > No operating systems, no processor design, Meta bought Rivos, and as far as I can see do a ton of work related to Linux kernel stuff (I heard about this in the context of eBPF). But datacenter side, not consumer. |
|
|
| ▲ | philjohn 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're comparing Apples to Oranges (with Apple). about half (80k) of the equivalent fulltime employees at Apple are involved in the store footprint, so they're retail staff in one of their main sales channels. And as other's have pointed out, Apple has a far wider range of products and services than Meta, and produce far more hardware products, including their own cutting-edge SOC's. Meta, meanwhile, get Broadcom to largely produce their "custom ASIC's", not just fab, but deeply involved in design, tape out, and validation. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > They currently have less than half the employees of Google or Apple; only a third of Microsoft. Meta is the youngest company of that group. Apple and Microsoft have been around for over twice as long. Meta also has the narrowest scope of those companies. Really it's kind of amazing that Meta has so many employees relative to those other companies given how much narrower their business is. Puts the overhiring into perspective. |
|
| ▲ | Lammy 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If you're right, the rest of big tech is in a much worse position. Part of “Big Tech” hiring isn't just to have an important thing for everyone to do but also to keep competitors from having access to those people. |
| |
|
| ▲ | tootie 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Meta has substantially less revenue and less diversification than Apple or Google. |
| |
| ▲ | strongpigeon 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Meta is going to surpass Google this year in revenue. I agree on the diversification front though | | |
| ▲ | gundmc 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Meta is going to surpass Google this year in revenue. I agree on the diversification front though Meta might surpass Google on _digital advertising revenue_. Google's overall revenue is still ~2x Meta's |
|
|
|
| ▲ | jiggawatts 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Microsoft and Google have a vastly broader array of products and systems compared to Meta. |
|
| ▲ | hintymad 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not familiar with Microsoft. But it's definitely amazing that Google managed to grow itself to one of the most bureaucratic companies in the past 15 years. And yeah, it's bloated as hell. |
|
| ▲ | Barrin92 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| choosing 2021 is itself a really odd cutoff date to choose. The really bizarre hiring happened between 2016 and 2021 https://i.redd.it/c94hnp9kvzy91.png They had 17k employees in 2016 and 80k in 2022. And given that a lot of the big tech companies looked like this albeit not quite so extreme I think it's right to say they might all have a glut of employees. |
|
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | wrigby 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would argue that Meta had already overhired by the beginning of 2021, and the hiring spree was continuing. |
| |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Meta was over hiring engineers from about 2015, if we're being honest. | | |
| ▲ | wrigby 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is true, I just didn't want to admit it as someone who joined after 2015 but before 2021... | | |
| ▲ | disgruntledphd2 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Honestly, every one after about 2014 was too many (I joined in 2013). There was an old all hands I watched in 2014 where Sheryl talked about how around 8k was the largest they should ever get. More generally I think that while sales scales linearly, engineering and product should probably be sub linear. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | __turbobrew__ 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Microsoft expects less from their engineers, and it shows in the large pay differential from Meta. |
|
| ▲ | compiler-guy 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Both Google and Microsoft are bigger, and with more products than Meta. But both Google and Microsoft also massively overhired around the same timeframe as Meta, and are still digging themselves out of the mess of their own making. And making their teams pay for such stupidity. |
|
| ▲ | Danox 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not Apple, but if you see Apple join the layoff party, then you know things are really bad, however Google and Microsoft like Meta seem to go through this every five or six years. |
|
| ▲ | PaulHoule 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The usual story is that revenue/employee at Facebook is crazy high. |
|
| ▲ | postexitus 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Microsoft, Apple and Google have much more diverse revenue streams. Meta only makes money from Ads. Only. It's crazy. |
|
| ▲ | coldtea 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Meta has about 10% more employees now than they did at the end of 2021. So? They likely already had too many in 2021. >They currently have less than half the employees of Google or Apple; only a third of Microsoft. Technology (hw/sw) wise, they also have 1/10 the internal tech and public product breadth and scope of Google or Apple and Microsoft. Maybe 1/50 even. They do like 4-5 social media and chat apps (that they hardly ever update anymore), and some crappy VR stuff nobody cares for. |
|
| ▲ | pclmulqdq 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Most of these companies kicked off the over-hiring in 2020 during the COVID boom they experienced. It was done by end of 2021. |
| |
| ▲ | rokob 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is actually a false premise pushed later to justify layoffs. They started overhiring in 2018-2019. They just continued a preexisting trend through 2021. |
|