Meta seems to be completely tone-deaf when it comes to products and features. I wonder if this is a function of a single person, surrounded by people with little incentive to disagree, having all the decision making power in a company.

▲

telxosis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I mean it is the company that changed names to "Meta"verse, have this incredible piece of technology in the Quest but then didn't bother to do almost anything inside the actual "Meta"verse that they changed the company name to.

I can see my Quest 3 on the shelf next to me. Something I really love but don't put on much because it is like entering into a giant virtual empty park with a couple of pieces of half finished play ground equipment.

Pointless AI image generation on Instagram seems completely on brand to me.

▲

j16sdiz 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They think like an Advesting company. They listen to their customers.

	▲	encomiast 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I guess it's obvious, but haven't really thought about this. Back in the day we had media companies and advertisers. Magazine publishers/newspapers/TV Studios on the one hand and the Leo Burnetts/Ogilvy/Wieden+Kennedy on the other. There was always a tension between what advertisers wanted and what creatives wanted. The studio/publishers knew that bowing completely to advertisers was a fast track to making crap and the advertisers knew they needed to remind the publishers that they are only as good as their audiences. With Meta we these have more or less merged. It's not really clear now who the customer is. They need to attract both eyeballs and money. I'm not sure what the long-term consequence of that is, but my hunch is it leads to accounting and advertising winning since they actually generate money. And the result is junk creative.

▲

BenFranklin100 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The fish rots from the head. It’s Zuckerberg.