Comment by mft_
11 hours ago
> It was denied because there are keys on the device that would leak if meta opened it up. (I'm not an android dev so I don't know the ins and outs of that)
Any idea what changed?
> neglect and stupidity from zuck meant that the portal was killed
Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure? Is there really no way for teams to progress projects with value somewhat independently?
> Any idea what changed?
sadly, or fortunately I am not at facebook anymore, so I don't have the inside track on what changed.
> Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure?
Kinda. Zuck sets direction, and he has key interests. The thing that really makes him happy is cutting edge research and new features. The thing that passes him by completely is product experience. Oculus is a great example of that. The user experience was/is trash. the time to fun is/was too high and was for a long time. Carmak spent ages saying "we can't compete on hardware specs, we can compete on ecosystem and experience" he lost that argument.
Outside of zuck there are only a few areas that actually make decisions and communicate them properly, one is monetisation/advertising and the other is Infra planning. _Everything_ else relies on people churning initiatives and seeing what sticks. With loose coordination at the centre based on who know who and who manages to convince others that "this is a Zuck priority, or related to one"
It felt very much like having a Boy king. The Boy king liked playing with toys, and if you made a toy for the king you were in favour. The boring parts were handled by "evil advisors" who are there because they don;t threaten the king's power. Everyone around the boy king is there to gain favour.
> the time to fun is/was too high and was for a long time.
Yup - I got one for the other half as a present... like an hour and a half / two hours into setup/onboarding, they lost interest, it went back in the box and never came out again. :(
My gosh, I'm so happy I don't work in this Game of Thrones LARPing travesty…
> Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure?
When I was there (pre-Covid) it was sort of a worst-of-all-worlds situation, compared to other firms.
On the one hand, Zuck maintains an absolute majority of voting shares, so what he say literally goes, with the board having no real authority to rein him in. If your project is something he takes a direct interest in, you are automatically subject to his whims.
On the other, Meta highly values the idea that they are a pretty flat org with no centralised command and control structure. So if your project is not under the baleful gaze of Zuck, there's a good chance that nobody in the executive suite has any fucking idea what is going on in your part of the company.
Contrast this to Bezos-era Amazon, where Bezos would sometimes directly intervene in pet projects like the FirePhone, but the entire company has a strong reporting hierarchy, and executives are expected to maintain direct command-and-control at all times over their reports (i.e. when Bezos sent one of the dreaded question-mark emails, the entire management chain damn well better be able to get their story straight top-to-bottom by the end of day)
I had Zuck once create a ticket against me on the padding of a button because it was on one of his pet projects.
In the middle of the night. During peak Cambridge Analytica scandal times.
I question his priorities.
Is there any company set up so that the CEO's whim isn't a single point of failure?
Arguably the old fashioned ones where the CEO doesn’t have special shares that give them a voting supermajority?
Most large companies have the CEO answerable to a board elected by shareholders. CEO still has a lot of power but there are some checks and balances.
Zuck and Musk are somewhat exceptional in being dictator-CEOs.
[dead]
> Is Facebook really set up such that one person's whim is the single point of failure?
It doesn't sound that surprising, does it?
To me, with experience of numerous organisations of different sizes outside tech, it is pretty surprising.
(I'm not arguing that this is right but) the typical progression of an organisation as it scales is to move away from the 'scrappy startup with a CEO-dictator' and towards something more mature. Obviously, there are reams of business literature written about growing pains and then stagnation in large companies, but the single-personality-driven model seems hugely flawed - look at Tesla, for example. And I'd certainly expect a public company of the size, resource, and maturity (in years, if not structure) of Meta to have developed beyond this point.
Honestly, that a number of people seem to not grok my questioning this, is possibly quite revealing about the monoculture of the tech world.
I think it'd be pretty weird if people and teams inside a company go just go rogue against the CEO.
It's not that you want teams to be able to go rogue - you want teams to be able to work against a stable mission statement, that doesn't change every 5 minutes as the CEO changes mood
What if the CEO is wrong about something?