IMO the actual prescient call he made early on is to hang on to 60% of the total voting power of the company. I have to imagine there are several points where he'd have been pushed out quite a while ago if he hadn't have done that.
But if you take the same perspective as a VC: 95% of your bets can fail if the other 5% are spectacular.
He made spectacular bets with Instagram and WhatsApp. Most CEOs don’t make spectacular bets because their business doesn’t allow it, meaning the VC analogy doesn’t hold for them.
So it may be popular but they have ultimately failed commercially so far. They just bought an Indian startup and immediately put the founder in charge of WhatsApp.
Only this week they announced WhatsApp would allow usernames rather than rely on phone numbers. All the other competitors apps (signal,telegram etc) did this years ago.
Think that means 95% of bets over a small period of time? (A single fund within the VC) as opposed to the whole VC since inception.
And so not comparable.
VC investing is also a tax write off for rich investors which is offset against their gains elsewhere, wasted company money is a loss for the share buyer.
corporate espionage at global scale to get ahead of existential threats is some pretty insightful leadership, it’s all a matter of what team you’re rooting for.
I guess it's hard to say how much them monitoring their (potential) competitors influenced their decisions but it's definitely _not_ conspiracy nonsense and pretty well documented:
Also, it’s interesting to note that in both cases they where two very lean companies (Instagram had 13 employees and WhatsApp had 55) with pretty a pretty large and engaged user base (30 million for Insta and 450 million for WhatsApp)
Yeah, and he threw a huge bunch of cash to acquire them. pretty easy to acquire. Harder to build. He got lucky with facebook because myspace sucked. Good timing.
A very HN comment... At the time, almost nobody felt spending billions acquiring these companies was "elementary". Instagram was bought so early that spending a billion on a startup was unheard of. And WhatsApp was so expensive that they questioned Zuck's sanity.
You mention two strategic enablers that made these unusual acquisitions seem obvious to FB leadership. So were those two not good calls?
The parent comment is referring to a “VPN” installed by Facebook on users phone that surreptitiously sent telemetry data to Facebook. No one else had that information.
Sure, they worked out pretty well, but those were 12 and 14 years ago at this point, and aren't the only calls Facebook has made over the years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
IMO the actual prescient call he made early on is to hang on to 60% of the total voting power of the company. I have to imagine there are several points where he'd have been pushed out quite a while ago if he hadn't have done that.
But if you take the same perspective as a VC: 95% of your bets can fail if the other 5% are spectacular.
He made spectacular bets with Instagram and WhatsApp. Most CEOs don’t make spectacular bets because their business doesn’t allow it, meaning the VC analogy doesn’t hold for them.
Hasn’t Meta failed to monetise WhatsApp?
So it may be popular but they have ultimately failed commercially so far. They just bought an Indian startup and immediately put the founder in charge of WhatsApp.
Only this week they announced WhatsApp would allow usernames rather than rely on phone numbers. All the other competitors apps (signal,telegram etc) did this years ago.
1 reply →
Think that means 95% of bets over a small period of time? (A single fund within the VC) as opposed to the whole VC since inception.
And so not comparable.
VC investing is also a tax write off for rich investors which is offset against their gains elsewhere, wasted company money is a loss for the share buyer.
They spied on their mobile users with the Facebook app to detect Instagram and WhatsApp growth early
corporate espionage at global scale to get ahead of existential threats is some pretty insightful leadership, it’s all a matter of what team you’re rooting for.
By the time FB bought WhatsApp it had nearly a billion users. No need for technology conspiracy nonsense.
I guess it's hard to say how much them monitoring their (potential) competitors influenced their decisions but it's definitely _not_ conspiracy nonsense and pretty well documented:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47281906
Indeed they were.
Also, it’s interesting to note that in both cases they where two very lean companies (Instagram had 13 employees and WhatsApp had 55) with pretty a pretty large and engaged user base (30 million for Insta and 450 million for WhatsApp)
Yeah, and he threw a huge bunch of cash to acquire them. pretty easy to acquire. Harder to build. He got lucky with facebook because myspace sucked. Good timing.
I always hear reverence around Myspace. Is it really rose-tinted nostalgia? It seemed like a cool core product.
3 replies →
> Instagram and WhatsApp purchases were _very_ good calls
Elementary call when you have the data no-one else has thanks to illicit means and explicitly decided on a buy or bury strategy
A very HN comment... At the time, almost nobody felt spending billions acquiring these companies was "elementary". Instagram was bought so early that spending a billion on a startup was unheard of. And WhatsApp was so expensive that they questioned Zuck's sanity.
You mention two strategic enablers that made these unusual acquisitions seem obvious to FB leadership. So were those two not good calls?
The parent comment is referring to a “VPN” installed by Facebook on users phone that surreptitiously sent telemetry data to Facebook. No one else had that information.
1 reply →
As another commenter said that he acquired both with the money made on Facebook, they didn't originate within the company.