[danpalmer]

Agree on VR, payments, disagree on Cloud. It's a saturated market, there are half a dozen operators who each have unique selling points. I don't know what Meta's would be.

Doubling down on becoming one of these "everything" apps could have been a good strategy. Become the app frontend for one of the less big food delivery companies in the FB app, tie in to payments. Perhaps even buy Square for Cash App and all the POS integrations to build a network of sellers, all tightly integrated from the consumer perspective into the Facebook app. I'd have hated it, but I suspect it could have worked.

[JCharante]

A lot of apps want to become a social network but Facebook was in a good position to do so. Imagine someone posting a picture of their Brunch. They tagged the location. Some AI matches the picture of the food with the pictures from the menu (google reviews already does this to some degree).

That food looks good, imagine if they partnered with Uber or Grab so you can add to cart right below the picture.

Peer to Peer payments could have also been great, especially if you could check-out at a store by scanning a QR code to pay (think WeChat Pay, FairPrice in Singapore, or even Paypal's version of that).

Or even buying event tickets. They already have events on the platform, and they let you put targeted ads, but what about an integrated experience to purchase tickets right on the platform instead of there being an external link?

They could have done so much but the only major change/addition in recent years was Dating (a huge hit in countries that perceive Tinder as only for hookups) and those avatars that people use everywhere instead of text posts.

[tuyguntn]

Very good lesson here for both Twitter, FB and any other upcoming startup. Never treat your 3rd party developers as shit. Look what WeChat achieved with their superapp and developer ecosystem. Twitter and FB tightened their rules a lot over the years, when they had a potential to become super app for West

[Siira]

The rules were tightened by pressure from politicians though?

[tuyguntn]

it started long ago, before government started scrutinizing internet platforms.

[disgruntledphd2]

It would have cratered their gross margins though, which would have meant a (potentially permanent) hit to the share price.

I agree that it would have been a good strategy, but that's (presumably) why they never did it.

[danpalmer]

Interesting. Is that because payments are much lower margin than ads? Surely investors would be smart enough to see the additional revenue, and likely additional benefit to the ads business, as being worth it?

[disgruntledphd2]

Investors like standardized numbers apparently

[lvl102]

Payment has much higher multiple especially compared to FB. It’s quite literally the closest thing to printing money.

[disgruntledphd2]

It doesn't have the same margins as advertising.