[etothet]

I've always felt that Mark Zuckerberg got lucky with Facebook and that he has no real lasting talent as a technologist or visionary. He seems to attempt to chase the latest "it" thing and has very few original ideas that actual stick long-term. He's quite the charlatan.

[dang]

Please don't post personal attacks to HN, regardless of $Person.

A comment like this does not gratify curiosity, only indignation, and we're here for the former not the latter.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[etothet]

I definitely didn't mean this as a personal attack.

[sometimelurker]

um, I'm not sure exactly why what motivated that comment, but its extremely possible to believe every word there from a purely logical perspective, as opposed to an emotional one. yes we shouldn't post personal attacks, but saying 'Zuckerberg got lucky' and 'seems to chase the latest "it" thing' doesn't need to qualify as a personal attack. these can just be normal observations. see I wouldn't say the same things about sama, because I don't think they're true, and I dislike the both of them.

as for the newsguidelines, I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things

[alberth]

While I know criticizing Meta is popular, I'm not sure I'd agree with above.

Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook. Understanding the potential market that could be created and turning down a $1B acquisition from Yahoo 20-years ago, at the time, seemed insane.

Also making the shift to mobile, when people thought that would be the death of FB is a remarkable story.

Identifying to acquire WhatsApp & Instagram, both laughed at when bought for the acquisition price at that time, now massive businesses for Meta (and their market cap value).

Meta AI glasses are surprisingly popular and growing. And more...

Note: I have no affiliation with Meta (not now or in the past)

---

EDIT: Many people I see underestimate what it takes to build a business. It is the classic “I could have built that in a weekend” critique. Maybe, but the product is only like 10% of the problem. 90% of the work (and hard part) is execution.

[blahblaher]

That's not true though. Social network sites existed, just not so "centralized" and "viral". Facebook created a simple and more user-friendly interface. WhatsApp as it understand, does not make much if any money. Instagram is a cash cow due.

They have released some good open source technology, but as the OP said, Meta hasn't much going for it apart from addictive apps for showing ads

[karmakurtisaani]

They also had the right audience to build the early adopters: top university students.

[etothet]

Those are fair points, though I didn't say he wasn't a good business person. I could probably concede that he is, but I don't see him as the tech visionary he's often propped up to be.

[sc68cal]

> Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook.

You never heard of MySpace?

[JsonDemWitOster]

> Many people I see underestimate what it takes to build a business. It is the classic “I could have built that in a weekend” critique.

My dude, no one in your reply thread is making that claim. We bristling at the claim that "Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook". Unless you're saying FB's innovation is its business model and is what made it dominate, well, your original statement just didn't substantiate that.

IMO, the only thing I'd credit Zuck for is sticking (at least at the start) to his singular vision of what a social network should be; first it was just open for .edu emails, then when it was released more broadly their product roadmap stuck to fostering a social environment online.

And then he lost that vision. I'd say it was circa Cambridge Analytica when engagement---often ragebait because it gave them more and stronger of that sweet sweet monetizable ad signals---replaced fostering an online social environment. Others would say it's the algorithmic news feed. Either way, losing that vision started FB's demise.

IME, FB was best when it was a supplement and not a replacement for real life. FB had value to me because we could plan parties there and even keep in touch after, get that social buzz going for a little while longer. But it was _never_ the party.

But their recent efforts---Metaverse, all the AI crap---has all the hallmakrs of trying to replace real life. They now want to be the party but good luck with that. Judging by the blowback and lack of adoption consumers see what they're up to a mile away. Zuck has no idea how to stay relevant so now we have a platform more concerned with its market cap than having actual utility.

[Groxx]

>Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook.

Seriously? Of course they did. An easy counter-example is MySpace, which launched several months before Facebook's very first appearance as a Hot Or Not mimic (which predates Zuck by 3 years), and had many millions more users for years (especially while FB was restricted to colleges).

Major competition and a lot of money was going into social media around then (and for a couple years prior), FB is just the eventual winner.

[rapsey]

> Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook

Social networks were all the rage. He executed the best of all and had the right strategy to build the user base.

[goosejuice]

He was also a wealthy kid with connections. People place far too much weight on execution. Most of it is being in the right place at the right time and having existing connections.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/11/19/facemash-creat...

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-mark-zuckerberg-hacked-i...

Not what I'd call great execution anyways.

[gowld]

Insane how? Google had already done it, and it's pretty clear that if someone wants to buy for $1B, it might be worth more than $1B.

[Zigurd]

He built a hell of a machine for buying political/cultural influence or filling your sales funnel, no matter the dubiousness of your product, with pinpoint precision. Doing that takes vision and talent, and extremely flexible ethics.

[glimshe]

I've never seen him saying anything particularly smart or insightful. My impression is that he has moderately above average intelligence and entrepreneurship. If he wasn't at the right place at the right time, he would be yet another founder of a random startup.

[nosioptar]

I've never seen him say or do anything particularly human. If I believed in such things, I'd think he was some kind of souless drone sent here by aliens/demons/etc to destroy humanity.

[tmule]

Your impression about his intelligence is way off. Mark was part of the study for mathematically precocious youth, which has a math cutoff at the 1/10K rarity. He also has ambition at the same level. What’s probably missing, of late, is good taste and judgment.

[drivebyhooting]

That becomes more clear by the day.

Zuck has no insight. His sole ambition is to be rich and taken seriously.

[IshKebab]

I dunno he made a few very wise purchases (Instagram, WhatsApp). But yeah he hasn't had a single first party hit apart from Facebook, and the Metaverse is 100% emperor's new clothes. Even worse than Alexa's "people will buy things through a janky voice interface right"?

[chrisss395]

Thought the same thing even before I saw your comment!

[fragmede]

In what way has he claimed special expertise to deceive others for financial gain, as befitting the word charlatan? He is the CEO of Facebook and we're told to not like Facebook, but when has he claimed special expertise to deceive others for financial gain? He's one of the richest people in the world and has been using that money to do things he wants to do. I don't think he's ever claimed to eg be a PhD AI researcher and for people to give him money because of a made up claim like that. People give Facebook money and it ends up in his pockets and he does things with that.

[oulipo2]

Same for Elon and Paypal

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

This is basically the case with most of the tech billionaires. They have one, maybe two real successes and it's mostly inertia after that.