145
We're Watching Facebook Die
(www.wheresyoured.at)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
145 points (93.9% liked)
Technology
33579 readers
252 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
So a company that made 12 Billion in profit in one quarter is dying because it's growth has slowed down/plateaued?
It is more that they are not growing, and that means dying in their business model. By not reporting an accurate metric of user engagement, they are hiding the stagnation or loss. Background logins from apps are likely also hiding the real picture of user engagement. Without active user engagement they lose their revenue, data harvesting and advertising.
So there are signs that they are in a downturn, which will lead to irrelevance and failure.
Once upon a time, after growth companies would shift from a growth stock to a stable stock. Instead of telling wall street "you can make money here" it would mean "you can keep your money relatively safe here". We apparently don't do that anymore. Seems like it would have been perfect for them.
That would work if they had a stable business model and produced something everybody needed or wanted, like diapers or alcohol. Their entire business model requires they keep users engaged and user count growing.
People will leave Meta the more Meta tries to make more off of a stagnant userbase, which will death spiral.
For sure, they don't know how to be a stable revenue, or how to retain users. So we get this clusterfck
"like diapers or alcohol" lol. That resonates to me as a parent
we used to call that 'value investing' and get rewarded with reliable dividends. useful during periods of high interest rates, which stunted growth.
I think you're reading more into that than there is.
Do you still use Myspace?
No, and never did - but I don't understand your point. Facebook started only a year after Myspace did.
Astounding, isn't it? That's publicly traded companies for you. The company's objective is to keep its stock up and up and up. That means shareholders must want to keep buying the stock, which in turn means that the company must demonstrate that its value will keep growing, so that by buying the stock today the shareholders will get a positive return tomorrow.
Of course, the universe is finite and no growth is forever. The end state for such companies is not bankruptcy, at least in the immediate, but, more or less, the IBM fate: a previously uber-dominant mastodon whose market capitalization is now worth maybe one tenth of its modern competitors. The fact that it's still turning a profit is only secondary: none of the big tech shops want to be the next IBM. Their executives are, after all, mostly paid in stocks.
And that's how you end up with companies that are making amounts of revenue you and I can't even comprehend flail in a panic like they're on the edge of the precipice whenever the technological landscape shifts.
It's both fascinating and remarkably dumb.
Since it has shareholders, the only way for it to stay in business is ever-increasing growth. Profit themselves aren't enough. It needs to grow faster and faster so that dividends keep increasing, which is the goal.
Dividends aren't really the goal for most investors. It's stock prices they care about.
traditionally a stock price is the net present value of all future dividends. just like a home price is the net present value of all future rent payments. of course its all off the rails now due to extended periods of minimal interest rates and dollar cancer.
What? The stock price is based on the valuation of the company, not future dividends. Many stocks don't pay dividends at all, or do so rarely.
Similarly, a home's price is the market value of the home, not how much the rent/mortgage payments would be.
the valuation of a publicly traded company is traditionally the future dividends of outstanding shares. stocks that dont pay much dividends are counting on a growth strategy, capturing market share.
again with the homes, the market value of the home is traditionally based on what future revenues can be extracted out of it.
'the price is the value' should be based on something other than bigger fools.
Oh it's definitely dying.