Anaheim, California – February 17: Mark Zuckerberg is observed in the past during UFC 298 event … more
“I lost to Snapchat and Tiktok. I will not lose in it.” These were the words of Mark Zuckerberg during a particularly full day among many many on Facebook, and probably now meta. These were reported In Wall Street magazine.
They reveal what everyone in Silicon Valley knows closely that the present is a terrible predictor of the future. See Yahoo and AOL if you are confused, or on this subject Friendster and MySpace. Today’s giants are always tomorrow, without the ability to not rotate, but to rotate in the right way. The problem is that the right axis requires you to see around the proverbial corner, which as a list of the appearances revealed by the prominent Silicon Valley companies, is very difficult to do.
Increases thoughts on Mark Zuckerberg, the businessman, Zuckerberg the tens of thousands employer, and Zuckerberg the competitor without whom we have never heard of Zuckerberg the businessman or employer. What should he do with FTC’s antitrust costume?
He has a business to run, and he runs it while he is well aware of business history. Assuming that he is not aware of business history, readers can be sure that some on his board and some of the Truthtelers inside and outside the employee know business history. This means that there is substantial awareness within the meta that attitude is death. In another way, success in the present is almost meaningless as a predictor of the future. After all, it is the biggest threat and threatens precisely because success creates investment in people with Zuckerberg’s brain and energy, but are more than willing to hit him from his perch.
It is useful to think about all this with the passage that opens this piece of opinion. It rejects the popular views within the FTC that Zuckerberg has long been in a hot pursuit of the “monopoly”. What a simplistic idea. After all, the excerpt reveals Zuckerberg as the opposite of a monopoly, but instead as someone who recognizes that Meta is anything but a monopoly. The excerpt explains Zuckerberg as someone who is fully aware of how little the present is predicting the future, but wanting to be relevant in the future, Zuckerberg has long looked forward to looking for what will matter in the months and years.
If Zuckerberg was a monopoly, or much more relevant to the weak case of FTC, if Zuckerberg had a monopoly forces, he would have stopped on Facebook. Really, why buy minnows like Instagram and Whatsapp when you have the most prominent social media website in the world?
The answer to the above question can be found again in the excerpt that begins this part of opinion, that it is not enough to be good or wonderful once. What maintains the good and the big is more good and big, but this does not just require to meet the needs of users, but much more often than they do not try lead them with blinders up. In other words, Zuckerberg bought Instagram and Whatsapp not because he was sure of the future or the role of two in the future, but because it wasn’t. As the opening of this writing reminds us once again, the future is the material of the night of the night, so opaque is that.
It was implying that while Zuckerberg proved prophetic and more visionary than competition with acquisitions of Instagram and Whatsapp, he had some failures. These included snapchat and tiktok. Which is just a reminder that every action of Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, including the name Meta, reveals the things of a business that was never a monopoly and that never saw himself as one.
