On 02/11/2021 02:26, Brian Holmes wrote:
> Alphabet was realistic. Meta looks desperate. I have the same impression as
> you, Michael. It will come to nothing.
Could this be more of a necessary share-holder reference/pointer,
opening new doors and preparing a pathway to shed FB if it becomes
I agree. While there is ample technical room -- and a distinct social
need -- to improve the teleconferencing "experience" (sorry, Olia), but
you don't need a sad metaverse for that.
But what strikes me still is the doggedness with which US IT sector
persues this vision. I took the occasion
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:56 AM mp wrote:
> Could this be more of a necessary share-holder reference/pointer,
> opening new doors and preparing a pathway to shed FB if it becomes too
> much of a liability? From an organisational PoV is makes sense, right?
>
It does, that would be totally logical
My interpretation of this change is that the company wants to transcend the
FB application. This is probably partly from a concern that the FB app will
be regulated out of existence or will otherwise lose users and traction.
It's also an acknowledgement that the company has accumulated so much
I suspect you are correct with regards to attempting transcendence.
The disconnect of its core products plunging into a lack of relevance,
reputation, morality, etc. together with its present accumulated wealth
provides an opportunity to create and then pivot an umbrella Alphabet
analog to
