> Chasing new technology when you’re already behind and your revenue is decline is a guaranteed way to fail.

> Moonshots like this you waste a tonne of money when that money is comparatively cheap anyway.

> not spent, lost

Can you explain that assertion in more detail?

What is there to expand on? The revenues from that division are $68 billion less than expenses it has racked up.

Zuck said from the beginning this was a long term bet. We can debate the wisdom of that call and its timescale but let's assume he thinks of it as a 20 year thing. Until that time period is up then surely it's "spent" rather than "lost"?

Do you know what the concept of time value of money means?

The further out into the future you go, the less valuable the returns are when taken back into the present.

The reality is, Mr Zuck is a manager who is there to invest the cash of its shareholders on their behalf into projects that beat the hurdle rate. Shareholders dont care abut how cool the tech is.

“Mr Zuck” is more than just a manager. He owns around 20% of the economic shares of Meta and more than 50% of the voting rights.

So he is acting on behalf of the shareholders because he is also the most important shareholder.

No he is a manager and is employed at the behest of the collective shareholders.

Zuck can exercise all his power, but he can also enjoy a low stock price if he pisses off investors. Hence that power doesnt mean much.

But, again, he is effectively the majority shareholder.

That power means literally everything. Facebook is his company in every sense of the term and if investors don’t like that then that’s their problem, not his.

And Apple loses 33 billion a year. Amazon 73 billion. Google 39 billion.