[HN Gopher] Meta Earnings Results Q1 2022 [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
Meta Earnings Results Q1 2022 [pdf]
Author : marc__1
Score : 60 points
Date : 2022-04-27 21:00 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (s21.q4cdn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (s21.q4cdn.com)
| paulpauper wrote:
| FB is nuts. Bears focused on the slowing growth ,ignoring that
| Facebook is making $40/billion profit in a year, which is just
| astounding. That's 3x Walmart. You don't need much growth when
| you have so much profit and market dominance. Buying Facebook
| stock with a PE ratio of 13 , cheaper than any 'blue chip'
| company, was a steal. $400-600 soon imho.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Isn't it that FB type of businesses are a bit like pro-athlete
| like, in terms of viable career lifetime? I remember digg,
| friendster, myspace, tumblr, bebo, msn messenger, Foursquare
| etc...
|
| Some gone, some still alive but all of them had what's FB's
| primary moat: network effect.
|
| It's a strong moat but once things start to move to the wrong
| direction things can move fast... unlike with Walmart.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| They can, but I'd argue that none of those had the
| pervasiveness of Facebook. Moreso due to timing & mobile
| adoption, than any actual failing.
|
| Facebook's moat is that it's the Yellow Pages of social.
|
| It took the web to kill Yellow Pages, not a better phone
| book. Which is probably why you see FB investing in acquiring
| social-but-different competitors and researching paradigm
| shifts.
| pkdpic wrote:
| I like that analogy but I'm realizing I have no real
| understanding of if people saw the yellow pages as a
| problematic monopoly in any way.
|
| I'm sure no where near where facebook is with negative
| perception but it seems like small businesses at least
| could have viewed the yellow pages as problematic.
| gnatman wrote:
| They saw it as problematic enough that AT&T was broken up
| in the 80s.
| paulpauper wrote:
| but that was a long time ago, before any social network had
| the opportunity to establish the sort of dominance Facebook +
| Instagram + WhatsApp have
| oblio wrote:
| Facebook makes more profit in 1 quarter than all of those
| combined had revenue over their entire lifetimes.
|
| Stalin used to say that quantity has a quality all its own.
|
| The world has changed. Even if Facebook decays, it could
| decay over literal decades, still being profitable. Yahoo is
| still around ($1.3bn in revenue), IBM is still around, SUSE
| is still around.
|
| We only talk about the cool tip of the iceberg but
| IT/tech/software is huge.
| dntrkv wrote:
| None of those every turned into real businesses, whereas
| Facebook is one of the biggest money printers in the world.
|
| Also, Facebook has been around for about 18 years now.
| Myspace was a major player for like 4 years.
| lvl102 wrote:
| Compared to something like GOOGL? I rather own GOOGL and
| diversified business lines. What FB needs to do is create 3-4
| additional businesses preferably with its cloud/infrastructure.
| Evan_Hellmuth wrote:
| I agree with your assessment, and I'm a long term holder. I'd
| love to hear your rebuttal to the following bear case:
|
| - $10 billion to Reality Labs R&D in 2021 expected to increase
| annually will eat into earnings
|
| - Last year saw first ever decline in US Facebook user base,
| expected to continue shrinking (albeit slowly)
|
| - Apple's 2021 opt-in privacy change makes
| FB/Insta/Messenger/WhatsApp ads less effective permanently for
| the highest margin demographic (iPhone users)
|
| - Hugely negative public sentiment* hurts adoption and makes
| continued litigation headwinds likely
|
| * to be clear, I think the negative sentiment is unfair towards
| Meta. You use their service and in exchange they show you ads
| based on your behavior. They've always been transparent about
| that, there's nothing particularly secretive or nefarious going
| on.
|
| Ads power most of the free internet stuff we enjoy. YouTube,
| Snap, Google search, Tiktok, they all do the same thing! But
| people for whatever reason really seethe when it comes to Mark
| Zuckerberg and FB.
|
| In fact, it's pretty insane that TikTok isn't under more
| scrutiny in the US from a national security perspective. At
| least the other ad-powered entertainment apps aren't controlled
| by a foreign adversary!
| aczerepinski wrote:
| I disagree about their being nothing nefarious. It took
| people _years_ to realize the extent to which FB was tracking
| your outside-of-facebook activity. I would even guess that
| many still aren't aware. Shadow profiles, etc.
| bun_at_work wrote:
| It doesn't seem fair to compare Facebook to the other
| companies you listed, with respect to negative public
| sentiment. People rightly criticize FB for the numerous
| scandals, data leaks, and lack of ethics, and as Zuckerberg
| runs the company, he deserves that criticism.
|
| It's one thing to buy the stock and be bullish, and another
| to turn a blind eye to the horrors this company has created.
|
| Youtube has it's problems, Google Search is going down the
| drain, and a ton of other websites run off ad revenue, yes.
| Those services are not responsible for organizing genocides,
| providing political analytics companies access to
| unauthorized data, or running unethical experiments on users
| to test their impact on the users' mental health.
| Evan_Hellmuth wrote:
| Link a scandal or data leak since 2016 - I may need to
| update my priors
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| - 2018, Cambridge Analytica
|
| - 2020, Facebook announced it won't fact-check political
| ads during the looming election.
|
| - 2020, ex-Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang revealed
| inner practices profiting from political disinformation
| and manipulation.
|
| - 2021, ex-Facebook employee Frances Haugen leaks
| documents revealing unethical business practices for
| profit.
|
| Given Facebook's rotten practices, seems it will give us
| at least one major scandal per year, but without serious
| consequences so don't sell your stocks.
| noslenwerdna wrote:
| Facebook isn't responsible for organizing genocides, etc
| either. You might as well blame the telephone when
| criminals use it in commissioning a crime.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| It's very responsible for building hate echo chambers,
| though.
| redeux wrote:
| > there's nothing particularly secretive or nefarious going
| on.
|
| Other than selling data and ads to foreign groups that use it
| for electioneering / sowing domestic discord. Minor detail
| though, I'm sure.
| Evan_Hellmuth wrote:
| They don't sell data, they let anyone who buys ads choose
| who the ads go to based on anonymized data.
|
| They also made it way harder to run political ads after
| public sentiment changed in 2016.
|
| You can go buy an ad from them right now. So can "foreign
| groups." Neither of you will get access to anyone's data.
|
| Same goes for YouTube, Twitter, Snap, etc.
|
| If you're worried about "foreign groups" there's this
| Chinese app called TikTok that knows everything about every
| American under 30 that no one seems to be concerned about.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > - $10 billion to Reality Labs R&D in 2021 expected to
| increase annually will eat into earnings
|
| Seems like that is a knob that can be changed at any time to
| give more profit.
|
| > - Last year saw first ever decline in US Facebook user
| base, expected to continue shrinking (albeit slowly)
|
| Including instagram? Regardless, this was right after the
| pandemic, some people will switch from screens.
|
| > - Apple's 2021 opt-in privacy change makes
| FB/Insta/Messenger/WhatsApp ads less effective permanently
| for the highest margin demographic (iPhone users)
|
| This will be worked around - the impact isn't as large as
| people make it out to be.
|
| > - Hugely negative public sentiment* hurts adoption and
| makes continued litigation headwinds likely
|
| Doesn't seem to really be hurting IG adoption that much. The
| real risk is litigation.
| Evan_Hellmuth wrote:
| Agreed on all counts! Except US FB user decline slowing
| (not instagram, just FB).
|
| Add in WhatsApp's under-monetization and some bullishness
| on VR and you've got my investment thesis.
| WYepQ4dNnG wrote:
| > - Apple's 2021 opt-in privacy change makes
| FB/Insta/Messenger/WhatsApp ads less effective permanently
| for the highest margin demographic (iPhone users)
|
| > This will be worked around - the impact isn't as large as
| people make it out to be.
|
| And you think Apple will stay put and do nothing? You can
| expect that as soon as they find a work around, Apple is
| gonna screw them again. They have no chances.
| cheriot wrote:
| If two apps can both identify a user then they will be
| able to combine that data. Apple took away the one
| identifier they controlled. What are they going to do
| next?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Depends on the work around. I don't think it is possible
| to get between app tracking data from some side channel,
| Apple will definitely block that through legal if not
| technical enforcement.
|
| But they can use data from Android to infer user behavior
| for Apple users.
|
| Also, they can still use tracking data from their own
| properties (IG, FB, Whatsapp).
| WYepQ4dNnG wrote:
| Less and less people are using FB .. perhaps IG and
| Whatsapp yes, although you have to consider that privacy
| regulations can only get more stringent over time.
|
| They will go bankrupt, I don't think so. Will they be
| able to grow at the rate of the last 10y? I don't think
| so.
|
| I think they peaked already.
| msoad wrote:
| People don't decide to go another store instead of Walmart in a
| span of few months. But migrating from Instagram to TikTok can
| happen very quickly.
| paulpauper wrote:
| _But migrating from Instagram to TikTok can happen very
| quickly._
|
| they simply use both. That is what I have observed.
| msoad wrote:
| There is a finite number of hours in a day -- unfortunately
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| Sleep is also a competitor to screen usage.
| munk-a wrote:
| Walmart has shifted a decent chunk of their business to the
| internet and that business does suffer from quite a bit of
| attrition when competitors manage to undercut their prices -
| and Walmart established itself by stealing consumers in a
| short time and forcing local businesses to shutter - then
| consolidating their locations. It is an extremely impressive
| business and they've been quite careful managing costs to
| maintain their position, but they could easily lose their
| dominant position quite quickly. Customer loyalty to Walmart
| is entirely objective - they offer the best deals. As a
| company their image is pretty terrible and very few people
| would weep if they were overtaken.
|
| Compare that to services that FB runs that have years of your
| personal history carefully cataloged in it - that data can be
| exported, but there aren't many services where it can be
| richly imported.
|
| Both companies may seem to be are in fragile positions
| because of their size and public opinion but I wouldn't bet
| either of them will shutter their doors anytime soon.
| rubiquity wrote:
| I was following along until your call for $400-$600 share
| price. The problem with FB is that growth is slowing and will
| eventually decline, and it's a growth stock. Unless the
| Metaverse pans out it is going to be a while before the stock
| is anywhere near its previous valuations, and that's putting
| aside the current macro environment.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| > and it's a growth stock
|
| How do you define a growth stock?
| rubiquity wrote:
| Stocks bought largely on expectations of future growth in
| share price because the underlying business is promising.
| In contrast to well run businesses that pay consistent
| dividends to shareholders. Right now FB is neither a growth
| stock nor a value stock, and that's bad because as revenue
| declines so will share buybacks.
| topper-123 wrote:
| > $400-600 soon imho.
|
| Revenue growth is stopping, no way they're going to that level
| anytime soon. Also, if a recession is coming, as some say with
| interest rates rising, ad expenditure will fall, affecting Meta
| greatly.
|
| OTOH, it has a moat from its network effect and its earnings
| are insane in absolute terms, so could also pivot to become a
| nice cash cow instead of a growth stock in the coming years.
| political12345 wrote:
| 2022.04.27
|
| i'm saving the url of your comment and i will add a reminder in
| 3 months to comment on this article.
|
| i fear you will lose your money and the stock will not be at
| that level but lets wait and see.
| x3sphere wrote:
| I agree it is a cheap price for FB but the macro environment
| matters too... if we are entering a recession tech stocks will
| see more downside still.
| rvz wrote:
| Interesting. Like I said, I think it is quite too early to write
| Meta off. [0] Even looked at that _' screaming buy signal'_ when
| it got lower than at least around $200 to around $190. [1]
|
| Seems like lots of gamblers got wiped out after this earnings
| result thinking that Meta was finished.
|
| In this case the tables have turned and it is not over yet.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30185992
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30186098
| jonas21 wrote:
| It's only in the HN bubble that people think Meta is finished.
| randomsearch wrote:
| Definitely in that bubble.
|
| Main product has tanked. So few people use it extensively
| now.
|
| Instagram has been absolutely destroyed by tik tok. As that
| audience grows up, the impact of that colossal defeat will
| hurt more and more.
|
| Buying another success will be near impossible, and they've
| not created anything significant since the original app. No
| reason to expect them to successfully build something as
| difficult as a VR platform.
|
| They've had years to fix the above. They haven't. Whilst that
| doesn't matter for their current earnings, the future looks
| very bleak, especially when the next recession hits and
| advertising spend plummets.
|
| I do wonder at what point Zuck will step away. I guess
| sidewards to avoid spooking investors but he's smart, he
| knows it's over.
| oblio wrote:
| Facebook is product with a global audience.
|
| I doubt you have a good enough holistic overview.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Compared to Q12021 it's an improvement.
| nabla9 wrote:
| After hours P/E ratio is about right.
|
| There is no reason to expect growth better than the Nasdaq
| composite for the foreseeable future.
|
| 1) Due to ownership structure and personalities, the path to new
| ideas through leadership is closed. Zuckerberg is not going to
| change or leave if Meta disappoints in the future.
|
| 2) Meta can't by market share anymore thanks to regulators in all
| major markets being finally awake, led by EU. The benefit of
| using size as leverage is dwindling.
|
| 3) Meta has never created major new innovation/product in-house
| after Facebook. Metaverse is extremely unlikely to succeed
| against competition. Discount fruitless R&D from profits.
|
| 4) Meta continues to make money due to network effect, economies
| of size. Meta is like an oil company pumping until Facebook +
| Instagram well runs dry.
| Evan_Hellmuth wrote:
| Have you used a Quest 2?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Quest 2 is hardware, not market share.
|
| Nothing in Meta's VR research is something that competitors
| can't do. It's just basic incremental improvement you get by
| throwing money into it.
| bagels wrote:
| 10b/year of improvements. Who else is doing this?
| dntrkv wrote:
| Meta owns over 50% of the VR headset market (over 60% of
| the headsets used on SteamVR). With the amount of money
| they are pumping into the space, combined with how invested
| Zuck is personally, there is no doubt that they will
| dominate this market. They are investing huge sums of money
| just to get developers to build for their platform. If you
| are long on VR, you should be long on Meta.
| abeppu wrote:
| > 2) Meta can't by market share anymore thanks to regulators in
| all major markets being finally awake > 3) Meta has never
| created major new innovation/product in-house after Facebook.
|
| I guess, previously they bought some growing/upcoming
| competitors. Can they satisfy regulators and buy up new
| innovative companies with complementary rather than competing
| offerings?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Platform antitrust regulators investigate both horizontal and
| vertical acquisitions.
|
| Complementary companies integrated into data-driven economies
| of scale are still targets for regulators.
| gzer0 wrote:
| Earnings breakdown and why FB stock is up 17% after hours:
| * Earnings per share: $2.72 vs $2.56 expected * Revenue:
| $27.91 billion vs $28.2 billion expected * Daily Active
| Users (DAUs): 1.96 billion vs 1.95 billion expected *
| Monthly Active Users (MAUs): 2.94 billion vs 2.97 billion
| expected * Average Revenue per User (ARPU): $9.54 vs. $9.50
| expected
|
| As of market close today, FB shares had lost almost half their
| value in 2022.
| k4ch0w wrote:
| I don't see any mention of regulations coming down on Facebook
| for the bear case. Same goes for Google. US law will regulate
| them after following EU's. I think it's very likely once we get
| more tech literate politicians in place
| Evan_Hellmuth wrote:
| What needs to be regulated?
| munk-a wrote:
| I think it's pretty reasonable to argue that they're
| effectively monopolies in certain market segments and also
| that their businesses are causing extreme societal
| externalities that wouldn't exist if they didn't exist.
| k4ch0w wrote:
| Data collection, anti-trust and privacy policies. Right now
| it is the wild west and consumers have no idea what is being
| collected and how they are being profiled for ads.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqn3gR1WTcA
| kerng wrote:
| Seems like a long slow death for Facebook... the day after
| tomorrow people will sell again.
| munk-a wrote:
| You're more than welcome to short it, but I don't think I'm
| willing to take that risk.
|
| FB isn't delivering great stats when it comes to the stock
| market, but their profit margins remain pretty insane.
| hmate9 wrote:
| Stock is up 18% after hours.
|
| Revenues and earnings:
|
| - Daily Active Users 1.96BN, beating Est. of 1.94BN, up 4% Y/Y
|
| - Monthly Active Users 2.94BN, missing Est. 2.95BN, up 3% Y/Y
|
| - EPS $2.72, beating estimate $2.56
|
| - Revenue $27.91 billion, beating estimate $28.24 billion
| (Bloomberg Consensus)
|
| - Advertising rev. $27.00 billion, missing estimate $27.48
| billion
|
| - Family of Apps revenue $27.21 billion, missing estimate $27.52
| billion
|
| - Reality Labs revenue $695 million, beating estimate $677.1
| million
|
| - Other revenue $215 million, beating estimate $189.3 million
|
| A red flag here: yes, revenue grew 7% YY, but that was the
| slowest pace of growth since the company went public in 2012.
| Meanwhile, US revenue barely grew in Q1 at $12.671BN, up from
| $12.405 BN.
| ArtWomb wrote:
| >>> Reality Labs revenue $695 million, beating estimate $677.1
| million
|
| On $3B loss. Insane R&D spend for CV ;)
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > Revenue $27.91 billion, beating estimate $28.24 billion
|
| Is that a mistake? How does getting less than the estimate
| constitute beating it?
| guillermin wrote:
| For me, that Reality Labs is the division beating estimates
| drives home that Meta's bet on XR is going to pay. Ad revenue
| might be down because of changes in Apple and Google mobile
| policies, but they are going to control the platform of the
| future and set their own rules.
| jjfoooo5 wrote:
| I'm having a hard time tracking down what kind of growth that
| revenue represents.
| vosper wrote:
| I bought a Quest 2 out of curiosity, and am amazed by it.
| Zuckerberg apparently says they're still 5-10 years away from
| where they want to be with the technology, so I'm guessing
| what's coming down the pipeline is going to be pretty
| impressive.
|
| I think people are really underestimating how much impact
| these technologies are going to have. People thought the
| first iPhone was only good for fart apps. I think this will
| be a similar story.
|
| I just hope someone can compete with FB.
| [deleted]
| bredren wrote:
| I also got a Quest 2 and am amazed by it.
|
| I loathe Facebook, and use their products only when
| absolutely necessary.
|
| But after reading a comment on HN about value the Quest 2
| delivers for exercise, I decided to give it a go. I had and
| used the Oculus DK1 but had done zero VR since.
|
| > I think people are really underestimating how much impact
| these technologies are going to have.
|
| Unquestionably. People are totally underestimating VR/AR.
|
| > I just hope someone can compete with FB.
|
| I think FB will be competing with Snap, Samsung/Microsoft
| and others for the Android market.
|
| If you use the Oculus in a room with Siri enabled (via
| homepod / smarthome stuff like fans / lights) it becomes
| obvious the experience must stretch beyond the headset.
|
| Facebook has neither the privacy track record nor smarthome
| footprint needed to support this. Though Oculus will have
| existed first, and FB may get an improved headset to market
| out in the meantime, Apple will create the market
| expectations for VR/AR
| dumbfounder wrote:
| I bought one and I can't stand it. Too heavy and
| uncomfortable. The UI is annoying and confusing. I tried to
| find some games for my kids (ages 7-9) but they either
| couldn't figure them out or they were boring. What's up
| with that start area, why can't I explore it? It's
| collecting dust for me. I see the potential but it seems a
| ways off.
| dntrkv wrote:
| > Too heavy and uncomfortable
|
| Upgrade the strap, it's a much better experience.
|
| My nieces and nephews are all around that age, I usually
| let them play Job Simulator. They love it.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > I tried to find some games for my kids (ages 7-9)
|
| they won't even recommend it as safe for kids that age
| yet, so it isn't surprising you couldn't find any games
| targeted to that age range.
|
| You should be aware there are some potentially scary
| things going on in any of the social apps [0]
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-
| radio/2022/apr/25/a-barra...
| dntrkv wrote:
| Nobody should be letting their kids play any multi-player
| games. Not only for their sake (people say some fucked up
| shit on there), but for the sake of all the other adults
| playing those games.
| GordonS wrote:
| Current generation VR just doesn't excite or interest me.
|
| But I _am_ excited for what 's going to come, now that VR
| is getting some serious investment.
|
| My wishlist: - no motion sickness or
| headaches (not sure if this is going to be possible for
| 100% of people)
|
| - lighter, less bulky, less ridiculous looking, more
| comfortable headsets; the dream would be something like a
| pair of regular glasses, or goggles - higher resolution
|
| And, with time, I'd like to see hardware become less
| expensive, giving it a chance to become more mainstream.
| matt_s wrote:
| All of those reasons are why VR will be a niche, as in
| not mass market like smart phones, for a long while.
| oblio wrote:
| VR? Maybe. AR? Likely 5 years away.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > - no motion sickness or headaches
|
| We can do this right now on the Index. You need:
|
| - A computer that can output 144 fps consistently without
| drops.
|
| - Well-positioned lighthouses.
|
| - Software that does not move the player or world when
| the player does not physically moves around their space.
| (Except via blink teleportation.)
|
| Unseen Diplomacy, The Lab, and Half Life Alyx, when
| played with the right settings or hardware, shouldn't
| make basically anyone motion sick.
|
| Unfortunately, people don't like blink teleportation
| because it usually sucks, and games like Unseen Diplomacy
| have pretty large play-space requirements. But IMO,
| there's room for more creativity in this space. Budget
| Cuts, for example, makes blink teleportation really work.
| Hamcha wrote:
| Plenty of low end titles also have good comfort options
| without requiring top tier GPUs to achieve stable
| framerates, my personal picks are Rec Room for a social
| experience and "Garden of the Sea" for a chill single
| player experience. Both have snap-turn and teleportation
| as first-class movement option.
|
| I wanted to go deeper (esp. with VRChat) so I eventually
| caved in to free movement. It was very motion sickness
| inducing at first, but doing it bit by bit you get used
| to it after a while.
|
| Personal recommendation for any VR experience: I have a
| bar stool in my VR space where I can lie on or just sit.
| The difference from a chair is that it doesn't offset you
| vertically when you lie/sit, which tends to mess with
| games.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| There was never any moment where the iPhone was a fart app
| novelty. It was immediately and obviously wildly better and
| more useful than every phone than came before it.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| it's going to take a lot of marketing to get people to accept
| VR in large numbers, too much dystopian sci-fi that instantly
| makes people not interested. When I look at those headsets I
| instantly think some combination of The Matrix and Brave New
| World.
|
| But maybe Zuck knows about some forthcoming propaganda
| campaign to focus on getting people to use VR to distract
| from income inequality, putting the majority of the
| population into the digital world seems like the best way to
| distract from real world issues
| dntrkv wrote:
| The Quest 2 sales numbers are in the ballpark of the new
| consoles.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Well it's interesting having teenage kids.
|
| Because while the adults are all busy pooh-poohing it, this
| tech is rapidly penetrating in that market. Which is to
| say, something like 80% of my kids friends have access to /
| use VR routinely. And it's 100% Oculus/Meta.
| krapp wrote:
| I think it's more the cost and awkwardness of the headsets
| and the lack of any "killer" apps that are holding VR back,
| moreso than dystopian sci-fi.
| ed_elliott_asc wrote:
| I can't see how they will make comfortable and safe, 3ds
| can't be used by children!
| rvz wrote:
| > For me, that Reality Labs is the division beating estimates
| drives home that Meta's bet on XR is going to pay.
|
| > they are going to control the platform of the future and
| set their own rules.
|
| This.
|
| Lots of people are overlooking this part of Meta and they are
| quite far ahead with XR.
| political12345 wrote:
| Old people
|
| That
| zmmmmm wrote:
| It's interesting that we are all waiting for the other shoe
| to drop in that Apple is forever "about to" release it's XR
| devices. Yet so far it hasn't happened. Apple is famous for
| waiting until quality hits a certain mark, but nonetheless,
| it tells me that what Oculus/Meta has achieved is more
| special than people think. This stuff is _hard_. It looks
| simple on the surface but watch any of John Carmack 's
| talks and see how much complexity there is underlying it
| all.
|
| I do think Meta is completely wasting its time with it's
| current approach of trying to re-invent Facebook inside the
| Metaverse. Hopefully they get past that sooner rather than
| later. But I have no doubt this is going to be an
| _extremely_ important platform in the future and other than
| Apple if they ever show up, it 's very hard to see anybody
| catching Meta.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| It's beating the estimate by less than $20 million, or about
| 7 %, at a level where it's a rounding error anyway.
|
| Google says Apple AirPods are responsible for $23 billion in
| revenue, or 23x Reality Labs. It's running laps around Meta,
| in reality.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Headphones are a well established market with pretty much
| no growth upside. Apple captures share from incumbents. RL
| is building out an entirely new market.
| paxys wrote:
| That entire segment makes two orders of magnitude less
| revenue than Meta's core business, so I'd still not consider
| a marginal beating of expectations to be too informative.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Can one really trust any of the reported user numbers?
|
| I imagine they can decide to dial down efforts to detect
| bots/fake profiles and more or less hit the numbers they want.
| randomsearch wrote:
| Far bigger problem is that DAU and MAU are a vague metric and
| don't reflect the amount of time on the site, click through
| rates, advertiser interest etc.
|
| For a crude yardstick during a growth phase, sure. For
| measuring the long term health of a mature business, nope.
| Evan_Hellmuth wrote:
| Unlike search ads, businesses buying fb/insta ads care a lot
| about attribution (at what rate does someone who saw the ad
| buy something).
|
| If ads aren't effective businesses will stop buying them.
|
| Fake clicks will always result in a no-purchase, and
| therefore would devalue FB's offering in the #1 metric ad
| buyers care about.
|
| Not to mention that would be fraudulent behavior and they'd
| be opening themselves up to huge litigation risk.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I'm not necessarily talking about bots clicking ads, could
| just be fake profiles for whatever reason: inflating the
| number of likes of a page, writing reviews, phishing
| attempts, propaganda etc
|
| Let's say FB has 200 million bots. Do you think businesses
| could tell that there's actually 1.7b users and not 1.9b?
| a1371 wrote:
| As someone who had bought ads there, I can tell you this is
| not as true as you think. You pay for the ad and the
| business picks up a bit, but the reported conversion
| numbers at least for me never made sense. It's really about
| making more money than you put in that you keep it going.
| Now given the ethics around Facebook, I don't do it
| anymore. I say it's all about CPC, I admit here it isn't.
| hmate9 wrote:
| $9.39 billion Class A common stock shares were repurchased. That
| is 2% of Meta's market cap. And they still have more to
| repurchase!
|
| As of March 31, 2022, FB had $29.41 billion available and
| authorized for repurchases.
| potiuper wrote:
| Ad Rev By Geo *Edited 20Q4 21Q1 % 21Q4
| 22Q1 % 2512 2434 -0.031 3220 2949 -0.084 Other
| 4703 4735 0.007 6183 5661 -0.084 Asia 6822 6373
| -0.066 8174 6364 -0.221 Europe 13150 11897 -0.095 15062
| 12024 -0.202 US Can
|
| war (.095-.066+.221-.202=0.048) > supply chain
| (.007-.084+.202-.095=0.03)?
| lyime wrote:
| You have to compare the same periods in previous year for a
| fair comparison.
| posharma wrote:
| Why is fb up 18% and msft only 4.8% even after beating
| expectations? This is messed up.
| paulpauper wrote:
| it was way oversold, for one. and much cheaper.
| pedrosorio wrote:
| FB was down 13.2% in the last week (201.53 -> 174.95) for "no
| reason", so that probably explains the difference.
| zoover2020 wrote:
| Are you on Blind by any chance
| posharma wrote:
| I don't use Blind.
| rvz wrote:
| When I see multiple questions from lots of people asking _'
| why'_ X stock is performing better than the expectations or
| other stocks, it also means that there was at least 90% of
| people that were on the wrong side of the trade, with the
| remaining 10% laughing all the way to the bank.
| posharma wrote:
| Why the downvotes? It's a genuine question.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| RyanShook wrote:
| The big unknown with Meta is the Multiverse/VR plans Zuckerberg
| has. How much of the company's reserve and free cash flow is he
| willing to risk? I think the answer is most of it.
| paulpauper wrote:
| fb has so much profit and cash that this is not such a big
| risk.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-27 23:01 UTC)