Google is one of the most recognizable companies on the planet, yet made the parent company some ridiculous name. To me, that reeked of trying to protect the other properties from the stink of privacy invasion.
Meta case could be seen as leadership trying to seem innovative to make up for their core products possibly being in trouble, because they have the immediate threats of saturating their possible userbase, the rise of Tik Tok which they cannot just buy, and the Apple ad targeting limitations.
I don't know if that's true, but it's how I imagine other investors seeing it.
Google renamed the parent when there were substantial different activities occurring in different non-Google divisions. It made things clearer.
Also Facebook expects people to call it meta whereas Google basically expects to continue to be called Google.
Not everybody. I've been in the "Facebook is overvalued" camp for many years.
It has never been a forgone conclusion that Facebook is an institution that would be relevant for decades. Something its share price would suggest.
Its core product (high value & high volume groups to advertise too) can largely disappear within a year, and the only semi-effective coping mechanism it has displayed is buying new brands.
A public company's market value is simply its current share price times the number of outstanding shares, see https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketvalue.asp.
Using fluctuations in market cap is a tried and true method of churning out nonsense “content”. I assume there are simple algorithms that basically write the whole article based on the market cap change in last day, week, month, year, whatever the article’s publisher wants.
Apple made its intentions public. It was the market that mispriced the impact.
Over time, either the users will evolve to make the abuse less effective (equivalent of "banner blindness" of early web advertising), use technical countermeasures (ad-blocking, alternative clients, etc) or use their political power to vote for regulations that will make outlaw said abuse. A mix of all of these is currently happening.
The only areas where this kind of adversarial relationship will work is if the adversary has no choice - such as military/defense or law enforcement for example (military enemies can't vote, suspected & convicted criminals can but the feedback loop is so long that it's not going to have effects any time soon). But if the adversary has a free choice, over time they will exercise that choice which will reduce (and eventually eliminate) the profitability of abusing them.
I don't see this - or any other business built primarily on advertising and "growth & engagement" - as a winning long-term strategy.
This has been my thesis re: FB for a long time now. Using fear, hate, sex, etc to manipulate higher engagement from users isn’t sustainable. It’s abusive and eventually people will move on.
AAPL is 10% off it’s ATH, GOOG about 15% off it’s ATH, MSFT is 20% off it’s ATH. FB is doing far worse than other big tech.
What?