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.