Internal Tech Emails
LightNews LightNews
banner
techemails.bsky.social
Internal Tech Emails
@techemails.bsky.social
8.4K followers 140 following 77 posts
Internal tech industry emails that surface in public records. 🔍 https://techemails.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
techemails.bsky.social
Sam Altman texts Shivon Zilis

February 9, 2023
Sam Altman BTW, good idea for me to tweet something nice about Elon? Have been meaning to do this after he DMd about not being in the photo from the first day of OpenAI. Just about how much I and others look up to him, how critical his early contributions to OpenAI are, etc.
November 8, 2025 at 6:03 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Mark Zuckerberg messages Facebook employee

April 9, 2012
Facebook employee Wow, awesome news. I like that you’re not killing the independent product. I love instagram. Mark Zuckerberg Yeah, I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. One thing about startups though is you can often acquire them. I think this is a good outcome for everyone.
October 13, 2025 at 12:53 AM
techemails.bsky.social
Elizabeth Holmes's schedule

Circa 2005–2009
September 27, 2025 at 4:16 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Elon Musk names OpenAI

December 3, 2015
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Elon Musk wrote: Don't love the sound of Consider. What's the Cogito trademark issue? A naming approach we could try is for the real name to be long, but have actual use be a contraction, eg the full name of SpaceX is Space Exploration Technologies Corp. We could call this the Open Al Institute (Open AI-I!), but call it Open in everyday conversation. Looks like OpenAI.com is available for purchase.
August 9, 2025 at 7:11 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Mark Zuckerberg on buying Instagram

April 5, 2012
Mark Zuckerberg Just want to gut check that this is reasonable. Do you think it's way too much? Sheryl Sandberg yes of course it is way too much Sheryl Sandberg but we knew that
July 29, 2025 at 9:44 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Greg Brockman What do you think Cogito as a name? Ilya Sutskever Not a huge fan Greg Brockman noooooo! (elon + sam both liked it) Ilya Sutskever What about you? :) Greg Brockman i came up with it ☺ Ilya Sutskever Oops! Greg Brockman haha but, i like that it's relevant, pretty unbranded, and has good connotations of thinking/individualism i don't like that it's hard to know how to pronounce. Ilya Sutskever Ah, is it Latin? Greg Brockman ah yeah. "cogito ergo sum" Ilya Sutskever Ah Greg Brockman descartes' "i think therefore i am" Ilya Sutskever I can see why everyone liked it I had friends who named their company "whetlab" I didn't like it at once since I didn't know what whet meant If you think that enough people know what cogito means than i support it Greg Brockman elon says: Not bad. Sounds kinda cute. Most people won't get the latin, but the ones we want to join will. I'd support that. (or will be russian ☺) Ilya Sutskever Knowledge of Latin is independent of knowledge of ML Greg Brockman hah, yeah. but more seriously, i think cogito is well-known enough Ilya Sutskever Maybe it's ok Then I'm ok with it Greg Brockman cool
July 19, 2025 at 10:03 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Cofounders on naming OpenAI

November 24, 2015
Greg Brockman What do you think Cogito as a name? Ilya Sutskever Not a huge fan Greg Brockman noooooo! (elon + sam both liked it)
July 19, 2025 at 10:03 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Mark Zuckerberg on rebranding Facebook

May 3, 2018
When you get an Amazon Echo and start using it after you already use Amazon for commerce, you feel like Amazon is getting more relevant in your life. However, when you get Instagram and start using that in addition to Facebook, you feel like Facebook as a company is getting less relevant in your life. This is because we haven't effectively linked Instagram and WhatsApp to our corporate Facebook brand. The majority of people don't even know we own those services, and many of those who do know that still see them as sufficiently independent acquisitions that they do not reflect on the person's relationship with Facebook. I believe this contributes significantly to our brand issues. We have data that many people see Facebook as getting less relevant and believe our best days are behind us. Many think our services are getting worse -- which makes sense since our service is really about the network and we're actively fragmenting our network. This all means people will be less likely to try our new products or any other features we build. Long term this is likely a bigger brand issue for our products than our recent privacy issues because it gets to the heart of whether we are a company that can even build useful things and remain relevant in people's lives. Tech companies can withstand crises, but once you're Yahoo -- large but irrelevant -- it's tough to get people to even consider your products and it's difficult to succeed. Unfortunately, this brand dynamic is accelerating for us. I do not believe our current corporate brand strategy is sustainable. From a relevance perspective, we need to find a way to make it so that when a person uses more of our apps, they feel like we're serving them better and becoming more relevant in their life, not less. I only see two solutions to this: we either need to aggressively brand all of our services with Facebook as our corporate brand, or we need to create a new corporate brand and aggressively brand all of our services with that. We are not a holding company, so Alphabet is not the right analogy for us. People have a relationship with us, and they do not with Alphabet. Most people don't know what Alphabet is, and Alphabet isn't relevant in their lives. In that case, Google remains the corporate brand people have a relationship with. If we want to consider rebranding, a better model is Apple, Microsoft, or Samsung -- companies with strong consumer-facing corporate brands that are distinct from any specific product, but aggressively attached to all of their products. That said, an impulse to consider rebranding feels largely motivated by fear that the Facebook brand is irreparably tarnished. I disagree with this and believe it would be difficult to execute such a rebrand without it coming off like an Altria moment. The only way I could see this working is if we find a name so symbolic of our mission that it feels like we're running towards our core rather than away, and so inspiring that we'd proudly stamp it on every service we provide. That seems difficult, so it's likely the strongest move is doubling down on the Facebook brand -- like Amazon has with their lead product -- and aggressively branding Instagram and WhatsApp with it. When you open those apps, it would say "Instagram by Facebook" and "WhatsApp by Facebook". We may even need to put Facebook branding in the chrome of those apps where the app names and logos are today to cement this relationship in people's minds. We don't have to execute a change this month while the Facebook brand is at a global minimum, but this is such a big shift, it seems critical to have a coherent corporate brand moving forward, and it will take time to execute, so we should start now.
July 12, 2025 at 6:54 PM
techemails.bsky.social
From: Eric Schmidt Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:17:11 -0800 To: Steve Jobs Subject: RE: Recruiting I'm sorry to hear this; we have a policy of no recruiting of Apple employees. I will investigate immediately ! Eric
July 2, 2025 at 12:59 AM
techemails.bsky.social
Steve Jobs emails Eric Schmidt

February 13, 2006
From: Steve Jobs Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 3:15 PM To: Eric Schmidt Subject: Recruiting Eric, I am told that Googles new cell phone software group is relentlessly recruiting in our iPod group. If this is indeed true, can you put a stop to it? Thanks, Steve
July 2, 2025 at 12:59 AM
techemails.bsky.social
Mark Zuckerberg on competing with Elon Musk

April 26, 2022
A lot of people are apprehensive about the direction Elon might take Twitter, so this might be a unique moment where many public figures or aspiring creators would be more open to moving. Defensively, there’s also a chance that Elon unlocks product iteration velocity and that Twitter could grow a lot as a competitor to us. Twitter has always underperformed as a business compared to its importance, but there’s no rule saying that will always be the case. It’s possible that a product focused on public discussions could be a lot bigger than Twitter is, and it’s possible that either we or Elon could build this.
May 24, 2025 at 5:32 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Draft: "ChatGPT: H1 2025 Strategy"

December 2, 2024
May 17, 2025 at 6:17 PM
techemails.bsky.social
OpenAI's strategy for ChatGPT

December 2, 2024
Who are our competitors? We think about competition in two ways. First, there's the consumer Al chatbot space: Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Meta Al. With [ HYPERLINK \I "_l6ubp9yx5tei" \h ]we are leading here, but we can't rest. We need the best free model, best Ul, and strongest brand. Looking ahead to 2025, [REDACTED] poses the biggest threat due to their ability to embed equivalent functionality across their products (e.g. [REDACTED] without facing the business model cannibalization risks that Google does. Then there's the broader game: building a super-assistant and then [REDACTED]. Now we're up against search engines, browsers, even interactions with real people. This one isn't a head-on match. It's about solving more and more use-cases and gradually pulling users in. That's why we don't call our product a search engine, a browser, or an OS — it's just ChatGPT.
May 17, 2025 at 6:17 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Sheryl Sandberg messages Mark Zuckerberg

November 8, 2012
Sheryl Sandberg I want to learn settlers of catan too so we can play Mark Zuckerberg I can definitely teach you Settlers of Catan. It's very easy to learn.
May 4, 2025 at 2:51 PM
techemails.bsky.social
We need to take this new dynamic seriously -- both as a competitive risk and as a product opportunity to add functionality that many people clearly love and want to use daily. I suggest that you start thinking immediately about how to add ephemerality as an option into both Instagram and News Feed. This could be very quick and simple -- as easy as an icon you toggle to have your post auto-delete in 24 hours. Or if you have better and simpler ideas, we can try those instead. My guess is whatever we do first will be imperfect because we are not used to this behavior yet and people are not used to having this functionality in our products either. But I think it’s important for us to dive in and explore here. We’ll learn more by trying things quickly, and then we’ll perfect it in time. Overall, helping people share moments however they want is our mission, so we can’t sit around as Snapchat popularizes a new type of sharing. We need to make sure our products are the best way to share contently broadly and ephemerally.
April 27, 2025 at 5:29 PM
techemails.bsky.social
One key insight that makes this work is that the stories expire after 24 hours rather than after you view them. It’s quite easy to imagine how this would work in any feed product. I struggled to imagine what a feed product would look like where you viewed a post once and then it disappeared, but it’s very easy to imagine a product where posts expire and are automatically deleted after some period of time. If I heard a stat Kevin shared the other day correctly, deleting posts after a period of time may already be a normal behavior on Instagram. So offering this as a feature would just make the behavior people want even easier while making it clear that this behavior is welcome and fits the purpose of our products. Second, the growth of Snapchat Stories means that Snapchat is now more of a competitor for Instagram and News Feed than it ever was for messaging. Snapchat was always in somewhat market from text messaging. But Snapchat Stories serves the exact same use cases of sharing and consuming feeds of content that News Feed and Instagram deliver.
April 27, 2025 at 5:29 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Mark Zuckerberg: We need to take Snapchat Stories seriously

June 22, 2014
On Jun 22, 2014, at 11:51 PM, Mark Zuckerberg wrote: I’ve talked to a few of you about this directly, but I want to make sure you’re all tracking the success of Snapchat Stories. They announced this week that more than 1 billion stories are viewed daily, and that number has doubled in the past 2-3 months. They have 50-100m daily actives, so that’s between 10-20 stories per person daily and growing quickly. They also said that now more stories are viewed daily than snaps, which means this is quickly becoming their primary product. This is worth noting for a couple of reasons: First, it’s a clear existence proof that ephemerality works in large semi-public feed products. I was skeptical at first of why someone would want to broadcast something so raw to so many people at once, but between playing with Slingshot and now seeing these stats, it’s completely clear that this is a very real mainstream sharing use case.
April 27, 2025 at 5:29 PM
techemails.bsky.social
October 31, 2013
Alternatively, we could choose to not meet his ask here and having a smaller percentage in cash, but if we do that then we should try to get closer to his ask on everything else, or else the risk that he rejects this will start to increase meaningfully in my view. For what it's worth, even if we meet him on price and cash, we still need to negotiate on time of retention package since he had asked for 2 years and we'd really need this to be longer. If we negotiate on too many things, I do think he'll just walk and do his financing. So I guess here are my questions on cash: - If we offer $4b in cash, then are we comfortable with our level of cash balance assuming that at some point in the next half year we will likely get added to S&P and be able to raise more cash relatively easily? I think I'm comfortable with this, but I just want to check. - Is there a way to make a stock offer effectively equivalent to cash? That is, put collars on the stock to adjust the amount of it we give according to the price, not having limits on when they can sell, etc? How close can we get here? From: David Ebersman Received: Thursday, 31 Oct 2013, 12:19pm Mark, [REDACTED] From: Mark Zuckerberg Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 7:32 PM To: [REDACTED] Cc: Chris Cox; David Ebersman; Amin Zoufonoun; Sheryl Sandberg; [REDACTED]; [REDACTED] Subject: Re: Sasquatch update - privileged and confidential I delivered the offer to Evan and he seemed to take it well. He told me he thought he could get it done and that he'd call me back quickly. Five hours later he called me and told me he was turning down the offer. He says the offer is what he wants but he just wants to build the company on his own. I'm disappointed and frustrated by this. I don't know what else to say to him. At this point, we should probably prepare for it to leak that we offered $6b for them and all the negative that will come from that. From: Sheryl Sandberg Sent: 10/31/2013 8:59:48 PM Yes - but we can dampen it by not confirming I think you should potentially tell him that leaking this won't help his relationship with you.
April 18, 2025 at 3:27 AM
techemails.bsky.social
October 31, 2013
From: Mark Zuckerberg Date: Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:31 AM Additional update: I just spoke with Andreessen and he believes it is a good idea for us to try to buy Snapchat at these prices or perhaps even higher. He has a number of arguments we can go through in person. This makes me more confident we should do this. Tactically, if we move forward, I wonder whether we should offer $4b + $1.5b to try to save $500m or whether we should jump directly to what he's asking for as a best and final offer of $4b + $2b. On Oct 31, 2013, at 6:35 AM, David Ebersman wrote: I think we can raise cash but we have no certainty about stock price. Companies often try to avoid raising money immediately after communicating to the world that they are using the money for M&A, in particular expensive M&A for a company with no revenues or profits. This combination of events can weigh heavily on the stock. So I think we need to be prepared for the possibility that we are raising money under $40, perhaps under the IPO price. The dynamics there get pretty negative. I am more positive about this deal if it is almost all stock (cash up $1B is manageable. We can make $2B work but it makes me nervous about dry powder). However, we are ready to execute if you want to raise cash. Our call last night serves us well in terms of the other downside of an equity offering which is disclosure, liability, etc. Full disclosure: If we do not have an index add, you would need to hit the road to explain the rationale for the deal in order to raise the kind of money we would be asking for. On Oct 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Chris Cox wrote: I would definitely try to do this at $6b. Given where we are, I think this will haunt us for a long time if we don't. On cash: my guess is we could keep this close to ~$1b by walking Evan through the financial issues Ebes presents. It's not in either of our interests to jeopardize FB's value, nor is it to have an unstable cash position, and these are important to him assuming he joins. I think he could understand this a bit and it would help. On internal equity: this is likely going to be a very big issue for Kevin so I would reach out to him very early on to walk him through it. I'm less worried about other FB employees since this is so clearly about insane and non-replicable growth numbers vs. a talent acquisition. From: Mark Zuckerberg Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:33 AM What he told me last night was "$8b with the majority in cash". Given that I don't think the retention package should be cash, that means that in order to get to even half the value to him being in cash, we'd be offering the whole $4b upfront in cash.
April 18, 2025 at 3:27 AM
techemails.bsky.social
October 30, 2013
matter what. He told me he had done the analysis but hadn't wanted to call me because he was afraid he'd offend me. I told him he wouldn't offend me and he finally shared that his number was $8b with majority cash, or some structure that would be equivalent to him to as if he had sold the company for that much. I told him it was crazy but I wasn't offended, wished him luck and then we got off the phone again. He owns 25% of the company, so it seems likely what he really wants is to make $2b personally pre-tax and $1b post-tax. In the structure that l'd proposed before, we offered $3b for the company and $1b in retention packages for him and his co-founder. That was equivalent to as if we bought the whole company for $5b from his perspective, since he'd get $0.50 of every $1 of retention package and only $0.25 for every $1 of consideration for the company. The crazy thing is that if the high end of our range is $5-6b, then it may still be possible to get this done at the very highest end of this range. If we offered $4b for the company and $2b in retention, that would cost us $6b but would achieve his financial goals. Alternatively, if we offered $4.5b for the company and $1.5b in retention, that might be more palatable to the investors and although it wouldn't quite achieve his financial goals, it might be close enough that he'd compromise. There are a number of considerations from our side that we need to weigh before making an offer here: - What is our actual batna? I still think $5-6b is expensive but reasonable, but we should confirm that. - On the mix of cash vs stock, if we might do an offering soon, shouldn't we be fairly agnostic on this, or am I missing something here? I'm not sure how cash would work for retention, so all or most of the initial consideration would need to be cash. Is this an optics issue even if not a substantive one? - How will this impact future M&A? It will make things more expensive, but are we okay with that? - How will that impact perception of fairness internally? For employees who haven't left for startups? For Kevin and Instagram? - What is the cost to us if this leaks and still doesn't get done, which is definitely possible? [REDACTED] There is time urgency because Evan is pushing to close his financing at $3b+ valuation on Friday, so if we want to do this before then we need to make a decision tomorrow morning. If we want to move forward, my proposal would be we increase our offer to $4b for the company and $1.5b in retention. That gets him 7/8 of the way towards his financial goal, bringing him close enough that he should engage, while bringing the total cost to us to $5.5b, which still gives us slightly more room to negotiate if necessary. It would also give us a headline cost of just a little more than what they'd raise money at normally, which will make this seem somewhat less crazy. I think I am in favor of trying this, but it's very aggressive so I want to sleep on it and get your opinions in the morning. I'm sending this now so you can consider all the issues and be ready to discuss tomorrow.
April 18, 2025 at 3:27 AM
techemails.bsky.social
October 28–30, 2013
On Oct 28, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Mark Zuckerberg wrote: I just talked to Evan again to make sure he understood the misaligned incentives he has with his investors. His said the he and Bobby really thought they could build a $10b+ business and wanted to try to do it. He also said that we were going to do something, he'd want to push to make the retention packages shorter, like 2 years instead of 4. We're going to talk again tonight and he's going to have a counter offer then (or he said he would), but this is looking less and less likely at this point. On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Mark Zuckerberg wrote: Update: Evan didn't call or message me last night, and rather than ping him I just let it drop. Amin thinks he may just be playing coy, but my sense is he just doesn't want to sell. This wouldn't be the first time Amin was right and I was wrong about a situation like this though. I'll update again if he gets in touch, but otherwise I'm assuming this isn't happening for now. On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:29 PM, Mark Zuckerberg wrote: After not calling me last night, Evan pinged me this afternoon asking to talk tonight. He said to call him after 9:30, but when I called him at 10 he didn't pick up and message me back. Separately, Yuri told me that Evan is pushing him very hard to close the financing by Friday. I will keep you updated on this when we finally connect, but based on all these signals it seems very unlikely that he wants to sell at this point. On Oct 30, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Mark Zuckerberg wrote: I sent Evan a note tonight telling him I wanted to close it out and wishing him luck with the financing. We talked for a few minutes after that where he reaffirmed that he thought staying independent was the right path, especially since economically we were so far apart. I didn't press him on this since the point of the call was to close out the process. After that, I couldn't shake the nagging feeling that his range and ours might not be so different, so l called him back and told him it would bug me forever if I didn't ask him whether he had actually done the analysis I'd asked about what number he'd sell at or whether he had just decided he wanted to stay independent no
April 18, 2025 at 3:27 AM
techemails.bsky.social
Mark Zuckerberg tries to buy Snapchat

October 28, 2013
On 10/28/13 10:16 AM, Mark Zuckerberg wrote: I just got off the phone with Evan. He said he enjoyed getting to know us but he thinks they can build much more value on their own. For reference, our offer was $3.1b for the company plus $1b in retention packages. [REDACTED] on his board was advising him strongly not to take the offer. Evan did not offer a counter. Interestingly, [REDACTED] told him that Instagram was worth >$10b now and that Snapchat could be worth the same soon. I told him we thought Instagram was only worth ~$6b and had a clearer business model, but l'm not sure that moved him. When I pressed him on his number for a while, he told me that it would be hard to walk away at $6-7b, but that he needed to check with [REDACTED] before giving me any real number. This gives me some hope that we can still get this done at the higher end of our range between $5-6b, but with Benchmark now arguing strongly against the deal l'm less confident this will be possible. I suggested he get back to me today if he has a counter offer so we can figure out if we were going to move forward quickly. He told me he would do this, but he often takes longer than he says so I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't hear back for a couple of days. Separately, Yuri confirmed for me over the weekend that he and Tencent both have term sheets in to invest in Snapchat at a $3b+ valuation. Given that, I'm not surprised Benchmark doesn't wasn't to sell for an amount that is at or less than the valuation they can raise money at. Tactically, I wonder if we're doing the right thing by asking for a counter. It strongly signals we'd pay more, which we would so maybe it's not bad. But it might set their expectations higher than what we can actually get done. Do you have any suggestions for additional communication to them to try to get this to a good place? From: Amin Zoufonoun Date: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:03 AM i don't think so until they come back with a number. the fact that he references building greater value, instagram's valuation, and numbers from which he'd have a hard time walking today all suggest this is mainly/all about numbers versus what we face with whatsapp's founders: the desire to stay independent and build a lasting company. as such, i think they are stress testing how badly we want this and psychologically preparing us for a much higher counter (though the $5-6b is an attempt to get us to negotiate against ourselves and move up before they do). this is exactly what i would be doing following saturday... slow rolling things and playing coy to get the other side to flinch. i would recommend we wait, and anything they come back with, we react with raised eyebrows, a wow, and a we weren't expecting this and we need some time to think about whether and to what extent we can move beyond our current offer... which we know is already at the high end of price/user comps for similar acquisitions (below). and in fact it is. at $5b, below is how things would compare – on an mau basis, we'd set a new high mark ($77/user) and registered users would be at the high end of $50/user (stumbleupon):
April 18, 2025 at 3:27 AM
techemails.bsky.social
Steve Jobs on Real's music store

January 5, 2004
On Jan 5, 2004, at 6:25 PM, Jeff Robbin wrote: http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5135382.html?tag=nefd_top Real to launch song store RealNetworks is expected to throw its hat into the digital song store ring later this week, releasing a download service based on technology similar to that used in Apple Computer's iTunes store, according to sources familiar with the plans. From: Steve Jobs Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Real to launch song store This is great! Benefits to us: 1. Positions AAC as an open standard and Microsoft's WMA as proprietary. 2. Positions Real adopting AAC as adding "momentum to a standard that many see as the logical competitor to Microsoft's proprietary Windows Media technology." 3. Portrays a balkanized world of standards, and portrays this balkanization of standards as an industry problem, not an Apple problem. We are not alone - nobody's stuff is going to work with the other guy's stuff: "Along with Real, Apple, Microsoft and Sony all offer or plan to offer music wrapped in their own proprietary anticopying technologies. Most of the other song stores proliferating online, including Napster, MusicNow and Musicmatch, use Microsoft's digital audio format." In this balkanized world, the safest bet is the largest, most successful standard, and today we're it. Let's leverage this position now!!!! Steve
April 13, 2025 at 4:12 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Bill Gates on the iPod

November 2, 2003
From: Bill Gates Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 9:54 PM Subject: Scenario leadership This whole Apple music experience is one that is interesting to me and makes me wonder where the scenario thinking is in Windows. What is the best scenario paper I have seen? None. Even on Photos which has a lot of people I really haven't seen anything. Because we are going to be so late with a music service we are going to be behind others almost forever it seems like. All of the hardware people have will be tied to other services. People won't want to give up their hardware. Therefore out player and our leadership and even getting people to connect to Winfs will lose out. I don't see enough that we are doing that will help us be viewed as a leader. Part of the scenario involves devices and the installed base of devices. What is our strategy their? Software updates to the installed base? Musicmatch and Napster have the lead (with Apple). People I know (a rich group I admit) are getting ipods with thousands of songs on them. Herb Allen has given dozens of his friends Ipods with thousands of songs (he bought them). Warren Buffett just loves the thing. I don't see good scenario thinking for photos. For home connections. For home security. For phone connection. What cameras are blessed by us? What stops this from being another Ipod situation? We have seen this a bit already with Kodak and their printing and their photo processing – they connect the pieces and we don't. Media center is an exception – they will do good thinking for the high end integrated scenario. I just don't see any solution oriented stuff. What MSFT website or book tells you how to do cool stuff with your PC in the home? Maybe there is a bunch of scenario thinking I just haven't seen.
March 8, 2025 at 7:13 PM
techemails.bsky.social
Mark Zuckerberg The other is in terms of core use cases: sending messaging, sharing photos, playing games, etc. Mark Zuckerberg We have this big issue right now because gaming is shifting from us to mobile platforms. It's causing all this negative momentum in a bunch of ways around gamer overall user engagement, ad spend from gamers, overall revenue, etc. Mark Zuckerberg If another key use case transitioned away, I think that would be pretty bad for us. Facebook engineer Yeah, that makes sense Mark Zuckerberg On the other hand, getting a new use case is theoretically as valuable as not losing an existing one. Mark Zuckerberg Pinterest and Foursquare are likely more valuable markets than photos. Mark Zuckerberg For e-commerce and local, respectively. Mark Zuckerberg They're all really immature products though. Mark Zuckerberg Instagram can hurt us meaningfully without becoming a huge business though. For the others, if they become big we'll just regret not doing them. Mark Zuckerberg Or we can buy them then, or build them along the way. Mark Zuckerberg We're kind of already working on building some version of Foursquare.
February 8, 2025 at 9:13 PM