Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Susan | Angel Investor's avatar

I think this is one of the clearer articulations I’ve seen of why Meta keeps being misread rather than mismanaged.

What you get exactly right is that analysts keep trying to value Meta as a revenue stream instead of as a sovereignty project. Once you frame Apple and Google as landlords rather than partners, the Reality Labs spend stops looking like hubris and starts looking like a tax-avoidance strategy at civilisational scale. That shift alone explains most of the persistent mispricing.

I also appreciated the way you treated open source not as ideology but as instrumentation. The “market sonar” framing is accurate and under-discussed. React, PyTorch, and LLaMA function less as products and more as early-warning systems for where developer gravity is moving. Most investors still miss that Meta is effectively outsourcing discovery while internalising only the compounding edge.

Where I would gently push is on timing confidence. The logic of the endgame is sound. The execution risk is not trivial. Owning the stack only pays off if developer lock-in materialises before platform fatigue sets in, and history is not kind to companies betting that users will patiently wait for new continents to emerge. That does not invalidate the strategy, but it does put a premium on capital discipline during the transition.

Overall though, this is strong work. You are analysing Meta as a system of incentives and constraints rather than a bundle of apps, which is how serious capital should be thinking about it. I restacked because more people need to understand that this is not a bet on ads or headsets, it is a bet on who owns the next toll booth.

Jay's avatar

Thanks heaps, Devansh. An exceptional and deeply thought-provoking read, which I revisited after the recent drawdown to make sure I pay less attention to the noise.

14 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?