
Facebook reports second quarter results - aminozuur
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-results/facebook-quarterly-revenue-beats-estimates-idUSKCN24V3H5
======
whoisjuan
I said this before here in HN and I'd said it again. Facebook is a freaking
money making machine and will be that for many years to come.

Feel whatever you want about Zuckerberg, the company, their products and
anything else, but what they created is simply the best digital distribution
channel besides Google. Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads.

Putting opinions about privacy and politics aside (which are definitely topics
that should be discussed), Facebook was the last Silicon Valley company to
create something that literally has disrupted the way we live and interact.
All the other ones that supposedly were on that road are barely alive (e.g:
Uber).

In contrast many of the current public tech companies with promising
trajectories of global disruption (for example Shopify) were created outside
of Silicon Valley.

This is my personal opinion, but I think the golden Silicon Valley days are
way in the past.

~~~
hrktb
> Facebook was the last Silicon Valley company to create something that
> literally has disrupted the way we live and interact.

I feel completely out of the loop. What has facebook created that is so
impactful ?

I see them as a company that incrementaly executed better than the previous
social networks and successfully killed/absorbed competition. But is there any
critical thing they really created from the end user point of view ?

~~~
hrktb
I don’t mind the downvotes, but would want some guidance. I don’t use
facebook, so I’d genuinely want to know what it has disrupted in the way you
live that the other SNS won’t do.

~~~
whoisjuan
They are so incredibly large in user numbers that they have the ability to
reach almost anyone in developed countries through their platforms.

It's not the product but its magnitude. That's the disruption IMO.

~~~
hrktb
But is it a disruption if they operate as a larger version of an already
successful phenomenon ?

I’d see how a service like Streetview would be seen as disruptive because of
bringing a fringe fonctionnality to a mass market in a unprecedented scale.

But I feel like calling Facebook disruptive is like saying Samsung is
revolutionnary, by the sheer massive number of smartphones they sell.

~~~
whoisjuan
I mean. We clearly have different definitions of disruptive. For me disruptive
!= innovative.

For me disruptive boils down to how likely is something to produce a change in
the behaviors of a general population and improve (or worsen) their lives.

Streeview is very innovative, for sure. But it hasn't changed me or anyone
that I know in any significant way.

On the other hand Facebook services allow me to stay in touch with my elder
parents who live in Colombia and stay in touch with people I care about. The
technology or the concepts may not be incredibly innovative but I can
characterize them as disruptive just because of their size (reach).

Also I have discovered interesting products through Instagram Ads. That seems
minor but ultimately many of those things have had a certain impact in my
overall quality of life.

------
subsubzero
Of course the company is having a great quarter even with the boycotts. It has
a complete strange-hold over all social media. _not really counting China
social media except tikTok

FB - 2.4B MAU [1]

Instagram(FB Owned) - 1B MAU_ [2] _2018 numbers

WhatsApp(FB Owned) - 2B MAU [3]

Facebook totals - 5.4B MAU (overlap between apps, not unique users)

Everyone else:

Snap - 360M MAU [4]

Twitter - 330M MAU [5]

TikTok - 800M MAU [6] _estimate

Everyone else totals = 1.49B

*MAU = Monthly Active User B = Billions, M = Millions

[1] - [https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-grew-monthly-
averag...](https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-grew-monthly-average-
users-in-q1-2019-4)

[2] - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-
monthly...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-
active-instagram-users/)

[3] - [https://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-
monthly...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly-
active-whatsapp-users/)

[4] - [https://www.omnicoreagency.com/snapchat-
statistics/](https://www.omnicoreagency.com/snapchat-statistics/)

[5] - [https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-
statistics/](https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/)

[6] - [https://wallaroomedia.com/blog/social-media/tiktok-
statistic...](https://wallaroomedia.com/blog/social-media/tiktok-statistics/)

~~~
ponker
Notably, YouTube is absent from "Everyone else"

~~~
subsubzero
Its not really a social media network, like the others in the list. You don't
broadcast personal messages to your friends, and update a feed/homepage with
personal info. Sort of like pinterest, and if I am missing these hidden giants
please bring them up(I may have missed some).

~~~
ipsum2
YouTube is a social network. You can follow famous people/groups, view and
comment on their videos, and post your own videos for your friends or the
wider Internet. They even have stories now.

------
actuator
Wow, the numbers that AAPL, AMZN, FB have reported. While everyone struggled I
guess mid/big tech companies were unaffected.

I am surprised ad industry is not affected heavily. Isn't ads the first thing
a company will cut if things look bleak.

~~~
overcast
Those AMZN numbers are completely nonsensical, how do you beat estimates by
9x? Who the hell did that estimating???

~~~
nostrademons
Because Amazon is comparatively low-margin vs. other tech companies, improved
revenue has a much greater effect on earnings. Amazon's revenue was $88.9B vs.
$81.24B expected. That's each household spending about 10% more from Amazon,
which is pretty reasonable with lockdown and nobody going to brick & mortar
retail outlets. But with expenses at around $80B, that translates into
earnings of $10.30/share vs. $1.51.

~~~
mikeschmatz
> Because Amazon is comparatively low-margin vs. other tech companies,
> improved revenue has a much greater effect on earnings.

Are you saying that 10% revenue increase has led to 10x earnings beat? That
doesn't make any sense.

~~~
esoterica
How does basic arithmetic not make sense?

If you were expected to make $1.01 and spend $1, and instead you made $1.10
and spent $1, your revenue only beat by 9% but your income beat by 900%.

------
fataliss
Can someone explain why the effective tax rate dropped so drastically for this
Quarter? `16%` is a bargain! I wish I was paying 16% ...

------
Gatsky
A company built on a caricature of real social interaction... perhaps this is
a trend, where profits are extracted by taking some basic human activity and
creating a facsimile that exploits our worst characteristics. Fast food does
this for food, tinder for romance, facebook for relationships, twitter for
conversations. Second order effects come in, instead of living you can pretend
to live and vlog it on youtube. Instead of doing anything (exercise, woodwork,
cooking, gaming...) you can watch others doing it with fancier equipment and
guaranteed success.

It isn’t a ‘conspiracy’ but it does feel like humans are being diminished so
their time and attention can be commodified.

------
dang
Their press release is at [https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-
release-details/...](https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-
details/2020/Facebook-Reports-Second-Quarter-2020-Results/default.aspx)

(via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24002529](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24002529),
merged hither)

------
three_seagrass
Facebook quarterly revenue ($17.2 B) beat the expected revenue ($17.7 B) by
just ~3%.

I imagine this is one of the reasons Facebook didn't want to drop political
ads (like the competition) in an election year.

~~~
maskedinvader
I dont think money is the reason to not drop political ads, I suspect its not
to antagonize the Trump administration, I see no other reason why they would
take the heat for something which reportedly is a very very small portion of
revenue. [https://www.newsweek.com/mark-zuckerbeg-claims-revenue-
faceb...](https://www.newsweek.com/mark-zuckerbeg-claims-revenue-facebooks-
political-ads-are-too-small-justify-fact-checking-1467319)

------
bpodgursky
Up 7% after hours. That boycott! Mark must be quivering in his sweatshirt.

Or, actually he knows it was just cheap PR for marketing budgets making cuts
anyway (and apparently, not even that many at all).

~~~
cowpig
I have a different interpretation, and mine has more to do with the naturally
monopolistic nature of these platform economies, coupled with a legislature
that has lost its teeth (turned into massaging fingers, maybe!) when it comes
to economic problems.

~~~
umeshunni
"The good thing about platform monopolies is that there are so many to choose
from"

------
bcatanzaro
Look at FB's taxes. Effective tax rate went from 46% to 16% if you compare
last year to this year. Made FB 1.3B extra money this quarter.

I wonder if this is why Zuckerberg seems to be so friendly to Trump...

~~~
actuator
If that was the reason. Every CEO would be friendly with him.

~~~
metalliqaz
Aren't they? The CEO at my company sucks up shamelessly.

------
PunchTornado
listening to Zuckerberg yesterday in the testimony you would think fb is
almost bankrupt. He tried to make it look, we're so small, don't waste your
efforts on us. pick on the big guys, apple, google, amazon.

~~~
aminozuur
The members of Congress were constantly interrupting the CEO's within two or
three sentences. I could not watch more than a few minutes of it.

~~~
novia
Each member of Congress was limited to 5 minutes at a time. It was clear that
some of the CEOs (Bezos) had been advised to try to fill that time with as
much fluff as possible.

The members of Congress would ask a yes or no question, and then the CEO would
start in on a speech about how great their company is. That's why you kept
seeing those interruptions.

~~~
TLightful
Yep, was a basic advertising campaign.

American democracy and accountability is over.

