Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The rebrand was introduced as a "One More Thing" during the event keynote.

A 2007 "One More Thing" was the announcement of the iPhone and the future of mobile computing. Now a 2021 "One More Thing" is the announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government regulation.



Colombo invented the "one more thing". Give credit where credit is due ;)


This brought back memories, thank you :')


Colombo was also more valuable that this announcement it seems.


Columbo was solving crimes. FB is committing them.


who?



John Columbo, former CEO of IBM.


oh, not the TV detective :-(


Fret not, it was really the TV detective. I think the one that suggested it was someone from IBM was being sarcastic.

One more thing for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBnaMGP2aY

~ A fellow Columbo fan who used to watch it with his Grandma (she so had the hots for him)


For better or worse, it does seem Zuckerberg is as invested in making the "metaverse" the new future of Facebook as Jobs was with Apple and the iPhone


> For better or worse, it does seem Zuckerberg is as invested in making the "metaverse" the new future of Facebook as Jobs was with Apple and the iPhone

I don't think we should take that at face value; Zuckerberg of course has strong motivations to appear completely committed, including a desire to motivate employees, partners, etc., and a desire to distract from FB's current bad news (which might explain the timing - why now?). If we take it at face value, we are part of the messaging.

For one thing, FB's metaverse is an over-the-horizon technology and product, very much vapor at this point and one that may never happen. The iPhone went on sale months after Jobs' announcement (IIRC).

More interesting is that FB possibly has lost so much confidence in its brand that it's de-emphasizing it, which seems like an overreaction to me.


> The iPhone went on sale months after Jobs' announcement (IIRC).

yes, but thats a different CEO who was about presenting themselves as perfect. Zuckerberg for his legion of faults has never done this. He is far more comfortable saying what he wants to deliver _first_

> don't think we should take that at face value

We don't need to, they've handily split out the amount of money they are pouring into this in the public accounts.

> More interesting is that FB possibly has lost so much confidence in its brand that it's de-emphasizing it, which seems like an overreaction to me.

It was fucking stupid to try and link them so closely in the first place. Instagram was a cool brand. Instagram by facebook is deffo not.


> It was fucking stupid to try and link them so closely in the first place. Instagram was a cool brand. Instagram by facebook is deffo not.

Yeah, that was not a smart business decision. I think the goal was to make it look like FB was cool by associating it with the other brands, but all it did was make the other brands worse.

That's the kind of craziness you can get from a founder that controls everything I suppose.

Bear in mind that Mark Zuckerberg has only ever worked at Facebook, which must be pretty weird.



Good point, but let's see what they actually do.


Seems like "metaverse" means walled internet.

"You've got mail!" LOL


The iPhone turned out to be the most walled garden smartphone as well (even compared to older designs that relied on Java ME), and it didn't exactly hurt them.

The more relevant question is, can Facebook in 2022 excite people as much as Apple did when riding on the height of the iPod/iTunes craze in 2007?


You are misunderstanding or wilfully ignoring the details. They talk about interoperability as a key part of how this will become reality, and the fact that no single company can realise this vision...


I am misunderstanding then. I am also probably willfully assuming Facebook will continue to operate as they have been — trying to steer all users to their site, keep them engaged on their site.


LOL? You mean AOL?


Both work. ;-)


> Zuckerberg is as invested in making the "metaverse" the new future of Facebook as Jobs was with Apple and the iPhone

The obvious distinction being Jobs, with his "one more thing," announced an actual product.


In this case, worse. Definitely worse.


Meta-worse


I look forward to that, since maybe I will then know what the hell the metaverse is supposed to be.


I think you remember wrong. iPhone was not one more thing announcement. In 2007 One more thing was Safari for Windows.

Here is list: https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/one-more-thing-3793072/


I thonk the iPhone announcement was at a one-off January event, different from their regular event int the fall.


> announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government regulation

how does FB changing their name affect their chances at regulation?


Just guessing: now Meta is a holding company of various social media "companies" so it'll be a bit harder to make a case that one company has a monopoly on the internet social media advertising.

They can even list Instagram on the market selling maybe a 5% equity.


I think the holding already existed. But it was called Facebook and now it’s called meta


very much this. Facebook is made up of lots and lots of subsidiaries


iPhone was not announced as a One More Thing at Macworld 2007. It was a direct transition from the Apple TV segment.


Thank you for pointing it out, that's an huge Mandela effect


It's not the hardest thing to see how people would all make the assumption that he said it during the announcement

"One more thing" was a famous Jobs quote for major announcements, and the iPhone had possibly the most famous tech announcement ever, let alone of Jobs'. There was also a famous line where he says "these aren't 3 products, this is one device," which also has the word "one" in it.


Still a faceless corporation though.


Having watched the downfall of MySpace, Orkut etc, I thought (hoped) same thing might happen to FaceBook. But now it feels like they are going to be around, for a long, long time. I don't know if anyone is even trying to take on them, Google seems to have given up on their social products. FB might not be fashionable anymore, people might even curse them, but they'll continue to use them at some level :( And they have enough money to keep buying other companies and stay at least somewhat relevant

It feels like only regulators can take on them, but that too is unlikely to happen, except some feeble attempts in Europe


Well, Facebook in some demographics is above ity peak. The company however was able to acquire Instagram and keep Snapshot in a niche. Will be interesting how much TikTok will takeover in attention time. But for now they have a money printing machine and a good foundation.

Europe unfortunately is too weak unless they convince the U.S.


I mean, I associate the book of faces with Lizard Zuckerberg.

It might as well act like a faceless corporation, but it is far from "faceless"... I think. Consider f.e. Tesla's face, or Amazon's face.


metaface


> to avoid government regulation

Could you elaborate on that please?


Imagine thinking FB execs are so stupid that this was the impetus for the decision:

> "One More Thing" is the announcement of a company rebrand to avoid government regulation.


> rebrand to avoid government regulation

Aww, kids are so cute when they're having a temper tantrum




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: