You are welcome to extrapolate based on your experiences.
I am simply pointing our potential issues with such an extrapolation.
While it is hurting their end-user reputation,
such B2C ventures are not any significant portion of their income/profits
for them to care about them (just yet).
Nor are they a reflection of the competence of other business units.
(just like how this doesn’t mean Meta is built on “slave-labor”.)
Non sequitur This opens up additional nuances.
Something to check is how much of this is truly about innovation
vs. financial structuring for tax advantages involved.
I would not be surprised if the amounts paid by Meta to their sub-contractors (including Indian IT firms)
is accounted for under R&D in Meta’s statements.
Isn’t it good that even if India (the ones that are currently in power and represent it) wants it,
they are not in a position to grab that power due to how India works!
A desired outcome, if such concentration of power is considered bad.
A loaded question, but i will try my best to side-step the “land-mines” first -
Both Facebook and Google aren’t built on innovation alone.
It is not a given that innovation is even the dominant reason for their growth.
(other factors including - network effects, ZiRP, operational scale, global cheap-labor are also relevant)
With GOOGL having gone
- 150x from their 2USD intial listing price to ~300USD today over ~20 years,
even something like INFY has gone
- 300x in INR terms from a fraction of an INR to ~300INR over 20 years of its intial listing
- with USD-INR depretiation accounting for ~5% of this growth over those 20 years .
Again not an indication of anything great about either company.
Just that all these are playing around in the same ballpark.
Just playing different games of choice at different times.