After listening to Facebook’s earnings a second time because a $270B drop in valuation deserves it, a few things stood out to me. First, the CFO, who I’ve been saying for 18 months needs to be clearer about their kneecapping, said the word “headwinds” 25 times so it’s a start. /1
Second, I’m seeing too much focus on flat/drop of Daily Active Users. Yes, that’s new but it’s their loss in ability to microtarget users as they’re opting out of tracking (iOS) plus CA and EU privacy laws are catching up to them that kneecaps their surveillance biz model. /2
Let’s listen in to their earnings a bit here. Here is the CFO during Q&A talking through some of the “headwinds” related to iOS and he also sort of mentions they may not be able to transfer data across the Atlantic any more (Schrems II). /3
This wasn’t just an on the fly answer that sounded bad. Here is how the CFO described the outlook in his prepared remarks upfront related to these same “headwinds.” /4
Then CFO describes “headwinds” in 22q1 as unique because they’re lapping q1 and q2 where they didn’t have the headwinds in place making for a tough comp in the first half of the year. This makes zero sense. Then he throws out an even $10B impact from iOS tracking prevention. /5
Of course an analyst asked how he came up with the $10B number? Zero confidence in answer. Listen, Facebook isn’t reporting its opt-out rate on its most valuable platform (iOS) but it must be 70%+. That’s a massive kneecap on their core surveillance advertising biz model. /6
Sheryl Sandberg comes in to try to clean up describing how they’re going to mitigate the effects of tracking prevention on their core surveillance advertising business model. Listen to this work of art answer. It’s just too much. /7
By the way, I wouldn’t miss that Facebook is also losing “friends” as he stumbles through a wicked and misleading (tracking prevention affects browsers, too) swipe at Google and Apple with an awkward🍎 pun in the middle of it. /8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Justice takes time. What he knew when. AOC will remember this, “Their lawsuit says Zuckerberg—facing the risk of personal liability over the data privacy scandal—got himself out of trouble by agreeing to pay a larger-than-necessary $5 billion fine with shareholder money.” 1/3
Here is the full report from Bloomberg on Zuckerberg’s deposition which apparently was cut short and late on docs on Dec 3rd. Board members Thiel, Andreessen, others all being deposed these weeks. Press allowed Facebook to rewrite history on this. 2/3 news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-p…
Here is a good thread that will get you into the details. Sheryl Sandberg also deposed although her assumed prior SEC deposition was sealed. We did finally get Zuckerberg’s which showed his nerves and that the scandal was on his mind much earlier. Thanks to @zamaan_qureshi 3/3
Overnight: FTC plans to call CEO Zuckerberg and (former) CTO Schroepfer in first 2 wks of trial (late April) in DC seeking to break up the company for abuse of monopoly laws. Also on their short list are some very big roles and names. Very likely driving behaviors at the top. /1
As I know their roles...
Chris Cox - chief product officer who took a break when scandals accelerated, and avoided testimony in UK.
Javier Olivan - now COO, key lieutenant
Sheryl Sandberg - former COO, on everything
Alex Schultz - key growth hacker, now CMO /2
Adam Mosseri - key lieutenant, now runs Insta
Dave Wehner - former CFO, deal approval including $19B with no real revenue WhatsApp
Fidji Simo - (former) always in mix, product leadership
Guy Rosen - Onavo alleged packet sniffing of WhatsApp, Snap /3
Woah. Google filed redacted versions of its Summary Judgment exhibits in Texas adtech antitrust case ahead of the March 31 trial. Although this case mirrors DOJ's case awaiting decision, it has even more eye-popping evidence. And an expert suggesting $29B in penalties. /1
"Project Bernanke" is an oldie but goodie that gets a lot of discussion. ICYMI, Google would allegedly increase the first highest and the second highest bid in its 2nd-price auctions then reinvest the "saved" funds back into other bids to Google wins more auctions. /2
The problem is while it may have ended up providing more revenue to the publisher (from/through Google) and no doubt to Google, Inc, it allegedly ignored the revenue which could have come through another channel if Google didn't manipulate the rev share as it ran the auctions. /3
US v Google II Closing arguments today.
70min for DOJ-> 95min for Google-> 20min for DOJ. Having predicted this case as better odds than search case (Google already lost in August), nothing changed my mind today. I wrote down: influence/$, complexity, deception, and arrogance. /1
I'm staying high level on perception first as findings of fact already covered much. On influence/$, DOJ pointed out early on and then again in rebuttal that every single witness presented by Google (except one) was paid or had grants from Google. /2
On complexity, Google again executed on its spaghetti defense with lead counsel, Karen Dunn, bookending trial by running over as she did in her opening. She appeared to skip dozens of slides, many minutes of close. And she loaded her slides while talking twice as fast as DOJ! /3
Bam. There is it. US Department of Justice has filed - requesting divestiture of Chrome as a remedy for court's finding against Google. Android at risk, too. /1
As it relates to Android, here is how DOJ puts it. Forced divestiture is option that "swiftly, efficiently, and decisively strikes at the locus of some anticompetitive conduct at issue here" but we're ok with tight behavioral remedies with option to divest if they don't work. /2
Revenue sharing for search default and/or preferential treatment - dead. Google's tens of billions to Apple - dead (last I saw it's about 15% of Apple's profits). Reminder, this all needs to be argued and approved by Court and then will get appealed. Still far off. /3
KA-BOOM. So when Google and its proxies (see so-called Chamber of Progress), friendly academics and analysts continue to suggest Chrome has nothing to do with the case, please ask them how many days they were at the trial. 1/3
This is super important. It’s an area @DCNorg (premium publishers) are intensely interested and concerned they get right around ability to restrict. The Court and trial made it clear they understood its importance during trial. We’ll be reading closely on Wednesday. 2/3
Here is the full report from Bloomberg who consistent with the entire trial showed up every day, did the hard work, and now got the massive scoop ahead of Wed filing. 3/3 bloomberg.com/news/articles/…