Mark or no-mark, the question is really about ownership structures.
Facebook/Meta and Google have ownership structures that give them wide latitude to sacrifice present earnings for the future. But aside from showing that it's possible to advertise to everyone all the time, they don't seem to have done much with that freedom. Ironically, investors are still happy enough with returns, but they weren't due to new products.
Musk showed electronic payments were possible, private space, and electric cars; tunnels and twitter are less successful. His problem is really that people will sign up for anything he says.
Apple has somehow managed to build 2-3 markets in the same time frame, with Google, Samsung, Microsoft (and the chinese) gamely copying along, based mainly on hard integration engineering and clear product focus.
Similarly, Amazon has taken one idea and simply out-executed everyone else. And they had the guts to open AWS, which spawned entire ecosystems.
I would say what distinguishes them is not leadership directly but their leadership building a culture of both ambition and honesty in their middle managers. As far as I can tell, they do this because they believe more in the company than in themselves - i.e., what they can do if they work together.
So my reaction is: enough with blaming leaders for specific products bets. Hold them to account for building cultures - the horrors of Uber/Twitter or the joys of Apple - particularly if they've been at it for a generation.
For that, middle managers need to stage some interventions. It doesn't matter if Zuck owns all the stock, if people refuse to go along with his hair-brained ideas on soul-sucking marches. Stop treating stock as the measure of power, and use consent instead.
Facebook/Meta and Google have ownership structures that give them wide latitude to sacrifice present earnings for the future. But aside from showing that it's possible to advertise to everyone all the time, they don't seem to have done much with that freedom. Ironically, investors are still happy enough with returns, but they weren't due to new products.
Musk showed electronic payments were possible, private space, and electric cars; tunnels and twitter are less successful. His problem is really that people will sign up for anything he says.
Apple has somehow managed to build 2-3 markets in the same time frame, with Google, Samsung, Microsoft (and the chinese) gamely copying along, based mainly on hard integration engineering and clear product focus.
Similarly, Amazon has taken one idea and simply out-executed everyone else. And they had the guts to open AWS, which spawned entire ecosystems.
I would say what distinguishes them is not leadership directly but their leadership building a culture of both ambition and honesty in their middle managers. As far as I can tell, they do this because they believe more in the company than in themselves - i.e., what they can do if they work together.
So my reaction is: enough with blaming leaders for specific products bets. Hold them to account for building cultures - the horrors of Uber/Twitter or the joys of Apple - particularly if they've been at it for a generation.
For that, middle managers need to stage some interventions. It doesn't matter if Zuck owns all the stock, if people refuse to go along with his hair-brained ideas on soul-sucking marches. Stop treating stock as the measure of power, and use consent instead.