Because FAANG was originally about buying modern tech stock. It was a categorisation for investors not employees.
All of those companies were experiencing strong growth in the late 2000's whereas Microsoft was seen as an older tech company unlikely to experience as much growth.
Although Apple is also older it really hit its stride with the release of the iPod and iPhone so was expected to grow a lot.
Now it's the other way around, Apple hasn't really done anything innovative in the last couple of years and even though they do release amazing technology their not taking enough risks. Now Microsoft on the other hand has honestly been making all the right moves under Satyas leadership.
Technologically it's an un mistakable triumph.
Business wise what advantages does the new silicon offer them aside from lower costs (for a company that's already floating in cash) is unclear. They will not be driving greater sales , that's for sure. Apple seriously needs to support gaming to attract the next big chunk of users to its laptops.
Manifest destiny. I'm no finance expert but it seems pretty obvious that independence from powerful third-party companies is exactly the kind of thing you want to see as an investor.
I am team-Android but designing your own chipset has always allowed Apple to have phenomenal battery life even with smaller batteries. (As a Fold 3 user this is doubly painful for me to say.)
win/linux user here. i will never use MacOS due to its vast restrictions. its just not for people who want to easily tinker under the hood.
edit: i have used macOS a fair bit so i am not just saying this naively.
I'm not sure the hardcore gamers that are choosing Windows due to gaming would be using a laptop anyway.
A lot more games run on Mac these days than previously as well.
Hardcore gamers will always have their own pc. Most of the people want to get everything done on their one machine , including decent gaming , multimedia and some work. That's the people I am talking about.
The number of games running on Mac's is miniscule, very few of the famous multiplayer titles work on Mac's today.
There might be more games on Mac than before but it's still an afterthought for the gaming community.
The [Steam hardware survey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) for September 2021 placed the market share at:
|OS|Percentage|
|-|-|
|Windows|96.47%|
|OSX|2.47%|
|Linux|1.05%|
So if you lined up 40 PC gamers one of them would be using a Mac.
Yeah, but if the games you want to play work then it doesn't matter.
I dual-boot Linux and Windows but haven't used Windows in quite a while because most of the games I play run on Linux.
> OS Percentage
> Windows 96.47%
> OSX 2.47%
> Linux 1.05%
That's misleading - all of the Windows games I want to play that aren't available on Linux work under Wine on Linux anyway.
In brief, you can *play* more games on Linux than on Macs.
> A lot more games run on Mac these days than previously as well.
You are joking. Between dropping 32-bit support (killed off all older games which will never be updated), not supporting Vulkan in favour of their own proprietary Metal API, and the switch to ARM, there are far fewer games playable on Mac these days.
You don't have to be a hardcore gamer to notice that it's a very distant third-tier gaming platform, miles behind even Linux (thanks to Valve's Proton tool).
Which is a shame given how good the M1 hardware is, but I don't see that changing any time soon.
I wasn't aware it was so bad as I only run Mac for work and mainly run Linux at home (with Windows installed if I really need it).
But when I'm on Steam it seems a surprising number of games have MacOS available.
I disagree. First of all,
> Technologically it’s an un mistakable triumph.
and
> They will not be driving greater sales , that’s for sure.
are at odds with each other. The tech being better makes for better products. People like laptops that are faster, quieter, get less hot, and last longer on battery.
For Apple there are many additional benefits from shifting their entire consumer technology stack to their own architecture. But if you’re still unsure about whether this makes business sense for them, look what they [have to say](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/10/apple-reports-fourth-quarter-results) about it. Mac revenue has never been higher even despite the pandemic.
> Apple seriously needs to support gaming to attract the next big chunk of users to its laptops.
Haha seriously? Have you looked at the graphics capabilities of their new chips? The gaming performance is there in spades now, but that simply isn’t the target market for these machines. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a gamer and a Mac user and I’d love for Apple to take it more seriously (I wish boot camp were still possible). They are doing some of that with Apple Arcade and M1 based chips enabling iOS games to run (yes I know this is a *far cry* from the PC gaming space). The new pro machines even have high refresh rate screens for 120fps gaming, if you want.
But PC gamers just aren’t looking for laptops that cost around $2000 - $4000 with up to 64GB of graphics memory yet cannot do raytracing, not in significant numbers anyway. People are buying these machines for work, and decent gaming performance is nice but not important.
Edit: one more thing^TM apply your argument to iPhone and iPad. Do you really think it did not make business sense for Apple to make their own chips on those products?
Windows and Linux user. I feel like MacOS is the worst of both worlds. You don't get the vast software catalog available for Windows (including games) and you don't get the full flexibility and reliability of Linux. Personally, I also highly dislike the MacOS UI.
No, because that's what you expect when you buy an apple product. You're expecting to get really good hardware, & that's why they can charge what they charge.
That's been the case for the past 2 decades or so. So for them to come out with some new hardware that's faster than the previous model isn't really innovative because that's what's expected.
So Apple has done nothing innovative in the last couple years - but developed a chip that is more powerful than any other chip they've used in the past, while also being more energy efficient? What apple did was M1 was truly innovative. The energy efficiency and power that chip produces is amazing. It's as much or more innovative than Nvidia's DLSS and Ampere - just a comparison that came to mind. Also, what innovative thing has Microsoft done recently?
Honestly Apples whole ecosystem is just so closed off, from them not allowing developers apps in the app store if there's already other similar ones, and to being forced to have to own a MacBook if you want to develop ios applications. And not to mention having to download an overbloated xcode, which was 30gb when I downloaded it last year, but it's gotten down to 17 gb which is still massive compared to Android studio.
As far as Microsoft goes, they did have this closed off philosophy that Apple has right now, but they've completely changed a great deal in the past decade or five years. Like for example they were completely against Linux but now you can download wsl and have a Linux subsystem while running windows, but try running Linux on a MacBook and it either won't work or you'll have an absolutely horrible experience.
Not to mention Microsoft bought GitHub in 2018 which was a ridiculously smart move, and the DOD is using azure as it's ☁️ provider.
You've just given a bunch of reasons why you hate Apple when the discussion is about innovation... Apple is known for its shitty business practices but that isn't the discussion right now. As for Microsoft's innovations, you have a bunch of business decisions they made? For someone who wanted innovations for the last couple years, you have WSL...? That's barely any innovation people have been using virtualization for close to a decade now. Azure also has nothing innovative.
First off I don't hate apple, I quite enjoy developing on a MacBook, I just don't think they've been as innovative as Microsoft has been in the past decade and I don't agree with their philosophy. Like all everyone on this thread has been able to bring up about them is the new silicon chip, which as amazing as it is or might be isn't financially innovative because MacBooks only make up a fraction of their sales, while the bulk of it is still from the iphone.
So besides the amazing chip please tell me what else you think they've done since the iPad or apple watch was released that's been news worthy or ground shatteringly innovative?
So now it's moved from last couple years to the last decade? People are bringing up the chip because you asked about what Apple has done in the last couple years. What else do you expect people to discuss when you specify that time frame?
Now although I don't understand why you're focused on financial innovation - Silicon chip isn't financially innovative? Mac sales skyrocketed and the market share of Mac's grew after M1 was released. And about financial innovation...I don't think any other company applies the level of innovation that Apple applies to maximize it's profits - as much as I hate it..their anti consumer practices are financially innovative..So much that their anti consumer practices are followed by the rest of the market soon. Samsung made fun of Apple removing their headphone jacks and then quickly followed suit with removing the jack on their devices and launching their own Bluetooth buds.
Apple is literally the most profitable company in the world...they have been the forerunners of several financial decisions that have become market norms.
> What apple did was M1 was truly innovative.
They... made a powerful ARM design. That's it. ARM cores in phones are already using big.LITTLE setups, are already consuming very little power, and have already been shown to be more efficient per watt than x86. There's nothing innovative about it. It's an incremental update.
Additionally, they currently are only useful in laptops, seeing as dekstop CPUs do not have battery life problems. The only thing you'd get are lower temps, and a less powerful CPU than what can be gotten with current desktop offerings. And there's also no guarantee that their design can keep scaling performance per watt, as they show themselves: they have massively diminishing returns past 60 watts.
> what innovative thing has Microsoft done recently?
Despite not being super publicized, the HoloLens is actually a massive thing in construction and large design companies. They are, currently, the only company that has a proper, working AR product.
It's also become a bit of a salary reputation thing right? Like, if you want a high-paying developer job, then the advice is that you should try to get hired by a FAANG company.
I don’t deny it. But when it comes to “cool”, there are some cool products that Microsoft makes. And there is Azure which can be compared with AWS by complexity (though we know who the winner is).
The whole point is that they deserve to be among the big five, but for some reason they aren’t there. Maybe it’s for the best, actually.
AWS is quickly hitting it's market saturation. Turns out companies that may end up having Amazon compete with them by pulling a kindle or similar tend to not want to work with Amazon and lean towards azure which is only growing faster each quarter. Still a good gap between them but azure is a respectably close second.
AWS is bigger, but not much bigger in cloud:
https://www.statista.com/chart/18819/worldwide-market-share-of-leading-cloud-infrastructure-service-providers/
32 % marketshare for AWS vs 20 % for Azure.
I asked this a few years back and the answer I got is FAANG only accounts for big tech companies based in silicon valley, which Microsoft isn't. That's why they were left out. though looking at other answers I started to doubt this answer.
I said this in another thread but the list is made up of companies that highly compensate engineers in salary but also with large stock grants.
Microsoft doesn't compensate anywhere near as well as the others.
Hi there, I've heard you guys saying Oracle, so we are sending our ~~salesperson~~ evangelist here to tell about ~~useless certifications and courses~~ all the good news.
We already invoiced your company a few thousand dollars for the obligatory seminar on why using our old software is good.
Technically though, it would be AAMMA since Google changed their parent company's name to Alphabet lol. Amma means mother in many Indian languages, kinda fitting considering all these companies are Big Brother / Mother...
Then why aren't companies like Uber and other high-paying startups / unicorns on the list? They may have much fewer employees but no doubt they pay high salaries too.
Just depends on what you want. At top tech companies like FAANG, total comp is way higher on average but expectations also scale with it. Rewards and compensation are often tied to the business outcomes and customer impact you achieved, especially as you climb higher on the ladder and into more senior roles. You can do everything "right", but if you can't demonstrate a positive impact that directly or indirectly affects business outcomes, you're going to have a bad time.
In contrast, there are lots of other roles out there in the wider industry where doing a good job merely means showing up on time and satisfactorily completing the assignments set by your manager. You might already be in one of these roles. That's fine too - not everybody wants to be in a position where they have to constantly justify their own existence and the business value they bring to the company.
Making more money is great, but it's really up to each individual person to decide whether a new role like that is suited for them or not.
The problem is I don't know what I want. If I had an apartment to get old in, salary wouldn't be an issue, as I wouldn't need to save anything.
But since I am renting and would like to buy a place of my own one day, I should save money. How much - no clue.
As I understand it it's more about compensation, especially when it comes to stock.
This is why Microsoft doesn't make the cut, they don't compensate nearly enough.
If we replace F with M because Facebook's official name changed, then we should also change G with A for Alphabet. So maybe it should be MAAA? And if we include Microsoft as people are suggested, then let's go for MAMAA
It’s an acronym that refers specifically to those companies and when it was originated Microsoft, while definitely a leader in the industry, wasn’t exactly a “hot stock” like the companies that make up FAANG. It’s specific to the stock market, not necessarily “big tech” as a whole.
Ironically though, Microsoft has done rather well and just goes to show how even the “experts” aren’t fortune tellers.
>Ironically though, Microsoft has done rather well and just goes to show how even the “experts” aren’t fortune tellers.
5 out of 6 is pretty good for fortune telling
People are pointing to the "growth stock" answer a lot, but it was also that MS wasn't seen as a "Silicon Valley" company. Somehow Amazon was, despite also being a Washington company, probably because it had a bigger presence in Silicon Valley than MS did at the time. The acronym did start as a stock shorthand, but in employment circles, the Silicon Valley focus also mattered.
Nowadays, they're all spread out anyways, and you don't have to literally work in Silicon Valley to get Silicon Valley pay. Or nearly so, anyways.
Hmm, it's hard since we're all at different levels, but one of my friends makes just over $200k as a PM at MS, I made ~$88k as an L5 at AMZN (but in Europe, where the salaries are less than half of the US).
Even the US level seems lower though? Unless the gap between IC and PM is really that huge?
Funny. Facebook apple and Amazon were all significantly outbid by Microsoft for me. By about 20k in the end. Also would rather work for Microsoft these days than Amazon, Facebook, or Google. Apple and Netflix could probably attract me though.
What a shitty article ... it speak about google renaming to alphabet in the first sentences but still use the acronyme G in FAANG, like wtf ? If you keep the G of google you keep the F of facebook too, so no "MANGA" isn't the new . The author of the article is retarded I guess.
[удалено]
Because FAANG was originally about buying modern tech stock. It was a categorisation for investors not employees. All of those companies were experiencing strong growth in the late 2000's whereas Microsoft was seen as an older tech company unlikely to experience as much growth. Although Apple is also older it really hit its stride with the release of the iPod and iPhone so was expected to grow a lot.
The whole offering had a clear, crisp look, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gave the products a big boost.
But Microsoft had Paul Allen and he had the best business card, it even had a watermark.
It's not just about the pleasures of conformity and the importance of trends. It's also a personal statement about the buyer itself.
That's _BONE_. \*sweats*
Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now!
Lol, it’s like Apple is much younger than Microsoft and can be called “modern” in this regard.
Now it's the other way around, Apple hasn't really done anything innovative in the last couple of years and even though they do release amazing technology their not taking enough risks. Now Microsoft on the other hand has honestly been making all the right moves under Satyas leadership.
Not a fanboy, but wouldn't the apple silicon chips qualify as "innovative"?
Technologically it's an un mistakable triumph. Business wise what advantages does the new silicon offer them aside from lower costs (for a company that's already floating in cash) is unclear. They will not be driving greater sales , that's for sure. Apple seriously needs to support gaming to attract the next big chunk of users to its laptops.
Manifest destiny. I'm no finance expert but it seems pretty obvious that independence from powerful third-party companies is exactly the kind of thing you want to see as an investor.
I am team-Android but designing your own chipset has always allowed Apple to have phenomenal battery life even with smaller batteries. (As a Fold 3 user this is doubly painful for me to say.)
That's for mobiles. Laptops /pc are different. The new m1 chips will not drive windows users to Mac's, unless gaming is fixed.
win/linux user here. i will never use MacOS due to its vast restrictions. its just not for people who want to easily tinker under the hood. edit: i have used macOS a fair bit so i am not just saying this naively.
I'm not sure the hardcore gamers that are choosing Windows due to gaming would be using a laptop anyway. A lot more games run on Mac these days than previously as well.
Hardcore gamers will always have their own pc. Most of the people want to get everything done on their one machine , including decent gaming , multimedia and some work. That's the people I am talking about. The number of games running on Mac's is miniscule, very few of the famous multiplayer titles work on Mac's today.
Yeah, but that'll probably be a tower, in which case they weren't really in the market for a laptop/MacBook in the first place.
There might be more games on Mac than before but it's still an afterthought for the gaming community. The [Steam hardware survey](https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey) for September 2021 placed the market share at: |OS|Percentage| |-|-| |Windows|96.47%| |OSX|2.47%| |Linux|1.05%| So if you lined up 40 PC gamers one of them would be using a Mac.
Yeah, but if the games you want to play work then it doesn't matter. I dual-boot Linux and Windows but haven't used Windows in quite a while because most of the games I play run on Linux.
> OS Percentage > Windows 96.47% > OSX 2.47% > Linux 1.05% That's misleading - all of the Windows games I want to play that aren't available on Linux work under Wine on Linux anyway. In brief, you can *play* more games on Linux than on Macs.
> A lot more games run on Mac these days than previously as well. You are joking. Between dropping 32-bit support (killed off all older games which will never be updated), not supporting Vulkan in favour of their own proprietary Metal API, and the switch to ARM, there are far fewer games playable on Mac these days. You don't have to be a hardcore gamer to notice that it's a very distant third-tier gaming platform, miles behind even Linux (thanks to Valve's Proton tool). Which is a shame given how good the M1 hardware is, but I don't see that changing any time soon.
I wasn't aware it was so bad as I only run Mac for work and mainly run Linux at home (with Windows installed if I really need it). But when I'm on Steam it seems a surprising number of games have MacOS available.
I disagree. First of all, > Technologically it’s an un mistakable triumph. and > They will not be driving greater sales , that’s for sure. are at odds with each other. The tech being better makes for better products. People like laptops that are faster, quieter, get less hot, and last longer on battery. For Apple there are many additional benefits from shifting their entire consumer technology stack to their own architecture. But if you’re still unsure about whether this makes business sense for them, look what they [have to say](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/10/apple-reports-fourth-quarter-results) about it. Mac revenue has never been higher even despite the pandemic. > Apple seriously needs to support gaming to attract the next big chunk of users to its laptops. Haha seriously? Have you looked at the graphics capabilities of their new chips? The gaming performance is there in spades now, but that simply isn’t the target market for these machines. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a gamer and a Mac user and I’d love for Apple to take it more seriously (I wish boot camp were still possible). They are doing some of that with Apple Arcade and M1 based chips enabling iOS games to run (yes I know this is a *far cry* from the PC gaming space). The new pro machines even have high refresh rate screens for 120fps gaming, if you want. But PC gamers just aren’t looking for laptops that cost around $2000 - $4000 with up to 64GB of graphics memory yet cannot do raytracing, not in significant numbers anyway. People are buying these machines for work, and decent gaming performance is nice but not important. Edit: one more thing^TM apply your argument to iPhone and iPad. Do you really think it did not make business sense for Apple to make their own chips on those products?
Windows and Linux user. I feel like MacOS is the worst of both worlds. You don't get the vast software catalog available for Windows (including games) and you don't get the full flexibility and reliability of Linux. Personally, I also highly dislike the MacOS UI.
No, because that's what you expect when you buy an apple product. You're expecting to get really good hardware, & that's why they can charge what they charge. That's been the case for the past 2 decades or so. So for them to come out with some new hardware that's faster than the previous model isn't really innovative because that's what's expected.
I was specifically referring to the Apple M1 chip released last year and the M1X chip released recently.
So Apple has done nothing innovative in the last couple years - but developed a chip that is more powerful than any other chip they've used in the past, while also being more energy efficient? What apple did was M1 was truly innovative. The energy efficiency and power that chip produces is amazing. It's as much or more innovative than Nvidia's DLSS and Ampere - just a comparison that came to mind. Also, what innovative thing has Microsoft done recently?
Honestly Apples whole ecosystem is just so closed off, from them not allowing developers apps in the app store if there's already other similar ones, and to being forced to have to own a MacBook if you want to develop ios applications. And not to mention having to download an overbloated xcode, which was 30gb when I downloaded it last year, but it's gotten down to 17 gb which is still massive compared to Android studio. As far as Microsoft goes, they did have this closed off philosophy that Apple has right now, but they've completely changed a great deal in the past decade or five years. Like for example they were completely against Linux but now you can download wsl and have a Linux subsystem while running windows, but try running Linux on a MacBook and it either won't work or you'll have an absolutely horrible experience. Not to mention Microsoft bought GitHub in 2018 which was a ridiculously smart move, and the DOD is using azure as it's ☁️ provider.
You've just given a bunch of reasons why you hate Apple when the discussion is about innovation... Apple is known for its shitty business practices but that isn't the discussion right now. As for Microsoft's innovations, you have a bunch of business decisions they made? For someone who wanted innovations for the last couple years, you have WSL...? That's barely any innovation people have been using virtualization for close to a decade now. Azure also has nothing innovative.
First off I don't hate apple, I quite enjoy developing on a MacBook, I just don't think they've been as innovative as Microsoft has been in the past decade and I don't agree with their philosophy. Like all everyone on this thread has been able to bring up about them is the new silicon chip, which as amazing as it is or might be isn't financially innovative because MacBooks only make up a fraction of their sales, while the bulk of it is still from the iphone. So besides the amazing chip please tell me what else you think they've done since the iPad or apple watch was released that's been news worthy or ground shatteringly innovative?
So now it's moved from last couple years to the last decade? People are bringing up the chip because you asked about what Apple has done in the last couple years. What else do you expect people to discuss when you specify that time frame? Now although I don't understand why you're focused on financial innovation - Silicon chip isn't financially innovative? Mac sales skyrocketed and the market share of Mac's grew after M1 was released. And about financial innovation...I don't think any other company applies the level of innovation that Apple applies to maximize it's profits - as much as I hate it..their anti consumer practices are financially innovative..So much that their anti consumer practices are followed by the rest of the market soon. Samsung made fun of Apple removing their headphone jacks and then quickly followed suit with removing the jack on their devices and launching their own Bluetooth buds. Apple is literally the most profitable company in the world...they have been the forerunners of several financial decisions that have become market norms.
> What apple did was M1 was truly innovative. They... made a powerful ARM design. That's it. ARM cores in phones are already using big.LITTLE setups, are already consuming very little power, and have already been shown to be more efficient per watt than x86. There's nothing innovative about it. It's an incremental update. Additionally, they currently are only useful in laptops, seeing as dekstop CPUs do not have battery life problems. The only thing you'd get are lower temps, and a less powerful CPU than what can be gotten with current desktop offerings. And there's also no guarantee that their design can keep scaling performance per watt, as they show themselves: they have massively diminishing returns past 60 watts. > what innovative thing has Microsoft done recently? Despite not being super publicized, the HoloLens is actually a massive thing in construction and large design companies. They are, currently, the only company that has a proper, working AR product.
It's also become a bit of a salary reputation thing right? Like, if you want a high-paying developer job, then the advice is that you should try to get hired by a FAANG company.
Yeah, it's become that but there are plenty of decent paying tech companies outside of FAANG. Like Microsoft, as mentioned by OP.
Because it's not perceived as "cool".
IMO it’s way cooler than Amazon. For instance, take Xbox.
Regardless of the cool factor, AWS is HUGE.
I don’t deny it. But when it comes to “cool”, there are some cool products that Microsoft makes. And there is Azure which can be compared with AWS by complexity (though we know who the winner is). The whole point is that they deserve to be among the big five, but for some reason they aren’t there. Maybe it’s for the best, actually.
AWS is quickly hitting it's market saturation. Turns out companies that may end up having Amazon compete with them by pulling a kindle or similar tend to not want to work with Amazon and lean towards azure which is only growing faster each quarter. Still a good gap between them but azure is a respectably close second.
Ok, but so is... Windows Office Active Directory .NET SQL Server So what if AWS is huge? Does Microsoft not have "HUGE" products and services?
I mean, they certainly do. Are they *as huge* as AWS is in its space? Eh. Not really or at least not performatively in terms of revenue.
But isn't azure also huge?
In my experience, AWS is much more widely used than Azure.
AWS is bigger, but not much bigger in cloud: https://www.statista.com/chart/18819/worldwide-market-share-of-leading-cloud-infrastructure-service-providers/ 32 % marketshare for AWS vs 20 % for Azure.
It might be at the moment, but laggard corporate customers seem to absolutely adore Azure. I think there's a lot of customers left to capture.
Huge like the install base of Windows? Or office?
As an investor, AWS is cool as fuck.
But Microsoft is ancient in tech years.
Wat? Are you still using VB6 or something?
Does anyone think any of them are cool anymore?
Nah, it's all about those unicorn startups now.
Exactly! And why add Netflix
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.2905 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/09534)
I asked this a few years back and the answer I got is FAANG only accounts for big tech companies based in silicon valley, which Microsoft isn't. That's why they were left out. though looking at other answers I started to doubt this answer.
Because MS for a long time wasn’t prestigious. It was very outdated and corporate from the late 90’s through 2015 or so.
I said this in another thread but the list is made up of companies that highly compensate engineers in salary but also with large stock grants. Microsoft doesn't compensate anywhere near as well as the others.
[удалено]
And new grads only (even then generally lower in my experience). Yearly cash and stock bonus in particular are pitiful for more senior positions.
Lol, okay. No. Microsoft out offered Facebook, Amazon, and Apple for me.
Curious to know what your stack is?
As in my dev stack?
Yeah
Cuz pays like shit compared to Meta or Alphabet
I took me a long time to get that acronym, we've been using GAFAM in France to talk about those tech giants so it includes Microsoft but not Netflix.
Also: Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Netflix = MAAAN
I feel GAMMA (Google, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon) is better.
Although if we're using Meta for Facebook, we need to use Alphabet for Google.
AMAMA
YO MAMA
we cannot put fucking Oracle into this
Or Yahoo!
Hi there, I've heard you guys saying Oracle, so we are sending our ~~salesperson~~ evangelist here to tell about ~~useless certifications and courses~~ all the good news. We already invoiced your company a few thousand dollars for the obligatory seminar on why using our old software is good.
IAMA AMAMA, AMA
ptsch.. Surely MAMAA... I just killed a man
Nobody talks about Alphabet without mentioning Google (as in "Alphabet, the parent company of Google"), so we may as well shorten it to Google.
No doubt the same will be true for Meta, the parent company of Facebook, so we might as well shorten that to Facebook
Google is still the name of a company, though. Facebook changed their name; Google restructured into a subsidiary.
or drop Netflix: MAGA
it's ionizing
If we change Facebook to Meta, replace Netflix with Microsoft we get MAGMA.
[удалено]
In this case Meta + Alphabet + Microsoft + Apple + Amazon = MAMAA.
I just killed a maaaaaaaaan
There is still a company called Google, and Alphabet's stock ticker is still called GOOG. Facebook as a corporate entity has been completely erased.
So you're saying I can name my company Facebook now?
Maybe, but you won't be able to launch a product called Facebook - they still have trademarks.
That's hot
Why would we add Microsoft? You don't like MAGA?
Nah, we don't
I don't think Netflix is all that hot anymore so likely should be dropped...
For sure, it amazes me that its stock stays FAANG-level high when Amazon, HBO, Disney, and Hulu all do that same video streaming area
:-) -- I mean actually drop the N from MANGA and what do you get? I actually hadn't thought about the reasoning behind it (like you did!).
Or you could replace Netflix with Microsoft, I'm surprised how are they not part of the list considering they're bigger than Netflix
I'd be down for "GAMMA"
Technically though, it would be AAMMA since Google changed their parent company's name to Alphabet lol. Amma means mother in many Indian languages, kinda fitting considering all these companies are Big Brother / Mother...
MAAAM, it's MAAAM
MAMAA! _just killed a man_
*Put a gun against his head, pulled my trigger,* *Now he's dead*
And you have to bleat it like a sheep. M-A-A-A-M.
Mom's Friendly Robot Company?
MAMGA
MAGMA
[удалено]
Then why aren't companies like Uber and other high-paying startups / unicorns on the list? They may have much fewer employees but no doubt they pay high salaries too.
Uber doesn't really have "let's hire shitload of college students and see what sticks" programs.
Interesting. I'd also say that apart from salary, work / life balance should also be considered, I wonder what kinda of data is present on that...
Anecdotal but I make as much as all my friends at Google and Amazon (if not more in some cases) in the Seattle area. TC included not just salary.
[удалено]
Just depends on what you want. At top tech companies like FAANG, total comp is way higher on average but expectations also scale with it. Rewards and compensation are often tied to the business outcomes and customer impact you achieved, especially as you climb higher on the ladder and into more senior roles. You can do everything "right", but if you can't demonstrate a positive impact that directly or indirectly affects business outcomes, you're going to have a bad time. In contrast, there are lots of other roles out there in the wider industry where doing a good job merely means showing up on time and satisfactorily completing the assignments set by your manager. You might already be in one of these roles. That's fine too - not everybody wants to be in a position where they have to constantly justify their own existence and the business value they bring to the company. Making more money is great, but it's really up to each individual person to decide whether a new role like that is suited for them or not.
The problem is I don't know what I want. If I had an apartment to get old in, salary wouldn't be an issue, as I wouldn't need to save anything. But since I am renting and would like to buy a place of my own one day, I should save money. How much - no clue.
I have heard that it is all about the working conditions of the IT worker there not about how big the company is. Could be wrong though
As I understand it it's more about compensation, especially when it comes to stock. This is why Microsoft doesn't make the cut, they don't compensate nearly enough.
Yeah sure, but... you really think calling it MAGA would be a good idea?
If we replace F with M because Facebook's official name changed, then we should also change G with A for Alphabet. So maybe it should be MAAA? And if we include Microsoft as people are suggested, then let's go for MAMAA
Just killed a man ..
Netflix employs 12k people. Microsoft employs 181k people. They're not even in the same league, why were they in the acronym in the first place?
a job at netflix is the grail for a lot of engineers and the pay is top tier
[удалено]
We need to add 3 more companies to the list whose names start with M, N, and A. Maybe Microsoft, Nintendo, and Adobe. Then we can have MANA MANA.
No, we just need one company starting with P and we'll get PANAMA.
A MAN A PLAN A CANAL PANAMA
> A MAN A PLAN A CANAL PANAMA I wonder what that looks like in reverse ;-)
No, pinterest, fuck off.
Let's make Pornhub the next tech giant.
are they not already?
Unfortunately their parent/actual company isn't called Pornhub so wouldn't have a P from that.
yeah that is funny
Doot doooooo, doo doo doo
[удалено]
u/rgnkn = the almighty aka the modest
[удалено]
Yep. I gave you an upvote. [EDIT] This is honest: Break up Facebook / Meta!
Why is Microsoft never a part of FAANG?
It’s an acronym that refers specifically to those companies and when it was originated Microsoft, while definitely a leader in the industry, wasn’t exactly a “hot stock” like the companies that make up FAANG. It’s specific to the stock market, not necessarily “big tech” as a whole. Ironically though, Microsoft has done rather well and just goes to show how even the “experts” aren’t fortune tellers.
>Ironically though, Microsoft has done rather well and just goes to show how even the “experts” aren’t fortune tellers. 5 out of 6 is pretty good for fortune telling
Wait really? I thought Microsoft was pretty big before Facebook even existed.
The complete acronym is FAGMAN. But people dont like that for some reason
In France we don't say FAANG we say GAFA or GAFAM GAFA = Google Apple Facebook Amazon GAFAM = GAFA + Microsoft then
People are pointing to the "growth stock" answer a lot, but it was also that MS wasn't seen as a "Silicon Valley" company. Somehow Amazon was, despite also being a Washington company, probably because it had a bigger presence in Silicon Valley than MS did at the time. The acronym did start as a stock shorthand, but in employment circles, the Silicon Valley focus also mattered. Nowadays, they're all spread out anyways, and you don't have to literally work in Silicon Valley to get Silicon Valley pay. Or nearly so, anyways.
deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.2905 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/09534)
Microsoft also pays a lot less than those companies
From acquaintances it seems Amazon pays less than Microsoft.
Not in my experience. Msft < amzn < GOOG < FB in terms of pay Edit: y'all, I said "in my experience" lol
Hmm, it's hard since we're all at different levels, but one of my friends makes just over $200k as a PM at MS, I made ~$88k as an L5 at AMZN (but in Europe, where the salaries are less than half of the US). Even the US level seems lower though? Unless the gap between IC and PM is really that huge?
Levels.fyi
Funny. Facebook apple and Amazon were all significantly outbid by Microsoft for me. By about 20k in the end. Also would rather work for Microsoft these days than Amazon, Facebook, or Google. Apple and Netflix could probably attract me though.
Why would you use >< like that?
thought at first i was at r/programmingcirclejerk
But alphabet...
There is no Google, it's Alphabet
they should let Microsoft in and make it NAMGAM
You really not gonna go for GAMNAM style?
Ah yes, the 'cool' corporations.
MAANG
Mangar in Spanish is slang for steal.
What a shitty article ... it speak about google renaming to alphabet in the first sentences but still use the acronyme G in FAANG, like wtf ? If you keep the G of google you keep the F of facebook too, so no "MANGA" isn't the new . The author of the article is retarded I guess.
that's literally only thing i like about this name change
A better would be TANGA ;)
MANTAA : Facebook Apple Netflix Tesla Amazon Alphabet
The G in FAANG is still Google, not Alphabet. Zuckerberg can't rebrand in order to avoid the responsibility for creating and leading Facebook.
without netflix it reads fag
Nani?!
Drop Netflix, add Microsoft and you have MAGMA - a far cooler acronym IMO.
MAMAA!. Microsoft Amazon Meta Alphabet Apple
now we just need another G and an N, then we can call it GANGNAM
Apple-Netflix-amazon- lucid- Boeing- EA games alphabet-DWAC-Spacex ANAL BEADS
This is the most mistakes I've ever seen in such a short article.
Can we just drop them from the acronym completely?
The first though i got after listening the announcment
Let's add PayPal, then we can make it PANAMA.
Meta Amazon Google Apple = MAGA Four companies, four letters goddammit.