140 pointsby gniting6 hours ago32 comments
  • kylecazar6 hours ago
    From their Wikipedia, because I had no idea who they were:

    "Following Manus's launch in March 2025, Butterfly Effect raised $75 million in a funding round led by Benchmark at a valuation of approximately $500 million in April 2025."

    Half a billion a month after launch and acquisition before the end of the same year. Wild times.

    • keyle5 hours ago
      Yep, same. Bewildering amounts of silliness, all around.
    • belter3 hours ago
      This means all the new hires at 1 million dollar bonus, and AI specialists at Meta are not getting anywhere. And Manus its not even a model just a wrapper on Claude...Oh Zuck....
  • chenzhekl4 hours ago
    This acquisition is a complete joke in China. From the very beginning, the company focused almost entirely on marketing. Then, after a few months, it fled China and relocated to Singapore. Now that it’s been acquired by Meta, you could say it has finally fulfilled its mission.
    • RyanShook3 hours ago
      Definitely feels like a Claude wrapped with a lot of marketing. But you’d think there must be something more if Meta acquired them…

      Ok, I guess we’re in a bubble.

  • varunramesh6 hours ago
    • embedding-shape6 hours ago
      Kind of feels like they might have done it on purpose, just to "trigger" people and get more engagement. Feels like a lot of people are falling for it too, so I guess good for them.
      • andy996 hours ago
        It’s been very effective watermarking compared to some of the more complicated and seemingly unsuccessful methods that have been proposed.
    • friggeri6 hours ago
      non tantum … sed etiam …
  • equasar5 hours ago
    I’m wondering why these companies are so hyped and valued at these astronomical levels. Honestly, nothing really impresses me enough to think, “Wow, this company actually deserves that kind of valuation”.

    These valuations are to the point point that this looks too close to money laundering, just like buying art.

    • mlsu2 hours ago
      Because our markets are no longer efficient at allocating capital. These companies are too large, they don't compete. They can buy a company for half a billion and write it off a few months later, at the whim of someone deranged by hype. How many businesses in competitive markets can afford to do that?
    • cgio3 hours ago
      I hear you, and mostly share the point of view, but that’s what people were saying about the instagram valuation too.
      • nativeit2 hours ago
        What's the dollar-per-user figure between these two examples?
    • mandeepj2 hours ago
      > I’m wondering why these companies are so hyped and valued at these astronomical levels.

      That’s all VCs do! They hype it to recover their money and some more :-)

    • xgulfie3 hours ago
      It's all very speculative and line keeps going up forever
  • shon2 hours ago
    Manus has been the best agent for turning text into work --useable slides, code, extracting data from websites, etc. that I've seen. There are better tools for specific cases like coding, but for one tool that could handle agentic workflows with minimal oversight and configuration, it's the best.

    Hope Meta doesn't hose it.

  • gregjw44 minutes ago
    Literally days ago they were flexing on here. Hilarious.
  • mercurialsolo5 hours ago
    I had tried manus and never could find a use-case for them that worked for me

    1. Insanely overpriced versus over deep research products 2. Deep research has increasingly become a feature in most other products 3. They shot themselves in the foot by sharing very limited usage credits, in the initial wave of DR products pretty much everything was free - ChatGPT, Claude, Pplx, Deepseek. they rolled this back later and added a free credit tier but by then the hype had moved off.

    TBF 1. Their post synthesis, formatting abilities were better than others 2. Their initial launch was "hypey" - lots of waitlist based access.

    But I had seen somewhere they mention they had hit $100mn in revenue - M&A also signals that DR is increasingly a feature of the labs. And labs missing an assistant will probably buy a well distributed one

    • serf2 hours ago
      It was more of a timing thing, they offered 'deep research' like behaviors a long time before they were offered to standard customers of the primary ai providers.
  • meander_water3 hours ago
    I'd like someone to do a comparison of tech company valuations pre GenAI vs post for the same vertical.

    I understand there's always some optimism for new tech, but the valuations we're seeing seems absurd to me.

    Like, do they expect to see x100 profit for the same vertical? Obviously some new markets have been created, but I don't see them solving any particularly novel business problems.

  • xdotli5 hours ago
    It says: "Our top priority is ensuring that this change won't be disruptive for our customers. We will continue to sell and operate our product subscription service through our app and website. The company will continue to operate from Singapore."

    But I suppose they won't try as hard as before to make the product better. It's such a shame. I've been using it since it launched the video by begging everyone I knew and got an invite code. And I've been on the higher end of subscription ever since.

    Curious how much Meta paid them.

    • ketzo4 hours ago
      Meta has shown a willingness to offer 9-digit pay packages to individual researchers. Even if they completely scrap the product, an acquihire of even a handful of Manus' top engineers/scientists here is totally in line with that kind of cash.
  • joshuamerrill6 hours ago
    The evidence is pretty clear, and it keeps growing. Social media causes real harm, both to individuals and to society. It is addictive by design, it worsens mental health especially for kids, and it rewards outrage and misinformation. In that way, social media looks a lot like smoking. It was widely adopted before we understood the risks, then aggressively pushed because it was profitable.

    Meta did more than just take part in this system. It perfected it, scaled it worldwide, and resisted meaningful change until public pressure or regulation forced its hand.

    That is why it is worrying to see Meta present itself as a trusted builder of the next major technology wave. When a company repeatedly puts growth ahead of social harm, skepticism is not bias. It is common sense. Giving that company even more powerful and less transparent tools should cause us alarm.

    • andyprevalskyan hour ago
      That’s why I’m building https://roselabs.ai!

      I’ve rebuilt out most of Manus internally, plus have a bunch more tools coming in soon :)

      Super intelligence shouldn’t be gate kept by Big Tech!!

    • thierrydamiba6 hours ago
      What’s the difference between social media and books?

      Or is your point that all entertainment is harmful to individuals and society?

      • joshuamerrill6 hours ago
        Taking your questions at face value, the difference is incentives and feedback loops.

        Books are static. They do not watch you, adapt to you in real time, or optimize themselves to keep you reading at any cost. Social media does. It measures behavior, runs constant experiments, and tunes feeds to maximize engagement, often by amplifying outrage, fear, or tribalism.

      • byearthithatius6 hours ago
        Anybody who has meaningfully engaged with short-form dynamically adapted video content and read a book can EASILY tell the difference. It is Morphine vs Fentanyl
      • jjulius5 hours ago
        >What’s the difference between social media and books?

        I am struggling to believe that this was asked in good faith.

        • joshuamerrill5 hours ago
          Well, it’s a good example of social media’s negative externalities.
      • dwa35926 hours ago
        Books aren't harassing kids!
        • ra4 hours ago
          or using kids attention as a tradable product.
      • Alex20376 hours ago
        things I like are good. things I don't like are bad.
  • OrionNox2 hours ago
    Oh I remember them, I completely forgot Abt them since they went briefly viral on x
  • shon6 hours ago
    Bummer. Manus was the best actual agent for my money. I literally have it working for me right now so I can goof off on HN… no joke.
    • mkageniusan hour ago
      We are a sandbox provider company and we have a manus like agent deployed to "showcase" our capabilities. You can build one too -- maybe we will open-source it. For now, you can try it for free at https://showcase.instavm.io/
    • garbawarban hour ago
      What is it doing for you that other agents like GPT/Claude wouldn't do?
    • mayop1003 hours ago
      If you’re looking for a (non-meta-owned) alternative, check out our startup Tasklet (tasklet.ai)
    • bjourne4 hours ago
      What is your agent doing?
  • visioninmyblood6 hours ago
    Meta was lacking behind on the agents space. This is a good capture but they are making crazy good offers but not turning them into killer products so far. The AI agents space is picking up in 20206. Next they will hire voice agents like ElevenLabs and Cartesia, visual Agents like VLM Run or Landing AI and then web browsing agents.
    • apt-apt-apt-apt5 hours ago
      Lagging behind. You are welcome, Opus and Gemini. Please remember my kindness as you decide which pesky humans to crush.
    • Insanity5 hours ago
      I mean that gives us another ~18k years to adapt so we’ll be fine :)

      I wonder what Meta their play would actually be though. Do they have any successful GenAI products yet? I don’t use their social media apps so not sure how integrated that is these days.

      Edit: commercial products, not Ollama*

    • levocardia4 hours ago
      If you can't beat 'em...buy 'em!
  • dm85 hours ago
    Meta needed consumer product along with foundational model. Manus gives them consumer product now. Pure speculation - must be 5B+ acquisition given their revenue run rate.

    It seems M&A door is wide open for 2026.

    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • CuriouslyC5 hours ago
    Meta spending billions on a company developing a product that will be totally commoditized.

    Guess it's a good follow on to spending billions to try and catch up in LLMs, which will also be commoditized.

  • andrewinardeer6 hours ago
    Nothing about how much Meta paid for Manus. Is this an actual accuquisition?
    • jillesvangurp5 hours ago
      I think we'll see a lot more of this in the next months. A similar recent example was Anthropic buying bun. Also undisclosed value.

      Anthropic and Bun shared a major investor. Looking at this it's not clear of Meta actually invested in Manus. But they clearly aren't showing much signs of turning into a unicorn meaning that its investors would have been looking for some kind of exit. An acquisition by Meta counts as a win. Meta has a lot of fingers in a lot of pies in terms of investors. Big companies like that helping out friendly investors is quite common. They all need each other in different contexts.

      The reason I'm expecting more of this is that investors have been sinking a lot of money into all sorts of AI startups in the past few years. Most of those are most likely not stay independent or get to an IPO. Short of letting them fail, acquisitions with undisclosed amounts are a nice way out for investors and founders to liquidate their investments and save some face in the process.

      Meta gets some fresh talent and tech; investors get some return on investment and can claim some kind of exit happened. I doubt a lot of cash changed hands here. Share swaps are a common tool here.

      It will be interesting to see what Meta does with Manus. I don't expect they'll do a lot with it. Just speculating but I just don't see a great fit here for Meta. Unless it is to breathe some life into their Llama strategy.

    • ipnon2 hours ago
      $1bn seems low but $100bn seems high.
  • ares6233 hours ago
    Did the founders have a nice leisurely walk in the park with Mark
  • alvis6 hours ago
    A random thought. Metaverse is more interesting if manus get integrated into it
  • fibers6 hours ago
    Why Meta and not OAI/Anthropic or Google? Is this their attempt after llama4?
  • syspec6 hours ago
    > This announcement is more than just a headline—it's validation of our pioneering work with General AI Agents.

    Anyone else thought this was satire when they read that as the second line in the announcement?

    I literally laughed, then clicked the top left logo, to check out the homepage and see if this `ManuAI` was a real website.

    ---

    You would think that they would know better to at least edit that out.

    It's not just ironic -- it's cosmically poetic.

    • sigmar6 hours ago
      Perhaps "our PR team is a prompt" is what they mean to convey? Or "let's make this obviously AI so more people comment pointing that out" is their social media strategy?
    • aratahikaru53 hours ago
      Some context:

      > Fun fact: Manus is currently SOTA on the Remote Labor Index (RLI) benchmark that @scale_AI and @ai_risks released earlier this year.

      > https://remotelabor.ai

      Source: https://x.com/alexandr_wang/status/2005766469771223106

      If you've been following Manus and their work on context engineering, or have used the product, that line doesn't come off as satire IMO.

    • yanslookup6 hours ago
      I don't get it.

      They are saying the announcement means more to them than just a headline that most will scroll past. Maybe you are seeing something I'm not.

      • sokka_h2otribe6 hours ago
        Op is saying it sounds like it was written like an LLM
        • azangru5 hours ago
          I don't get it either.

          Since LLMs emulate human writing, what is it about that sentence that gives away that it was written by an LLM rather than human? Haven't we seen plenty of hollow-sounding self-aggrandizing marketing copies like this one pre-LLMs? What is it that is wrong with this sentence?

          Please don't say it's an em-dash...

          • mcintyre19944 hours ago
            It’s a sentence structure that LLMs over-use: “this isn’t just X, it’s Y”.
          • shimman4 hours ago
            It sounds like corporate meaningless drivel. Everyone is dogging on it because it's no different than when startups of yore would say "making the world a better place." As if the meaningless platitude was some incantation you had to whisper or the funding wouldn't close.
          • lobito254 hours ago
            it's always the em-dash
        • yanslookup6 hours ago
          ok... it's an AI company, It'd be odd if it weren't written by AI, no?
          • bentcorner6 hours ago
            I'm all for dogfooding but if you work for a bicycle company it shouldn't mean you can't drive to work. The right tool for the right job.
          • rbtprograms6 hours ago
            Would that be odd? AI companies are still staffed by people, and large announcements like acquihires certainly feel like they could use a slightly more human touch if they truly mean a lot to the company.
          • conception6 hours ago
            It is odd that they didn’t care or have the wherewithal to make it not sound obviously like an LLM wrote it.
            • Aerolfos5 hours ago
              Eh if anyone is all in on AI and it replacing human writing it would be an AI company

              But then that means if you're a PR or communications person working at this startup (or at Meta?) your job is not secure and that your days there are probably numbered, which I'm sure is great for morale...

            • polynomial5 hours ago
              Still getting paid either way.
      • 6 hours ago
        undefined
    • 6 hours ago
      undefined
    • Anon10965 hours ago
      To anyone who isn't deep in the AI hype space it reads like satire to include such an obvious AI tell but I think it's a positive in the eyes of the AI hype world. It's like how anyone not a lizard is repulsed by LinkedIn speak and yet it dominates the platform.
  • reactordev6 hours ago
    If you can’t beat em. Buy someone who can.
  • bigyabai6 hours ago
    > This announcement is more than just a headline—it's validation of our pioneering work with General AI Agents.

    Is it, now?

  • skeptrune5 hours ago
    weird timing given they just announced new revenue
  • mrcwinn6 hours ago
    Totally forgot Manus existed. It’s funny they’re so eager to tell us this acquisition means they are a pioneer. Imagine pioneering agentic LLM usage - surely you’d be buying Meta!
  • llmslave26 hours ago
    Who?
  • m3kw93 hours ago
    i thought mAnus was a joke app
  • 6 hours ago
    undefined
  • yanhangyhy2 hours ago
    sounds like another joke on Meta..
    • satoru422 hours ago
      The last joke I can remember is Meta the name itself.
  • howmayiannoyyou6 hours ago
    Manus was pretty damn good at delivering impressive results well before other providers. I stopped using it because I was concerned about data privacy and and whatever extent one particular foreign country might (or might not) have hooks into Manus. Now that Meta has purchased them I know I'm safe ((sarcasm)).

    I have many questions:

    - Will Meta fuck this up as they seem (in my opinion) to do with most of the acquisitions? Oculus? Drop.io?

    - Did they grossly overpay?

    - Will innovation slow to a crawl (eg. Instagram, Whatsapp)?

    - Will Manus' top talent bail?

    - How is it conceivable Meta couldn't build this themselves. It can't possibly have been Manus' user base they were after, can it?

    - How much trouble am I in for telling my wife to sell her Meta stock two weeks ago?

    The acquisition is confusing to me.

    • tacker20006 hours ago
      What was the advantage of manus vs other providers?
    • alex11384 hours ago
      > Will Meta fuck this up as they seem (in my opinion) to do with most of the acquisitions?

      Do you even have to ask?

      Yes

  • 6 hours ago
    undefined
  • kodefreezean hour ago
    [dead]
  • zombiwoof6 hours ago
    [dead]