Three Reasons Microsoft Paid So 'Little' For Facebook

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's $240 million investment is much smaller than the rumored $750 million that Facebook sought. Why the difference? Wired Epicenter's Terrence Russell analyzes the deal, and points out three good reasons why Microsoft got a 'bargain'. 'Microsoft Only Needs an Entrenched Position - Ballmer's plan to acquire 100 startups in 5 years is still sketchy, but we got the point -- Microsoft wants momentum. If the company is to go forward as planned then taking a small, strategic piece of Facebook makes sense. Microsoft's financial interests in Facebook's ad platform already exist, so it only makes sense to strengthen that tie as the hype builds.'"

Comments

Re:Smart Move? Maybe...

[davidsyes]

What the HELL?

What kind of moderation systems allows nuts to down-mod a comment like the one I posted. I purposely AVOID rating people's comments because I don't in this forum want to bash someone's opinion or knowledge.

What the hell is so wrong with my assumption? Is it off-base, that Google could still walk in and try to become a co-investor? Google, voicing "do no evil" could see such a move as a counteraction against letting microsoft hijack Facebook. Ahh, I suppose it was an mshaft FANBOY who took issue with my calling mshaft mshaft. Any reasonable, intelligent person could figure out which part was a stab ("mshaft") and which parts might make sense (the stuff less the word "mshaft").

Some people are so goddamn petty, picky, or bored around here...