Slashdot Mirror


Foursquare Turns Down $100M

theodp writes "Valleywag is stupefied that 'an annoying, unprofitable social network like Foursquare would turn down $100 million,' a move inspired in part by Twitter's 2008 rejection of a $500 million offer from Facebook, which in turn once rejected a $900 million bid from Yahoo. Time will tell whether the move by Foursquare was a prescient one, but it's certainly gutsy. After all, today's $850 million company can prove to be tomorrow's worthless one, right AOL?"

189 comments

  1. WTF? by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Christ, I don't think I've ever even heard of these guys. They should have took the money & ran.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:WTF? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Christ, I don't think I've ever even heard of these guys. They should have took the money & ran.

      Agreed. With that kind of money you could almost afford your own US Senator ... or US Representative at the least. With one of those they could start pushing their pro-Square agenda. For far too long the Mods and the Rockers have enjoyed an unquestioned two party system ...

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:WTF? by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless this is a marketing ploy (Have a friend "offer" $100 Million, just so you can turn it down publicly)... After all, news that a social site turns down huge money would likely generate publicity...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    3. Re:WTF? by bFusion · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't think Yahoo has any friends.

    4. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I thought the exact same thing when Facebook was turning down similar offers from Google and Yahoo a couple of years ago. Screw me.

    5. Re:WTF? by bangwhistle · · Score: 1

      Maybe the previous deal he made with Google soured him on big biz, or maybe $100 million just isn't enough? Who are we to question the ways of revolutionary thinkers?

    6. Re:WTF? by reverseengineer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apparently, this same guy had a similar project called "Dodgeball" which Google bought out in 2005- and then killed in 2009 to replace with Google Latitude. I don't know how much he got for Dodgeball, but it may be that he really can afford to walk away from offers now. Both Dodgeball and "Foursquare" are/were location-based social networking services for mobile devices- Foursquare appears to tweak the concept by turning it into a sort of Zynga-style game where you earn awards for using the service. 100 million bucks for that.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    7. Re:WTF? by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously,

      I went to the site to see what it is. They have no explanation of why i would want it on the front page, except for a link about us.

      A 2 minute long video, that's a howto.

      30 seconds in I got bored.

      even with this publicity, I think it is unlikely to take off. There does appear to be links for developers trying to leveragge the site into money though.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    8. Re:WTF? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Zynga? The spyware makers?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    9. Re:WTF? by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A 2 minute long video, that's a howto.
      30 seconds in I got bored.
      even with this publicity, I think it is unlikely to take off.

      Besides, losers who use foursquare are just begging to be stalked. It makes Facebook's abysmal privacy look positively friendly by comparison.

      In fact, stalking foursquare losers ("fourstalking") has become quite the pastime, so much so that this attention junkie quit the service, despite craving the attention. A part of me feels sympathy...while another part can't help but feel these narcissists are getting exactly what they deserve.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    10. Re:WTF? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yup, you never heard of them. Now, though, you did. They were the loonies that turned down 100m for a name nobody knew about.

      I think the price just hit the 200m range.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who are we to question the ways of revolutionary thinkers?

      You know, that IS a good philosophical question. The revolutionaries ARE, in fact, quite commonly seen as the outcasts of society, screaming against an establishment they envision as wrong and detrimental to their respective communities. Are we so entrenched in our own beliefs to the point where we are completely blind to progress? These thinkers seem to believe so. History has vindicated several of these different-thinkers, though admittedly relatively few.

      It's fun to discuss, but I don't see how this applies to your first sentence or an annoying little "me-too" social networking website that nobody cares about and isn't even worth $20k, let alone $100M.

    12. Re:WTF? by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Microsoft and Apple.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    13. Re:WTF? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Christ, anyone who hasn't heard of Foursquare isn't really keen on the social networking scene. It's the latest buzz. HA, get it? Google Buzz? Alright I'll stop with stupid puns.

      The general Idea is either
      A) They make enough money already (I believe another project of theirs was bought out by Google some time ago)
      B) They don't want their project to die, they want it to become worldchanging
      C) They are holding out for more, because its worth more.

      Or any combination of those.Yes, well, you can say A and C don't go together but just look at Wall Street.

    14. Re:WTF? by syrinx · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I invited your best friend Geocities, only he couldn't come, because you murdered him."

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    15. Re:WTF? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wouldn't compare Foursquare to Zynga . . . there's a game aspect, but it isn't ad-scam laden like Zynga's properties. Foursquare is broadly very similar to services like Loopt and Google Latitude, but with a few enhancements. Each time you "check in" to a location, you earn points. Whoever has the highest score is declared "Mayor" of that particular venue. Venues are also tagged to classify what sort of place they are, and you earn badges based on your check-in habits. For instance, three times in one week at venues tagged as being gyms will earn you the "Gym Rat" badge; go to a certain number of places tagged as having karaoke nights in a certain amount of time and you get the "Don't stop believin" badge, etc.

      There are more aspects too--you can set up "to dos" to suggest certain activities at certain venues, and people can add them to their to-do list, etc. It's basically just another "I am here / what are my friends doing / what's a popular place to go tonight" app with some game aspects.

    16. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... All your other business partners couldn't come either, because you don't have any other business partners because of how unprofitable you are. It says so right here in your personnel file; 'Unprofitable. Invested in by no one. A bitter uninvestible loner whose financial decline shall not be mourned.' SHALL NOT BE MOURNED. That's exactly what it says. Very formal. Very official. It also says you keep changing search providers. So that's funny too."

    17. Re:WTF? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      posting to undo misclick on redundant.

    18. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self selecting membership, is that patented.

      "A novel method of filtering out potential members based on attention span and ability to do any background research to determine their worth to the ongoing community."

      Codenamed "Bye Bye"

    19. Re:WTF? by crashumbc · · Score: 1

      Makes it easy to rob their house if you if you know where their at.

    20. Re:WTF? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I think you got the important part. Most of us have never heard of them. They aren't a big outfit. Bragging up that you turned down big money is sometimes just a bragging point.

          I worked at a place once, that was totally full of themselves. And no, I'd be pretty sure none of you ever heard of it. The CEO told us in a company meeting (attendance required) that he had turned down a 10 million dollar from Microsoft to buy us out. I thought about it while he continued, why would Microsoft offer 10 million to this little outfit? They had a small customer base and parts of some products (some of which actually worked). Payroll had been questionable. Actually payday was a game. Everyone would get their checks, and make a mad dash to the bank to cash them. The people who got there first got paid. The late ones had to wait until the bosses found more money somewhere. Frequently we were paid in shares of the company for working overtime. Even that became a joke, where we'd compare who had the most "shares" in the company. In all reality, those shares were worthless.

          About a year later, they really did sell to another company for pennies. Well, I think the CEO walked away with $10k. The staff (to be laid off by phone call the following day) had the pleasure of taking home office equipment that the buying company didn't want to bother moving. A handful of employees transferred to the buying company's office out of state and lasted there for a few months until they were laid off.

          Just because someone says there was an offer of something means absolutely nothing, unless someone was actually making the offer and it could be reasonably believed that they would follow through.

          One company that *did* make mad money didn't brag about it to anyone. I was aware of the numbers, because of the work I did. They didn't do a lot of marketing, most of it was by word of mouth. Once, they hired a sales person who made the mistake of saying the company had just been sold and he was now doing sales for it. The owner got an email asking why he sold his company. That was the last day that sales minion ever worked there. I wouldn't say it was more than a couple minutes between the time the boss found out, and the guy was flying out the door.

          If you have to pretend someone's going to give you lots of money for your company to make it sound big, then that means you're in a fantasy world. Sorry 4^2.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    21. Re:WTF? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Is this just me?

      Every time I see a 4sq tweet that says "I'm at the store/mall/etc", I want to reply "I'm at your house, robbing you". If nothing else, to show them how stupid it is.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    22. Re:WTF? by kyteland · · Score: 1

      Somebody's already way ahead of you on that one.

      http://pleaserobme.com/

    23. Re:WTF? by Dalambertian · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm going to have to go with FourSquare on this one. Why should the most innovative companies get swallowed by bigger fish? It only takes away control over their product, causing untold suffering to millions (\s). Do you applaud every time banks buy each other out? Let the mom and pop tech start-ups find their own way.

    24. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so I can actually get gym badges from real life gyms?

    25. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only takes away control over their product, causing untold suffering to millions (\s).

      LMFAO. Unless of course by "untold suffering" you mean literally hundreds of people nerd-raging about the fact they can no longer be mayor of their favorite hipster wannabe joint...? Get some perspective...

    26. Re:WTF? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "Christ, I don't think I've ever even heard of these guys. They should have took the money & ran."

      I've heard of them, but very little. I asked some net savvy teens and early 20-somethings and they said "Foursquare? .....like, the game?"

      I can only imagine the owners of Foursquare are too young or stupid to remember the late 90s .com burst.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    27. Re:WTF? by Gudeldar · · Score: 1

      Obviously you don't read Techcrunch. Arrington has been relentlessly promoting Foursquare, I wonder if he has stock in them or something.

    28. Re:WTF? by skaet · · Score: 1

      The gym staff uniform is a red shirt, white pants, and an oversized button-like belt buckle...

      --
      There is no knowledge that is not power.
    29. Re:WTF? by lunasee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But apparently not Ubuntu.

    30. Re:WTF? by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Why should the most innovative companies get swallowed by bigger fish? "

      because we can only have so many "innovative" companies. A dozen facebooks wouldn't work, a dozen twitters won't work. No one wants to log into a dozen different twitter clones and update their status. You have big sharks, and you have the guppies nipping at their heels. The tiny bit of innovation that Foursquare adds could be added to Facebook tomorrow and Foursquare would vanish into oblivion.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    31. Re:WTF? by Zencyde · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're looking for "Canonical".
      Sieg heil!
      Carry on.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    32. Re:WTF? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1
      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    33. Re:WTF? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      And the people who legitimately use it to connect with or compare notes with friends are also losers?

      Not to mention Foursquare has options to not share your updates publicly (like mine) so that only your pre-added friends see where you've been or are.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    34. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Turn down $100M
      2) ???
      3) Profit!!!

      Obviously these 4Square folks have figured out step #2 while the rest of us think taking the $100M would be step #3.

    35. Re:WTF? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that Yahoo! is Kip Drordy?

    36. Re:WTF? by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Yeah, nothing new can come along. Only the established survive in the business world. That's why DEC, US Steel, Cunard, Circuit City, Frigidaire, etc... are all still the giants they used to be and no one has supplanted them.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    37. Re:WTF? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      D) They are idiots, and are far overvaluing their business.

      $100 mil? Seriously? That's a fucking huge amount of money! There aren't a ton of web-based businesses, not selling a physical product, which are worth this much. Dreaming that you're going to be the next Facebook or Ebay is not often a financially viable dream to have.

      Secondly, I would argue that Foursquare is not well known. It's only got around a million users, which, as a percentage of those "really keen on the social networking scene" is relatively low. Plus it's a pretty creepy "big brother tracking your every movement" sort of deal. I agree with the grandparent - I bet the majority of the people on slashdot haven't heard of these guys. You may have. That doesn't translate to even those keen on social networking, and even if it does, this is an order of magnitude above the creepy factor of facebook knowing all your friends, likes, and dislikes.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    38. Re:WTF? by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      I don't think they could have took the money; it's an oxymoron.

    39. Re:WTF? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      No it's not, it's just bad grammar.

      They should have taken the money & ran.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    40. Re:WTF? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      For far too long the Mods and the Rockers

      I'm a Mocker you insensitive clod!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    41. Re:WTF? by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In an economy where people get rich by betting that other people can get rich placing the right bets on what companies will be profitable, "worth" and "value" have somewhat arbitrary meanings.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    42. Re:WTF? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      How many people Know about Facebook but don't use it? How many people know about MySpace and don't use it? How many people know about Twitter but don't use it?

      I think its more popular than you realize. Simply because I don't own a phone capable of running it, or because I choose not to use it for the very reasons listed above, doesn't mean that it isn't a well known trade name.

      They don't have to "Dream" to be the next facebook. Facebook was offered like 8 or 9 hundred million right? Twitter, which was just an extension on the facebook status updates, was offered over a hundred million. FourSquare, which is more impressive than twitter, should be valued at more than twitter.

      A million users is quite a lot, when you think about it. Facebook, which is the peak of all social networking right now, is about 400 million.
      So access to the information and advertising to 1 in 400 facebook users? So if the price is 900 million, that means it is worth at least 2.25 Million. Except you are getting WAY more sensative info than facebook allows.

    43. Re:WTF? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's a CEO effect. I've seen it several times. Basically they're sales people, who daily keep telling customers and investors how great and awesome their company is. Over time they start to believe it. They honestly believe their company is on the verge of greatness, or that their current problems are just minor blips, or that next quarters reports will prove them right, or that their minor distinguishing feature is revolutionary, or that the one big customer they need to keep afloat is just around the corner, etc. It's just the sort of eternal optimism you need in sales and marketing, but it gets in the way of pragmatism that CEOs should have a dose of.

      There's also the startup effect of being a risk taker. The people doing the 80 hour work weeks may be shouting "dude, $100m and we can all retire today!" gets ignored because the CEO wants to win even more on the long odds. People who play it safe don't run startups.

    44. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an idea for a cool app. It searches Twitter/Facebook/whatever for Foursquare posts and auto-responds with "I'm at your house, robbing you." or "While you're in the mall, I'm coming to take your car."

      Of course, you can't actually rob the people because that would be wrong. You just mess with their heads.

    45. Re:WTF? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Their investors already think it's worth that much currently, though: Foursquare just raised a round of venture capital at a valuation of around $90 million. Why would an investor who just bought in at a price that implies a $90 million valuation be keen to sell out at $100 million? Venture capitalists usually aren't too excited about 10% returns.

      Now of course, you could argue that they were stupid for buying in at a $90m valuation to begin with. But a few weeks ago they thought that was a good deal, and I can't imagine they've changed their minds in the past few weeks.

    46. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking Zango.

    47. Re:WTF? by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Most of us have never heard of them.

      Except the fuckwads over at ReadWriteWeb, Mashable and TechCrunch is all they blog about: Foursquare this, Foursquare that, Foursquare farted, Foursquare puked. Fuck. Makes you wonder if they have a financial interest in them...

    48. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOAH.

      ACID FLASH BACK.

    49. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same thing was said about facebook vs. myspace.

      All you'd have to do is make it secure, not whore out everyone's information, build a facebook import tool, and you'd rule the roost in under a year.

    50. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

  2. They probably wrote 2 versions of the copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they took the deal, it would have been spun as the arrogance of taking the money and running or a new sign of venture vulture futures.
         

    1. Re:They probably wrote 2 versions of the copy by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      That said, a shrewd business move is a shrewd business move - arrogant or not. This was not a shrewd business move.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  3. Well.. by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why would one offer them 100 mio for it if it's so worthless, for one.

    For two, why is money such a big deal? If you love what you do and can provide for yourself with it, why whore yourselves out? It's not about being filthy rich, but doing what you love, right?

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    1. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is easier to do what you love when you are filthy rich.

    2. Re:Well.. by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For two, why is money such a big deal? If you love what you do and can provide for yourself with it, why whore yourselves out? It's not about being filthy rich, but doing what you love, right?

      Some people collect stamps, some people collect coins, some people collect butterflies, and some people collect obscenely huge amounts of money.

      Some people worship God, some people worship life, some people worship nature, some people worship money.

      Some people love their god above all else, some people love their spouse above all else, some people love their children above all else, and some people love money above all else.

      It's all about what you love and what your personal value system is. Personally, I pity anyone who thinks a thing that lacks a price is worthless.

    3. Re:Well.. by A+Name+Similar+to+Di · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I logged in for the first time in a year just to agree with you. There was a survey a few years back (sorry I couldn't find the link) suggesting that many business owners regret going public and losing control of their company, despite the cash they made.

      I realize Four Square's case isn't the same as going public, but it's similar. If you love what you do and already make good money, why ruin it? And for the record, you can pay everyone's salary and still make zero profit, so "unprofitable" doesn't mean that the people working there aren't making good money.

    4. Re:Well.. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because 4square's not making any money *now*.

      I've seen it posted here somewhere, but it's been said that money can't buy happiness but the lack of money can buy a whole lot of misery.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    5. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money buys happiness

    6. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ask the owners of /. about that. I think there's something to be said for letting you do what you love and letting other people handle the details of paying the bills, etc.

    7. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You idiot, I said it was priceless not worthless!

    8. Re:Well.. by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      Considering this guy already had one "company" that sold to google (and since at that point there can't have been more than a handful of people since it was really more of an idea+implementation than a company at the time), he probably has enough money to do what he loves quite comfortably.

      At this point maybe he likes working on the software on his own terms. If he sold, he would have to come up with a whole new extension of his original idea if he wanted something to dabble with--maybe this feels like a hobby project to him and he doesn't want to let it go. Also, if somebody thinks it is worth money now...it could still be worth money in the future when he gets bored with it.

      --
      Bottles.
    9. Re:Well.. by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For two, why is money such a big deal? If you love what you do and can provide for yourself with it, why whore yourselves out? It's not about being filthy rich, but doing what you love, right?

      We live in a culture where profit is the ultimate good, transcending all other considerations, including individual and even species survival. For someone to refuse profit -- or, as is more likely in this case, to defer profit now in hopes of greater profits later -- is literally beyond comprehension for most people. And then they get angry because they're envious of all that money. To be fair, people spend their entire lives bombarded daily with the message that wealth and possessions are the only things that matter, so it's not surprising they end up with deeply conditioned tunnel vision.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    10. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would one offer them 100 mio for it if it's so worthless, for one.

      You are obviously too young to remember the olden days of 1998-2000. Back then, $100 million would only get you a couple of guys in an office suite who had thought about coming up with a plan for some big idea for the next big thing in some unspecified field. A company with an actual product would run you $250 million, and one with paying customers would be closer to $500 million. It was speculated that a company that turned a profit could have sold for over $1 billion, but the bubble burst before one of those materialized.

    11. Re:Well.. by edjs · · Score: 1

      For some, what they love doing is creating startups. The day-to-day running of a mature business may not interest them.

    12. Re:Well.. by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Turning down the money is irresponsible (unless it's truly vastly undervalued, which is possible.)

      The only reason not to sell it for a price like that is if he already has enough money and is running it as a hobby. If that's the case, it can make or lose some amount of money without it really affecting him. But just because Top Honcho has $XM in the bank already doesn't mean his employees have equal resources. If it starts losing money and he gets bored, who is going to keep all those employees in paychecks?

      Worse, what if his current employees are working for options? "Hey, everybody, guess what? Yahoo would have made you all millionaires, except I turned them down. Back to work!"

      --
      John
    13. Re:Well.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Why would one offer them 100 mio for it if it's so worthless, for one.

      Lets suppose it has 5 million users worldwide. Thats $20 per person. Thats not fucking bad, considering (A) you just purchased their eyeballs (the actual product of all social network businesses), and (B) you have their location.

      What is a local television station worth? This service has all the advantages of local advertising markets, but with a global advertising infrastructure.

      Did you think the offer was for their IP?

      The IP isnt their product. Their product is users, and they rent them to advertisers.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:Well.. by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Why would one offer them 100 mio for it if it's so worthless, for one.

      To those thinking it's worthless (not you, I assume), they forget that FourSquare has location and behavior data on all of its users. It's a goldmine for targeted advertising.

      Here on Slashdot, many people may not realize that other people go to places called 'bars' to drink alcohol. FourSquare knows when you are visiting bars (known to the social butterfly as 'bar-hopping'), and where you are currently, and start serving ads for other local bars or pizza places with a high expectation that you are likely interested in their services.

      Companies will pay big money for this kind of audience and advertising potential. Maybe even 100 million dollars.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    15. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is easier to do who you love when you are filthy rich.

    16. Re:Well.. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Personally, I pity anyone who thinks a thing that lacks a price is worthless.

      There's a girl I want but she's engaged... she won't leave her guy for me, although she keeps deflecting every offer I make to back off and let her be.

      Most people tell me this is stupid and I should leave. They've also said it makes no sense that I'd rather let her go if the guy she has is actually going to make her happy. You're quite right, I think... even if I could have her, if it came at the expense of her happiness there would be no worth in it. You can't put a price on that. People around me don't seem to understand that; they think it's simple as getting the hot chick under you and banging her every day 'cause she's yours now.

      Some things don't have a marketable value. They can't be bought with money, with blood, or even with hard work. It's not that they're valueless; quite the opposite, they're of infinite value, and you can't come up with that. If you were meant to have it, it would already be yours.

    17. Re:Well.. by kidgenius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, it may be irresponsible to you but the owner of that company owes no one anything. That's right, not even his workers. If the workers wouldn't have been made millionaires, that's not his problem. They should then go out, start a company, and get bought out and do it themselves. Yeah, if he wants to be a nice guy, he can throw stuff their way, but that's his prerogative.

    18. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like hang out all day and screw hot chicks

    19. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Regarding money as the most important thing is irresponsible.

    20. Re:Well.. by PPH · · Score: 1

      It is easier to do what you love when you are filthy rich.

      But if what you want to do is to develop this kind of web app, then perhaps Foursquare's owners figure that they're ahead of the game by holding onto the asset rather then taking their money and starting over. If $100 million is a fair price* for the asset, then they would have just broken even.

      *Breaking even is a difficult number to come up with accurately. A smaller, more focused team may have a better chance of growing a business, thus producing greater future value. On the other hand, the MBAs who make these kinds of offers value portfolios of such acquisitions quite highly as they are the justification for their existence.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    21. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ok.

      1. You're an idiot to "make the offer" in the first place. She is engaged. Do you know what that means? It doesn't matter what you want or what you feel for her or what value she has to you. None of that matters. It doesn't even equate. You never had a chance because someone else got their foot in the door first. Don't like it? You want to throw a fit about that? Think if you two were meant to be together then it would just happen? What are you on some Dawson's Creek episode or something?

      2. Learn from your mistakes. You're obviously in love with someone that could never be "that person" for you. Even if she left him for you your relationship would be ruined from the beginning. I know, you don't believe that...well sorry bud but it's the truth.

      3. If it has gotten to the point where you are asking her to leave him and she hasn't clued you in clear enough that your viewpoints on the relationship are unfounded and out right disrespectfull...then you need to stop communicating with her completely. Why? Well cause she's probably to young to understand what she's doing to you.

      Date someone in your league and stop drooling over someone that probably just keeps you around for the ego points it gives her.

    22. Re:Well.. by D+Ninja · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful for this.

      I think the mindset that other people owe you anything, particularly when they are the owner of the company and they have already PAID you in the first place (or, you chose to accept options, which is a risk). His company, his decision to do what he wants with the company.

      This, "Expecting people to give you something for free" thing is really screwing over the economy/country/etc. in the long run and is TRULY what is irresponsible.

    23. Re:Well.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Good job completely missing his point.

    24. Re:Well.. by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've heard this comment before and its moronic.

      You're not just turning down money, you're also maintaining control.

      Many many more businesses have done better or worse for their employees and customers based on management and control at the top than by getting huge influxes of cash.

      Think Netscape, AOL, or all the little companies Microsoft and Intel have bought up and quashed over the years.

      Taking the money typically means losing control of the business. That's one of the things Google's founders refused to do and a lot of investment columnists and advisors had a hard time with it because its so rare to ask for money without handing over control.

      If anything, its irresponsible to run your business focused only on the bottom line. You'll end up doing a lot of really stupid things.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    25. Re:Well.. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      My bar is sacred to me. Telling me to go to another bar is akin to proselytizing.

      In short, heresy.

      Thank god FourSquare didn't sell out.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    26. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is easier to love who you do when they are filthy rich.

    27. Re:Well.. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      If it starts losing money and he gets bored, who is going to keep all those employees in paychecks?

      And this differs from every other business in what way? The only thing keeping me employed today is that my company's owner still likes running his business. Should that ever change, he owes me no responsibility to keep running it to meet my needs. Yes, it'd suck if he decided to close the doors one day, but that's why I'm careful about whom I choose to work for.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    28. Re:Well.. by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Thank god FourSquare didn't sell out.

      You expect this isn't their intention for monetization, one way or the other? Either they will serve targeted ads, sell to someone else who will, charge the users to play, or go out of business.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    29. Re:Well.. by rainmayun · · Score: 1

      Not terribly insightful. Deciding to pursue a buyout (or go public) has nothing to do with altruism for employees compensated by stock options - assuming he's in business to make a return on his investment (and that's safe until you clearly demonstrate otherwise), it's in his selfish interest to keep his employees reasonably happy. Part of that is making good on the implicit promise that as an owner, you will try your best to make those options worthwhile. Departing employees, especially in a startup, leave with important IP in their heads, including a lot of know-how about the business. Replacing them is non-trivial. An exodus en masse could very well permanently cripple the business.

    30. Re:Well.. by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I think the founders of Foursquare already are filthy rich from selling previous companies, though. So they don't have to sell this one unless for some reason they needed to be even more filthy rich.

    31. Re:Well.. by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

      Generally even early employees won't become millionaires in these sorts of deals.

      Typically, VCs get paid back all their initial investment right off the top (usually part of a "liquidation preference"). In Foursquare's case, that's about $12 million, leaving an $88 million pot. Of the rest, typically VCs plus founders own almost all of it. A very early employee, if lucky, might own up to 0.5% or so of the company. That would give them $440,000 in this scenario. But that's something of a best case, too, because employees often own common stock, while investors and founders own preferred shares, and there are sometimes liquidation preferences for those payouts too.

      It's on the outside realm of possibility that there exists an early Foursquare employees with the requisite ~1.2% or so of equity to actually make one million dollars from an exit like this. But there wouldn't be many, and it's quite possible there are none.

      Oh, and unlike the VCs and founders, employees typically have a 2-to-4-year vesting period, so they don't get any of their money unless they stay with the post-acquisition company for multiple years, even if they hate their new boss.

    32. Re:Well.. by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      I never said it made good business sense to turn down something like that. All I'm saying is that it's his choice. You may not agree with it. I may not agree with it. And a lot of people may think he's an idiot and there is no way for the company to go but down. But in no way does he "owe" anybody anything.

    33. Re:Well.. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      whoosh.

      I don't care what foursquare does. Just dont' get between me and my mild form of alcohol dependence.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    34. Re:Well.. by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, it may be irresponsible to you but the owner of that company owes no one anything.

      I'm pretty sure that stock options come with the expectation that the company will be managed in such a way that their value will be greatest possible. It's certainly implied in the option system, howeve I'm unfamiliar with the laws surrounding this issue. Could someone confirm this either way?

      That's right, not even his workers.

      I have noticed a disturbing tendency of corporations demanding loyalty from their workers yet giving none in return. This, in turn, breeds cynicism in said workers and makes things like stealing company assets seem more acceptable to them, perhaps even desirable.

      There's a reason why humans developed empathy: it makes groups far more efficient, since their members don't have to waste their energy worrying about getting a dagger in their back. But I guess the psychopaths who lead most corporations aren't capable of understanding that.

      If the workers wouldn't have been made millionaires, that's not his problem.

      Actually, I'm pretty sure that it is; if not legally, then simply because options are going to be completely useless as motivators from now on (and also because he runs a serious risk of bodily harm - there are limits to what you can do to someone you see daily and not suffer consequences).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re:Well.. by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Perhaps someone has already mentioned this, but this is pretty much what 37signals says in their new book "ReWork". A brilliant read.

    36. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      employees typically have a 2-to-4-year vesting period, so they don't get any of their money unless they stay with the post-acquisition company for multiple years, even if they hate their new boss.

      Vesting isn't usually all or nothing. A typical schedule is a 1 year cliff, then graduated on a monthly basis up until the 4 year total. So if you hate it and want out early, you'll still get something, unless you've only been there less than a year.

    37. Re:Well.. by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      Since we're discussing about prices, here's my theory:

      You made her various offers. The fact that you did that means that her price is high while your price is low. Girls don't want to go near low-valued individuals, especially if the disparity between your prices is high. If you had high price, she would have made the offer first (i.e., by flirting).

      Imagine that you're Brad Pitt. Would you bother making offers to girls just to get laid? The solution to your problem is to increase your value. Go out and have fun, and stop reading Slashdot. Since this is difficult, most guys just increase their perceived value by faking it. Notice how assholes get all the chicks instead? Girls think that price is the same as value.

    38. Re:Well.. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      She started it. She did flirt for a while.

      The problem seems to be she has someone she doesn't want to leave. I mean imagine if you had a Mazda RX-8. You LIKE the RX-8. Now, you could trade the RX-8 for a Porsche 911 Carrera. Nice car... but you really like the RX-8. You'll take a look at the 911 ... you're not taking it for a test drive though, for whatever reason; besides, the dealer already told you, no test drives. You could buy it, it's a couple years old, only $25k, trade the RX-8 in and throw $8k easy enough.

      ... but you really like the car you got.

      Her friends are saying she can do better. A Porsche is better than a Mazda, too. But hell, if I had an RX-8 I wouldn't trade it for a 911. You might think it's stupid, but I LIKE the RX-8.

      She already has what she wants. At a point she was obviously milling it over; she made the first move, she went out of her way to talk to me, and she was visibly distressed the first few times I said I'd walk away and let her be, she wanted me to stick around and I took the bait. At a guess I'd say she's settling down; she came across something she liked, had to get over the initial excitement, and then calmed down and took a step back. There's nothing here for me.

      Sigh... too bad she isn't single. But at least she'll be happy right?

      Anyway, missing the point. Also it's notable I can discuss things like this from a ... more impartial stance than most people. I distance myself emotionally from intellectual topics of conversation, the same way I immediately lose interest in someone when they die (unlike everyone around me that decides to cry about it). Me falling in love is a ... flaw. It only happens when I somehow develop emotions I can't simply mute out; typically I'm completely detached from my emotions, and don't bond with people at all.

    39. Re:Well.. by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 1

      It's good to analyze things from a detached and impartial point of view, while recognizing that emotions are part of being human. All too often, we Slashdotter types think that logic is all that's important. Anyway, that was a good car analogy to keep this thread on topic. :)

    40. Re:Well.. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I have a personality defect that prevents any and all forms of emotional bonding. It's not that hard for me.

    41. Re:Well.. by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      Also of interest is who that geo-tracked person is friends with - since presumably, they will have common interests and locations. A little bit of a cross-referencing with other social networks, and you've got a broader marketing target than you did.

  4. idiots by electrosoccertux · · Score: 3, Funny

    These guys turning down the money are idiots, all idiots. Twitter cannot create the revenue to generate the profit to pay back $500m. Or $900m in the case of Facebook. They [owners] all should have sold it, they're never going to get that kind of money anywhere else. Have you seek Zuckerberg give presentations? The goofball can't even give a proper PR announcement, let alone get people excited about anything Facebook is doing.
    This goes doubly so when the buyer will let the owner retain control.

    1. Re:idiots by bFusion · · Score: 1

      This guy doesn't need money, he sold Dodgeball to Google for zillions of dollars. Maybe he's just out to make a product he enjoys.

    2. Re:idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense to me. Facebook will make 1 Billion dollars this year alone. How can you possibly say that they are idiots when all they have to do is wait one year and they have the same amount someone would have bought them for.

      http://mashable.com/2010/03/02/facebook-could-surpass-1-billion-in-revenue-this-year/

    3. Re:idiots by Tongsy · · Score: 1

      Revenue =/= Profits

    4. Re:idiots by supssa · · Score: 1

      It shocks me that in this day and age people still do not understand the difference between revenue and profit...

      --
      Hatin' on products I don't like and getting modded up talking about tech I totally don't understand like it was 2005!
  5. Already rich and still driven by wombatmobile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dennis Crowley learned two things from his earlier experience of selling Dodgeball to Google. 1. A big company like Google can destroy a little company. 2. When your bank account is 8 digits big, 9 digits is not as important as following your passion.

    1. Re:Already rich and still driven by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1

      That's great (#2), so long as when it comes time to hire, you can find other like-minded folks who just want to write Foursquare code and don't need visions of a mega-exit to motivate them when the chips are down.

      I'm not saying that kind of intrinsic motivation is super-rare, but to find it in a whole group of people? And to have it sustained? You better have a hell of a mission in mind. Is "make it easy to check into cafes and win badges!" that mission?

      Perhaps it is, perhaps it is.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    2. Re:Already rich and still driven by garcia · · Score: 1

      1. A big company like Google can destroy a little company.

      It didn't destroy it, it just wasn't doing things on Dens' schedule. Dodgeball became Google's thing, not Dens' personal side project and thus their desire to add developers to his team was low and their desire to tie him and his staff up in endless meetings was more important.

      But as far as the money is concerned, yeah, that's probably true.

  6. Foursquare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is that? I thought Twitter was supposed to be the Next Big Thing?

    1. Re:Foursquare? by gmuslera · · Score: 0

      Local social networking is the next next big thing, taking advantage of location-aware devices like smartphones with gps. There are a lot of stablished players in that field, including google and yahoo. Foursquare is one of the big ones, and the Yahoo move could be more related to some strategic IP involved than buying code or community,

  7. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I turned down sex less than five years ago...

    Though, in hindsight, maybe that wasn't the best of ideas, because nowadays I'm a bit like AOL in that department.

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I turned down sex less than five years ago...
      Though, in hindsight, maybe that wasn't the best of ideas, because nowadays I'm a bit like AOL in that department.

      I had sex with a random stranger this weekend, it was sortof a dissapointment and I just wanted to get away from her hoping I would forget about the deal even though "meeting up with someone just for sex without strings attached" sounded like a good and exciting idea. It was not. Two weeks prior I had sex with yet another girl, it was nice, but her back acted up and I had to comfort her as she was in physical pain over it, from that there was some sort of intimacy and warmth, but to what means ?

      Some things are better when you do not have them or don't get it, and glorify it in your fantasy. Like sex. Reality is often a sad confrontation with your ideals, yet dreaming and desiring creates motion. In this case, instead of investing time in both ladies, seen afterwards, i'd rather could've invested time in figuring out some algorithms and completing a project.

  8. Somehow rejecting $100M looks so sexy... by viraltus · · Score: 0

    That looks like a great ad, are we sure they didnt offer the $100M to themselves? In any event, I check the web and the idea looks interesing...

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
  9. location-based by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    What the hell is that? I thought Twitter was supposed to be the Next Big Thing?

    Well, Foursquare seems to currently be the Next Big Thing in the location-based genre of social networking.

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:location-based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Next Big Thing? I didn't know there was a First Big Thing yet.

    2. Re:location-based by Reverend+Zanix · · Score: 1

      So now can people see exactly what restroom stall poop is coming out in?
      http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/

  10. AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    in hindsight, maybe that wasn't the best of ideas, because nowadays I'm a bit like AOL in that department

    Not really. AOL is fucked.

  11. Brilliant by Altermeris · · Score: 1

    As soon as I read this article I wanted information about Four Square. I am now fully aware of it purpose and may suggest it to my friends. This guy is getting traffic from this move, it might have been for the best. Anyway, this guy has plenty of money as mentioned before. Will he really be happier with a extra digit?

  12. The words "four square" conjure up bad memories. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me, the words "four square" conjure up some bad memories for me.

    When I was a youth, we used to play the old playground game called four square. It's a game played by four people, who each stand in a quadrant of a 2x2 grid painted on pavement. A rubber ball is hit between the quadrants, and if it bounces in your square and then out of play, you lose.

    Well, one day while playing an errant ball struck my gonads and caused me some serious injuries. For lack of a better description, it basically broke my penis. I now will never have children, and suffer from hormonal problems. So I cringe whenever I hear the words "four square".

  13. Fuck Everything by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're going Fivesquare

    1. Re:Fuck Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling four squares and a mayor."

    2. Re:Fuck Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're going Fivesquare

      AND DOING IT LIVE! \obOreilly

    3. Re:Fuck Everything by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      It's FivePentagon.... dweeb :)

    4. Re:Fuck Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps a sequel, eight octogon

    5. Re:Fuck Everything by eulernet · · Score: 1

      Too bad: Foursome is already taken.

    6. Re:Fuck Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This goes to eleven!

    7. Re:Fuck Everything by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make any sense.

      The speech goes "Four square and seven years ago." Not five.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    8. Re:Fuck Everything by CmdrPorno · · Score: 1

      I'm going to 4chan. They're much more friendly.

      --
      Sent from my iPhone
    9. Re:Fuck Everything by M8e · · Score: 1

      Elevensome, one better than a tensome.

    10. Re:Fuck Everything by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Four score, not square.

      Or, if that was meant as funny, I guess I don't get it.

    11. Re:Fuck Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/

    12. Re:Fuck Everything by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      Or, if that was meant as funny, I guess I don't get it.

      Insufficient sleep is sometimes the line between submit and cancel.

      Couldn't help it though. 'Four square and seven years ago' just got stuck in my head once I saw the headline and posting something using that line was the only way to get rid of it.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    13. Re:Fuck Everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... I hope you're being sarcastic.

  14. $850 mill company by 228e2 · · Score: 1

    I was 100% sure the $850 mil company was Myspace until I moused over . . . am I the only one??

    --
    Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
  15. Re:The words "four square" conjure up bad memories by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

    Well, one day while playing an errant ball struck my gonads and caused me some serious injuries. For lack of a better description, it basically broke my penis. I now will never have children, and suffer from hormonal problems.

    It's not like you would have had any kids anyway, so it's no big loss.

  16. I'm going to hear about it everywhere now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd never heard of FourSquare till the other day when I heard about that one guy going to the North Pole to be the first person to check in there.

  17. Check out my site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EightOctagon.

  18. Social network bubble by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Man, I want this bubble to burst so bad. Is there a market to bet against the bubble? :-)

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Social network bubble by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Man, I want this bubble to burst so bad. Is there a market to bet against the bubble? :-)

      I looked into it, and there apparently isn't... All the big players (Zynga, Facebook, Playdom, Playfish, Twitter, bebo, studivz, orkut, whatever) are either still private or a really small part of a big conglomerate like EA or Google. So no way to go short equities or long CDS protection in them...

    2. Re:Social network bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sell short on social networking companies?

      You could bring about the end by working on a distributed social network (no central authority means no ads means no profit).

    3. Re:Social network bubble by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Hm. I guess it's like robbing bank - the best way to rob it is to run one.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    4. Re:Social network bubble by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      There kind of is a market for such a thing. You could short sell the companies who are buying the social media groups, and hope they have a big enough dent in the parent company's stock to give you a hefty difference.

  19. Upstarts. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These start-ups love to pass themselves off as scrappy little guys nipping at the heels of giants. In my experience these companies, the vast majority of the time, are backed by investors with very deep pockets. These guys are undoubtedly banking on the hope that this investment will pay off in a big way. There's this infatuation investors have with these social sites and it's easy to see why. Minimal investment, little substance, but the pay offs can be huge if people get hooked. Why spend a fortune building a company that actually makes product, with the expense and work that comes with it, when you can just do this? And given that development can easily be outsourced to India these ventures even more attractive.

    Right now they're at the hype generating phase. By turning down this offer they have garnered media attention. And amongst the ignorant masses people will believe that these guys are principled. I think they're waiting to hit critical mass with users. Their hope is that they become the next Twitter. Then they'll sell especially if they haven't figured out a way to make money on something that seems completely pointless.

    1. Re:Upstarts. by mea37 · · Score: 1

      The truth (or misleading-ness) of your statement may depend on how you define the terms "backed by" and "investor with deep pockets".

      I worked for a tiny software startup in the reporting field, back before enterprise reporting was a mature market. You could claim the company was "backed by investors with deep pockets". It's called venture capital, and it is in no way inconsistent with the view that the company is a dwarf trying to take on giants.

      See, those deep pockets aren't fully committed to making that particular company a success. That company is one of many bets, each of which gets a tiny fraction of the contents of the deep pockets. They do take a certain amount of control in exchange for that money, but even so if the investment goes south they cut their losses.

    2. Re:Upstarts. by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I'd be willing to bet the investors had a big part in turning this down, too. (Actually, they probably had to; VC firms usually demand a say in these sorts of decisions.)

      A bunch of major VCs bought in to Foursquare about a week or two ago at prices that value the company at $80 million on paper. Given those valuations at the buy-in, an $100m exit is simply not enough for the VCs to get the sort of return on their investment they have in mind.

  20. Re: 100 Mio! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Hey he's fixed the typo in the article!

    "I sold my location-based service I started in my basement for 100 GPS units!"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  21. What is "AOL"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm only 18, what is this "AOL" you speak of?

    1. Re:What is "AOL"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm only 18, what is this "AOL" you speak of?

      I'm sure someone here can send you a floppy disk that will explain everything.

  22. Terms of The Deal by mpapet · · Score: 1

    Only the deal makers know what the details of the $100 million deal. Chances are excellent it's a bad deal. Some ways the deal can be bad follow....

    Often times, there is a top line PR number, that if *every* option played to the start up's benefit, then they'd have earned the number. But most of the deals are completed leave the start-up members meaningfully smaller pay outs.

    Let's say the deal flies and the people selling meet the conditions of the purchase, there's the matter of actually getting paid. You think "Investors XYZ are buying my company and they have *plenty* of money." What they have are plenty of lawyers whose task is to generate as many billable hours as possible for the start up members leaving the start up members largely broke. Once the resources are exhausted, then the acquirer pays pennies on the price that was agreed upon years earlier. Yes, you read that right, years....

    The deal is far from complete once the acquisition is executed. Chances are excellent there's only heartache for the start up members with a sale.

    Today's lesson: making money is only one part of the process. You need to get paid.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  23. hey, here's a radical notion by sammy+baby · · Score: 2

    Maybe they turned down the bid because they wanted to stay independent and liked what they did?

    Jesus, it drives me crazy listening to people go "what morons, they should have taken the money and ran." Why? What if they really like what they do?

    Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Foursquare's product or management, and I have this crazy notion that there are things that are worth more than money.

    1. Re:hey, here's a radical notion by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Maybe they turned down the bid because they wanted to stay independent and liked what they did?

      Jesus, it drives me crazy listening to people go "what morons, they should have taken the money and ran." Why? What if they really like what they do?

      Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Foursquare's product or management, and I have this crazy notion that there are things that are worth more than money.

      Social networking sites rise and fall relatively rapidly. The insinuation is that they should have taken the money because even if they love what they do, they probably won't be doing it for much longer. Having the money would enable them to easily go do something else they love.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    2. Re:hey, here's a radical notion by vcgodinich · · Score: 1

      if they really like what they do, take the 10m and make social networking sites for the rest of their lives.

    3. Re:hey, here's a radical notion by bconway · · Score: 1

      Foursquare is venture-backed. There's nothing independent about it.

      --
      Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
  24. I think I get it. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Foursquare looks at first glance to be a site where the entire point is to do things that earn 'rewards'. Looks like they call them 'badges'. Hmm... Life as a massive DnD game, minus monsters and death. Ok...

    Like 'unlocking' my city (or cities, where I am). Oh yeah, sounds like endless billboards on my phone. Essentially advertising I participate in. Not a new concept, I participate in advertising now by losing pieces of my life to it.

    Kinda like Farmville without the Facebook stuff. And more ads, I bet. Pointless? Doing virtual chores for nothing?

    And of course, you never know when you might stumble across something interesting. So this is, like, a mashup of Twitter/Facebook/Latitude/Google Maps? Oh my. Friends in Maine will want to know all about my great restaurant find in Gilbert, AZ. Hell yeah. And the gelato place, too. In February.

    But I might turn this on to see how much it sucks. And if I think it sucks, it is probably worth way more than $100 million. No sarcasm, just fact there.

    You go guys! Rock the world! Good luck!

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  25. It's a gamble by drsquare · · Score: 1

    Social networking sites can either become incredibly successful or fail horribly, and it's generally down to luck as to which happens. He could make more money at a later date, or go bust.

  26. Privacy concerns by xonar · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they were concerned that the exact GPS location of everyone's favorite places, activities, and friends could fall under the category of information that could be badly abused. It'd probably make me quit using it if they sold-out to some big company.

  27. Twitter generating revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article states that Twitter rejected a $500 million and that Twitter "had no revenue at the time".

    Is Twitter making money now? If so, how the fuck are they doing it? Their service is FREE, they don't have ads, they don't SELL anything. Yet they have tremendous costs.

    Same goes for Facebook. How the fuck are these guys actually MAKING money? Venture capital doesn't count because that will dry up some day. Does any of these social networking sites actually have a real, qualified accountant or two working for them?

    These sites give EVERYTHING away for free, yet don't actually SELL anything (except for probably your "private" data). That business model just sucks and anyone investing in them is utterly clueless.

    What I would like to know is a list of every single company/person who has invested in them so I know not to ever do business with those guys, or so I have a list of suckers I can get money from for money loosing ventures.

    1. Re:Twitter generating revenue? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      The article states that Twitter rejected a $500 million and that Twitter "had no revenue at the time".

      Is Twitter making money now? If so, how the fuck are they doing it? Their service is FREE, they don't have ads, they don't SELL anything. Yet they have tremendous costs.

      Same goes for Facebook. How the fuck are these guys actually MAKING money? Venture capital doesn't count because that will dry up some day. Does any of these social networking sites actually have a real, qualified accountant or two working for them?

      These sites give EVERYTHING away for free, yet don't actually SELL anything (except for probably your "private" data). That business model just sucks and anyone investing in them is utterly clueless.

      What I would like to know is a list of every single company/person who has invested in them so I know not to ever do business with those guys, or so I have a list of suckers I can get money from for money loosing ventures.

      They make money from venture capital. Facebook doesn't talk much about its finances, but the Forbes articles I've read speculating on the topic seem to think it would be a miracle if it has yet to make a net profit in a year. And Facebook is the most successful social network with a well established way of selling targeted ads.

      You don't invest in these companies because they'll make money, just like you don't invest in gold because it will make you dinner. You invest because you count on other investors sharing the illusion that the company is valuable and thus driving up the price of your share. Then you sell.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:Twitter generating revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make money from venture capital. Facebook doesn't talk much about its finances, but the Forbes articles I've read speculating on the topic seem to think it would be a miracle if it has yet to make a net profit in a year. And Facebook is the most successful social network with a well established way of selling targeted ads.

      You don't invest in these companies because they'll make money, just like you don't invest in gold because it will make you dinner. You invest because you count on other investors sharing the illusion that the company is valuable and thus driving up the price of your share. Then you sell.

      IOW, they are all really bad business people trying to make money on an illusion (the VCs and social networking site owner/idiots). The ones who are smart are the ones who got in early and pull out before it too late. The ones who are dumb are the who came to the game late and stay in trying to make up what they invested.

      In the end, it's all going to come crumbling down around them and there is going to be a very small number of people who make a ton of money and a lot of people out of jobs and who lost a ton of money.

      Sounds like great business to me.... I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell too.

    3. Re:Twitter generating revenue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard twitter does sell services to businesses, to track public opinion about products, for example.

  28. Cash or stock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the offer is stock from a company that you expect to take a dive before you can exercise the stock, I can see skipping the deal. If it's cash, you take the money.

  29. Inflation / USD weakness by npongratz · · Score: 1

    Has the US dollar really become so weak?

  30. Re:The words "four square" conjure up bad memories by counterplex · · Score: 0

    For me, the words "four square" conjure up some bad memories for me.

    For lack of a better description, it basically broke my penis.

    So... is this a good time to ask you to return your Man card?

    --
    $x = ($x * 10) % 10 >= 5 ? 1 + int $x : int $x
  31. My dotcom company did this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $20M on the table and we turned it down.....2 weeks before the crash! Oh I was *so impressed* with the business acumen of the MBAs who insisted on holding out for more :/

  32. Inaccurate title and summary by noahm · · Score: 4, Informative
    Foursquare hasn't turned down anything, as far as anybody knows. In fact, the Yahoo! buyout is still only rumor. The article is basically representing the opinion of some analyst entrepreneur. Quoting from the article:

    Sometimes making a fortune is dumb, writes entrepreneur Charlie O'Donnell—which is why, O'Donnell adds, Foursquare will wisely walk away from a rumored $100 million offer from Yahoo.

    Who's Charlie O'Donnell? What's his role in Foursquare? Is he really making statements on their behalf? I doubt it. Quoting from the photo caption later on,

    [Photo: Laughing Squid's pic of Foursquare CEO Dennis Crowley who, to be fair, may not have turned down anything yet.]

    So, wtf? There's no story here, it's just some random dude repeating what some other random dude said would be a wise move.

  33. "an annoying, unprofitable social network" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that redundant?

    1. Re:"an annoying, unprofitable social network" by turbotroll · · Score: 1

      Isn't that redundant?

      Exactly, I was just about to ask the same. I cannot think of any social network which I don't find annoying.

      The only and last one I have ever joined is LinkedIn. Being business-oriented, I found it to be at least marginally serious and useful; but as it turns out it is infested with spammers (so-called "LIONs",) attention whores, recruiters and other kinds of human scum. Essentially just like any other social network in existence.

    2. Re:"an annoying, unprofitable social network" by Americano · · Score: 1

      Man, you must really hate walking around in the real world, then!

  34. not really a security risk by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

    A lot of people believe this to be the security risk. That a criminal will monitor a Loopt or Foursquare account to figure out when a house is unoccupied. In the real world, that's a far more sophisticated approach than what house burglars use.

    Instead, they knock on the door of a house that appears unoccupied. If someone answers, they say, "Oh, I'm looking for my friend, Sally. Does she still live here?" If no one answers, then they proceed with the burglary. Finding empty houses does not require internet technology.

    Seth

    1. Re:not really a security risk by Deosyne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So most burglers prefer to show their faces and announce their arrivals at prospective locations of their crimes rather than looking for victims that will conveniently let the burgler know remotely when a good time would be to swing by. They really do deserve to get busted.

    2. Re:not really a security risk by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Though if you know someone is on vacation two weeks can be enough time to unload the haul and memories fade of what you may have looked like.

      As for at the mall though, I am skeptical. I know I would be more likely to just go at dinner time, when i know nobody is in the bedrooms. All the good stuff (jewelry) is there anyway.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:not really a security risk by tungstencoil · · Score: 1

      Agree. The whole "OMG you're telling CRIMINALS you're not home" is BS, and also sounds remarkably like the same argument used when answering machines came out... and when people put announcements of weddings and funerals in newspapers... and ... Oh wait, someone wrote a better article about it than I can: http://waxy.org/2010/02/regarding_foursquare_and_please_rob_me/

    4. Re:not really a security risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So most burglers prefer to show their faces and announce their arrivals at prospective locations of their crimes rather than looking for victims that will conveniently let the burgler know remotely when a good time would be to swing by. They really do deserve to get busted.

      Not practical. A conscientious burglar will choose an area first, scout out the houses, figure out who's home or not at a given time, all that. Determining whether someone has an account on some social media site probably doesn't fit in so well with that. Also, it would require the burglar to be on call, ready to go when some status update is sent. Just not necessary.

      Easier way? Find a bedroom community full of 9-5ers, where absolutely no one is home during the day. Check for cars. Check for lights. Better yet, look for people on vacation, as evidenced by a general lack of activity, mail/papers piling up, that sort of thing.

      As a last step, yes, knock on the door posing as a lost friend, or better yet survey person or window salesman. You never remember those people anyway.

      Much easier and more reliable than trolling social media sites.

    5. Re:not really a security risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a burglar try to find an empty house?

    6. Re:not really a security risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I'm sure it's not really a security risk because being a criminal and being able to use technology are mutually exclusive. Besides, where will they get the technology? It's not like they can walk into someone's house and take their laptop -- oh wait...

    7. Re:not really a security risk by cusco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're all giving burglers too much credit. Most of them rob their neighbors, sometimes repeatedly. They don't become thieves because they're either smart or hardworking. They turn to theft because they're lazy and stupid.

      Of course there's the small minority who really do their research, learn to pick locks rather than smash a window, learn to bypass an alarm system, etc. They're so few and far between that it's easier to get hit by lightning.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    8. Re:not really a security risk by Macrat · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that everyone who is home answers the door?

    9. Re:not really a security risk by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      I'm really just speaking from first-hand experience of having suspicious people knocking on my door asking ridiculous questions about looking for an old friend. I've lived in my house for 13 years, and knew the folks living there for the 4 years before me. It's doubtful to me that someone in their late twenties or earlier thirties would be knocking on a door asking about someone who would have lived there at least 17 years previously.

      One guy was up my driveway looking through the windows when I went out to my car to get something. When I asked him what the F he was doing back there, he said he was looking for a girl he used to know. Ok, so I guess a common story for these folks is that they're looking for long lost friends.

      Seth

    10. Re:not really a security risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're all giving burglers too much credit. Most of them rob their neighbors, sometimes repeatedly. They don't become thieves because they're either smart or hardworking. They turn to theft because they're lazy and stupid.

      While true, that doesn't play in the current discussion because those morons *definitely* aren't scanning social media sites.

      The question was, will a hardworking thief make use of social media sites over old-school scouting? I think not so much.

    11. Re:not really a security risk by snd_chaser · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I never answer the door unless I'm expecting a visitor who has let me know they're on the way.

  35. Dumbest phone app by Billkamm · · Score: 1

    I downloaded this app for my phone and found it to be the dumbest app I have ever downloaded. They must be fools for turning that down, because by my estimation they won't last.

  36. Flatland by javalizard · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new square overlords. It'll give the "religious circles" a run for their money. I can see how the religious circles would be irked by the homo-erotic behavior of four squares vs a normal single square married to a traditional acute triangle. Then again, it's also much less dangerous as the known dangers of being stabbed to death on a daily basis don't exist. /flatland-humor

  37. Re:The words "four square" conjure up bad memories by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

    The words "four square" conjure up bad memories.

    Yeah... it made me think of the Windows logo.

  38. Re:The words "four square" conjure up bad memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the late 90's Mr. T ate my balls; so I can sympathize.

  39. stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless they have some brilliant locked down patents then their site can probably be duplicated in a matter of a week or two by a handful of talented web developers...

  40. That cinches it for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Previously I had no interest in foursquare. Now I have even less interest. I really could give a rat's @ss about spending more time on social cr@p.

    1. Re:That cinches it for me! by Americano · · Score: 1

      It's okay, nobody really wanted to spend time with you either.

  41. Speaking as an entrepreneur by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    Speaking as an entrepreneur, and the founder or co-founder of multiple online businesses, there is nothing I would love more than tempting one of the big fish into offering me my desired lifetime's earnings for one of my startups. I'd sell in an instant, no matter how much love and devotion had gone into the business. That's kind of the jackpot for most of us serial startup folks. (Being the owner of a moderately successful enterprise is a very distant second, though acceptable, option.)

    Funny thing is, the very next thing I'd do after selling one business is start up another one. And that one I'd just do for fun, and I don't think anything would tempt me to sell the second business, other than eventually getting tired of it and wanting to devote myself to something else.

  42. "Looks like we've got some problems on our end". by dkre · · Score: 1

    Geez they got that right. The sites down now. Awesome marketing if their looking for a future buyer or users from a bit of free press. lol.

  43. Rejections by mjwx · · Score: 1

    I cant help but think there is another .com type bust to happen with social media. It seems too much money is being thrown around by companies and organisations with no understanding of the subject matter and little new revenue being created. I know companies like Newscorp and Yahoo want to get a hold of popular social media sites to get access to the install base but they dont realise that doing so will kill the install base.

    I wonder if these rejections will hasten or delay the bust of social media.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.