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?"
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.
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
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.
We're going Fivesquare
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.
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,
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.
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
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!