Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Buys a Private File Sharing Service

angry tapir writes "Facebook has purchased most of drop.io, an online content-sharing service, but the social-networking giant sounds more interested in acquiring the company's developers than its technology. Drop.io is a service that lets users create a 'drop' where they can share documents, videos and other digital content. The user can set a time for how long the drop will exist, decide who can view the content, set permissions for who can alter the content and share content in a variety of ways, including on Facebook."

23 of 87 comments (clear)

  1. Always interested in people not IP by vortex2.71 · · Score: 5, Informative

    FYI, Mark Zuckerberg says that he ALWAYS acquires companies for the people rather than the intellectual property.

    1. Re:Always interested in people not IP by contra_mundi · · Score: 5, Funny

      And Steve Ballmer always acquires companies for the office equipment, rather than the people or the imaginary property.

    2. Re:Always interested in people not IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course. By explicitly mentioning "supply of ammo" that the post you replied to used in a subtle way, you're explaining the joke by overtly alluding to the time he said "I'm going to fucking kill Google" and threw a chair. Were it not for your explanation, people would totally not have gotten the reference since "office supplies" is far too vague when mentioned along with Steve Ballmer.

      Please mod parent +5, Redundant.

    3. Re:Always interested in people not IP by dskzero · · Score: 2, Funny

      That was such a asperger's machine gun flurry i'm tempted to answer.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    4. Re:Always interested in people not IP by owlnation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FYI, Mark Zuckerberg says that he ALWAYS acquires companies for the people rather than the intellectual property.

      If that's the case, then it's not a very smart strategy, and he's probably wasting his money.

      There's a BIG difference in working in a small start-up, or SME, and working in a corporation. In a small firm your contribution matters, you can get changes made quickly and easily, you can get projects started in days if not hours. In a corporation none of that is going to happen. You will be marginalized, you will have to book projects through complex bureaucracy, and the smallest change may not be possible, or may take months to achieve.

      The quality of life and the work environment is far, far worse in a corporation. If you have a brain, are creative and are driven (like most people in start-ups are) you will be frustrated and disillusioned in a corporation after a year or two max.

      Chances are, the people you think you are buying will move on to another firm, or start-up on their own within 2-5 years max. Those that don't will just phone-in the shadow of their former productivity whilst continuing to work for you.

      Zuckerberg is many things, but he's not that stupid. This just sounds like buzzword "we care about people" crap. He's buying IP and he's killing competition. He doesn't give a fuck about people, I'm certain of it -- if he does, he's an idiot.

    5. Re:Always interested in people not IP by abigor · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, purchasing smaller companies for their dev staff has been a strategy for larger companies from day one. That's why they'll even buy consulting firms who have no products at all, just a talented bunch of analysts and programmers.

      To be honest, you sound like you made up your entire argument on the spot. Trust me, if you offer a lot of stock options which mature over a period of years, then people stick around.

  2. Feudalism and the new serfdom? by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Buying a company for its employees seems so much like a recapitulation of the feudal system. I've already felt that America has basically become a feudal state with the federal government playing the role of king, and large corporations playing the role of feudal vassals. But this just throws that into sharp relief.

    1. Re:Feudalism and the new serfdom? by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Buying a company for its employees seems so much like a recapitulation of the feudal system."

      I'd say it acknowledges the fact that the people in a company are worth more than some moronic idea about an imaginary intellectual property their lawyers concocted.

    2. Re:Feudalism and the new serfdom? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say it acknowledges the fact that the people in a company are worth more than some moronic idea about an imaginary intellectual property their lawyers concocted.

      While I would agree with you, why couldn't Facebook then just hire them? Why did their need to be a transaction between the company's purported owners and Facebook? Facebook is basically buying the company to buy its employment contracts, its relationship with its workers. That treats those employment contracts as a fungible commodity, and that doesn't sit very well with me.

      It'd look really bad to say "Sorry, investors... I got a job offer at Facebook so that $9.95 million in funding you put into drop.io? Yeah, I hope it works out for you because I'm out of here." Not to mention the fact that most founders want to stick around and grow the business to a healthy size before they exit. This gives the founders and the investors a viable exit strategy rather than "I'm quitting to be a Facebook employee" which, though it's many steps up from quitting and working at McDonald's, has kind of the same ring to it.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Feudalism and the new serfdom? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Serfs were bound to the land. Serfs couldn't leave even if they wanted to. Is Zuckerberg buying land? I don't think so! Are the baronies adjacent to Lord Zuckberberg's estate going to return his fleeing employees to the custody of His Lordship's baliffs? Gimme a f-ing break, man. Stop using the word serfs, it's not the word you're looking for, and it makes anyone who misuses it look uneducated.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Feudalism and the new serfdom? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also suppose the company is totally private, no investors. Some guys start it up, fund everything themselves, etc. Not that uncommon for online companies, actually. Ok so they are making money, happy, all that. The owners are the employees. Now Facebook wants them as employees, and they want the team, it is clearly a good one. Easiest way to get them all? See if they'll sell their company. Offer them a buyout, and to come along with it. Effectively it is a "hiring bonus" if you want to look at it that way. However it means you don't have to worry about them dividing their time with their old project, and you get them as a team if they all say yes (buyouts of private companies are always mutual, you can't just buy up their stock).

      In this case though, there were investors. So as the parent says, that takes care of that rather nicely. The investors get a payout, all contracts are satisfied, the employees are free and clear.

      That is something you have to remember is that investment money often comes with some strings attached. You can't just take it, spend it on whatever you like, then quit your company. That could get you in trouble. Doesn't mean you are beholden to the investors for life or something, but there are conditions. A buyout solves all that. Everyone signs off as happy, the company goes away and is part of another company, and so on.

      In the case of a buyout just for IP, well the employees may get the short end of the stick. The owners and investors get money, the employees get shown the door by the new company. In this case, they all get to keep their jobs, they are just working on something new now, or maybe working on the same thing for new people.

      If they don't like it they are, of course, free to walk.

    5. Re:Feudalism and the new serfdom? by nacturation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this case, they all get to keep their jobs, they are just working on something new now, or maybe working on the same thing for new people. If they don't like it they are, of course, free to walk.

      They may be getting told to walk. From drop.io's announcement:

      "What this means is that Facebook has bought most of drop.io's technology and assets, and Sam Lessin is moving to Facebook."

      That makes it sound like this is a one person deal.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    6. Re:Feudalism and the new serfdom? by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

      Maybe they didn't want to be Facebook employees. Maybe the name on the paycheck matters to them. Maybe what they were working on matters to them. I know that both of those things matter for me.

    7. Re:Feudalism and the new serfdom? by Omnifarious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but the ideas in their heads are, and the employees don't own them even if the employees themselves created them. The IP system has increasingly in recent years been used by our aristocracy to maintain their position at the expense of everybody else.

      Thinking about this is going to take me some time. The analogy is not perfect, the power to quit is a great equalizer (and I'm not saying it makes things equal, just much, much less skewed), but the fact this spawned so much debate makes me think that it's not so flawed as to be totally useless.

  3. any legal issues with the on line file shearing sy by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    any legal issues with the on line file shearing system that facebook can be in for by buying one?
    There is alot warez , movies and mp3s on them.

  4. Re:any legal issues with the on line file shearing by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sean Parker was a co-founder of Facebook, and also Napster, so I guess he knows something about legal issues. Napster was sued and ruled out of existence as much as any company can be (I'm sure total value of infringing content on Napster was more than the gross product of the entire universe for all time, using RIAA math) yet its founders came out just fine and went on to do bigger and better things, somehow.

  5. Re:Buying for the devs? by jcl-xen0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's the problem? Can't Facebook get attract good developers the regular way anymore? Hmm. Maybe all the smart ones know Zuckerberg is a jerk and the company culture is rendered uninhabitable by the swarms of junior-grade developers writing junior-grade PHP, and demand more money than they could negotiate this way.

    On this topic, an Australian newspaper article about devs leaving Google for Facebook

  6. Wait, what? by Bieeanda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Permissions? Content that can not only be permanently deleted, but will do itself in with the right settings? What the Hell does Facebook want with people who do things like that?

  7. Re:any legal issues with the on line file shearing by nacturation · · Score: 3, Informative

    any legal issues with the on line file shearing system that facebook can be in for by buying one?
    There is alot warez , movies and mp3s on them.

    The drop.io blog posting should have been included here (not as if people would read it anyway). Emphasis mine:

    "Please download your information before Dec. 15 – we plan to delete it after that time. No user data or content will be transferred to Facebook, and we’ll send out e-mails to everyone to remind them about the service closing."

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  8. Re:Buying for the devs? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's the problem? Can't Facebook get attract good developers the regular way anymore?

    Excuse me, but your ignorance is showing.

    Big companies regularly purchse smaller ones for their technology and their developers.
    Many large corps (Google being the most recent) aquired their way to success.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  9. Ummm, what? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously the anti-corporate whining here is always a little silly but this takes it to the point of stupid. Serfs? You are kidding right? You realize that any of these people can at any time go get another job. They are just as free as they were at their former company. For that matter, being that FB is in California they could take the money then quit and go form a new company doing the same thing, since California doesn't allow for non-competes.

    All it means is that they were recognized as a good team, and this is a good way to keep them as a team and keep them happy. This is particularly true if it was like many small companies where the employees are the owners. Sure FB could have just offered them all jobs but of course that leaves their company out there and a question of how they split their time and so on, presuming they all accept. Or they could offer them a buyout, again which they had to choose to accept, so that FB gets the employees, the tech, everything, and they are all happy.

    When a company buys another they get everything, good or bad, that company had. All the employees, the buildings, the technology, the assets, the debt, the contracts, the responsibility. All of it. That is how it works. Usually, employees have reason to be concerned as one of the first things companies tend to do is look for redundant people. Here is sounds like they all get to keep working.

  10. I think a lot of people forget this by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the US, you can basically walk from any job, any time you want for any reason. You don't have to give two weeks notice, that is a courtesy, not a legal requirement. You can just up and quit, and that is that. Your employer cannot force you to work. Of course they won't pay you if you don't, and they don't have to give you a good reference if you aren't professional about how you quit, but you can just up and leave for any or no reason and that is that.

    In that regard, employees have tremendous freedom. You don't owe a company anything, regardless of what they've done for you. You can jump ship as often as you like. Some people do too, you find some people that go through jobs like changing shirts. They stay at one place only until somethign slightly better comes along then bail. Sucks for the company but that is how it goes.

    The only case where there can be any kind of direct repercussion is if you signed a contract beforehand. Like say a company offers you $100,000 as a hiring bonus to move and buy a house or something. However in the contract it notes that you have to work for them for a year to get to keep that. If you quit before that, you owe a prorated amount back. Ok then maybe there is a direct consequence.

    However not only is such a thing exceedingly rare (when was the last time you heard about it?) but it is also 100% disclosed up front. You'd have to sign for something like that. A company can't say "Here have this bonus," and then later say "Haha! Just kidding, we had our fingers crossed!"

    In fact you find normally employment contracts are the other way around. You are talented and they want you, so you sign a contract saying they promise to hire you for 3 years at a given rate. If they decide your services aren't needed fine, but they still have to pay out that contract. My friend has such a thing with a consulting gig. They wanted him to move, and it wasn't worth his while if they wouldn't promise him work past the first contract. So they agreed to one year, 40 hours a week minimum, at his rate. If they decide they don't want him before that is up, fine, but they still have to pay out that contract.

  11. Re:Buying for the devs? by bomanbot · · Score: 3, Informative

    Android would be a good example of this, as the company that originally made Android was bought by Google and the founder of that company, Andy Rubin is now overseeing all of Googles Android development.