Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's Plan To Let Companies It Buys Live Independently is Over (techcrunch.com)
Jon Russell, writing for TechCrunch: Mark Zuckerberg was quick to realize that Facebook, the largest social network in the world, doesn't have a monopoly on all users nor can it bank on holding its position as top dog forever. Thus he instituted a policy of buying up promising rivals and integrating them into the Facebook 'group' in a strategy designed to be a win-win for all. But by leaving Facebook in abrupt fashion this week, Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger -- the founders of Instagram -- have shown that the social network's vision of letting acquired businesses operate independently simply isn't feasible. [...] The original idea is a best-of-both-worlds approach: a company's finances are infinitely secured and it can grow as needed inside the Facebook 'family,' with access to resources like engineering, marketing, admin, etc. That was also the plan for WhatsApp, but founding pair Jan Koum and Brian Acton managed four and three and a half years, respectively, at Facebook following their $19 billion acquisition in 2014. VR firm Oculus, another billion-dollar purchase, lost co-founders Palmer Lucky (political scandal) and Brendan Iribe (reshuffled) three years after its deal.
"Buy out your competition and have them work for you, as them, indefinitely" - Almost as dumb as trusting Zuck with your data in the first place.
I think of the dominate player in a space buying up all potential competition with little or no regulatory oversight.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
facebook is toxic inside?
I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further.
- have shown that the social network's vision of letting acquired businesses operate independently simply isn't feasible
Bullshit.
All it's shown is that the now-billionaire founders of those companies don't like playing second fiddle to Zuck.
And being billionaires, they don't have to hang around for a paycheck - although they probably hang around for a few years because of golden handcuffs.
Giant greedy corporation buys other corporations and expects to milk those corporations for all they're worth.
I mean, who is surprised by this?
Facebook wants data and ad revenue, they have no interest in the privacy policies or plans the companies they buy had before that.
You sold your company to Facebook for an assload of money, don't expect they'll let you do anything you want forever thereafter. Now we have newly minted billionaires whinging they no longer have creative control because the other asshole billionaire won't give it up.
You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
This is dumb, they were never going to be ran independently forever. Everyone who ever worked for a company which got bought out has known this shit for years, you got bought as an asset to milk for all its worth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
#DeleteFacebook
Monopolies are a win-win because...
That's the step I'm getting stuck on.
Buried in the 16th paragraph of the 17-paragraph story:
--
Instagram went from 30 million users pre-acquisition to over one billion today, while WhatsApp has more than 1.5 billion active users up from 450 million at the time of its deal.
--
Growth of over 3,000% and 300%. What a failure.
SIX YEARS later, one of the founders decided to retire.
The entrepreneurial founder decided they wanted to be entrepeneur again, not run an established company.
The average tenure of a CEO is 8 years, so these leaders stuck around about as long as one would expect in any structure generally.
Having them go on to other things isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. Like these founders, I enjoy starting companies, and I'm starting to not suck at it. I don't enjoy running a company after it's stable, and I'm not good at that. The people who started a company from zero aren't always the best people to be running a stable company later. For one, their appetite for risk and excitement probably isn't a good match.
A family featuring an organization diagram with a lot of positions crossed out is usually called a syndicate.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Zuck should definitely replace Gates in the Borg icon.
It's inevitable that an acquired company cannot maintain it's independence within a larger organization. Eventually the founder/leader of the acquired company will feel constrained, unable to pursue their own vision, or find themselves at odds with the other leadership. As for the leadership of the overarching organization, they will always make sure that their position, their vision takes precedence. They will rein in a subordinate company that is growing to fast/strong and affecting the core business (which was of course founded/led by the current leadership so they have a vested interest in making sure it stays the core).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Berkshire-Hathaway does this - it buys promising companies, and gives them access to cheaper financing from the underwriting float from their insurance businesses. The companies operate independently. It has been very successful. But, I'll bet that Warren Buffet really does a much better job of not meddling than Zuckerberg. Also, I expect the guys that started these companies get restless a lot more than Berkshire's managers.
I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further.
What'd Darth Vader ever do anyway to deserve being compared to Facebook?!?!
Exist.
But by leaving Facebook in abrupt fashion this week
When a company is acquired, it's almost always the case that the senior managers / founders move on to something new after a "transition period."
Usually the staff in duplicated admin roles are the first to go (HR / Accounting) followed by those that depart after sales and marketing merge - Senior execs are next.
Happens over and over and over again the same way - And will continue to do so.
If they merge the two, I'm done.
Who on this earth is naive enough to think otherwise? Millennials? NEWSFLASH: corporations (psst - Facebook is a corporation), are not your 'friend'. Not Apple, not Chanel, not Google, not Tesla, give me a break. They won't stop until they are forced to - this is why non-radical government *is* your friend. If snowflakes and social media don't bring humanity to the brink, I don't know what will.
WhatsApp form 10-Q revenue ar the time of aquisition was about $1.5 million.
Facebook doesn't officially report the revenue of each app, but a recent analysis in Forbes estimated when revenue of $5 billion when the changes are complete in 2020.
Invariably, if you are the owner/CEO/CFO of an acquired company, you're on an employment contract with the acquirer for a couple of years after the acquisition. After that, more often than not, they're ready for you to go. It appears Facebook puts these guys on 3 or 4 year deals. These guys didn't start their own company to be an employee of somebody else - once the contract is finished, and the lush cash collected, it's time to move on.
Does this sound like microsoft's embrace, extend, extinguish all over again?
The world would be better of, IMO, without the likes of twitter, Fakebook, Instagram and the like. How much false information, from both sides of politics have ignited such hate and discord in the USA, for one, but around the world? Now, with them "scrubbing" content THEY deem bad, it's just going to make it worse.
Yahoo had a long history of buying up companies for billions of dollars and then never doing anything productive with those investments. Facebook is the new Yahoo.
I use Instagram because it doesn't have the toxicity of F*c*book. If Instagram turns into F*c*book I'll stop using it, and so will most other people.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!