Why the heck did they do that? I mean, congratulations to them, but they just released an amazing rewrite of their product that kicked Facebook Photo's ass. I wonder why they didn't go through with it. Sad...
Plus, Facebook is an awesome product with millions of users. Now they can help Facebook Photos kick its own ass. Sounds like a win-win for everyone. :)
And I believe that. I would have done it as well. That said, there's something wrong with a startup system that's little more than an elaborate job application process. No problem for that kind of consumer space site but at the end of the day the message is clear: Never trust a startup with something important.
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure how "important" photo sharing really is. I think we're kidding ourselves when we think we're going to "make the world a better place" in this industry. Other industries do much more to "make the world a better place" than ours does but they don't talk about it near as much as we do.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Not to crap on anyone's parade, but Sam Odio's comment above, "It ultimately came down to the decision that we could touch more people's lives at Facebook," rings extremely hollow to me. I can think of about 1000 better ways to touch peoples' lives, if that is really your aim, and none of them involve web apps or startups. Again, I am absolutely not trying to detract here. These guys had a smart idea, worked their asses off, and were justly rewarded. But can't we just admit already that we are capitalists? This ubiquitous tendency in the startup crowd to hide the profit motive behind a wall of lofty ideals is just silly.
He was not bullshitting. It's scary how much power Facebook is starting to have in recruiting and acquisitions because of their large and highly engaged user base. Hackers want an audience.
They have a very concentrated form of koolaid over there. I've been surprised by the effect it's had on some of the most skeptical people I know.
It's not in the same order of magnitude (and maybe off-topic), but from the leaked documents of Twitter, Google was directing much of the Twitter APIs implementation, from their tone. And twitter was in the boom stage (2009, sorry can't find a source, techcrunch iirc).
I don't have any experience in acquisitions by large companies, but from the twitter story (above) I made an idea of the tension going on. It's like you're a soldier and their the commandant during a war, most of the time you just can't say no.
edit: I meant, if you say no, you have to be prepared for the consequences.
I wouldn't call someone who is working on the "poke a friend" or "throw a sheep" features a "hacker". While the audience is large, facebook isn't changing their lives for the better. The user base may think so, though, just like with the TV.
I agree that we should admit we are capitalists. But I'm a little concerned that this kind of parachuting off the fighter jet exit for web startups makes it more difficult for other capitalists like myself to convince business users to get on board.
Why can't we have both? Especially in an industry where we actually create products, and thus wealth, rather than extracting or shuffling it around.
Sure, there are many other possibly "better" ways to touch peoples' lives, but I'd much rather do something I love doing that also helps people than hate what I do. We can't be completely selfless.
When someone's house is on fire and they can only save one thing, they save their photos. Photo sharing is way up there on the list of things that make people happy.
Well, startups aren't the only types of companies that get bought. Acquisitions are part of the markets and across all types of companies, big or small, young or old.
The only difference is that the tech startup scene is so very loud and vocal about all this. In other markets, it's maybe a side notice in a rarely-read corporate newsletter. Nobody cares except for the individuals directly involved.
Ultimately, the bulk of these M&As happen not because a product is to be destroyed but in order to take it to another, subjectively "higher" level. It's the same here. Whether that happens, as always, remains to be seen, but both parties were willing to try.
Many companies get bought for their products or assets. Some get bought for their customers. Only very few get bought exclusively to hire people. I do follow other industries as well and this is definately unusual.
I see this as a problem for startups to get traction in the future if there continue to be these early product shut-down exits. What wants to go use a marginally better product when the is always the chance it will disappear into one of the bigger options at any time.
Not being in a position to judge this specific instance, I'd think in general you are better off showing some power, saying no to a deal, maybe entering into a partnership instead that keeps the focus on your product.
