5 ms·

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 w

by cmelbye 17y ago

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...

jfornear 17y ago
"...we’ve received an offer we can’t refuse." Translation: $ 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. :)
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  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.
  - dualogy 17y ago
    "Never trust a startup with something important." 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.
    - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
      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.
  - jfornear 17y ago
    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.
    - hyperbovine 17y ago
      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.
      - zackattack 17y ago
        I don't think you truly understand just how much of an effect Facebook has on people's lives.
        fauigerzigerk 17y ago
        I'm afraid it is Facebook users who don't really grasp that yet, but that's a different story altogether.
      - pg 17y ago
        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.
robryan 17y ago
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.
jacoblyles 17y ago
Early acquisition seems like a natural extension of the "minimum viable product" strategy.

by cmelbye 17y ago

jfornear 17y ago

"...we’ve received an offer we can’t refuse." Translation: $ 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. :)

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
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.
- dualogy 17y ago
  "Never trust a startup with something important." 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.
  - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
    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.
- jfornear 17y ago
  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.
  - hyperbovine 17y ago
    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.
    - zackattack 17y ago
      I don't think you truly understand just how much of an effect Facebook has on people's lives.
      - fauigerzigerk 17y ago
        I'm afraid it is Facebook users who don't really grasp that yet, but that's a different story altogether.
    - pg 17y ago
      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.

robryan 17y ago

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.

jacoblyles 17y ago

Early acquisition seems like a natural extension of the "minimum viable product" strategy.