4 ms·

My belief in why they wanted to purchase WhatsApp was it presented a threat to fakebook [sic]. This is why they also purchased Instagram, and attempted the same

by drkwatr 10y ago

My belief in why they wanted to purchase WhatsApp was it presented a threat to fakebook [sic]. This is why they also purchased Instagram, and attempted the same for Snapchat. If true, then WhatsApp wasn't valued at $19 billion, but rather fakebook [sic] saw that removing the perceived threat was worth the price. What astounds me the most, is the FTC doesn't seem to investigate tech acquisitions like other industries. Especially, when it seems there is a good indication choice is being removed from the market. Although, I've seen a few deals structured in a way to make it seem like a smaller company is buying a larger one to avoid a review [at&t <-> SBC, Sears Holdings <-> K-Mart].

i_cant_speel 10y ago
Maybe it's because of the low cost of entry for competitors? If people get upset with what Facebook does to WhatsApp, many other services will spring up and people will migrate to them. When it comes to thing like Internet service, it's not really the same situation.
- Xunxi 10y ago
  An article on DW was pushing https://wire.com/?hl=en https://wire.com/?hl=en as a alternative to Whatsapp but the critical mass is just not there.
- AJ007 10y ago
  In tech the lifecycle seems to be something like Stage 1 - That doesn't make sense and will never work Stage 2 - They turned down $1b they must be stupid Stage 3 - It is a monopoly and needs to be stopped Stages may vary but what remains the same is that nothing in tech is certain. Companies try really hard to create monopolies that will probably have anti-trust issues because the alternative is if they don't they will probably die (more so true after raising a lot of money and signing expensive long term office leases.) From a longer historical perspective, nothing at all is certain. Take a look at the various office skyscrapers and stadiums in the US, the names change. Some of the giant corporations of 50 years ago may still be around in some form, but they are shadows of their former selves. The world changes fast.
dpark 10y ago
> fakebook [sic] That name is meaningless and generally just juvenile. It makes it hard to take you seriously when you do this. This is also not an appropriate use of "sic". > Although, I've seen a few deals structured in a way to make it seem like a smaller company is buying a larger one to avoid a review [at&t <-> SBC, Sears Holdings <-> K-Mart]. Smaller companies buying larger companies don't skip regulatory scrutiny. It's a fairly common practice to structure mergers this way, but not because it changes the level of regulator involvement.

by drkwatr 10y ago

i_cant_speel 10y ago

Maybe it's because of the low cost of entry for competitors? If people get upset with what Facebook does to WhatsApp, many other services will spring up and people will migrate to them. When it comes to thing like Internet service, it's not really the same situation.

Xunxi 10y ago
An article on DW was pushing https://wire.com/?hl=en https://wire.com/?hl=en as a alternative to Whatsapp but the critical mass is just not there.
AJ007 10y ago
In tech the lifecycle seems to be something like Stage 1 - That doesn't make sense and will never work Stage 2 - They turned down $1b they must be stupid Stage 3 - It is a monopoly and needs to be stopped Stages may vary but what remains the same is that nothing in tech is certain. Companies try really hard to create monopolies that will probably have anti-trust issues because the alternative is if they don't they will probably die (more so true after raising a lot of money and signing expensive long term office leases.) From a longer historical perspective, nothing at all is certain. Take a look at the various office skyscrapers and stadiums in the US, the names change. Some of the giant corporations of 50 years ago may still be around in some form, but they are shadows of their former selves. The world changes fast.

dpark 10y ago

> fakebook [sic] That name is meaningless and generally just juvenile. It makes it hard to take you seriously when you do this. This is also not an appropriate use of "sic". > Although, I've seen a few deals structured in a way to make it seem like a smaller company is buying a larger one to avoid a review [at&t <-> SBC, Sears Holdings <-> K-Mart]. Smaller companies buying larger companies don't skip regulatory scrutiny. It's a fairly common practice to structure mergers this way, but not because it changes the level of regulator involvement.