8 ms·

> “When we met with Facebook, we realized that we shared many of the same core values about connecting people through positive interactions. Most of all, we wer

• jonny_eh 9y ago
  Ya, this app doesn't seem like it has much legs. But then again, I said the same about Instagram and Snapchat when they first launched.
• yeukhon 9y ago
  Right, Tbh is bought only because FB is trying to retain those < 20 years old right now. However, I raise my eyebrows when I think about "never a competitor". So why buy Tbh anyway? Sorry to be rude if at all... I am betting Tbh will eventually go out of business if FB doesn't acquire Tbh. Snapchat can build similar product too, like FB and Instagram built Story to compete with Snapchat's.
  • robryan 9y ago
    Hedging against that small chance they get really big. Why risk another snapchat if these guys getting traction can be bought off cheaply now.
  • Freak_NL 9y ago
    > So why buy Tbh anyway? It doesn't have to be a potential competitor to pre-emptively buy, it just has to have access to the teenager demographic.
  • corobo 9y ago
    If you see a site like Facebook haemorrhaging users from a specific demographic, target that demographic successfully with anything vaguely social and I'd bet cash money Facebook will scoop you up within a couple years. I don't know if this Tbh site actually did that on purpose, but I wouldn't be surprised in any way if they did.
  • snarf21 9y ago
    As tbh fades in popularity, they will roll this into FB (and Instagram and WhatsApp and......) as a feature and hook these users that are less FB addicted into their ecosystem. Also, Facebook is an advertising company. They now can push a lot more teen and tween brands to advertise bigger campaigns.
  • htormey 9y ago
    FB thinks about apps like tv channels. If you look at the top 10 free apps all of them are owned by either Facebook, google or Snapchat (they own Bitmoji). TBH was the only app in the top 10 not owned by one of these 3 so the acquired it. TBH could be a feature of either Facebook or Instagram in the same way that most of the history channels content could be just shows on other tv channels. These things exist or will continue to exist as separate entities because it’s more profitable that way.
• onion2k 9y ago
  Most VC companies don't see tech startups as 'unicorns in waiting'. They see them as '5 years growth hacking and 3 more rounds until a 10x acquisition'. At this point in time for the majority of founders the only reasonable exit strategy in tech is selling to an existing company. Putting 'getting to IPO' in your pitch deck won't work. If you're serious about building something successful then aligning with a potential buyer really early and pushing your company to be something they'll both notice and want to buy makes a lot of sense.
  • debaserab2 9y ago
    If that's true, than I think Silicon Valley as we know it (knew it) is dead. Who are the modern day unicorns?
    • TeMPOraL 9y ago
      It's not dead while the ad industry money still flows in. We need to rein in them if there's to be any hope for things getting better.
      • KGIII 9y ago
        If you rein in the ad industry, you're just going to be stuck with a bunch of ICOs. Kinda bleak, really.
    • adventured 9y ago
      > than I think Silicon Valley as we know it (knew it) is dead Didn't you hear? It died with DrKoop.com, eToys, Pets.com, Webvan, et al. Silicon Valley has been a constant target for that premise for four decades. It's nothing more than people wishing for ill upon something because they dislike it, entirely separating what's actually likely to happen from what they want to have happen. Here's what is actually going to happen. Silicon Valley is overflowing with capital, experience, talent and a high tolerance for risk. There is no hint that any of those things is in meaningful decline today. Over the coming 20 years, new tech giants will be created there. Then someone will be saying the exact same thing you just said, just as 16 and 25 and 37 years ago.
• manigandham 9y ago
  Yes this is PR speak. These companies have 2 possible exits: 1. Get big enough to build and scale an ad network and other services 2. Get bought by an existing scaled network Option 2 is far easier which is why startups/VCs optimize for it. FB benefits by letting them do all the experimentation and then acquiring when they have proven traction, effectively gaining control of the new users for less money than competing outright, while the founders get a nice payday and move on. What gets really interesting is when the same VCs behind FB are the ones kicking off these new experiments, a nice little money machine once you're in the loop.
  • vog 9y ago
    I hope this doesn't sound too snarky, but ... If option 2 will become illegal in the future, would that mean that startups would have to optimize to turn into real companies? You know, that kind of company that need to be profitable on their own? And perhaps, but only perhaps, with a sustainable income?
    • chronicy292 9y ago
      No, because as a startup founder and now investor, I would work day and night to find another "loophole" for easy money. There are hundreds of thousands of people who think like this Sustainable income? If you're getting a check for $10 million, do you care?
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • pdpi 9y ago
        The point is that, as a society, we should care. And that means putting in the right checks and balances that at the individual level we still care.
        • amigoingtodie 9y ago
          Small kids do not need, nor should they have, smartphones.
• cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  There are indeed many founders who specifically build companies just to cash out through acquisition, but from my experience there are way more founders who don't come from this point of view. What really happens is these founders are focused on the product and don't really think much about the business model. This is understandable and actually much better than MBA types who spend months planning for stuff without even building, but the problem is there isn't really a good business model for these types of companies. The only viable option is ads, and even this has been monopolized by big techcos so it's not easy. Most founders don't even get to worrying about this point because their companies never take off. But the ones that do, come to a point where they need to make a decision whether to sell out or to find a viable business model. Like I said, finding a viable business model is increasingly becoming difficult for consumer apps that rely on ads, so these companies tend to cash out. From outside it may look like a bunch of "tech bros" hoping to strike it big with minimal effort but that's mostly not the case if you look inside. If you're curious, look up what this TBH company went through before having this "overnight success".
  • jerrre 9y ago
    > The only viable option is ads I know I must get with the times or whatever, but man this is sad. Essentially every consumer social app creator is just working for the ad industry, or for free.
    • Joe-Z 9y ago
      But that's just the price they pay for working in an overcrowded market segment. The upside they have is that their work is (compared to a lot of other programming jobs) fun and hip. If you want to make money with what you're doing you need to be either really good/marketing-savvy/popular or pick something that most people consider 'boring'.
      • zerkten 9y ago
        The 'boring' things (i.e. the enterprise market) is also 'harder' most of the time because they require a broader range of skills and greater perseverance. You can validate and get growth in a freemium model, but then the hard work to get real sales process begins.
• bko 9y ago
  > We made this app specifically to be purchased by Facebook This will encourage more niche social networks for the purpose of being bought and Facebook's acquisitions will be costly, both financially and operationally. I don't think acquiring competitors is an effective long term strategy
  • wsinks 9y ago
    Cisco has acquired 200 companies since its foundation. It's not their only strategy, but it does keep the company half competitive.
  • SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
    It seems to have worked out pretty well for Microsoft.
• EGreg 9y ago
  More like "Ooh we had no idea but when FB approached us it suddenly became clear we had soooo many shared values, it just made sense that FB would buy us."
• jliptzin 9y ago
  When I read statements like this what I actually see is the following: "When we met with Facebook, we were impressed with the huge pile of cash that they offered us. Most of all, it was very green and crisp, and smelled like cash it supposed to smell, so we were compelled by the ways this cash could help us realize our vision of getting rich."
  • jonknee 9y ago
    I read it more like "Facebook made it clear they could duplicate our app in a weekend, then extended a take it or leave it cash offer".
    • hetspookjee 9y ago
      I bet they're technically capable of duplicating, maybe even by you on your own, same goes for Snapchat. Yet they don't, because just like a lot of the social apps that are succesful, it's not the technical innovation that makes it valuable, but the network of people that support it, and I think just as important, eventually being able to monetize it (Remember Vine?) Also the already stored data makes it quite the treasure. Even if every user instantly stops using it, it'll still be very valuable due to the existing data (if they keep it). Too stray off-topic though somewhat on a self-created tangent: There's an app called Flitsmeister in the Metherlands (and abroad but several countries banned it) that keeps on growing. I wonder when they will be bought out. Not necessarily for the active social network behind it, but rather for the data that is already there. I believe such a vast amount of historic data is hugely valuable on it's own. I wonder by who, when and for how much they will be bought out.
  • Omnius 9y ago
    You say that like it's a bad thing.
    • jim_dow_jones 9y ago
      It's a bad thing when you're not being honest. "...we shared many of the same core values..." Why not just say, "They made us an offer we couldn't resist. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)"