9 ms·

It's quite ironic that this is the man who sold WhatsApp and its enormous userbase to facebook, creating a total lock in to the facebook ecosystem for many who

It's quite ironic that this is the man who sold WhatsApp and its enormous userbase to facebook, creating a total lock in to the facebook ecosystem for many who do not even use facebook. He would have known what kind of a company facebook is, so I don't understand the contradiction between selling Whatsapp to them and now caring about these issues. Anyway, I am still glad he's getting behind the #deletefacebook movement.

tehlike 9y ago
He started a company, and made a delicious exit. Him becoming a privacy advocate maybe was his secondary goal yhat now became primary. Or maybe with his founder he had disagrements but he sold anyway because what else could he do if everyone but you wants that exit?
ACow_Adonis 9y ago
You really don't understand? Let me spell it out for you: "Money makes people do things they might not otherwise want to do if there was no money involved. Lots of money can make people do more things than little money... Once you have a lot of money, the marginal benefit of more money becomes less, meaning the incentive trade off is lessened, and you can now spend your time talking about things further down your heirearchy of needs/value system"
77ko 9y ago
He owned 20% of Whatsapp, so its possible he didn't want to sell to FB. Only 50.1% of the shareholders presumably had to want to sell to overrule the others. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton
- efuquen 9y ago
  I think if he was against the sale he would have said that.
apotheothesomai 9y ago
Jan's commitment to privacy motivated WhatsApp. Jan and Acton always have believed in it strongly. That said, if your company has 50 people, and FB offers nearly $20B. How exactly do you tell those people that you refused an acquisition that huge, because you personally feel that FB is bad. Could you deprive an engineer who has worked his ass off for 4 years >$100M? Anyway, I was contracting for WhatsApp, when the acquisition happened. Conversations took place, but I'm not going to quote anyone.
- paulcole 9y ago
  So you’re saying they believed in privacy strongly but believed in getting rich more. Got it. Nothing wrong with that. I’d do the same.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 9y ago
    He's saying there was social pressure both external and internal, but yeah - of the type you're talking about.
  - golergka 9y ago
    Your beliefs are not as important as obligations which you got yourself into. If you want to act on your own accord and don't compromise, then maintain 100% ownership of your company. When you're managing a company that doesn't belong to you completely anymore, you're obliged to act in the best interest of your shareholders.
    - Synaesthesia 9y ago
      Yes, within the institutional role, eg as CEO of a company, a person is obliged to make certain decisions. Eg a CEO is obliged to maximize profits for his company, otherwise the shareholders will fire him. So if you’re going to criticize capitalism, you should criticize it as an institution.
      - golergka 9y ago
ggregoire 9y ago
> I don't understand the contradiction between selling Whatsapp to them and now caring about these issues. You would refuse $16 billions from Facebook?
bobthechef 9y ago
What if he were given the option today of selling WhatsApp to Facebook (all other things remaining equal)? Do you think he would have refused?
Vinnl 9y ago
One thing one might speculate about is that there was a "change it from the inside" motivation. For example, WhatsApp did add Signal's encryption protocol, which I think has been fantastic. Having lots of money available as a fallback to now sponsor alternatives is a nice addition to that. But of course, all of this is speculation - I can't look inside the man's head.
m52go 9y ago
While I agree with you, he's exponentially more powerful now to champion privacy now beyond WhatsApp with the billions he got from that sale.

tehlike 9y ago

He started a company, and made a delicious exit. Him becoming a privacy advocate maybe was his secondary goal yhat now became primary. Or maybe with his founder he had disagrements but he sold anyway because what else could he do if everyone but you wants that exit?

ACow_Adonis 9y ago

You really don't understand? Let me spell it out for you: "Money makes people do things they might not otherwise want to do if there was no money involved. Lots of money can make people do more things than little money... Once you have a lot of money, the marginal benefit of more money becomes less, meaning the incentive trade off is lessened, and you can now spend your time talking about things further down your heirearchy of needs/value system"

77ko 9y ago

He owned 20% of Whatsapp, so its possible he didn't want to sell to FB. Only 50.1% of the shareholders presumably had to want to sell to overrule the others. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Acton

efuquen 9y ago
I think if he was against the sale he would have said that.

apotheothesomai 9y ago

Jan's commitment to privacy motivated WhatsApp. Jan and Acton always have believed in it strongly. That said, if your company has 50 people, and FB offers nearly $20B. How exactly do you tell those people that you refused an acquisition that huge, because you personally feel that FB is bad. Could you deprive an engineer who has worked his ass off for 4 years >$100M? Anyway, I was contracting for WhatsApp, when the acquisition happened. Conversations took place, but I'm not going to quote anyone.

paulcole 9y ago
So you’re saying they believed in privacy strongly but believed in getting rich more. Got it. Nothing wrong with that. I’d do the same.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 9y ago
  He's saying there was social pressure both external and internal, but yeah - of the type you're talking about.
- golergka 9y ago
  Your beliefs are not as important as obligations which you got yourself into. If you want to act on your own accord and don't compromise, then maintain 100% ownership of your company. When you're managing a company that doesn't belong to you completely anymore, you're obliged to act in the best interest of your shareholders.
  - Synaesthesia 9y ago
    Yes, within the institutional role, eg as CEO of a company, a person is obliged to make certain decisions. Eg a CEO is obliged to maximize profits for his company, otherwise the shareholders will fire him. So if you’re going to criticize capitalism, you should criticize it as an institution.
    - golergka 9y ago

ggregoire 9y ago

> I don't understand the contradiction between selling Whatsapp to them and now caring about these issues. You would refuse $16 billions from Facebook?

bobthechef 9y ago

What if he were given the option today of selling WhatsApp to Facebook (all other things remaining equal)? Do you think he would have refused?

Vinnl 9y ago

One thing one might speculate about is that there was a "change it from the inside" motivation. For example, WhatsApp did add Signal's encryption protocol, which I think has been fantastic. Having lots of money available as a fallback to now sponsor alternatives is a nice addition to that. But of course, all of this is speculation - I can't look inside the man's head.

m52go 9y ago

While I agree with you, he's exponentially more powerful now to champion privacy now beyond WhatsApp with the billions he got from that sale.