3 ms·
I can't answer your question but i think you should be more specific. Your phrasing obviously comes with the interpretation that if a split-up would bankrupt a
by athrowaway3z 8y ago
I can't answer your question but i think you should be more specific.
Your phrasing obviously comes with the interpretation that if a split-up would bankrupt a part, it shouldn't be done.
Why should this be taken into consideration?
Secondly. It has value.
A different party could invest and keep it going.
Why is it important that it sustains itself?
- michaelt 8y agoIf the objective is to increase competition, by making WhatsApp into the Facebook competitor they currently aren't, you need them to stay in business. Of course, if you just wanted to punish facebook by destroying shareholder value, or you're certain WhatsApp users will move to an FB competitor rather than to FB itself, you might not care if WhatsApp stays in business post-breakup.
- maemilius 8y agoAs far as I'm aware, the only thing WhatsApp competed with Facebook over is Messenger, and even that seems like a stretch to me. My impression of the situation is that Facebook bought WhatsApp for its data and user-base; not because it was competition.
- kypro 8y agoI guess it's not like anyone is employed to work on Whatsapp or anything. It's not like millions of people use it to stay in contact with their families every day.