Path's name itself reveals the nature of their choice. Getting bought out is the end of their startup story, the conclusion of their "path". While the choice is

Path's name itself reveals the nature of their choice. Getting bought out is the end of their startup story, the conclusion of their "path". While the choice is apparently absurd, it at least stays true to their company's core values. The sad observation is that Path simply isn't a valuable enough product to create a great story unless they undergo massive pivots. So it begs the question as to the motive, is this anything more than a silicon valley ego contest? Parker was fictionalized in The Social Network, Fanning wasn't. Perhaps the purpose of the choice is to put themselves on a path to fame by creating not a groundbreaking product but a breath taking story, the path they blaze.