6 ms·

If you're competing in any way, building in any part of the social media space, this is an invitation to have your product copied as soon as you see any tractio

by tyre 6y ago

If you're competing in any way, building in any part of the social media space, this is an invitation to have your product copied as soon as you see any traction. Facebook doesn't need the money. It's looking for you to do the R&D.

thirtythree 6y ago
Is it worth the ride though? If your goal is to spend your time building something you love then it's a win.
- kgraves 6y ago
  That's fair, looking forward to your 'incredible journey' with Facebook. I'm sure they can't wait to see what your startup will come up with. /s
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    Why the sarcasm? Most of the times, acquirehire by these top companies is probably better than being a regular senior FAANG engineers. Not sure why that is bad. It's probably not the top of the world (e.g. billionaires). But it's definitely a great situation to be in.
    - gentleman11 6y ago
      There’s more to it than money, as the regretful WhatsApp founder showed by leaving a fortune on the table to escape
      - ergocoder 6y ago
        Sure, it's not the best situation that a human can ever imagine. But let's not exaggerate. It's not bad for whatsapp founders. Better than 99.9999999999% of the population (maybe add a couple 9s at the end). For me, I don't even wanna make a single donation because I need to save every dollar. I can't join any protest or get involved in any politics because I'm already busy enough with my own life. Whatsapp founders now have 6,000,000,000 USD to power the change they want to see happen. Ok, maybe 5B, as they might want to keep 1B for living cost.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      If it was just the company and Facebook dating together, nobody would mind - or care. But the "incredible journey" startups, the ones built primarily to exit, are just bait&switch scams for their users. The users are enticed to enter a relationship with the startup, to build a part of their lives or their work around that startup, only for said startup to suddenly get bought out and the product/service cancelled, destroyed, or altered into a much worse and exploitative form. I've personally seen this dance enough times, and I now refuse to consider depending on a service if I even suspect the founders are in for an exit, and not long-term business growth. I'll chose F(L)OSS alternative first, a stable company second, and a startup only if I can't afford to make the solution I need myself.
a13n 6y ago
I would guess it's more about the money than you think. Public companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits and investor returns. They're simply using the data that's available to them to make great investment decisions to make more money. It seems like a conflict of interest to invest in a company and then turn around and compete with them. If the end plan is to take their ideas once they start becoming successful, you don't need to give them money in the first place. (Case study: Snapchat)
- tych0 6y ago
  > Public companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits and investor returns. No, they don't. There are many articles on the subject, here is one: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
  - exolymph 6y ago
    In practice, firms controlled by shareholders tend to be run for the benefit of shareholders. Facebook is controlled by its founder so it's a different situation.
  - colonelanguz 6y ago
    Delaware companies do. See, e.g., Frederick Hsu Living Tr. v. ODN Hldg. Corp., 2017 WL 1437308, at *18 (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2017) (“[T]he fiduciary relationship requires that the directors act prudently, loyally, and in good faith to maximize the value of the corporation over the long-term for the benefit of the providers of presumptively permanent equity capital . . .”). Facebook is a Delaware company.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      Has this law ever been enforced against a company; that is, is there a ore-existing verdict against a Delaware company for violating this statute? Or is this more of a hypothetical threat? What would the damages or penalty be for violation? It’s not like you can demand money a company should have made without cause or more importantly, verifiable harm to the counter-party.

by tyre 6y ago

thirtythree 6y ago

Is it worth the ride though? If your goal is to spend your time building something you love then it's a win.

kgraves 6y ago
That's fair, looking forward to your 'incredible journey' with Facebook. I'm sure they can't wait to see what your startup will come up with. /s
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Why the sarcasm? Most of the times, acquirehire by these top companies is probably better than being a regular senior FAANG engineers. Not sure why that is bad. It's probably not the top of the world (e.g. billionaires). But it's definitely a great situation to be in.
  - gentleman11 6y ago
    There’s more to it than money, as the regretful WhatsApp founder showed by leaving a fortune on the table to escape
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      Sure, it's not the best situation that a human can ever imagine. But let's not exaggerate. It's not bad for whatsapp founders. Better than 99.9999999999% of the population (maybe add a couple 9s at the end). For me, I don't even wanna make a single donation because I need to save every dollar. I can't join any protest or get involved in any politics because I'm already busy enough with my own life. Whatsapp founders now have 6,000,000,000 USD to power the change they want to see happen. Ok, maybe 5B, as they might want to keep 1B for living cost.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    If it was just the company and Facebook dating together, nobody would mind - or care. But the "incredible journey" startups, the ones built primarily to exit, are just bait&switch scams for their users. The users are enticed to enter a relationship with the startup, to build a part of their lives or their work around that startup, only for said startup to suddenly get bought out and the product/service cancelled, destroyed, or altered into a much worse and exploitative form. I've personally seen this dance enough times, and I now refuse to consider depending on a service if I even suspect the founders are in for an exit, and not long-term business growth. I'll chose F(L)OSS alternative first, a stable company second, and a startup only if I can't afford to make the solution I need myself.

a13n 6y ago

I would guess it's more about the money than you think. Public companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits and investor returns. They're simply using the data that's available to them to make great investment decisions to make more money. It seems like a conflict of interest to invest in a company and then turn around and compete with them. If the end plan is to take their ideas once they start becoming successful, you don't need to give them money in the first place. (Case study: Snapchat)

tych0 6y ago
> Public companies have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits and investor returns. No, they don't. There are many articles on the subject, here is one: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
- exolymph 6y ago
  In practice, firms controlled by shareholders tend to be run for the benefit of shareholders. Facebook is controlled by its founder so it's a different situation.
- colonelanguz 6y ago
  Delaware companies do. See, e.g., Frederick Hsu Living Tr. v. ODN Hldg. Corp., 2017 WL 1437308, at *18 (Del. Ch. Apr. 14, 2017) (“[T]he fiduciary relationship requires that the directors act prudently, loyally, and in good faith to maximize the value of the corporation over the long-term for the benefit of the providers of presumptively permanent equity capital . . .”). Facebook is a Delaware company.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    Has this law ever been enforced against a company; that is, is there a ore-existing verdict against a Delaware company for violating this statute? Or is this more of a hypothetical threat? What would the damages or penalty be for violation? It’s not like you can demand money a company should have made without cause or more importantly, verifiable harm to the counter-party.