4 ms·

> Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads. Completely agreed. Not to mention that their M&A strategy has also been nothing short of a master class:

by dvt 6y ago

> Many business are built and scaled on Facebook Ads. Completely agreed. Not to mention that their M&A strategy has also been nothing short of a master class: from Instagram, to WhatsApp, to Oculus. Money making machine indeed.

sneak 6y ago
To that end: is it possible today to build a major VC-funded consumer facing tech company (eg Oculus) without being forced to sell to an “evil” (privacy/human rights-disrespecting amoral multinational) acquirer? Snap is the only example I can think of that remained independent so far, and even they are one App Store flipped bit away from being out of business. Are there “never Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon” startups that have or would be able to raise nine figures to pursue big projects? Is that even a viable path, or is the winning endgame always just being acquired by Big Tech and Big Tech only? I guess my question is “Is avoiding major/typical VC funding the only way to “win” and not end up as FAANG staff?” The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path?
- kgraves 6y ago
  No. But there are some different (and new) approaches / alternatives to the VC surveillance capitalist cycle we see when it comes to building a business. Be bootstrapped and profitable (Basecamp/Indie Hackers) or independent and ethical (Small Tech) [0]. You don't need to have the same goals as cancer to win in the tech space. [0] https://small-tech.org/ https://small-tech.org/
  - sneak 6y ago
    I believe this is a false dichotomy. It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, et c). I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. OWS has done it (in a strange way), so there are definitely some paths, if a bit weird.
    - kgraves 6y ago
      Those are just quick examples I listed, (you could have both or utilise crowdfunding!) I do find that companies that need to continuously raise cash from venture capitalists (as many startups do) don't have the customers (not users) interests at heart and are already financially and morally bankrupt. (They are already thinking about a 10x exit rather than focusing on building a great profitable business!) > It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, etc). All of this (and every startup needs this to grow) is usually at the cost of the customers privacy. All the time. > I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. You don't have to sell out to the big tech companies, just be a regular profitable business from the start and don't spy on your customers.
- dvt 6y ago
  > The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path? You mention Snapchat, and I think that's a great example. I'm somewhat cynical, having tried (and failed) several times launching a consumer-facing social-style app, but Snapchat gives me hope. For years, it was a pretty mediocre one-trick-pony, but it just goes to show how important user metrics are. It didn't start out with millions of dollars (like TikTok) and it didn't start out with influencers (like Clubhouse). It just resonated with high school and college kids, and that was enough.
- modeless 6y ago
  Oculus was not forced to sell. They sold because the price was really high plus it gave them a guarantee of huge investment into the technology going forward without raising new rounds all the time or trying to make profits. But they could have stayed independent if they wanted.
tqi 6y ago
Some hits for sure, but also a lot of duds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The tbh acquisition was a complete waste of time and money. Time will tell how giphy works out...
- robterrell 6y ago
  Hard disagree. TBH had great disruptive potential -- it was huge in middle/high schools. If someone else acquired it, FB was looking at possible a re-run of the Snapchat playbook, where a younger audience not yet on FB was lost to them.

by dvt 6y ago

sneak 6y ago

To that end: is it possible today to build a major VC-funded consumer facing tech company (eg Oculus) without being forced to sell to an “evil” (privacy/human rights-disrespecting amoral multinational) acquirer? Snap is the only example I can think of that remained independent so far, and even they are one App Store flipped bit away from being out of business. Are there “never Google/Facebook/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon” startups that have or would be able to raise nine figures to pursue big projects? Is that even a viable path, or is the winning endgame always just being acquired by Big Tech and Big Tech only? I guess my question is “Is avoiding major/typical VC funding the only way to “win” and not end up as FAANG staff?” The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path?

kgraves 6y ago
No. But there are some different (and new) approaches / alternatives to the VC surveillance capitalist cycle we see when it comes to building a business. Be bootstrapped and profitable (Basecamp/Indie Hackers) or independent and ethical (Small Tech) [0]. You don't need to have the same goals as cancer to win in the tech space. [0] https://small-tech.org/ https://small-tech.org/
- sneak 6y ago
  I believe this is a false dichotomy. It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, et c). I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. OWS has done it (in a strange way), so there are definitely some paths, if a bit weird.
  - kgraves 6y ago
    Those are just quick examples I listed, (you could have both or utilise crowdfunding!) I do find that companies that need to continuously raise cash from venture capitalists (as many startups do) don't have the customers (not users) interests at heart and are already financially and morally bankrupt. (They are already thinking about a 10x exit rather than focusing on building a great profitable business!) > It's not cancerous to want to pursue e.g. advanced hardware (Oculus) or hundreds of millions of users (Instagram, WhatsApp, etc). All of this (and every startup needs this to grow) is usually at the cost of the customers privacy. All the time. > I refuse to believe that with capital being what it is today, there is no funded route to having e.g. 100M users that doesn't eventually involve working for the big five. You don't have to sell out to the big tech companies, just be a regular profitable business from the start and don't spy on your customers.
dvt 6y ago
> The reason I ask is because I already have a perfectly comfortable lifestyle business, and would love to pursue something larger (that requires funding and a medium-sized staff) but there is no amount of money or equity that would make me ever be okay with working for a company that helps governments abuse human rights, which is 100% of Big Tech these days. Is there any third path? You mention Snapchat, and I think that's a great example. I'm somewhat cynical, having tried (and failed) several times launching a consumer-facing social-style app, but Snapchat gives me hope. For years, it was a pretty mediocre one-trick-pony, but it just goes to show how important user metrics are. It didn't start out with millions of dollars (like TikTok) and it didn't start out with influencers (like Clubhouse). It just resonated with high school and college kids, and that was enough.
modeless 6y ago
Oculus was not forced to sell. They sold because the price was really high plus it gave them a guarantee of huge investment into the technology going forward without raising new rounds all the time or trying to make profits. But they could have stayed independent if they wanted.

tqi 6y ago

Some hits for sure, but also a lot of duds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... The tbh acquisition was a complete waste of time and money. Time will tell how giphy works out...

robterrell 6y ago
Hard disagree. TBH had great disruptive potential -- it was huge in middle/high schools. If someone else acquired it, FB was looking at possible a re-run of the Snapchat playbook, where a younger audience not yet on FB was lost to them.