5 ms·

If only there were some kind of federal agency, maybe a "trade commission" that could have blocked these mergers when they originally happened ....

JxLS-cpgbe0 6y ago
The FTC allowed the IG merger because * No ads (lol) * Competition from Google even if it did have ads * FB had no competitive photo app
ergocoder 6y ago
When they originally happened, people thought Zuck was insane. Instagram for $1B? WhatsApp for $17B? Really? FTC definitely isn't competent enough to understand how visionary the acquisition was. To be fair, not many was that competent. Otherwise, Google and other cash-loaded companies would have acquired these companies with higher offer. It could have easily been Twitter + Vines + Periscope where the acquired products went nowhere. It's unfair to Zuck for being very visionary about this. But antitrust isn't about being fair to an individual company...
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > When they originally happened, people thought Zuck was insane. Maybe that's a sign that the acquisitions deserved more scrutiny?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- majani 6y ago
  To be fair, that Whatsapp deal still looks insane. Still no meaningful revenue coming from that end 8 years later
  - will_pseudonym 6y ago
    Except the revenue that they potentially would have been losing out on had they not acquired their competitor.
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      Nobody really knows how much that would be. But everyone will make up a number to support whatever side of the argument they are on. In any case, Whatsapp as a standalone company would definitely go bankrupt. The infra cost would be insane with such little revenue.
- aylmao 6y ago
  > It's unfair to Zuck for being very visionary about this. I personally disagree with the idea that Zuck was being a "visionary" here. I don't think buying Instagram for $1bn was a particularly visionary move but rather just... cautious. Facebook also bought Gowalla, Lightbox.com, Friendly, TBH and tried to buy Snapchat, Musically (since merged into TikTok), Houseparty, etc. All these are/were competitors and threats. Some were small, some were big. Some worked out and grew, others didn't. The Instagram acquisition happened fairly early on, so it makes sense that it was worth a lot of money to Facebook. Now that Facebook is huge it can get turned down by a company like Snapchat, and it'll just go ahead and copy/improve its features with its much-larger team, capital, and user-base. Back then, buying the competitor was the best option since Facebook didn't have as many resources or reasons to believe they could compete as effectively. Moreover, I'd argue the reason Instagram worked out so well is precisely because it got acquired by Facebook. Had Instagram had to figure out its own monetization strategy, find its own clients, compete with the established players, build its own infrastructure, etc. it probably wouldn't have been able to grow as much or as quickly.
- thraway12 6y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/05/22/why-the-ftc-is-investigating-the-facebookinstagram-deal/?sh=66b739654d64 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/05/22/why-the-f...
WillPostForFood 6y ago
Thanks Obama. But seriously, by what rationale would you block the purchase in 2012? Instagram only had 25 million users at the time.
- Igelau 6y ago
  I think that's the point. If it wasn't anticompetitive then, why is it now?
- maxerickson 6y ago
  You don't just look at Instagram when you evaluate the acquisition, you look at Facebook also. Facebook was huge, and Instagram didn't represent anything Facebook couldn't just build themselves, other than the growing user base. So there is your rationale, the behemoth shouldn't be completely free to consolidate users. Of course the details of how big is too big and so on are the hard part.

JxLS-cpgbe0 6y ago

The FTC allowed the IG merger because * No ads (lol) * Competition from Google even if it did have ads * FB had no competitive photo app

ergocoder 6y ago

When they originally happened, people thought Zuck was insane. Instagram for $1B? WhatsApp for $17B? Really? FTC definitely isn't competent enough to understand how visionary the acquisition was. To be fair, not many was that competent. Otherwise, Google and other cash-loaded companies would have acquired these companies with higher offer. It could have easily been Twitter + Vines + Periscope where the acquired products went nowhere. It's unfair to Zuck for being very visionary about this. But antitrust isn't about being fair to an individual company...

madeofpalk 6y ago
> When they originally happened, people thought Zuck was insane. Maybe that's a sign that the acquisitions deserved more scrutiny?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
majani 6y ago
To be fair, that Whatsapp deal still looks insane. Still no meaningful revenue coming from that end 8 years later
- will_pseudonym 6y ago
  Except the revenue that they potentially would have been losing out on had they not acquired their competitor.
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    Nobody really knows how much that would be. But everyone will make up a number to support whatever side of the argument they are on. In any case, Whatsapp as a standalone company would definitely go bankrupt. The infra cost would be insane with such little revenue.
aylmao 6y ago
> It's unfair to Zuck for being very visionary about this. I personally disagree with the idea that Zuck was being a "visionary" here. I don't think buying Instagram for $1bn was a particularly visionary move but rather just... cautious. Facebook also bought Gowalla, Lightbox.com, Friendly, TBH and tried to buy Snapchat, Musically (since merged into TikTok), Houseparty, etc. All these are/were competitors and threats. Some were small, some were big. Some worked out and grew, others didn't. The Instagram acquisition happened fairly early on, so it makes sense that it was worth a lot of money to Facebook. Now that Facebook is huge it can get turned down by a company like Snapchat, and it'll just go ahead and copy/improve its features with its much-larger team, capital, and user-base. Back then, buying the competitor was the best option since Facebook didn't have as many resources or reasons to believe they could compete as effectively. Moreover, I'd argue the reason Instagram worked out so well is precisely because it got acquired by Facebook. Had Instagram had to figure out its own monetization strategy, find its own clients, compete with the established players, build its own infrastructure, etc. it probably wouldn't have been able to grow as much or as quickly.
thraway12 6y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/05/22/why-the-ftc-is-investigating-the-facebookinstagram-deal/?sh=66b739654d64 https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/05/22/why-the-f...

WillPostForFood 6y ago

Thanks Obama. But seriously, by what rationale would you block the purchase in 2012? Instagram only had 25 million users at the time.

Igelau 6y ago
I think that's the point. If it wasn't anticompetitive then, why is it now?
maxerickson 6y ago
You don't just look at Instagram when you evaluate the acquisition, you look at Facebook also. Facebook was huge, and Instagram didn't represent anything Facebook couldn't just build themselves, other than the growing user base. So there is your rationale, the behemoth shouldn't be completely free to consolidate users. Of course the details of how big is too big and so on are the hard part.