4 ms·

What do you mean 'allowed' (Im not being snarky, honestly curious please take the question as not an attack)? The creators just sold it, private company, priva

by ProAm 5y ago

What do you mean 'allowed' (Im not being snarky, honestly curious please take the question as not an attack)? The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted. I think in hindsight they regret selling it to FB, but it's really hard to turn down billions of dollars.

bidirectional 5y ago
M&A is regulated, it's not a totally free market. If company A buys company B, the government allowed them to do so. There are plenty of scenarios where they won't.
- ProAm 5y ago
  I agree with that but a independent messaging app seems perfectly safe for FB to purchase. Instagram a little different but I never saw the government being concerned or potentially not allow this one to go through. That is why I was curious about the OPs perspective because maybe they did see something (not counting hindsight and that FB is a terrible company, but only in the moment)
  - pegasus 5y ago
    It's simple: OP's perspective is that even though the purchase was not stopped, it should have been. That to you it seemed a perfectly safe purchase is completely irellevant to his argument.
    - ProAm 5y ago
      I would like to know why he thinks it should have been stopped. At the time of that purchase I think any messaging platform could have been sold to anyone and not been stopped (imo).
      - pegasus 5y ago
        Again, it's simple: he says it should have been stopped, not that it could have been stopped. Or you could read it as "in a better system, this purchase would have been seen as anticompetitive and stopped". I happen to agree with the sentiment.
        ProAm 5y ago
        > he says it should have been stopped, Again, I ask why. It wasn't anti-competitve because the service still exists as a standalone service just with a different owner. I see what you are saying it just does not make any sense in terms of antitrust or anti-competitiveness
        nicoburns 5y ago
        It's not really standalone. The privacy implications are case in point. Facebook is a vehemently anti-privacy company, and it's not going to allow WhatsApp to undermine on this point. If WhatsApp (or indeed Instagram) were truly independent then we may well see competition on this front.
jkukul 5y ago
Have you heard about antitrust laws? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law These types of laws exist to prevent monopolies being created after a M&A. Whatsapp's acquisition was in fact investigated and approved both by relevant commissions in US and EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
- ProAm 5y ago
  Right but I didnt see anything in this acquisition that would trigger antitrust (WhatsApp only, I did see issues with Instagram). And independent messaging app that didnt have ads seems like a safe purchase from a legal standpoint. That is why I asked the OP why he was surprised it was allowed.
  - akarma 5y ago
    (I'm not the above commenter but also disagreed with your prior comment) > The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted. I understand and agree with your take now, but this sentence from your last comment seemed like a different line of thinking. If a creator can just sell it to anyone because it's a private company, that's false and that's a different argument than the specifics of this case not triggering antitrust law. WhatsApp being bought by Apple could have easily been construed as anticompetitive, so it wasn't just that a creator can sell a private company to anyone they want. (Also, Facebook Messenger could be a reason that Facebook's purchase of WhatsApp is anticompetitive, but neither service was as prevalent at the time).
    - ProAm 5y ago
      Makes sense I should have been more clear (also why I said I wasnt trying to be snarky because I could easily read my first comment as such). I think at the time this sale happened any messaging service could have been sold to any company without government stoppage. The anti competitive guidelines are as such: - agreements between competitors, also referred to as horizontal conduct - monopolization, also referred to as single firm conduct I think this sale would still go through today as for FB still has messenger and Whatsapp as separate products and (arguably) still free. I havent thought about it Apple purchased it. I think that still may have gone through too unless they stopped the app working on Android.
elzbardico 5y ago
The thing is that facebook buying whatsapp was clearly an anti-competitive move, the same way as when they bought instagram.

by ProAm 5y ago

bidirectional 5y ago

M&A is regulated, it's not a totally free market. If company A buys company B, the government allowed them to do so. There are plenty of scenarios where they won't.

ProAm 5y ago
I agree with that but a independent messaging app seems perfectly safe for FB to purchase. Instagram a little different but I never saw the government being concerned or potentially not allow this one to go through. That is why I was curious about the OPs perspective because maybe they did see something (not counting hindsight and that FB is a terrible company, but only in the moment)
- pegasus 5y ago
  It's simple: OP's perspective is that even though the purchase was not stopped, it should have been. That to you it seemed a perfectly safe purchase is completely irellevant to his argument.
  - ProAm 5y ago
    I would like to know why he thinks it should have been stopped. At the time of that purchase I think any messaging platform could have been sold to anyone and not been stopped (imo).
    - pegasus 5y ago
      Again, it's simple: he says it should have been stopped, not that it could have been stopped. Or you could read it as "in a better system, this purchase would have been seen as anticompetitive and stopped". I happen to agree with the sentiment.
      - ProAm 5y ago
        > he says it should have been stopped, Again, I ask why. It wasn't anti-competitve because the service still exists as a standalone service just with a different owner. I see what you are saying it just does not make any sense in terms of antitrust or anti-competitiveness
        nicoburns 5y ago
        It's not really standalone. The privacy implications are case in point. Facebook is a vehemently anti-privacy company, and it's not going to allow WhatsApp to undermine on this point. If WhatsApp (or indeed Instagram) were truly independent then we may well see competition on this front.

jkukul 5y ago

Have you heard about antitrust laws? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law These types of laws exist to prevent monopolies being created after a M&A. Whatsapp's acquisition was in fact investigated and approved both by relevant commissions in US and EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

ProAm 5y ago
Right but I didnt see anything in this acquisition that would trigger antitrust (WhatsApp only, I did see issues with Instagram). And independent messaging app that didnt have ads seems like a safe purchase from a legal standpoint. That is why I asked the OP why he was surprised it was allowed.
- akarma 5y ago
  (I'm not the above commenter but also disagreed with your prior comment) > The creators just sold it, private company, private service they could have sold it to anyone they wanted. I understand and agree with your take now, but this sentence from your last comment seemed like a different line of thinking. If a creator can just sell it to anyone because it's a private company, that's false and that's a different argument than the specifics of this case not triggering antitrust law. WhatsApp being bought by Apple could have easily been construed as anticompetitive, so it wasn't just that a creator can sell a private company to anyone they want. (Also, Facebook Messenger could be a reason that Facebook's purchase of WhatsApp is anticompetitive, but neither service was as prevalent at the time).
  - ProAm 5y ago
    Makes sense I should have been more clear (also why I said I wasnt trying to be snarky because I could easily read my first comment as such). I think at the time this sale happened any messaging service could have been sold to any company without government stoppage. The anti competitive guidelines are as such: - agreements between competitors, also referred to as horizontal conduct - monopolization, also referred to as single firm conduct I think this sale would still go through today as for FB still has messenger and Whatsapp as separate products and (arguably) still free. I havent thought about it Apple purchased it. I think that still may have gone through too unless they stopped the app working on Android.

elzbardico 5y ago

The thing is that facebook buying whatsapp was clearly an anti-competitive move, the same way as when they bought instagram.