4 ms·

This seems like retaliation for the success of their previous acquisitions of instagram and whatsapp. GIFs are not a money maker, and almost anyone could build

by pg_bot 5y ago

This seems like retaliation for the success of their previous acquisitions of instagram and whatsapp. GIFs are not a money maker, and almost anyone could build a competitor to giphy without hassle. There's no secret sauce, none of their content is protectable, and there's no moat that can protect whatever advantage they have. Plus it sounds like their business was already under duress, so why block an acquisition for any other reason than spite or incompetence?

mschuster91 5y ago
Facebook already has way too much power over the data of way too many citizens, and they continue to buy up data lakes left and right. This is what is upsetting European regulators and anti-trust agencies. The article quotes the CMA: > Alternatively, it could change the terms of this access – for example, Facebook could require Giphy customers, such as TikTok, Twitter and Snapchat, to provide more user data in order to access Giphy GIFs. Such actions could increase Facebook’s market power, which is already significant. And then, as if to show that the author hasn't understood a tiny bit of the issue at hand, he writes: > Putting aside the logic that someone would switch to using Facebook because of GIFs (I love GIFs as much as the next person, but come on), the CMA argues that Giphy was in the process of building up an ads business that would have competed with Facebook. It's not "building an ads business", the issue the CMA has is that everyone and their dog, including people not on Facebook, uses Giphy - which means that if Facebook were to buy Giphy they could scoop up an awful lot of data.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
emodendroket 5y ago
Spite and/or sending a message/being seen to send a message to Facebook seem like likely factors.
somehnacct3757 5y ago
I always thought it was because Giphy is integrated into a bunch of mobile keyboards and third party chat services. These services would never integrate a Facebook gif service because of the implication. So giphy's entire valuation lies in being a trojan horse for an established surveillance capitalist.
- ljm 5y ago
  That's my read on it: Facebook gets giphy, and they reach into all kinds of things they currently can't see. I'm sure the giphy integrations in slack, discord, telegram, etc. would become fresh sources of data depending on what the bot APIs give you in a request. They start learning who you're working with in Slack, and you start seeing them in your friends suggestions. I don't think there's any reason to expect that FB would act in any kind of good faith with this stuff - why else would you buy a gif hosting platform if not for the entrenched integrations and their access?
  - jjulius 5y ago
    Completely agree with this take. It's unsettling.
EGreg 5y ago
Because Facebook has a habit of buying companies that cement their reach. When Google bought YouTube, they were a massively money-losing business. It is now one of the main properties that gives Google an actual advantage on the Web.

by pg_bot 5y ago

mschuster91 5y ago

Facebook already has way too much power over the data of way too many citizens, and they continue to buy up data lakes left and right. This is what is upsetting European regulators and anti-trust agencies. The article quotes the CMA: > Alternatively, it could change the terms of this access – for example, Facebook could require Giphy customers, such as TikTok, Twitter and Snapchat, to provide more user data in order to access Giphy GIFs. Such actions could increase Facebook’s market power, which is already significant. And then, as if to show that the author hasn't understood a tiny bit of the issue at hand, he writes: > Putting aside the logic that someone would switch to using Facebook because of GIFs (I love GIFs as much as the next person, but come on), the CMA argues that Giphy was in the process of building up an ads business that would have competed with Facebook. It's not "building an ads business", the issue the CMA has is that everyone and their dog, including people not on Facebook, uses Giphy - which means that if Facebook were to buy Giphy they could scoop up an awful lot of data.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

emodendroket 5y ago

Spite and/or sending a message/being seen to send a message to Facebook seem like likely factors.

somehnacct3757 5y ago

I always thought it was because Giphy is integrated into a bunch of mobile keyboards and third party chat services. These services would never integrate a Facebook gif service because of the implication. So giphy's entire valuation lies in being a trojan horse for an established surveillance capitalist.

ljm 5y ago
That's my read on it: Facebook gets giphy, and they reach into all kinds of things they currently can't see. I'm sure the giphy integrations in slack, discord, telegram, etc. would become fresh sources of data depending on what the bot APIs give you in a request. They start learning who you're working with in Slack, and you start seeing them in your friends suggestions. I don't think there's any reason to expect that FB would act in any kind of good faith with this stuff - why else would you buy a gif hosting platform if not for the entrenched integrations and their access?
- jjulius 5y ago
  Completely agree with this take. It's unsettling.

EGreg 5y ago

Because Facebook has a habit of buying companies that cement their reach. When Google bought YouTube, they were a massively money-losing business. It is now one of the main properties that gives Google an actual advantage on the Web.