3 ms·
It's not ironic at all, nor is it very persuasive. It's pretty well established truism by now that start-ups are a business model where the founders and angel
by parasense 5y ago
It's not ironic at all, nor is it very persuasive.
It's pretty well established truism by now that start-ups are a business model where the founders and angel investors become wealthy once the business sells. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of how many start-ups sellout, continue as an independent entity, or completely fail. Regardless, just because Facebook recognizes the business culture in the SF Bay area is not a persuasive argument for why they should be broken up.
- notahacker 5y ago> It's pretty well established truism by now that start-ups are a business model where the founders and angel investors become wealthy once the business sells. It's a pretty well established truism that startups in most markets would have absolutely no difficulty at all in selling their business via many different exit routes if one particular player wasn't able to go through with an acquisition for any reason. If it was too early to go public the could sell to Instagram Inc or WhatsApp PLC, or a private equity firm that wants to get into a sector where many, many firms have become stable and profitable. Facebook's statement that if they're not allowed to buy, entrepreneurs [in their market] won't be able to sell [to anyone else] is a truism specific to the social media market Facebook dominates, and a direct consequence of it having the sort of monopoly power that gets them scrutinised by the Competition Commission.