3 ms·

I always cheer for Snapchat just because of the courage it took to turn down Zuckerberg's $3 billion offer in 2013. If you compare Evan Spiegel to Kevin Systro

by guelo 5y ago

I always cheer for Snapchat just because of the courage it took to turn down Zuckerberg's $3 billion offer in 2013. If you compare Evan Spiegel to Kevin Systrom (Instagram founder), Spiegel is 6 times richer and he didn't have to kowtow to Zuckerberg for all those years. Hopefully that's a lesson to founders to go for it, build something real and don't sell out.

paxys 5y ago
It's not as straightforward a comparison. Instagram is still worth 3-5x more than Snapchat today. It's not obvious that they would have seen the same growth had they stayed independent.
- ladon86 5y ago
  It seems pretty straightforward to me from the perspective of the founder. Would you rather: A) Be worth $6.6bn and have control of your company, with people generally crediting the company's success with your leadership or B) Be worth $1.6bn and have your (former) company be a division of Zuck's empire that's technically worth 3-5x more to shareholders, but (as you just demonstrated) people generally say that it would be worth far less if Facebook hadn't acquired it? I think Kevin Systrom probably doesn't give a shit about how much Instagram contributes to Meta's market cap these days, but I imagine that he _does_ care about the impact of Instagram on global culture. At the $1bn+ level, it's all about power and legacy. Evan Spiegel has retained the power to shape his legacy.
  - heromal 5y ago
    The problem is you don't know in 2012 that these are the two options. Obviously no one with the power of foresight is going to choose option B, so I don't get what point you think you're making.
    - ladon86 5y ago
      * The first comment in this thread applauds the courage to turn down a $3bn acquisition, and suggests that the eventual outcome has vindicated that decision. * The second comment suggests that this vindication is debatable based on Instagram’s valuation being higher than Snapchat’s * I agree with the first comment and disagree with the second comment, so the point I am trying to make is that it the decision to turn down the acquisition was indeed vindicated.
mdoms 5y ago
It also helps to already be independently wealthy.

by guelo 5y ago

paxys 5y ago

It's not as straightforward a comparison. Instagram is still worth 3-5x more than Snapchat today. It's not obvious that they would have seen the same growth had they stayed independent.

ladon86 5y ago
It seems pretty straightforward to me from the perspective of the founder. Would you rather: A) Be worth $6.6bn and have control of your company, with people generally crediting the company's success with your leadership or B) Be worth $1.6bn and have your (former) company be a division of Zuck's empire that's technically worth 3-5x more to shareholders, but (as you just demonstrated) people generally say that it would be worth far less if Facebook hadn't acquired it? I think Kevin Systrom probably doesn't give a shit about how much Instagram contributes to Meta's market cap these days, but I imagine that he _does_ care about the impact of Instagram on global culture. At the $1bn+ level, it's all about power and legacy. Evan Spiegel has retained the power to shape his legacy.
- heromal 5y ago
  The problem is you don't know in 2012 that these are the two options. Obviously no one with the power of foresight is going to choose option B, so I don't get what point you think you're making.
  - ladon86 5y ago
    * The first comment in this thread applauds the courage to turn down a $3bn acquisition, and suggests that the eventual outcome has vindicated that decision. * The second comment suggests that this vindication is debatable based on Instagram’s valuation being higher than Snapchat’s * I agree with the first comment and disagree with the second comment, so the point I am trying to make is that it the decision to turn down the acquisition was indeed vindicated.

mdoms 5y ago

It also helps to already be independently wealthy.