9 ms·
The article seems to be in response to the recent Gowalla acquisition. If Gowalla had been successful and still used, it may have continued on. Facebook isn't
by viscanti 15y ago
The article seems to be in response to the recent Gowalla acquisition. If Gowalla had been successful and still used, it may have continued on. Facebook isn't shutting it down because it was a free service. They're shutting it down because it's unpopular and unprofitable. To use the Gowalla acquisition as evidence that companies acquire other companies just to shut them down is silly. All it shows is that a company can be acquired even if they fail.
- eridius 15y agoIt's unprofitable, at least in part, because it wasn't a paid service. If it was a profitable service then it's far more likely it would have been kept alive when bought out (or maybe not bought out at all).
- mitchellhislop 15y agoNot to nit-pick, but Facebook is not shutting anything down. They just hired the team, but did not acquire the users, IP, or really anything from Gowalla. Gowalla is shuttering Gowalla and joining Facebook. The fact that the founders are shuttering it and cashing out still proves your point, and I generally agree with it. [the citation on this is an AllThingsD post - I just dont have it in front of me anymore]
- alex_s 15y agoKind of agree. It seems that Gowalla case is team acquisition rather than product.