5 ms·

So why not lease the tech to a different company under a different brand they own and release it? Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. Nobody is going to care if G

So why not lease the tech to a different company under a different brand they own and release it? Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. Nobody is going to care if Google releases a ChatGPT bot on a different website.

londons_explore 4y ago
That's what I'd do... specifically, I'd license Google tech to ex-google employees who want to start a company, in return for an 80% ownership stake. It would be a 'you can use all google internal code and infrastructure, for free, as long as you don't use google branding and don't use our user data' deal. The companies would have the benefits of google tech, without being tied down by internal politics, procedures, risk management, etc. They could afford to do things like just release a product to the world rather than have a legal and PR team go over every detail for every law in every country worldwide as part of a 6 month long review process.
- hooo 4y ago
  Lol, think from the founder / teams perspectives. Giving 80% ownership would be insane. How could you build a company like that? It’s not so simple.
  - unicornmama 4y ago
    The sort of people who would accept those terms are not the sort of people you want to build a startup.
  - ignoramous 4y ago
    Those are called Spin-Ins. Now abandoned, Cisco once pioneered this model: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8348900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8348900 The closest Google had to it was Area 120, which has also been abandoned?
    - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
      Isn't this what incubators do now?
      - fakedang 4y ago
        The value add by most incubators and accelerators is minimal, compared to what a large parent company can provide though.
- neilv 4y ago
  I might take that 80% deal, for the right killer IP that I knew how to apply in a marketable way, and a couple years of sufficient GCP credits. I might bootstrap revenue without much hiring, so that business success means the team does better financially than the sure-thing FIRE if they'd just taken a FAANG job and grinded promotions. This business giving away 80% equity would lean on the value of IP, and on knowing how to be very effective with solo/small teams -- not 'scale' in the sense of trying to herd hundreds of software and product and business people. (This is another thing that big orgs can have trouble doing, and so sometimes do insulated spinoffs/units instead, just to unburden people.)
- crakhamster01 4y ago
  I think they basically employ that model already at Area 120 [0]. This interview platform called Byteboard was spun out of Area 120 a couple of years ago, and I imagine Google has a large ownership stake in it, while avoiding the brand association [1]. [0] https://area120.google.com/ https://area120.google.com/ [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/05/technical-interview-platform-byteboard-spins-out-of-googles-area-120-takes-on-new-funding/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/05/technical-interview-platfo...
trpv 4y ago
> Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. They're pretty upfront with it... It says "By Meta" on the launch screen
- vxNsr 4y ago
  I know many people who use WhatsApp every day who are still surprised when I say it’s owned by Facebook/meta. They just don’t see what they don’t want to see.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    I know people who I remind this to regularly, and they just don't care enough to remember.
dbspin 4y ago
> Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. That might have been true at some point - but a combination of their extremely loud rebranding of both to Meta, and the media constantly saying 'Instagram, which is owned by FB' or words to that effect has changed it. Even my elderly parents are aware Instagram is owned by FB / Meta.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  I feel like this was done so retail investors would know Instagram was owned by Meta. Not users.
  - fakedang 4y ago
    If that was the case, I wouldn't be greeted by the new Meta logo every time I open the WhatsApp, Instagram or Facebook apps.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      That could be because Meta doesn't have the same negative connotation FB does.
DJBunnies 4y ago
> Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. Even my non tech friends know.

londons_explore 4y ago

That's what I'd do... specifically, I'd license Google tech to ex-google employees who want to start a company, in return for an 80% ownership stake. It would be a 'you can use all google internal code and infrastructure, for free, as long as you don't use google branding and don't use our user data' deal. The companies would have the benefits of google tech, without being tied down by internal politics, procedures, risk management, etc. They could afford to do things like just release a product to the world rather than have a legal and PR team go over every detail for every law in every country worldwide as part of a 6 month long review process.

hooo 4y ago
Lol, think from the founder / teams perspectives. Giving 80% ownership would be insane. How could you build a company like that? It’s not so simple.
- unicornmama 4y ago
  The sort of people who would accept those terms are not the sort of people you want to build a startup.
- ignoramous 4y ago
  Those are called Spin-Ins. Now abandoned, Cisco once pioneered this model: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8348900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8348900 The closest Google had to it was Area 120, which has also been abandoned?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    Isn't this what incubators do now?
    - fakedang 4y ago
      The value add by most incubators and accelerators is minimal, compared to what a large parent company can provide though.
neilv 4y ago
I might take that 80% deal, for the right killer IP that I knew how to apply in a marketable way, and a couple years of sufficient GCP credits. I might bootstrap revenue without much hiring, so that business success means the team does better financially than the sure-thing FIRE if they'd just taken a FAANG job and grinded promotions. This business giving away 80% equity would lean on the value of IP, and on knowing how to be very effective with solo/small teams -- not 'scale' in the sense of trying to herd hundreds of software and product and business people. (This is another thing that big orgs can have trouble doing, and so sometimes do insulated spinoffs/units instead, just to unburden people.)
crakhamster01 4y ago
I think they basically employ that model already at Area 120 [0]. This interview platform called Byteboard was spun out of Area 120 a couple of years ago, and I imagine Google has a large ownership stake in it, while avoiding the brand association [1]. [0] https://area120.google.com/ https://area120.google.com/ [1] https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/05/technical-interview-platform-byteboard-spins-out-of-googles-area-120-takes-on-new-funding/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/05/technical-interview-platfo...

trpv 4y ago

> Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. They're pretty upfront with it... It says "By Meta" on the launch screen

vxNsr 4y ago
I know many people who use WhatsApp every day who are still surprised when I say it’s owned by Facebook/meta. They just don’t see what they don’t want to see.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  I know people who I remind this to regularly, and they just don't care enough to remember.

dbspin 4y ago

> Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. That might have been true at some point - but a combination of their extremely loud rebranding of both to Meta, and the media constantly saying 'Instagram, which is owned by FB' or words to that effect has changed it. Even my elderly parents are aware Instagram is owned by FB / Meta.

HWR_14 4y ago
I feel like this was done so retail investors would know Instagram was owned by Meta. Not users.
- fakedang 4y ago
  If that was the case, I wouldn't be greeted by the new Meta logo every time I open the WhatsApp, Instagram or Facebook apps.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    That could be because Meta doesn't have the same negative connotation FB does.

DJBunnies 4y ago

> Nobody knows FB owns Instagram. Even my non tech friends know.