3 ms·
Respectfully, clearly you aren't familiar with Jan and Brian's history of public statements. Even for years after they were acquired by Meta, Jan refused to al
by BiggerChungus 1y ago
Respectfully, clearly you aren't familiar with Jan and Brian's history of public statements.
Even for years after they were acquired by Meta, Jan refused to allow advertising and kept pushing the $1 dollar per user subscription fee. Sheryl nixed it b/c it was "not scalable."
VC's may have the mindset that the founders will eventually acquiesce to ads, but also they didn't really care b/c all they wanted was an exit, which they got.
The founders, however, were never interested in an ad business and hold that POV to this day.
- robertlagrant 1y ago> The founders, however, were never interested in an ad business and hold that POV to this day. Fair enough, but the founders don't necessarily make these decisions. I wasn't particularly referring to them. If they got VC money (I don't know if they did or not) then the VCs must've had something in mind to get a decent return on their risk.
- otterley 1y agoThey did have VC funding from Sequoia Capital. (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/whatsapp/financial_details https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/whatsapp/financial_d...)
- eviks 1y ago> VC's may have the mindset that the founders will eventually acquiesce to ads > history of public statements. Actions speak louder. He did acquiesce - he sold to an ad-financed company. > and hold that POV to this day. You can hold any POV when nothing depends on it.
- udev4096 1y agoBrian Acton is a fucking sell out. Peroid. He deserves no sympathy and I cannot believe how he was appointed executive chairperson of signal foundation