5 ms·

Pretty sure they bought Insta and Whatsapp. I mean, that's not nothing, buying a successful business and keeping it successful for over a decade. But neither

Pretty sure they bought Insta and Whatsapp. I mean, that's not nothing, buying a successful business and keeping it successful for over a decade. But neither Zuck nor Meta made those platforms; they were both established successes in their own right before acquisition.

stephbook 6mo ago
Only The Zuck saw the value though. Why didn't MS, Amazon or Google buy insta? Or some Softbank vehicle?
- afavour 6mo ago
  I’m sure the others saw the value too. It just wasn’t worth as much to them as Zuckerberg was prepared to pay. Not surprising given it’s a service that directly competed with FB in the social space.
- b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
  Probably because Instagram wasn't a direct competitor to any of those other companies (except maybe Google+, which wasn't even a year old at the time that FB bought Instagram). I don't know why softbank didn't get them.
hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago
This is the case with most tech companies. Google bought Android, YouTube, DoubleClick, Maps, etc. etc.
- happymellon 6mo ago
  Although in this case Meta bought companies that were already established and successful. Google bought Android before it had released products. Google Maps was purchased, but was Where 2 actually a successful product prior to that?
  - hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago
    I feel like you just cherry picked from my examples. YouTube was certainly successful - Google bought them because their own Google Video competitor was a flop. DoubleClick was also obviously huge. Where 2 had a successful product, it just wasn't web based (nor do I think free), so didn't have anywhere near the distribution that Google enabled once the team ported it to run in a browser.
    - magicalist 6mo ago
      I think there is a difference in at least degree here (maybe in kind, idk) that's lost by lumping them purely on acquisition or not, but I do largely agree with your point. But just wanted to correct for the historical record: > Where 2 had a successful product, it just wasn't web based (nor do I think free), so didn't have anywhere near the distribution that Google enabled once the team ported it to run in a browser. Where 2 did not have a product, successful or not. They were an unreleased demo looking for investors and luckily got into a room with Larry Page of 2004.
      - happymellon 6mo ago
        Indeed, I think they used bad examples as neither Android or Where 2 were successful, but it also shows that Google has done a mix of buying something successful to fill a gap or find someone with a good tech that they help to get over the line and make successful. Meta has not shown the second part.
    - happymellon 6mo ago
      I "cherry picked" from your examples because they weren't really good examples. You said > buying a successful business and keeping it successful for over a decade. Meta bought already successful companies. Google has purchased successful businesses, but they also purchased companies that weren't and managed to get them into massive money makers.
matwood 6mo ago
> keeping it successful I’m no Zuck fan, but he’s done much more than keep them successful, they have grown a lot. I remember everyone making fun of him for overpaying for IG and WA. Now both in hindsight look like amazing acquisitions.
- alex1138 6mo ago
  The "amazing acquisitions" should be antitrust. Whatsapp is a non starter given what Brian Acton reported. I'll never use it. People widely report they ruined Instagram and Zuck came back furiously explaining in an email chain later "oh sorry I didn't mean to say we're killing the competition" probably after a lawyer scolded him
disgruntledphd2 6mo ago
Instagram had around 10mn users at acquisition, so they might not have gotten to where they are without FB. Whatsapp was a successful product that didn't make any money.
eloisant 6mo ago
They used the Facebook app to spy on smartphone users and detect Instagram and WhatsApp success to decide to buy them.

stephbook 6mo ago

Only The Zuck saw the value though. Why didn't MS, Amazon or Google buy insta? Or some Softbank vehicle?

afavour 6mo ago
I’m sure the others saw the value too. It just wasn’t worth as much to them as Zuckerberg was prepared to pay. Not surprising given it’s a service that directly competed with FB in the social space.
b00ty4breakfast 6mo ago
Probably because Instagram wasn't a direct competitor to any of those other companies (except maybe Google+, which wasn't even a year old at the time that FB bought Instagram). I don't know why softbank didn't get them.

hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago

This is the case with most tech companies. Google bought Android, YouTube, DoubleClick, Maps, etc. etc.

happymellon 6mo ago
Although in this case Meta bought companies that were already established and successful. Google bought Android before it had released products. Google Maps was purchased, but was Where 2 actually a successful product prior to that?
- hn_throwaway_99 6mo ago
  I feel like you just cherry picked from my examples. YouTube was certainly successful - Google bought them because their own Google Video competitor was a flop. DoubleClick was also obviously huge. Where 2 had a successful product, it just wasn't web based (nor do I think free), so didn't have anywhere near the distribution that Google enabled once the team ported it to run in a browser.
  - magicalist 6mo ago
    I think there is a difference in at least degree here (maybe in kind, idk) that's lost by lumping them purely on acquisition or not, but I do largely agree with your point. But just wanted to correct for the historical record: > Where 2 had a successful product, it just wasn't web based (nor do I think free), so didn't have anywhere near the distribution that Google enabled once the team ported it to run in a browser. Where 2 did not have a product, successful or not. They were an unreleased demo looking for investors and luckily got into a room with Larry Page of 2004.
    - happymellon 6mo ago
      Indeed, I think they used bad examples as neither Android or Where 2 were successful, but it also shows that Google has done a mix of buying something successful to fill a gap or find someone with a good tech that they help to get over the line and make successful. Meta has not shown the second part.
  - happymellon 6mo ago
    I "cherry picked" from your examples because they weren't really good examples. You said > buying a successful business and keeping it successful for over a decade. Meta bought already successful companies. Google has purchased successful businesses, but they also purchased companies that weren't and managed to get them into massive money makers.

matwood 6mo ago

> keeping it successful I’m no Zuck fan, but he’s done much more than keep them successful, they have grown a lot. I remember everyone making fun of him for overpaying for IG and WA. Now both in hindsight look like amazing acquisitions.

alex1138 6mo ago
The "amazing acquisitions" should be antitrust. Whatsapp is a non starter given what Brian Acton reported. I'll never use it. People widely report they ruined Instagram and Zuck came back furiously explaining in an email chain later "oh sorry I didn't mean to say we're killing the competition" probably after a lawyer scolded him

disgruntledphd2 6mo ago

Instagram had around 10mn users at acquisition, so they might not have gotten to where they are without FB. Whatsapp was a successful product that didn't make any money.

eloisant 6mo ago

They used the Facebook app to spy on smartphone users and detect Instagram and WhatsApp success to decide to buy them.