4 ms·

This doesn't really apply to Picnik. It was a real and sustainable business. We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google. Our users wer

by mikehar 13y ago

This doesn't really apply to Picnik. It was a real and sustainable business. We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google. Our users were constantly on our mind. Picnik continued to grow dramatically while we were at google. It was closed down at its peak. FWIW we tried to buy Picnik back from Google once we heard that it was going to be shuttered. They wouldn't sell. It was gut wrenching to see Picnik go dark.

dalanmiller 13y ago
The hard part is didn't they realize they were taking away one thing and not replacing it with another? That part is the most frustrating of all.
- tempestn 13y ago
  I'm experiencing exactly this frustration with their acquisition of SageTV now. (Well, the acquisition was a while ago, but the pain is starting now.) MythTV is theoretically an alternative, but requires quite a bit more time investment it seems.
27182818284 13y ago
> It was closed down at its peak. What the heck was the reason behind that? I'm so curious. I know Google likes to headshot different products, but typically aren't they the unsuccessful ones like Google Wave?
- Oculus 13y ago
  The likely logic behind shutting down Picnik would have been to lessen the competition to Google+.
Jormundir 13y ago
I don't really see this as valid justification. This is the same explanation given every time, and every time the users are the ones completely screwed over. I think this is a justification to yourself rather than the underlying truth. > Our users were constantly on our mind. If that were true, you wouldn't have sold the company to Google, as the outcome is not out of the ordinary by any means. So though they may have been on your mind, your users were ultimately not your priority. > It was a real and sustainable business. Then why sell it? Which leads to: > We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google. and > Picnik continued to grow dramatically while we were at google. Which means you prioritized growth over ensuring service and supporting your customers for the long term. This isn't bad, it's how you expand the business, but it does show your priority was not the customers you already had. Which brings us back to the original point: > This doesn't really apply to Picnik. I think you're deluding yourself, not in a way that implies any sort of insanity, but more of a coping mechanism so you don't have to confront the fact that your biggest priority was money and not your users. In the end, you (really your board, which I think includes you) sold to Google, relinquishing control over the long term care of your users. That is the action, and that is what is ultimately true. I don't think you're a bad person by any means. I would have made the same decision. Lets just be honest about outcomes. I think it's easy to be tricked in these acquisition offers, mainly because your personal outcome is ensured. You are getting lots of money, and you get the opportunity to see if you're business can get really big. The problem is, this actually puts a make or break ultimatum on your business. If you don't get the rapid growth you were hoping for, or your business doesn't align with the parent company down the road, then your business is broken (shut down by the parent) and your customers lose. So this is the gamble you face, and either way your future is positive, but you're betting with your customers, and when it doesn't work out they lose, but you don't.
- faceyspacey 13y ago
  Fuck the users! If we are to be honest 90% of these products we build on hacker news are bullshit that are great for existing to drive innovation forward, but in itself easily replaceable because there are so many of us willing to make a better competing product. Come on now, mobile and web products if killed off doesn't hurt any users, Facebook and google included. They are close to debatable, but whatever. The supply of apps and sites is too high. The creators of them even higher. Not that it's a bad thing at all...u get the idea. Cry me a river about point and click/touch users.
  - hga 13y ago
    You're looking at it from the supply side; perhaps you should consider the demand side? If this attitude prevails, eventually you'll likely to find you've poisoned the well such that you won't be able to find enough new users for subsequent ventures. As I mention here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130428 in the context of the end of the IPO exit, every accui-kill results in a pissed off set of ex-users less likely to try the next startup's shiny new toy.
- haberman 13y ago
  This is presumptuous, uncharitable, and not particularly faithful to what actually happened. By Mike's account, the unanticipated pivot to Google+ had nothing to do with being "tricked." Yes, selling your company does take the risk that the new parent company will shut down your product, but it also gives you access to resources you would not have had, which can ultimately make the product better than if you had stayed independent (thus benefiting your users). For example, Google Voice has been able to offer far more than GrandCentral's product did. Is it a gamble? Yes, but not the simple "founders vs users" one you make it out to be.
  - wes-exp 13y ago
    Indeed. There is no risk-free approach to being on the user's side in a case like this. Choose from: 1) get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by the acquirer; 2) don't get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by worsening economics, competition, etc. (most fledgling businesses are vulnerable compared to the security of Google)
blueskin_ 13y ago
A company with users on its mind should stay as far away from google as it can.

by mikehar 13y ago

dalanmiller 13y ago

The hard part is didn't they realize they were taking away one thing and not replacing it with another? That part is the most frustrating of all.

tempestn 13y ago
I'm experiencing exactly this frustration with their acquisition of SageTV now. (Well, the acquisition was a while ago, but the pain is starting now.) MythTV is theoretically an alternative, but requires quite a bit more time investment it seems.

27182818284 13y ago

> It was closed down at its peak. What the heck was the reason behind that? I'm so curious. I know Google likes to headshot different products, but typically aren't they the unsuccessful ones like Google Wave?

Oculus 13y ago
The likely logic behind shutting down Picnik would have been to lessen the competition to Google+.

Jormundir 13y ago

I don't really see this as valid justification. This is the same explanation given every time, and every time the users are the ones completely screwed over. I think this is a justification to yourself rather than the underlying truth. > Our users were constantly on our mind. If that were true, you wouldn't have sold the company to Google, as the outcome is not out of the ordinary by any means. So though they may have been on your mind, your users were ultimately not your priority. > It was a real and sustainable business. Then why sell it? Which leads to: > We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google. and > Picnik continued to grow dramatically while we were at google. Which means you prioritized growth over ensuring service and supporting your customers for the long term. This isn't bad, it's how you expand the business, but it does show your priority was not the customers you already had. Which brings us back to the original point: > This doesn't really apply to Picnik. I think you're deluding yourself, not in a way that implies any sort of insanity, but more of a coping mechanism so you don't have to confront the fact that your biggest priority was money and not your users. In the end, you (really your board, which I think includes you) sold to Google, relinquishing control over the long term care of your users. That is the action, and that is what is ultimately true. I don't think you're a bad person by any means. I would have made the same decision. Lets just be honest about outcomes. I think it's easy to be tricked in these acquisition offers, mainly because your personal outcome is ensured. You are getting lots of money, and you get the opportunity to see if you're business can get really big. The problem is, this actually puts a make or break ultimatum on your business. If you don't get the rapid growth you were hoping for, or your business doesn't align with the parent company down the road, then your business is broken (shut down by the parent) and your customers lose. So this is the gamble you face, and either way your future is positive, but you're betting with your customers, and when it doesn't work out they lose, but you don't.

faceyspacey 13y ago
Fuck the users! If we are to be honest 90% of these products we build on hacker news are bullshit that are great for existing to drive innovation forward, but in itself easily replaceable because there are so many of us willing to make a better competing product. Come on now, mobile and web products if killed off doesn't hurt any users, Facebook and google included. They are close to debatable, but whatever. The supply of apps and sites is too high. The creators of them even higher. Not that it's a bad thing at all...u get the idea. Cry me a river about point and click/touch users.
- hga 13y ago
  You're looking at it from the supply side; perhaps you should consider the demand side? If this attitude prevails, eventually you'll likely to find you've poisoned the well such that you won't be able to find enough new users for subsequent ventures. As I mention here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130428 in the context of the end of the IPO exit, every accui-kill results in a pissed off set of ex-users less likely to try the next startup's shiny new toy.
haberman 13y ago
This is presumptuous, uncharitable, and not particularly faithful to what actually happened. By Mike's account, the unanticipated pivot to Google+ had nothing to do with being "tricked." Yes, selling your company does take the risk that the new parent company will shut down your product, but it also gives you access to resources you would not have had, which can ultimately make the product better than if you had stayed independent (thus benefiting your users). For example, Google Voice has been able to offer far more than GrandCentral's product did. Is it a gamble? Yes, but not the simple "founders vs users" one you make it out to be.
- wes-exp 13y ago
  Indeed. There is no risk-free approach to being on the user's side in a case like this. Choose from: 1) get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by the acquirer; 2) don't get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by worsening economics, competition, etc. (most fledgling businesses are vulnerable compared to the security of Google)

blueskin_ 13y ago

A company with users on its mind should stay as far away from google as it can.