4 ms·
So basically Facebook got the same benefit as if they had acquired the company(the talent) for less money and the investors got screwed.
by il 17y ago
So basically Facebook got the same benefit as if they had acquired the company(the talent) for less money and the investors got screwed.
- GavinB 17y agoPresumably they don't get the brand, domain name, existing code base, and access to registered users. There's probably a lot more to this story than we know--there's no need to jump to conclusions.
- jonknee 17y agoI don't think Facebook needs the domain, code or registered users. They liked the idea and obviously the people behind it. But to launch it on a Facebook like scale it would need a rewrite, tons of legal power and probably a new name anyway (even TipJoy learned to not like their name).
- scorpion032 17y ago> brand name The founders have themselves said that they have little traction, and 3rd party payment services will not add much value. > domain name Doesn't matter, when brand name isn't useful > Existing code base Its takes significantly less time to build it the next time. > Registered users Facebook has 250 million users! <1% cant matter anyway.
- GavinB 17y agoRight, and that's why no one was interested in buying the company. Investors own the company, not the employees--even if they are founders.
- tipjoy 17y agoDebatably, they got less than half the talent, thank you very much!
- scorpion032 17y agoAt less than a tenth of the price?
- webwright 17y agoAbby > Ivan? :-)
- jharrison 17y agoI sense strife intra-marital strife.