3 ms·
Fishy? Their post generated a lot of attention and certainly attracted acquisition offers. This could have been intentional or not, but unless they have some ha
by maxmcd 12y ago
Fishy? Their post generated a lot of attention and certainly attracted acquisition offers. This could have been intentional or not, but unless they have some hard-and-fast reason not to sell this doesn't seem like the most unlikely outcome.
- jonknee 12y agoThe fishy part is that they were shutting down for a phony reason. They never had a trademark, so it made no sense to shut down the company when they ended up not getting one. Twitter wasn't suing them or cutting off API access, they were just against the trademark. Coincidentally (perhaps), the service was hemorrhaging users while storage costs remained pretty constant. If they wanted to soldier on and continue the service there was absolutely nothing stopping them. It smells like a big scare tactic to put the mess on someone else's plate. It worked I guess.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- eridius 12y agoThe most likely explanation, which was suggested by someone else but unfortunately I forget who, is that the founder of TwitPic was simply tired of dealing with Twitter and their increasingly-hostile stance towards third-party developers (even though in this case it's a service and not a client). This trademark thing may have just been the final straw. And in light of that, being acquired makes perfect sense as it means the founder still gets to stop dealing with Twitter and let the new owners deal with them now.
- jonknee 12y agoI think he's already made the money (it used to be waaay bigger and make a ton more) and now wants to work on his new startup. Blaming Twitter for the trademark app was just a really easy excuse. Being able to call it an acquisition is even better.