2 ms·

Not sure how similar this is, since the majority of Tinder is owned and controlled by IAC. The founders never really had a chance to control it since it was an

Not sure how similar this is, since the majority of Tinder is owned and controlled by IAC. The founders never really had a chance to control it since it was an incubated project.

geofft 12y ago
The IAC thing makes me wonder whether these stories can even be read normally. Given that this is a very large company that is closely managing the creation of a startup-shaped thing, do things like "founder" and "CEO" and "investment" mean what we usually think they mean? And if not, is there at all a meaningful parallel in the story of Twitter or any other actually-independent startup? http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forgotten-woman-whitney-wolfe-sexism-and-startup-creation-myths http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forg... """I spent a short and intense two weeks last summer reporting out a Tinder feature for Bloomberg Businessweek. What I found was a meteoric startup that wasn’t really a startup, owing to the fact that Tinder was born in an IAC incubator, and IAC owned and controlled the company. Rad and [former Chief Marketing Officer Justin] Mateen seemed to be playing make-believe in a lot of ways. They were keen to hide the IAC arrangement (“They’re sort of our partner in this”) and pretend that they were living the dream of being wined and dined by Silicon Valley moneymen (“We are being bombarded by venture capitalists … it’s very overwhelming”). When I talked to their minders at IAC and the incubator, executives were often dismissive of the two youngsters—happy to let them spin grand visions and soak up founder acclaim, while telling grownups, i.e. Wall Street analysts and investors, that Tinder was simply a lure to get millennials to pay later in life for IAC’s profitable dating service Match.com."""

2 ms·

Not sure how similar this is, since the majority of Tinder is owned and controlled by IAC. The founders never really had a chance to control it since it was an

by coralreef 12y ago

Not sure how similar this is, since the majority of Tinder is owned and controlled by IAC. The founders never really had a chance to control it since it was an incubated project.

geofft 12y ago
The IAC thing makes me wonder whether these stories can even be read normally. Given that this is a very large company that is closely managing the creation of a startup-shaped thing, do things like "founder" and "CEO" and "investment" mean what we usually think they mean? And if not, is there at all a meaningful parallel in the story of Twitter or any other actually-independent startup? http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forgotten-woman-whitney-wolfe-sexism-and-startup-creation-myths http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forg... """I spent a short and intense two weeks last summer reporting out a Tinder feature for Bloomberg Businessweek. What I found was a meteoric startup that wasn’t really a startup, owing to the fact that Tinder was born in an IAC incubator, and IAC owned and controlled the company. Rad and [former Chief Marketing Officer Justin] Mateen seemed to be playing make-believe in a lot of ways. They were keen to hide the IAC arrangement (“They’re sort of our partner in this”) and pretend that they were living the dream of being wined and dined by Silicon Valley moneymen (“We are being bombarded by venture capitalists … it’s very overwhelming”). When I talked to their minders at IAC and the incubator, executives were often dismissive of the two youngsters—happy to let them spin grand visions and soak up founder acclaim, while telling grownups, i.e. Wall Street analysts and investors, that Tinder was simply a lure to get millennials to pay later in life for IAC’s profitable dating service Match.com."""