Hacker News Reader

Comment by ahoyhere | Hacker News Reader

The founders killed lala.com because they sold out to Apple.

Just like the founders killed Jaiku, MeasureMap, Dodgeball, etc. and any number of other web services we've used and loved... til they got bought.

If you want to be angry at somebody, be angry at the founders for "selling out" - for going for the big payday.

That, after all, what most people here on HN are aiming for, right?

So how can you begrudge them for getting what they wanted?

View on HN

That's not a reason to be angry at someone. If you're upset that they "sold out," go build your own. Most of us are in this to not only build cool things, but to make money.

True, it depends on the service your offering though, in a case like this the right thing would be to ensure (baring bankruptcy) that the streaming will be available long term, or be more upfront with people that it is limited.

While it is true there is the offer you can't refuse type deal I'm not a fan of some founders who you hear a lot about their big plans and the quality of the product or service they are providing, you get interested in purchasing and the next second they are gone.

In the case of Jaiku, at least they open sourced the entire application. Can't even begin to describe how much I've learned from the Jaiku source code.

Scott Adams explained it very well when he started taking advertisments on the Dilbert site. Dogbert stood up and said something like "For the slower students among us, let me explain. 1. Advertisers give us money. 2. We like money."

No, I'm actually angry at Apple for using it's bank balance to squash a competitor. Should I expect the Lala founders to be saints and walk away from a bit payout? No? Should I expect Apple to compete on quality instead of abusing its position? Apparently not.

Jobs is a dangerous, megalomaniac demagogue.

If you kill a product you own, you are not squashing the competition, are you?

Again, if Lala hadn't sold, they'd still be open.

Where's the evidence of LaLa's ability to maintain operations?

If they had to sell because they built a business they couldn't afford to run… it's their fault, not Apple's.

Again, blame the founders who sold the business, not the buyer.

I agree with you, I think LaLa had an innovative and interesting model; however, it wasn't profitable and tht's why Apple was able to buy it --clearly they had something else in mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com