Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

>, they can just continue to buy all the other new social network that pop-up

Yes, many people have this fatalistic perspective about FB but they shouldn't because Zuckerberg can't buy all the competition. Buying a company requires a willing seller[0]. Consider that Facebook itself rejected offers from Viacom (~$1.5 billion), Yahoo (~$1 billion), Microsoft ($24 billion), etc.[1][2]

The bigger companies such as Microsoft can't force Zuckerberg to sell if he doesn't want to sell. Likewise, Facebook tried to buy Snapchat for $3 billion but Evan Spiegel said "no". Yes, Snapchat is no longer a threat but that doesn't mean another superior competitor can't rise up as a new threat that MZ can't buy.

[0] my previous comment with other examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15733501

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-companies-that-ever-...

[2] https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/10/21/steve-ballmer-microsof...

View on HN

Absolutely, and I agree with you. They are also not the only company in the market with enough fund to consolidate (for example, TikTok with musical.ly). But, and that's my opinion, they can probably buy enough company to still secure their position.

It's also probably true that social network is also a more "volatile" market (as in, you see user switch from one SN to the other more easily).

These offers were a joke. Try adding one zero. Pretty sure VC would give a billion with little strings attached to any company that's threatening Facebook.

Every seller has a price. WhatsApp went for $16B.

They were not a joke. They were at an earlier stage of growth and all those prices were fair for what it was at the time.

Don't be surprised when a company in early stages of growth (tens of millions of users with great potential for more) prefers to continue than take an early exit.

The Microsoft deal looks incredibly one sided: https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-ballmer-microsoft-trie...

Anyway, prices are up. There is more cash available now than there was 10 years ago, not to mention than being acquired by Google/Facebook/Microsoft is a better brand name than Viacom. With funding rounds in over a hundred millions, the founders might not even get a good cut out of a (single) billion dollar sale.

> Yes, many people have this fatalistic perspective about FB but they shouldn't because Zuckerberg can't buy all the competition.

But the competition will have to get money somewhere. Either from VCs (who will sell) or somewhere else, like from the users - but then Facebook can just copy the product and make it free, and take over that way.

Software is eating the world. In real world, there's a place for second best woodcutter, and for third best and for millions more. There's not place for second best Twitter or second best Facebook, or "the second best new thing", and people will always rather pay with their data than with money.

Facebook Google and Microsoft and Amazon and other megacorps are here to stay. They are humanity's future. We are in a pit and will never climb out.

...

You know, maybe nuclear war isn't such a bad thing after all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com