Hacker News Reader

Comment by troydavis | Hacker News Reader

Whatsapp’s story is also unique because their acquisition by Facebook was so large. At $19 billion, the founders probably could have attached pretty much any terms to the deal (as formal terms in the purchase agreement) - and still had a $10+ billion offer that made them multi-billionaires.

Permanently enjoin the acquirer from showing ads or sharing data. Heck, require operating independence. Just like any other transaction, terms like these are negotiable. Maybe those reduce the purchase price by $3 billion, or even $5 or $10 billion, but the founders would still be multi-billionaires and they’d also see Whatsapp survive the way they envisioned it. Best of both worlds.

(And if the buyer totally walked rather than reducing the price, at least you’d know their true intention.)

View on HN

There's a saying that "Every man has his price."

For me personally, I hope that I'll never be offered enough money to betray those who trust me. But I fear that my selling price is far lower than $19B.

> There's a saying that "Every man has his price."

Yup, agreed.

And Acton left after his golden handcuffs were up and put $50M into Signal.

Honestly, the situation could have been worse. Let's hope that $50M now propels the future towards truly decentralized communication.

You really have to consider opportunity cost at that price.

Is the good you're doing via whatsapp enough to outweigh how you could leverage 19B?

> Is the good you're doing via whatsapp enough to outweigh how you could leverage 19B?

That's a very good point. Still, with $19B on the line, I bet there's no shortage of people who would help me rationalize doing something else with that money once it was in my hands.

I tend to have a pretty pessimistic view of human nature, but maybe I'm unfairly projecting my own weaknesses onto the rest of humanity.

But you've set a precedent that you will cut and run, which negatively affects how people coordinate with you on things.

Look at Google. We have a bunch of people who don't want to use their new APIs because they've experienced those APIs going away in the past. Ironically, by resisting using them they create a self fulfilling prophecy. An API that lasts 3 years is not more likely to last 6 years than an API that has been around for 1 year will last for 4. By delaying they've just put themselves closer to the drop dead date.

Point is, that dynamic hurts everybody, not just the people avoiding engaging with someone with a questionable track record.

The only reason it got to 19B was because Brian Acton refused to cut and run.

He refused to sell repeatedly.

19B is an insane price. Clearly the buy was worth it for FB so it's not mispriced, but really think about the 19B.

They had 30 employees? I think people that worked there for one year cleared $140M.

If someone held out until 19B I would trust them to be more principled than 99% of founders.

Sure, there's lots to consider. But as a user of whatsapp since they wrote this article, and that has been trying to get my friends and family off whatsapp since they got acquired by FB, I am terribly sorry that they took that deal.

Only if you reduce ethics to a math problem.

You have to make decisions somehow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

It's not perfect, but it's not an easy question and there isn't an easy answer.

While everyone has their price, my point is a little more subtle: they probably could have had their price met and also codified a set of post-transaction terms that preserved their vision.

For a founder-controlled company that raised capital so late, is selling for $19 billion much better than selling for $15 or $13 billion and knowing your creation will solve the problem it was meant to? Any of these outcomes leave the founders with many billions (and leave the few employees set for generations).

Contrast with a $2-3 billion acquisition like Oculus or Instagram. They were huge but still in the range where 20% or 30% less (for restrictive deal terms) might actually matter, if only barely. Whatsapp's deal was so large that there's not even the tiniest practical tradeoff from 20% less.

WhatsApp has been owned by Facebook longer than it has been independent. The founders aren’t responsible for what Facebook, Inc has done for it.

You can try to attach a bunch of clauses to try and imprint your legacy, but at the end of the day if you sell your stake you sell your stake. You aren’t in the room anymore.

And if you aren’t in the room, you aren’t responsible, either. I can’t help if someone buys my car and crashes into a telephone pole. I didn’t cause that damage to the world by selling my car. Maybe, I could have found a more qualified driver if I accepted less payment for it! Or, my interested buyer upon seeing my clauses and restrictions might say “thanks but no thanks, no longer interested.”

To clarify, I wasn't trying to imply that they were responsible in any way. As you said, they aren't.

Rather, I was saying that from their public statements and actions, they weren't satisfied with the outcome, and they may have been able to increase the chances that it looked like their vision (with essentially no tradeoff to them - they aren't going to spend the seventh billion, or probably even the third billion). As you said, no contract terms can guarantee an outcome, but terms could have increased the chances.

I see I see. I wasn’t really aware they weren’t happy about it, perhaps I could have been less lazy and checked.

All the more reason to never sell if you want to see out your vision. Facebook was certainly on the other end with acquisition offers not so long ago.

I’m also not sure that acquiring companies tend to like to be dealing with too many restrictive terms. Any kind of purchase is going to compete against alternatives, including building your own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com