Hacker News Reader

i like how nobody here talks about the real losers - the picnik user/customers.

these exits practically always kill your original product, which is the ultimate fuck you to the user base that got you there to begin with.

that's why it's amazing to see companies like dropbox, box, etc to stick to their guns (so far) and not throw away everything they worked for.

the whole web startup concept seems broken. it's not about real solutions and sustainable businesses, but rather a giant get rich quick scheme. just need some suckers to fall for it.

This doesn't really apply to Picnik. It was a real and sustainable business. We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google. Our users were constantly on our mind. Picnik continued to grow dramatically while we were at google. It was closed down at its peak.

FWIW we tried to buy Picnik back from Google once we heard that it was going to be shuttered. They wouldn't sell. It was gut wrenching to see Picnik go dark.

The hard part is didn't they realize they were taking away one thing and not replacing it with another? That part is the most frustrating of all.

I'm experiencing exactly this frustration with their acquisition of SageTV now. (Well, the acquisition was a while ago, but the pain is starting now.) MythTV is theoretically an alternative, but requires quite a bit more time investment it seems.

> It was closed down at its peak.

What the heck was the reason behind that? I'm so curious. I know Google likes to headshot different products, but typically aren't they the unsuccessful ones like Google Wave?

The likely logic behind shutting down Picnik would have been to lessen the competition to Google+.

I don't really see this as valid justification. This is the same explanation given every time, and every time the users are the ones completely screwed over. I think this is a justification to yourself rather than the underlying truth.

> Our users were constantly on our mind.

If that were true, you wouldn't have sold the company to Google, as the outcome is not out of the ordinary by any means. So though they may have been on your mind, your users were ultimately not your priority.

> It was a real and sustainable business.

Then why sell it? Which leads to:

> We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google.

and

> Picnik continued to grow dramatically while we were at google.

Which means you prioritized growth over ensuring service and supporting your customers for the long term. This isn't bad, it's how you expand the business, but it does show your priority was not the customers you already had.

Which brings us back to the original point:

> This doesn't really apply to Picnik.

I think you're deluding yourself, not in a way that implies any sort of insanity, but more of a coping mechanism so you don't have to confront the fact that your biggest priority was money and not your users. In the end, you (really your board, which I think includes you) sold to Google, relinquishing control over the long term care of your users. That is the action, and that is what is ultimately true.

I don't think you're a bad person by any means. I would have made the same decision. Lets just be honest about outcomes. I think it's easy to be tricked in these acquisition offers, mainly because your personal outcome is ensured. You are getting lots of money, and you get the opportunity to see if you're business can get really big. The problem is, this actually puts a make or break ultimatum on your business. If you don't get the rapid growth you were hoping for, or your business doesn't align with the parent company down the road, then your business is broken (shut down by the parent) and your customers lose. So this is the gamble you face, and either way your future is positive, but you're betting with your customers, and when it doesn't work out they lose, but you don't.

This is presumptuous, uncharitable, and not particularly faithful to what actually happened.

By Mike's account, the unanticipated pivot to Google+ had nothing to do with being "tricked." Yes, selling your company does take the risk that the new parent company will shut down your product, but it also gives you access to resources you would not have had, which can ultimately make the product better than if you had stayed independent (thus benefiting your users). For example, Google Voice has been able to offer far more than GrandCentral's product did.

Is it a gamble? Yes, but not the simple "founders vs users" one you make it out to be.

Indeed. There is no risk-free approach to being on the user's side in a case like this. Choose from:

1) get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by the acquirer;

2) don't get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by worsening economics, competition, etc. (most fledgling businesses are vulnerable compared to the security of Google)

And 1) comes with a payout. So no brainer.

In some cases, that's the choice, especially when the company isn't profitable, or is barely so. In this case, though, it seems #2 wasn't a major risk. Or at least the founder claims in this thread that it wasn't: he describes it as a sustainable, growing company on sound financial footing, which didn't sell out of necessity.

This wasn't exactly the point I was making.

The "tricked" comment was not that Google tricked him (and really this isn't particularly about Mike), but that it is easy to trick yourself into seeing it as a better outcome for your users than it likely will be, because it is such a good outcome for yourself.

The path of prioritizing growth is great for the founders: you get to see how big you can get your business (how many more users you can serve), and you get a big payout up front.

The path of prioritizing care of your current customers looks very different: growth will be slower, stakeholders don't get their payout, but you will not be gambling for a huge business with the contributions of your current users as stakes (he said the business was sustainable, so the startup risks are likely disappearing and life-span of the company is growing quickly).

Personally, I'm going to go with the prioritizing growth option, as the founder did, but I'm not going be dishonest (I don't see it as intentional or bad character, I think it's part of the reality distortion field of the startup scene) and say I did it thinking of my current users.

I don't think it's a founders vs. users struggle, the founders certainly do think about their current users, they just aren't prioritized. The founders certainly aren't trying to dump their current users, so they aren't against their users.

Fuck the users! If we are to be honest 90% of these products we build on hacker news are bullshit that are great for existing to drive innovation forward, but in itself easily replaceable because there are so many of us willing to make a better competing product. Come on now, mobile and web products if killed off doesn't hurt any users, Facebook and google included. They are close to debatable, but whatever. The supply of apps and sites is too high. The creators of them even higher. Not that it's a bad thing at all...u get the idea. Cry me a river about point and click/touch users.

You're looking at it from the supply side; perhaps you should consider the demand side?

If this attitude prevails, eventually you'll likely to find you've poisoned the well such that you won't be able to find enough new users for subsequent ventures. As I mention here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130428 in the context of the end of the IPO exit, every accui-kill results in a pissed off set of ex-users less likely to try the next startup's shiny new toy.

It was a business. Of course the biggest priority was money. That does not stop them from wanting to charge money for a a good product. That is what is meant by having their clients in their mind. Their focus was on making money by delivering a good product. The reason to sell to Google was to have more access to more money (and other resources) in order to improve the product. There is nothing wrong with that.

A company with users on its mind should stay as far away from google as it can.

This is basically a question I'd like to have answered as well, especially in a b2b setting.

Is it justifiable to use the service of a possibly great startup, knowing that there's a real possibility that it might be sold soon and just be a gear in some other company's product?

As is usually pointed out in these conversations, that's true of all companies you could depend on, and all companies depend on others. That's why people sign contracts (which usually contain clauses about being honored even if the supplier gets bought out). That also saves you from things like a company you depend on deciding that it's going to compete in your market now: they still have to honor your contract.

I've thought a bit about this, churning around various product ideas. In general I'd say that if it's a typical SaaS, I would probably only trust it with my data, my time (learning curve, adapting workflow etc) if it was a available under a licence that would allow me to self-host it if it was discontinued (or pay someone else to host it for me). This is for stuff like mail, images and other DAM (Digital Asset Management) systems, chat/im, bug trackers/knowledgestores and databases etc.

Note, that I don't see any reason to trust Google either. Remember wave? Remember XMPP compatible gtalk?

My conclusion has been that if/when I finally get started on my first product, I'll probably license it under AGPL, and make sure there's a realistic self-host story for users -- and then charge for the SaaS/PaaS-bit, but probably not for the client (or server side software under AGPL). Clearly it's a little more challenging -- you might end up with people competing with you for hosting -- but I can't see any other way to build customer trust. Nothing any company would say to me as a customer would make me trust them -- how could I ask anything else from my potential users?

Since people still pay for hosted email (even if many, many do run off to freemium services) -- I'd say the business model is viable -- those that can afford to pay, and know that value can be added by proper hosting -- and not having to do everything themselves -- will consider becoming a customer. And I strongly suspect those kind of customers are the best kind of customers. Especially for a start-up.

Even though I wasn't a user, the most dreadful death-by-buyout I remember is DabbleDB[1] -- compounded by the fact that the founders went to twitter -- presumably helping with the biggest non-product of our decade -- rather than allowing dabbledb to live on in any form.

Also note that having a published API/open protocol/standard isn't enough. For example, the IMAP standard clearly states that message ids aren't necessarily in chronological order. Some IMAP servers make sure that they are and/or that messages are returned in a list ordered by (message) time -- and some will return the message that was latest modified first (eg: a messaged moved into a folder). Some IMAP clients get this right (sort as the user wanted, regardless of server implementation) -- some get it wrong. A small difference (arguably client bug) that can make or break certain use cases and processes for dealing with email.

For a b2b setting -- one could reasonably offer source under a different license -- if AGPL seems too open for enforcing whatever business model one has decided on. But I suspect that AGPL would work fine in b2b settings as well. The key aspect is to offer source code and documentation in a form that offers a viable self-help scenario in the case of a bankruptcy or "death-by-acquisition".

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVj5RZOqwY

In a nutshell: No, not in a business context IMHO – if only because using a new app or service just to migrate away from it later takes a lot of money and time for a business.

> Is it justifiable to use the service of a possibly great startup, knowing that there's a real possibility that it might be sold soon and just be a gear in some other company's product?

Asking this question plays into the hands of the tech giants. Undermining the startup ecosystem ultimately benefits them even more than acquihiring.

I think it's a valid concern. My knowledge of startup culture is very limited, so from what i read here, the usual desired outcome is an "exit" aka getting rich by selling the business. I think that is totally valid for social sites and other freebies, but not for infrastructure services. there is a lot of potential and great ideas in things like hosting, monitoring, crm/helpdesk software etc, and if you're not entering the market with an intention to last, you're actually playing in the hands of tech giants. They're asking a lot of money for crappy and downright ridiculous services (ever worked with e.g. HP Service Center or anything SAP), but give you planning reliability in exchange. With the given startup mindset, you're yielding that market to tech giants.

ALWAYS have a backup plan when using any 3rd party's product. With a startup, there is a possibility of a given product disappearing within a not too long timeframe due to either (1) selling to another company and shutdown immediately aka aqui-hire, (2) selling to another company and being absorbed into that companies competing product, (3) running out of money and shutting down, (4) pivoting to another vision that is more financially viable but doesn't suit your personal business needs anymore, etc.

And if it's a free product, double or triple (at a minimum) the likelihood of any of the above happening.

"the whole web startup concept seems broken. it's not about real solutions and sustainable businesses, but rather a giant get rich quick scheme."

Well, something like that is always going to be a motivation of your investors.

The real problem is that except for rare exceptions like Facebook, our government has destroyed the IPO exit, with SarBox in 2002 being the last nail in the coffin. I think a lot of people haven't internalized this yet, that that investment model which had a fantastic 4 decade run starting with late-50's legal and/or regulatory changes, is OVER.

Silicon Valley/the Bay area really became magic during it, but the game has changed, and in such a way that it threatens the whole ecosystem. In that every acqui-kill (thanks for the term, _random_) means N more screwed users, meaning that many fewer people willing to take a chance on a startup of this nature.

In my case, there are more than a few companies like this that I've thought I'd really like to use, but the risk/reward ratio is just too marginal. Those that have gotten successful, have a business model that looks viable, and have clearly decided not to get acqui-killed, like GitHub and FastMail, sure. A company like Picnik, forget it.

I don't know much about this subject, so can you explain what "our government has destroyed the IPO exit" actually means? What was the investment model with a four-decade run that is now over, and how does it differ from the current model?

This is rather a lot you're asking for, and this is widely and well documented. Although only of historic value now, which is sort of my point.

Let's start with the most basic of basics, the "greater fool" principle. In that when someone makes an investment, they intend to get a return on it, perhaps interest and return of the principle for a CD or other loan, or being able to sell their stock to a "greater fool" then they.

But investments in privately held companies are famously illiquid. If you own 10% of Brand New Web Startup (BNWS), ignoring whatever contractual conditions there may be on selling your share, you can only sell it to a "qualified investor", i.e. not a widow or orphan but a person of documented wealth (and that's been tightened recently). And for these sorts of small companies finding a buyer can be extremely difficult.

This is generally true even if the company is well established, nicely profitable, and looks to have a good future. It's called the "cashing out" problem, and my father made more than a small amount of money helping founders and investors in small companies do that.

So that's the general background. One route opened up in the late '50s (this is from memory, and I don't remember exactly what the detail was, venture capital preceded this), is an Initial Public Offering, where you use an investment bank to offer a fraction of your company to the general public, as shares of stock. If this transaction is successfully completed, you and the investment bank have big bags of money, and many generic, not necessarily "qualified", investors have shares of stock in your company. And your company is now "public", it has shares traded on an exchange, those shares are liquid, and you're subject to a whole lot of law and regulations, again, to protect those widows and orphans who are now allowed to buy a part of your company.

Sarbanes-Oxley was the final nail in the coffin of going public with an IPO because it made being a public company unreasonably expensive, onerous, and legally dangerous.

Almost all companies that would have previously paid back their venture capitalists through an IPO have to use another route, and being bought by a big company is the easiest and perhaps most common method (but one that most of the time is ruinous, the history of high tech mergers and acquisitions is horrible). Our host made his money this way, selling Viaweb to Yahoo, and you can look up some of the aftermath in his essays.

This, BTW, no doubt has something to do with VCs' having flat returns for the last decade.

Crunchbase data (1) shows the following:

Jonathan Sposato - CEO

Darrin Massena - Co-founder, CTO

Mike Harrington - Co-founder, COO

1. http://www.crunchbase.com/company/picnik

Here's the story: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/techflash/2010/03/lo...

Of course you'd know better, and it wouldn't be the first time someone overestimated their (J's) role in the process, but in this video Darrin specifically mentions "wouldn't it be fun if we started something together" which in my book could be understood as co-founder... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdpwzJgKcY0

Anyhow, I really like what you guys (however many) created and was sad to see it go. It was definitely more powerful than the snapseed stuff they integrated later.

Maybe you didn't know they would integrate it into Google+, but why would you assume they would keep picnik.com? Even then when it got bought I immediately assumed it would at best be integrated into the Picasa web app and perhaps program, too. But keeping picnik.com wouldn't have made any sense for Google's vision, even before Google+.

One more thing, when Google bought Snapseed, I immediately thought "wow, I guess Google thought the picnik.com guys weren't that good, if they need to buy Snapseed, too". And then a while later they integrated Snapseed into Google+, too, and it does look/work much better. I do expect them to kill the Snapseed app, soon, too, and just integrate many of its features in the Photos or Gallery Android apps.

Picnik was an amazing product that I happily paid for the premium account. I was hopeful when you sold to Google for bigger and better things but was devastated when I found out that I couldn't use the browser editor anymore.

I still don't have anything in my toolkit that can compare to the simplicity and convenience of editing the browser. I've tried others but find them lacking.

Thank you for such a great product.

@dalanmiller

This account was created 2 minutes before this post. Just FYI

Long time reader, first time caller. :)

I don't think HNs timestamps are all that accurate from what I have noticed.

User pages are certainly not updated instantly. That much I am sure of.

Thanks for the information.

My girlfriend and I used Picnik a lot, back then in 2011. Its photo effect filters were way better than what Instagram, Photoshop CS 5, etc. provided.

A Picnik photo app for iOS/Android would have been great. But sadly, Google shut it down. And G+ is a ghost town, only Youtube comments appear there (by accident).

I wonder if Vic Gundotra was involved. Reminds me of this BTW: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3134609