BWhen FB buy instagram or match.com buy everyone, it feels like an unfair avenue of competition. I'm not sure if "fair" or "competition" are the right words, but hopefully my point gets across.
Part of the issue is (ironically) well illustrated by OKcupid's blog post.^ In it, they basically said that paid dating sites work worse, because they are paid. It's a fun pick-a-fight blog, so read it if you're interested. Implied (IMO) is that a massive dating site can be run with much lower revenue and be better for users. Doesn't matter if they were right.
OKcupid had a working unique, effective model and their product was different. Then Tinder do it a totally different way and we have more diversity. The difference are cultural, not just a different feature-set. I think that's awesome. But, one business model generates way more money. The others are profitable too and can actually do their job perfectly well (OKcupid anyway) with less revenue. There's no inherent reason not to continue existing and letting a thousand (or like six) flower bloom.
The problem is that removing company A as a threat is worth more (in dollars) to company B than company A costs. So company B buys OKcupid, Tinder, POF and anything else. The wheels of the market are removing choice.
OKcupid still exists. It's fine, but it's doesn't have the same cultural uniqueness. They removed that blog post, for example.
^http://static.izs.me/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dat...