csmajorfive

It might've actually worked out better if he hadn't spoken Russian. Speaking the local language evokes a "who are you to bypass the rules?" sentiment and enables the officers to pass the time hanging out with you. A non-speaker would just be a huge hassle.

They probably won't.

I think it's less likely to happen here because Google is investing heavily in building a business around developer services.

This looks cool. Congrats on the launch! Is it a project or a business? Do you intend to make money from hosting? Or something else?

You're typing into their keyboard. What do you expect?

How did he record these step-by-step instructions with such high detail? Is this common practice?

There is definitely potential but they don't want to make money that way. So, don't expect it. Source: I was driving this internally for a while.

This is all very standard for a VIP visit and the president of Indonesia was at Facebook and Twitter today. So there's probably a simpler, less exciting explanation here.

That's just not true. Most reasonably mature apps were running code on our servers via Cloud Code. And it's hardly genius or a trick to have thick client SDKs.

Fosco, you're doing a great job with this. Thanks for continuing to work so hard to help Parse developers.

We had a product called Cloud Code that was similar to Node (albeit way more limited) so you could run stuff on the server.

No, I don't think we ever did.

It would be pretty strange to tell the IRS that he's discounting the transfers 40% after publicly stating "we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares."

If you believe in the government's ability to allocate money, you should probably believe in its ability to collect it, too.

The same is true if he donates the shares directly without going through an LLC.

They do not avoid capital gains taxes by doing this.

Also, more broadly, when you see a "sweeping end run around the taxation system", it may be instructive to consider why everyone else doesn't just do the same. Legal tax avoidance techniques are not secrets.

You can't terminate or amend (or even start) a plan without a cooling off period. So any information you'd like to act on will likely be priced in by the time you can take any legal action. Also, you can't have two plans. A modification requires a suspension of all trading.

Anyone speculating on this should look into the mechanics of 10b51 plans. He made no active decision to sell or not sell.

The sale may have been triggered by a price floor ($100?) that he must've established a very long time ago.

I found it to be consistent with most similar pieces. Also, the author has won a Pulitzer for investigative journalism.

Spending a lot on user acquisition does not mean your unit economics are bad. And your assertion about Facebook and Twitter is wrong.

The initial magic of Parse was in the tight coupling of native mobile SDKs with standard cloud services. We released our first barebones beta SDKs long before we had a publicly documented (not to mention properly versioned and stable) server API. So for a while we iterated quickly underneath the hood and dragged people over to new versions of our cloud APIs with new SDK releases. It only became feasible to do this after we productized our server side APIs. And then it took some time to prioritize the project and execute on it.

> But these people aren't hackers, they don't sound like one of us and their field isn't this one.

I was just wondering which "these people" you were referencing.

Who else do you put in this category?

I think your math is wrong.

Yes, this is typical. Recruiters pounce on folks who just went through an acquisition to see if they're thinking about making a move. One strategy is to make you feel like your acquisition package isn't all that great.

There's probably not much of a pay differential between Google and a big bank for people of his background.

Were you considered for these roles or entirely left out of the process? How much have you actually talked to your management about this?

When companies reach a certain size, the real partnerships stuff spins out into dedicated "Business Development" or "Partnerships" teams.

It's really safe to assume that anyone with a "Corporate Development" title at any reasonably sized technology company spends all day evaluating and executing acquisitions. Don't go in thinking that you're about to have a partnership conversation.

> Monster said the change-of-ownership clause triggered by the HTC deal required Monster to transfer all intellectual property to Beats, costing the company millions in lost revenue.

Does anyone have more insight into this? Why would they have structured the initial partnership with this clause in place?

I'll make sure to represent Ilyas well!

"FB could have acquired 20-30% of the company to provide them with liquidity"

Not really. Most startups don't want to sell that much equity to a potential partner/acquirer unless they have to.