Interesting. Kind of touches close to a thought I had when I first heard about the deal... Board aside, what kind of signal did the acquisition send to Facebook's rank-and-file?
There's plenty of extremely talented people who joined the party too late to have any significant options. Now everywhere they go (including home, private, and social lives...) they can't escape hearing about the gold mine that was just dropped on Kevin and crew.
You literally can't escape this news in the connected world. Can't help but wonder if that's weighing on morale at all in there.
I love what this says about Zuck. It takes real conviction to make decisions this big and this fast. Most people would feel the need to build a faux consensus of people around them for moral support.
Same thing that let him say no to his own $1 billion acquisition offer I suppose.
He's 26. He went straight from Harvard to Facebook. He still effectively controls Facebook. And he's a billionaire. I don't think he really can take a risk, in the sense that a normal person would think of a risk. As long as he doesn't do something blatantly stupid like run in front of a bus, he's probably set for the rest of his life. Instagram deal not approved, or approved but doesn't "work out"? Shrug. Still a billionaire. And I'm sure he's taken a lot off the table already so even if Facebook's value plummets, he should still be gold.
You think he doesn't have much to lose because at the end of the day he's still a billionaire. I doubt he feels like that. He's got an opportunity to succeed in ways most humans never do. You could argue that he's got more to lose than most, not less.
WSJ seems to have made a recent change to stop the old search-for-the-title-in-google trick. If you visit the article first and then leave and come back with google referers it doesn't work anymore. But if you've never visited the article and you come from google it does show it. Even when you delete your cookies and then try to come via google it won't show the article. That means they're using flash cookies or some other insidious persistent cookie technique. Not sure if this violates Google's terms.
Have you tried deleting your cache? The simplest explanation for this behavior is that the old redirect was cached. It could be something more insidious as well, of course, but that would be... evil.
Well, this has been evident for a long time. Mark Zuckerberg intends to rule Facebook, not by consensus, but by himself. When Zuckerberg was forced to make an IPO, he did everything in his power to minimize outside control. I also believe(not sure about this), that Zuckerberg still retains majority control of the company.
Have to admit that this increases my respect for Zuck. It breaks with the current trend towards this consensus seeking, "collaborative" management ideal, that sabotages bold moves.
You can't say yet whether it was a poor choice. Instagram was a very credible threat to Facebook. Its growth curve and primary use bear a strong resemblance to Facebook's.
People laughed at Google for buying YouTube for $1.65 billion. Now every single big company wishes they had done it instead.
You're missing my point; I'm not questioning the decision but the process, the governance. The board is there to represent shareholder interests, if they get bypassed like this on a decision this big, then what is the point of them being there?
I think it was Sergey Brin who recently said something about an investment in Google being a long-term bet on his/Page's decision making. It's like the world has suddenly forgotten why businesses are structured the way they are.
To make an unrelated, more controversial, point: if a CEO can take arbitrary, unilateral decisions, it's difficult to see why they should benefit from the protection of corporate liability.
They weren't bypassed. The deal was brought to them by the CEO for ratification. It will be subject to extensive due diligence, like any deal such as this is. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
There's nothing "arbitrary" about his decision to buy Instagram. And the fact that he makes decisions like this shouldn't be any more cause for concern then the fact that he makes decisions about whether to buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of servers, hire 5000 more employees, or whatever.
The board is there to advise and prevent malfeasance -- not to run the company.
Complaining about how some of the most successful companies in history are run (Google/Facbook/Apple/Microsoft) is rather odd. Do you really think their shareholders would be better served with boards like HP's?
The board is there to advise & CEO and provide support, and step in if things go wrong.
In this case it's worth noting that the CEO is also the largest shareholder, so it is difficult to argue they weren't representing shareholder interest.
Zuckerberg obviously doesn't give a shit what public investors think, and rightly so. You can't lead a world-changing company in growth stage by kowtowing to what "the market" thinks. Instead he will do what he thinks is best for Facebook, and if it works, the stock price will go up, if it doesn't, it will go down.
The IPO structures the company so Zuckerberg has ultimate control anyways. He has 28% of the class B shares (which are 10x the votes of the class A shares being sold in the IPO).
funny that they would only need to let their investment ride into equivalent investments for another 21 days before reaching a return of 209 Trillion dollars, which is in excess of the total value of all stocks, bonds and currency in the world.
Odd as it may seem, this is not necessarily great for the VC's. Most VC funds only get to invest each dollar once; when it gets cashed out after an IPO or M&A event, the returns go back to the investors. I'm not sure if this money still counts as being under management for purposes of their 2% annual commission; if not, then it's almost certainly a bad deal.
Many funds have provisions for recycling (ie calling a given dollar twice instead of just once) that address cases like this that are quick flips.
One other note - for the first five years of a fund (typically), the 2 percent fee is calculated on committed capital not invested capital, so an event like this has no impact.
Deal? Or is this an artifact that Google doesn't index content behind a paywall so WSJ has to display the whole article to the Google spider and anyone who's refer is Google. If WSJ (or anyone else) doesn't want to lose the search engine traffic they're force to do this.
To implement First Click Free, you need to allow all users who find a document on your site via Google search to see the full text of that document, even if they have not registered or subscribed to see that content. The user's first click to your content area is free. However, once that user clicks a link on the original page, you can require them to sign in or register to read further.
I had a feature in on of my chrome extension that would do this automatically but it was too flaky to release - but I did find that referrals from the news site worked most of the time.
It's amazing that the Instagram guys started negotiations at $2B. I guess when you're talking to FB you just pick a huge number out of the air. Why not $5B?
It's in the article (see google cache). They were about to be valued at $500M in the next round of investment, during the next week. Zuck had to move fast, and he did. He bought them 2 times the supposed valuation, which is probably what Instagram expected.
(PS: Negotiation 101, start with a number 2x bigger than what you expect)
There's plenty of extremely talented people who joined the party too late to have any significant options. Now everywhere they go (including home, private, and social lives...) they can't escape hearing about the gold mine that was just dropped on Kevin and crew.
You literally can't escape this news in the connected world. Can't help but wonder if that's weighing on morale at all in there.