Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#61

Post by borism »

boundlessdreamz wrote: post #40
webwright wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friendfeed raised $5m... I'd guess on a post-money valuation of $25m. So a $25m exit would basically mean that the investors in the most recent round get a 1 to 1 payout for their investment. Not a big win. But justifying a $50+mm offer for FriendFeed seems awful hard-- so my guess is $25-$35m. It does get the FF investors a pile of Facebook stock which is pretty hard to come by (but at what valuation for FB?). OTOH,…

My guess is that deal will be somewhere around $25-30mn cash and $40mn stock.

70 million? for what?

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#62

Post by cdr »

gojomo wrote: post #48
redorb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

way high, think more like <10mm , plus great signing bonuses for the employees (200k+ ea) ..

This subthread is 'guesstimates'. Redorb gave his honest guesstimate. Time will tell if it's right, but in the meantime it's rude to vote this comment down to -4 fade-out (where I saw it) just because you disagree.

Besides being way off of the estimates of more reputable guessers, his comment provided no justification. Four word comment (essentially) = downvote.

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#63

Post by dbz »

treyp wrote: post #19

Nobody has said it, so I guess I'll go ahead -- I don't like to hear this. I use Facebook a lot, but I think Friendfeed is such a great product and that Facebook is such a mature site that nothing good can come of the acquisition. The absolute best case would be that the Friendfeed talent supremely cleans up the code at Facebook to make it a much faster site, but even that would be at the cost of Friendfeed's develop…

Friend Feed now gets a hold of those 250 million or so users, which is part of the goal- the goal being to make the best possible social network with the most users. Yup, this helps facebook become better, and friendfeed, although it might not exist anymore, gives the developers 250 million users. Sounds alright to me.

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#64

Post by danielrhodes »

jonknee wrote: post #34
danielrhodes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partially, but Friendfeed has a lot of technology that Facebook would want. They have a good grasp of real-time and search, they have the full firehose to Twitter (which is not something Twitter would have given to Facebook otherwise -- Google is desperate for such access), and the team of course. I don't think Frienfeed is at the top of its category either, which means that it probably was affordable.

Access to Twitter's "full firehose" can easily be turned off, if Twitter doesn't want Facebook to access it they can make that happen instantly.

True, depending on the agreement they have in place.

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#66

Post by gojomo »

davidw wrote: post #51
gojomo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This subthread is 'guesstimates'. Redorb gave his honest guesstimate. Time will tell if it's right, but in the meantime it's rude to vote this comment down to -4 fade-out (where I saw it) just because you disagree.

The key point being that he wasn't rude or insulting or otherwise antisocial; he was just a bit wrong. That doesn't deserve massive downvoting.

Have terms been disclosed? Until they are, Redorb could be right. At least he described the parameters of his 'guesstimate' and put it on the record next to his name and history of contributions. Anonymous downvoters are just grunting, "no."

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#68

Post by davidw »

gojomo wrote: post #66
davidw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key point being that he wasn't rude or insulting or otherwise antisocial; he was just a bit wrong. That doesn't deserve massive downvoting.

Have terms been disclosed? Until they are, Redorb could be right. At least he described the parameters of his 'guesstimate' and put it on the record next to his name and history of contributions. Anonymous downvoters are just grunting, "no."

What people objected to were the "great signing bonuses". For someone who already has oodles of money (which, being early Google employees, we assume they do), 200K is not that much.

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#69

Post by gojomo »

cdr wrote: post #62
gojomo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This subthread is 'guesstimates'. Redorb gave his honest guesstimate. Time will tell if it's right, but in the meantime it's rude to vote this comment down to -4 fade-out (where I saw it) just because you disagree.

Besides being way off of the estimates of more reputable guessers, his comment provided no justification. Four word comment (essentially) = downvote.

Define 'reputable guesser'.

It was a fair comment in the context of the thread. Predictions should be rewarded or punished based on whether they eventually pan out, not armchair snap-judgment popularity.

The fact that it's different from the pack of similar guesses makes it a more valuable contribution, to me, even if it winds up wrong.

Re: Facebook Acquires FriendFeed

#70

Post by cdr »

gojomo wrote: post #69
cdr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides being way off of the estimates of more reputable guessers, his comment provided no justification. Four word comment (essentially) = downvote.

Define 'reputable guesser'. It was a fair comment in the context of the thread. Predictions should be rewarded or punished based on whether they eventually pan out, not armchair snap-judgment popularity. The fact that it's different from the pack of similar guesses makes it a more valuable contribution, to me, even if it winds up wrong.

Again, I downvoted because he provided no commentary or justification.
Post reply on HN