"When Facebook bought WhatsApp, it never publicly addressed how the divergent philosophies would coexist.
...
But Mr. Zuckerberg told stock analysts that he and Mr. Koum agreed that advertising wasn't the right way to make money from messaging apps.
...
Some of the employees were turned off by Facebook's campus, a bustling collection of restaurants, ice cream shops and services built to mirror Disneyland.
...
Mr. Zuckerberg wanted WhatsApp executives to add more "special features" to the app, whereas Messrs. Koum and Acton liked its original simplicity.
...
Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg also wanted Messrs. Koum and Acton to loosen their stance on encryption to allow more "business flexibility," according to one person familiar with the matter."
It sounds like Koum and Acton actually had some principles. Among other things, they wanted to keep the software relatively simple, instead of continuously increasing its complexity by adding "features". The article suggests others saw Acton as a "moral compass". It also suggests David Marcus president of messaging products at Facebook Inc. called his #deleteFacebook remark "low class" behaviour. How to resolve this apparent contrast?
The article suggests Sandberg reacted to the Acton tweet by called Koum instead of calling Acton. It sounds like Facebook's legal department had no leverage (e.g. a non-disparagement clause) over Acton to prevent him from sharing his true thoughts regarding Facebook Inc. He chose his principles, including the freedom to express his opinion of Facebook Inc., over the stock options he forfeited.
If these founders really did have principles, and there are ample indications that they did (not limited only to what this article discusses), then is this not admirable? Their stock, compensation and benefits packages were large enough to make most folks abandon any principles in exchange for a much higher standard of living.
It also sounds like the WhatsApp staff actually like to engage in cerebral work, hence their desire for quiet and their dislike for the "Disneyland" environment at Facebook. Is there an alternative explanation?
Perhaps the lesson here is that "culture clash" may not be so important in these types of acquisitions, where the primary asset is users. These users can be transitioned to whatever the acquiring company desires.
For example, there could be a culture clash between a proprietary software company that acquires a company that offers free source code repository services for free/open source code authors. If the founders acquire significant, life-changing wealth from the transaction and the primary asset being acquired is end users, then any clash of principles or work culture is arguably insignificant.
The analyst quoted in the article calls Koum and Acton "naive" for believing Zuckerberg would not renege on his promise not to use advertising to generate revenue. He offers the ever persuasive cliche that Facebook is "not a charity".
Was WhatsApp a "charity"? It was covering its own expenses and turning a profit at the time of acquisition. It was saving millions of people money on SMS and voice calls. When it sold, it generated a lot of wealth for its investors. Was it not a success. By all accounts it never took money from advertisers.
While Facebook, like a few other oversized ad-financed tech companies, has the purchasing power to acquire any emerging competitor for users' attention, one could argue that WhatsApp had something Facebook does not: principles.
From the article it does not sound like acquring WhatsApp's principles was ever part of the deal.