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

Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

mediamemo.allthingsd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#71

Post by startingup »

pg wrote: post #62
startingup wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are what outsiders know: a) Facebook and many acquirers looked at the company and passed b) Company ran out of money c) Facebook hired the developer, who also posts in the blog that his idea would work far better as part of Facebook or Twitter. I am not asserting that (a) and (c) are directly connected. It is perfectly possible that the people who looked at the acquisitions aren't the same ones who made the hir…

"However the one thing no one outside Facebook can really know is why they passed on the acquisition." I know exactly why they passed on the acquisition, and it was not because they thought it would be cheaper to hire someone. It's strange to watch you keep insisting on this. You said something mistaken when there was no evidence, and now that evidence has emerged contradicting you, instead of changing your theory, y…

I will accept that Facebook did not think this way (ie. it is cheaper to hire developer than acquire). But to be fair to me, until this parent comment, nowhere had you actually mentioned that you knew exactly why Facebook passed on the acquisition. Until you mentioned that fact, it was reasonable to assume that one party in a negotiation does not know all the motivations of the other party.

Having said that I would still let my thesis stand while withdrawing the Tipjoy incident as any kind of evidence of that thesis: given the proliferation of start-ups and the buyer's market, it is reasonable for acquirers to think that way.

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#73

Post by johnnybgoode »

pg wrote: post #63
johnnybgoode wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the grandparent poster is correct, it's quite possible that YC's model has serious flaws. Considering these implications, wouldn't a reasoned counterargument be more appropriate than snark?

Did you happen to see this? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=779693

Yes, but that comment doesn't explain why the deals fell through. However, you did mention something about this later, in the comment at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=780273.

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#74

Post by mhartl »

cyunker wrote: post #36
amichail wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing this to voting, most people vote because they want to be seen in a good light by their friends and family (and some vote because they don't understand probability). Perhaps some sort of similar social pressure could have been employed with TipJoy.

My contribution voting makes as much difference as it should: 1 person = 1 vote. By your logic, I guess I shouldn't worry about my carbon footprint.

You've reductio'd to something that isn't absurdum.

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#75

Post by plainspace »

nostrademons wrote: post #15
johnnyg wrote: post #5

Isn't a startup's founder obligated to act in the best interest of the inventors whose money and risk made the venture possible?

There's no evidence that they didn't. FaceBook held all the cards here - all they had to do was wait until TipJoy ran out of money, then snatch up one of the founders when he goes looking for a job. Which is what they did. What else would you have the founders do? Just highlights the importance of bargaining position. Make deals when you don't need them, because you won't be able to when you do.

Just highlights the importance of bargaining position. Make deals when you don't need them, because you won't be able to when you do.

I think this is the real take home here.

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#76

Post by tigerthink »

gnaritas wrote: post #47
amichail wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From: http://web.bsu.edu/cob/econ/research/papers/bohanon2002ir.pd... Public-choice scholars have long argued that voting is instrumentally irrational because the probability that a single vote will change the outcome of an election is nearly zero. Dennis Mueller made the point well when he noted that "the probability of being run over by a car going to or returning from the polls is similar to the probability of cas…

By that logic no one should bother voting, in which case the entire system would fail to work at all, obviously a flawed outcome. Thus voting does matter, so you should vote. Worrying about the probability of your vote being the winning vote is pointless, there is no winning vote. If the election was decided by a single vote, then every single vote counted and as mattered just as much as the last vote. While your ind…

I've thought an unhealthy amount about this. My solution is for everyone to copy the vote of whichever one of their friends seems like the best voter (most intelligent, unaffiliated, conscientious, etc.) If someone thinks they are a better voter than all of their friends then they decide who to vote for themselves. The advantages of this system are twofold:

1. On average, better politicians get elected because the voting decisions of society's best-equipped voters are being amplified.

2. Only a small part of the population has to bother themselves with following political news. Since they're such great voters they'll probably do it in much greater depth (reading actual bills and scientific papers; carefully scouring campaign websites instead of believing rumors they hear on TV.)

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#77

Post by gnaritas »

tigerthink wrote: post #76
gnaritas wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic no one should bother voting, in which case the entire system would fail to work at all, obviously a flawed outcome. Thus voting does matter, so you should vote. Worrying about the probability of your vote being the winning vote is pointless, there is no winning vote. If the election was decided by a single vote, then every single vote counted and as mattered just as much as the last vote. While your ind…

I've thought an unhealthy amount about this. My solution is for everyone to copy the vote of whichever one of their friends seems like the best voter (most intelligent, unaffiliated, conscientious, etc.) If someone thinks they are a better voter than all of their friends then they decide who to vote for themselves. The advantages of this system are twofold: 1. On average, better politicians get elected because the vo…

Not a bad idea actually, but to simplify it a bit.

Most everyone has a friend they consider much smarter than themselves, just do what he says.

This applies to much more than voting.

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#78

Post by gnaritas »

randallsquared wrote: post #69
gnaritas wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic no one should bother voting, in which case the entire system would fail to work at all, obviously a flawed outcome. Thus voting does matter, so you should vote. Worrying about the probability of your vote being the winning vote is pointless, there is no winning vote. If the election was decided by a single vote, then every single vote counted and as mattered just as much as the last vote. While your ind…

By that logic no one should bother voting, in which case the entire system would fail to work at all, obviously a flawed outcome. An outcome you do not prefer is not automatically irrational. You just don't prefer it. The solution is not to wish everyone would act against their own interests to produce your preferred outcome, but to change the incentives so that your preferred outcome is the natural result of rationa…

> An outcome you do not prefer is not automatically irrational.

It has nothing to do with my preference. An outcome that fails to result in anyone voting for a system intended to get people to vote, is a failed outcome, no matter how you look at it.

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#79

Post by ApolloRising »

pg wrote: post #26
medianama wrote: post #10

I would like to hear PG's (or other investors) views on this.

Facebook didn't do anything wrong. Tipjoy was out of money. They'd been talking to several potential acquirers, including Facebook, but those deals all fell through. So the Tipjoys were going to have to get jobs somewhere. Since they were worried about money and Ivan admired the hackers at Facebook, I asked FB if they'd offer him a job, and they did. It doesn't portend anything for the future of startups, as this sto…

That was a very nice thing for you to do.

Re: Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn’t Happen and the Hire that Did

#80

Post by tigerthink »

gnaritas wrote: post #77
tigerthink wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought an unhealthy amount about this. My solution is for everyone to copy the vote of whichever one of their friends seems like the best voter (most intelligent, unaffiliated, conscientious, etc.) If someone thinks they are a better voter than all of their friends then they decide who to vote for themselves. The advantages of this system are twofold: 1. On average, better politicians get elected because the vo…

Not a bad idea actually, but to simplify it a bit. Most everyone has a friend they consider much smarter than themselves, just do what he says. This applies to much more than voting.

That doesn't quite work, because if you've got an unusual situation then it'd be unreasonable to ask your friend to spend a lot of time thinking about it.
Post reply on HN