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

Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#91

Post by Bjartr »

dang wrote: post #48
craftyguy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civility and basic courtesy is not copyrighted, use it in your public statements. POTUS would disagree. Civility and basic courtesy are no longer popular. Such is the world we now live in. Edit: Anyone care to dispute this? I don't agree with it, but I'm also not willing to ignore it.

Please don't take HN threads on generic tangents and certainly not political ones.

Some of the best HN has to offer in terms of interesting and thought provoking discussion is on generic tangents, and so long as the discussion remains civil and contained to those threads concerning it I see no reason to discourage it for being discussed.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#92

Post by ralston »

bing_dai wrote: post #54
rajacombinator wrote: post #49

If you had this obviously brilliant app idea why would you launch it as an internal project? Something about the founding story here has never added up.

There might be clauses in those Tinder founders' employment contracts with Match.com that any intellectual property that they came up with during their employment belongs to Match.com. There's a similar plot in the Silicon Valley TV show (Piped Piper v.s. Hooli).

Only if there was a Gavin Belson in this version

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#93

Post by ajcodez »

bogomipz wrote: post #43
DeonPenny wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it was an internal startup made from Match.

Why did a dating site launch a dating app as a separate startup? What was the logic there?

It’s actually a well researched business case study and in the case of Tinder carried out perfectly. It’s too hard for existing company to disrupt itself because it takes too long for the new venture to make a significant difference to the bottom line, the value chain and company structure is too entrenched, the standard for excellence is too high for a nascent product or service. In business literature to avoid getting disrupted you’re supposed to set up a independent office far away and incentivize the “founding” team with upside and full autonomy and credit for success.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#94

Post by modells »

fatjokes wrote: post #80
jessaustin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Match might have to find a model besides "buy the latest popular matchmaking firm"?

IIRC, they own one of the few online dating sites that actually generates a profit: match.com. All of their other properties, particularly Tinder and OkCupid, are basically meant to get younger people hooked so that they will eventually convert to paying for Match.com.

OkCupid started as a free, alternative, non-traditional dating site based on a full-spectrum of interests compatibility. Unfortunately, post-acquisition, it’s becoming yet another Tinder/Match pics-first shallow hookup site.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#95

Post by modells »

pm90 wrote: post #69
jessaustin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they consistently screw over everybody else in the deal, people won't want to deal with them.

Hasn’t stopped them from dominating the market so far. But I do believe they’re a shady company though.

Hubris before the fall.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#96

Post by refurb »

nlh wrote: post #7

Random semi-tangential question: It seems that when companies/PR people/lawyers respond to lawsuits, they always use some version of this EXACT phrase: "The allegations in the complaint are meritless, and ____ intends to vigorously defend against them." Responses almost always use the word "meritless" (or "baseless") and almost always describe their forthcoming response to be "vigorous". Is there a legal reason why t…

Often when comments on a legal case, what you say could be misinterpreted and used against you at a later time. For example, if you said "we believe the claim that X did Y is untrue", it could be used later to say "they obviously agree the other facts are true then!".

If you use this stock statement, then it won't be used against you at a later time.

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#97

Post by ed »

bamorgan wrote: post #79
hello_asdf wrote: post #3

That is a brutal response from Match and IAC. Their statement also mentions that two separate banks were part of the valuation. I'd be curious what their proof is. A couple fun phrases from the statement: > his merry band of plaintiffs > but sour grapes alone do not a lawsuit make

I worked for match group as a C-level executive and had a equity structure that was similar, but on a way smaller scale. They use outside firms and a methodology called baseball arbitration to come up with a FMV. Although I didn't like some of the decisions that impacted the value of my equity, I was always treated fairly.

Is this also known as pendulum arbitration?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_arbitration

I assume the bank acts as arbitrator, and IAC is one of the parties proposing a valuation? How do they remove the bank's incentive to side with IAC?

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#98

Post by JimboOmega »

fatjokes wrote: post #82
erikpukinskis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always assumed it was just “Grindr for straight people”. Thus the similar name.

Wow. Thanks to your comment, I learned that Grindr predates Tinder.

I was active in online dating around the time Tinder came out, and there was a lot of talk about finding the "Grindr for straight people" - like some sort of holy grail. Consensus at the time was that women weren't interested - that just swiping on pictures didn't appeal to them. But if only they could be - filling out a whole profile was a lot of work that turned off a lot of people...

But the reality is that online dating was starting to become more and more acceptable and normalized so that line was crossed, Tinder became a thing, and the rest is history (including most other dating apps evolving towards being clones of it)

Re: Tinder founders sue parent companies Match and IAC for at least $2B

#100

Post by beaner »

modells wrote: post #94
fatjokes wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, they own one of the few online dating sites that actually generates a profit: match.com. All of their other properties, particularly Tinder and OkCupid, are basically meant to get younger people hooked so that they will eventually convert to paying for Match.com.

OkCupid started as a free, alternative, non-traditional dating site based on a full-spectrum of interests compatibility. Unfortunately, post-acquisition, it’s becoming yet another Tinder/Match pics-first shallow hookup site.

OkCupid began monetizing before being acquired and that's part of what made them attractive.
Post reply on HN