←back to thread

431 points c420 | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
iambateman ◴[] No.43685448[source]
> Meta could have chosen to compete with then-upstart photo sharing app Instagram in 2012, a senior FTC official said on a call with reporters ahead of the trial, but instead it bought it, and did the same with WhatsApp.

This has a potentially very-chilling effect on acquisitions, which are a major source of liquidity for lots of secondary companies.

replies(8): >>43685511 #>>43685547 #>>43685630 #>>43685712 #>>43685720 #>>43686148 #>>43686189 #>>43686280 #
jchw ◴[] No.43685720[source]
I'd kill for a chilling effect on acquisitions. Every single fucking time something I like gets acquired, it takes anywhere between a few months to a couple years before it is completely ruined. Maybe if we're lucky, Microsoft will acquire Discord and run it into the ground the way they did with Skype. (Then, we can all go back to IRC, right? ... Right, guys?)
replies(8): >>43685752 #>>43685812 #>>43685845 #>>43685881 #>>43685947 #>>43686576 #>>43687967 #>>43688496 #
1. surge ◴[] No.43685881[source]
TBF Skype wasn't profitable when MS bought it, it every much was in the line of make something everyone wants to use and figure out how to make money later. Skype was more or less free to use and it didn't make enough from paid services to cover its operating costs if I remember correctly. So it was always someone buys it or it dies.

The point of many of those companies is to get bought out and then get enshitified or stripped for its IP and integrated into for profit products.

Discord is very much in the same boat of build user base, then either sell or lock people in and charge a lot. It's current model is unsustainable. It will get bought out or enshitify eventually, there's no other sustainable model unless every user starts handing them money every month like its Netflix.

People here used to know this, are we getting an eternal September? Comments are getting more and more "reddit" like.

replies(2): >>43685933 #>>43686562 #
2. jchw ◴[] No.43685933[source]
> People here used to know this, are we getting an eternal September? Comments are getting more and more "reddit" like.

What?! I do know this, and take great offense to the insinuation that my comment is "reddit"-like. I didn't feel it necessary to iterate over how VCware works since, as you said, everyone already gets that part.

Anyway, the "this place is getting more like Reddit by the day" thing has been a Hacker News staple for (well) over a decade too. Check the end of the HN guidelines, you'll have a chuckle.

replies(1): >>43686035 #
3. surge ◴[] No.43686035[source]
Sorry, just I thought anyone lurking here for a while was pretty familiar with the whole model of "offer service for free to gain user adoption, then sell out or pivot". Most of these services that we enjoy simply aren't sustainable and are running on borrowed time (or VC money).
replies(2): >>43686269 #>>43688853 #
4. anonymars ◴[] No.43686269{3}[source]
I'm confused, is familiarity with it somehow an argument for it?

As I understand, the complaint was that things get ruined once acquired. Great, we all know that it's in part because of unsustainable business models in the hope of getting acquired*. Does that mean we have to like it? Wouldn't it be nice to encourage companies to have sustainable business models?

*But also not entirely. Even if you build a sustainable business model, for you it's throwing off profit and that's gravy for you. But once someone buys it from you, suddenly they are in the hole and have an investment to recoup, especially if they overpaid. And so the temptation arises to goose things to pay back that investment more quickly

5. dmonitor ◴[] No.43686562[source]
> Discord is very much in the same boat of build user base, then either sell or lock people in and charge a lot. It's current model is unsustainable. It will get bought out or enshitify eventually, there's no other sustainable model unless every user starts handing them money every month like its Netflix.

I haven't looked at their financials, but I wouldn't be surprised if their current subscription offerings targeting power users were enough to support the service.

replies(1): >>43686987 #
6. xixixao ◴[] No.43686987[source]
Capitalism doesn’t tend toward “enough”, it tends towards maximizing profits.

(Saying this without judging it as bad or good, simply how it is)

replies(1): >>43689006 #
7. dmix ◴[] No.43688853{3}[source]
> Most of these services that we enjoy simply aren't sustainable and are running on borrowed time (or VC money).

That's also what HN said about Uber and many other services still running today, including old Twitter.

8. bitmasher9 ◴[] No.43689006{3}[source]
While that might be true on a systems level, individual companies can choose their own destiny and many companies have chosen to operate over long time periods while making less than maximum potential revenue.