Everything about this screams that the author was imagining a much lower price point. I especially liked the part where he mentions that they won't have another idea like this for the rest of their lives. Guess what? They don't need anything for the rest of their lives, as they are billionaires. Haha.
By this email, please accept this formal notice and takedown request for the following content on the GitHub site. I am starting with these requests to ensure you will take action on our request. We will have follow-on requests, as the list of infringing content below is not exhaustive.
Specifically:
The following URLs use of the WhatsApp name and logo, use of other WhatsApp content, unauthorized use of WhatsApp APIs, software, and/or services, and provision of software and services related to WhatsApp infringes on WhatsApp's copyrights and trademarks, including those related to WhatsApp's name and logo. WhatsApp's trademarks are registered in the United States and countries throughout the world.
Note that:
• Trademarks aren't subject to the DMCA.
• APIs aren't copyrightable.
• TOU violations aren't subject to the DMCA.
Given that the letter isn't clearly formatted as a DMCA takedown (though it uses some sample language) the effect is ... curious.
Turned out to be true - they 19x'd what they would have gotten had they sold in 2012. I think everyone is missing the fact that this was 1.5 years ago - this article is proven CORRECT by today's acquisition, not wrong.
The author has some seriously flawed reasons. "How long would you last reporting to a 28 year old like Zuckerberg?" What's at stake isn't your pride, it's the life of your company, what you've spent X number of years building, the employees that believe in you, your users that you want to serve. Who cares how old Zuck is?
"1. Had they stayed independent, these founders would have overseen businesses that would have been vastly more powerful than they were then and perhaps more than they are now under new management."
Had YouTube stayed independent, it would have been crushed under the foot of the media industry's juggernaut lawsuit machine and political ties. Not to mention it was bleeding to death, with no viable business model at the time (it would take the king of advertising years to figure out how to begin to monetize YouTube properly).
"3. Selling WhatsApp to Zuckerberg in 2012 would be like Zuckerberg selling Facebook to Yahoo in 2006."
Not hardly. WhatsApp got roughly 19 times what Yahoo was willing to pay for Facebook. Not comparable scenarios. Even in 2012 it's likely they would have received net value far exceeding the 2006 Yahoo offer, accounting for the increased stock valuation.
"4. You will never have a better business idea than WhatsApp for the rest of your lives."
That's probably true for Koum and Acton, and they just received roughly $8.55 billion and $3.8 billion for their best business idea. On what scale is one going to argue they didn't just pull off a financial coup?
"5. How long would you last reporting to a 28 year old like Zuckerberg?"
$8.5 billion in pocket, this question no longer matters. Go do whatever you want a year or two from now, including buying the NY Yankees if you feel so inclined.
"8. WhatsApp has a much brighter future as an independent company than Instagram did."
Approximately 19 times brighter apparently. And?
"9. You can be the “next Facebook” – but only if you stay independent."
Know when to walk away, know when to run. The WhapsApp crew pulled off the perfect deal.
"Facebook didn’t become Facebook by being the next Google or the next MySpace. It became the first social network that really appealed to people in a broad way and didn’t overdo it with ads."
So Facebook was totally different from Myspace, except it was exactly the same but with less ads. Gotcha.
10 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 24.3 ms ] threadBy this email, please accept this formal notice and takedown request for the following content on the GitHub site. I am starting with these requests to ensure you will take action on our request. We will have follow-on requests, as the list of infringing content below is not exhaustive.
Specifically:
The following URLs use of the WhatsApp name and logo, use of other WhatsApp content, unauthorized use of WhatsApp APIs, software, and/or services, and provision of software and services related to WhatsApp infringes on WhatsApp's copyrights and trademarks, including those related to WhatsApp's name and logo. WhatsApp's trademarks are registered in the United States and countries throughout the world.
Note that:
• Trademarks aren't subject to the DMCA.
• APIs aren't copyrightable.
• TOU violations aren't subject to the DMCA.
Given that the letter isn't clearly formatted as a DMCA takedown (though it uses some sample language) the effect is ... curious.
Had YouTube stayed independent, it would have been crushed under the foot of the media industry's juggernaut lawsuit machine and political ties. Not to mention it was bleeding to death, with no viable business model at the time (it would take the king of advertising years to figure out how to begin to monetize YouTube properly).
"3. Selling WhatsApp to Zuckerberg in 2012 would be like Zuckerberg selling Facebook to Yahoo in 2006."
Not hardly. WhatsApp got roughly 19 times what Yahoo was willing to pay for Facebook. Not comparable scenarios. Even in 2012 it's likely they would have received net value far exceeding the 2006 Yahoo offer, accounting for the increased stock valuation.
"4. You will never have a better business idea than WhatsApp for the rest of your lives."
That's probably true for Koum and Acton, and they just received roughly $8.55 billion and $3.8 billion for their best business idea. On what scale is one going to argue they didn't just pull off a financial coup?
"5. How long would you last reporting to a 28 year old like Zuckerberg?"
$8.5 billion in pocket, this question no longer matters. Go do whatever you want a year or two from now, including buying the NY Yankees if you feel so inclined.
"8. WhatsApp has a much brighter future as an independent company than Instagram did."
Approximately 19 times brighter apparently. And?
"9. You can be the “next Facebook” – but only if you stay independent."
Know when to walk away, know when to run. The WhapsApp crew pulled off the perfect deal.
1) Why Silicon Valley Tech Wunderkinds Will Only Ever Have 1 Good Business Idea During Their Entire Lives
2) Here's My Fix for Facebook: Make Facebook a Subsidiary of Instagram With Zuck Reporting to Systrom
3) Why Facebook Doesn't Have Mobile In Its Founding DNA - and Why That Spells Disaster
4)Why Peter Thiel Should Be Ashamed - And Resign From Facebook's Board Immediately
So Facebook was totally different from Myspace, except it was exactly the same but with less ads. Gotcha.