The Meta experience shows the risk of sale

Meta has a lot at stake in the current A lawsuit against FTC Against it. In theory, the negative judgment can disassemble the company. But CEO Mark Zuckerberg once faced a greater existential threat. In 2006, his investors and even his employees were pressuring him to sell the start of his two -year -old to get a quick return. Facebook was still a social network based on the college, and many companies were interested in buying them. The most dangerous offer came from Yahoo, which made an amazing billion dollars. Nevertheless, Zuckerberg believed that the company could grow into something much more. The pressure was huge, and at some point he fell, he agreed in principle to sell. But immediately after that, a decline in the shares of Yahoo led his leader at the time, Terry Semel, to ask for price control. Zuckerberg seized the opportunity to close the negotiations; Facebook will remain in his hands.

“This was the most exhausting time in my life,” Zuckerberg told me after years. Therefore, it is irony to note, through the testimony of this experiment, how he dealt with two groups of founders in very similar situations for him – but those who bought it successfully.

It seems that NUB from the current FTC trial depends on how the partial court judge in the United States is determined by James Boasberg Market Meta – whether it is limited to social media or, as Meta argues, the broader field of “entertainment”. But many early certificates were extracted from the details of the successful pursuit of Zuckerberg for Instagram and WhatsApp – as companies that, according to the government, are now part of the illegal Meta Meta grip on social media. (The trial also protested by the Snap case, which resisted the Zuckerberg offer of $ 6 billion and was forced to deal with Facebook Copy of its products.

Although all of these novels have almost covered over the years – I have completely documented them in my 2020 account Facebook: Interior StoryIt was amazing to see schools that are witnessing under the department about what happened. Hey, my sources were good, but I didn’t get it!

In their testimony, the witnesses of the star Zuckerberg and the founder of Instagram Kevin Sistrum agreed on the facts, but their interpretations were Mars and Venus. In 2012, Instagram was about to close a $ 500 million investment tour, when the small company suddenly found itself in playing, with Facebook in a hot hunt. In an email at the time, the financial manager asked Facebook Zuckerberg if his goal was to “neutralize a possible competitor.” The answer was positive. This was not the way he presented to Systrom and founder of Mike Krieger. Zuckerberg promised the founders that they will control Instagram and can grow on their way. They will have the best in the worlds – independence and huge Facebook resources. Oh, and a billion -dollar Facebook offer was twice the company’s evaluation in the financing round was about to close.

Everything has succeeded in a wonderful way for a few years, but then Zuckerberg began to deny the resources to Instagram, on which its founders were built in the tyrant. Systrom witnessed that Zuckerberg seemed envious of the success of Instagram and the cultural currency, Say this His boss “believes that we are hurting Facebook’s growth.” Ultimately, SNUBS from Zuckerberg has pushed Instagram founders to leave in 2018. By that time, it could have been said that Instagram had deserved 100 times from the Zuckerberg purchase price. Systrom and Krieger spoils, although large, did not reflect the great value they made on Facebook.