"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, you fight to find a way to make the facts conform to it. It's like watching a creationist respond to geology.
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.
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, you fight to find a way to make the facts conform to it. It's like watching a creationist respond to geology.