
Facebook's Aggressive Moves on Startups Threaten Innovation - eqtn
https://www.wired.com/story/facebooks-aggressive-moves-on-startups-threaten-innovation/
======
replicatorblog
Half of the top food companies in the world were formed in the 19th century.
There were 614 food and drink companies acquired in 2016.

More leading pharma companies were founded prior to 1780 than after 1980 and
seven of the ten biggest companies are over a hundred years old. In 2014-15
there were over 100 biotech IPOs that yielded $10B in proceeds.

Tech is going through the same consolidation process that cars, drugs, oil
companies, packaged food concerns, and most other industries have. The chances
of building a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars is lower. The
chance of building a $10-100M business has never been higher.

The founders of tbh made more money that All-Star NBA Champion Stephen Curry
did last year. Is that a sign of a weakening startup ecosystem or a
strengthening one?

~~~
awgneo
I still have faith in our ability to escape the ill effects of capitalism that
are slowly destroying our industry. See Bitcoin & Ethereum.

~~~
SaltyBackendGuy
I always wonder what a better solution than capitalism is. It's not perfect,
and it's pretty broken when politics and corporate interests are in bed
together. However, we're seeing the ill effects of socialism (Venezuela) like
starvation and I prefer the former. Furthermore, the crypto economy might be
the closest example we have to "Free Market" capitalism.

~~~
adamnemecek
I was always intrigued by Georgism
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism))
but idk if it would really work in 21st century.

~~~
lend000
Georgism is a very interesting idea -- however, in its purest form, what is
the incentive to invest in land? E.g. to build tall buildings, factories,
invest in better farming practices/technology, etc.

Would it not be better to have full property rights, except with externalities
captured?

------
tw1010
Everyone buys companies. This is nothing new. If the threshold for Facebook
buying companies becomes too low, the startup sphere will be flooded (which to
some extent has already happened) and Facebook will stop buying them all
(which to a degree is true already). Eventually there will be enough that goes
under their radar or enough companies to say no to their offer (e.g. Snapchat)
that stuff will get through the buyout-barrier. Everything old is new again,
yawn.

------
vladislav
If Facebook easily replicating that same feature is enough to significantly
hurt the smaller competitor, was it really innovation in the first place?

~~~
TAForObvReasons
If you are of the view that ideas are worthless and execution is all that
matters, then there is no innovation anymore. Facebook can out-execute pretty
much any small startup if they really wanted to go into a space.

~~~
vladislav
The only advantage Facebook has in entering an entirely new space is capital,
which is not a unique advantage. The unique advantage they have of modifying
their social media platform, is that they have by far the largest platform,
and if the only differentiation of the smaller competitor can be easily
replicated, it will be quite easy for Facebook to compete, without even
deploying much capital. Thus, if someone wants to compete with Facebook, there
has to be either significant IP, or a feature that isn't as easily compatible
with Facebook's platform (note that Facebook also tried to replicate Snapchat
early on, but that failed). I am not saying that ideas are worthless, but many
are not easily defensible as a business strategy, and I don't see the reason
to blame Facebook for leveraging their unique advantage by adding compatible
features that have been validated by other companies, nor for deploying their
capital to acquire such companies. One could have plenty of ideas for how to
leverage a large social media platform, but without access to that platform,
and especially if a competing much larger platform can easily replicate such
ideas to drive you out of business, there would not be a strong case to make
for these ideas being true innovation in the context of business.

------
shmerl
They can't prevent copying features. They need to compete on something
Facebook isn't capable of competing. Such as being decentralized and privacy
respectful. That's an instant fail for FB.

For example FB can copy features like hashtags all they want, but I won't
touch it unlike Diaspora.

~~~
Karunamon
Except the alternative is a complete fail from a user standpoint.
Decentralized systems are, almost to a rule, not user-friendly.

Privacy doesn't seem to sell.

~~~
cisanti
I have come to an conclusion people who care about privacy don't care about
social networks either.

Just an anecdote of course. I have joined diaspora and mastodon twice to fight
the big Goliath but every time I have realized I really don't need the social
media as such anyway.

------
jdale27
Okay, but do we really need a "future Facebook"? Are innovation and creativity
in social media really something the world will suffer for a lack of?

In any case, the next big thing is usually not just a better version of the
last big thing.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Of course we do. >1 billion people shouldn't have their lives dictated by a
proprietary, opaque Skinner's box with no regard for privacy or rights.

~~~
wskinner
Then they shouldn't use the proprietary, opaque Skinner box. :) It's not like
they have a gun to their heads.

~~~
bearmobius
Some thoughts about the "no one's forcing you to use it" arguments (of which
I'm also partial to, having removed myself from Facebook). Humans do have a
_need_ to socialise/connect with other humans, just as we have need food and
water - we quickly lose sanity in isolation. To give an example, the worst
punishment in prisons is solitary confinement (being separated from the other
criminals!). The link between social isolation and health problems and
ultimately early death has also been demonstrated. It seems to follow from
this then that we do really _need_ Facebook to the degree to which they
control all means of socialising, and online communication is only becoming
more and more primary over time. In other words, imagining the extreme case
where FB is only means to connect with the world (and this is their stated
mission), we can no longer choose not to use them anymore than we can choose
not to breathe and eat, insofar as physiological well being goes.

~~~
Karunamon
> _It seems to follow from this then that we do really need Facebook to the
> degree to which they control all means of socialising_

And therein is the fallacy. Facebook might be popular, but they are absolutely
_not_ the controller of all means of socializing. Everyone I'm friends with on
Facebook, I also have the email (and often phone, and often other IM service)
contact info.

You confuse generalized control with control in their own walled garden.
Anyone is free to step outside of that garden whenever they please.

------
ppeetteerr
Three points on this topic:

1) There are worse ways to go than being acquired by Facebook 2) As far as I
know, Facebook has been unable to copy/innovate in many areas (unable to copy
craigslist, for instance). Their only solution is always to buy a competitor.
3) Monopolies are shit (I'm looking at you, Libertarians)

~~~
ausjke
agree, it is evil to steal and copy with deep pockets, buying competitors are
bad, but not as bad as stealing.

------
wheresmyusern
i find it interesting that the possibility of facebook being hacked is almost
never discussed -- ive never really seen it held up in these comments.
everyone discusses endlessly what might happen if a financial institution, an
email service, or something else is hacked. equifax is the latest example. the
result of these hacks is the disclosure of tons of personal and sensitive
data. so why is it never brought up that facebook, like any other company,
might be hacked? since they spy on all their users, they must in some way or
another store in an unsafe manner all of the chat logs, pictures, private
messages, not to mention the damning meta-data extracted from it. i havent
used facebook for almost a decade so perhaps im incorrect in assuming that
people say private things in private messages?

there ought to be an alternative

~~~
zone411
They had a security breach in 2011. Private photos (including Zuckerberg's)
were released.

------
mankash666
The whole premise of the article is flawed. Steve jobs said this before - many
of the upcoming social-local-mobile apps ought to be features, not standalone
companies. A "check-in" feature-as-a-company is only sellable to investors in
silicon valley. It's not defensible in any way, and makes more sense as a
feature in an app that people spend a lot of time inside. Foursquare should've
sold to Facebook - not because Facebook is evil - because Foursquare a.k.a
"check-in" feature, isn't visible or interesting as a standalone company.
Enough said

------
carbocation
As another user mentioned on a previous article on a similar topic, the main
feature that raises eyebrows is Facebook's ownership of Onavo. This allows
them to gain an unusual degree of information about traffic flows to
competitors and early insight into potential acquisitions in a way that is
inaccessible to others. (Onavo is mentioned in the story.)

------
em3rgent0rdr
The future facebook alternative will probably be FOSS, considering it is
harder to buy up software that is owned by everyone.

------
2_listerine_pls
Acquisitions should be regulated.

------
aaron-lebo
Facebook can only buy those who want to be bought. Facebook could've been
bought out (and many said they should have - which in hindsight would've been
a horrific move).

If companies really care about innovation, they can focus on that instead of
flipping their companies.

~~~
dkn
I think money can be a more significant persuader than you are letting on,
especially after months of startup stress pile up on a decision maker.

~~~
j45
Not just months... but years.

