How Twitter Came to Boston(bostinno.com)
bostinno.com
How Twitter Came to Boston
http://bostinno.com/2013/03/04/how-twitter-came-to-boston-the-story-behind-two-very-different-acquisitions/#ss__304596_1_0__ss
2 comments
Yes its a very tricky place to be in. Building a business on a single platform is so dangerous these days. I had a friend who tried to build on facebook platform and had to shut down because of their rules and threats.
Obligatory: https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePl...
What it comes down to is this: if you want to develop software, you can build for the Web and/or Unix and/or OSS platforms; or alternatively, you can be a sharecropper.
What it comes down to is this: if you want to develop software, you can build for the Web and/or Unix and/or OSS platforms; or alternatively, you can be a sharecropper.
These are massive platforms. They have incredible reach and potential for developers. If you choose to use them (specifically in a manner that makes them vital to your business), you have put yourself in a potentially bad position in exchange for a potentially massive gain.
If you manage to leverage that position... you are that much more dependent. And with the number of acquisitions and implosions of this nature that have happened over the last few years, there is no excuse not to see it coming early on.
I'm not suggesting Big Social (I just made that up!) is good or right, just that it's not horrid or evil (from an API access standpoint). It's operating exactly as you should expect an entity run by people to behave: In their own best interests. Is this ideal? No, not for the rest of us. But that's how it is, always has been, and always will be.
That anyone still considers this newsworthy is the only surprising part of it to me.
If you manage to leverage that position... you are that much more dependent. And with the number of acquisitions and implosions of this nature that have happened over the last few years, there is no excuse not to see it coming early on.
I'm not suggesting Big Social (I just made that up!) is good or right, just that it's not horrid or evil (from an API access standpoint). It's operating exactly as you should expect an entity run by people to behave: In their own best interests. Is this ideal? No, not for the rest of us. But that's how it is, always has been, and always will be.
That anyone still considers this newsworthy is the only surprising part of it to me.
I had no bewilderment as to why Crashlytics sold. What bewildered me -- and apparently the author of the article as well -- is why on earth Twitter bought them.
It's essentially a commodity product, with multiple competing implementations, open-source offerings across the board, and is something that can be built (I know this because it has been built -- repeatedly) on a scale of months.
If Twitter seriously paid $100M for that, I think whoever is leading up M&A might be completely disconnected from technological reality.
It's essentially a commodity product, with multiple competing implementations, open-source offerings across the board, and is something that can be built (I know this because it has been built -- repeatedly) on a scale of months.
If Twitter seriously paid $100M for that, I think whoever is leading up M&A might be completely disconnected from technological reality.
1) build a platform
2) get devs to use your platforms data
3) capriciously threaten to cut off access to drive a sale.
There's something basically malicious about building businesses like this. Companies used to pay for innovation, now they're able to simply choke it out.
The key in getting a big acquisition is multiple suitors. If you've only got one company chasing you, you are at their mercy. It's an unenviable position.