Foursquare Turns Down $100M 189
theodp writes "Valleywag is stupefied that 'an annoying, unprofitable social network like Foursquare would turn down $100 million,' a move inspired in part by Twitter's 2008 rejection of a $500 million offer from Facebook, which in turn once rejected a $900 million bid from Yahoo. Time will tell whether the move by Foursquare was a prescient one, but it's certainly gutsy. After all, today's $850 million company can prove to be tomorrow's worthless one, right AOL?"
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Christ, I don't think I've ever even heard of these guys. They should have took the money & ran.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Already rich and still driven (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is easier to do what you love when you are filthy rich.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously,
I went to the site to see what it is. They have no explanation of why i would want it on the front page, except for a link about us.
A 2 minute long video, that's a howto.
30 seconds in I got bored.
even with this publicity, I think it is unlikely to take off. There does appear to be links for developers trying to leveragge the site into money though.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
For two, why is money such a big deal? If you love what you do and can provide for yourself with it, why whore yourselves out? It's not about being filthy rich, but doing what you love, right?
Some people collect stamps, some people collect coins, some people collect butterflies, and some people collect obscenely huge amounts of money.
Some people worship God, some people worship life, some people worship nature, some people worship money.
Some people love their god above all else, some people love their spouse above all else, some people love their children above all else, and some people love money above all else.
It's all about what you love and what your personal value system is. Personally, I pity anyone who thinks a thing that lacks a price is worthless.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, you never heard of them. Now, though, you did. They were the loonies that turned down 100m for a name nobody knew about.
I think the price just hit the 200m range.
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize Four Square's case isn't the same as going public, but it's similar. If you love what you do and already make good money, why ruin it? And for the record, you can pay everyone's salary and still make zero profit, so "unprofitable" doesn't mean that the people working there aren't making good money.
Re:WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)
Who are we to question the ways of revolutionary thinkers?
You know, that IS a good philosophical question. The revolutionaries ARE, in fact, quite commonly seen as the outcasts of society, screaming against an establishment they envision as wrong and detrimental to their respective communities. Are we so entrenched in our own beliefs to the point where we are completely blind to progress? These thinkers seem to believe so. History has vindicated several of these different-thinkers, though admittedly relatively few.
It's fun to discuss, but I don't see how this applies to your first sentence or an annoying little "me-too" social networking website that nobody cares about and isn't even worth $20k, let alone $100M.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Christ, anyone who hasn't heard of Foursquare isn't really keen on the social networking scene. It's the latest buzz. HA, get it? Google Buzz? Alright I'll stop with stupid puns.
The general Idea is either
A) They make enough money already (I believe another project of theirs was bought out by Google some time ago)
B) They don't want their project to die, they want it to become worldchanging
C) They are holding out for more, because its worth more.
Or any combination of those.Yes, well, you can say A and C don't go together but just look at Wall Street.
Upstarts. (Score:5, Insightful)
These start-ups love to pass themselves off as scrappy little guys nipping at the heels of giants. In my experience these companies, the vast majority of the time, are backed by investors with very deep pockets. These guys are undoubtedly banking on the hope that this investment will pay off in a big way. There's this infatuation investors have with these social sites and it's easy to see why. Minimal investment, little substance, but the pay offs can be huge if people get hooked. Why spend a fortune building a company that actually makes product, with the expense and work that comes with it, when you can just do this? And given that development can easily be outsourced to India these ventures even more attractive.
Right now they're at the hype generating phase. By turning down this offer they have garnered media attention. And amongst the ignorant masses people will believe that these guys are principled. I think they're waiting to hit critical mass with users. Their hope is that they become the next Twitter. Then they'll sell especially if they haven't figured out a way to make money on something that seems completely pointless.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
For two, why is money such a big deal? If you love what you do and can provide for yourself with it, why whore yourselves out? It's not about being filthy rich, but doing what you love, right?
We live in a culture where profit is the ultimate good, transcending all other considerations, including individual and even species survival. For someone to refuse profit -- or, as is more likely in this case, to defer profit now in hopes of greater profits later -- is literally beyond comprehension for most people. And then they get angry because they're envious of all that money. To be fair, people spend their entire lives bombarded daily with the message that wealth and possessions are the only things that matter, so it's not surprising they end up with deeply conditioned tunnel vision.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Turning down the money is irresponsible (unless it's truly vastly undervalued, which is possible.)
The only reason not to sell it for a price like that is if he already has enough money and is running it as a hobby. If that's the case, it can make or lose some amount of money without it really affecting him. But just because Top Honcho has $XM in the bank already doesn't mean his employees have equal resources. If it starts losing money and he gets bored, who is going to keep all those employees in paychecks?
Worse, what if his current employees are working for options? "Hey, everybody, guess what? Yahoo would have made you all millionaires, except I turned them down. Back to work!"
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
because we can only have so many "innovative" companies. A dozen facebooks wouldn't work, a dozen twitters won't work. No one wants to log into a dozen different twitter clones and update their status. You have big sharks, and you have the guppies nipping at their heels. The tiny bit of innovation that Foursquare adds could be added to Facebook tomorrow and Foursquare would vanish into oblivion.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Regarding money as the most important thing is irresponsible.
Re:Well.. (Score:1, Insightful)
1. You're an idiot to "make the offer" in the first place. She is engaged. Do you know what that means? It doesn't matter what you want or what you feel for her or what value she has to you. None of that matters. It doesn't even equate. You never had a chance because someone else got their foot in the door first. Don't like it? You want to throw a fit about that? Think if you two were meant to be together then it would just happen? What are you on some Dawson's Creek episode or something?
2. Learn from your mistakes. You're obviously in love with someone that could never be "that person" for you. Even if she left him for you your relationship would be ruined from the beginning. I know, you don't believe that...well sorry bud but it's the truth.
3. If it has gotten to the point where you are asking her to leave him and she hasn't clued you in clear enough that your viewpoints on the relationship are unfounded and out right disrespectfull...then you need to stop communicating with her completely. Why? Well cause she's probably to young to understand what she's doing to you.
Date someone in your league and stop drooling over someone that probably just keeps you around for the ego points it gives her.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard this comment before and its moronic.
You're not just turning down money, you're also maintaining control.
Many many more businesses have done better or worse for their employees and customers based on management and control at the top than by getting huge influxes of cash.
Think Netscape, AOL, or all the little companies Microsoft and Intel have bought up and quashed over the years.
Taking the money typically means losing control of the business. That's one of the things Google's founders refused to do and a lot of investment columnists and advisors had a hard time with it because its so rare to ask for money without handing over control.
If anything, its irresponsible to run your business focused only on the bottom line. You'll end up doing a lot of really stupid things.
Re:not really a security risk (Score:3, Insightful)
So most burglers prefer to show their faces and announce their arrivals at prospective locations of their crimes rather than looking for victims that will conveniently let the burgler know remotely when a good time would be to swing by. They really do deserve to get busted.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that stock options come with the expectation that the company will be managed in such a way that their value will be greatest possible. It's certainly implied in the option system, howeve I'm unfamiliar with the laws surrounding this issue. Could someone confirm this either way?
I have noticed a disturbing tendency of corporations demanding loyalty from their workers yet giving none in return. This, in turn, breeds cynicism in said workers and makes things like stealing company assets seem more acceptable to them, perhaps even desirable.
There's a reason why humans developed empathy: it makes groups far more efficient, since their members don't have to waste their energy worrying about getting a dagger in their back. But I guess the psychopaths who lead most corporations aren't capable of understanding that.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that it is; if not legally, then simply because options are going to be completely useless as motivators from now on (and also because he runs a serious risk of bodily harm - there are limits to what you can do to someone you see daily and not suffer consequences).
Re:not really a security risk (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there's the small minority who really do their research, learn to pick locks rather than smash a window, learn to bypass an alarm system, etc. They're so few and far between that it's easier to get hit by lightning.