The target test shows the dangers of selling

Meta has a lot at play in the current demand of the FTC against her. In theory, a negative verdict could result in a rupture of the company. But CEO Mark Zuckerberg once faced an even greater existential threat. In 2006, his investors and even his employees were pressing him to sell his two -year startup for a quick reward. Facebook was still a university -based social network, and several companies were interested in buying it. The most serious offer of Yahoo, which offered an impressive $ 1 billion. However, Zuckerberg believed that he could make the company something that is worth much more. The pressure was tremendous, and at a time flicked, agreeing in principle to sell. But immediately after that, a fall in Yahoo’s actions led its leader at that time, Terry Sename, to ask for a price adjustment. Zuckerberg took the opportunity to close the negotiations; Facebook would remain in your hands.

“That was, with much, the most stressful moment of my life,” Zuckerberg told me years later. Therefore, it is ironic to observe, through the testimony of this trial, how he treated two other series of founders in very similar situations for him, but whom he successfully bought.

The cloud of the current FTC trial seems to depend on how the judge of the United States District Court, James Boasberg, will define the finish line, either limited to social networks or, as a goal is arguing, the widest field of “entertainment”. But much of the early testimony urged the details of the successful search for Zuckerberg of Instagram and WhatsApp, two companies that, according to the Government, are now part of the illegal monopolist control of finish in social networks. (The trial also invoked the Snap case, which resisted the offer of $ 6 billion of Zuckerberg and had to deal with Facebook by copying its products). Leaving the legalities aside, the way in which these companies were overturned by a Zuckerberg offer made the first days of this case a dramatic and instructive study of the acquisition dynamics between small and large businesses.

Although almost all of these narratives have been covered extensively over the years, I documented them quite thoroughly in my own 2020 Facebook: The Inside Story—In surprising it was surprising to see the directors who testified under oath about what happened. Hey, my sources were quite good, but I couldn’t swear!

In his testimony, Star witnesses of Zuckerberg and the Instagram co -founder Kevin Systromen agreed with the facts, but their interpretations were Mars and Venus. In 2012, Instagram was about to close an investment round of $ 500 million, when the small company was suddenly found at stake, with Facebook in Hot Pursuit. In an email at that time, Facebook’s financial director asked Zuckerberg if his goal was to “neutralize a possible competitor.” The answer was affirmative. That was not the way he threw it to Systrom and co -founder Mike Krieger. Zuckerberg promised the co -founders that they would control Instagram and could grow it. They would have the best of both worlds: independence and huge Facebook resources. Ah, and the offer of $ 1 billion of Facebook was twice the valuation of the company in the financing round that was about to close.

Everything worked very well for a few years, but then Zuckerberg began to deny resources to Instagram, that his co -founders had incorporated into a monster. Systrom testified that Zuckerberg seemed envious of the success and cultural currency of Instagram, saying that His boss “believed we were hurting the growth of Facebook.” Zuckerberg’s Desaales finally promoted Instagram founders to leave in 2018. At that time, Instagram could be worth 100 times the purchase price of Zuckerberg. Systrom and Krieger’s loot, although considerable, did not reflect the fantastic value they had built for Facebook.