undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjfoster12y ago0 comments

Your comment assumes that Zuckerberg and the people at Facebook will be incompetent at nurturing an employee like John Carmack and the other talented Oculus VR folk.

If they're smart, they will allow him pretty much free reign, and then put some resources behind his projects to help them mature. (think Sergey Brin or Andy Rubin at Google)

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

grey-area12y ago· 4 in thread

No, it just assumes that the interests of a large corporation which is entering the phase where it needs to show revenue growth every quarter and satisfy shareholders are not aligned with those of a small company attempting to build an experimental product in a completely new field. This is an old story and the outcome is almost always the same (large corp buys small corp, promises to change nothing and stay hands off, circumstances change, large corp looks for projects to downsize or cut). Google has many examples of acquisitions, how many are running in a hands off way now?

On top of that, Facebook has shown itself to be untrustworthy many times from a dev and user perspective (beacon, FB credits etc), so if Carmack wants to avoid that and produce something without intrusive advertising for example, they may well clash.

None of this means it was a bad idea to sell for oculus, just that selling is ceding control completely to the vision of the larger company in the long term.

jamesaguilar12y ago

Facebook does not need to satisfy any shareholder except one.

I mean, hacker news likes to freak out about fiduciary duty and "omg, corporations are obligated to make maximum profit." But realistically, almost no big corps run that way (almost all engage in some charity, many have foundations, etc.), and there is near-zero legal possibility of minority investors forcing them to. This is because investors have almost no say unless it is obvious you are trying to screw them -- normally a subset of them -- or unless there is no plausible way a course of action could make money.

grey-area12y ago

I've always thought the fiduciary duty argument was silly (and I'm not HN :), so I agree with you there, but that doesn't change the broader point - when you sell a company, it is no longer yours, and the interests and politics of a large corp with public shareholders and revenue targets are not those of a smaller acquisition.

1 more reply

pizza23412y ago

> But realistically, almost no big corps run that way (almost all engage in some charity, many have foundations, etc.)

Engaging in charity and supporting foundations is not related to the "generosity" of the a corporation (who runs it); charity and foundations can be PR and tax-saving strategies.

Drug cartels engage in charitable donations; that doesn't make them generous.

HSBC (just picked a random one) supports charities. It also launders money for the drug cartels and is generally involved in illegal money transactions.

I can pick virtually any big corporation involved in corruption/crime scandals and I'm pretty sure they routinely make charitable acts and/or have their foundations and as well.

I certainly don't say that any corporation is corrupt, but the link with foundation/charities and morality of a corporation just doesn't exist.

1 more reply

mark_integerdsv12y ago

...a larger advertising company of the most cynical variety.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

grey-area12y ago· 4 in thread

None of this means it was a bad idea to sell for oculus, just that selling is ceding control completely to the vision of the larger company in the long term.

jamesaguilar12y ago

Facebook does not need to satisfy any shareholder except one.

grey-area12y ago

1 more reply

pizza23412y ago

> But realistically, almost no big corps run that way (almost all engage in some charity, many have foundations, etc.)

Engaging in charity and supporting foundations is not related to the "generosity" of the a corporation (who runs it); charity and foundations can be PR and tax-saving strategies.

Drug cartels engage in charitable donations; that doesn't make them generous.

HSBC (just picked a random one) supports charities. It also launders money for the drug cartels and is generally involved in illegal money transactions.

I can pick virtually any big corporation involved in corruption/crime scandals and I'm pretty sure they routinely make charitable acts and/or have their foundations and as well.

I certainly don't say that any corporation is corrupt, but the link with foundation/charities and morality of a corporation just doesn't exist.

1 more reply

mark_integerdsv12y ago

...a larger advertising company of the most cynical variety.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse