I don't really see this as valid justification. This is the same explanation given every time, and every time the users are the ones completely screwed over. I think this is a justification to yourself rather than the underlying truth.
> Our users were constantly on our mind.
If that were true, you wouldn't have sold the company to Google, as the outcome is not out of the ordinary by any means. So though they may have been on your mind, your users were ultimately not your priority.
> It was a real and sustainable business.
Then why sell it? Which leads to:
> We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google.
and
> Picnik continued to grow dramatically while we were at google.
Which means you prioritized growth over ensuring service and supporting your customers for the long term. This isn't bad, it's how you expand the business, but it does show your priority was not the customers you already had.
Which brings us back to the original point:
> This doesn't really apply to Picnik.
I think you're deluding yourself, not in a way that implies any sort of insanity, but more of a coping mechanism so you don't have to confront the fact that your biggest priority was money and not your users. In the end, you (really your board, which I think includes you) sold to Google, relinquishing control over the long term care of your users. That is the action, and that is what is ultimately true.
I don't think you're a bad person by any means. I would have made the same decision. Lets just be honest about outcomes. I think it's easy to be tricked in these acquisition offers, mainly because your personal outcome is ensured. You are getting lots of money, and you get the opportunity to see if you're business can get really big. The problem is, this actually puts a make or break ultimatum on your business. If you don't get the rapid growth you were hoping for, or your business doesn't align with the parent company down the road, then your business is broken (shut down by the parent) and your customers lose. So this is the gamble you face, and either way your future is positive, but you're betting with your customers, and when it doesn't work out they lose, but you don't.
This is presumptuous, uncharitable, and not particularly faithful to what actually happened.
By Mike's account, the unanticipated pivot to Google+ had nothing to do with being "tricked." Yes, selling your company does take the risk that the new parent company will shut down your product, but it also gives you access to resources you would not have had, which can ultimately make the product better than if you had stayed independent (thus benefiting your users). For example, Google Voice has been able to offer far more than GrandCentral's product did.
Is it a gamble? Yes, but not the simple "founders vs users" one you make it out to be.
The "tricked" comment was not that Google tricked him (and really this isn't particularly about Mike), but that it is easy to trick yourself into seeing it as a better outcome for your users than it likely will be, because it is such a good outcome for yourself.
The path of prioritizing growth is great for the founders: you get to see how big you can get your business (how many more users you can serve), and you get a big payout up front.
The path of prioritizing care of your current customers looks very different: growth will be slower, stakeholders don't get their payout, but you will not be gambling for a huge business with the contributions of your current users as stakes (he said the business was sustainable, so the startup risks are likely disappearing and life-span of the company is growing quickly).
Personally, I'm going to go with the prioritizing growth option, as the founder did, but I'm not going be dishonest (I don't see it as intentional or bad character, I think it's part of the reality distortion field of the startup scene) and say I did it thinking of my current users.
I don't think it's a founders vs. users struggle, the founders certainly do think about their current users, they just aren't prioritized. The founders certainly aren't trying to dump their current users, so they aren't against their users.
Indeed. There is no risk-free approach to being on the user's side in a case like this. Choose from:
1) get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by the acquirer;
2) don't get acquired and risk a possible shutdown by worsening economics, competition, etc. (most fledgling businesses are vulnerable compared to the security of Google)
In some cases, that's the choice, especially when the company isn't profitable, or is barely so. In this case, though, it seems #2 wasn't a major risk. Or at least the founder claims in this thread that it wasn't: he describes it as a sustainable, growing company on sound financial footing, which didn't sell out of necessity.
Fuck the users! If we are to be honest 90% of these products we build on hacker news are bullshit that are great for existing to drive innovation forward, but in itself easily replaceable because there are so many of us willing to make a better competing product. Come on now, mobile and web products if killed off doesn't hurt any users, Facebook and google included. They are close to debatable, but whatever. The supply of apps and sites is too high. The creators of them even higher. Not that it's a bad thing at all...u get the idea. Cry me a river about point and click/touch users.
You're looking at it from the supply side; perhaps you should consider the demand side?
If this attitude prevails, eventually you'll likely to find you've poisoned the well such that you won't be able to find enough new users for subsequent ventures. As I mention here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7130428 in the context of the end of the IPO exit, every accui-kill results in a pissed off set of ex-users less likely to try the next startup's shiny new toy.
It was a business. Of course the biggest priority was money. That does not stop them from wanting to charge money for a a good product. That is what is meant by having their clients in their mind. Their focus was on making money by delivering a good product. The reason to sell to Google was to have more access to more money (and other resources) in order to improve the product. There is nothing wrong with that.
> Our users were constantly on our mind.
If that were true, you wouldn't have sold the company to Google, as the outcome is not out of the ordinary by any means. So though they may have been on your mind, your users were ultimately not your priority.
> It was a real and sustainable business.
Then why sell it? Which leads to:
> We felt like we could make the product better by joining with Google.
and
> Picnik continued to grow dramatically while we were at google.
Which means you prioritized growth over ensuring service and supporting your customers for the long term. This isn't bad, it's how you expand the business, but it does show your priority was not the customers you already had.
Which brings us back to the original point:
> This doesn't really apply to Picnik.
I think you're deluding yourself, not in a way that implies any sort of insanity, but more of a coping mechanism so you don't have to confront the fact that your biggest priority was money and not your users. In the end, you (really your board, which I think includes you) sold to Google, relinquishing control over the long term care of your users. That is the action, and that is what is ultimately true.
I don't think you're a bad person by any means. I would have made the same decision. Lets just be honest about outcomes. I think it's easy to be tricked in these acquisition offers, mainly because your personal outcome is ensured. You are getting lots of money, and you get the opportunity to see if you're business can get really big. The problem is, this actually puts a make or break ultimatum on your business. If you don't get the rapid growth you were hoping for, or your business doesn't align with the parent company down the road, then your business is broken (shut down by the parent) and your customers lose. So this is the gamble you face, and either way your future is positive, but you're betting with your customers, and when it doesn't work out they lose, but you don't.