logo
The Meta Trial Shows the Dangers of Selling Out

The Meta Trial Shows the Dangers of Selling Out

WIRED25-04-2025
Apr 25, 2025 10:00 AM Several founders of hot startups took big payouts and let Mark Zuckerberg gobble up their companies—and came to regret it.
Meta has a lot at stake in the current FTC lawsuit against it. In theory a negative verdict could result in a company breakup. But CEO Mark Zuckerberg once faced an even bigger existential threat. Back in 2006, his investors and even his employees were pressuring him to sell his two-year-old startup for a quick payoff. Facebook was still a college-based social network, and several companies were interested in buying it. The most serious offer came from Yahoo, which offered a stunning $1 billion. Zuckerberg, though, believed he could grow the company into something worth much more. The pressure was tremendous, and at one point he blinked, agreeing in principle to sell. But immediately after that, a dip in Yahoo stock led its leader at the time, Terry Semel, to ask for a price adjustment. Zuckerberg seized the opportunity to shut down negotiations; Facebook would remain in his hands.
'That was by far the most stressful time in my life,' Zuckerberg told me years later. So it's ironic to observe, through the testimony of this trial, how he treated two other sets of founders in very similar situations to him—but whom he successfully bought out.
This is an essay from the latest edition of Steven Levy's Plaintext newsletter.
SIGN UP for Plaintext to read the whole thing, and tap Steven's unique insights and unmatched contacts for the long view on tech.
The nub of the current FTC trial seems to hinge on how US District Court judge James Boasberg will define Meta's market—whether it's limited to social media or, as Meta is arguing, the broader field of 'entertainment.' But much of the early testimony exhumed the details of Zuckerberg's successful pursuit of Instagram and WhatsApp—two companies that, according to the government, are now part of Meta's illegal monopolistic grip on social media. (The trial also invoked the case of Snap, which resisted Zuckerberg's $6 billion offer and had to deal with Facebook copying its products.) Legalities aside, the way these companies were upended by a Zuckerberg offer made the first few days of this case a dramatic and instructive study of acquisition dynamics between small and big business.
Though almost all of these narratives have been covered at length over the years—I documented them pretty thoroughly in my own 2020 account Facebook: The Inside Story —it was striking to see the principals testifying under oath about what happened. Hey, my sources were pretty good, but I didn't get to swear them in!
In their testimony, star witnesses Zuckerberg and Instagram cofounder Kevin Systrom agreed on facts, but their interpretations were Mars and Venus. In 2012, Instagram was about to close a $500 million investment round, when suddenly the tiny company found itself in play, with Facebook in hot pursuit. In an email at the time, Facebook's CFO asked Zuckerberg if his goal was to 'neutralize a potential competitor.' The answer was affirmative. That was not the way he pitched it to Systrom and cofounder Mike Krieger. Zuckerberg promised the cofounders they would control Instagram and could grow it their way. They would have the best of both worlds—independence and Facebook's huge resources. Oh, and Facebook's $1 billion offer was double the valuation of the company in the funding round it was about to close.
Everything worked great for a few years, but then Zuckerberg began denying resources to Instagram, which its cofounders had built into a juggernaut. Systrom testified that Zuckerberg seemed envious of Instagram's success and cultural currency, saying that his boss 'believed we were hurting Facebook's growth.' Zuckerberg's snubs ultimately drove Instagram's founders to leave in 2018. By that time, Instagram was arguably worth perhaps 100 times Zuckerberg's purchase price. Systrom and Krieger's spoils, though considerable, did not reflect the fantastic value they had built for Facebook.
The founders of WhatsApp did reap a stratospheric buyout, because in 2014 Zuckerberg threw $19 billion to acquire their then tiny operation. But, as told through testimony of some of its executives and funders, the acquisition hinged on promises that cofounders Brian Acton and Jan Koum would retain control. The WhatsApp cofounders hated advertising and were adamant that no ads should ever appear on their service. But documents introduced in the trial indicated that Facebook was basing its valuation on the premise that WhatsApp would be monetized, apparently with those despised ads. The founders left in 2018, when it became clear that Zuckerberg was calling the shots. 'I espoused a certain set of principles, even publicly, to my users, and I said, Look, we are not gonna sell your data, we are not going to sell you ad s, and I turned around and sold my company,' cofounder Brian Acton told me. His penance for this 'crime,' he told me, was spending $50 million to create the Signal Foundation.
Though these founders were pressured to sell, there weren't literal guns to their heads—and they did cash out in exchange for pursuing their dreams. So we shouldn't feel too sorry for them. But lately people in Silicon Valley have been chattering about startup guru Paul Graham's 'Founder Mode' theory, which assumes that the person most responsible for creating a company is the best one to run it—and that the world itself benefits from such people. Zuckerberg, of course, is an iconic founder. But the trial is revealing a narrative beyond the FTC's legal argument about anticompetitive acquisitions: Zuckerberg's penchant for snuffing out founders to advance his own goals.
Of course, sometimes founders are well advised to take the money and run. Consider the case of Clubhouse, the audio-based social networking product that exploded during the pandemic. Its founders, Paul Davison and Rohan Seth, fended off multiple suitors, including a rumored $4 billion offer from Twitter. But after the pandemic—and some poor strategic choices—the service deflated like a punctured balloon. In 2023 it laid off half of its staff. On the other hand, it's still around, and at least in one of its recent town halls, Davison still seemed to be having fun.
One question that Mark Zuckerberg did not have to answer during his testimony was how he viewed his own transition from prey to predator. But I did pose that question to him during my book research. We were discussing the mental anguish he suffered during the 2006 crisis. Zuckerberg told me that he often advises young founders not to give in to pressure. This advice, of course, was not offered to those running companies he wanted to buy. So I asked him directly—given his lesson from the Yahoo experience, did Systrom and Krieger make a mistake by selling to him?
There was a long pause, not an uncommon phenomenon when Zuckerberg considers a question where a candid answer might put him in a damning position. Finally he gave a response that dodged the issue, saying that Instagram could never have reached its heights without Facebook's support. He said pretty much the same thing in court this month. On a legal basis, Meta will not be judged on how he bought off the dreams of founders, but whether he gamed the marketplace through his purchases. No judge will rule on the calculus of selling off a dream.
In Kevin Systrom's testimony, he opined that Zuckerberg denied resources to Instagram in part out of jealousy. The photo-sharing app, which he didn't invent, was growing faster than Facebook's blue app, a Mark Zuckerberg Production. When reporting Facebook: The Inside Story, I became familiar with this tension and put it to Zuckerberg: Was he in fact jealous of the Instagram team?
'Jealous…' he repeated.
Yes, I said. And that you would prefer growth of Facebook's Blue app to Instagram's?
He said no, and explained to me how he thought about it. Early on … it made sense to leave the founders alone and let them build their best products. 'That was incredibly successful,' he says. 'And it made sense for the first five years. But now we're at the point where all the products are big and important. I don't want to build just multiple versions of the same product. We should have a more coherent and integrated product strategy.'
And if that meant losing founders, so be it. 'I can understand if you're an entrepreneur who built one of those things and had awesome success, you'd wake up and say, 'Okay, I'm proud of what I did, but this isn't for me going forward.' That's how I see it, and we're going in the right direction.' Those close to Kevin Systrom, though, believe that had Zuckerberg not asserted control, he would have remained at Instagram for 20 more years.
Jim asks, 'What was it like interviewing some of the pioneers of modern-day computing for Hackers ?'
Thanks for the question, Jim. You are asking me to access the feelings I had over 40 years ago when I was talking first-hand to people who are now legends. But in the circles I traveled they were virtually unknown, even computer science pioneers like Marvin Minsky and John McCarthy. And to my knowledge no reporter had documented the world of MIT hackers, who pretty much invented computer culture.
I do recall as the interviews accumulated, I came to realize that the story I was telling was significant and would have continuing relevance. Also, some of them outright stretched my mind. These people were so interesting that after the book was published I kept talking to computer folk. I still am.
Submit your questions in the comments below, or send an email to mail@wired.com. Write ASK LEVY in the subject line. End Times Chronicle
The Trump Administration pulls the plug on "environmental justice.' Happy Earth Day! Last but Not Least
Who is DOGE? The US government isn't saying.
Whoever DOGE is, it has access to a LOT of health agencies.
Google's more secure messaging system could make scams more likely.
Gen Z'ers are using an app that's Airbnb for the old clothes in their closets.
Don't miss future subscriber-only editions of this column. Subscribe to WIRED (50% off for Plaintext readers) today.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Mastering Creator Commerce in 2025: Why Pop Store Is Leading the 'Link in Bio' Revolution
Mastering Creator Commerce in 2025: Why Pop Store Is Leading the 'Link in Bio' Revolution

Time Business News

time2 hours ago

  • Time Business News

Mastering Creator Commerce in 2025: Why Pop Store Is Leading the 'Link in Bio' Revolution

Scrolling three seconds, double-tapping, then… dead end . Social apps give you a single bio link and zero data about who actually cares. Algorithm tweaks slash reach, affiliate fees nibble margins, and your 'followers' are just rented eyeballs on someone else's turf. For creators who rely on platform whimsy, that's a fragile way to make a living. So what is in functional terms? Think of it as a mini Shopify, Substack, Calendly, and Linktree stitched into one sleek mobile storefront. You paste one URL into your Instagram or TikTok bio; fans tap and instantly see everything you offer—digital downloads, gated videos, subscriptions, merch, even 1-to-1 booking appointment.. Every purchase drops first-party contact data straight into your dashboard, so you can hit back later via email or SMS without fighting another algorithm reset. Own the list. Every buyer becomes a contact you export anytime. Every buyer becomes a contact you export anytime. Monetize anything. Products, services, affiliate deals, or content paywalls. Products, services, affiliate deals, or content paywalls. Operate fast. Set up in minutes, no code, no web-host drama. One link, full catalog. The store loads like a social feed—image first, tap to unlock content—but runs on checkout rails optimised for mobile wallets and global payment methods. No ugly redirects, no abandoned carts. Every $2 preset or $200 coaching call yields a full contact card: email, phone, purchase history, and which post drove the click. Segment high-spenders, drip out launches, and watch customer lifetime value climb. Digital products: e-books, LUTs, templates, AI avatar packs e-books, LUTs, templates, AI avatar packs Subscriptions: monthly communities, exclusive newsletters, tip jars monthly communities, exclusive newsletters, tip jars Pay-to-view: single videos, behind-the-scenes photos, premium blogs single videos, behind-the-scenes photos, premium blogs Services & bookings: 1:1 consults, group workshops, cameo-style shout-outs 1:1 consults, group workshops, cameo-style shout-outs Affiliate shelves: showcase sponsor links, track clicks, claim commissions Creators can mix and match without juggling multiple platforms or payout dashboards. marketplace lists thousands of ready-to-collaborate brands. Accept offers inside the app or upload your own contracts, then gate unique discount codes behind your community join button—so every deal collects an email first. Real-time heat-maps show which Reel, Tweet, or Story drove each sale. Double down on winners, kill the dead weight, and report concrete ROI to sponsors. Data updates by the minute; no need for patched-together UTM spreadsheets. Platform Owns contact data? Sells digital & physical? Built-in CRM? Brand marketplace? ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes Linktree ❌ No ⚠️ Limited ❌ No ❌ No ⚠️ Partial ✅ Yes ❌ No ❌ No Patreon ❌ No (Patreon emails fans) ✅ Yes (mostly memberships) ❌ No ❌ No When you crunch the numbers, the gap is obvious: ownership and flexibility belong to For a deeper dive, Adweek explains why first-party data is now the gold standard for creators. Sign up free at credit card. Choose a template, upload a profile pic, and match fonts to your brand palette. Add offers: drag-and-drop your PDF guide, price a monthly community, or paste an affiliate link. Connect payments via Stripe or PayPal. Paste the link into your social bios and tell fans, 'Everything's in the store!' Behind the scenes your CRM starts filling itself—no spreadsheet wrangling required. Lifestyle creator Aditi Rao (@aditidraws) swapped her old link aggregator for before a Lightroom preset launch. Result? Landing-page load time dropped by 60 %, checkout friction vanished, and her conversion rate jumped from 2 % to 12 % within 48 hours. More importantly, she captured 1,400 verified emails—primed for her upcoming course release. Algorithms already suppress organic reach to nudge creators toward paid boosts. Cookie-based ad targeting is vanishing, and sent-from-someone-else's-platform DMs rarely land. Owning first-party contact data is the antidote. With every sale or free download, hands you a future-proof distribution channel that no policy change can throttle. If you only remember one thing, remember this: platforms lease you access; lets you own it. So the next time a friend asks what is you can tell them it's the all-in-one creator HQ that turns followers into customers—and customers into a community you truly control. Ready to make the switch? Claim your free bio-store today and build on land you actually own. TIME BUSINESS NEWS

$300 billion, 500 million users, and no time to enjoy it: The sharks are circling OpenAI
$300 billion, 500 million users, and no time to enjoy it: The sharks are circling OpenAI

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

$300 billion, 500 million users, and no time to enjoy it: The sharks are circling OpenAI

The sharks are circling OpenAI. The world's premier AI startup is facing a multi-front attack from Google, Meta, Amazon, and others. Here's everything you need to know about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's rough summer. It's been a rough few months at OpenAI. At the end of March, the premier AI startup was collecting superlatives. It had just secured another $40 billion in funding, the largest private tech deal ever. That valued the company at $300 billion, which is the highest of any startup on the planet. Its flagship product, ChatGPT, was attracting some 500 million users a week, far more than its closest competitor. All seemed to be going great for OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who, on top of it all, welcomed his first child a month earlier. Then the sharks started circling. In the last several weeks, OpenAI has faced attacks on multiple fronts, mostly from Big Tech behemoths like Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft. Smaller companies, too, smelled blood in the water. And rival chatbot makers, like xAI, have released buzzy new models, putting pressure on OpenAI to rush its own update. OpenAI engineers, some of whom told media outlets they've been working 80 hours a week or more, faced burnout. The company gave them all a week off to recover earlier this month. It's lonely at the top, as they say. Here's what the siege of OpenAI looks like. Meta poaches OpenAI staffers It seems a top AI engineer is the new superstar athlete. During a June episode of the "Uncapped with Jack Altman" podcast, Jack's brother Sam said Mark Zuckerberg's Meta tried to poach OpenAI's staffers with "giant signing offers." Altman said Meta offered "$100 million signing bonuses," which he called "crazy." "I've heard that Meta thinks of us as their biggest competitor, and I think it is rational for them to keep trying. Their current AI efforts have not worked as well as they've hoped," Altman said. Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth later told CNBC that Altman "neglected to mention that he's countering those offers." A week later, Meta had poached three top OpenAI researchers. One of them said on X that he was not offered a $100 million signing bonus, calling it "fake news." Retaining top talent is a necessity to compete in the AI race (Meta's Llama has had its own struggles), and some prominent investors, like Reid Hoffman, say paying huge signing bonuses makes sense. OpenAI itself has poached talent from xAI and Tesla in recent weeks, Wired reported, and Altman brushed off Meta's poaching on the sidelines of the Sun Valley conference earlier this month. "We have, obviously, an incredibly talented team, and I think they really love what they are doing. Obviously, some people will go to different places," Altman told reporters. OpenAI's deal with Windsurf falls through OpenAI took another hit this summer when its deal with Windsurf, the AI coding assistant startup, collapsed. OpenAI had agreed to purchase Windsurf for about $3 billion, Bloomberg reported. By June, however, tensions were rising between OpenAI and Microsoft. The tech giant is OpenAI's biggest investor, and it considers Windsurf a direct competitor of Microsoft Copilot. Microsoft's current deal with OpenAI would give it access to Windsurf's intellectual property, which neither OpenAI nor Windsurf wants, a person with knowledge of the talks told BI. On Friday, OpenAI told BI that its deal with Windsurf had fallen through. Instead, Windsurf CEO Varun Mohan and some other Windsurf employees would join Google DeepMind. "We're excited to welcome some top AI coding talent from Windsurf's team to Google DeepMind to advance our work in agentic coding," Google's spokesperson told BI. "We're excited to continue bringing the benefits of Gemini to software developers everywhere." Tensions with Microsoft The failed Windsurf deal was just another in a string of disagreements that have fueled tension between OpenAI and its largest investor. The deal between OpenAI and Microsoft is unsurprisingly complex. At the heart of the dispute is revenue splits and equity, of course, but also the very definition of artificial general intelligence. AGI is broadly considered AI that matches or surpasses human intelligence, but in terms of the deal between OpenAI and Microsoft, AGI is defined as $100 billion in profit. That's a lot of potential revenue. Under the deal, once OpenAI reaches that benchmark, Microsoft loses its share of OpenAI's revenue. Microsoft would understandably like to revise that line. As BI's Charles Rollet wrote earlier this month, the tension is made worse by the fact that Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella isn't as sold on AGI's transformative power as all the people developing it at OpenAI. He also doesn't think it's coming anytime soon. He called AGI "nonsensical benchmark hacking" on a podcast earlier this year. OpenAI delays release of new model Back in simpler times, at the end of March, as Altman was basking in the glow of the world's most valuable startup, he said the newly secured funding would allow OpenAI to "push the frontiers of AI research even further." He then announced that OpenAI was close to rolling out its first open-weight language model with advanced reasoning capabilities since GPT-2 in 2019. On Friday evening, generally a good time to unveil bad news, Altman soberly told the world that OpenAI's new model would be delayed — again. "We need time to run additional safety tests and review high-risk areas," Altman said on X. "We are not yet sure how long it will take us." He then apologized and assured everyone that "we are working super hard!" It marked the second delay in a month, pushing the timeline indefinitely beyond earlier promises of a June launch. Open-weight AI models offer a middle ground between open-source and proprietary systems by sharing only the pre-trained parameters of a neural network but not the actual source code. OpenAI products, unlike some of its competitors, like Meta's Llama and the Chinese AI chatbot, DeepSeek, and despite the company's name, are not open source. The new model's delay comes days after Elon Musk's xAI launched a major update to its chatbot, Grok. While that update came with some significant trouble, forcing xAI to ultimately apologize, the chatbot boasts advancements in vision and voice that are resonating with users. Iyo sues IO In May, OpenAI announced a partnership with io, the design company founded by the famous former Apple design chief Jony Ive. Together, the two stars would develop future AI consumer devices. The deal was valued at about $6.5 billion. The announcement included a photo shoot of the two men that wouldn't have been out of place in a Vogue spread and a highly produced video in which Altman and Ive sit and chat in a wine bar drinking espresso. A month later, OpenAI removed all mentions of the collaboration from its platforms. Another company, iyO, a Google spinoff, had filed a trademark complaint. The names io and iyO were too similar, the suit says, and by all accounts, the new io collaboration would be developing products similar to ones iyO had planned. US District Judge Trina Thompson ruled that iyO's case is strong enough to move to a hearing this fall. She ordered Altman, Ive, and OpenAI not to use the io brand and take down mentions of the name. OpenAI denied the claims and said it was reviewing its legal options. OpenAI announced on July 9 that, despite the lawsuit, it had completed the deal to acquire io and posted a statement on its website. "We're thrilled to share that the io Products, Inc. team has officially merged with OpenAI. Jony Ive and LoveFrom remain independent and have assumed deep design and creative responsibilities across OpenAI," the statement said. Amazon is making a movie about Altman The coming film, "Artificial," produced by Amazon Studios, is all about Altman. And it's not a wholly flattering account, said Matt Belloni, a reporter at Puck who said he has seen a recent draft of the script. Belloni said the drama recounts the period in 2023 when Altman was fired and then rehired as CEO. It also follows OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever, who was also at the center of that drama and who left the company months later. At the heart of the tension over those few days was a disagreement between Altman and some top OpenAI execs over the company's commitment to its mission to develop AGI safely. A string of engineers working on alignment, an AI industry term for ensuring the tech is developed safely, left the company after Altman's reappointment (Microsoft, incidentally, played a key role in helping Altman survive). While many OpenAI employees rallied around Altman, others involved with the company described him to the press at that time as a manipulative leader who had not always been "consistently candid in his communications with the board." Belloni reported that the film has parallels to "The Social Network," the 2010 biographical drama about Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. That film gained critical acclaim and likely damaged Zuckerberg's public persona. Zuckerberg called "The Social Network" inaccurate and "hurtful." According to Belloni, the version of the script he read depicts Altman as a "master schemer" and a liar. OpenAI won't go down without a fight Despite all the competition, OpenAI is still the leader in the space and is making its own moves that will likely worry rivals. It is planning to launch a new AI-powered web browser, for instance, that could compete with Google Chrome, the current industry leader. The browser will embed ChatGPT and feature an AI agent that can handle tasks like booking reservations and filling out forms. It also secured a $200 million contract to provide AI support to the US military. OpenAI will help develop capabilities to "address critical national security challenges in both warfighting and enterprise domains," the Pentagon said in June. OpenAI earlier partnered with Palmer Luckey's defense tech firm, Anduril. OpenAI is also forming more playful partnerships. Last month, Mattel announced it was working with OpenAI to bring AI to its iconic doll, Barbie. By using OpenAI's technology, Mattel will "bring the magic of AI to age-appropriate play experiences with an emphasis on innovation, privacy, and safety," the California-based toy manufacturer said in a press. Altman, for his part, is at least publicly optimistic. "I have never seen growth in any company, one that I've been involved with or not, like this," Altman said at a TED conference in Vancouver in April. "The growth of ChatGPT — it is really fun. I feel deeply honored. But it is crazy to live through." Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

OpenAI's Wallet Just Got Heavier -- Because Meta's Been Poaching
OpenAI's Wallet Just Got Heavier -- Because Meta's Been Poaching

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

OpenAI's Wallet Just Got Heavier -- Because Meta's Been Poaching

OpenAI isn't just building cutting-edge AI anymore; it's now fighting a full-blown talent war and it's using stock options as its shield. The company known worldwide for ChatGPT has seen its stock-based compensation jump more than five times over the past year; that's not a typo. In total, OpenAI handed out $4.4 billion in equity; that figure was 119% of its entire revenue for the same period. Yes it's now literally paying out more in stock than it's earning. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Sign with META. And the trigger? Meta (META, Financials) which has reportedly lured away at least nine researchers from OpenAI's AI team including some working on foundational models. These exits weren't minor; they cut deep. OpenAI had hoped this stock-based spending spree would cool off by 2025 projecting equity payouts to drop to 45% of revenue, and then under 10% by the end of the decade. But that was before Meta started raiding its brain trust. Now, those assumptions are out the window. According to internal chatter, Chief Research Officer Mark Chen believes the company might have to sweeten its equity offers even more; because when your biggest assets walk out the door, the only thing left to do is open it wider with better incentives. This isn't just about keeping salaries competitive; it's about survival. The AI space is getting fiercer by the week; and even with Microsoft in its corner, OpenAI can't afford to lose talent to rivals. Equity compensation isn't a perk anymore; it's a weapon. And OpenAI is loading up. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store