Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Businesses Facebook Microsoft

Steve Ballmer Says Microsoft Tried To Buy Facebook For $24 Billion (businessinsider.com) 67

Posted by msmash from the itsy-bitsy dept.
Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told CNBC on Friday that his company tried to buy Facebook when it was "itsy-bitsy" for $24 billion. BusinessInsider adds: Facebook fielded a lot of offers in its early days. When CNBC on Friday asked Ballmer how much Microsoft offered back then, he said, "Oh I think $24 billion when the company was itsy-bitsy and he said no. And I respect that." Zuckerberg clearly made the right choice. He currently has a net worth of $57 billion and Facebook's market cap is $374 billion.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Ballmer Says Microsoft Tried To Buy Facebook For $24 Billion More

Steve Ballmer Says Microsoft Tried To Buy Facebook For $24 Billion

Comments Filter:

  • I wish they had succeeded (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @11:19AM (#53123075)

    I wish Microsoft had succeeded, facebook might be extinct by now.

    • Agreed! And if not extinct, it would have at least guaranteed their value never eclipsed $24 billion. M$ would have forced it to tile and slide laterally, on every OS version and re-branded it 3 time till settling on the name "FriendFace".

    • I wish Microsoft had succeeded, facebook might be extinct by now.

      Why would you wish Facebook extinct? A platform that is happily used by over 1billion people? You're free to just not use it you know. Block it's domain at your router and go about your life.

      I for one am glad that the internet isn't simply subject to the wishes of one Oswald McWeany.

      • Re:I wish they had succeeded (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @12:54PM (#53124075)

        Why would you wish Facebook extinct? A platform that is happily used by over 1billion people? You're free to just not use it you know. Block it's domain at your router and go about your life.

        I for one am glad that the internet isn't simply subject to the wishes of one Oswald McWeany.

        Putting aside the part that my comment was mostly in jest; being serious, Facebook is ever advancing. It's annoying when sites require a Facebook account to join theirs, Facebook has become an alternate official ID in this country. Facebook tracks me, even though I don't have an account. I can control that I don't have my real name on the web, but I can't control if someone else posts a picture of me on facebook and associates my name with it. I feel like Facebook represents a huge privacy violation, not just for the users but even people who are associated with users. Facebook has proven to be rather unethical in their deployment of security and privacy options, often leaving people wide open by default when things change. Not to mention, facebook annoys me every night I go to bed and my wife spends the next three hours facebooking people.

        • It's annoying when sites require a Facebook account to join theirs

          It's really is... sometimes an facebook account is needed just to comment an article! Tinder needs an Facebook account to use... (for this kind of thing I have an Facebook account created with an disposable mail address :P)

        • but I can't control if someone else posts a picture of me on facebook and associates my name with it

          FYI: you can disable the ability of others taging you in any photos, in the privacy settings (I think: I don't use that, but helped some [physical] friends doing it)

          • but I can't control if someone else posts a picture of me on facebook and associates my name with it

            FYI: you can disable the ability of others taging you in any photos, in the privacy settings (I think: I don't use that, but helped some [physical] friends doing it)

            That would require me creating a Facebook account, something I refuse to do.

        • It's annoying when sites require a Facebook account to join theirs, Facebook has become an alternate official ID in this country.

          This makes implementation easier for other sites, which is actually a good thing. You can make a throwaway facebook account and use it on *all* the sites you would otherwise have to create multiple throwaway accounts for.

          I can't control if someone else posts a picture of me on facebook and associates my name with it.

          Sounds like it's the someone else who's violating your privacy, not facebook. They could just as easily post the picture on their personal blog (which is a lot of what people use facebook for).

          facebook annoys me every night I go to bed and my wife spends the next three hours facebooking people.

          Again, that sounds like a relationship issue between you and your wife, not you and facebook. She

        • There was an application called Sporty on my iPhone that I was really interested in that let you find people nearby to play sports. When it first came out the only way to sign up was with Facebook. I just checked and you can now use email and Twitter (not that I'd use Twitter). Whenever I encounter a situation like this I write the app developers and tell them that I won't use their product while I need a Facebook account.

        • but I can't control if someone else posts a picture of me on facebook and associates my name with it.

          This isn't a facebook problem. It's an internet problem. Send me a picture and I'll put it up on an FTP server if it makes you feel nostalgic.

          I feel like Facebook represents a huge privacy violation, not just for the users but even people who are associated with users.

          And how is this any of your concern if you don't use it, other than to control those people you associate with who would likely violate your privacy anyway?

    • Facebook even scored twice as they managed to get Microsoft to provide them quite a lot of free advertisement that time. I remember creating my Facebook account because I thought it was one of Microsoft services from live.com I used at that era.

  • Weird... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @11:20AM (#53123087) Journal
    If someone offered me 24 billion for anything, even my hypothetical super-successful company that I built with my own blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of a firstborn son, I would take it in a heartbeat. Same puzzlement over the Snapchat guys declining what I think was an overly generous offer for that company. Then again, I've never built such a company so I have no idea of what it means to give up control of it. Still... With 24 billion in your pocket you can pretty much do what you want, start your own new company, hell, start a space agency even...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      I don't know you, but I'd wager you're like me and you and I probably think of this in terms of $24 billion now versus...working.

      I think guys like Zuckerberg are just mentally in a different place. They're not in it for the money, they're in it for the rush of running a massive, growing company.

      Money isn't even part of the equation, and I'd bet even at the time money and even the act of paying for something wasn't something Zuckerberg even thought about. He just went places and did stuff, his view of money

    • With 24 billion in your pocket you can pretty much do what you want

      Actually 9.6 billion after taxes

      • 20.4 B after taxes, if all of it was pure profit right to Zuckerburg's profit. At least at the time. With today's tax laws, 19.2 B

        • What taxes? When you are that rich you spend a few hundred million on accountants and lawyers and you don't pay taxes.

        • Thanks. I thought the IRS tax bracket for that kind of income was effectively ~40%, and that isn't even counting state income tax (if applicable).
    • Or with that kind of cash, pay off your debts and invest in stocks/mutual funds. Even if you assume a 3% return on 1 billion, that's $30mil a year. I could live off of that.

      • At a pinch I guess so. You'd have enough time on your hands to do without a cleaner and if you were well organised you could cook your own meals rather than eating out or getting takeaways.

        Assuming you gave up work, of course.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by c ( 8461 )

      Still... With 24 billion in your pocket you can pretty much do what you want...

      I expect there'd be a contract to work at Microsoft for a year or two...

    • Even win his company was worth a mere 24 billion, Zuckerberg could have walk away at any time with more money then he could ever spend. Creating something as powerful that encompasses the world probably appealed to him more then money.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Well yes and no. With 24 billion in your pocket you are just another rich guy. Running an influential tech company you are a celebrity.

      Like you say with that kind of cash you can certainly try some other ideas out. The thing is you can try those ideas out if your the CEO and major stock holder of a huge company too. The only difference is rather than starting a new company you start a new department. If the idea is successful you can spin off the department into its own company, that you also run. If

    • I bet he would have been more tempted if that 24 billion were for him. Usually such offers are to the stockholders of the company as a whole. And it seems it was a low offer, besides. (Of course, a company that is just a website can go the way of the dinosaur very very quickly)

    • That's a key difference between how regular people and rich people tend to think about money. $x million is an amount. Income is a rate. Regular people think having a large amount of money is being rich. $100 million > $50 million, so they'll take the $100 million. Rich people think having a high income is being rich. $100 million earning 5%/yr is increasing at $5 million/yr. $50 million earning 40%/yr is increasing at $20 million/yr, and will exceed the value of the $100 million in 5 years,. So

      • The long-term payment (over 20-30 years) is usually the better choice, but most winners opt for the immediate lump-sum payment.

        Explain how it's a better choice.

        You pay tax now and can invest the lump sum payment and live off the proceeds. It seems like it's a far better choice to take the lump sum.

    • Ya well it probably wasn't 24 Billion in cash. These deals usually have some very low value in cash (well in relation, huge to me or you), and most of it would have been in MS stock, which depending on its worth at the time determines its value. Likely trying to sell 24 Billion in stock is hard to do, and would probably affect the value, even if there wasn't wording in the agreement saying that you could do that right away.

      When ever I see these large values being thrown around I have to remind myself that t

    • If someone offered me 24 billion for anything, even my hypothetical super-successful company that I built with my own blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of a firstborn son, I would take it in a heartbeat.

      hilarious comment, but think again: if the market value of this hypothetical company is ver4y higher, you still sell it or wait for a better offer?

    • If someone offered me 24 billion for anything, even my hypothetical super-successful company that I built with my own blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of a firstborn son, I would take it in a heartbeat. Same puzzlement over the Snapchat guys declining what I think was an overly generous offer for that company. Then again, I've never built such a company so I have no idea of what it means to give up control of it. Still... With 24 billion in your pocket you can pretty much do what you want, start your own new company, hell, start a space agency even...

      You will not get the whole 24 billion dollars... If you own the company out right (100%), then you would have to deduct taxes and the process will be quite a headache. If you do not own 100% the company, then it will be even less; plus, other owners would have something to say (as always)... Though, the amount should be enough for to retire right away if you aren't going to live life like some other billionaires all the time. ;)

  • Right choice, sure... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by narcc ( 412956 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @11:22AM (#53123115) Journal

    Zuckerberg clearly made the right choice. He currently has a net worth of $57 billion

    With only 24 Billion, he'd be living hand-to-mouth...

    We value the wrong things.

  • would have been awesome (Score:3)

    by jmccue ( 834797 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @11:30AM (#53123173) Homepage

    It would have created such an internet backhole sucking all the marketing crap it would probably have made it easy for us to avoid the crap we seen now on-line

  • Zuckerberg clearly made the right choice

    Did he?. I mean, we can look at the outcome and say "yes, he made twice as much money". But I can look at the winner of powerball and say "that person now has a lifetime of whatever they want". Did they make the right choice to buy a ticket? Did the other people who bought a ticket also make "the right choice". I mean, it was the same choice (esp. since most winners auto-pick their numbers now, so pretend that happened in this example).

  • They couldn't ever succeed. (Score:3)

    by ctrl-alt-canc ( 977108 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @12:57PM (#53124101)
    Elop never worked for Facebook.
  • Yeah but his current valuation is based on his stock position with Facebook stock. There is no way, for example, that he could sell all of his stock at current market value without crashing the value. So if the offer from Microsoft was a cash offer, that may have been a much better bargain IMHO.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Close