How Zuck screwed Saverin - Fact vs Fiction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Try Firstbase, the simplest way to launch and run a US business ► yt.slidebean.c...
Use the code SBAUTOPILOT10 and get 10% off on Agent Autopilot.
Or use SLIDEBEAN10 for 10% off in Incorporation.
-
We don't just make videos. Slidebean helps founders scale their startups.
The Slidebean Platform ►yt.slidebean.c...
Pitch Deck Design Agency ► yt.slidebean.c...
Financial Modeling ► yt.slidebean.c...
--
Join our RUclips Community ► yt.slidebean.c...
#slidebean #startups #subscriptions #economy
-
This video, this story, honestly, is inevitably about judging. We have facts, yes, but you will forge an opinion about everyone who is involved here, you are going to judge- and by all means, do it in the comments.
It’s no wonder that the script for The Social Network, written by this guy- one of the greatest screenwriters of our time, mind you, plays during two lawsuits.
And to understand what happened between Mark and Eduardo, we must also understand the other lawsuit first.
Lawsuit one is from the Winklevosses, who sued Mark for stealing their idea for a social network.
And for the most part, the version of the story portrayed in the film is real.
-
About Slidebean
Slidebean is a platform for founders to scale their startups. Our platform offers everything you need to build your startup, your pitch deck, set up your company, and start gaining traction.
Our team of experts can also help you write and design your pitch deck and build the financial model for your startup.
Follow us
Twitter: / slidebean
LinkedIn: / slidebean
Instagram: / slidebean
Caya
Twitter: / cayahere
LinkedIn: / caya
Starting a business shouldn't be this complicated.
Try Firstbase, the simplest way to launch and run a US business ► www.firstbase.io/
Use the code SBAUTOPILOT10 and get 10% off on Agent Autopilot.
Or use SLIDEBEAN10 for 10% off in Incorporation.
MARK IS MY MENTOr, ADS ON HIS PLATFORM IS BEYOND AWESOME. LOVE U MArK - LOVE FROM NIGERIA ❤💙💜💞🖤🤍
How is in the US law about partnership that employed . Winkerfloss consider mark just developer . Mark didnt accept . But when mark become boss he hire developer . Than the moment repeat .
So can u hire someone who knows technical but just as an employee ? According to us law
It's funny how you group yourself in with Mark Zuckerberg because you're an "entrepreneur"
shillville pays the bills :\
Mark built FB from a stolen idea and screwed over the guy who initially kept the lights on. And he got away with it primarily because it was in the US that all this happened.
Clearly, you are not a start-up founder.
The excution of the idea is what is valuable, the idea itself isn't that valuable
Sounds like China on the weekends 😐
Just watch what I am about to do.
Cry about it or something
Although Eduardo wasn’t as involved in later Facebook, he helped start it and didn’t deserve to be screwed like that.
But the problem was that he owned 30% of the company
@@ssiahisrael1026 how was that a problem he deserved 30% because he paid for the shares 😂
@@zaidi3000 its a problem when someone did a better Job than eduardo i. Finding investors.
@@zaidi3000 yeah, the problem is that he owns 30 percent of doing nothing. In mark's perspective, there will not be funding in the company because one of the major shareholders is doing jack. In a sharp funding is very important because that is the reason they survive or succeed
@@bobk3881 yeah but what is mark doing differently now Eduardo was promoting another business but now Zuckerberg started Meta which literally changed the whole company just for Zuckerberg to promote his idea. How is this different and I know you’re going to say it’s because he is the CEO but Eduardo was a CEO at the time too and the only excuse for Zuckerberg was Eduardo was ruining Facebook but Zuckerberg made Facebook lose billions of dollars switching to Meta.
What Mark did was wrong, if he wanted Eduardo out he should have made him an offer OR simply take him to court on the grounds that he was a liability to the company(which even then it's a bit debatable). When you put the legal crap out of the way, Mark DID scheme to get his friend(who he did consider a money ticket) out of his company, that is the truth.
No you’re wrong. Mark is a perfect rob- I mean… perfect human being.
@@MichaelRosaa416 No YOU'RE wrong. Mark isn't a perfect human being, it's obvious how much of his lizard form is showing through.
He’s a g
I think what he did was fair, Eduardo would have been disastrous for Facebook if he kept a third of the company. Facebook didn't have money for any civil lawsuit and if they did ROberto would have just froze everything and even if that wasn't possible he could simply afford better lawyers than Facebook ever could. The guy comes from a billionaire family.
Mark didn't do anything illegal and Eduardo was naive thinking he could get away with 30 percent not being involved in the company. He was a massive dead weight that needed to be dumped.
So funny Eduardo benefited more from being kicked out than staying because his share value popped off way more from him not being there than if he had stayed and had a higher share percentage. Something to think about.
@@stt.9433 The majority of the excuses in favor of Mark usually have the need to add "it wasn't illegal" or "it made sense". But once again, I'm not discussing questionable legality or one sided "fairness". I'm discussing morality, basic right and wrong. Mark DID scheme to have Eduardo's shares reduced, he DID scheme to place him in a position in which he would lose nearly all interest in THEIR up and coming company, he DID use Eduardo's trust in him to have him sign paperwork that he feined as average paper work. Mark is not a good person, and stating that things ended up well for both of them(after a legal battle) is kinda missing the point.
I was literally researching about this last night. And what you've presented is pretty spot-on. imho, Mark was friends with Eduardo for his money, and because he gave a vibe that he knew how businesses worked, while Eduardo considered Mark as an actual friend, not for the things he offered. Mark wanted Eduardo to grow this business while he could focus on development, but Eduardo wasn't capable of this, he knew much less than what Mark knew about running a business and because he was already working + making his startup, he had less time for Facebook. So when Mark saw he wasn't getting anything out of Eduardo, he schemed a plan against him, to make him lose control over the company, so that Mark could move on to other investors (Peter Theil, etc). Eduardo didn't see this coming, because he still considered Mark a buddy, not a business partner.
This is what makes this situation difficult to judge, Mark was right legally (because everything was documented, and Eduardo signed these by trusting Mark), but very wrong ethically (as Mark betrayed a close friend's trust for his selfish aim). On the other hand, Eduardo wasn''t involved whole-heartedly with Facebook, which led to Mark plotting out this betrayal. Also, Mark expected too much from Eduardo, and when he didn't get what he needed, he decided to cut him off, without the chance of communication.
Mark did exactly what needed to be done. Eduardo refused to put in the focus needed to build the business, lacked the skill & capability of building it to begin with, and would attempt to put the business (and Marks future) in jeopardy over infantile temper tantrums. We're supposed to feel sorry for him because "bOo HoO tHeY WerE FriEnds 🥺" lmao, please. You get no pity from me in the jungle
Mark being mark
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no there are people who see friendship differently, you clearly see it as Mark did. The thing is that Mark knew Eduardo would trust him (because of his concept of friendship) and decided to take advantage of that.
It doesn't matter how you see friendship as both ways obviously exist. But screwing someone taking advantage of their values is nasty
@@yonathanq8664 That's somehow more nasty than intentionally sabotaging someone's business & future out of some deluded temper tantrum? When *HE* was the one who wasn't making the cut?
Mark didn't try to sabotage Eduardo & his start-up, he just cut him out of his own; because he was no longer able to hold his weight there. Even you moralists must admit that he's more in the right here.
And even then, Eduardo still managed to leech billions off of Mark in court.
@@yonathanq8664 I love how you broke bums always resort to some dweeb shit like bringing up Andrew Tate lol. Nobody watches him but you lil bro. We do live in a jungle, just a civilized one; the rules are still the same. The strong, competent & able come out on top; the weak, stupid and inept are crushed and oppressed.
If you need to "watch someone on TikTok" to realize this then you've probably already lost the game tbh
In my opinion, no one is the good guy or the bad buy, everyone saw facebook as a mean to their objectives, Mark as his legacy, Eduardo as a project to learn until he didn't and didn't accomplish his tasks and Sean as a second chance to make it big in tech, which means that all of them were just trying to get the most out of it, which they did at the end, except for the Winklevoss.
"always assume people are gonna do what's in their best interest." We ought to keep that in mind
Can't agree more !
Nah mark is a rat
@@bryancopca8480how?
except the twins got a huge chunk of money from their lawsuit
Fun fact. At the dinner with Parker and Zuckerberg was eventual Uber founder Travis Kalanick, who had founded his own MP3 discovery site and been shut down by the record industry.
What?
Honestly, from a nonbiased stand point, there are no heroes in this. Mark got his way of building a company and running it, Eduardo got paid big bucks for doing next to nothing, and Sean is just happy it didn't turn into napster 2.0. The true villainy in all of this is Zuck selling information accrued using his platform, as well as conducting experiments on its users that rival MK Ultra. Dude is practically a true to life Bond Villain.
? What sort of experiments did Zuckerburg conduct using Facebook?
Rival Mk ultra? How. Please explain lol
@@sketchinbeatsYea I'd like to know too
Wrong
the best line in the movie when Saverin tells Mark that I was your only friend not as a complaint but as a major shock that someone could lose their only friend for money. It looks quite real given MZ life
Well that was also pretty false. Mark had other friends lol literally his roommates who also went on the be co founders
this is how the nsa controls public opinion
@@CruzCGK also not to be heartless, but it’s not that crazy to choose billions of dollars over a friend. You can always make new ones.
@@detectiveMM Nah, true friendship is priceless imo. Some of my closest friends i consider as part of my family. I would die for them. Yes, i know how it sounds, but i mean it. True friends are not replaceables. Once you lose them, you lose everything they meant to you, and you can never really get it back. Again, it's only my humble opinion, but if you really do consider that such friends are worth losing for money, you probably never had them in the first place.
But i might be mistaken, as i don't know you. I mean, perhaps you have your reasons to think what you said, and i can respect that.
Anyway, have a good day - or night - fellow stranger !
People just live life by different philosophies. I can respect how you approach this but come on billions of dollars? It's not like you're killing your friends you're just stepping away from them. Friends drift apart anyway most of the time. I think you're romanticizing these friendships a bit too much. No matter what, they're going to come to an end at the very latest at death unless you believe in an afterlife which would be a whole other discussion@@girouarddolivier2049
Team Eduardo, represent! Also, I have to say that I find it refreshing that the movie takes the basic idea of 'Revenge of the Nerds' and flips the script, making the jocks and preps the relatable ones while making the nerd the supervillain. IRL, nerds and jocks alike can be heroic or villainous. An individual's moral compass isn't governed by their aptitude. I really liked what the one Winklevoss said about being "a gentleman of Harvard." In a world where Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil reign supreme, Lawful Good becomes an act of protest.
It was interesting to see some of the actual text messages. It's funny how Mark comes across negatively and somewhat conniving in them, yet he seemed much more normal and relatable in the texts compared to the public persona he has always broadcast in interviews and public presentations. He comes across as awkward when presenting himself as an extremely wholesome and well-intentioned guy, yet he has always maintained presenting himself this way. Most people with some sense see right through his facade, and this is how he gained the 'lizard overlord' reputation. He never changed his public persona to be more like his authentic self, so the reputation stuck.
Where can i find them?
Those texts are from almost twenty years ago
He is also extremely robotic in his public interactions. Hence the whole Zuckerberg is a robot trying to be human memes
That's because the Mark Zuckerberg you see isn't real. He's always in character. Maintaining a front to keep people unaware of his true nature... he's a "schemer" as The Joker would put it.
😮🎉😅😅😅😅🎉😢🎉🎉😅😅
I have no idea of how this video, made it into my "hey you should watch it" but I did and it was brilliant. Well done
Thanks, algorithm 😌. Thanks for watching, Louise.
- Caya
Best advice I could give on this is never work with a friend owning a business is stressful enough without friends doing the bare minimum. A lot of friend ships don't last in the business world
Facts
good vid! this situation seems a lot more grey then the movie made it out to be. Eduardo was portrayed as someone who was basically blameless but in reality it makes sense everyone else was pissed off about him but at the same time diluting his shares like that was still a dirty move
Having those final valuation percentages made all the difference for me. If Eduardo was diluted into oblivion, I could see why he'd be so angry and justified to sue. But he still owned 5%, contributing very little (paying for servers, not producing code, etc) while Mark owned
Yeah honestly Eduardo got the best deal. Alll the money without the stress and scrutiny
agreed
Move to Silicon Valley, start and incubator, and have HBO film it
when you are contributing the essential funding of a Fortune 500 to even come into existence, it's not contributing "very litte" it's essentially EVERYTHING.
What wasn't discussed in this video is that in the wake of 9/11 there weren't long lines of people waiting to give college students money for fad of the day websites. It was a major, major catastrophe for the stock market which only exploded after the Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns bankruptcies in 2008. Facebook would not go public for another 4 years after the global financial collapse. Eight years from foudning to IPO is an eternity in today's world.
Point being even with its unprecedented rise it took a long time time get Facebook listed on the stock exchange and the IPO was a total disaster resulting in the price of the stock crashing and launching huge lawsuits. Of course it eventually became the biggest social media website of all time up to that point and allowed them to buy Instagram but it was not the easy climb that other start ups experienced later. To think that it all might have ended up in Google or Apple's lap instead of remaining independents if not for Saverin's initial loan.
He made out nice forsure. But if it weren't for his startup money, who knows what the end result would've been.
Its refreshing seeing a well balanced and researched video like this
"The Winklevi.. aren't suing me for intellectual property theft. They're suing me because, for the first time in their lives, things didn't turn out the way they were supposed to for them."
Touche but Zuckerberg definitely stole their idea and plan . To say an idea is an idea until execution is irrelevant bc zuck never had any thing before hand
"Don't tell your idea to anybody because they might steal it. -- That's a bullshit lesson!" Spoke like someone who never had their idea stolen.
This is honestly a great video.. I was a senior software engineer from 05 to 2013 there so I first hand seen a lot of things... Well put video
If Mark hadn't done this, Eduardo wouldn't have been a billionaire.
What do you mean ..if MZ hadn't been an Ahole Eduardo wouldn't have to sue ,..he was already entitled to be a billionaire..he was the co-founder
@jonny_laguna you would, I would, everyone would have done it too! , is like you invest some money in one of your friend's business
He is a billionaire! He’s Brazils second richest man ! When Facebook went public in 2012 he became a billionaire! He’s been a billionaire for 12 years
@bolokefe5300 you might need to reread the original comment
@@EverythingTechTime nah dick the comment I replied to is not here! Something about him being a millionaire
Mark Suckerberg is the clear villain. Eduardo Saverin is the real victim here. While it may have been technically perfectly legal to dilute his ownership shares down and effectively force him out of the company, he saw Mark as a friend and Mark saw him as an asset that he could just cast aside when he no longer had any use for him.
Yes, keep hitting us with Company Forensics!!!
You do a great job with it 😊
It’s really motivational!
I can't believe I am just finding you now... fantastic video, super insightful. Appreciate your work on this!
Welcome to the club✌🏽
- Caya
Money is like alcohol. When it starts flowing, people get intoxicated and reveal who they truly are.
Cool line
I still will never trust mark.
I would 100% guarantee you have a Facebook page...🙄
it’s not like u ever knew him irl in the first place
@@bradleybrown8399 nobody uses Facebook
screwed his best friend and steal your data
I thought I knew the FaceBook story, mainly from the film. Watched this video and it completely changed my perspective. So well done, thank you.
In addition to being a very interesting video that taught a 'little more' than I already knew (but what I did learn was very interesting and re-recharacterized my understanding of the whole thing. You're use of "btw, I made a video about that" so many times showed me I * NEED * to subscribe to your channel.
Superb job all around 👏👏👏👏
Usually hate these videos where the answers don’t come from the actually person it’s talking about. But this was well done.
did you just justify backstabbing your business partner because he cant do his job right?
dude, just tell him and dont backstabb him, saverin was the one believed mark when they are starting
@@360shadowmoon Saverin is a dum dum.
Thank you making this video - I've watched The Social Network several times and your video definitely made me re-think things. I think this goes back to the old saying of there being three sides to a story: Your side, my side, and how it really happened. The movie was clearly Edurado's side and your video gives more of a balanced viewpoint and is closer to what actually happened (thanks to the leaked IM's). Thanks again
Eduardo was still backstabbed though.
this video is more towards mark side
So
When you make a deal with someone you keep your word. Contractually it's important, but also from a reputation standpoint.
Mark screwed over a co-founder because he wasn't quite as good as Mark initially thought. So he schemed to kick him out. Eduardo came back with lawyers & won. Not only does Mark look untrustworthy, but stupid.
Now everybody around him forever knows they're fair game. And he isn't as clever as he presents.
Fact ! 100%
Not really. It’s laughable to believe Mark didn’t expect a lawsuit. In an email he said he even expected it, and was prepared to settle. There’s a reason he’s a billionaire and none of us here is.
@@eddieyakin5528
"Zuckerberg isn't stupid, he merely knew he was going to lose the legal case & have to pay Eduardo a massive sum regardless."
@@eddieyakin5528 its even in the video Mark wanted to not have to run every decision by Eduardo and get the investment he needed. He knew he'd have to pay Savrin later.
Oh my, I didn't knew there was 23 minute short sequal of "THE DEVILS ADVOCATE"😈⚖️, hats off to Keanu Reeves - such a great frick'in great method actor throughout the runtime I was not able to tell it was him behind the makeup.
Brilliant explanation. I learnt so much about both the Facebook story and how shares work in a startup in general. Thank you!
I REALLY REALLY APPRECIATE THE WAY YOU DIVIDED THE FACEBOOK LOGO WITH THE COLOURS INTO FACE AND BOOK
If you ever feel like your just talking to a camera when you make these videos… don’t.
When I watch them i swear I feel like your in the room. Your such a good storyteller it’s wild. Coolest dude on YT for sure
You're = you are
@@InfectedChris thanks 🙏 appreciate the pointer 🥰
@@InfectedChris your
@@Cloudsurfer69 a gay man
1:48 I think that could've been worded a little bit differently
Wow, this is such a great mini-documentary. And made me re-think my perception of Mark. He tried to get Eduardo to be more involved in Facebook and Eduardo didn't want. So Mark is not as evil as I thought he was.
U r a sheep
That could just be a justification he throws out in order to not feel guilty. Fooling himself and his partners.
@@burrybondz225 there’s literally messages and emails proving mark tried to get him more involved
@@CruzCGK yes and those messages made mark look worse than any movie. I get your point but I meant how ppl will always use a flaw in another person to justify their disproportionate reaction. The classic "he deserved it, right?" excuse that no one not even the person saying it believes. Forget about reality even the movie version of mark zuckerberg was trying to get eduardo more involved. I didn't even know there was this other opinion.
@@burrybondz225 u mean the messages of mark tryna convince Eduardo to get more involved ? How does that make him look worse ? Also Eduardo had a basic number of things he was tasked with doing. He only did one and that was the most simple (setting up the LLC) but not only did he fail at his job he also knowingly made a competing company and used Facebook to advertise it for free in the time he was meant to be doing those tasks he did not do. Also explain to me what’s wrong with what Mark did to Eduardo ? He went from 30% to 9.88% because of new investors coming in and a stock option pool being spread out among employees. Eduardo’s shares going down is a very simple concept and a perfectly normal concept they only didn’t go back up because he refused himself to be more involved and to be an employee so he didn’t get new shares from the stock option pool like all the other employees. Mark himself went down from 60% to 18.23% but was later able to go back up because he was still involved and still was an employee and the exact same thing could have happened to Eduardo had he still been involved
Before looking into this, and after watching the movie, I sided with Eduardo, but after I learned that Eduardo was absent and not doing his job, I'm siding with Mark now. I've been in a few businesses with other people and trying to make a company happen when other founders aren't focused as you are, it's really infuriating. Also, his whole advertising stunt was really dirty on his part.
not really like that, Eduardo's ideas were different from mark's, being a cto and cofounder to be in this situation is impossible, the only thing he did well is to believe in the project mark had.
In movie he literally shut down the server... He put the whole business in jeopardy. After that he got what he deserved.
@@steveomac385He shut down the servers after not getting any acknowledgment and being left put of business deals that’s why mark let another person take eduardo’s job yeah he wasn’t helping but when mark needed eduardo there he was there
None of this had to be in the weasel way Zuck went about it. That’s the point.
I mean you are totally wrong here. If you team up with a person who is not as qualified as you are for the job its kind of your fault in the first place for choosing to work with them. Eduardo was the only supporter and financial resource when mark was starting thefacebook. There are so many ideas on the internet but if you cant take action and make them alive ideas are simply ideas. So Mark did dirty to his one and only friend who was the only financial source which actually made thefacebook possible. He could simply tell him that his efforts wasnt good enough and sell him his shares and leave the company but stay as a founder and a friend.
As someone trying really hard to start a business, if someone owning 30% just went off doing nothing while the rest are grinding away to increase the value, I feel ending up with 5% isn't a bad deal for them.
Great video and well detailed. However, one clear error in your research is that there is no way Walt and Jessie had 40% to Gus' 20%.
look out everyone, "The_Danger" has entered the chat 🙄
Jesse*
Great channel. Quality stuff clearly above the average youtube channel. Keep going man
Fantastic work. It is important that someone doing the investigative work also understands the realities of making these businesses work.
8:26 Steve Jobs was an orphan who got adopted by wealthy people who gave him the best in life a person can possibly have.
Ok and?
@@ramerefauntleroy4881are you dense? The time stamp he linked was the guy exemplifying him as a rags to riches story, which he clearly wasn't. In that context, his correction is extremely relevant.
@@ramerefauntleroy4881bozo
Eduardo net worth is $26.7billion without contributing 99.9% of the work that built Facebook empire.. I don’t know who screwed who? 🤷🏼♂️
It’s definitely more of a what if ? Like what if I never gave you the money how would you have gotten Facebook up and going . What if you ended up going with the brothers and how much of a percentage would he be getting . But that’s also what investments are .
@@donnyboymccoycollects A lot of what if, but your hypothetical “what if” is unrealistic. Mark could of gotten funding elsewhere, btw his dad is a dentist who has money too.
And 90% of that net worth comes from his own businesses and consultancy firms all across the world
@@CaptainPlanet007then he should have invested his own money, treating a friend of yours as a walking credit card, is the lowest of being a human
@@prajwalitmohanty2337 Like I said, at the time Mark can still get funding one way or another but Eduardo can’t get another Mark and opportunity like that again. Ever!! Btw, stop it with the lies! You resale think he can get that kind of return $25bill? Not even the world best investor can do it.
This is a very captivating video. Well done! The definition of entertaining and educational.
The idea that "the idea isn't valuable, the execution is." is ridiculous to me as musician. Although it is true that sometimes, especially as a songwriter, you should know when your song will be more valuable if it was "given" to somebody else to sing, YOU as the songwriter should still get some credit and royalty for the song's revenue no matter who sings it. And this is true even though in real life, the record label is probably the one that gets most of the money. But YOU still should get some money.
The engineer writing the code is much closer to the song writer in this analogy than the idea guy is. Without the engineer the code doesn't exist, just like without the song writer, the song doesn't exist. It has to be actually constructed.
As pointed out already, Zuckerberg was more akin to the songwriter, and the twins were more akin to some record label guy saying that he wants a pop song, giving the writer only the title and some idea of how it should be, like "something like the songs of Sia."
The record guy doesn't know how to play an instrument, doesn't sing, doesn't read music or know how to write it in the accepted way. That was the twins. They had no idea of how to code nor much about IT in that way.
Zuckerberg also brought his ideas too. It's like the songwriter that lays down the demo vocal. And then the singer simply follows the demo because it's such a great interpretation.
Saverin was just the guy with the money. Obviously important fot small startups, but if Zuckerberg had been more enterprising at the beginning, he could have found other investors to replace Saverin. Maybe through his own parents' social circles since they were hardly poor, or through their Jewish circles. Plenty of well-off people in Jewish networks. Saverin himself is Jewish and from a very wealthy family.
No man executing code like this is super hard ! I agree with comment above me , it’s hard ! What he did was very impressive especially launching it with no bugs .
Let's be real, ther best analogy is the Winkle Twins hired Zuck to build a house. Zuck built the house then moved in and claimed squatters rights. That is a perfect analogy.
Not really. For your analogy to work, Zuck built his own house after being inspired by the Winklevoss twin's plans, and the twins threw a tantrum because it somewhat resembled their idea. But to be clear, Zuck didn't build UConnect and then steal it. He stalled building UConnect and built his own site on the side.
@@impastorr1354 No my analogy is better. He built their house on their plot of land but changed the floor plan slightly.
@@bestsnowboarderuknow How is it still their house when it's "changed slightly"? It was a different site with different code and different features than what the Winklevoss twins asked Mark to build. Seems to me Mark didn't steal anything except for the idea to build a social media site, which had already been done at this point by others like MySpace. So even the idea that was "stolen" wasn't unique.
@@bestsnowboarderuknowI am on your side, a better analogy would be:
The twins hired Mark to build them a car, and agreement was reached and a deadline was set. Mark started working on the car but then saw that it would be nice if they added a cup holder at this locaion. Instead of bringing this up to the twins he instead breaks contract by no stalling the work on the twins car to build his car with the extra cup holder without the knowledge of the twins. Mark did this so that he can bring out his car to market to gain share over the twins car who were screwed from a work agreement.
@@impastorr1354nope, it was stolen. Mark did add things he thought would make the site better. Social media was a thing, but this site specifically was meant to be a site for Harvard students to socialise, which was the same goal for Facebook as well but people outside of Harvard started using it and it became a site that was more than a just Harvard social network, but that was not until later on. Basically you told me to build you a coffee shop at a strip mall, I told you I will build it and it will be done in half a year. While building It believe it would be nice if the coffee shop had a drive thru, so I stop working on your shop and start working on my own coffee shop that has a drive thru in it in the same strip mall. My shop is finished first and yours is still paused, so my shop ends up becoming a popular spot even visited by people outside of town. My shop is identical to the one I was gonna build you down to the beans for the coffee, but I added I dive thru
Great video. You did a great job explaining the whole situation I learned a lot, and I know the movie exaggerates the reality of the story. Although I still think it sucks that Lex Luthor screwed over Spider-Man.
It’s just… business
Everyone's a blood sucking vampire when money is involved
The moment you didn't read the texts Mark sent I knew you didn't want him to look too bad in the video.
I can't believe you still think Mark could be the good one here, an agreement is an agreement and a legal one, and he lost in court. Come one man, what a big scammer Mark is.
This comment section just goes to show how polarizing this topic is. Some people side with Mark, and some side with Eduardo. I personally side with Mark and heres why:
Yes, Mark betrayed his friend and created this master plan to essentially boot him out of the company. Was it morally wrong? Yes. But heres the thing. Eduardo built another company, ran ads for the company on the original company that Mark was trying to run, and when Mark tried multiple times to fly Eduardo out to help with Facebook, not only did he decline these offers, he offered no help in the 3 tasks he was given by Mark and just flat out didnt do them. Mark couldnt fire Eduardo because theyre both shareholders, and obviously talking things out didnt work because he had already tried that by flying him out to help with the company, only to be refused by Eduardo. In my opinion, Mark did what he had to do. If i start up a company with someone and that person goes and starts his own company up, focuses all of his attention on that company, runs ads for his company through my company without asking me, and then offers little to no help in the start up of my company with the only exception of giving me money to run my company, i'd be better off getting rid of him and taking out a few loans, which from what i understand after watching this video, mark did. So yeah, i agree with Mark.
Thank You for this!!!
Taught me, there is still so much to learn!
The only part of this movie that I hope was dead-on accurate was Divya Narendra's face at the 6:05 mark. I've seen The Social Network many dozens of times, and that one little moment gets a chuckle every time.
First time seeing a video from your channel, super engaging and well done ! Subscribed 🎉
🫶🏽
Wow, really great video. Exactly what I was looking for.
please never stop these vids
I'm not even an aspiring entrepreneur, just here because i love The Social Network
Business is business, but at the end of the day Mark still screwed over his best friend. That combined with other evidence of Zuckerberg's character tells be Zuck is the villain.
Steve Jobs was not an orphan.
He was put up for adoption but his parents weren’t dead. In fact, they had another daughter together that Steve later had a relationship with.
Sean Parker is actually a really nice guy, I mean, as much as you can judge from meeting him at one party. All I can say is I liked him, and his personal assistant even more :p
Oh interesting. Did you meet any other tech names?
I could never take the portrayal of Zuckerberg seriously because Jesse Eisenberg just seems so unlike what I have seen of Zuckerberg in terms of looks, mannerisms, way of speaking and moving etc. Way too different. And also, I had heard that there waa no girlfriend as played by Rooney Mara in the film. I knew he was dating Priscilla Chan at Harvard, and then they got married and had a baby. So I knew it was mostly invention by Sorkin.
I wonder what might have happened to FB if Parker had not come along.
Just letting the people understand a fact: creating a company from scratch and executing the idea is the toughest thing in the world. IDEA doesn't have any VALUE, it's all about EXECUTION.
Now, only the Real entrepreneur (not the fake ones) understand that the journey from the idea to the funding + launch is so difficult (people backstab you every other day) that the majority of the time, it turns the founders evil.
Can't agree more, I early on came across this moron said he dreamt about running his own startup or business. I asked how he's gonna execute or implement his ideas. He said he wouldn't, he would come up with a great idea and sell that idea to someone else. I tried to convince him that was impossible, because I did my research knowing that idea was worthless without execution. But he just persist with his illusion, I was utterly baffled by his stupidity
This is simply not true and a very predatory opinion. Without a revolutionary idea, there IS nothing to execute. Ideally the idea people and the executioners (pun intended) work together.
@@nextinstitute7824 What he said is true though, there are infinite amount of ideas out there, it takes someone special to find/come up with the right idea (which most often than not is just a slight tweak of another idea) and execute it in a way that it gets adopted by the target audience.
Everything from Facebook to iphone, to tesla, to your favourite restaurant chain is just a successful execution of a preexisting idea if you think about it.
@@rdproductions1061 Yep, he is right, but so am I. We are both right, in my humble opinion 😉. Just to make my point, what else is religion than a grouping of ideas. The executions vary, but the underlying ideas are valuable as well-arguably more so...
i'd go as far as saying the idea is almost irrelevant. You could start a toilet paper company and run it well and make profit. It doesn't have to be new or visionary.
When I was watching the movie, by the end I had a pretty clear judgement about all characters as you said:
Mark- Driven by interest in creating something cool that everyone admires, but is a bit selfish and rude. Doesn't understand others feelings. Basically has a low EQ (Emotional quotient/intelligence)
Eduardo- A genuine guy who truly wants to grow the company. Wants to handle the business side of things. Wants to impress his father because ultimately his dad is paying for all of it. By the end I felt sad for him and that he deserved a lot better.
Sean- Completely took advantage of Mark. Social engineering helped him get whatever he wanted. Overall the most undeserving of all. I didn't like him.
Winklevoss- Not exactly wrong. But the ending dialogue from Mark really summed it up for me- "I don't hate anybody. The "Winklevii" aren't suing me for intellectual property theft. They're suing me because for the first time in their lives, things didn't go exactly the way they were supposed to for them." and I sort of agree with this.
From rest of them, most of them were lucky to meet Mark, Sean etc. because I don't think they had as interesting of a life.
I'm not that sympathetic for the winklevoss twins, execution is everything. And ultimately they didn't invent facebook, and can't say they had the idea for social networking.
Eduardo however, I am a bit more sympathetic for because he thought Mark was his friend. It was right that he got his stake reduced because he wasn't contributing the same as others. But it should've been handled a lot better. Mark should've sat down with him before screwing him.
Exactly what I thought. Instead Mark acted negligently as if he never knew who Edwardo was before the whole Facebook thing.
The twins probably wanted a piece of the pie only after they saw the success
This was very well done. What did Sean Parker end up with equity-wise? Your last slide didn't show his name.
It's astonishing to me that in the film they changed Eduardo's stake from 10% to .03% just for dramatic affect.
As a developer, I think the person who can deliver it to the masses / democratise the solution is the one we should focus on. Mark did steal an idea but others couldn’t deliver. Any developer on the planet could make Facebook, skill is the marketing etc
The hardest part is being able to navigate from an idea to a solution that will solve a major problem. Typically, you want to reward those people the most. But society also rewards those who pour energy (investment) into the idea greatly. There are others who provide the infrastructure which makes it possible to navigate to a solution who are often not rewarded sufficiently like academic researchers and unfortunately out society kinda looks down on them.
Bad line of thought.
There is no good guy. There is no bad guy. There’s just business and being careful about what you agree to.
Bro I ll pay you 1m when I build my startup. Promise
And what's stopping you to create one? Asking in a good sense.
No one’s stopping you to start one
@@sidhuthesmwgroup need skills?
I was always curious about this. Thanks for doing this. Interesting.
So Saverin walked away with 5 BILLION in TAX FREE money? Yep. He got screwed.
Good writing leaves that last question open ❤
What a great video, you did a deep dive. I think the twins got screwed. Not everyone can write code, some have great ideas.
Yep it’s beyond me why they didn’t make Mark sign a contract.
i don't think they would have made it remotely this far with their project with any other developer than zuckerberg...he added some elements to facebook that were not present on other social networks at that time and also the way he launched it and many other tricks that the twins could not think of in my opinion.
@@ifrimvictor Exactly. The twins got lucky that they got Zuckerberg, who then made it into the enormous success that FB was. Had they just hired another guy who just did what thw twins wanted and was paid to only do that, then the twins might have ended up with another startup that went nowhere, or maybe had some small success before losing it. I'm pretty sure those in the tech space can name hundreds of such startups. It's not like there isn't competition either. Remember Myspace? They couldn't survive the loss of users to FB. And they were one of the biggest ones.
And what happened to Saverin's Joboozle site? Must not have bern huge as I've never heard of it.
The twins could very well have ended up with nothing, zero, if they had never found Zuckerberg.
If he had tried that shit on Thiel or any of his other major investors, they would have had his kneecaps inverted.
Truth is the filmmakers of The Social Network did no homework on Sean Parker. He was portrayed as some sort of a villain in the movie but in reality, that man is a mix of genius + generous. Its a shame that the media doesn't cover amply on him.
I agree with the twins. Imagine you hired someone to edit your book for typos just so they can rewrite your story as thier own and publish it first.
The story doesn't change the perspective for me. I always thought Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Peter Thiel, etc., to be on the 'bad side' of history. And the 2016 election just confirmed it more. But, the movie The Social Network is still, to this day, pretty high on my list of best movies. It is everything, a compelling story, an underdog, an antagonist or several, etc. To me, what this movie and this video demonstrates is that, first and sadly, when dealing with money & business, never assume that friendship will protect you. Always bring a lawyer to sign important documents. And second, that business is not just business, it is personal. The reactions to Facebook wouldn't have been so huge if it was just business as usual. It was a story of friends, betrayal, plotting to dethrone, etc. Business is always personal. Might not appear this way, but it is.
lame
mark was never "best friends" with Eduardo, they only knew each other for a year
mark was a typical closet narcissist. his obsession with power and his inability to feel empathy for people that made him has created this chaos
beta broke empath vs Alpha Billionaire Narcissist
@@KevinJohnson-cv2no gama crying for someone who didn't even give a fuck about him what a sore loser
What alot of ppl are projecting onto their judgements of both parties in this legal battle is the hindsight that Facebook would become a multi-billion dollar a year monstrosity. Back when it was still in start up it was just a good idea with a potential to grow. NO ONE...including Mark, could have predicted that it COULD, let alone would...become such a huge company.
Its easy to say Eduardo shouldve done more in the beginning when you subtract the fact that they were basically just kids in college doing their own thing while trying to turn a good idea into a potential winner. The Facebook couldve easily bombed and fizzled had one chip landed in a slightly different place. Timing, circumstances, and luck ALWAYS play a role in deciding which ventures flourish...and which ones die on the vine.
At the end of the day the ethical thing to do wouldve been to offer Eduardo a buyout after communicating that he wasnt contributing enough to the cause. I think that Mark choosing to squeeze him out passive aggressively just lends credence to the fact that he never saw Eduardo as a real friend...but as a fund.
You have a really optimistic view of bow startups work. IME all personnel are disposable assets, especially engineers and coders. The only people of value are are the founders and some times the investors and board of directors, albeit the founders intention is usually to deceive and manipulate them as much as possible as well. This is all regardless of technical skillsets or ability. As a regular employee, even if you are a principal employee, if you're lucky you'll be offered between 0.05 and 0.5% of stock (less if theres been more investment rounds) usually in common stock, not even preferred shares, with no voting rights, to vest over a period of 4-5 years. and in many companies you actually have to pay for these shares.
Basically you are dirt they are gods, even if you are the engine and the wizard who makes the entire company operate. I don't think I've seen a single exception to this and for some reason even really smart people are willing to take this deal. The most I've seen them be able to extract is a higher salary and invented title that they can then leverage later on in their career.
Justin Timberlake did so insanely good. I'm sure this is exactly how Parker acted. An amazing, amazing salesman.
It's bull to day that anyone who wants to start a business 'must' give a large, founders share and status to programmers.
If they have the idea and can raise capital or persuade coders to sign a contract for a nominal number of shares and they build the business that way then just because programmers work on the product doesn't mean the programmers get to own a major part of the business.
It's all about legal ownership and leverage. Being an engineer means there is 'a chance' that if a sole founder with just an idea and no coding skills needs them and can't get it off the ground then they 'may' have to offer the engineer a co founder status and 30-50% of the company. But there are ways other than that to get a product off the ground and retain ownership. It just depends on the skills and time they are willing to dedicate to the task.
The Winklevii did not do that and they didn't even get Zuck to sign a contract. All the did was tell him their idea.
But that doesn't mean they couldn't have gone about it a different way with a less devious coder and kept the whole thing for themselves.
It's a lesson for new founders. Don't loose your equity too much too early. Let the things roll for a while and see what's and who's working ❤
It can be extremely difficult to have a team, in the founders/foundational, when 1 or more members don't fulfill their stipulated/expected roles... Initial funding is Very important, but without "sweat equity" clauses and "divorce" clauses... things get contentious rapidly ie litigious...
Formational documents/"what ifs" are super important. Too much internal litigation, especially early, can drastically impact rounds of fundraising... Startups have been known to explode on the runway...
Excellent video👍👍
No good guys here.
the best of them is Eduardo.
He held his end of the bargain and was stabbed in the back.
Sean Parker just put Mark up against him and Mark listened.
At the end of the day they are all mega rich so I doubt they are losing sleep over it still.
0:41 what's the music??
Having a good idea is the comp equivalent of a Finders Fee, in equity-5% edit this was before I saw the ending lol, he literally ended up with 5% $5B
Great video, I'd love to see more!
What I get from this is ‘If you have rich parents, you will succeed.’ Not they are necessary, but it definitely helps.
What people, and the creator of this video I guess don't seem to realize about this story, Is that Mark's justification has nothing to do with legality. Legality is not allways what makes somthing moraly correct or acceptable. Mark made a horrendous decision to not only prioritize money, status, and untimately greed, over a relationship with his friend, allegedly his best friend, but even go as far as to completely betray this friend, completely destroying their connection and time they shared together. I would love to know what kind of price tag each person would put on betraying a friend like that. Of course we can't know the details of their relationship entierly, but just knowing that Mark made the decision to betray a close friend for status and greed (and not even that much more status and money as he still would have owned the majority of the company and be attributed for the founding of it. Arguably he lost status becasue of the damage he did to his own reputation.) Is enough to deem him the antagonist of this story, hands down. Money and status will never bring you contentment in life, relationships will.
People trying to say Eduardo wasn’t in Palo Alto, no he was still a student at Harvard. There wouldn’t even be a Facebook without Eduardo. Eduardo had cash, connections and was trying to bring in advertisements to influx more cash to continue growing the company. Eduardo was still in school and networking. He too helped with code in the beginning. Let’s be honest, Mark got greedy and messy and Eduardo is still on the Masthead and let’s not forget the twins.
i think edwardo lost because he didn’t pay enough attention. only when he started paying attention is when he caught on. if he would have been more involved and paid more attention he would have easily been able to prevent the loss. i think mark did what no one else did, he was consumed by the project, fell in love with it, and put it above everything else even friendships. this is all my opinion based solely on this video(:
Not quite. Mark put the sacrifices of those that helped build the company over those that couldn't commit.
If the norm working there at that time was 80-100 hour workweeks, and people are sacrificing their health, marriages, family, time, money, to make this company successful with you...and you chose to honor a friend who single handedly was holding the company back, you have to reward effort where it's due.
Had Mark not pushed Eduardo out, it would mean all those early employees sacrifices would mean nothing.
You may see it as "mark chose FB over a friend". I see it as "mark saved the company and rewarded people who probably suffer from chronic health problems, divorces, alimony, etc just to build Facebook".
I don't know about you, but I couldn't look my staff in the eye when they paid such a heavy cost, and tell them "the company failed because I let a dead weight friend who only put in 20k keep 30% of the company"
really good narrative and explanation video great job!
Mark enjoys more favorable public image over time or in other words since the movie came out. I think it was the having a non-nerd hobby, getting healthy and fit, focusing on his normal-looking family. But another huge component was Musk buying Twitter, being weirder and richer, and publicly stewing about his transgender child.
His Lizard side took over facebook and Mark woke up after the events.
I understand Mark. If my teammate in my start-up was slacking most of the time, I would actually fire them.
That was a line from the movie that bothered me. When Sean wakes up in some girl's dorm room, and he says he founded Napster, and she says "Sean Parker founded Napster." I get that it was just an introductory line, but any college student at the time knew the name Shawn Fanning, the guy that actually built it from the ground up. Yes, he did get help from coder friends, like Sean Parker, after it was built, but there's no comparison in what they put into it.
Yeah I thought that was strange because at the time when Napster was making waves, all the media attention was on Fanning. I remember the interviews with Fanning. Not much mention at all of Parker, and in fact, I hadn't known that he was involved at all until that film.
I don't know what happened to Fanning though. He certainly hasn't had the profile that Parker has had since then.
Honestly… Going down from 30% to 10% for a guy who is A) Doing a little to no work especially relatively to everyone else B) Not actively helping the company and instead focusing on his own ventures C) No longer providing financing for the company and D) Not being essential in any way shape or form is actually pretty generous
FINALLY! An easy to understand breakdown of the movie. Where was this years ago😭
First, this was a really well done explanation of the complexity of the situation. Nice job.
Second, it's very easy to appreciate the perspective of many - the Winklevoss's were clearly misled, and while your point of them not being able to code is certainly valid, Mark also intentionally misled them while building his own product. Their mistake to me was being so hands off that they just assumed anything built would be good, when in fact the execution of the idea did matter.
Third, Mark was probably wrong to intentionally cut out Eduardo in the matter that he did, but also, the company probably would not have been what it turned out to be had they followed Eduardo's direction of advertising and business generation at the time they did.
Fascinating stuff though.
Great job Caya and team!