apps
People

If Discord is so great, why hasn’t anyone bought it?

You might think that one of the Facebooks, Microsofts and Amazons of the world would snap it up.

If Discord is so great, why hasn’t anyone bought it?

One can make a strong strategic case that the powerful, persistent layer of social engagement emerging on Discord could add immense value to the ecosystems being developed by Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and others.

Photo: Fabian Sommer/picture alliance via Getty Images

Discord is objectively great. I'm on 28 different Discord servers spanning just about every aspect of my gamer life in addition to Protocol's new server. As a personal (non-enterprise) platform for integrated text, voice and video communication with preselected affinity groups, I can't think of anything better. Discord's user base is surging — it now counts more than 100 million monthly users — and its engagement metrics are fabulous.

But if Discord is so great, why hasn't anyone bought it yet?

A couple years ago — long before the company's valuation reached $3.5 billion — I heard from relevant people that Discord was being pitched to the tech and gaming giants. No one was biting. I shelved the thought until a few weeks ago, when I saw a Discord job posting for a new corporate controller. Among the duties: "Prepare the company for public company accounting and reporting standards."

A year ago it would have been crazy to suggest that a money-losing or, at best, marginally profitable chat platform go public, but obviously things have changed. The public markets seem hungry for exposure to gaming and online community. A single job listing doesn't mean that Discord is planning to go public (having your books ready for the SEC is a good idea, regardless), but again it raises the question: In a world where many of the biggest companies are spending billions to stake out leadership in gaming and online community, why hasn't Discord been snapped up?

After all, one can make a strong strategic case that the powerful, persistent layer of social engagement emerging on Discord could add immense value to the ecosystems being developed by Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and others.

So I asked some people close to those companies and Discord their opinions. Based on those conversations, here are a few overlapping and speculative hypotheses about why no one has made Discord an offer it can't refuse. Yet.

Content moderation is hard

Here's Discord's basic pitch to consumers: In minutes or less, anyone can easily set up a private server where you and your friends can immediately start chatting (text, voice, video), sharing links and files and basically doing your own thing. There is very little, if any, "public commons" on Discord. Instead, you flit among various privately administered servers with vastly different tones and sorts of content. As you can probably imagine, there are all kinds of risqué and political Discord servers out there.

The whole world can see how much political heat Facebook and Twitter take no matter how they censor users, and none of these other companies is rushing to join them in that regard.

"But didn't Microsoft just try to buy TikTok?" you might ask. "Wouldn't that have come with similar content issues?" Not quite. TikTok is essentially a public platform without the myriad warrens of privately run subcommunities that fill Discord (more than 13 million servers active per week). While Discord has rules as a practical matter, it is selling users a sense of private community, which means those users can post pornography and other sorts of content that are off-limits on a quasi-public platform like TikTok. (Twitch is also public.)

Considering the potentially objectionable content on Discord and how that might make the company less attractive to potential buyers, the obvious counterpoint is Reddit. Reddit is largely a public platform and is packed with all kinds of extremely edgy content, yet seems to almost entirely escape scrutiny. That's partly because Reddit's corporate parent, Advance Publications (which also controls Condé Nast), is a low-profile private company without a political lightning rod attached to its headquarters.

Anti-competition concerns

As a matter of core strategy, Discord would seem to be more attractive to Facebook than to any other company on the planet. Facebook's goal is to be the social glue of the world, and here's this startup that's becoming the extremely sticky social glue for one of the world's fastest-growing demographics. Meanwhile, Facebook is investing heavily in gaming.

"Facebook would love to buy Discord for $10 billion, but they can't," one person told me. "It's politically impossible, and they know it." They're right. Facebook absorbing the next hot online communication platform simply cannot happen these days. Amazon and Google could also face political headwinds to a Discord deal, though weaker than Facebook's.

Of course some gamers might flee Discord if Big Tech bought it at all, but Discord's whole marketing strategy at the moment is to expand beyond the game world.

Discord looks too familiar

As put, a traditional business development analysis that did not comprehend Discord's cultural and ease-of-use special sauce could conclude that Discord simply replicates existing products

If you're Microsoft, "Don't we already have Teams?" If you're Amazon, "Don't we already have Chime?" If you're Google, "Don't we already have Meet?" And what about Slack and Zoom?

On paper, Discord does what all these other services do. The fact that in many ways Discord just does them better might not come across in certain contexts.

It's just too expensive

As usual, it probably just comes down to the money. Discord, its founders and its investors would presumably want significantly more for the company than this summer's $3.5 billion valuation.

Meanwhile, Discord does not appear to be wildly profitable. That's partly by design. The company relies mostly on optional premium subscriptions (the majority of features are available free) and has eschewed potentially more lucrative opportunities to sell ads or user data. Doing so increases trust with users, which drives ears and eyeballs on the service.

Among the deals and valuations mentioned to me in comparison were Twitch (sold to Amazon for $970 million), Lucasfilm (sold to Disney for $4.05 billion) and ZeniMax/Bethesda (sold to Microsoft for $7.5 billion). In that company, Discord seems pricey to many in the gaming and tech worlds.

But Discord doesn't want to be in that company. Discord appears to believe it should be valued like a social media company like TikTok, not as a content or distribution company. That is to say: for a lot more money and judged on user engagement and growth, not profitability.

It's true that Discord is more a communication platform than a social network. There is little discoverability or curation. You don't go there to be shown something new or to engage with the public. You go on Discord to communicate with people you already share interests with. Yes, you can meet new people on Discord, but that's not the core of the platform.

No matter who the company hires for the corporate controller job, one bellwether for the company will be the coming Roblox IPO. Even though the services are different, they could appear related to public investors just trying to get in on online gaming.

In the meantime, I'll keep chatting on Discord.

 Seth Schiesel

Seth Schiesel ( @SethSchiesel) is a former contributing editor for Protocol focused on the business of video games and adjacent industries. He is a former editorial writer for The Boston Globe, entrepreneur and business reporter, technology writer and video game critic for The New York Times.

discord facebook microsoft amazon gaming video chat apps
scotus
Climate

Supreme Court takes a sledgehammer to greenhouse gas regulations

The court ruled 6-3 that the EPA cannot use the Clean Air Act to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions. That leaves a patchwork of policies from states, utilities and, increasingly, tech companies to pick up the slack.

The Supreme Court struck a major blow to the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Striking down the right to abortion may be the Supreme Court's highest-profile decision this term. But on Wednesday, the court handed down an equally massive verdict on the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of West Virginia v. EPA, the court decided that the agency has no ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act. Weakening the federal government's powers leaves a patchwork of states, utilities and, increasingly, tech companies to pick up the slack in reducing carbon pollution.

Keep Reading Show less
Brian Kahn

Brian ( @blkahn) is Protocol's climate editor. Previously, he was the managing editor and founding senior writer at Earther, Gizmodo's climate site, where he covered everything from the weather to Big Oil's influence on politics. He also reported for Climate Central and the Wall Street Journal. In the even more distant past, he led sleigh rides to visit a herd of 7,000 elk and boat tours on the deepest lake in the U.S.

epa supreme court scotus
sponsored content
Sponsored Content

You’re either real-time or out of time

Every day, millions of us press the “order” button on our favorite coffee store's mobile application: Our chosen brew will be on the counter when we arrive. It’s a personalized, seamless experience that we have all come to expect. What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes. The mobile application is sourcing data from a database that stores information about each customer and what their favorite coffee drinks are. It is also leveraging event-streaming data in real time to ensure the ingredients for your personal coffee are in supply at your local store.

Applications like this power our daily lives, and if they can’t access massive amounts of data stored in a database as well as stream data “in motion” instantaneously, you — and millions of customers — won’t have these in-the-moment experiences.

Keep Reading Show less
Jennifer Goforth Gregory
Jennifer Goforth Gregory has worked in the B2B technology industry for over 20 years. As a freelance writer she writes for top technology brands, including IBM, HPE, Adobe, AT&T, Verizon, Epson, Oracle, Intel and Square. She specializes in a wide range of technology, such as AI, IoT, cloud, cybersecurity, and CX. Jennifer also wrote a bestselling book The Freelance Content Marketing Writer to help other writers launch a high earning freelance business.
sponsored sponsored content
crypto regulation
Fintech

Can crypto regulate itself? The Lummis-Gillibrand bill hopes so.

Creating the equivalent of the stock markets’ FINRA for crypto is the ideal, but experts doubt that it will be easy.

The idea of creating a government-sanctioned private regulatory association has been drawing more attention in the debate over how to rein in a fast-growing industry whose technological quirks have baffled policymakers.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Regulating crypto is complicated. That’s why Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand want to explore the creation of a private sector group to help federal regulators do their job.

The bipartisan bill introduced by Lummis and Gillibrand would require the CFTC and the SEC to work with the crypto industry to look into setting up a self-regulatory organization to “facilitate innovative, efficient and orderly markets for digital assets.”

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

self-regulatory organization cryptocurrency lummis-gillibrand bill sro finra sec cftc crypto regulation
cybersecurity
Enterprise

Alperovitch: Cybersecurity defenders can’t be on high alert every day

With the continued threat of Russian cyber escalation, cybersecurity and geopolitics expert Dmitri Alperovitch says it’s not ideal for the U.S. to oscillate between moments of high alert and lesser states of cyber readiness.

Dmitri Alperovitch (the co-founder and former CTO of CrowdStrike) speaks at RSA Conference 2022.

Photo: RSA Conference

When it comes to cybersecurity vigilance, Dmitri Alperovitch wants to see more focus on resiliency of IT systems — and less on doing "surges" around particular dates or events.

For instance, whatever Russia is doing at the moment.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

cyberattacks dmitri alperovitch russia security ukraine cybersecurity
internet for all
Policy

How the internet got privatized and how the government could fix it

Author Ben Tarnoff discusses municipal broadband, Web3 and why closing the “digital divide” isn’t enough.

The Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative, which kicked off in May, will roll out grant programs to expand and improve broadband infrastructure, teach digital skills and improve internet access for “everyone in America by the end of the decade.”

Decisions about who is eligible for these grants will be made based on the Federal Communications Commission’s broken, outdated and incorrect broadband maps — maps the FCC plans to update only after funding has been allocated. Inaccurate broadband maps are just one of many barriers to getting everyone in the country successfully online. Internet service providers that use government funds to connect rural and low-income areas have historically provided those regions with slow speeds and poor service, forcing community residents to find reliable internet outside of their homes.

Keep Reading Show less
Aditi Mukund
Aditi Mukund is Protocol’s Data Analyst. Prior to joining Protocol, she was an analyst at The Daily Beast and NPR where she wrangled data into actionable insights for editorial, audience, commerce, subscription, and product teams. She holds a B.S in Cognitive Science, Human Computer Interaction from The University of California, San Diego.
broadband digital divide infrastructure municipal broadband internet for all interview
Latest Stories
Bulletins