Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#91

Post by nostrademons »

marshallp wrote: post #80
paul wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really -- we didn't know the Facebook team all that well. Your argument would make more sense if we had sold to Google, but even then it would be false. If your point is that people can build future success on top of past success, yes obviously that is true, but there is nothing wrong with that. It means that you need to work at it for a while and not expect people to simply hand you whatever you want because of…

Well it's not exactly "Create something remarkable and people with money will find you." then. More like 'create something remarkable and have enough reputation or schmoozing ability, and be in the right geograhic area'. Even the 'remarkable' thing is not entirely true. I don't think facebook or microsoft were remarkable, for example, they just hit the right combination of luck and skill at execution. Google on the o…

Reputation comes from doing remarkable - or even just impressive - things repeatedly over time.

It compounds. The first time you hear that somebody just wrote something cool, you think "oh, that was nifty", and promptly forget about it a day later. The second time you hear it, you think, "Don't I remember hearing his name somewhere?" The third time, you think "Hmm, maybe I should watch out for this guy." By the fourth or fifth time, if you have money you want to invest it in him, and if you don't you want to work with him.

I've met a bunch of rich people, and in my experience, they're all basically the same as normal people. They're impressed by similar things. So think about the people you find impressive, and try to be like them.

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#92

Post by nostrademons »

axod wrote: post #65
Timothee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some truth to what you're saying (I'm afraid), though a lot of it is more general than just "rich people will help you get rich". You'll learn more around smart people and you'll be more likely to be a criminal if your friends pull you into it. But overall your negativity throws me off a bit. One definitely notices when a company with many ex-Googlers is bought by Google. But if you think that's how the world…

I think you're missing the irritation though. Surely it's like the girl who sleeps with the boss gets a promotion. Sure, if you want a promotion you could sleep with the boss too, but it'd be nice if everything was just fair and done on merit. Not everyone wants to sleep with the boss.

I found it became significantly less irritating to me when I realized that decision makers simply suffered from an information problem and weren't specifically out to get me.

Imagine that you have something lots and lots of people want - say, a few hundred million dollars to give away in venture capital. Naturally, since lots of people want it, you're constantly bombarded by requests. After a short period of time, all these requests start to seem the same. Everybody has their startup baby. They all are absolutely certain that it's going to change the world. Most of them have very little experience and nothing in particular to recommend them.

If you're in this situation, what would you do? Every startup looks the same; you don't have enough information to pick one over another. You don't even enough time to begin gathering information to pick one over another.

So you winnow the field by picking ones that stand out for some reason. The easiest way is to pick only the ones that come recommended by friends. After all, you have a limited number of true friends, and they know how busy you are, and so they'll only forward on ventures that they really believe have potential.

The second easiest way is to pick founders whose names you recognize. Or founders whose past projects have names you recognize. There are a limited number of names that you'd recognize, and most of them are not asking you for venture capital, so this is a fairly safe way to narrow down the field.

Other than that, pretty much any way you choose of picking startups will be essentially random. It's like the half-season of House where he was picking his new team and randomly fired half the applicants. You wouldn't think that's fair either, right? Yet how else are you going to determine merit when you have far too many candidates to investigate each one in depth?

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#93

Post by nostrademons »

axod wrote: post #62
coffeemug wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Know rich people? They'll help you get rich too. What you may not realize is that everyone is knowable if you put enough effort into it. If you have no drive and no talent, rich people won't be able to help you. There aren't that many driven and talented people out there, so if you're one of them, and you make an effort to meet rich people, they'll help you too.

I think the problem is that some people (Me included) would rather spend all energy making stuff people want, rather than schmoozing people who might buy you. But I do see your point.

If you spend all your energy making stuff people want, rich people will find you too. The problem is that making stuff people want is really hard, and usually involves going out and finding people that want stuff.

If you have real traction - as in people are already buying from you, without you going out and selling them hard - rich people will be knocking at your door trying to get a piece of the action. But then, if people were already buying from you, why would you need rich people?

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#94

Post by FreeRadical »

zaidf wrote: post #41
seiji wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time I believed all corporate activities were based only on merit. Anything not completely merit derived would be illegal. That's what we're made to believe with all kinds of anti-descriminition laws (you can't ask age, about kids, etc during interviews for example). It turns out, everything is friend based. Know rich people? They'll help you get rich too. Have a project you don't want to do inside of Goo…

Have a project you don't want to do inside of Google? Just quit, make it anyway, then they'll re-hire you with a $5M per head bonus. Way off base IMO. If it was true, there would be very few ex-googler companies failing. And there would be A LOT more acquisitions by Google. I have used Vark. And I think this was a SOLID technology acquisition and well worth $50M. If I was a Vark founder, I'd feel insulted by your pos…

Your implying the cost to replicate the technology and gain the same traction would cost Google more then $50m. This is clearly not true, even if you grossly overestimate and assume it takes 20 engineers 6 months each at a salary of $300k each to replicate vark, plus $10m in marketing. It still falls short of $50m.

So is the difference the cost of mostly re-acquiring talent? Talent that you had already ascribed a value to when you employed them through assessing their annual performance?

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#95

Post by andreyf »

marshallp wrote: post #88
andreyf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm tempted to thow out the over-quoted "luck favors the prepapred mind". Yes, Microsoft lucked out when Bill Gates' mom was a boardmember of IBM, but they certainly took full advantage of it, and their many other opportunities - most of which came with having a more accurate understanding of their market than others. What might seem like luck to the inexperienced mind is usually a well executed strategy in line with…

I don't think you can attribute Bill Gates to superior understanding and execution, at 50/100 million or even 500 million, but getting to 100 billion at one point, I don't buy it. Is Bill Gates really that much smarter than the rest of us. The same can be said for most people that's over 10 million I reckon. "All in all, though, I think it wise to hold yourself responsible for your accomplishments - both geographic l…

If you really want to make the big bucks, what you really need is a monopoly on the desktop operating system. But the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 2, and Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 25, are real bitches.

That's how Bill Gates made $100B. He had an opportunity to monopolize desktop OS'es and the luck/insight to bet they would one day be worth a lot, and the skills to execute on that opportunity. Yes, that kind of opportunity is very rare, but $1-100M opportunities are not.

That said, I agree with everything else you said - I agree that I'd much more like to live in a world where a black person with a poor single parent in a small town in Mississippi is given the tools to take advantage of the same opportunities as a Kennedy, but we should also accept that although it's something to strive for, and something to take steps towards (affirmative action/universal education/healthcare), there are also aspects which make it impossible. Ironically, one step towards equality is the removal of the meme "I was born , so I can never accomplish what Bill Gates did".

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#96

Post by jayliew »

marshallp wrote: post #80
paul wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really -- we didn't know the Facebook team all that well. Your argument would make more sense if we had sold to Google, but even then it would be false. If your point is that people can build future success on top of past success, yes obviously that is true, but there is nothing wrong with that. It means that you need to work at it for a while and not expect people to simply hand you whatever you want because of…

Well it's not exactly "Create something remarkable and people with money will find you." then. More like 'create something remarkable and have enough reputation or schmoozing ability, and be in the right geograhic area'. Even the 'remarkable' thing is not entirely true. I don't think facebook or microsoft were remarkable, for example, they just hit the right combination of luck and skill at execution. Google on the o…

I detest the subtle jab at FriendFeed.

Seriously, what are you going to say next? That the world is not fair? Only the 'remarkable' by your standards should see market success? That is wrong to get lucky, to be at the right place and right time?

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#97

Post by marshallp »

jayliew wrote: post #96
marshallp wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's not exactly "Create something remarkable and people with money will find you." then. More like 'create something remarkable and have enough reputation or schmoozing ability, and be in the right geograhic area'. Even the 'remarkable' thing is not entirely true. I don't think facebook or microsoft were remarkable, for example, they just hit the right combination of luck and skill at execution. Google on the o…

I detest the subtle jab at FriendFeed. Seriously, what are you going to say next? That the world is not fair? Only the 'remarkable' by your standards should see market success? That is wrong to get lucky, to be at the right place and right time?

are you some kind of friendfeed fanboy

it's a fair and legitimate point that it's easier for already famous people to get their company acquired than it is for a nobody

it's naive to thinks it all about remarkable products, or even luck, politics comes into it

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#98

Post by pg »

marshallp wrote: post #97
jayliew wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I detest the subtle jab at FriendFeed. Seriously, what are you going to say next? That the world is not fair? Only the 'remarkable' by your standards should see market success? That is wrong to get lucky, to be at the right place and right time?

are you some kind of friendfeed fanboy it's a fair and legitimate point that it's easier for already famous people to get their company acquired than it is for a nobody it's naive to thinks it all about remarkable products, or even luck, politics comes into it

What's naive is to think that Mark Zuckerberg would pay $50 million for something unless he actually wanted it that much.

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#99

Post by zaidf »

FreeRadical wrote: post #94
zaidf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a project you don't want to do inside of Google? Just quit, make it anyway, then they'll re-hire you with a $5M per head bonus. Way off base IMO. If it was true, there would be very few ex-googler companies failing. And there would be A LOT more acquisitions by Google. I have used Vark. And I think this was a SOLID technology acquisition and well worth $50M. If I was a Vark founder, I'd feel insulted by your pos…

Your implying the cost to replicate the technology and gain the same traction would cost Google more then $50m. This is clearly not true, even if you grossly overestimate and assume it takes 20 engineers 6 months each at a salary of $300k each to replicate vark, plus $10m in marketing. It still falls short of $50m. So is the difference the cost of mostly re-acquiring talent? Talent that you had already ascribed a val…

Your implying the cost to replicate the technology and gain the same traction would cost Google more then $50m.

Not quite. I am implying that Google thinks the risk associated with doing it on their own is not worth the $50m for the acquisition.

It is way more complex than simply about tech and traction. ie. lets say google can build the same thing for $10M. But hey it might take them 2 years. In the same 2 years, a competition(Microsoft) might acquire Vark and turn it into a billion dollar competitor to google.

On the flip side, even if Google can build it for 10M and launch in 6 months, the risk from the other possibility is not worth the 40M in savings.

Re: Google Acquires Aardvark For $50 million

#100

Post by jayliew »

marshallp wrote: post #97
jayliew wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I detest the subtle jab at FriendFeed. Seriously, what are you going to say next? That the world is not fair? Only the 'remarkable' by your standards should see market success? That is wrong to get lucky, to be at the right place and right time?

are you some kind of friendfeed fanboy it's a fair and legitimate point that it's easier for already famous people to get their company acquired than it is for a nobody it's naive to thinks it all about remarkable products, or even luck, politics comes into it

it's a fair and legitimate point that it's easier for already famous people to get their company acquired than it is for a nobody It's naive to think that only products remarkable by your standards should see success in the market place.

It's another thing to be jealous of the success of others, because the world is not a zero sum game.

I'm done with this pissing match, I think I already said too much - say whatever you want, but your subtle attack on Friendfeed is malicious and I do not agree.

Post reply on HN