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

Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#51

Post by redredrobot »

zxcmx wrote: post #48
throw24234 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also kind of interesting that they are an opportunistic buyer (almost vulturous) that most of the times only pulls the trigger when the acquisition target is in their lows. Unsurprising since Bezos himself worked in a Hedge fund. The Autonomous Driving hype train is slowing down, so this is the perfect opportunity for this move. Interestingly, with this move, Bezos can soon rival Musk for the next 'billionaire supe…

They both want a planet. Musk wants to take over Mars. Bezos wants to take over Earth .

Actually if you pay a little attention to Bezos, it's clear that his focus has been outer space at least since he was a college student. IMO Amazon was an opportunity that Bezos saw while Blue Origin is the fulfillment of his lifelong dream.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#52

Post by jariel »

baron816 wrote: post #14

What’s the logic of them selling to Amazon? Why didn’t they just continue on and try to raise more money? I assume this was purely a move of desperation and they couldn’t. Is this just a full blown acquihire? Also, what happens to employees? Presumably, their stock is worthless. Will Amazon just give them all new stock packages to keep them on?

They sold for what they raised so it's a loser for investors.

Likely they didn't have a business model and so were a fire sale.

Amazon will almost assuredly eye this for autonomous delivery. They have the cash, the legit need, the ambition ability to make it work. So it can be commercialised 'internally'.

Unlike Google who have to build a business around their self-driving cars.

This is one of those 'tech may eat the world' things that should legit scare FedEx because I doubt FedEx will be able to compete on terms like this.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#53

Post by throwaway1777 »

redredrobot wrote: post #51
zxcmx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They both want a planet. Musk wants to take over Mars. Bezos wants to take over Earth .

Actually if you pay a little attention to Bezos, it's clear that his focus has been outer space at least since he was a college student. IMO Amazon was an opportunity that Bezos saw while Blue Origin is the fulfillment of his lifelong dream.

So if it’s his dream when does he start actually focusing on it?

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#54

Post by redredrobot »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #53
redredrobot wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if you pay a little attention to Bezos, it's clear that his focus has been outer space at least since he was a college student. IMO Amazon was an opportunity that Bezos saw while Blue Origin is the fulfillment of his lifelong dream.

So if it’s his dream when does he start actually focusing on it?

What do you mean? Prior to COVID I thought Bezos had his full attention on Blue Origin

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#55

Post by orbifold »

achow wrote: post #49

How did Zoox start? In 2012, Kentley-Klay stumbled on a blog post about Google’s self-driving car project, then pretty much the only one in the field. He saw the company’s prototypes as unsightly half-measures.. Then, one day, he walked into his Melbourne office (animation, video production) and announced he was off to America to fulfill his driverless dreams. In a move that some will call devious and others will cal…

Fake it until you raise 1 billion and then sell your company for 1 billion?

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#57

Post by orbifold »

bosie wrote: post #43
Gatsky wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently he added the ‘Klay’ to his name because he wanted to add a ‘maker’ element to it. I mean, this a bad prognostic sign if there ever was one in an engineering company.

what do you mean by 'add a maker element to it'?

Klay and Clay sound similar?

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#58

Post by jedberg »

numpad0 wrote: post #47
hevelvarik wrote: post #10

What’s Amazon’s plan? The article says something something Amazon delivers lots of things something, but I don’t see how building their own driving systems follows naturally from that. Further, I would think a firm promising enough to seed a self driving program to power Amazon’s delivery fleet would be worth more than a billion dollars. Would love to hear some thinking on this. Update: There’s a comment up thread to…

To me the future of SDC tech is clear: General public expects driverless cars, car companies want level 3 automation, Google says there is only level 2 and 4 which is probably right, and the technology is going to stay level 2 for at least better part of next decade if not couple decades. What’s working is Level 4 betas in Level 2 mode with driver monitoring for safety, what I would call a “driving simplification”. “…

I rode in a Zoox car two years ago. It was already at level 3, almost 4. The driver took over once but didn’t even have to. The car was about to do the same thing the driver did, he just got nervous.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#59

Post by mFixman »

achow wrote: post #49

How did Zoox start? In 2012, Kentley-Klay stumbled on a blog post about Google’s self-driving car project, then pretty much the only one in the field. He saw the company’s prototypes as unsightly half-measures.. Then, one day, he walked into his Melbourne office (animation, video production) and announced he was off to America to fulfill his driverless dreams. In a move that some will call devious and others will cal…

That's the most Silicon Valley way of doing things.

For one, I'm glad to live in a world where those kind of things still exist.

Re: Amazon to pay $1B+ for Zoox

#60

Post by lmm »

cambalache wrote: post #46
dannyw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors often have 2x liquidation preferences, if not more. Exceedingly unlikely common stockholders would have any value.

Sorry for the naive question, how is this not illegal? I would understand if you get 2X after all the capital raised has been cleared, but in this case? You get 2x while other people lose their shirts off?

Preferred stock is kind of halfway between a stock and a bond, and selling bonds for less than their face value is pretty normal for high-risk companies.
Post reply on HN