11–20 of 87 posts
I question whether that is in part due to anti competitive agreements between Intel, Google etc.
If they can't poach each other's engineers, they must go somewhere else for talent. What better place than the most ambitious, intelligent group?
Just one $25 million payday from the sale of a startup will more than cover an Angel investor’s loss from a hundred dud $25K investments — which is a loss of just $2.5 million. The risk to reward ratios are off the charts, which is why so many want to be Angels. Sure buddy. A $25m payday means you have an 8% stake in a startup worth more than $300m. And as we all know, $300m+ acquisitions happen every day, right? But…
The term "talent acquisition" has been applied to a number of startup successes over the past few years. I question whether that is in part due to anti competitive agreements between Intel, Google etc. If they can't poach each other's engineers, they must go somewhere else for talent. What better place than the most ambitious, intelligent group?
As anti-competitive and illegal as the anti-poaching agreements are, they contain an important insight: These companies need to grow the total pool of people working for them to keep growing the sector. At the macro-level, it is perfectly in Googles interest that Apple grows, and vice-verse.
This would be a very penetratingly insightful criticism if you had never heard of Airbnb, Dropbox, Twilio, etc etc. Some people at the current classes of YC and 500 Startups may well find themselves working for AmaGooBookSoft in 4 years, and may that be a happy outcome for all concerned, but you've got to torture the math to come to the conclusion that hiring acquisitions are where most of the money is changing hands…
Being angry at Apple or Twitter for buying a company and shutting down their operations seems misplaced - why not be angry at the founders that agreed to do this?
Do you know how ridiculously difficult it is to prove to an established business that "no, I don't have the specific experience you are looking for, but I can learn it in short order and I'll be one of your best employees," and then stand out from the 100 people behind you who say the exact same thing?
It's also ridiculously difficult for companies to figure out who the talented people actually are.
If you're really talented, what better way to prove it and lose nothing in the process? And what better way for a large company to get good people on board?
The term "talent acquisition" has been applied to a number of startup successes over the past few years. I question whether that is in part due to anti competitive agreements between Intel, Google etc. If they can't poach each other's engineers, they must go somewhere else for talent. What better place than the most ambitious, intelligent group?
Uhm, why wouldn't they want to approach "the most ambitious, intelligent group" even without anti-poaching agreements? As anti-competitive and illegal as the anti-poaching agreements are, they contain an important insight: These companies need to grow the total pool of people working for them to keep growing the sector. At the macro-level, it is perfectly in Googles interest that Apple grows, and vice-verse.
In order to get such talent companies must offer large payouts to founders since the next source for talent is a highly fragmented group and there for hard to target.
The term "talent acquisition" has been applied to a number of startup successes over the past few years. I question whether that is in part due to anti competitive agreements between Intel, Google etc. If they can't poach each other's engineers, they must go somewhere else for talent. What better place than the most ambitious, intelligent group?
Uhm, why wouldn't they want to approach "the most ambitious, intelligent group" even without anti-poaching agreements? As anti-competitive and illegal as the anti-poaching agreements are, they contain an important insight: These companies need to grow the total pool of people working for them to keep growing the sector. At the macro-level, it is perfectly in Googles interest that Apple grows, and vice-verse.