This article assumes that the primary goal of the acquisition is the technology. Without having looked at the technology or commenting on its merits, I can think of a boatload of other things Yahoo is buying with its money: 1) Free positive publicity--publicity that doesn't constantly remind people how Yahoo! is circling the train; 2) The recruiting hook of "yeah, we're not stodgy anymore, we paid some kid $30 millio…
#2 - "we paid some kid $30m!" Why on earth would that be used for 'recruiting'? Getting me to come be your full time employee by telling me how much you pay outsiders (sometimes for lame tech)? If Yahoo wants to increase their recruiting power, start rewarding - publicly - internal teams that innovate. Start a $50m innovation fund, and reward internal teams for demonstrating initiative, problem solving, innovative so…
The Summly deal makes no sense
231–240 of 260 posts
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is good perspective and i think it's good to keep this in mind, but let's not forget the other end of the spectrum: Right now, somewhere in the world, a child is being born in a farm house with a dirt floor. That child will grow up to die in a civil war before age 14. Right now, somewhere in the world, there are people waiting in line to get food from a charity. Right now, somewhere in the world, someone is suff…
My Mom grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. Her biological father had a habit of staying at home just long enough to get my Grandma pregnant, then taking off. Life for single mothers (especially French Canadians) in the late 1940s/early 1950s was hard. Consequently, my Grandma worked multiple jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Grandma was always an incredibly hard worker - she eventu…
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the 'regulation is the answer' argument. > I'm sorry, but you don't need to have come from Stanford to be smart enough to work at Yahoo! or Google or etc It's like every other human relationship, the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be. Google can afford to hire only top CS people (or accomplished non-traditional ones) because they're Google. Yahoo!... I don't think that's going to work out so…
No, it's the "redistribute the wealth" argument. Whether you do it by funding welfare or schools or giving tax refunds, it's up to you. >It's like every other human relationship, the more you have to offer the higher your standards can be. It's more complicated than that. Since the prestige of your alma mater is largely divorced from the quality of the teaching therein, it's also an expression of class discrimination…
Not true. Even near the upper end, the price tag is not insanely high compared to top state schools --
Harvard policy states that families with annual incomes below $60,000 pay only a student contribution of a few thousand dollars, and families with annual incomes between $60,000 and $180,000 pay the student contribution plus a family contribution averaging 10 percent of annual income.
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#234Maybe those partners wouldn't have wanted to collaborate with Yahoo, but now they'd consider it for 30M.
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#235Normally whenever an acquisition happens, I avoid these types of posts on HN because there are often people in the comments (and even in the posts themselves) calling out the acquired company saying “I could have done this” or “Acquirer could have built Acquired Company in a day” but, this one deserves a reply. The reason why this deserves a reply is that the OP’s post does not really contain any facts rather, it con…
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#236Imagine you are a young superstar who with some justification believes you have the world at your feet.
A bloated, cadaverous company that your dad tells you was cool when you were in preschool wants to buy you and tether your career to them.
How much would it take to convince you to do that?
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
#2 - "we paid some kid $30m!" Why on earth would that be used for 'recruiting'? Getting me to come be your full time employee by telling me how much you pay outsiders (sometimes for lame tech)? If Yahoo wants to increase their recruiting power, start rewarding - publicly - internal teams that innovate. Start a $50m innovation fund, and reward internal teams for demonstrating initiative, problem solving, innovative so…
I really like this. Why don't more companies do this? Is it better in theory than in practice? Maybe it creates too competitive of an atmosphere? Curious...
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, every now and again, I come across this type of salary comparison charts, and realize that out of context they make no sense at all. And with some context - hmmm.. Nope, not much sense either.
I don't know what you're trying to say. If you are trying to imply that someone on a developer salary in Europe or the US are not well off by global standards, you're out of your mind.
Now, let's suppose you make $15k/yr. (By the way, how's that for your estimate of a European salary? See why I said I hate generalizations?) This site says you're in the top 13% richest people in the world. Immediately, a ton of questions arises: OK, top 13% - what of it? Was it practical to take everyone in the world into consideration? Why and how should this (unverified) information change your feelings about your well-being? Is the current wealth distribution, as represented by the chart, really not OK? Will the knowledge about being in the top 13% help you pay your bills? Should you, now knowing that you are ahead of 87% of population, start to think about redistribution of your wealth and transferring it to those behind you? Should you not be pissed off by those guys higher than you? What if you'd find yourself in the lower 50%? Should you get depressed, or get to work, reaching the 50% mark and then stopping, or what? I could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to make here is that all those questions can be answered in a dozen or so ways, exact number depending on your will to participate in rhetoric battles, and that's why I just can't figure out how this chart can be of any use. There's probably some statistical value in it to me, but almost none practical value. I hope you now see what I was trying to say in the GP comment.
Lastly, and moving from the comparison chart itself to the idea that it's used to be backing up here: I dislike cheap attempts to make people participate in some charity out of induced guilt, and I dislike portraying of being wealthy (whatever that means) as a kind of being unclean with money and obliged to share as a tool of said shame/guilt feeling inducing. I don't think charity should work this way and I think this instills the wrong views of the basic principles of economical and social responsibility in the readers and just exploits the guilt feeling.
TL;DR: Do you need money? You should probably stop contemplating 'global salary comparison charts' of questionable real world value, and instead get your statistics straight and start working on your skills/paycheck/whatever keeps you wealthy. Do you want to participate in the charities? Stop getting anxious and building guilt inside you for no reason, get informed (really, get your statistics straight already) and get involved.
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that all of the events you've listed are probably happening somewhere in the world, but I disagree that we should all just accept this as "the world we live in" and carry on. Look back across history and consider what would have happened if at any point, the people on the losing end of any deal were to simply keep their heads down and keep working. It's worth talking about. It's worth criticizing. It may not…
It is only worth attention if that attention becomes productive action. So yeah, criticize, only if you think someone influential is listening.
Re: The Summly deal makes no sense
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is good perspective and i think it's good to keep this in mind, but let's not forget the other end of the spectrum: Right now, somewhere in the world, a child is being born in a farm house with a dirt floor. That child will grow up to die in a civil war before age 14. Right now, somewhere in the world, there are people waiting in line to get food from a charity. Right now, somewhere in the world, someone is suff…
My Mom grew up on the wrong side of the tracks. Her biological father had a habit of staying at home just long enough to get my Grandma pregnant, then taking off. Life for single mothers (especially French Canadians) in the late 1940s/early 1950s was hard. Consequently, my Grandma worked multiple jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Grandma was always an incredibly hard worker - she eventu…