Live data from Hacker News

What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

hackingdistributed.com

31–40 of 288 posts

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#31
post #24

Ouch. Still, hard to find fault with the analysis, no matter how unpopular it may be with much of the readership of HN. Many folks here would love to sell a company to Yahoo! for $30MM after 18mo with minimal engineering effort and download numbers probably below those of many folks reading the news on HN.

We should all be very happy. This is a sign that easy money is still out there for the clever individual. I applaud the kid for what he has done. Yahoo might be stupid, but we've known that for a long long time.

I hear what you're saying, but the problem with poor deals like this which are done for reasons other than the headline reason, is that they're effectively random. You cannot structure your business in order to get an exit like this. You tend to luck into one - or more often you get it because you have a network of unpublicized connections who have interests that are not overtly clear. The rest of us? We should be happy when money is going to solid, well-built businesses with metrics we can all understand rewarding us for hard work and innovation - because unless you're already an insider, that's the only thing you can control to get a win.

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#32

> By definition, Yahoo's directors know how to spend Yahoo's cash reserves best. This is absolutely incorrect. There are many instances in which there is a personal financial connection between a board member and an acquired company. For example, a board member is a limited in a VC fund. Didn't bother reading after that.

By definition, even if you include your statement, Yahoo directors know how to spend Yahoo's cash reserves best. It may be for their own best interest, but your statement doesn't contradict the OP's.

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#33
post #20

What's actually right about Yahoo's purchase of Summly: we are still talking about it, and are still reminded that Yahoo exists. The marketing was great (the video is really well-done), and to be honest yahoo really could use some marketing boost at a time like this.

I'm reminded Yahoo exists every time I check my false-negatives spam filter training file. Virtually all spam which gets through to my inbox is from Yahoo addresses, often from compromised actual people I need to receive mail from (including at least one partner at a fund, my dentist, etc.)

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#34
The point is to dig up something cool in the vast universe of information and actually deliver it. It is nice there are friends and university Professors who knows about this certain technology way deeper but can they _really_ deliver ? Sure, they will teach other kids and those kids will teach others or maybe going to be employed at some tech company. This kind of success is just more potent a visible. It really depends from what angle you look. This guy has financial, educational and social success. From standpoint of the startup culture, I think he's done very well. Anything can be judged only by comparison to something else.

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#35
post #14
post #5

I think the author makes this comment: "Summly's entire business model seems to revolve around catering to this demographic. Frankly, it pains me." I reads like a critique of Chubby Checker's "Twist" from a professor a Julliard. Perhaps, and I say that because I can't know what they were really thinking, but perhaps that was the point. This company had successfully "catered to this demographic" (which was defined as…

> people who could quickly assemble a MVP from existing APIs that appealed to the emerging cohort of buyers and trendsetters. Oh man reading that I just realized that was exactly describing the type of consulting gigs I always get (and I'm young). Are we a side effect of the pump-and-dump VC culture or is this a legitimate new way of developing software/products?

Well, I'm not finding a lot inherently wrong with using new and existing apis to make other things. I would in fact argue that that is why we create apis.

However, I feel like people aren't very upfront with the fact that they are building on top of APIs. For whatever reason, there's this perception that arranging existing resources into a more valuable arrangement is somehow not a valid approach.

I'd love to hear others thoughts on this.

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#36
post #16

This is my (pessimistic) take on this Summly thing. I think the following scenario happened: 15 year old kid does something with computers and for some reason the press is all over it. Some smart investors thinks; "hey, I can use this to make money". They invest money into this 15 year old which gives him more press coverage. Wait a few years and the investor gets his buddies at Yahoo to buy it for a substantial amou…

Surely you mean Ka-Shing ;-)

The first investor was Horizons Ventures, the investment arm of Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing, who put in $300k.

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#37
A common motivation for acquisitions is to buy users, not technology. YouTube used PHP and the video tech in flash - but they were the ones to grow the userbase (and continue to do so). If Summly had the product/marketing to be popular and growing, that's why Yahoo bought it. (though it seems Summly doesn't have the strong network-effects of YouTube, of gaining both producers and consumers).

EDIT they could be buying market-product fit...? but yes, if they killed it... hmmm...

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#39

From his own quoted post: "I lived through 8 years of a non-reading president along with everyone else. I know that the brogrammers out there are constantly getting texts from their buddies to plan the weekend's broactivities..." Thanks Professor, now I don't have to continue reading your post – ie, you're kind of a jerk.

Do you know which president I had in mind? I lived through quite a few 8 year terms, and yes, that includes Reagan. If your response is "but everyone knows which president you were referring to," then surely it's fair game to refer to whoever that is since the facts are universally accepted? :-)

The comment thread is only just getting started and there are already two comments about why they didn't bother reading. The TL;DR generation has another skill - finding ways to rationalize why they didn't tax their brains with the effort of reading. Mostly they're of the format "I read x in the first few lines so it disqualified the rest of the article from further attention".

I think there's a new qualification for TL;DR - DFIAT - didn't fit in a tweet.

Re: What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

#40
To the author: Would you have not taken a buyout offer from Yahoo! if you were in this kids position? All HN discussions regarding this topic have just screamed jealousy/disdain. It is as if people come to HN to read an intelligent argument to argue for their immature feelings. Also, the most important premise in your argument, that their technology was licensed, is incorrect. Their natural language technology was 100% proprietary according to them, and not "licensed from SRI" [0].

[0]: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2013/03/26/what-does-30-mil...

Post reply on HN