11–20 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mostly about talent but nobody wants to embarrass the entrepreneurs?
Why is it embarrassing? They obviously did well enough to be worth acquiring.
I'm beginning to think maintaining competitive markets requires broader criteria. Like any of super-majority share of: market volume, revenue within a market, influence over market, consumer harm, significant reduction in number of competitors.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it embarrassing? They obviously did well enough to be worth acquiring.
An acqui-hire is typically considered a failure for VC-backed startups. (Not that one should necessarily be embarrassed for “failing” in this way, but that’s just the reality).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
> Mr Cook told the shareholders meeting that the acquisitions are mostly aimed at acquiring technology and talent What’s the median acquisition size? Heck, what’s the 75th percentile? I’d bet most of these acquisitions are of lifestyle businesses with few/no paths to scale. Probably just aimed at the tech teams or execs. Nothing much to see here
Just asking - because if my company were to be acqui-hired I have serious doubts about my ability to stay at Apple specifically - given (for example) their prohibition on most of their FTE SWEs having a personal GitHub account or doing any kind of moonlighting. What does Apple do when they really want to acqui-hire a company but the people they want don’t want to work at Apple without special-exemptions from the normal rules?
> Mr Cook told the shareholders meeting that the acquisitions are mostly aimed at acquiring technology and talent What’s the median acquisition size? Heck, what’s the 75th percentile? I’d bet most of these acquisitions are of lifestyle businesses with few/no paths to scale. Probably just aimed at the tech teams or execs. Nothing much to see here
When a lifestyle business is bought-out, assuming the employees are also significant equity stakeholders, do they typically get compensated for the loss of expected lifetime earnings - and/or a contractual right to buy back their IP from Apple, given that an acqui-hire is not guaranteed to be in the employees’ best-interests - or be long-lasting? Just asking - because if my company were to be acqui-hired I have serio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mostly about talent but nobody wants to embarrass the entrepreneurs?
Why is it embarrassing? They obviously did well enough to be worth acquiring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
Because right now price is about the only criteria really considered today. You can stifle innovation and competition as long as the prices stay low.
That kind of behavior I attribute to Facebook.
I'm beginning to think maintaining competitive markets requires broader criteria. Like any of super-majority share of: market volume, revenue within a market, influence over market, consumer harm, significant reduction in number of competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An acqui-hire is typically considered a failure for VC-backed startups. (Not that one should necessarily be embarrassed for “failing” in this way, but that’s just the reality).
I could think of worse things than getting acqui-hired by a FAANG and made a Director or something in the company. Not sure that's much of a failure honestly!