The "older doofuses who didn’t understand the Web" seemed to have done pretty well with CollegeHumor and Vimeo without Jake. If they had run them into the ground, I imagine he'd write an article about how being acquired is always success.
An acquisition is always a failure
31–40 of 119 posts
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#32> With a fat bank account, I was pretty set to do whatever I wanted for a long time. ... But it didn’t take long to realize that my new life was a hell of a lot less exciting than running an independent company had been.
Sorry, but this is completely self-contradictory. With your fat bank account, you can start a new, independent company. If what he wants is:
> our way of thinking of a better approach to consumer tech, with less structure and more play, an exploratory mindset that, through trial-and-error, produces very tangible real-world value
Then nothing is stopping him from doing that again. In fact, he's in an incredibly privileged position.
Indeed, being acquired and then let go lets you focus your energies on new things, rather than being stuck maintaining old things you created in the past -- "maintaining" things being something that established companies might very well be more skilled at.
So, besides being needlessly inflammatory, this post doesn't even make sense inside of its own logic.
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd wager that most acquisitions work out fine, you just rarely hear about it, because "this is a sensible acquisition that is highly likely to work out fine" is not usually newsworthy.
On the one hand I'm sure you are right and this is partly confirmation bias. On the other hand I've seen a few acquisitions first hand (though never as a founder) and they were universally disastrous due mostly to poor culture fit which I suspect is common given the differences in how small and large companies operate (as noted in the original post). So that also colors my negative opinion.
At my last startup we had a near miss on an acquisition that would've been a total waste, but the other suitors we were talking to would've meant a good leveraging of the technology.
I think realistically the companies most desperate to make an acquisition of tech and product talent are least equipped to make good use of it.
As an ex-CTO I could very easily see an acquisition going well.
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say I build a company to a point where I could sell for enough that I could walk away with, I don't know, let's call it $10,000,000 USD. The other option is to stay independent and maybe, maybe eventually IPO. This is the part that rankles with me. Why is, "stay privately held and continue to turn a profit year over year" never considered an option? Why is it only "sell" or "IPO"?
Cuz he wants to get rich or die trying. To which I would say: Seriously dude, why didn't you go into iBanking if you're so shit hot and what you really care about is stacks on stacks on stacks.
This. Many people go into startups just for the profit motive, but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do or because a side project became too large to continue as a side project (forced to do)
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cuz he wants to get rich or die trying. To which I would say: Seriously dude, why didn't you go into iBanking if you're so shit hot and what you really care about is stacks on stacks on stacks.
This. Many people go into startups just for the profit motive, but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do or because a side project became too large to continue as a side project (forced to do)
I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago.
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. Many people go into startups just for the profit motive, but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do or because a side project became too large to continue as a side project (forced to do)
I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard. Call me crazy, but I feel like it was less "get-rich" focused a couple years ago.
"I feel like HN's focus has changed in that regard"
I think that people started smelling easy money and rushed in. I hope to see a shakeout soon, not because I want to see others fail but because perpetuating the status quo damages the ecosystem and harkens back to 1999
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cuz he wants to get rich or die trying. To which I would say: Seriously dude, why didn't you go into iBanking if you're so shit hot and what you really care about is stacks on stacks on stacks.
This. Many people go into startups just for the profit motive, but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do or because a side project became too large to continue as a side project (forced to do)
but I firmly believe that you should start a startup because it is something you want to do
There's no reason it can't be that and a desire to become wealthy, ya know...
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#38Pretty easy position to take once you've already earned your own "fuck you" money. I do sometimes wonder why these sorts of acquisitions remain so prevalent though when minus a few notable exceptions the life cycle tends to consist of a company paying many millions or even a cool billion for some tech in a stack they don't even use (only to kill it soon after) plus a handful of employees that tend to stick around bar…
Acquisition has been studied in the business schools, though not specifically in the context of tech companies (as far as I know).
The deal is often overpriced based on "synergy" between the companies that does not exist.
But the deal happens because of perverse incentives for the management of the buying company.
The buying company often loses money and would have been better off not buying.
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#39Choices you have with what to do when your startup gets successful enough to consider your "exit"
A) sell B) IPO C) stay the course
If you've taken investment at any point, especially VC, you are pretty bound to do A or B. Your investors want to see the company succeed in many ways, but they are also looking for returns at the end of the day. Large ones. So if the opportunity comes along, your board will probably make you take it.
So C is really only an option if you're 100% bootstrapped. That's pretty rare these days. Even if you are, the excitement, challenge, and general "buzz" you get from being a startup founder is going to pass at some point. Either the company stagnates or you get too big to be nimble.
The author seems to be just lamenting the passing of time, that he's not as excited and hungry as when he first started. In most cases, nothing you do is going to bring that innocence back.
Re: An acquisition is always a failure
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say I build a company to a point where I could sell for enough that I could walk away with, I don't know, let's call it $10,000,000 USD. The other option is to stay independent and maybe, maybe eventually IPO. This is the part that rankles with me. Why is, "stay privately held and continue to turn a profit year over year" never considered an option? Why is it only "sell" or "IPO"?
Cuz he wants to get rich or die trying. To which I would say: Seriously dude, why didn't you go into iBanking if you're so shit hot and what you really care about is stacks on stacks on stacks.
Cuz he wants to get rich or die trying.
You make it sounds like there is something wrong with that.