Live data from Hacker News

Marissa Mayer Makes First Yahoo Acquisition: Stamped

mashable.com

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Marissa Mayer Makes First Yahoo Acquisition: Stamped

#53

Great. Hiring your buddies by acquihiring their failing iPhone app startup.

If you need really good iOS devs this is an effective way to get them.

The founders don't appear to be devs, one guy is a product manager, another started his career as a tech manager. The other worked on "partnerships and marketing". Quoting crunchbase here.

If I were a formed stamped dev and now a Yahoo dev, I would quit Yahoo and form a startup. After all, Yahoo bought their work for lots of money.

Re: Marissa Mayer Makes First Yahoo Acquisition: Stamped

#54
post #27
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound bitter. If you've used the product, you can see that it was beautiful, usable, and the performance was solid. If we assume that the product is failing (even though they've raised two rounds of funding from seasoned and celebrity investors alike), we know that the team can execute well. Mayer wants to move to mobile-first, so acqui-hiring a team who know how to build well for mobile can be a smart move. It m…

raising funds != success What was that comparison? No one says, "congratulations on that huge loan you just took out!". I'm sure the team was great, but I'm confused as to why we should be lauding this state of affairs. If they were making money, then why should they all have up and left to go work at Yahoo!? From the, admittedly poor on information and high on snark, position I'm comfortably seated on it seems like…

I wasn't equating funding with success. I was saying that labeling the product and company a failure even though very smart people who do this for a living have recently put their money behind the company is a leap. If the company was failing, why would these investors put in their money?

I'm not "lauding", I stated that it appears like the move that both sides want to make. A small company gets to take the lead on mobile where they can potentially make a very big difference, much bigger than they could make with their existing company, and really a rare opportunity that not many people get. Mayer gets good talent that she trusts to help lead an important part of her organization. If it works out like they all plan, then it makes those Yahoo! shareholders who subsidized that acquihire very happy.

Re: Marissa Mayer Makes First Yahoo Acquisition: Stamped

#55
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cronyism says nothing about the skills of the people. They may well be the best people for the role. It merely means they were chosen on the basis of relationship.

Then what do you call it when people are chosen because of their skills and their relationship with the individual?

A safe bet

Re: Marissa Mayer Makes First Yahoo Acquisition: Stamped

#56
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you say is correct, even down to the "it's who you know line", but I disagree that we should exploit it or even tolerate it. It's just Cronyism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism ) and my personal moral compass rejects it.

If you were looking for a job, would you call up the people you know or dive into the classifieds? When you hire a contractor, would you go with someone you know or a stranger? Relationships and social proof make the world go round. There's certainly a spectrum here-- but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You miss my point. Cronyism is being hired for who you are, not what you know.

In answer to your question I would call up the people I know but I would expect them to only hire me if I brought the right skills.

Re: Marissa Mayer Makes First Yahoo Acquisition: Stamped

#60
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then don't also call it cronyism.

I didn't. If you are selecting people because they have the best skills then it's not cronyism.

"Cronyism says nothing about the skills of the people." Being the best has nothing to do with it. Cronyism "merely means they were chosen on the basis of relationship."

Therefore, if a person is chosen because of their skills as well as their relationship, it cannot be cronyism.

Now, can you honestly say the hires have absolutely nothing to do with their skills? That she merely hired friends despite their skills? Because they have specific skills that are valuable, and unless you can back that up with something more than a wild accusation, it's just you trying to stir shit up with pointless comments.

Post reply on HN