4 ms·

Indeed it's very unclear, though some little bits from a previous announcement[1]: "bebop is a new development platform that makes it easy to build and maintain

by imrehg 11y ago

Indeed it's very unclear, though some little bits from a previous announcement[1]: "bebop is a new development platform that makes it easy to build and maintain enterprise applications." I guess it was vague on purpose[2]: "[bebop] had not publicly said anything about its technology, operating in so-called stealth mode." [1]: http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.tw/2015/11/investing-in-our-business-for-the-future.html http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.tw/2015/11/investing-in-... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/technology/google-picks-diane-greene-to-expand-its-cloud-business.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/technology/google-picks-di...

Someone1234 11y ago
So a company with zero customers, brand, or other non-reproducible assets is worth almost $400m..? I'd be asking questions about this if I was a Google shareholder...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - jamespo 11y ago
    Please tell us more. It still seems like a lot of money, although of course, not to Google.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - coryrc 11y ago
    Why not just regular-hire the people since the company is failing?
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      They might not want to go to Google. Doing this, an acquihire, they can at least get a couple years out of the team, holding the vesting of the shares over their heads, before the team breaks up.
      - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
        > They might not want to go to Google. Doing this, an acquihire, they can at least get a couple years out of the team, holding the vesting of the shares over their heads, before the team breaks up. That sounds terribly. You're hiring a team that wasn't able to deliver, for a ridiculous premium (essentially a ~$10m signup bonus per employee), knowing that long-term there's no structural future as they're leaving at the earliest opportunity, i.e. when you stop bribing them to stay on with a share incentive. Perhaps they built some really promising IP that could work well with Google, in addition to an undoubtedly useful acqui-hire, that'd explain things. I don't think your reading is very plausible but who knows.
        s73v3r 11y ago
        I know nothing about the company, their IP, their talent, etc. So we don't know if they weren't able to deliver or not. And this kind of short term thinking isn't uncommon for large companies. And by the time the vesting period is over, there will likely be newer, better technologies out there. And not everyone will leave after vesting, but you'll have to have done something to cause them to stay on before vesting is over.
    - XJOKOLAT 11y ago
      Love the clarity of this question.
- yc8329 11y ago
  What was acquihired was the cream of the cream from a company that created a whopping $50B+ market at its peak. At its core you have ~30 distributed computing legends and a pretty neat leaders at the top.

by imrehg 11y ago

Someone1234 11y ago

So a company with zero customers, brand, or other non-reproducible assets is worth almost $400m..? I'd be asking questions about this if I was a Google shareholder...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- jamespo 11y ago
  Please tell us more. It still seems like a lot of money, although of course, not to Google.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- coryrc 11y ago
  Why not just regular-hire the people since the company is failing?
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    They might not want to go to Google. Doing this, an acquihire, they can at least get a couple years out of the team, holding the vesting of the shares over their heads, before the team breaks up.
    - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
      > They might not want to go to Google. Doing this, an acquihire, they can at least get a couple years out of the team, holding the vesting of the shares over their heads, before the team breaks up. That sounds terribly. You're hiring a team that wasn't able to deliver, for a ridiculous premium (essentially a ~$10m signup bonus per employee), knowing that long-term there's no structural future as they're leaving at the earliest opportunity, i.e. when you stop bribing them to stay on with a share incentive. Perhaps they built some really promising IP that could work well with Google, in addition to an undoubtedly useful acqui-hire, that'd explain things. I don't think your reading is very plausible but who knows.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        I know nothing about the company, their IP, their talent, etc. So we don't know if they weren't able to deliver or not. And this kind of short term thinking isn't uncommon for large companies. And by the time the vesting period is over, there will likely be newer, better technologies out there. And not everyone will leave after vesting, but you'll have to have done something to cause them to stay on before vesting is over.
  - XJOKOLAT 11y ago
    Love the clarity of this question.
yc8329 11y ago
What was acquihired was the cream of the cream from a company that created a whopping $50B+ market at its peak. At its core you have ~30 distributed computing legends and a pretty neat leaders at the top.