4 ms·

Have a project you don't want to do inside of Google? Just quit, make it anyway, then they'll re-hire you with a $5M per head bonus. Way off base IMO. If it wa

by zaidf 17y ago

Have a project you don't want to do inside of Google? Just quit, make it anyway, then they'll re-hire you with a $5M per head bonus. Way off base IMO. If it was true, there would be very few ex-googler companies failing. And there would be A LOT more acquisitions by Google. I have used Vark. And I think this was a SOLID technology acquisition and well worth $50M. If I was a Vark founder, I'd feel insulted by your post.

FreeRadical 17y ago
Your implying the cost to replicate the technology and gain the same traction would cost Google more then $50m. This is clearly not true, even if you grossly overestimate and assume it takes 20 engineers 6 months each at a salary of $300k each to replicate vark, plus $10m in marketing. It still falls short of $50m. So is the difference the cost of mostly re-acquiring talent? Talent that you had already ascribed a value to when you employed them through assessing their annual performance?
- zaidf 17y ago
  Your implying the cost to replicate the technology and gain the same traction would cost Google more then $50m. Not quite. I am implying that Google thinks the risk associated with doing it on their own is not worth the $50m for the acquisition. It is way more complex than simply about tech and traction. ie. lets say google can build the same thing for $10M. But hey it might take them 2 years. In the same 2 years, a competition(Microsoft) might acquire Vark and turn it into a billion dollar competitor to google. On the flip side, even if Google can build it for 10M and launch in 6 months, the risk from the other possibility is not worth the 40M in savings.
- jey 17y ago
  That's the Microsoft approach to building products, and while they meet all of the "feature check-list" of the product they're cloning, they usually somehow fall sort on execution. There's something a bit ineffable that comes with the people who truly grok the problem being solved and pour their heart and soul into solving it.

by zaidf 17y ago

FreeRadical 17y ago

Your implying the cost to replicate the technology and gain the same traction would cost Google more then $50m. This is clearly not true, even if you grossly overestimate and assume it takes 20 engineers 6 months each at a salary of $300k each to replicate vark, plus $10m in marketing. It still falls short of $50m. So is the difference the cost of mostly re-acquiring talent? Talent that you had already ascribed a value to when you employed them through assessing their annual performance?

zaidf 17y ago
Your implying the cost to replicate the technology and gain the same traction would cost Google more then $50m. Not quite. I am implying that Google thinks the risk associated with doing it on their own is not worth the $50m for the acquisition. It is way more complex than simply about tech and traction. ie. lets say google can build the same thing for $10M. But hey it might take them 2 years. In the same 2 years, a competition(Microsoft) might acquire Vark and turn it into a billion dollar competitor to google. On the flip side, even if Google can build it for 10M and launch in 6 months, the risk from the other possibility is not worth the 40M in savings.
jey 17y ago
That's the Microsoft approach to building products, and while they meet all of the "feature check-list" of the product they're cloning, they usually somehow fall sort on execution. There's something a bit ineffable that comes with the people who truly grok the problem being solved and pour their heart and soul into solving it.