4 ms·
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 ov
by 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 agoYour 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 agoThat'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.