4 ms·

The article completely misses one key point - SV and the start-up cycle involve acquisitions that then result in payouts for founders, who then go on to fund ad

The article completely misses one key point - SV and the start-up cycle involve acquisitions that then result in payouts for founders, who then go on to fund additional companies, some of which exit and repeat the cycle. Even if Google did exactly nothing with robotics (which seems unlikely), the infusion of capital to the people with expertise is good for the field.

jaggederest 9y ago
They mention that in the part about vesting periods and executives leaving. As a result I would expect to see a flourishing of robotics research in the near future, I'm just disappointed that they were stuck there for 4 years in the interim. It makes me wonder if companies that are attempting to acquire smaller companies might not just be better off leaving them in situ and acting in more of an investment role than an ownership role. Buy 52% of the company for $x/1.9 instead of the whole thing, and in doing so provide them with funds but not interference.
- sologoub 9y ago
  The own/invest, but leave independent strategy assumes that Google itself hasn't benefited in some way from the work done. Further, you are also asking a corporation to admit that it's not as good at deploying capital as the smaller company. That's may be true but is a tough position to take. I'll take the capital infusion with 4 year delay versus no capital.
  - jaggederest 9y ago
    > Further, you are also asking a corporation to admit that it's not as good at deploying capital as the smaller company. That's may be true but is a tough position to take. That's literally what they're saying by acquiring though. They're saying "We could use this money internally to build a clone but your company is operating at a discount to what we can do ourselves" And yes, certainly, capital is good either way :)
    - setr 9y ago
      Well, its also that the target company already has a working and functional foundation, and possibly product, and has already gone through the effort of finding experts in the area, and have a bunch of employees trained to work on the system. The choice is something like $5M acquisition or $1M building it + 2 years For a large corporation, it makes sense that money is cheaper than time
chrisbennet 9y ago
Those founders were stuck at Google after their acquisition weren’t they? (The article implies that but I honestly don’t know.) The “talent” they brought with them to Google was held back from working for other robotics companies by the 4 year vesting requirement. I can see where your idea has merit in the long term, google seems to have set back robotics by 4 years or so in the short term.
- OliverJones 9y ago
  Hmm. Stuck? Shackled with golden handcuffs, it seems. It's not like they were locked up at San Quentin. There's a lot of money chasing some ideas. I wonder if tech would develop faster if there were a little less money involved?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    > I wonder if tech would develop faster if there were a little less money involved? Robotics is probably on the edge of this, between software (where it's probably true) and less-smart hardware (where it's probably false). Having worked at a robotics lab, budget absolutely comes into play when you know what you need, but it's a custom part from a single vendor.
mathattack 9y ago
Exactly. It isn't like what's in the heads of everyone has disappeared. Now they can start on their own with their own money.

jaggederest 9y ago

They mention that in the part about vesting periods and executives leaving. As a result I would expect to see a flourishing of robotics research in the near future, I'm just disappointed that they were stuck there for 4 years in the interim. It makes me wonder if companies that are attempting to acquire smaller companies might not just be better off leaving them in situ and acting in more of an investment role than an ownership role. Buy 52% of the company for $x/1.9 instead of the whole thing, and in doing so provide them with funds but not interference.

sologoub 9y ago
The own/invest, but leave independent strategy assumes that Google itself hasn't benefited in some way from the work done. Further, you are also asking a corporation to admit that it's not as good at deploying capital as the smaller company. That's may be true but is a tough position to take. I'll take the capital infusion with 4 year delay versus no capital.
- jaggederest 9y ago
  > Further, you are also asking a corporation to admit that it's not as good at deploying capital as the smaller company. That's may be true but is a tough position to take. That's literally what they're saying by acquiring though. They're saying "We could use this money internally to build a clone but your company is operating at a discount to what we can do ourselves" And yes, certainly, capital is good either way :)
  - setr 9y ago
    Well, its also that the target company already has a working and functional foundation, and possibly product, and has already gone through the effort of finding experts in the area, and have a bunch of employees trained to work on the system. The choice is something like $5M acquisition or $1M building it + 2 years For a large corporation, it makes sense that money is cheaper than time

chrisbennet 9y ago

Those founders were stuck at Google after their acquisition weren’t they? (The article implies that but I honestly don’t know.) The “talent” they brought with them to Google was held back from working for other robotics companies by the 4 year vesting requirement. I can see where your idea has merit in the long term, google seems to have set back robotics by 4 years or so in the short term.

OliverJones 9y ago
Hmm. Stuck? Shackled with golden handcuffs, it seems. It's not like they were locked up at San Quentin. There's a lot of money chasing some ideas. I wonder if tech would develop faster if there were a little less money involved?
- ethbro 9y ago
  > I wonder if tech would develop faster if there were a little less money involved? Robotics is probably on the edge of this, between software (where it's probably true) and less-smart hardware (where it's probably false). Having worked at a robotics lab, budget absolutely comes into play when you know what you need, but it's a custom part from a single vendor.

mathattack 9y ago

Exactly. It isn't like what's in the heads of everyone has disappeared. Now they can start on their own with their own money.