3 ms·
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 fu
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWell, 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