5 ms·

Some acquisitions make sense, some don't, but the propensity for founders and investors to push for an exit depresses the free market consumer in me. I want lot

Some acquisitions make sense, some don't, but the propensity for founders and investors to push for an exit depresses the free market consumer in me. I want lots and lots of choices for anything I consider buying, yet nearly every acquisition making headlines lately seems like it falls into 1 of 2 categories: 1) a marketshare power grab, or 2) a mechanism to gather more customer data to an already massive empire. Somewhat related: are there any viable open source mesh network solutions for home use?

css 8y ago
Yes, but it’s a hassle: https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linking_Routers https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linking_Routers
jwr 8y ago
I sometimes explain to my customers that a self-funded long-term stable business is more viable than a VC-funded startup. I run a SaaS app for electronic parts inventory and production (https://partsbox.io/ https://partsbox.io/). In discussions, I ask customers to imagine which of the possible outcomes of a VC-funded startup would be good for them as customers (hint: none of the possible outcomes are good for customers, with the possible exception of a rare unicorn IPO).
- s17n 8y ago
  The problem with this type of business is that the business is typically in a position where the loss of one or two key people will basically kill it. What if you get board and decide to move on with your life? The bottom line is that a niche product is always going to be at risk regardless of the structure of the business that produces it.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    You escrow your code and your customers get it if the business doesn't work out (built into their paid plan/tier). You get to eat and grow the business, their business doesn't stop if you get bored, die, or run out of money.
    - eklavya 8y ago
      That’s assuming the customer is capable of sustaining what they bought, which is almost never the case with consumer products like in this case.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        In case of a SaaS, it takes just one. And that's still just a "plan B" for when just selling the business to someone more interested in continuing it doesn't pan out.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > The bottom line is that a niche product is always going to be at risk regardless of the structure of the business that produces it. Isn't venture capital pretty much incompatible with niche product businesses? So, if it turns out to be a truly niche product, avoiding VC funding means the customers at least have a chance that it will be long-lasting.
  - jwr 8y ago
    There are many, many solutions to that problem. But in general the risk you describe is still smaller than the nearly certain future of VC-funded businesses, which either a) go bankrupt and get shut down, b) get acqui-hired and get shut down, c) get strategically acquired and get shut down or reoganized completely. If you think about it, your goals as a customer of a business and the goals of a VC investor in that business are not aligned.
- eurvin 8y ago
  If you need a proper mobile front-end. Hit me up!
nicoburns 8y ago
This is precisely why large concentrations of wealth are harmful to the (free-market) economy. They distort the market entirely. A wealth cap / much stronger taxation on individuals and businesses funding a basic income would be a good way to fix this without breaking the market mechanism. A concentration of wealth is nothing other than a concentration of (economic) power, and it's bad for exactly the same reasons that other concentrations of power are. It boggles my mind that people who argue against large governments because their incentives aren't correctly aligned don't see that precisely the same argument applies to private individual/businesses with large amounts of wealth.
- eklavya 8y ago
  Maybe a cap on how big and diversified in its portfolio a company can be. I don’t so much buy the idea of taxing people excessively more just because they have more.
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    Why not?
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      If nothing else, it should depend on how they got it.
    - joejerryronnie 8y ago
      Because it’s only a matter of time until the taxman comes for you. Soaking the rich sounds great in theory (hey, who doesn’t want free stuff), but it’s the middle class who always foots the bill for big government spending in the end. The rich have more resources to shelter their money or just move to another country. The poor don’t have any more to give. So that leaves you and I. And frankly, I don’t trust that the politicians will spend additional tax money any more wisely than they spend the tax money we give them now. Just look at San Francisco’s $10 billion budget for how effectively we can waste tax payer money.
atombender 8y ago
There's already very little choice in the marketplace. The world's top brands are owned by just a handful of multinational conglomerates. This Gizmodo article has a lot of examples [1]: * Among supermarket goods, almost everything is sold by just 10 companies, including Nestlé, Unilever, Kraft, P&G and Johnson & Johnson. * 54% of all financial assets in the US are owned by just 10 companies (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and a few others). * Same thing is happening to media conglomerates (Disney is a good example), airlines, alcoholic beverage companies, and everything else. There's an increasing proliferation of brands, but an decreasing number of brand owners, resulting in an illusion of consumer choice. Even Amazon itself is a good example: An increasing number of products on Amazon are "secret" brands [2] owned by Amazon itself. [1] https://gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576 https://gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-t... [2] https://qz.com/1039381/amazon-owns-a-whole-collection-of-secret-brands/ https://qz.com/1039381/amazon-owns-a-whole-collection-of-sec...
nickpp 8y ago
Relax. Each time an exit happens, an entrepreneur out there hears about it and sees an opportunity. He knows that large companies are seldom able the manage the purchase. And then a VC jumps to fund her and others like her, dreaming of his own exit. Soon you'll have even more choice as a consumer. Just the free market at work.
- neuronic 8y ago
  Playbook propaganda from micro economics 101. Nice.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > Soon you'll have even more choice as a consumer. And when will this start happening? It looks to me like the trend over at least the last 20 years has been the opposite of this.

css 8y ago

Yes, but it’s a hassle: https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linking_Routers https://wiki.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linking_Routers

jwr 8y ago

I sometimes explain to my customers that a self-funded long-term stable business is more viable than a VC-funded startup. I run a SaaS app for electronic parts inventory and production (https://partsbox.io/ https://partsbox.io/). In discussions, I ask customers to imagine which of the possible outcomes of a VC-funded startup would be good for them as customers (hint: none of the possible outcomes are good for customers, with the possible exception of a rare unicorn IPO).

s17n 8y ago
The problem with this type of business is that the business is typically in a position where the loss of one or two key people will basically kill it. What if you get board and decide to move on with your life? The bottom line is that a niche product is always going to be at risk regardless of the structure of the business that produces it.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  You escrow your code and your customers get it if the business doesn't work out (built into their paid plan/tier). You get to eat and grow the business, their business doesn't stop if you get bored, die, or run out of money.
  - eklavya 8y ago
    That’s assuming the customer is capable of sustaining what they bought, which is almost never the case with consumer products like in this case.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      In case of a SaaS, it takes just one. And that's still just a "plan B" for when just selling the business to someone more interested in continuing it doesn't pan out.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > The bottom line is that a niche product is always going to be at risk regardless of the structure of the business that produces it. Isn't venture capital pretty much incompatible with niche product businesses? So, if it turns out to be a truly niche product, avoiding VC funding means the customers at least have a chance that it will be long-lasting.
- jwr 8y ago
  There are many, many solutions to that problem. But in general the risk you describe is still smaller than the nearly certain future of VC-funded businesses, which either a) go bankrupt and get shut down, b) get acqui-hired and get shut down, c) get strategically acquired and get shut down or reoganized completely. If you think about it, your goals as a customer of a business and the goals of a VC investor in that business are not aligned.
eurvin 8y ago
If you need a proper mobile front-end. Hit me up!

nicoburns 8y ago

This is precisely why large concentrations of wealth are harmful to the (free-market) economy. They distort the market entirely. A wealth cap / much stronger taxation on individuals and businesses funding a basic income would be a good way to fix this without breaking the market mechanism. A concentration of wealth is nothing other than a concentration of (economic) power, and it's bad for exactly the same reasons that other concentrations of power are. It boggles my mind that people who argue against large governments because their incentives aren't correctly aligned don't see that precisely the same argument applies to private individual/businesses with large amounts of wealth.

eklavya 8y ago
Maybe a cap on how big and diversified in its portfolio a company can be. I don’t so much buy the idea of taxing people excessively more just because they have more.
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  Why not?
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    If nothing else, it should depend on how they got it.
  - joejerryronnie 8y ago
    Because it’s only a matter of time until the taxman comes for you. Soaking the rich sounds great in theory (hey, who doesn’t want free stuff), but it’s the middle class who always foots the bill for big government spending in the end. The rich have more resources to shelter their money or just move to another country. The poor don’t have any more to give. So that leaves you and I. And frankly, I don’t trust that the politicians will spend additional tax money any more wisely than they spend the tax money we give them now. Just look at San Francisco’s $10 billion budget for how effectively we can waste tax payer money.

atombender 8y ago

There's already very little choice in the marketplace. The world's top brands are owned by just a handful of multinational conglomerates. This Gizmodo article has a lot of examples [1]: * Among supermarket goods, almost everything is sold by just 10 companies, including Nestlé, Unilever, Kraft, P&G and Johnson & Johnson. * 54% of all financial assets in the US are owned by just 10 companies (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and a few others). * Same thing is happening to media conglomerates (Disney is a good example), airlines, alcoholic beverage companies, and everything else. There's an increasing proliferation of brands, but an decreasing number of brand owners, resulting in an illusion of consumer choice. Even Amazon itself is a good example: An increasing number of products on Amazon are "secret" brands [2] owned by Amazon itself. [1] https://gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576 https://gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-t... [2] https://qz.com/1039381/amazon-owns-a-whole-collection-of-secret-brands/ https://qz.com/1039381/amazon-owns-a-whole-collection-of-sec...

nickpp 8y ago

Relax. Each time an exit happens, an entrepreneur out there hears about it and sees an opportunity. He knows that large companies are seldom able the manage the purchase. And then a VC jumps to fund her and others like her, dreaming of his own exit. Soon you'll have even more choice as a consumer. Just the free market at work.

neuronic 8y ago
Playbook propaganda from micro economics 101. Nice.
JohnFen 8y ago
> Soon you'll have even more choice as a consumer. And when will this start happening? It looks to me like the trend over at least the last 20 years has been the opposite of this.