2 ms·

The most general answer is "talent acquisition" (you should do a web search on that, also a HN search will be very helpful). In short, the proposed value of the

by jcr 16y ago

The most general answer is "talent acquisition" (you should do a web search on that, also a HN search will be very helpful). In short, the proposed value of the company is based on the value of the engineering team.

antirez 16y ago
If that is common, it is very very bad. It means startups are not doing real innovation mostly. What is even worse is that once this starts to be established way of business, startups will be more and more group of good hackers producing a good product but perhaps not outstanding, waiting for some big acquisition. In the long term this can completely killed innovation. What was very good with the model of creating a startup to create things that really users want, in order to earn money, is that people tend to give money to a company only when the product they do is really something worthwhile. This was what happened to the big startups in 70s and 80s. This drives innovation.
- jcr 16y ago
  It is common, in fact, painfully common. As for whether or not it is "bad" that depends on who you are. If you need a bunch of innovative engineers and you are the current darling of the technical world (i.e. great people applying to your company), then your only solution is to buy out companies who have proven innovative engineering acumen. If you are Microsoft, or even Google for that matter, talent acquisitions might be your best avenue for getting great people working for you. There were some posts to HN about the estimated value of an engineer during an acquisition. I believe one of the folks from PowerSet or FareCast (both acquired by Microsoft) was talking about it in a blog post. The effect on valuation was roughly 1 million USD per engineer at the startup. hmmm... my meatware memory is failing and I can't find a link, but I'm pretty sure it was PowerSet.

2 ms·

The most general answer is "talent acquisition" (you should do a web search on that, also a HN search will be very helpful). In short, the proposed value of the

by jcr 16y ago

antirez 16y ago
If that is common, it is very very bad. It means startups are not doing real innovation mostly. What is even worse is that once this starts to be established way of business, startups will be more and more group of good hackers producing a good product but perhaps not outstanding, waiting for some big acquisition. In the long term this can completely killed innovation. What was very good with the model of creating a startup to create things that really users want, in order to earn money, is that people tend to give money to a company only when the product they do is really something worthwhile. This was what happened to the big startups in 70s and 80s. This drives innovation.
- jcr 16y ago
  It is common, in fact, painfully common. As for whether or not it is "bad" that depends on who you are. If you need a bunch of innovative engineers and you are the current darling of the technical world (i.e. great people applying to your company), then your only solution is to buy out companies who have proven innovative engineering acumen. If you are Microsoft, or even Google for that matter, talent acquisitions might be your best avenue for getting great people working for you. There were some posts to HN about the estimated value of an engineer during an acquisition. I believe one of the folks from PowerSet or FareCast (both acquired by Microsoft) was talking about it in a blog post. The effect on valuation was roughly 1 million USD per engineer at the startup. hmmm... my meatware memory is failing and I can't find a link, but I'm pretty sure it was PowerSet.