4 ms·
Yahoo!! tried this with Brickhouse. They opened a pseudo-startup innovation lab in SF. I don't know all the details, but iirc, it was 30-100 people for 1-2 ye
by fizx 16y ago
Yahoo!! tried this with Brickhouse. They opened a pseudo-startup innovation lab in SF. I don't know all the details, but iirc, it was 30-100 people for 1-2 years.
This failed utterly.
Why? Once a company is beyond a certain size, employees maximize their expected value by spending time seeking internal resources. Budget, headcount, etc. If the lab is still part of the parent company, these games are still played.
You also have companies like Hulu, that exist at the pleasure of their "investors." This might work a little better, but Hulu can't act fully in self-interest.
Perhaps the best thing I can think of is a spinoff with initial funding, control of its own board, and an irrevocable IP grant. This would potentially be a huge head start. But then what happens if a competitor acquires your spinoff (for the IP grant) right away?
I guess all this seems more fraught with risk than the simple buy a random startup model.
- antirez 16y agoYes I think the startup branch should be a separated company, with a clear separation of management and so forth. Just the mother company has some specific rights that can use after a given amount of time a given startup was created and under specific terms. So that in the end it's really a lab without the weight of the big company, but the big company can avoid paying a lot of money, especially if the final aim is often to hire.
- asanwal 16y agoFrom an entrepreneur's perspective, being in bed with one corporation to this extent significantly reduces your options and flexibility. Sounds more like you'd be an employee in a skunk-works than a real entrepreneur in this type of setup.