3 ms·
(In addition to the other comments...) Because the acquirer wants the company's talent i.e. founders and employees. Because the acquirer wants to deny a compe
by edw 15y ago
(In addition to the other comments...)
Because the acquirer wants the company's talent i.e. founders and employees.
Because the acquirer wants to deny a competitor the opportunity to buy the company.
Because the acquirer is trying to put the kibosh on a disruptive innovator. In other worse, keep the genie in the bottle—or shove it back in.
Because the acquirer wants to "inject new blood" into the organization. (Think about the NeXTers charging the gang planks and taking over Apple after being acquired…)
Probably others.
- abbasmehdi 15y agoDo any of these apply in say, Wufuu or PushLife cases? As in: a) Google can't find people as smart as those at Wufuu and PushLife. b) Wufuu and PushLife might get picked up Yahoo (search) or Apple/RIM (mobile). c) Google feels disrupted by Wufuu and PushLife. d) Probable, but the cost is not justifiable for "inject[ing] new blood".
- edw 15y agoWell, Google didn't buy Wufoo; SurveyMonkey did. Based on my experience with the two companies, Wufoo seems to plain "get it" way more than SurveyMonkey does, and if I were a CxO of the latter company and if the company had some money or equity lying around, I would snap up Wufoo. There's a combination of technological cluefulness, design savvy, and customer-centric enthusiasm at Wufoo that would represent a danger to SurveyMonkey if not purchased and potentially a huge opportunity if the company were acquired and gently and intelligently nurtured.
- abbasmehdi 15y agoSorry my bad for confusing Google with SM. Wufoo was a direct threat to SM, so it applies in this case, kind of like if a better search came along Google should make a move, but going back to the a,b, c, d I listed above, what would you say for PushLife?