19 ms·

Not all businesses need to be long-term. For example, one of the possible goals of a startup is to build technology that offers a lot of value, and then find an

by markbao 18y ago

Not all businesses need to be long-term. For example, one of the possible goals of a startup is to build technology that offers a lot of value, and then find an exit that makes sense. One of those exits is to be purchased by a company that can utilize your developed technology, or that can further create value and/or revenue for that acquiring company. Where do we see this? MySQL by Sun. Flektor by Fox. WebEx by Cisco. Virtual Ubiquity/Buzzword by Adobe. Zimbra by Yahoo!. Therefore, building a long-term business is not as important as building a lot of value for the market.

nickb 18y ago
Horrible examples... MySQL, WebEx, Zimbra had very healthy cash flows before they were acquired. They didn't have to be acquired for them to be very successful. Just look at Zimbra's revenues before they were acquired: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780434-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780434-7.html You need different examples ;).
- nir 18y ago
  I'm not a business person, but couldn't Sun, for example, get almost everything it got out of buying MySQL by partnering with them, paying much less than $1b (perhaps paying nothing)? I mean, doesn't buying MySQL practically guarantee it will lose the very value it could bring to Sun (more agile process, highly motivated small company, close contact with the OSS dev & user community)? One of the themes in "Burn Rate" is how, once corporations became aware of the Internet, they began purchasing anything they perceived "belongs" to the Internet and was for sale, hoping to somehow own some part of it. Perhaps, at some degree, a similar thing is happening with Open Source now? (Edit: please don't get me wrong, I truly believe Open Source is one of the most important ideas of our time. I'm just skeptic a company can buy its way into it)
  - kleevr 18y ago
    >Perhaps, at some degree, a similar thing is happening with Open Source now? Like Microsoft becoming a platinum sponsor of Apache Software Foundation?
    - nir 18y ago
      ;)
- markbao 18y ago
  Ah, true. Then what about mentioned VU/Buzzword and Flektor, plus Mozy/EMC, Gravatar/Autommatic, MyBlogLog/Yahoo! and Newsvine/NBC? Offered useful products, not sure if they were in the black yet, but acquired.

by markbao 18y ago

nickb 18y ago

Horrible examples... MySQL, WebEx, Zimbra had very healthy cash flows before they were acquired. They didn't have to be acquired for them to be very successful. Just look at Zimbra's revenues before they were acquired: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780434-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9780434-7.html You need different examples ;).

nir 18y ago
I'm not a business person, but couldn't Sun, for example, get almost everything it got out of buying MySQL by partnering with them, paying much less than $1b (perhaps paying nothing)? I mean, doesn't buying MySQL practically guarantee it will lose the very value it could bring to Sun (more agile process, highly motivated small company, close contact with the OSS dev & user community)? One of the themes in "Burn Rate" is how, once corporations became aware of the Internet, they began purchasing anything they perceived "belongs" to the Internet and was for sale, hoping to somehow own some part of it. Perhaps, at some degree, a similar thing is happening with Open Source now? (Edit: please don't get me wrong, I truly believe Open Source is one of the most important ideas of our time. I'm just skeptic a company can buy its way into it)
- kleevr 18y ago
  >Perhaps, at some degree, a similar thing is happening with Open Source now? Like Microsoft becoming a platinum sponsor of Apache Software Foundation?
  - nir 18y ago
    ;)
markbao 18y ago
Ah, true. Then what about mentioned VU/Buzzword and Flektor, plus Mozy/EMC, Gravatar/Autommatic, MyBlogLog/Yahoo! and Newsvine/NBC? Offered useful products, not sure if they were in the black yet, but acquired.