3 ms·

The issue is not the money - it's the ability to integrate. M&A and cooltech is by far the easiest part. Making use of the tech, the talent, operational integr

by jariel 6y ago

The issue is not the money - it's the ability to integrate. M&A and cooltech is by far the easiest part. Making use of the tech, the talent, operational integration, re-writes vs. integration, product alignment, etc. it's very hard on every level. What do you do with the VP of a 50 person company, now they are managers in a little team, the software might be discarded, or just a few ideas used from it etc. etc..

gibolt 6y ago
You only need 1 to pay off for it to be worth it. The rest can be deprecated and team reallocated. Not saying it is right, but makes sense for a business of that scale.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  Maybe... Google seems to be taking that strategy but it feels like it leads to some kind of flaw in their thinking around product support.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    How long has it been since Google had a notable successful acquisition? I'm asking because I can't think of anything recent.
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
      It usually takes a while for an acquisition to be labeled a success, right?
    - wongarsu 6y ago
      In 2014 Firebase, Stackdriver and DeepMind (who then made AlphaGo). There's also Waze from 2013. The only thing I could call out after that is Kaggle in 2017. Maybe they will make something out of this year's Fitbit acquisition, but that's a bit early to tell.
    - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
      I guess I wasn’t thinking about acquisitions so much as “you only need one success”. They throw a lot out there I guess hoping some of them will pay off, but it leaves them coming off as scattered to the outside.
- bordercases 6y ago
  There is a hidden principle-agent problem where the original company's intent gets distorted to align with broader corporate objectives. The total market the acquired company could have penetrated never gets developed and fundamentally they decide to take an exit now for less risk and more cash early for what could have been a stronger contribution for the economy on the whole via a well-exploited niche. A mundane example would be how the developers behind Firewatch were acqui-hired by Valve. They had a well-developed following and a hotly anticipated second product, an original single-player IP, somewhat rare nowadays. Half the team dissolved to work on Steam and the rest funneled themselves into Half-Life: Alyx. The new game was delisted from development.
- jariel 6y ago
  No this is not quite it. These acquisitions are not 'big bangs' like VC investments where one will make the bank. They are large and small investments across the board - some for know-how, some for talent, some for product, some for brand (ie Beats), some for code etc.. An acquisition is expensive beyond the price tag, especially in terms of opportunity cost if you bet on the buy and it fails.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PradeetPatel 6y ago
As someone who have assisted with acquisitions, the tech part is often the most straight forward (unless you're dealing with multi-cloud solutions). The most challenging part is the re-alignment the culture and value of the acquired firm. There's a delicate art in comforting the new members of the family that we're all in this together while systemically replacing their middle management with more suitable candidates.
qbasic_forever 6y ago
I have to imagine any executive leadership team that agrees to an Apple acquisition is only looking at the exit package of stock they'll be counting in a couple years. They know what they're signing up for and know how the game works better than anyone. It's their setup for getting into venture capitol investing, retirement, etc. For a very small few they might stick around because they genuinely want to be part of the company's future.
- jariel 6y ago
  Often the payouts are necessarily big enough, it entirely depends. And just because you're an 'exec' at an 'ok startup' doesn't mean you're generally qualified at that level. It's very hard to jump to another, similar job in the field.

by jariel 6y ago

gibolt 6y ago

You only need 1 to pay off for it to be worth it. The rest can be deprecated and team reallocated. Not saying it is right, but makes sense for a business of that scale.

TaylorAlexander 6y ago
Maybe... Google seems to be taking that strategy but it feels like it leads to some kind of flaw in their thinking around product support.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  How long has it been since Google had a notable successful acquisition? I'm asking because I can't think of anything recent.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 6y ago
    It usually takes a while for an acquisition to be labeled a success, right?
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    In 2014 Firebase, Stackdriver and DeepMind (who then made AlphaGo). There's also Waze from 2013. The only thing I could call out after that is Kaggle in 2017. Maybe they will make something out of this year's Fitbit acquisition, but that's a bit early to tell.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    I guess I wasn’t thinking about acquisitions so much as “you only need one success”. They throw a lot out there I guess hoping some of them will pay off, but it leaves them coming off as scattered to the outside.
bordercases 6y ago
There is a hidden principle-agent problem where the original company's intent gets distorted to align with broader corporate objectives. The total market the acquired company could have penetrated never gets developed and fundamentally they decide to take an exit now for less risk and more cash early for what could have been a stronger contribution for the economy on the whole via a well-exploited niche. A mundane example would be how the developers behind Firewatch were acqui-hired by Valve. They had a well-developed following and a hotly anticipated second product, an original single-player IP, somewhat rare nowadays. Half the team dissolved to work on Steam and the rest funneled themselves into Half-Life: Alyx. The new game was delisted from development.
jariel 6y ago
No this is not quite it. These acquisitions are not 'big bangs' like VC investments where one will make the bank. They are large and small investments across the board - some for know-how, some for talent, some for product, some for brand (ie Beats), some for code etc.. An acquisition is expensive beyond the price tag, especially in terms of opportunity cost if you bet on the buy and it fails.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

PradeetPatel 6y ago

As someone who have assisted with acquisitions, the tech part is often the most straight forward (unless you're dealing with multi-cloud solutions). The most challenging part is the re-alignment the culture and value of the acquired firm. There's a delicate art in comforting the new members of the family that we're all in this together while systemically replacing their middle management with more suitable candidates.

qbasic_forever 6y ago

I have to imagine any executive leadership team that agrees to an Apple acquisition is only looking at the exit package of stock they'll be counting in a couple years. They know what they're signing up for and know how the game works better than anyone. It's their setup for getting into venture capitol investing, retirement, etc. For a very small few they might stick around because they genuinely want to be part of the company's future.

jariel 6y ago
Often the payouts are necessarily big enough, it entirely depends. And just because you're an 'exec' at an 'ok startup' doesn't mean you're generally qualified at that level. It's very hard to jump to another, similar job in the field.