5 ms·

The top 10 tech companies have collectively acquired and shut down hundreds of small, successful startups. I believe this is very detrimental to the web and th

by jiofih 6y ago

The top 10 tech companies have collectively acquired and shut down hundreds of small, successful startups. I believe this is very detrimental to the web and the economy. Founders need to have that as an option for an exit though. What are the alternatives? Limiting ownership to 49%?

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
>Founders need to have that as an option for an exit though. What are the alternatives? Limiting ownership to 49%? No they don't. To rephrase, you're suggesting that companies are entitled to getting bought out. That's ridiculous. Owning a company is a privilege, people who abuse that privilege, billionaires, should be stripped of that power. Corporate America is cancerous, consuming and destroying everything indiscriminately for vanity, numbers on a screen, and authoritarian control over the less privileged.
- ryan93 6y ago
  It's not a privilege. The company is their property. Political opinions you dont like on facebook is just something you are going to have to get over.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    You're talking past my arguments. Owning a company is a privilege just as much as owning guns are. Companies are registered with government and violators are prosecuted. Do I need to link to articles about children getting their lemonade stands destroyed by cops or what?
    - ryan93 6y ago
      Point taken. I just personally feel like the reasoning for taking a company needs to be insanely strong. A lot of current talk on both sides feels very partisan.
- zepto 6y ago
  > Owning a company is a privilege. A privilege you think should be held by the government?
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    Why would you assume I said that. Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > Why would you assume I said that. I didn’t. > Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail. What has this ominous generalization got to do with the question?
- jonas21 6y ago
  You've gotta be kidding. 99% of companies in the U.S. are small businesses, and over half of those have annual revenue under $500K (that's revenue, not profit). In many cases, small businesses offer immigrants a pathway to the middle class, despite lack of credentials, connections, or English skills. Are you saying they shouldn't have the right to sell their business? You talk about "authoritarian control," but what could be more authoritarian than denying people basic property rights? And even if you limit discussion to only tech startup companies, taking away the option of selling the company in the future completely changes the risk calculation. You'd end up with fewer companies getting started, which would entrench the big players even more.
granshaw 6y ago
The whole notion of starting a company, possibly ignoring profits, with a buyout as the endgame is frankly ridiculous, and emblematic of the excesses and war chests that these big corps yield. What happened to building a profitable company, or at least one close enough to ipo, and “making it” that way?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > What happened to building a profitable company, or at least one close enough to ipo, and “making it” that way? Nothing, the option is still there. Just depends if you want to risk it and work your ass off, or accept the security of a lower reward now.
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  There are people leading those companies, but they're so few and far between that you can probably list them off the top of your head in the tech space. When a successful company like GitHub can't pass up double-digit billions, then, really, what hope is there? Companies like Microsoft have $130B of cash on hand, and (almost) everyone has a price. They can go buy several more of those companies, and that's why we hear a new $20B buyout rumor every week. If you could, you would too. IMO, that's why we need to start capping company size/valuation. There's no social good in Microsoft owning all the things they do. It only benefits the executives at MS and large shareholders, and I think they're benefitting enough already.
  - bcrosby95 6y ago
    > but they're so few and far between that you can probably list them off the top of your head in the tech space. I disagree. You can't name them because they aren't worth billions of dollars and they don't make any headlines. They're usually called "lifestyle" businesses on here, and while sometimes this site discusses them most discussions are about building the next Google.
dredmorbius 6y ago
There's an interesting intersection of monopoly and The Tech Recruiting Problem which Cory Doctorow highlighted in a Exponential View (HBS) podcast. Acqui-Hiring is the new recruiting model. Very roughly paraphrased, assessing tech talent has become so painfully difficult that the most effective model is essentially to assign a class assignment to a set of founders, along with a few million in seed capital, to build some Minimum Viable Proof of Talent. The seed funders act as matchmakers to the buying (typically: tech monopoly) firm, and take a finder's fee. The project is shut down (it's done its work of demonstrating competence), and the team is brought into the acquiring firm. https://hbr.org/podcast/2021/01/big-tech-and-a-decade-of-antitrust-with-cory-doctorow https://hbr.org/podcast/2021/01/big-tech-and-a-decade-of-ant...

by jiofih 6y ago

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago

>Founders need to have that as an option for an exit though. What are the alternatives? Limiting ownership to 49%? No they don't. To rephrase, you're suggesting that companies are entitled to getting bought out. That's ridiculous. Owning a company is a privilege, people who abuse that privilege, billionaires, should be stripped of that power. Corporate America is cancerous, consuming and destroying everything indiscriminately for vanity, numbers on a screen, and authoritarian control over the less privileged.

ryan93 6y ago
It's not a privilege. The company is their property. Political opinions you dont like on facebook is just something you are going to have to get over.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  You're talking past my arguments. Owning a company is a privilege just as much as owning guns are. Companies are registered with government and violators are prosecuted. Do I need to link to articles about children getting their lemonade stands destroyed by cops or what?
  - ryan93 6y ago
    Point taken. I just personally feel like the reasoning for taking a company needs to be insanely strong. A lot of current talk on both sides feels very partisan.
zepto 6y ago
> Owning a company is a privilege. A privilege you think should be held by the government?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Why would you assume I said that. Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > Why would you assume I said that. I didn’t. > Government has the job of arbitrating between the needs of all people. Companies should be meeting the needs and wants of consumers without causing harm. When Companies, and the people that own and operate them, cause harm, it is the obligation of government to remedy these problems through action, forceful if need be, against the offenders. Governmental failure to remedy problems results in vigilantism without fail. What has this ominous generalization got to do with the question?
jonas21 6y ago
You've gotta be kidding. 99% of companies in the U.S. are small businesses, and over half of those have annual revenue under $500K (that's revenue, not profit). In many cases, small businesses offer immigrants a pathway to the middle class, despite lack of credentials, connections, or English skills. Are you saying they shouldn't have the right to sell their business? You talk about "authoritarian control," but what could be more authoritarian than denying people basic property rights? And even if you limit discussion to only tech startup companies, taking away the option of selling the company in the future completely changes the risk calculation. You'd end up with fewer companies getting started, which would entrench the big players even more.

granshaw 6y ago

The whole notion of starting a company, possibly ignoring profits, with a buyout as the endgame is frankly ridiculous, and emblematic of the excesses and war chests that these big corps yield. What happened to building a profitable company, or at least one close enough to ipo, and “making it” that way?

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> What happened to building a profitable company, or at least one close enough to ipo, and “making it” that way? Nothing, the option is still there. Just depends if you want to risk it and work your ass off, or accept the security of a lower reward now.
TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
There are people leading those companies, but they're so few and far between that you can probably list them off the top of your head in the tech space. When a successful company like GitHub can't pass up double-digit billions, then, really, what hope is there? Companies like Microsoft have $130B of cash on hand, and (almost) everyone has a price. They can go buy several more of those companies, and that's why we hear a new $20B buyout rumor every week. If you could, you would too. IMO, that's why we need to start capping company size/valuation. There's no social good in Microsoft owning all the things they do. It only benefits the executives at MS and large shareholders, and I think they're benefitting enough already.
- bcrosby95 6y ago
  > but they're so few and far between that you can probably list them off the top of your head in the tech space. I disagree. You can't name them because they aren't worth billions of dollars and they don't make any headlines. They're usually called "lifestyle" businesses on here, and while sometimes this site discusses them most discussions are about building the next Google.

dredmorbius 6y ago

There's an interesting intersection of monopoly and The Tech Recruiting Problem which Cory Doctorow highlighted in a Exponential View (HBS) podcast. Acqui-Hiring is the new recruiting model. Very roughly paraphrased, assessing tech talent has become so painfully difficult that the most effective model is essentially to assign a class assignment to a set of founders, along with a few million in seed capital, to build some Minimum Viable Proof of Talent. The seed funders act as matchmakers to the buying (typically: tech monopoly) firm, and take a finder's fee. The project is shut down (it's done its work of demonstrating competence), and the team is brought into the acquiring firm. https://hbr.org/podcast/2021/01/big-tech-and-a-decade-of-antitrust-with-cory-doctorow https://hbr.org/podcast/2021/01/big-tech-and-a-decade-of-ant...