3 ms·

I spoke to a commission of congressman about this topic. (they wanted to talk to small startups). It seems really difficult to effectively regulate this. - acq

I spoke to a commission of congressman about this topic. (they wanted to talk to small startups). It seems really difficult to effectively regulate this. - acquisitions are part of what make the startup ecosystem work. It's not at all clear which acquisitions you should block - the bundling approach that google uses makes things like android free - you dont want apps on iOS and android running their own payment infrastructure since some will abuse it There definitely needs to be regulation, but its not at all easy to see what shape it should take.

shkkmo 5y ago
You don't think that the huge start up acquisitions market has a negative distorting effect on tech entrepreneurship and innovation? I feel like it prioritizes growth at any cost and deprioritizes the disruption of the established tech players.
SllX 5y ago
> There definitely needs to be regulation, but its not at all easy to see what shape it should take. How do you draw the conclusion that there definitely needs to be regulation if you have no idea what you would be regulating? Everything about this pan-societal debate has been disappointing because it boils down to: “how do we draw up Bills of Attainder without calling them that and without completely wiping out the free flow of money and capital in the Valley?”
bogwog 5y ago
> acquisitions are part of what make the startup ecosystem work. That's such BS. A startup whose only business plan is to get acquired doesn't deserve to succeed in a competitive market. If that route becomes nonviable and a bunch of silicon valley startups go under, then good riddance. The US economy needs startups with sustainable business practices and highly competitive products and services. Not acquihire schemes.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  My question is why not ? If it’s something thriving in the competitive market why should it not be allowed to succeed ?
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I'm not who you're replying to, but I don't think that's what he said. They should be allowed to succeed, but building a product under the guise of competing in the market with the end goal of getting bought is grimy. It's one thing if you make something new and valuable and you take an offer for it, it is entirely another to make something that deliberately competes with google for the purpose of getting bought to stifle competition. In the article they talk about a bill designed to prevent tech companies from buying competitors to squash them, but with the potential consequence of stopping startups that have that as a business model, and that is framed as a negative consequence. They're saying this is a positive consequence, and I have to agree with them. If what you made is really a competitive product then it should be able to be profitable on its own. If it can't be it isn't actually competitive and should fail.

shkkmo 5y ago

You don't think that the huge start up acquisitions market has a negative distorting effect on tech entrepreneurship and innovation? I feel like it prioritizes growth at any cost and deprioritizes the disruption of the established tech players.

SllX 5y ago

> There definitely needs to be regulation, but its not at all easy to see what shape it should take. How do you draw the conclusion that there definitely needs to be regulation if you have no idea what you would be regulating? Everything about this pan-societal debate has been disappointing because it boils down to: “how do we draw up Bills of Attainder without calling them that and without completely wiping out the free flow of money and capital in the Valley?”

bogwog 5y ago

> acquisitions are part of what make the startup ecosystem work. That's such BS. A startup whose only business plan is to get acquired doesn't deserve to succeed in a competitive market. If that route becomes nonviable and a bunch of silicon valley startups go under, then good riddance. The US economy needs startups with sustainable business practices and highly competitive products and services. Not acquihire schemes.

Jcowell 5y ago
My question is why not ? If it’s something thriving in the competitive market why should it not be allowed to succeed ?
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I'm not who you're replying to, but I don't think that's what he said. They should be allowed to succeed, but building a product under the guise of competing in the market with the end goal of getting bought is grimy. It's one thing if you make something new and valuable and you take an offer for it, it is entirely another to make something that deliberately competes with google for the purpose of getting bought to stifle competition. In the article they talk about a bill designed to prevent tech companies from buying competitors to squash them, but with the potential consequence of stopping startups that have that as a business model, and that is framed as a negative consequence. They're saying this is a positive consequence, and I have to agree with them. If what you made is really a competitive product then it should be able to be profitable on its own. If it can't be it isn't actually competitive and should fail.