3 ms·
> 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 succe
by 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 agoMy question is why not ? If it’s something thriving in the competitive market why should it not be allowed to succeed ?
- betwixthewires 5y agoI'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.