3 ms·

When Google hands over six or seven or eight figures for something, they obviously have a plan for how the technology and team fits into their "master plan". W

When Google hands over six or seven or eight figures for something, they obviously have a plan for how the technology and team fits into their "master plan". Why is it surprising that, at least some of the time, they aren't actually interested in the original web site?

webwright 18y ago
"When Google hands over six or seven or eight figures for something, they obviously have a plan for how the technology and team fits into their "master plan"." I have heard that Google will pay $1m+ per engineer if they like the team and what they've pulled off, even if they are going to dump the technology (or want it rebuilt from the ground up). I think once you get into eight figures, though-- you're probably right.
- netcan 18y ago
  It's interesting to consider employee acquisition as a motivator. As far as I could guess there are a few motivations: 1 the technology 2 the product/userbase 3 the employees 4 kill competition 1 & 2 could be 'masterplan' motivations. 3 has a maximum dollar value. 4 is rarely admitted. It's hard to judge if they messed up without knowing which one it is.
neilk 18y ago
they obviously have a plan That's not actually true. The thing about giants that acquire startups, is that a) they had the resources to build this thing themselves; b) they didn't. So ask yourself why didn't they build this thing. It wasn't lack of resources. It wasn't lack of intelligence; they keep tabs on everyone and they go to SXSW too. There were forces that stopped the giant from innovating in this direction. Some of them are technological, but the real issues are usually cultural and political. Once acquired, the startup is now exposed to all these forces -- with double intensity, since it is an outsider and has few friends in the organization. Unless it's already profitable, has a large userbase, or has big fans among the top execs, it has very little power. I think these recent articles about how giants "ruin" acquisitions do not take culture and politics into account. The technical issues are not the problem.
- hhm 18y ago
  That's very insightful, thank you very much.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  And the thing about startups is that there's no reason to think that they would continue running the way they were indefinitely without charging membership fees, or plastering ads all over them, or somehow ruining the experience that their supporters value so much. They sell for a reason, usually that their funding is running out, founders facing a down round, increasing pressure to become profitable. The fallacy is that the sweetness and light will continue indefinitely.
- goodkarma 18y ago
  The depth/extent of the plan is surely debatable, but folks like Larry and Sergey and Eric Schmidt would not make the decision to pull the trigger for an acquisition unless they knew what they wanted out of it. They are smarter than that . In the case of MeasureMap, for instance, they knew they wanted that technology integrated into Google Analytics. They may not have been able to answer the "how" part of "who, what, when, where, why, and how", but surely they knew the "who", "what", and "why". I understand that the startup built the technology and the acquirer didn't. That's the beauty of how this system is set up - a company like Google with piles of cash and stock can has so much money it can buy anything it wants. Well then how do they decide which startups to buy (MeasureMap, Feedburner, etc.) and which startups to pass on (Digg)? That's the "master plan"..
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]

webwright 18y ago

"When Google hands over six or seven or eight figures for something, they obviously have a plan for how the technology and team fits into their "master plan"." I have heard that Google will pay $1m+ per engineer if they like the team and what they've pulled off, even if they are going to dump the technology (or want it rebuilt from the ground up). I think once you get into eight figures, though-- you're probably right.

netcan 18y ago
It's interesting to consider employee acquisition as a motivator. As far as I could guess there are a few motivations: 1 the technology 2 the product/userbase 3 the employees 4 kill competition 1 & 2 could be 'masterplan' motivations. 3 has a maximum dollar value. 4 is rarely admitted. It's hard to judge if they messed up without knowing which one it is.

neilk 18y ago

they obviously have a plan That's not actually true. The thing about giants that acquire startups, is that a) they had the resources to build this thing themselves; b) they didn't. So ask yourself why didn't they build this thing. It wasn't lack of resources. It wasn't lack of intelligence; they keep tabs on everyone and they go to SXSW too. There were forces that stopped the giant from innovating in this direction. Some of them are technological, but the real issues are usually cultural and political. Once acquired, the startup is now exposed to all these forces -- with double intensity, since it is an outsider and has few friends in the organization. Unless it's already profitable, has a large userbase, or has big fans among the top execs, it has very little power. I think these recent articles about how giants "ruin" acquisitions do not take culture and politics into account. The technical issues are not the problem.

hhm 18y ago
That's very insightful, thank you very much.
ojbyrne 18y ago
And the thing about startups is that there's no reason to think that they would continue running the way they were indefinitely without charging membership fees, or plastering ads all over them, or somehow ruining the experience that their supporters value so much. They sell for a reason, usually that their funding is running out, founders facing a down round, increasing pressure to become profitable. The fallacy is that the sweetness and light will continue indefinitely.
goodkarma 18y ago
The depth/extent of the plan is surely debatable, but folks like Larry and Sergey and Eric Schmidt would not make the decision to pull the trigger for an acquisition unless they knew what they wanted out of it. They are smarter than that . In the case of MeasureMap, for instance, they knew they wanted that technology integrated into Google Analytics. They may not have been able to answer the "how" part of "who, what, when, where, why, and how", but surely they knew the "who", "what", and "why". I understand that the startup built the technology and the acquirer didn't. That's the beauty of how this system is set up - a company like Google with piles of cash and stock can has so much money it can buy anything it wants. Well then how do they decide which startups to buy (MeasureMap, Feedburner, etc.) and which startups to pass on (Digg)? That's the "master plan"..
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]