4 ms·

Interestingly, they don't mention Blogger (which is how the Twitter co-founder went into and came out of Google). Which seems to be doing just fine. http://sit

by aditya 18y ago

Interestingly, they don't mention Blogger (which is how the Twitter co-founder went into and came out of Google). Which seems to be doing just fine. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/blogger.com+livejournal.com/?metric=uv http://siteanalytics.compete.com/blogger.com+livejournal.com... I don't see the problem, if you start a startup to make a shitload of money and you do make a shitload of money, then, mission accomplished right? (or, as DHH would say: Profit!) There will always be companies that get screwed up in the acquisition process, just like there will always be companies that don't. But, let's fuel the rumor that Google kills all that it consumes, why not?

josefresco 18y ago
I think the article states that it isn't always a shitload of money. Sure it beats your part-time gig at Starbucks but why sell your app for 5-6 figures when it could be worth 7-8? If Google is interested in your application now, why wouldn't someone else snatch it up 6 months later when you have more users for a higher price? Sometimes winning the buyout lottery is selling yourself short.
- litewulf 18y ago
  And sometimes your hot company flames out and you'll regret not taking the money and running for the rest of your life. This is what managing risk is all about isn't it? You just plain don't know!
netcan 18y ago
Well it may not be an immediate problem for founders (so long as they have no sentimental attachment to the company), because they've been paid. But it is a problem for acquirers & by extension a problem for future founders. If acquisitions fail to meet goals, they'll dry up.
rams 18y ago
Actually Blogger met with pretty much the same fate as other companies. Check out Evan's blog post about freeing blogger from Google at evhead.com - it must be in the archives.
mickt 18y ago
> if you start a startup to make a shitload of money and you do make a shitload of money, then, mission accomplished right What about the user-base? Don't we have a responsibility to them also? Without them we can't be successful, and we should own them some responsibility to ensure that the tools/product/web-site they've been using remains useful for them.

by aditya 18y ago

josefresco 18y ago

I think the article states that it isn't always a shitload of money. Sure it beats your part-time gig at Starbucks but why sell your app for 5-6 figures when it could be worth 7-8? If Google is interested in your application now, why wouldn't someone else snatch it up 6 months later when you have more users for a higher price? Sometimes winning the buyout lottery is selling yourself short.

litewulf 18y ago
And sometimes your hot company flames out and you'll regret not taking the money and running for the rest of your life. This is what managing risk is all about isn't it? You just plain don't know!

netcan 18y ago

Well it may not be an immediate problem for founders (so long as they have no sentimental attachment to the company), because they've been paid. But it is a problem for acquirers & by extension a problem for future founders. If acquisitions fail to meet goals, they'll dry up.

rams 18y ago

Actually Blogger met with pretty much the same fate as other companies. Check out Evan's blog post about freeing blogger from Google at evhead.com - it must be in the archives.

mickt 18y ago

> if you start a startup to make a shitload of money and you do make a shitload of money, then, mission accomplished right What about the user-base? Don't we have a responsibility to them also? Without them we can't be successful, and we should own them some responsibility to ensure that the tools/product/web-site they've been using remains useful for them.