4 ms·

The lesson is about greed. Risk always accompanies greedy moves and you have to calculate that risk before taking action. Without solid facts to back him up, g

The lesson is about greed. Risk always accompanies greedy moves and you have to calculate that risk before taking action. Without solid facts to back him up, going in so hot against Steve Jobs and Apple was too risky.

Someone1234 5y ago
The lesson is about leverage. $50M isn't greed when that amount was already invested into the venture. You accept that offer you're repaying your investors and walking away with nothing. Apple was leveraging their position to lowball a smaller company. Ultimately the smaller company upset the bigger one, and even the "charity" was withdrawn, and the bigger company used their vast wealth/resources to crush the smaller.
- microtherion 5y ago
  I think the mistake was to try negotiating the price with Steve, who was known for hardball negotiation tactics, and for lowball offers. Once Steve's position was out there, it was difficult for other Apple execs to negotiate a more reasonable price, especially considering, as you say, what little leverage the smaller company had. And the smaller company had no real incentive to take the lowball offer at the time.
- molbioguy 5y ago
  Leverage is the risk. Asking for 3 times what's initially offerred is greed. Greed isn't bad, per se, it just entails a risk.
  - Someone1234 5y ago
    The suspect the problem with the point you're trying to make is that you're using the term "greed." Greed has implied immorality to it. It wasn't "greedy" to ask for over $50M, because $50M was what was already invested into the company. When another company wants to acquire you, it is normal and expected for you to make profit on that acquisition. 3x current valuation isn't, to me, "greedy." Quite reasonable in fact.
    - molbioguy 5y ago
      You'ree right. I don't attach morality to 'greed' -- it's just wanting 'more' than what you've been given.
- eloisant 5y ago
  I don't know much about funding or selling a company, but it seems to me that the smart move was to shut up about the buying price, shut up and nod even if Steve Jobs gives a low-ball price, and let the negotiations take place later on. It sounds like it was all about pride for Jobs, small guy was cocky enough to speak up to him so he had to punish him by dropping the deal so he knows his place.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > . You accept that offer you're repaying your investors and walking away with nothing. I thought the previous round was $50MM. So those investors would get back their original cash, and all the other employees/investors would essentially cash out at that value.

Someone1234 5y ago

The lesson is about leverage. $50M isn't greed when that amount was already invested into the venture. You accept that offer you're repaying your investors and walking away with nothing. Apple was leveraging their position to lowball a smaller company. Ultimately the smaller company upset the bigger one, and even the "charity" was withdrawn, and the bigger company used their vast wealth/resources to crush the smaller.

microtherion 5y ago
I think the mistake was to try negotiating the price with Steve, who was known for hardball negotiation tactics, and for lowball offers. Once Steve's position was out there, it was difficult for other Apple execs to negotiate a more reasonable price, especially considering, as you say, what little leverage the smaller company had. And the smaller company had no real incentive to take the lowball offer at the time.
molbioguy 5y ago
Leverage is the risk. Asking for 3 times what's initially offerred is greed. Greed isn't bad, per se, it just entails a risk.
- Someone1234 5y ago
  The suspect the problem with the point you're trying to make is that you're using the term "greed." Greed has implied immorality to it. It wasn't "greedy" to ask for over $50M, because $50M was what was already invested into the company. When another company wants to acquire you, it is normal and expected for you to make profit on that acquisition. 3x current valuation isn't, to me, "greedy." Quite reasonable in fact.
  - molbioguy 5y ago
    You'ree right. I don't attach morality to 'greed' -- it's just wanting 'more' than what you've been given.
eloisant 5y ago
I don't know much about funding or selling a company, but it seems to me that the smart move was to shut up about the buying price, shut up and nod even if Steve Jobs gives a low-ball price, and let the negotiations take place later on. It sounds like it was all about pride for Jobs, small guy was cocky enough to speak up to him so he had to punish him by dropping the deal so he knows his place.
HWR_14 5y ago
> . You accept that offer you're repaying your investors and walking away with nothing. I thought the previous round was $50MM. So those investors would get back their original cash, and all the other employees/investors would essentially cash out at that value.