11 ms·

It's still another data point that gets in people's heads IMO (it's in mine FWIW). A good analogy might be the crappy customer service provided by AT&T, Comcas

It's still another data point that gets in people's heads IMO (it's in mine FWIW). A good analogy might be the crappy customer service provided by AT&T, Comcast and [insert most utility cos] over the past 20 years. Most consumers now expect poor service and I'd wager that has, to some degree, had an influence on purchasing decisions.

tptacek 15y ago
I totally understand where you're coming from, but I suspect that what's happening here is that team acquisitions provide vivid examples (and, in particular, long agonizing will-they won't-they suspenses about killing off the service) that create an easy narrative for something that is always happening all the time anyways. It just is risky to do business with startups.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  You don't "do business with startups". You do business with other businesses, and expect them to be serious about their propositions.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You can't will away the extra risks carried by immature businesses. This isn't a moral issue. Some companies mature and stabilize around viable businesses; most don't.
  - seltzered_ 15y ago
    if you're talkinga bout a b2b transaction, no. your business negotiates your terms well with the startup to ensure you're innovating but not going to be significantly impacted if the startup goes under. In semiconductor startups, you sometimes need to secure "second source" agreements with a bigger business (that could be your eventual acquirer ) that assures they'll takeover manufacture your existing silicon if they go down. In our case we had a second-source partner until our acquisition that had "rebadged" parts available. It was annoying, but it's sometimes the only way for a startup to sell to big multi-million dollar customers.
- amirmc 15y ago
  "...long agonizing will-they won't-they suspenses about killing off the service" I think this is the main differentiating point between 'failing' and 'acquihires' (from a user's perspective). If a company is simply shutting down, there's some sympathy for the team and it's known that the service will stop. With a talent acquisition, nobody really knows what's going to happen to the service (maybe even the founders don't know) and that extra level of uncertainty is off-putting. [1] Eventually, that extra level of uncertainty transfers over to the List Of Reasons Not to Work With Startups(TM). [1] This is also true of straight acquisitions but there's a reasonable expectation that the acquirer is purchasing the product as well as the team.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    It definitely makes for a more wrenching story, but it's hard for me to see how failing outright is somehow better than selling the team and keeping the service alive for 6-9 more months.
    - amirmc 15y ago
      Not trying to suggest either is better. Just thinking through why people (including me) might react to them differently.
    - alextgordon 15y ago
      Perhaps it's because acquired companies tend to be more useful and more popular than companies that fail. So the cumulative disruption is greater for the acquihires than for the failures. Or in other words, I would sacrifice many many startups to get EtherPad back again.
      - fatihdonmez 15y ago
        true one
    - larrys 15y ago
      Hard to believe that a team that knows it will be able to be acquihired won't be phoning it in and slacking off. Same as people do when they have taken finals and know that grades don't matter anymore. If you know failure is at the end and not some big prize and do over you will naturally try harder.

tptacek 15y ago

I totally understand where you're coming from, but I suspect that what's happening here is that team acquisitions provide vivid examples (and, in particular, long agonizing will-they won't-they suspenses about killing off the service) that create an easy narrative for something that is always happening all the time anyways. It just is risky to do business with startups.

ricardobeat 15y ago
You don't "do business with startups". You do business with other businesses, and expect them to be serious about their propositions.
- tptacek 15y ago
  You can't will away the extra risks carried by immature businesses. This isn't a moral issue. Some companies mature and stabilize around viable businesses; most don't.
- seltzered_ 15y ago
  if you're talkinga bout a b2b transaction, no. your business negotiates your terms well with the startup to ensure you're innovating but not going to be significantly impacted if the startup goes under. In semiconductor startups, you sometimes need to secure "second source" agreements with a bigger business (that could be your eventual acquirer ) that assures they'll takeover manufacture your existing silicon if they go down. In our case we had a second-source partner until our acquisition that had "rebadged" parts available. It was annoying, but it's sometimes the only way for a startup to sell to big multi-million dollar customers.
amirmc 15y ago
"...long agonizing will-they won't-they suspenses about killing off the service" I think this is the main differentiating point between 'failing' and 'acquihires' (from a user's perspective). If a company is simply shutting down, there's some sympathy for the team and it's known that the service will stop. With a talent acquisition, nobody really knows what's going to happen to the service (maybe even the founders don't know) and that extra level of uncertainty is off-putting. [1] Eventually, that extra level of uncertainty transfers over to the List Of Reasons Not to Work With Startups(TM). [1] This is also true of straight acquisitions but there's a reasonable expectation that the acquirer is purchasing the product as well as the team.
- tptacek 15y ago
  It definitely makes for a more wrenching story, but it's hard for me to see how failing outright is somehow better than selling the team and keeping the service alive for 6-9 more months.
  - amirmc 15y ago
    Not trying to suggest either is better. Just thinking through why people (including me) might react to them differently.
  - alextgordon 15y ago
    Perhaps it's because acquired companies tend to be more useful and more popular than companies that fail. So the cumulative disruption is greater for the acquihires than for the failures. Or in other words, I would sacrifice many many startups to get EtherPad back again.
    - fatihdonmez 15y ago
      true one
  - larrys 15y ago
    Hard to believe that a team that knows it will be able to be acquihired won't be phoning it in and slacking off. Same as people do when they have taken finals and know that grades don't matter anymore. If you know failure is at the end and not some big prize and do over you will naturally try harder.