3 ms·
"...long agonizing will-they won't-they suspenses about killing off the service" I think this is the main differentiating point between 'failing' and 'acquihir
by 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 agoIt 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 agoNot trying to suggest either is better. Just thinking through why people (including me) might react to them differently.
- alextgordon 15y agoPerhaps 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 agotrue one
- larrys 15y agoHard 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.