4 ms·
> A tighter merger process might make startup exits through acquisition less common, but it should also make it easier for startups to grow organically into lar
by gms 3y ago
> A tighter merger process might make startup exits through acquisition less common, but it should also make it easier for startups to grow organically into large companies.
This is a contradiction.
If the likelihood of acquisition goes down, so does the likelihood of startup funding. Which means the likelihood of growing into a large company goes down too.
I don't think it's a good idea to want a world where companies like Google are less likely to come about.
- yathaid 3y agoWhat you are missing is when the acquisition happens or the size of the firm being acquired. The blocked M&As are on firms that are already setting the market. Google cannot come about now. There is literally no need to have the world's most used search engine, mobile OS, browser, video streaming website, maps application under the same corporate umbrella. Only one of these was built in-house, every other one was acquired.
- gms 3y agoYou say there is 'literally no need'. How are you so confident in making such a claim for the rest of us? I, as a consumer, would rather make that decision myself. If you don't want to use Google Maps that's up to you. I don't see why you'd force me to do the same. As it stands, Maps falling under Google means that I and many others on this planet, from Africa to the Middle East to Asia and others, get to use it for free because it's subsidised by Google's search ads. A standalone maps company would have to charge money to run the service. People around the world (along with businesses small and large) would be poorer if this were the case. I defend your choice to dislike this state of affairs. But it's rather difficult to defend a proclivity to take choice away from the rest of us.
- yathaid 3y ago> A standalone maps company would have to charge money to run the service. Yes. That is typically how businesses work. That cost is being subsidized by an uber-entity that is slurping private data of its more economically valuable customers at every turn. Why is it fair to do that? > But it's rather difficult to defend a proclivity to take choice away from the rest of us. Where is my choice to step out of this Big Brother ecosystem? If Maps was so awesome, why did Google acquire Waze? And why was it allowed to?
- gms 3y agoYou can use Garmin and pay for their maps product. That’s your choice.
- mch82 3y agoAre you assuming maps will be free forever? One possible future is that once the standalone map companies are out of business prices will begin to rise or ads will become so frequent that the experience of using maps will be severely degraded.
- gms 3y agoThen a new entrant will surface in the market, as happens in all such situations when there’s a free market.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoThere's an old-fashioned solution where they just need to make their own money and have good growth strategy. Or get a loan with properly worked out figures. I'm kinda hoping we're getting to the lessons learned point of easy debt burn it till you make it startup culture.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]