2 ms·
I appreciate the Author's attempt to empathize with the founders/team on the acquisition results. It's not an obligation for customers to consider anything beyo
by niketdesai 14y ago
I appreciate the Author's attempt to empathize with the founders/team on the acquisition results. It's not an obligation for customers to consider anything beyond what they were promised and pay for - so kudos there.
That said, the difference between the startup and big co. is so vast that there will never be a single person to be blamed for botched acquisitions. In fact, both parties are at fault - not for initiating the buy - but rather for the failure to commit so fully that an alternative outcome could have been had.
In some circumstances it does make sense to shutter a project, but that doesn't mean a good plan to make that happen appropriately can't be had (I understate the complexity of making that happen). Additionally I'd like to note that within larger companies, both the appetite and passion for making acquisitions work is highly variable. And frankly, it requires a lot of broad effort to make it work which is why acquisitions are so hard to do well.
Anyways I'm glad that gittip was able to find a replacement solution; these setbacks are only part of the process in building your own entrepreneurial endeavor.
- whit537 14y agoFair enough. In the previous blog post that I quoted, I was thinking in terms of fine-grained things: "A specific human is responsible for the way issues are cross-linked in GitHub. Another specific human is responsible for the slide-out transition on the Tumblr HTML theme editor." You're right that for something as complex as an acquisition, there's unlikely to be a single GroupOn Effer. To open up corporations is a much more nuanced task than simply identifying a scapegoat as part of crisis management. It was probably unhelpful to oversimplify about GroupOn Fucker. Sorry. :-(