It's all about value creation. Assuming every party here is rational: Google decides to pay for the Sparrow team only because the potential value of these devel

It's all about value creation. Assuming every party here is rational: Google decides to pay for the Sparrow team only because the potential value of these developers is much higher than the price they pay. And Sparrow team accepted the offer only because the big pay check exceeds the value all their own customers combined. If we hate this, we can either make such talent acquisitions less attractive, or increase the value of software customers. Talent acquisitions become less attractive when: - The number of talents available increases significantly - Economies of scale in software business is less substantial - There's ethical pressure from online communities - The act of "selling customers" (through data collection or ads) becomes less profitable or costs more (with things like DNT or ad blockers) The value of customers increases when: - More people are willing to spend more money on independent software development - Access to software market is easier (with things like app stores) - More revenue streams with higher payouts (like high-quality ad networks such as Deck and Carbon) - Higher potential to get big (with VC money and building platforms/ecosystems) The sad truth is, independent software developers tend to be less entrepreneurial than startup founders (but I don't think the line can be drawn clearly). They are only a little bit more entrepreneurial than consulting developers (which are even more likely to be hired by big companies, but we don't care much about them). Therefore they may not be willing to actively improve their revenue by taking risks, and hence the acquisitions happen.