4 ms·
Not for no reason at all, just not economical or innovative or supporting the customers. It is all a dog and pony show now to chase the investors while central
by zenmac 1y ago
Not for no reason at all, just not economical or innovative or supporting the customers.
It is all a dog and pony show now to chase the investors while centralize and concentrate wealthy in the hands of very few.
Edit: do think we ought to promote using Penpot type of alternative to proprietary counter part.
- brettgriffin 1y agoM&A deals are analyzed pretty closely and there (usually) has to be a convincing argument that it is economically or strategically accretive to the acquirer. It's easy to call them all morons from afar, but I think it just highlights how difficult it is to pull off successfully. And when it is successful, it's always an obvious no-brainer in retrospect. Anecdotally, I know someone that spent two years intentionally sabotaging an M&A deal that would replace his internal product and team in a company. He and his colleagues were successful and everyone thinks the acquirer was a dumbass for doing it, but with more knowledge about the misaligned incentives it starts to become more clear.