5 ms·

The point of this post is to talk about Bill's hustling when selling Lala, which is a very interesting story. The author should have left the last word out to

The point of this post is to talk about Bill's hustling when selling Lala, which is a very interesting story. The author should have left the last word out to make a much more powerful story about Lala rather than changing the focus of the article to Apple's "genius," especially since there was no genius involved on Apple's part. Just good luck for Apple, and horrible luck for the Color team.

jusben1369 14y ago
I disagree. I thought the last paragraph was great. Life is never a single event. Round 1 to Lala and their engineers. Round 2 to Apple. There'll be Round 3's!
- guptaneil 14y ago
  I agree, the last paragraph is great. My issue is with the last word. A better ending might've been something along the lines of "Paying twice cost less than paying once," and left out characterizing this fortuitous win as a "genius" strategy.
  - johnchristopher 14y ago
    English isn't my first language and I really have a hard time grasping the meaning, the subtelty, of the end of the article. Does the author say: "Apple bought some employes for a high price ($80M). Later, those employees left Apple for another venture. But when leaving, those employees also left some kind of shares/bonus or something very valuable they obtained by being acquired earlier. They were acquired again later (color) for a much lesser price so in the end they "lost" some money/shares/opportunity". Have I got that right ?
    - OafTobark 14y ago
      The Lala acquisition was worth a total of $160M. $80M up front, and $80M as an earn out (over time). When they left Apple early to do Color, they lost a huge chunk of that $80M (earn out money) because they left early before receiving it (vesting) which in the end was worth a lot more due to increase in stock value. Apple bought Color (and those same engineers returned to work at Apple) for a lot less than what they would have paid in the earn out had the engineers stayed and not leave for Color in the first place.
      - johnchristopher 14y ago
        Thanks a lot for taking the time to write it down for me! Much appreciated :) This makes much better sense to me now.

jusben1369 14y ago

I disagree. I thought the last paragraph was great. Life is never a single event. Round 1 to Lala and their engineers. Round 2 to Apple. There'll be Round 3's!

guptaneil 14y ago
I agree, the last paragraph is great. My issue is with the last word. A better ending might've been something along the lines of "Paying twice cost less than paying once," and left out characterizing this fortuitous win as a "genius" strategy.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  English isn't my first language and I really have a hard time grasping the meaning, the subtelty, of the end of the article. Does the author say: "Apple bought some employes for a high price ($80M). Later, those employees left Apple for another venture. But when leaving, those employees also left some kind of shares/bonus or something very valuable they obtained by being acquired earlier. They were acquired again later (color) for a much lesser price so in the end they "lost" some money/shares/opportunity". Have I got that right ?
  - OafTobark 14y ago
    The Lala acquisition was worth a total of $160M. $80M up front, and $80M as an earn out (over time). When they left Apple early to do Color, they lost a huge chunk of that $80M (earn out money) because they left early before receiving it (vesting) which in the end was worth a lot more due to increase in stock value. Apple bought Color (and those same engineers returned to work at Apple) for a lot less than what they would have paid in the earn out had the engineers stayed and not leave for Color in the first place.
    - johnchristopher 14y ago
      Thanks a lot for taking the time to write it down for me! Much appreciated :) This makes much better sense to me now.