4 ms·

Yahoo didn't buy the technology, they purchased the talent. Talent that knows how to reach an audience. You can always get high quality engineers to figure out

Yahoo didn't buy the technology, they purchased the talent. Talent that knows how to reach an audience. You can always get high quality engineers to figure out the rest...

omellet 14y ago
The article's main point is that the founders didn't do anything really noteworthy, technologically speaking, and so Yahoo overpaid for the talent in question.
- snaky 14y ago
  >the founders didn't do anything really noteworthy 1M+ downloads for an app with licensed technology is noteworthy.
  - 31reasons 14y ago
    1M downloads with 1M+ dollars in investment is not noteworthy. You can basically pay for that much downloads. Not to mention its a FREE app!
  - nilkn 14y ago
    They got that through marketing, not technology. Have you seen the launch video for Summly?
  - flyosity 14y ago
    A million downloads of a free app is not really that noteworthy. My friend made a simple, free iPhone game in a weekend where you tap on a soccer ball and keep it from dropping and routinely gets 10s of thousands of downloads a month with absolutely no marketing.
    - badgar 14y ago
      Your friend is a genius and might be the next pg.
bobwaycott 14y ago
I have some rather strong misgivings when purchased talent != high quality engineers where software product/company acquisitions are concerned. There are some excellent professionals out there with a far more rigorously proven and solid track record of knowing how to reach an audience. You're suggesting the 17-yr-old & 2 compatriots have proven themselves to possess $30-million-worth of reaching-an-audience skill? [edit: spelling]
- michaelpinto 14y ago
  This snot-nosed brat is a mere 27 years old, and I would say that if you could have grabbed him for $30 million it would be worth it: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1630529_1380709,00.html http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1630529_138070...
  - bobwaycott 14y ago
    Hahaha. Touché. To be fair, however, I think we'd all agree that his accomplishments by that point were of a significantly higher caliber.
    - michaelpinto 14y ago
      Well give that 17 year old kid another ten years and we'll see! : )
marchra 14y ago
All 2 of them.
georgemcbay 14y ago
But if you're Yahoo in 2013, where are you going to find high quality engineers?
- wib 14y ago
  Which is why this acquisition was more about PR than talent or technology. It says (or tries to say), "You might think we're just dusty old Yahoo!, but we're hiring 17-year-old wunderkind too! We're hip to the next big thing! And remember we have a new CEO..."

Yahoo didn't buy the technology, they purchased the talent. Talent that knows how to reach an audience. You can always get high quality engineers to figure out the rest...

omellet 14y ago

The article's main point is that the founders didn't do anything really noteworthy, technologically speaking, and so Yahoo overpaid for the talent in question.

snaky 14y ago
>the founders didn't do anything really noteworthy 1M+ downloads for an app with licensed technology is noteworthy.
- 31reasons 14y ago
  1M downloads with 1M+ dollars in investment is not noteworthy. You can basically pay for that much downloads. Not to mention its a FREE app!
- nilkn 14y ago
  They got that through marketing, not technology. Have you seen the launch video for Summly?
- flyosity 14y ago
  A million downloads of a free app is not really that noteworthy. My friend made a simple, free iPhone game in a weekend where you tap on a soccer ball and keep it from dropping and routinely gets 10s of thousands of downloads a month with absolutely no marketing.
  - badgar 14y ago
    Your friend is a genius and might be the next pg.

bobwaycott 14y ago

I have some rather strong misgivings when purchased talent != high quality engineers where software product/company acquisitions are concerned. There are some excellent professionals out there with a far more rigorously proven and solid track record of knowing how to reach an audience. You're suggesting the 17-yr-old & 2 compatriots have proven themselves to possess $30-million-worth of reaching-an-audience skill? [edit: spelling]

michaelpinto 14y ago
This snot-nosed brat is a mere 27 years old, and I would say that if you could have grabbed him for $30 million it would be worth it: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1630529_1380709,00.html http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1630529_138070...
- bobwaycott 14y ago
  Hahaha. Touché. To be fair, however, I think we'd all agree that his accomplishments by that point were of a significantly higher caliber.
  - michaelpinto 14y ago
    Well give that 17 year old kid another ten years and we'll see! : )

marchra 14y ago

All 2 of them.

georgemcbay 14y ago

But if you're Yahoo in 2013, where are you going to find high quality engineers?

wib 14y ago
Which is why this acquisition was more about PR than talent or technology. It says (or tries to say), "You might think we're just dusty old Yahoo!, but we're hiring 17-year-old wunderkind too! We're hip to the next big thing! And remember we have a new CEO..."