5 ms·

Why does yahoo keep buying companies simply to acquire talent? Isn't it just easier to just post a job ad? I don't think there's a shortage of talented programm

Why does yahoo keep buying companies simply to acquire talent? Isn't it just easier to just post a job ad? I don't think there's a shortage of talented programmers working in social media. Someone please explain.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
One thing could be that buying a team is worth more than buying a bunch of people to make a team. Not sure if that is always true.
- zalew 13y ago
  how does buying a team actually work - when the company gets bought from the shareholders, can't the employees tell yahoo to piss off and not sign new contracts? how does the process look like?
  - ironchef 13y ago
    Typically the purchasing company will have an idea of who are must keeps, etc. They'll then put financial incentives in place that would typically exceed free market (golden handcuffs...in a manner similar to startup vesting (X amount of shares or X in cashola vesting / released over Y amount of time))
    - EarthLaunch 13y ago
      If you're going to joke around about handcuffs, you can't misuse "free market" at the same time. The offer doesn't exceed "free market", it simply exceeds market.
      - ironchef 13y ago
        Ahh..true. My bad.
  - hga 13y ago
    From the OP of this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982, which mentions that "In each instance [of acquisition], Yahoo has locked up engineers with two- to four-year contracts...", it sounds like the employees are given a 2-4 year contract to sign, or they can leave ... which would be a voluntary separation without unemployment etc.
    - droithomme 13y ago
      It's an interesting point. Onerous contracts signed under duress are not valid in many jurisdictions. Threat of dismissal, the "sign this or else" ultimatum is considered duress. Also, in some countries this scenario would certainly be considered constructive dismissal. As it is though their jobs at the old company don't exist nor does that company and they have not consented to work for the new company, so this is absolutely not voluntary separation, it is dismissal, and they are absolutely entitled to unemployment.
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        But is that really a "sign this or be dismissed" threat? It seems more like a "Company X is dismissing you. We (Company Y) are offering you a job. Would you like to accept?" type of situation. Which is a lot better than a "Company X is dismissing you. We (Company Y) are not interested in you either. Good day." type of situation.
        hga 13y ago
        RIght; in fact, in my last job, it happened in exactly that way. A 2nd or 3rd rate Beltway Bandit got bought by a big foreign company, and because of the latter any units working in national security had to be acquired by a US company, and before the acquisition. My unit was one of those, and we got a document with a bunch of demands, like the last N years worth of non-competes you'd signed, and then in theory they'd hire you. If you didn't sign it, you'd be laid off (in this case there was a successor organization, that wouldn't be true in these aquihires).
    - smackfu 13y ago
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Sure, anyone is free to not be acquired. And there is not usually any guarantee that everyone will be acquired. There is usually going to be some sort of retention bonus offered to people to stick around a few months beyond the acquisition period. But if a team is working well together (regardless if the actual product was a success or not, or the circumstances around their acquisition) and people enjoy having a job and the buyer is not a complete train wreck, many people will go with it (if nothing more than to have a job while you start looking). A good team that is used to working together can have a slight edge over a new team built from scratch.
- product50 13y ago
  To be honest, they are buying failed teams as most of the acqui-hires they've done are of companies which are struggling to raise their next round.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    A team that built a failed product is not the same as a failed team.
    - product50 13y ago
      Agreed - it is not always true. But I would rather have a team building successful products rather than the other way round.
- hga 13y ago
  The OP to this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982 mentions that Yahoo is going to some effort to keep them from being "rejected by the host" as previous mobile efforts and their employees have been. See the end of page 2 and beginning of page 3.
hga 13y ago
According to the article that this comment of mine discusses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141238 that's the only way they've found to acquire mobile talent after treating it very badly in times past. Sounds like no matter how energetic the recruiting, people in this field aren't going to jump to them unless they have little or no choice. Key sentence fragment: "In each instance, Yahoo has locked up engineers with two- to four-year contracts...."
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  But you always have a choice. Nobody can force you to be acquired... that would be slavery. The seller can require as part of the deal the buyer offer to keep a certain amount of people at a certain pay. Buyer can accept that deal or negotiate. But at the end of the day, every employee has a choice to sign the new contract or not. So anyone who got "locked up" in a 2-4 year contract did so because they felt it was a good move for them (or at least better than not having a job).
  - hga 13y ago
    Indeed. But I'm pretty sure they got a "sign this soon or leave" offer than many chose not to refuse.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Even then, they can leave Yahoo at any time if they change their minds. They'll just lose out on their big payday.
      - hga 13y ago
        Outside of California they might be ... hindered by non-competes. I was once in this position: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6148918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6148918 and one of the many reasons I didn't accept the offer was that non-competes were enforceable in my state, the contact had a nasty one, and the acquiring company did business with so many of the area's organizations that I would have been seriously disadvantaged when it came time to separate.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

One thing could be that buying a team is worth more than buying a bunch of people to make a team. Not sure if that is always true.

zalew 13y ago
how does buying a team actually work - when the company gets bought from the shareholders, can't the employees tell yahoo to piss off and not sign new contracts? how does the process look like?
- ironchef 13y ago
  Typically the purchasing company will have an idea of who are must keeps, etc. They'll then put financial incentives in place that would typically exceed free market (golden handcuffs...in a manner similar to startup vesting (X amount of shares or X in cashola vesting / released over Y amount of time))
  - EarthLaunch 13y ago
    If you're going to joke around about handcuffs, you can't misuse "free market" at the same time. The offer doesn't exceed "free market", it simply exceeds market.
    - ironchef 13y ago
      Ahh..true. My bad.
- hga 13y ago
  From the OP of this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982, which mentions that "In each instance [of acquisition], Yahoo has locked up engineers with two- to four-year contracts...", it sounds like the employees are given a 2-4 year contract to sign, or they can leave ... which would be a voluntary separation without unemployment etc.
  - droithomme 13y ago
    It's an interesting point. Onerous contracts signed under duress are not valid in many jurisdictions. Threat of dismissal, the "sign this or else" ultimatum is considered duress. Also, in some countries this scenario would certainly be considered constructive dismissal. As it is though their jobs at the old company don't exist nor does that company and they have not consented to work for the new company, so this is absolutely not voluntary separation, it is dismissal, and they are absolutely entitled to unemployment.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      But is that really a "sign this or be dismissed" threat? It seems more like a "Company X is dismissing you. We (Company Y) are offering you a job. Would you like to accept?" type of situation. Which is a lot better than a "Company X is dismissing you. We (Company Y) are not interested in you either. Good day." type of situation.
      - hga 13y ago
        RIght; in fact, in my last job, it happened in exactly that way. A 2nd or 3rd rate Beltway Bandit got bought by a big foreign company, and because of the latter any units working in national security had to be acquired by a US company, and before the acquisition. My unit was one of those, and we got a document with a bunch of demands, like the last N years worth of non-competes you'd signed, and then in theory they'd hire you. If you didn't sign it, you'd be laid off (in this case there was a successor organization, that wouldn't be true in these aquihires).
  - smackfu 13y ago
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Sure, anyone is free to not be acquired. And there is not usually any guarantee that everyone will be acquired. There is usually going to be some sort of retention bonus offered to people to stick around a few months beyond the acquisition period. But if a team is working well together (regardless if the actual product was a success or not, or the circumstances around their acquisition) and people enjoy having a job and the buyer is not a complete train wreck, many people will go with it (if nothing more than to have a job while you start looking). A good team that is used to working together can have a slight edge over a new team built from scratch.
product50 13y ago
To be honest, they are buying failed teams as most of the acqui-hires they've done are of companies which are struggling to raise their next round.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  A team that built a failed product is not the same as a failed team.
  - product50 13y ago
    Agreed - it is not always true. But I would rather have a team building successful products rather than the other way round.
hga 13y ago
The OP to this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140982 mentions that Yahoo is going to some effort to keep them from being "rejected by the host" as previous mobile efforts and their employees have been. See the end of page 2 and beginning of page 3.

hga 13y ago

According to the article that this comment of mine discusses: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141238 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141238 that's the only way they've found to acquire mobile talent after treating it very badly in times past. Sounds like no matter how energetic the recruiting, people in this field aren't going to jump to them unless they have little or no choice. Key sentence fragment: "In each instance, Yahoo has locked up engineers with two- to four-year contracts...."

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
But you always have a choice. Nobody can force you to be acquired... that would be slavery. The seller can require as part of the deal the buyer offer to keep a certain amount of people at a certain pay. Buyer can accept that deal or negotiate. But at the end of the day, every employee has a choice to sign the new contract or not. So anyone who got "locked up" in a 2-4 year contract did so because they felt it was a good move for them (or at least better than not having a job).
- hga 13y ago
  Indeed. But I'm pretty sure they got a "sign this soon or leave" offer than many chose not to refuse.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Even then, they can leave Yahoo at any time if they change their minds. They'll just lose out on their big payday.
    - hga 13y ago
      Outside of California they might be ... hindered by non-competes. I was once in this position: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6148918 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6148918 and one of the many reasons I didn't accept the offer was that non-competes were enforceable in my state, the contact had a nasty one, and the acquiring company did business with so many of the area's organizations that I would have been seriously disadvantaged when it came time to separate.