3 ms·

As others have pointed out, it's unlikely that the company needs the money and this is more about denying competitors the technology before Google gets their ha

As others have pointed out, it's unlikely that the company needs the money and this is more about denying competitors the technology before Google gets their hands on it.

m52go 12y ago
Right, I get that. That's why the company wants the capital. It's impossible for any young company to need this sum of money at once. But it doesn't justify the market giving it to them. The ultimate effect is the entire market got denied a substantial amount of capital (not just ML's competitors) in order for a single entity to gamble it. That's irresponsible of everyone, founders and investors included. Either acquire, go public, or JV to secure an opportunity. Why sap such a huge swathe of capital from the opportunistic ecosystem?
- knowaveragejoe 12y ago
  These are very intelligent folks we're talking about, I'm sure there is a rational explanation.
  - m52go 12y ago
    I hope there is. Intelligent folks also run Wall Street and Washington but both of those systems are undeniably terrible. Perhaps this is different.
    - knowaveragejoe 12y ago
      I don't think that's a good example. For all the angst around them online, they both have their redeeming qualities if you actually interact with either.
      - m52go 12y ago
        I know people who work on Wall Street and I know people who work in the White House. They are some of the most brilliant people I know. That doesn't make the systems they collectively run any less corrupt or terrible than they are. You originally said: > These are very intelligent folks we're talking about, I'm sure there is a rational explanation. If the examples I mentioned aren't good, then logically, there may not be a rational explanation. But in any case, I think all 3 situations are quite similar. VCs are probably just as smart as the top people in finance and politics, yet they often appear stupid from the outside. It's actually quite intriguing. If I were a researcher, I'd definitely want to investigate this further...
- aidenn0 12y ago
  They are making hardware; hardware is expensive, and a lot of money can significantly improve time-to-market. I doubt they will be spending this on Aeron chairs.

As others have pointed out, it's unlikely that the company needs the money and this is more about denying competitors the technology before Google gets their hands on it.

m52go 12y ago

Right, I get that. That's why the company wants the capital. It's impossible for any young company to need this sum of money at once. But it doesn't justify the market giving it to them. The ultimate effect is the entire market got denied a substantial amount of capital (not just ML's competitors) in order for a single entity to gamble it. That's irresponsible of everyone, founders and investors included. Either acquire, go public, or JV to secure an opportunity. Why sap such a huge swathe of capital from the opportunistic ecosystem?

knowaveragejoe 12y ago
These are very intelligent folks we're talking about, I'm sure there is a rational explanation.
- m52go 12y ago
  I hope there is. Intelligent folks also run Wall Street and Washington but both of those systems are undeniably terrible. Perhaps this is different.
  - knowaveragejoe 12y ago
    I don't think that's a good example. For all the angst around them online, they both have their redeeming qualities if you actually interact with either.
    - m52go 12y ago
      I know people who work on Wall Street and I know people who work in the White House. They are some of the most brilliant people I know. That doesn't make the systems they collectively run any less corrupt or terrible than they are. You originally said: > These are very intelligent folks we're talking about, I'm sure there is a rational explanation. If the examples I mentioned aren't good, then logically, there may not be a rational explanation. But in any case, I think all 3 situations are quite similar. VCs are probably just as smart as the top people in finance and politics, yet they often appear stupid from the outside. It's actually quite intriguing. If I were a researcher, I'd definitely want to investigate this further...
aidenn0 12y ago
They are making hardware; hardware is expensive, and a lot of money can significantly improve time-to-market. I doubt they will be spending this on Aeron chairs.