Hacker News Reader

“Isn’t going anywhere” is technically correct based on how you parse it.

The problem is he had no authority to say that.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect a promise like this to be kept three years later.

Two-three years is actually the optimal time frame to kill an acquired company, in my view, at least for big conglomerates. You avoid excessive brain-drain at the start by declaring far and wide that it will be “business as usual”; this way any useful know-how handover can happen smoothly, and you get a chance to identify the best bits you will eventually salvage. After a couple of years, you’ve likely cannibalized what was worth, the golden-handcuffed talent has either left or was moved to more critical areas, and the rest is just a legacy shell.