This one jumped out at me.
I've definitely seen integration struggles post-acquisition, but I typically find that the parent company (buyer) needs to be accountable for that integration. But you seem to be saying it is the seller's responsibility to understand the buyer's product and evaluate the integration during due diligence? Did I read that correctly? If so, I'd like to understand that perspective better - would you be willing to elaborate?
I'm not OP, but I don't think that's what they meant:
>> the product not being able to integrate with your product like they claimed
It's lack of due diligence by the buyer after being deceived (intentionally or not). I imagine the seller saying "We support gRPC too, so we can interop easily" and then discovering that's not quite the case afterwards.
It's like buying a used car. You need a mechanic to really get in there and find all the rotten bits, based on where you intend to drive it (and how long)
Heck you could even say the Amazon Whole Foods Acquisition was a loser -- they haven't leveraged the store network like Walmart has.
As someone who was a regular at Whole Foods even before the Amazon acquisition, from my viewpoint, it has been a win-win.
1. The online shopping experience has been amazing from the Amazon site/app. Target comes close. 1.a. The free delivery for Prime members was an awesome perk while it lasted and definitely made me buy from WF more than the alternatives I have.
2. I get 5% from the Prime card, I actually am incentivized to shop more at WF.
3. Amazon wise I can safely pick up my packages from the nearest store.