Companies make offers in confidence for a reason. I'm sure that Tom's business partners wouldn't appreciate him posting about their revenue anywhere public. The same principle applies here.
moon's complaint is that now, there are some awkward positions to deal with at Powerset/MS. Because we were all a very tight knit startup before being acquired, many of us are friends with our supervisors and bosses. Now, we're suddenly faced with the question, "Why did my friend and boss value me at value X and Tom at value Y?" These are guys and gals we've basically lived with for 2-3 years, working feverishly for the shared goal of a game-changing increment to what constitutes search. Everyone played a part, but sometimes it can be painful learning that people may not have regarded your part as much as you did.
What's more, every Powersetter knows some people in the company got The Shaft in terms of retention, for a variety of political and legal reasons. Some of these people chose to stay, some chose to leave. For those who chose to stay, this rubs salt in a wound that's still sore: their baby grew up and didn't treat them as well as the other parents.
Being acquired is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it's great because you get a payout. On the other hand, the company becomes something else entirely and it's almost never what you had before the acquisition.
I understand why Tom talked about it (and it is an interesting story), but I understand why moon is upset about it as well. Tom was very fortunate that he had something else to walk away to (and this definitely drove up his retention price). For many Powersetters, it was "Microsoft" or "...?" (this is doubly true for the scientists who were literally redefining the field as they went along). I only wish everyone had as difficult-yet-easy choice as Tom did.
So why did they value you at X and Tom at Y ? If the reasons aren't obvious perhaps your friends were not evaluating people on a rational basis? And if they are (obvious reasons) no real harm done right?
What is the advantage of not facing this question? I would rather know (and learn from it) than not know at all.
"Tom was very fortunate that he had something else to walk away to (and this definitely drove up his retention price)"
I think this is a very interesting take away point - always have something to walk away to.
So we know the disadvantages: social strife, perhaps feelings of personal inadequacy, friction with your supervisors.
So why then, do I also have to justify the opposing side? Things are difficult enough right now with the integration pains of moving into Microsoft. Let me be the first to tell you it is not easy to go from the frenetic and dedicated full, sustained sprint of a startup like Powerset to the slower, bureaucratic pace of Microsoft.
We all know some people were more valuable than others. But to get the full and absolute dollar-amount measure of it hurts some people's feelings. You can say you'd rather know, but that's you making a decision for yourself. The unfortunate part of Tom's story is that he decided for everyone at the company, and that has some people miffed. You can say it's emotional and irrational, and that's probably true. That doesn't make it less real.
> I think this is a very interesting take away point - always have something to walk away to.
This is absolutely true, and I also drove up my retention price by making it clear I had opportunities to walk away to. The instant I heard about the MS offer process I immediately applied for several jobs. When it came time to listen to Microsoft's offer, I already had two other offers on the table (one from a stealth startup and one from EngineYard), and I made sure my supervisors knew (in general terms) what I was looking at.
Despite the delayed expression, those tense situations ALREADY EXISTED! If you're not treating your people fairly , or if your people can't handle knowing someone else is valued more than them... guess what? You already have problems! Sure you can hide from the problems, but when they come to light, don't blame it on the truth. The truth could have helped you avoid these problems, if you made sure everyone was honest and understood things (and could handle the truth!) to begin with. That's how "The truth will set you free."
The point is, this can be tough to deal with when nerves are already a little ragged from the non-trivial process of decelerating your life from startup speed to Microsoft speed, and fitting into a new company where your role and plans are far less certain.
Don't most people have the same choice, provided that they want it? From reading the account, it didn't sound like Tom had any special advantages other than being willing to take the risk and go for it. HN is packed with ppl who have taken the plunge into the unknown to start something without having any idea how it would turn out. To characterize their difficult decision as being the result of some special advantage that they had seems like an excuse for why some weren't willing to take the same risks.
That's a lot less dicey than the leap into the great wide open that is lionized here.