Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmduke | Hacker News Reader

I obviously can't speak for Marco, but I think what I take umbrage with is when developers plan this out from the beginning -- create a product/company that drives just enough attention to ensure an acquihire. The result ends up being pretty detrimental to the community.

Given the choice between: keep working on your low-to-modest traction product which isn't producing a lot of revenue and wonder how you might pay rent next month OR a multi-million dollar check/stock offer at a large, successful company... which would you choose?

I would also choose the latter. I'll be the first to admit I'm not trying to change the world or 'disrupt and industry' or anything lofty like that. But I think there are quite a few people who would eschew the big check for the opportunity to do something tremendous, and they deserve to be lauded.

View on HN

Is this something you can really plan out from the beginning? How many millions of developers would love to be able to create a product that drives enough attention to ensure an acquihire?

Who knows, you might be right and some developers might be able to think of an idea, build it, and market it successfully enough to get the acquihire they want (along with a big paycheck), but I suspect most just want to build a product _someone_ finds useful.

Is this something you can really plan out from the beginning?

Yes, people build companies to flip all the time. Many/most of them don't make the front page of Hacker News.

Sure but it used to be that they were flipping a product/site. Users may have griped about the new management but the 'stuff' would still exist.

Seems strange to me that people would consider setting out to flip themselves (but I can believe that it happens).

If there's money in it, and it's possible, people will do it.

I know quite a few developers who only work on stuff that they hope will result in an acquihire. Can they guarantee it? Of course not, but I feel it's a pretty selfish approach to building something that's not just for your own use.

For example, in today's "the new digg" feedback survey, I told them I will not use the service until they have a sustainable revenue model (they happily tout their current lack of one), for this reason - the last thing I need is yet another service I like to be bought and then shut down. Granted, I don't believe they're starting out with the goal of being acquired, but this whole "useful stuff goes away because the people building it have no business sense" is pretty annoying to deal with.

I suspect most just want to build a product _someone_ finds useful

Don't forget to start by creating something YOU find useful, then.

I'm starting to think the main problems nerds have are mostly social, btw.

if there were developers who were good enough to have any confidence that they would be acquired for their talent, i suspect they wouldn't need to work for google to make their money.

Maybe it is to the point now where it is disingenuous for a company NOT to have a banner on every page stating if they are open to investments or acquihire? At least users would know there is an intention/desire/dream to head for greener pastures if given the chance.

It is quite alright to disclose as a small business owner that things are slow or somethings are not quite going to plan. If you've got a userbase that loves your product, it is amazing what goodwill can do to help find a solution.

You guys go realize that it is ok to dissolve a company and in the case of a software company, release or open-source the code right? If the service was popular, someone will pick up the torch and carry on with it.

I think almost every company would have to have such a banner. Everyone has a price. Even Marco ("and they didn’t want to pay enough"). Some prices are higher than 'the market' wants to pay right now but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yep. If I offered Marco $500MM with the sole condition that I could take the Instapaper source code and live stream my burning it with a blowtorch, I think we can safely say he'd take the money.

A private company probably. If a public company were to do that, then I think the shareholders might not agree with your opinion.

But who knows, along comes Microsoft who can write off huge amounts like the $6.3 billion for aQuantive.

Shouldn't that banner just be implied? Yes, company X is open to investments or being acquired if the right offer comes along. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Should we require employees to wear a sign to work everyday saying that they will leave their job for a better one if the right offer comes along?

Is the size of a diamond on a wedding ring a similar comparison?

Can you explain what you mean? I think I have an idea, but I don't know if I'm thinking what you're thinking.

Sure, it wasn't meant to be snarky. I think a lot of folks simply have vastly different measurements for success. Some think it is binary meaning either total success or total failure. Others define multiple levels of success. Tie money and success together and the resulting discussions can be quite inflammatory.

I've seen a few folks chime in here already that one of the reasons they work for themselves is that for them freedom is greater than money. Not everyone agrees with that but wouldn't some personal and business interactions benefit from a bit more transparency of goals or stated missions? If you want to shoot for the stars, financially speaking or regarding market coverage, then tell me. That's great and I applaud your enthusiasm. If you are happy just providing reasonable service and expect to make a reasonable return then tell me too. At least that will allow me to make a somewhat informed decision about possibly interacting with you. Don't make us guess as most people are terrible gamblers.

Certainly people have different goals and ideas for what constitutes success. However, any company is for sale for the right offer. Conversely, any company looking to sell will turn down an offer that's bad enough. The owners may to even know what sort of offer they'll accept or reject until it's made. So, I don't know how you could add the proposed disclaimers, or how they would be useful.

I'm not sure how any of this relates to wedding rings, but I assume that's not too important anyway.

My S Corp. is not for sale. Neither is my 501c3 which will dissolve with my passing. Can you explain to me how "any" company is for sale for the right offer?

The diamond ring is a silly simplistic example of where some people don't have a price. If my spouse has a 5 carat diamond band, does she subscribe to some idea that if a 6 carat diamond ring were offered by someone else then that must surely be a better opportunity and "sell out?"

Some individuals don't have have a price for some things in life.

So if some company you really admire offers you a billion dollars and total freedom to do anything you want, anything at all, you'd turn it down? Why?

My work is my life and hence my 501c3. Either I'm fulfilled that I'm able to "do what I want" or I'm just a stick in the mud. I also don't plan to retire.

We can substitute work/employment for anything that you value. Family? Religious/spiritual beliefs/non-beliefs? Are you saying you'll stand for some value/idea/principle...up to a certain price? Nothing is verboten?

I can understand not selling out if you don't like the conditions. But if the conditions allow you to do whatever you'd have done anyway, why not?

Yes, of course. Each situation is different, and making a build-and-flip company from the start is another thing entirely. Usually they have free products and no business plan. In this situation, though, the two companies that are being bought today both had paid products and paying customers. My 100% speculative guess is that they didn't have enough traction or revenue to keep it up at their current rates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com