Last.fm founders quit
blog.last.fm
blog.last.fm
There's TechCrunch with an anonymous source making a claim they've already had to walk back, and haven't posted any formal retraction of.
Then there's Last.fm and CBS categorically denying the claim, signing people's actual names to the denials.
A founder is much more suited to carry out his or her vision by having millions of dollars in the bank and no constraints, rather than be constrained by the acquiring company in a system that is bloated and become increasingly bureaucratic.
Empirically, though, vision seems to be a scarce commodity, so having the founder stay on for a long time is a good approach.
He was then forced to switch to the annual model that other companies were doing, which is currently credited with severely damaging the car industry due to the severe lack of brand cohesion. At the time, everybody knew the Model T was a very sturdy vehicle, but today you've got to rely on a models previous generations. Now car companies are considering Henry Ford's original model, instead of releasing a new model every year, you release a new model say every decade so that it gets progressively cheaper and more reliable. People with less money will buy a reliable model later in the cycle when it's cheaper, where as people with large disposable incomes will quickly switch to the new expensive version, which is evidenced by the iPod phenomena.
I have mechanics in my family, in fact my father owned his own shop at one point, and when you hear people discuss vehicles they invariably end up saying things like "The 92-95 were good cars, but the 96-97 were disasters". Apple wouldn't have turned the iPod into such a needless necessity by having bad models; the iPod Nano 1G was at serious threat of this with the whole easy screen breaking because they reduced the surface coating too much, however after a bit of a rough start the Nano is now of the same standard as the classic, you don't have to worry about the screen breaking (even though I think they still have to ship with a case because of the EU's 5 year lifetime law for electronic products).
The whole founders leaving the company appears to be a Web 2.0 invention. Creators now can get enough buzz about an idea for someone to pick it up and run with it. However, back even twenty years ago if you failed so did your company. IIRC Henry Ford had two failed automotive companies before he started the current company, I believe he also had a third which he used to get majority control of the current company from the shareholders; I believe his second company was a partnership with the Dodge Brothers. The Dodge Brothers Company was sold almost 5 years after their death, by their widows, and it was the biggest monetary transaction in the world, at the time. If Henry Ford had had the buzz around the mass production of the automobile, I doubt his first company would have gone out of business, however I doubt he would have had the knowledge and experience to run the business himself, famously without a single accountant during his lifetime and IIRC the longest period for a large company in the US to not be audited for taxes.
They might have wanted to leave for some time.
edit: It's really close to the exact 2 year mark http://www.crunchbase.com/company/last-fm
Joining a big company after your startup is acquired is a bit different dynamic. Maybe it can be likened to opium. I've never tried opium, nor sold a company.
But it must feel good, with obviously bad and brewing side effects.
Have the founders discovered that there was a data leak - and, given their opinions on the matter - decided it better to quit than work with whoever made it happen?
I hope not (edit: because I was rooting for last.fm, not because I want it to be true).
(I work here, and have had no indication that the TC allegations are true)
I would say that it is connected to the RIAA drama and CBS sending them user info. If they resigned because of that, then full props to them (they just owe TC one big apology).
If the data sharing with the RIAA did happen and they didn't resign - then shame on them.
That's how I see it, anyway.
That's a hard question to answer. Obviously it depends on what your goals were initially (build something, make some cash) and whether or not you've met them.
After building and selling a business what do you do next? Build another business and sell it? Or perhaps build a business, and keep on building it for the rest of your working days? Is that what twitter is up to? EV sold blogger a while back.
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice project, but it's as annoying as constantly plugging your startups alternative to a popular service, the fact it's open-source doesn't dull that.