Just to toss this out: I really wish huge companies like Google were completely prohibited from any sort of M&A activity. Buy up startups that might, someday, be competition. Absorb them and destroy their product.
Sure, it's great for the people who sell their startup, but it's bad for the rest of the world, which might have benefited from the product that was assimilated into the Borg.
Getting acquired is the end goal of a huge portion of startups and the vcs funding them. If that option goes away there will probably be a lot fewer startups, which may or may not be a good thing.
Maybe we'll have fewer it's Uber-but-for-washing-your-underwear companies then. And maybe only really good ideas will actually get to the level of obtaining VC funding for development. That's not a bad thing. VCs for the last 15 years were throwing ideas at a wall, when one stuck, 10 other VC componies copied the idea....
> Getting acquired is the end goal of a huge portion of startups and the vcs funding them.
I often wonder if that's a good thing.
On one hand, it provides VCs with more incentive to invest in startups, which significantly lowers the barrier to entry and allows us to more easily take risks trying new things.
On the other hand, it essentially guarantees the entire economy will eventually be consolidated into a few megacorps who might not even be good at what they do. It may be possible to compete with them, but instead startups are incentivised to join them.
This is a bad idea if applied too broadly. Founders often build companies with the intention of selling them to bigger companies. Products that are intended to replace or complement one of the acquirer's products.
I agree. Monopolies are great for the monopoly, but inevitably cause less competition, and thus less innovation.
It's really weird watching hackers defend the idea of monopolies like Google now, at the expense of FOSS. It makes me wonder if Microsoft had been spending more money publicly buying startups back in the 90's if hackers would have defended them then.
It's really sad seeing startups get purchased just for a core piece of tech or for one of their teams. And 90% of the time, it never goes anywhere anyway so it just ends up destroying the startup for no reason.
On the other hand, as a big company, it's really nice letting the plethora of startups try various approaches and then buying one that is working, rather than making an attempt or two in house. You usually end up with better solutions for cheaper that way.
> which might have benefited from the product that was assimilated into the Borg.
I think a partial solution to this is to ensure a minimum level of support for say 10 years. A planned and community-agreed roadmap, bug and security fixes. Google could afford it without any practical cost. Founders get the money. Consumers get a product for a decade.
I never understand this sentiment. Why should the startup founders be forced to work on at their company for the "good of the world", rather than taking a payday and enjoying their own life? This seems incredibly narcissistic and unfair to them.
Sure, it's great for the people who sell their startup, but it's bad for the rest of the world, which might have benefited from the product that was assimilated into the Borg.