Hacker News Reader

Comment by axod | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure shutting down a product and hiring the founder(s) should be classed as an 'acquisition'.

It's just a recruitment with a golden hello really.

These seem to be getting more and more common lately.

Google rewrites a lot of the stuff they buy, so if shutting down the current version of something makes it not an acquisition, you'd practically have to stop using the word "acquisition" to describe Google acquisitions.

Fair point, I don't know what technology, code or IP was actually included. Did they solve anything the GMail team couldn't solve? reMail is billed as 'email search'. Surely Google are pretty good at email search already?

Without any details released of the deal no one can really tell if it's an acquisition or an "acquisition".

There's a difference between shutting down the product (pownce, etherpad, etc), and just rewriting (reddit, blogger?, youtube? etc) and keeping the product going.

The constraints of search on a mobile device are considerable in comparison to that of the web. Gabor was brilliant in his execution on mobile optimization.

you mean [non connected] search on a mobile device? I can certainly see that, but I'm not sure how big a market there is for it.

When there's intellectual property involved, it's still acquisition. I would imagine some sort of consideration was offered in exchange for the IP associated with reMail, which makes it an acquisition instead of recruitment.

I think axod was using it as a euphemism -- effectively a lot of smaller talent acquisitions are hiring + vested bonus. That said, it seems a reasonable coup de grace if you've feel like you're ready to wind down a company and want to make the best of it.

Sometimes even if the product isn't itself of worth to the acquiring company, there may be value in removing that product from the potential acquisition market for competitors.

I'm curious. 'a recruitment with a golden hello really' means that they had an offer of acquisition but with a 'you have to work for us' clause?

I believe axod's point is that an acquisition on this scale may simply amount to a signing bonus, rather than what investors might consider a substantial exit.

Since he is shutting down the original project, and terms are not disclosed, it's entirely possible that he simply became tired of running it, applied for Google, interviewed and was hired.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree, but you had asked for clarification.

Do you think Google would fake an acquisition though? It's hard to imagine for a company of that stature and those means.

Six Apart 'acquired' Pownce [1]. Shut it down, then a year later and the 2 founders have left [2].

I'm always slightly skeptical ;) but these things just seem like a way to avoid having your baby in the dead pool to me.

[1] http://www.sixapart.com/blog/2008/12/welcome-pownce-team.htm... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02...

The fact they both left shortly after a year would perhaps point to something a bit more substantial than a signing bonus. More like a retention bonus tied to the acquisition. That's what I thought when I read about LC's departure the other day anyway.

Just to let the guy save face? If his stature as a developer warranted it, then it might be to both parties advantage. Signing bonus is not press worthy, acquisition is.

What do you mean "faked"? They're acquiring the company. That doesn't obligate them to continue the existing product, nor mean that that's why they found the company valuable. Even if they discontinue the existing product, the people who have a deep understanding of that space are valuable, and the ideas/concepts behind the product are valuable.

Oftentimes 'talent acquisitions' are paid for with company stock that vests over several years, so yes, there's a 'you have to work for us' clause. It's still a good deal for the acquired company, but not quite as good as it seems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com