7 ms·

What is with all this hate for acqui-hires lately? I was part of an acqui-hire, I've seen it from the other side. I worked my ass off with my fellow employees a

What is with all this hate for acqui-hires lately? I was part of an acqui-hire, I've seen it from the other side. I worked my ass off with my fellow employees at a startup here in the valley. We never achieved the scale we needed to be successful in our industry, but we were acquired by the major player in that space. It's been an incredible journey and all of us have grown our skills and are moving our careers forward working with the new company. It's been the best thing that could have happened to my career and all I hear on HN, and now in the media, is people bitching and moaning that these people shouldn't be acqui-hired and that all these acquisitions are bogus? Give me a break. It's business. That's all it is. This is capitalism working. Companies investing in human talent hoping to produce long term revenue and results. We built something together at our startup. It didn't work out but our new company liked what we built enough to bring us in and solve the same problem with more resources. Downvote me, but I'm sick of hearing all this complaining about acquihires. Especially from journalists who's only job is to tell people their opinion...real tough work.

potatolicious 14y ago
> "Especially from journalists who's only job is to tell people their opinion...real tough work." I was with you until you decided that, in response to people trivializing your work and your contributions, you turn around and trivialize the work and contributions of an entire profession.
- dglassan 14y ago
  You make a fair point. I guess I'm just a little bitter after reading that article. Over the years I've noticed that a lot of articles being written are just plain assumptions and opinions of the journalist, and not always accurate of what's going on from the inside. But that's just my experience reading articles written about the companies I work for.
ghshephard 14y ago
Interesting insight - but I'm not sure why you had to finish it by trivializing journalists - particularly Sarah Lacy, who's probably one of the hardest working journalists in the valley and has deeper insight into how the startup ecosystem works than 99.9% of the journalists out there.
rhizome 14y ago
It sounds like you're more talking about a straight acquisition.
chimi 14y ago
There is a perception that acquihires are pushed through with pulled favors from venture capitalists looking to get out easy, rather than successful exits earned in the traditional manner. I, myself, wonder if these types of exits are possible for bootstrapped startups like they are for VC funded companies. It'd be neat to see a list of both. On the plus side, I do think it takes a lot of time, energy, and luck to put together a highly functioning team and that has value -- maybe that's being overvalued too though...
- arohner 14y ago
  I can tell you from experience, I've turned down several acquihires in the last few months from giant companies, with no VC raised. It can happen if you're bootstrapped.
  - chimi 14y ago
    I don't want to pry too much, but do you have a team? Are these companies looking to hire just you or your IP? I am curious to hear more if you'd like to share.
    - arohner 14y ago
      The team is two founders and a contractor. Without talking specifics, the distinction between acquire and acquihire is IP/revenue/traction. Acquihire means "we don't care about your product, market or IP, but we do need talented engineers who demonstrate they can build".
- joshu 14y ago
  Acquihires tend to be poor returns for the investors in my experience. The VC interaction is mostly just hoping for a soft landing for the team rather than an actively pursued goal.
jsnell 14y ago
Individual cases might be largely benign, and definitely are to people who would otherwise just have lost their jobs. The criticism is for the trend, and what it implies. It's bad for users/customers, who frequently lose access to products they had been using as they get shut down or EOL'd as part of the acquihire. It's bad for entrepreneurs trying to build a real business since customers will have no reason to believe that this particular company isn't just being built to flip. It's bad for the world since it means that talented people have an incentive to build a showcase rather than something truly useful. I strongly believe that most acquihires are a bad deal for the buyer. Or at least to the shareholders, though maybe maximizing shareholder value isn't the main reason these deals get made. Even "proper" acquisitions are horrible deals most of the time, and there the buyer is actually getting something tangible rather than an ephemeral team. I do find it almost impossible to believe that this is actually a cost-effective recruiting method. I'm sure there are exceptions, however. And while it's not possible to categorically say this is bad, I personally find the inequality that results from acquihires a bit distasteful. Two people can do the same work at the same company as well at grossly different compensation levels due to one getting hired there, while the other got a retention bonus as part of the acquihire. A justified reward for the extra risk of joining a startup? Maybe, but it just doesn't feel like that to me.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Of course it's bad for "building real businesses". However, for those starting and running companies that get acquihired, it's the rational decision: our current technology, software and tech labor markets dramatically undervalue both R&D spending and work done for hire in general. The acquihire has become, for the seller, one of the few ways of capturing the full value of their labors, and for the seller, a replacement for internal research and development.
- snprbob86 14y ago
  > It's bad for users/customers, who frequently lose access to products they had been using as they get shut down or EOL'd as part of the acquihire. Who can say how many of those products would have been shut down or EOL'd as part of a bankruptcy? > It's bad for entrepreneurs trying to build a real business As someone who recently sold his company in an acquihire, I resent your suggestion that I wasn't trying to build a real business. > I strongly believe that most acquihires are a bad deal for the buyer. My new boss & team seem to be ecstatic with the deal so far... maybe we're an outliner? > I do find it almost impossible to believe that this is actually a cost-effective recruiting method. Do you have any clue how much money the likes of the big tech companies spend on recruiting? I get the sense that you have no clue. Most acquihires are peanuts, compared to the aggregate cost of assembling a high caliber team by other means. I won't comment on the particulars of our deal, suffice to say that our company's numbers were traveling "up and to the right" and that we had investor interest. We drank a lot of beer and lost a lot of sleep, but ultimately decided that the acquihire was the right move for everyone involved. Never forget, startups are a Repeated Game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game

potatolicious 14y ago

> "Especially from journalists who's only job is to tell people their opinion...real tough work." I was with you until you decided that, in response to people trivializing your work and your contributions, you turn around and trivialize the work and contributions of an entire profession.

dglassan 14y ago
You make a fair point. I guess I'm just a little bitter after reading that article. Over the years I've noticed that a lot of articles being written are just plain assumptions and opinions of the journalist, and not always accurate of what's going on from the inside. But that's just my experience reading articles written about the companies I work for.

ghshephard 14y ago

Interesting insight - but I'm not sure why you had to finish it by trivializing journalists - particularly Sarah Lacy, who's probably one of the hardest working journalists in the valley and has deeper insight into how the startup ecosystem works than 99.9% of the journalists out there.

rhizome 14y ago

It sounds like you're more talking about a straight acquisition.

chimi 14y ago

There is a perception that acquihires are pushed through with pulled favors from venture capitalists looking to get out easy, rather than successful exits earned in the traditional manner. I, myself, wonder if these types of exits are possible for bootstrapped startups like they are for VC funded companies. It'd be neat to see a list of both. On the plus side, I do think it takes a lot of time, energy, and luck to put together a highly functioning team and that has value -- maybe that's being overvalued too though...

arohner 14y ago
I can tell you from experience, I've turned down several acquihires in the last few months from giant companies, with no VC raised. It can happen if you're bootstrapped.
- chimi 14y ago
  I don't want to pry too much, but do you have a team? Are these companies looking to hire just you or your IP? I am curious to hear more if you'd like to share.
  - arohner 14y ago
    The team is two founders and a contractor. Without talking specifics, the distinction between acquire and acquihire is IP/revenue/traction. Acquihire means "we don't care about your product, market or IP, but we do need talented engineers who demonstrate they can build".
joshu 14y ago
Acquihires tend to be poor returns for the investors in my experience. The VC interaction is mostly just hoping for a soft landing for the team rather than an actively pursued goal.

jsnell 14y ago

Individual cases might be largely benign, and definitely are to people who would otherwise just have lost their jobs. The criticism is for the trend, and what it implies. It's bad for users/customers, who frequently lose access to products they had been using as they get shut down or EOL'd as part of the acquihire. It's bad for entrepreneurs trying to build a real business since customers will have no reason to believe that this particular company isn't just being built to flip. It's bad for the world since it means that talented people have an incentive to build a showcase rather than something truly useful. I strongly believe that most acquihires are a bad deal for the buyer. Or at least to the shareholders, though maybe maximizing shareholder value isn't the main reason these deals get made. Even "proper" acquisitions are horrible deals most of the time, and there the buyer is actually getting something tangible rather than an ephemeral team. I do find it almost impossible to believe that this is actually a cost-effective recruiting method. I'm sure there are exceptions, however. And while it's not possible to categorically say this is bad, I personally find the inequality that results from acquihires a bit distasteful. Two people can do the same work at the same company as well at grossly different compensation levels due to one getting hired there, while the other got a retention bonus as part of the acquihire. A justified reward for the extra risk of joining a startup? Maybe, but it just doesn't feel like that to me.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Of course it's bad for "building real businesses". However, for those starting and running companies that get acquihired, it's the rational decision: our current technology, software and tech labor markets dramatically undervalue both R&D spending and work done for hire in general. The acquihire has become, for the seller, one of the few ways of capturing the full value of their labors, and for the seller, a replacement for internal research and development.
snprbob86 14y ago
> It's bad for users/customers, who frequently lose access to products they had been using as they get shut down or EOL'd as part of the acquihire. Who can say how many of those products would have been shut down or EOL'd as part of a bankruptcy? > It's bad for entrepreneurs trying to build a real business As someone who recently sold his company in an acquihire, I resent your suggestion that I wasn't trying to build a real business. > I strongly believe that most acquihires are a bad deal for the buyer. My new boss & team seem to be ecstatic with the deal so far... maybe we're an outliner? > I do find it almost impossible to believe that this is actually a cost-effective recruiting method. Do you have any clue how much money the likes of the big tech companies spend on recruiting? I get the sense that you have no clue. Most acquihires are peanuts, compared to the aggregate cost of assembling a high caliber team by other means. I won't comment on the particulars of our deal, suffice to say that our company's numbers were traveling "up and to the right" and that we had investor interest. We drank a lot of beer and lost a lot of sleep, but ultimately decided that the acquihire was the right move for everyone involved. Never forget, startups are a Repeated Game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeated_game