5 ms·

Why not let Amazon take a stab at turning things around, then? It's better that they fail? I don't get it.

• KerrAvon 9mo ago
  couple things - tbh, I think the Amazon deal doesn't matter much in the long run. The damage had been done earlier. - why give Bezos any more free money? He's already rich enough.
  • dcgudeman 9mo ago
    Free money? I honestly don't understand comments like this. It's as if you aren't even trying to make sense. Amazon would have been bailing out Roomba so if anything this would have cost Bezos money.
  • adamsb6 9mo ago
    They'll just hire the engineers they need out of the failed iRobot and not compensate the investors / founders for building something worth acqui-hiring. The existing Roomba revenue stream probably doesn't matter. The expertise or maybe the brand (not a great brand imho) aligns with some company priority.
• BeetleB 9mo ago
  > Why not let Amazon take a stab at turning things around, then? The point the article is making is that iRobot's bad decisions are the reason the company was failing. Blaming regulators for a poor acquisition outcome may be fair, but they were a very minor part of the outcome.
• lkramer 9mo ago
  According to the article, there is a defence invoking that exact sentiment if a merger is about to be blocked, bu iRobot decided not to invoke it (likely because it would have caused the price to be lower).
  • gizmondo 9mo ago
    Why the price would be lower? Presumably the price was already agreed upon. Having a provision in the contract that the price is reduced if this argument is made to the antitrust authorities makes no sense. I now realized that I recently saw some old tweets from this guy where he first opposed this merger and then celebrated the cancellation of the deal. So it seems he's just grasping at straws to look less like an idiot.
    • overfeed 9mo ago
      > Why the price would be lower? Renegotiate the deal by threatening to walk away - or actually walking away[1] and buying the pieces from the bankruptcy sale. 1. Which Musk tried and failed to do when Twitter sued for specific performance. I suspect a company that's going out of business is far less fiesty.
      • gizmondo 9mo ago
        But they can do that regardless of what arguments the company makes to the antitrust authorities.
        • overfeed 9mo ago
          If the buyer is publicly listed, they have to consider their own share price,that is - the perception of their shareholders. The buyer will be punished for overpaying for a company circling the drain, they will also be punished from waling away from purchasing a seemingly healthy company at a good price. The buyer and purchaser have to agree on which of the 2 options they publicly present to their shareholders and regulators - Amazon wouldn't be fooled because they had access to the financials and had its own judgement on viability (which may not be material Amazon's plans). However, the approach would decide the corresponding offer, and typically wouldn't be a retrospective decision, but would lock-in the higher or lower from the start.