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.<p>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.<p>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.
I can't really get past characterizing pandodaily (and Sarah Lacey especially) as a thinly disguised mouthpiece for the Venture Capital industry. In this case, then, this can be summarized as "engineers are making too much money and have gotten too comfortable. And it's cutting into the (too much money, too comfortable) lifestyle that we, venture capitalists, enjoy.
The talent market is going to stay frothy until engineer salaries adjust up to stable equilibrium. The market is doing the rational thing, when Acquihires are worth $1M/engineer with a 3-4 year lock-in, while 'normal' salary offers are $150k. If you're talented enough to make a startup that can get acquihired, you absolutely should do it. Best case is you build a profitable company, worst case is you get acquired.<p>Acquihires are also not the worst thing ever from an employer perspective. Big companies can easily spend $10M on failed initiatives that go nowhere. It's much easier to buy a startup that proves it can execute.
I really can't get behind the premise of the article, there are too many parts that simply do not connect.<p>> <i>"Allowing entrepreneurs — and their investors — to save face by saying they were “acquired” instead of failing is nice, but it’s a bit like the pre-schools where everyone wins a trophy for showing up."</i><p>The notion that acquihires are failures is purely a moral one - last I checked pre-school trophies aren't worth several houses. I am fairly certain that acquihires who just took home $1-2M in comp will survive your browbeating about not swinging for the fences.<p>> <i>"Not enough people moving to the Valley or coming out of school want to work at companies other people are starting, because it’s so easy to start their own."</i><p>No, no it isn't. We are now at the point where SF/SV companies are offering $100K to fresh undergrads. For all that the industry has done to lower the barrier to entry for entrepreneurship, it is anything but trivial. A fresh grad shouldering a moderately scary debt load is <i>not</i> going to trivially choose to found a startup over taking a highly-paid position and paring down the debt.<p>How easy does the author think it is to live in SF/SV, work on a startup full-time, fresh out of college, loan payments due, with no income stream? Does she think everyone's a trust fund baby that can afford the $2K SF apartment and just spend all day drinking Blue Bottle while twirling their startup ideas in their heads, right out of school?
There is plenty of talent out there; companies just aren't willing to pay for it. When it's normal for developers to make $300k+ as bankers, hedge fund managers, and corporate attorneys do, then there's a talent shortage.