The 17-Year-Old That Yahoo Paid $30M Was Licensing His Startup's Core Technology

Well, I said just yesterday on a thread that I hoped someone would do a follow the money in this deal as there's a lot that's strange about it. Doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything nefarious but it does mean that of we live in an age where investigative reporting is not completely dead it makes sense for someone to at least poke around this a bit and find out all the details.<p>Yahoo doesn't get the technology from the transaction (summly doesn't own it). Yahoo doesn't get any particular talent on the transaction (there isn't a team of tech wizards they're buying for that 30million). They're not getting a huge number of users (tons of apps have a million users - still a drop in the ocean on Yahoo's own user numbers). So what is this deal all about?

I have a question that's been bugging me for the past few days (threads ;) :<p>Has anyone actually _confirmed_ that Yahoo paid $30M? As in, seen an official statement or reviewed the actual deal docs? Because as of now it seems like the only actual source for that number is Kara Swisher on AllThingsD, and that's her saying "sources tell her".<p>I ask because I wonder if one of the big twists in this story is that, perhaps, Yahoo didn't actually pay $30M. Maybe they paid $10M. Or $1M. And perhaps this whole shebang is a big, big PR blitz -- that's working spectacularly.<p>Folks pay $2M for 30 seconds of Super Bowl ad time. This story has, so far, gotten Yahoo a LOT more than 30 seconds of exposure. It's everywhere (my extremely non-technical and non-nerdy biz partner emailed me an AP news link this morning - he's my "masses" filter).<p>One question I have is - what would the consequences be if they did leak an incorrect amount? I mean, would shareholders have a right to be upset? "You leaked to the world that we paid $30M and in reality, we...we...got a better deal? Oh. Cool."<p>It reminds me of a joke I have with some friends about an acquisition someone did a few years ago. They announced the deal as being priced at "Under $50M", and the news reported and celebrated this $50M acquisition. Now friends say things like "I, too, happen to have Under $50M in my wallet at this very moment!" ;)

His father is a VP at Morgan Stanley. Deal was done from day 1.<p>Stop over analyzing, it's not a regular startup, it's not playing the same ballgame you or I play. No value was required. The usualy rules do not apply.<p>Daddy hooked his fish.

Forgive me for having to ask this, but can anyone link me to a cogent argument made here on HN as to why this particular story inspires so much fixation? After the Nth front page story here I'm still having trouble understanding why everyone is so wrapped up in it.<p>Supposedly the Spock-like logical minds of HN are immune to the wunderkind mass media story hook; so what gives?

... And if it was from SRI it means it probably didn't work nearly as well as advertised. Even with Apple's help Siri is still a joke.

<p><pre><code> By the way: None of this is meant to take anything away from what founder Nick D'Aloisio did with Summly. That guy is a pure hustler, and he earned every penny of his millions. </code></pre> How can they say that after suggesting:<p><pre><code> Maybe Yahoo has decided spending $30 million to give one of their disappointing startups a safe landing is a way to get on their good side. </code></pre> If the deal was for Yahoo to gain favour with the investors (lining their pockets; Nick cashing out being an irrelevant side effect) how on earth did he "earn every penny"? If that is true then he was in the right place at the right time with the right investors.

This confuses me...<p>"The acquisition was led by Yahoo HR boss Jackie Reeses."<p>HR is leading investment decisions at Yahoo? I looked up this person and she is based in New York and her title is EVP People and Development at Yahoo!

I like how the last sentence of the article completely contradicts all the points made in the rest of the body.

This sounds more and more like everyone involved in this at Yahoo did zero research prior to making this acquisition. Well, either that or Yahoo was determined to kill any competition before possibly rolling out with a similar product. Regardless, it puts Yahoo in an awkward position.

What if this is just one big fuckup on Yahoo's part and they can't admit to it because they'll look like idiots?<p>I.e. they somehow forgot to check the actual technology.<p>The more I read about this, the more I think this could be the case.

This is a pretty poor attack on a startup that managed to get itself acquired for more than most of us will ever sell a company for.<p>As Peter Thiel says there are two kinds of companies: companies who go from 0 to 1 (SpaceX, Tesla, maybe Google) and companies who go from 1 to n (globalization of technology).<p>Summly clearly fits into the 1 to n bucket, but so do a lot of other companies. Would people be pissed if Github got acquired? I see no outcry for a $100 million dollar round of funding for a company that is built upon open source software.<p>How is github any different than Summly from a 'renting' of technology perspective?

Really?<p>"Despite speculation on the Internet that Summly only licensed its summarizing technology from SRI International, an independent research institute, Mr. D’Aloisio said the technology was developed by Summly and that the company owned 100% of the intellectual property behind the service."<p><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2013/03/26/what-does-30-million-buy-you/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2013/03/26/what-does-30-mil...</a>

KeenSkim will soon launch an iPhone version, after developing it's own in-house tech.<p><a href="https://www.keenskim.com/static/KeenSkim_iPhone_app.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.keenskim.com/static/KeenSkim_iPhone_app.htm</a> - sign-up for reminder when ready<p><a href="https://www.keenskim.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.keenskim.com/</a>

Is this what some people like to call "killing it"?

Don't hate.