Comments on: Google’s strange acquisition practices

By: Finance Geek » Making M&A work in new media – some insights from Google

Finance Geek » Making M&A work in new media – some insights from Google — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:33:59 +0000

[...] is much more spotty. I’m not going to name names here other than to point to a previous post about the number of failed acquisitions that Google has made and to say that the others are no [...]

By: White Vinegar

White Vinegar — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:26:30 +0000

It's also buying out potential competition. So buyouts are good either way, they acquire customers and some technology. And, most likely Google and write it off in their taxes. LOL

By: White Vinegar

White Vinegar — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:26:30 +0000

It's also buying out potential competition. So buyouts are good either way, they acquire customers and some technology. And, most likely Google and write it off in their taxes. LOL

By: Chris Padfield

Chris Padfield — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:23:14 +0000

Nic, I was not talking about big companies in general – but Google in particular which has a rather unique brand for such a large company. Google Video is not a counter example given that it was launched *before* Youtube. Most of the new products I can think of from Google either entered crowded markets (Google Mail, Froogle) or were unique. Any market with a high profile startup – they seemed to buy instead. I am sure there are counter examples, and I am not suggesting that PR is the only reason – but I would be surprised if it didn't factor into it; a few million $ is not a huge price to pay for maintaning the “do no evil” brand.

Personally I imagine the facebook/twitter thing has a PR affect here. Had facebook just “copied” twitter there would have been some quite heated discussion on the issue. Given that facebook offered to buy twitter but terms could not be agreed – it gives facebook a pretty good PR argument when they go ahead and recreate anyway. Perhaps facebook did want to buy twitter – but I am sure they realised having the discussion anyway would be useful if they ever decided just to do it themselves.

By: Rohitmat

Rohitmat — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:10:33 +0000

you are probably right! I have been thinking the same - what's the use of buying a start-up when you are
- not getting a proprietary technology,
- no established consumer base/preference
- no added value from the 'founders'

You Tube's acquisition was different as in spite of similar technologies, Google Video had not become as popular as You Tube. So Google had not choice but to acquire You Tube for its established consumer base

Rohit

By: Taylor Davidson

Taylor Davidson — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:44:25 +0000

People are important, but big companies have a habit of negating the entrepreneurial talents of the type of people that create startups

By: brisbourne

brisbourne — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:51:31 +0000

For sure people are important but for acquisitions of companies with more than a handful of people they can only be a part of the story. Summize was tiny when Twitter acquired it.

By: farhanlalji

farhanlalji — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:45:00 +0000

Not sure why you and Nic don't buy the “you get the founders” argument? It happens whether you buy it or not, Google had G Video before YouTube, it was easier for Twitter to buy Summize, passionate people are at the start up and if you buy the start up you get the people who can bring consumers.

By: ricardo_mb (Ricardo MB)

ricardo_mb (Ricardo MB) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:01:16 +0000

RT @linksgoogle: Google’s strange acquisition practices | The Equity Kicker http://tinyurl.com/c4oqb5

By: linksgoogle (Links About Google)

linksgoogle (Links About Google) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:51:08 +0000

Google’s strange acquisition practices | The Equity Kicker http://tinyurl.com/c4oqb5