|
|
|
|
|
|
by whb07
2657 days ago
|
|
|
They just don't simply "acquire" you, with a gun to your head. They make an offer and then one presumes they would mull it over. It is publicly known that Yahoo tendered the $1 billion USD offer at Facebook in its infancy. Obviously they said no, and then they disrupted the market. I'd also like to point you to Clay Christensen's theory of disruptive innovation. One of the parts is that well run companies while doing everything optimally will lead themselves to destruction because they will laugh and scoff at the idea of being involved at the lower-end market brought on by new technologies. Then theres also the internal resistance within the company. Imagine trying to staff up a small team to checkout a possible new technology to do X. No rational manager will want to take that opportunity as it is clearly a fool's errand. They'd rather stay and be the manager for the profit generating center, rather than go pursue some foolish idea that clearly will never go anywhere. So what you end up with is many, many reasons why the best companies miss the ball on where the market was moving to in an obvious (in hindsight) way. [0]https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation |
|
|
And for publicly-owned companies, resisting is rarely feasible because a majority of shareholders will find it to be a risky proposition (and a majority may have invested in hopes of a takeover, anyway.)
It is rare for a startup to grow large enough to challenge an entrenched incumbent in a large market without taking on a majority of investors who are not necessarily committed to fighting for independence.
[1] https://www.recode.net/2017/3/29/15112314/amazon-shutting-do...