[benterix]

Yeah, I get it, some founders start their startup motivated by a potential MA. And this is great for them.

However, as a customer, I absolutely hate this. Instead of finding a way to actually make the product/service self-sustainable, they just increase the number of (usually) free users. But once they sell, normally the new owner either shuts the service down or turns it into crap.

[chongli]

It’s a personality thing. The type of person who starts companies tends to start a lot of them. The idea of sticking around at a company and keeping a steady hand on the tiller (after all the big product problems have been solved) is anathema to these folks. What they need is a succession plan.

It just happened that mergers and acquisitions turned out to be the cleanest, easiest way for founders to hand over the reins. In days past, companies would go through this transition process internally, often by succession through the founder’s family. The founder may have been a very entrepreneurial type, but the child who was raised to be the successor was more of a managerial type. When it worked out, anyway. Sometimes none of the founder’s kids were suitable. Or the founder tapped the wrong kid to take over.

[coldpie]

Yeah. Keybase was the one that really showed this model to me, and soured me on the whole startup scene. What a crap way that is to run a business.

[afavour]

Agreed. I think if you’re passionate about an idea then you should be able to channel that energy into making it a sustainable business. If you can’t motivate yourself to do that… maybe let someone else who is motivated do it.