|
|
|
|
|
by lisper
907 days ago
|
|
I was a part-time contractor for Barefoot, and came along for the ride during the acquisition, so I have some first-hand knowledge of this. I am very much out of the managerial loop so I have no insight into the actual motives for killing the project, but I can tell you that at least one of the founders cared very much and fought tooth and nail to keep it alive. > It still seems like a ridiculously foolish idea, considering how much money Intel spent acquiring Barefoot Acquiring companies in order to kill them is a horrible business practice but not unusual. The thing that makes no sense to me is why they kept it going for three years before killing it. If they bought it in order to kill it, they should have done that before spending another hundred million on it. |
|
Internal politics?
Presumably the internal team(s) with overlap were against the acquisition.
But it was likely easier to see if the integration failed on its own before spending the political capital to kill it.
Folks forget executives at large companies usually optimize for "my career" over "the company."