[gk1]

People want to save face. Some more than others. I also read the TC article and thought they were trying a bit too hard to make this seem like a good outcome.

Nothing against the founder. It's just how the game is played. And there's little to gain from deviating from the norms.

Edit: It benefits not just the founder’s ego but also the future career prospects of the employees. Big difference in your engineers being able to say “I worked at X all the way until they got acquired!!” and “I worked at X but the product was so unsuccessful we had to have a fire sale.”

[sskates]

That's too bad that the TC article read that way. They returned more money to investors than what was put in, which puts them in the top ~20% for acquisitions of this scale. The crazy part is even a lot of the 1B+ privates aren't able to do that (eg Lacework)

[dazzeloid]

I both think this comment is spot on (acquisition theater / cope-core is very real) and what I said was true :)

Obviously, the better financial outcome is to grow huge independently and go public, etc, but there are a lot of good outcomes that are not that.