[hyp0]

> To prevent a competitor from getting them.

Yes, or becoming a competitor, signalled by having users and getting more. "Strategic" aquisitions often seem absurdly high, unless seen as a threat to the future of the acquirer. You can be a threat without being fundamentally new.

[venomsnake]

That is one problem I have with big exits lately. No one is allowed to grow or develop as independent company.

[hyp0]

True. Modern corps have learnt the lesson of disruption.

I guess the only way it could happen is if it didn't look like a threat until far too late, such as totally different customers (e.g. third world), doing something completely different and no where near as good (e.g. markdown a threat to Word; iOS/android vs Windows)

[bdcravens]

"No one is allowed to grow or develop as independent company."

Of course you are. Just reject the offer. You don't think Uber/AirBnB/Dropbox etc have received offers we've not heard about?

[venomsnake]

Two of those 3 are peripheral to the tech world. They employ tech to disrupt other industries. And dropbox is not disruptive. It competes with similar offerings from the tech giants.

But stuff like Oculus is bought in its infancy - that is not desire to profit, but to control. FB could have acquired 20-30% of the company to provide them with liquidity.

[csmajorfive]

"FB could have acquired 20-30% of the company to provide them with liquidity"

Not really. Most startups don't want to sell that much equity to a potential partner/acquirer unless they have to.