[vidarh]

$2M for an acquisition on top of an employment offer vs. $1M-$2M in salary and RSU's are vastly different in value.

The acquisition pathway with your numbers would be 2-3 times the value before you discount the present value of the salary and RSU's because of the additional risks associated (even assuming the acquisition amount would be similarly restricted and spread out over time). It seems like you assume that an acqui-hire would mean he'd sell and then not get a salary for four years.

[cromwellian]

Yes, they're not exactly equivalent, on the other hand, you won't necessarily end up with the same salary and RSUs through an acquisition either. They're not going to acquire you for $2M plus give you an additional $200k vesting RSUs per year.

Point being, there's nothing scammy about a deal being negotiated down, or falling through, and ending up as an employment offer instead of an acquisition, especially if they're only interested in the person, not the company, an acquisition is really just the 'shut down' cost of your business.

Deals fall through all the time and valuations can get reduced once due diligence is done. A business which looks great from the outside can look much less interesting later. And of course, during talks, the other side -- who are usually interested in investing in people -- could become less impressed with you.

[vidarh]

> They're not going to acquire you for $2M plus give you an additional $200k vesting RSUs per year.

If that is the case the hypothetical offer (that never was) starts approaching insultingly deceptive given the way they went about it.

If I started talking to someone about an acqui-hire and they expect to get a "discount" on salary and options/RSUs based on the acquisition price, then the acquisition price is artificially inflated to get my interest unless the hinted at acquisition amount makes the salary and RSUs a rounding error (in which case they'd be idiots to potentially antagonise a desirable hire over it). And I'd be tempted to tell them to fuck off just on principle.

Of course Google is not obliged to make him a good offer. But they ought to realise the damage these kind of approaches are doing to their brand amongst potential hires. For my part, while I've never experienced anything like in this article from Google, my experiences with (half a dozen plus) Google recruiters have been entirely negative whenever they've approached me, to the point where I recount my history with past Google recruiters every time a new one calls to make it clear to them why I am going to be short with them until/unless they prove they're worth my time. No other company's has been as disrespectful of my time.

> Point being, there's nothing scammy about a deal being negotiated down

But there is plenty scammy about not making it clear that they are trying to hire him but instead giving the impression they are after his product.

[gress]

The scam aspect has nothing to do with the valuations or how much the author's startup is actually worth, or whether the deal 'fell through'.

It's the blatant dishonesty of the Googlers making the approach that is inexcusable.