undefined | Better HN

0 pointsencoderer2y ago0 comments

Well since the business is now laying off 1/3 of the workforce they have achieved a smaller business. This is a win? Regular people are losing their jobs because European bureaucrats decided they didn’t want to allow a deal the management team called essential.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

notaustinpowers2y ago· 1 in thread

If a business cannot survive without an acquisition, then that business should not survive. An acquisition should be an avenue for success for the owners, but it should never be the endgame of a business (in my opinion).

Also, I bet $20 Amazon would have laid off a sizable portion of the iRobot workforce anyway just like Activision/Blizzard and Microsoft.

ApolloFortyNine2y ago

>If a business cannot survive without an acquisition, then that business should not survive.

This is exactly what was happening here, the business was being acquired. Now what I would assume is next is a slow death and then their tech being picked up for cheap after bankruptcy proceedings.

arrosenberg2y ago

Willing to bet Amazon would have laid off the same amount or more if the acquisition went through. Source: every corporate merger in history.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse