Pulling off acquisitions at this scale takes a way more than you are giving it credit for.
I don't think anyone is denying that skill is involved, but skill is often orthogonal to utility. Skill can be abused. Con men, burglars, and pickpockets all have skill. Malware authors have skill. Torturers have skill. I'm not saying sales is equivalent to any of those (OK maybe con men) but the point should still be crystal clear. What people are saying is that Fivetran hasn't succeeded in creating any value, and might even have destroyed value. When a big company "succeeds" by acquiring competitors they quite rightly get antitrust scrutiny because that's bad for competition and innovation. The principle doesn't really change for smaller predators.
I think what they were saying is this company puts off snake oil vibes. It's like calling Microsoft a success in the game industry when they bought companies or products to position themselves as a leader of the industry when the argument can be made that they couldn't build it back up if it went under.
You seem to be focused on software development as the only 'legitimate' avenue to building a company/business; if this is true, why? Are VCs 'illegitimate' for being unable to run the companies and develop the corresponding products they profit from? Are software developers 'snake oil' vibe-y for being unable to create the hardware they rely on?
Comments
This reminds me of how many developers think sales has no real skills.
Pulling off acquisitions at this scale takes a way more than you are giving it credit for.
I don't think anyone is denying that skill is involved, but skill is often orthogonal to utility. Skill can be abused. Con men, burglars, and pickpockets all have skill. Malware authors have skill. Torturers have skill. I'm not saying sales is equivalent to any of those (OK maybe con men) but the point should still be crystal clear. What people are saying is that Fivetran hasn't succeeded in creating any value, and might even have destroyed value. When a big company "succeeds" by acquiring competitors they quite rightly get antitrust scrutiny because that's bad for competition and innovation. The principle doesn't really change for smaller predators.
I think what they were saying is this company puts off snake oil vibes. It's like calling Microsoft a success in the game industry when they bought companies or products to position themselves as a leader of the industry when the argument can be made that they couldn't build it back up if it went under.
xBox is pretty successful, no? Is the ability to building it back if it went under the only test/indicator of a successful business operation?
You seem to be focused on software development as the only 'legitimate' avenue to building a company/business; if this is true, why? Are VCs 'illegitimate' for being unable to run the companies and develop the corresponding products they profit from? Are software developers 'snake oil' vibe-y for being unable to create the hardware they rely on?