Considering that the AdMob acquisition was announced in early November 2009 and yesterday was the last business day in October, I'm guessing this is a case of 'stick around as long as the acquisition deal requires and not a day longer'.
Which makes me wonder, and I hope some of the local greybreads can elucidate this point: In general, how common is it for acquired founders to leave ASAP, and how many instead stick around for the long term?
In May according to techcrunch. But I'm guessing that the deal which closed was one which was signed back in October 2009, and that the 1 year countdown started when the deal was signed.
I'd imagine its hard to convince a sales guy who now has more money than he knows what to do with to stick around. There are vacation homes and boats to buy. Hackers are a little different if you can keep them interested (the YouTube guys haven't left Google, just YouTube).
What I'm very curious to know is how Google employees feel about what the culture there now is like. There have been a fair number of high profile exits in the last year or so and a while a Facebook IPO is probably reason number one there have to be at least a few more complementary reasons.
I've met a number of ex-Googler "suits" and have never been impressed by those guys. They don't shy away from boasting about their time there and what they supposedly added to the organization as a whole. The experiences have made me wonder if the business types have started to sour the culture. Any current or former employees care to weigh in?
Addendum: Let me add that I have nothing against business people as a whole. I (anecdotally) find that large groups of technically competent people tend to weed out assholes from their ranks somewhat more effectively than large groups of strictly business/management people.
The trouble with the AdMob-like behavior is that acquirers pretty much know founders would flip and go. No rational acquirer these days can expect founders to stick around very long. It may happen - YouTube guys stuck around - but the odds don't favor it.
Golden handcuffs and such only go so far, because if a person's mind is not fully engaged, what's the point in him or her showing up?
This has the effect of lowering the price acquirers would want to pay. I have seen this dynamic play out. When one of the companies I am involved with acquired a small company (note that most such deals are never publicly announced), they simply told the founders to stick around 3-6 months, hand over the technology and go. There was not even a plan to ask them to stick around. Of course, the price paid reflected that. This is the flip-side of the "talent acquisition" deals we read about - pure tech acquisitions, valued only for the code and the jump-start it gives someone else.
"Executives previously have said it is close to being profitable, despite the large costs associated with storing and delivering so much video content."
I think the youtube acquisition was more about controlling the direction of online video than anything else. Before Youtube, online video was a mishmash of proprietary codecs. Proprietary online video was the only thing at that time that Microsoft or some other big player could use to destroy the open web platform.
Since I never worked for FB or google I can only make a guess. People who are leaving for Facebook from Google (or any other company) are doing so not because they think facebook has something better to offer than Google in terms of working in interesting stuff and perhaps even offer better work environment or salary; but because facebook is the best place to work before IPO.
I think this is an excellent way to weed out people who are interested in working on interesting stuff and people who are just working for the money (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Not that to say that there are no interesting stuff to work in facebook, but there is no comparison to Google.
If I told you where I work, when I started working there, it doesn't make sense that you'll be able to derive my motivations or my character. Of course compensation is always a factor in choosing a place to work, but I am sure each individual case is so different and so complex that holding them to a greed metric is a little heavy-handed.
It isn't even a question about character here because if these people were concerned about money before everything else, many of the smartest Silicon Valley people could have had a job on Wall Street a long time ago. On Wall Street, almost 100% of the time you'll be very well off (remember how much GDP goes through that street). Wall Street will take brains anytime. If not Wall Street, FB IPO expectations haven't changed significantly in a year, these people would have moved over ages ago if they wanted a big equity cut.
There is only so much liquidity to go around with 1700+ employees and a marginally liquid market on secondmarket. For me, second market changes the game a bit because the error in valuation is potentially a lot smaller (there was a very good discussion on FB over here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1719975). Either way, I wonder the size of the equity packages involved. Even if they are large, someone like Lars is very well off and spent most of his whole life building things so I don't think he is a jump to FB for the IPO kind of guy. Choosing where to work, when to work is a complex decision and not indicative of any character most of the time.
People work for the love of the craft or for the love of the money. If you've been at Google and want more money Facebook might be a better deal before going public. Sometimes people just want to change their scenery so to speak, to do something new.
There will always be smart people for both companies to hire anyways.
I guess Facebook is 'sexier' right now with the movie and all but honestly I rely on Google way more than fb in a given day - work or leisure - and hope this doesnt mean the goog is sinking or something. On the flipside I guess they're hiring?
If you read the article, you'd see the youtube guy is not leaving:
> Mr. Kamangar will now take the chief executive title and continue to try to improve the site's advertising features and strike new content partnerships to carry well-known television shows, clips, music videos and films, in addition to enabling more people to upload homemade videos that fueled its initial growth.
edit: if you downvote please do tell why, I think I gave factual information
Notable that both YouTube founders stayed with Google -- they left YouTube to, according to the article, work on other Google projects. That's pretty impressive on Google's part; it implies that they've built enough of an internal startup culture that these top-notch founders find it more attractive than going outside the company.
Which makes me wonder, and I hope some of the local greybreads can elucidate this point: In general, how common is it for acquired founders to leave ASAP, and how many instead stick around for the long term?