Fwiw, you were perfectly clear. Anytime someone says "Facebook/Google/Awesome-Tech-Company-of-the-decade bought them as a talent acquisition", the obvious implication (and compliment) is that the talent is really talent. Don't know where this confusion is coming from.

Probably because of this line: 'Once you're beating someone by a factor of over 100:1 you move on to other things.'

which I thought was abrasive.

It's a tricky connotation based on context, but I read it as sometimes more positive than others. It does imply that the talent in question is quite talented, and worth paying significant money to acquire, but it also sort of implies that the product/company wasn't in itself particularly great or interesting to the acquirer.

The clear message without the PC Sugar coating communicates fine with me as-well. Also agree that it's primarily a talent Acquisition.

I like clear and concise. I'm like that a lot (unless I'm intentionally verbose) and tend to get looked at in the same light.