Unless a company is very explicit about this not being in the books, I tend to share this outlook.

From the perspective of a recent founder, it's downright spooky to build around any SaaS, considering how few of them have been around for 10+ years, when that is certainly what our business is aiming for.

I know (and share the feels): Devs tend to get excited about the new thing – but if Google Workspace shut down next month, we would be in so much operational trouble. When other peoples fancies stand in the way of the entire operation you are responsible for, it actually begs the question how much closed source SaaS you can allow before it starts to be quite frankly irresponsible.

We are not imagining things. SaaS of all sizes shut down all the time, and when you are heavily relying on them and building software around them to run a business the prospect is spooky as hell.

The difference between (free) Gmail and Google workspace is that workspace is a paid product. If you're big enough to warrant an AM, you can get terms which include continuity of business planning if Google does happen to shut down Workspace. (They won't.)

Is your argument that Workspace is a paid product and therefore won’t be shut down? If yes, let’s keep in mind that Stadia was paid-for too. My trust in the longevity of Google products has been damaged beyond repair.

The difference is that Stadia was definitely losing money, whereas Google Workspace might be profitable.

Not sure why this is downvoted, it’s a valid point.

I'm guessing that downvotes come from those who see the macro environment changing. With increased rates, borrowing to purchase companies may make less sense.

Macro makes it harder to raise funding too though - VC no longer as attractive given the risks and higher interest rates available

These threads from mrkurt a few months ago seem relevant here -

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32955520

If they are a multiplier for a whole portfolio, there's not much reason for any particular branch to purchase them.

(This post seems like some evidence they might actually be building the wrong thing, though.)

(Render founder) I'd love to understand why you think this is the only outcome. Render has positive gross margin and a clear path to profitability based on both our growth so far and the tailwinds in this space. I'm also aware of other companies like ours that have grown all the way to IPO or are well on their way.

I'm very explicit both internally and externally that an acquisition is a failure mode for Render. We're building this for the very long term and plan to keep it that way.

I guess I’m just default cynical these days seeing how much money’s still floating around and the scale of the cloud big 3. Apologies, it wasn’t personal. I admire your vision and hope it can work, money always seems to talk eventually though. We need more companies that have the nerve to hold on and develop on their own.

I admire your sentiment, at the same time founding teams don't typically say no to US$XX,XXX,XXX,XXX acquisition offers that'd cash you out for at least a few billion to you personally.

Are there any examples where the capitalism bottom line is ignored and a company keeps growing with extremely premium generous acquisition offers on the table? I can't think of any, but there could be a few. However, I expect it's pretty rare.

For companies with such tremendous growth, the venture capitalist firms are primarily looking to make their <big-multiplier> return and push priorities accordingly (understandably).

Market forces in capitalism are highly potent.

> I'd love to understand why you think this is the only outcome.

I’m curious why you think it isn’t? On a long enough timescale all good things seem to be acquired by large megacorps for a fuckton of money.

Slack, Linode, Minecraft, the list goes on. Eventually they all make the thing less than it was before under the founders’ vision. At least from my perspective.

It won’t stop me from cheering them on, but I’m still very skeptical of them not being bought out in 10 years.

Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter (kinda), Valve all have not been acquired and have existed for a long timescale...

That's clearly survivorship bias.

What you want to know is the probability of a small, independent, high quality provider remaining independent, high quality and not bankrupt.

It does seem to be rare in the tech space, especially in the US. Becoming one of the largest public corporations on earth is one way to do it, as you suggested, but the odds of that happening are miniscule.

For obvious reasons I’m excluding the companies doing the acquiring.

Except Valve I guess, but that was never a public company that could be acquired to satisfy investors in the first place.

Times are now different money is not free anymore so those big acquisitions need to make real business sense.