>At what point should an acquisition be allowed on the sake of something being able to continue to exist and possibly save jobs? Sure there would have almost guaranteed be job cuts with the acquisition due to redundancy, but would it have been the same amount?

IMO, probably never. I think this would open too many shenanigans of running a possible acquisition into the ground or attempt to lobby whatever government agency would regulate this.

At some point, to make rules easy to enforce, you have to absorb some collateral damage.

US antitrust law has a failing company doctrine. If you can show that absent the merger, the company would almost certainly fail, and no other likely purchaser exists, then you have the right to buy it regardless of any competitive concerns.

I was really hoping this was a novelty account that just went around HN threads, calling out misinformation.

Did we read the same post? "The US implements X" doesn't counter "X is a terrible idea" at all.

I think they were talking about parent's name, thatsjustwrong, and how perfect it would be for a fact checking novelty account.

That sounds terrible and should change ASAP

Why? How is market competition or the public served by forcing a company to go out of business instead of being acquired? The end result is the same (no competitor), but overall productivity is hurt. Why is that better for the public?

Going bankrupt doesn't necessarily mean going out of business. Also, as another commenter said, "letting a company fail really just means letting it sink far enough that some other acquirer will pick it up."

Great point: In US bankruptcy law, "Chapter 7" is liquidation, and "Chapter 11" is re-org. Often, a well-managed Chapter 11 bankruptcy can allow a company to reduce debt burden and emerge as a stronger company, saving many jobs in the process. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is common in the US airline industry.

Chapter 11 is basically finding a lower bidder - the lenders are willing to take ownership of the failing company.

> How is market competition or the public served by forcing a company to go out of business instead of being acquired

How is market competition or the public served by companies whose only strategy is to fail and be bought by the ever shrinking number of ultra rich mega corporations?

Is it?

T-Mobile was cleared to buy Sprint because Sprint was not able to be a going concern. The end result is the same, with 3 national cell carriers.

Do you know why this didn't apply regarding JetBlue trying to acquire Spirit?

Spirit being about to "certainly fail" is debatable, and JetBlue is not the only willing purchaser of Spirit.

One outcome is Spirit goes into bankruptcy reorganization and still operates, which is hardly unprecedented for an American airline. Nearly every major airline has filed for Chapter 11 since 2002, the lone exception being Southwest.

Small note: JetBlue was started in 1999/2000, so it would be included on the "exception" list. But overall, your point stands. Chapter 11 re-org is bizarrely common in US airlines. Warren Buffett has many funny quotes about the terrible return on investment for US airlines -- both debt and equity.

>Delta entered Chapter 11 on Sept. 14, 2005, amid high fuel prices and the burdens of high labor and pension expenses. Delta significantly reduced its labor and pension costs while under court protection.

It’s always interesting that Chapter 11 is a way out of pension promises. That someone can take employment at a certain wage, and then the company can renege on the back half of the compensation once the person retires.

Hence one should be wary of accepting the promise to be paid decades in the future by anyone other than the US federal government, or much more regulated entities like insurance companies. If the payer is not US federal government, stick to broad market index funds in 401k/IRA.

> Chapter 11 re-org is bizarrely common in US airlines.

Philip Greenspun has a good writeup about why that is: https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines

I suppose it depends on how you define “major.” One impetus of the proposed tieup was to launch JetBlue into the big leagues.

>and no other likely purchaser exists

this seems like the important part of that doctrine, and a perfect justification for why an amazon acquisition shouldn't be allowed.

letting a company fail really just means letting it sink far enough that some other acquirer will pick it up.

Or it'll just fade into oblivion, like Convoy.

This Convoy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_(company)

If yes, it sounds rough!

> On 19th October 2023, Convoy ceased operations and laid off remaining staff. Remaining staff were given no severance and were told their stock options were worthless.[9] In a memo sent that day to employees, Lewis points to "a massive freight recession and a contraction in the capital markets" as major factors resulting in the company's failure.[10]

Nothing fades into oblivion. The company is obligated to liquidate its assets which includes IP. This gives a big opportunity to build new products that may be more economically viable. This would not be possible if the company would be acquired by the incumbent who will just acquire the company’s IP and sit on it.

> The company is obligated to liquidate its assets which includes IP

"We have no idea who owns this IP in order to ask for permission, because the company went bankrupt" comes up fairly often in discussions about copyright duration and video games.

How often does acquired IP rights just end up in a lawyers filing cabinet somewhere, with nobody in the acquiring company sufficiently incentivized to do something with most of it?

A lot of the time - especially with failing companies where the sale might happen at rock bottom prices, but otherwise too - the acquirer and seller may have very different ideas about which part of the transaction matters.

E.g. one company I co-founded sold off a business unit after we pivoted, and where to me at least the technology was the most worthwhile part - far better than the platform the buyer had. But to them the 6% of the userbase they were able to convert to paying users of their own service was what justified the sale price. And as much as I think the tech we sold them with the userbase was better, I get that to them - even if they agreed with my assessment, and maybe they didn't - it wasn't sufficiently better to them to justify replacing what they had and knew how to develop and knew how to operate (we sold the system, not the company, so none of our staff went with them).

Acquired IP gets used when it is the focus of the purchase, and the acquirer knows exactly what they want or need that IP for, but even then more so if it's e.g. patents rather than software. A lot of software acquirers thought they needed still end up languishing and eventually dying.

But I've seen so much IP "fade into oblivion" over the years. I'd say, I don't even know who currently owns the rights to the majority of the software I've personally developed in my career. Some would be easy to track down. Others near impossible.

So that's why most "innovative" startups in the US (apart from those bleeding billions dollars a year) never seek profit and hope to be purchased

What if it’s only likely to fail as a consequence of your own anticompetitive actions?

I have the same experience. I bought the most expensive iRobot and that thing sucks. You can’t irobotitfy your house enough for it to just run. I bought a Roborock s6 and it’s amazing. Immediately got one for my mom and she’s been raving about it for years already.

FYI: Cheap Roombas seem better than expensive ones. I have a random one which bangs around the house for a long time, and the house ends up clean. Push a button, come back an hour later, and you're done.

I like the simplicity.

I agree with this that they are better, but actually before the expensive roomba I had a cheap roomba and it worked terribly. Insisted on shoving itself right under the perfect height furniture. My house is pretty basic. But my brother had similar roomba and I know he had better luck than me, but now has a shark.

I have a cheap (well, also old, there wasn’t too much else back then, it’s 10 years old) iRobot Roomba 620 and am very happy with it. Extremely repairable, which is not something I read about modern ones of any manufacturer.

I have a successor, almost identical, but perhaps two generations newer. Upgrades:

- Bigger, better dust bin

- Slightly less dust makes it into the HEPA filter

- Slightly better / cheaper roller design

... and similar details.

A friend gave me their smarter vacuum (which they didn't use), and I hated it:

1) It tried to overthink things and was pretty demanding.

2) It didn't clean as well. My Roomba has a pretty anaemic vacuum, but cleans very well by virtue of going over every place many times in random directions as it bumps along for 30+ minutes. The smart vacuum plotted a course which covered everything once, finished up in record time, and nothing was actually clean.

What's odd is that even now, 2+ decades after launch, so little has improved. What I really want is "cyclone operation," as in any modern dumb vacuum, so most of the dust doesn't make it to the HEPA filter. The design is stupid simple:

- Air comes into a circular container from a hole in the side, so the air spins.

- Suction comes out a hole in the top at a half-way point in the radius of the dust container, while most of the dust wants to stay at the inside or outside

- If you're even more clever, you put the suction at half height, because dust naturally goes to the bottom.

The annoying thing is cleaning or replacing filters.

I had one and it got trapped and strangled itself regularly and ran over things and was totally useless. I pretty much wouldn't recommend those basic robot vacuums.

The "run over things" is almost a feature for me. I run the Roomba a few times a week, and I need to tidy up before. Mess never builds up. It means I keep my floors clean!

The "gets stuck under furniture" is a bug. However, I don't have much furniture at Roomba height. If I did, it'd make the device useless.

I did the same thing and it broke 1 month after the 1 year warranty expired. A cryptic error that means buying a new brain for it. Ridiculous that a $800 robot breaks.

Bought two sharks for $300 each. Not quite as good, but so much cheaper. And doesn’t require bags.

I think they are utterly ridiculous. Get a decent canister vacuum that plugs into the wall and you'll have clean floors in 15 minutes (or less if your house is small) with no frustration, no ugly charging station to trip over, no batteries to catch on fire or require hazmat disposal when they don't work anymore, no apps, no accounts, no spying.

15 minutes how often? Once you spend 15 minutes 20 times that's a pretty significant amount.

I think it's pretty fair to assume that anyone buying a Roomba knows about normal vacuums, and still prefer the room as for reasons that are obvious.

( Also lol at the "batteries" that catch fire, as if that's actually a thing that people should worry about. Might as well be scared of your canister vacuum's motor burning out and destroying your house, or never buy a laptop!!)

Why is this downvoted? Sure, a bit emotional, but the content still stands. There are so many places where Roomba and friends cannot reach. I still was a washer / dryer than can fold my clothes and change the sheets on my bed. That seems like an almost impossible task for a robot.

It's not 'a bit emotional', it's a tantrum with as much logic as saying why have a washer/dryer when you still have to hand wash some stuff.

Folding clothes, changing sheets, load/unload the dishwasher. Those are the things I'd pay good money to automate away. As much as I hate to vacuum, it's far down my list of the chores that annoy me most.

Meanwhile, e.g. loading and unloading the dishwasher annoys me enough that I must admit I have considered replacing my dishwasher with two slimline or drawer ones so I can use stuff out of one while filling the other...

I know someone who has two regular sized dish washers. They are super happy about it.

Great. Ours vacuums and mops, and don't tell me you can do both in 15 minutes.

There's nothing worth buying more than free time.

Honestly? This isn't even a question of time. My house could take 5 minutes to clean and I still wouldn't find motivation to do it every week. Here I just push a button and at least the floors will be cleaned and mopped, and when I have more motivation I can clean in a deeper way.

I think you're mad about something but I can't quite pinpoint what, because it's not frustrating, the charging station isn't that ugly and is out of the way (because the robot knows how to get back to it), and lithium batteries have not been a real fire hazard since the note 8. I agree that using them in the first place is kind of Not Nice for the planet, but since you brought up the points of frustrating and tripping over stuff: do you somehow think using a wired vacuum is a pleasant experience?

I run my robot daily and every two weeks we pay someone to come clean. Robot mostly does a good job of keeping the floor clean during those two weeks, but it can't do the counter tops, clean the toilets or dust everywhere.

Honestly, I’m not sure about “not what they used to be”: I don’t think Roombas have ever been very good.

The early ones were noteworthy for being novel, but (IMO as an early adopter) weren’t very good at cleaning. About ten years later I experienced someone else’s (then) modern Roomba, and it was still essentially the same crappy product, randomly banging into walls and struggling with carpet edges.

When the Roborock appeared with LIDAR, it was like the future in comparison, and frankly what Roomba should have already delivered years before.

When an established company with a big market share and opportunity for a technology lead is so out-innovated, it suggests that something is fundamentally rotten.

> Roborock appeared with LIDAR

LIDAR is indeed a game changer, but Roborock was far from the first manufacturer to use it in botvacs.

The first Roborock with LIDAR was released in 2019 and I remember getting a Neato botvac with LIDAR in the early 2010s.

Has anyone innovated in the direction of privacy? "This is not a connected device, it does not talk to the cloud, there are no privacy considerations because we don't receive any of your data and never will".

I picked up a Roborock E4 a few years back, both because it was relatively cheap and a couple thorough reviews indicated it was one of the better devices out there. I initially spent a couple hours trying (and failing) to connect it to the Android app, only to discover (out of frustration) that pressing the start button on the unit would clean just fine! I was absolutely relieved that it wouldn't be uploading anything anywhere, the only "downside" was that I couldn't indicate which areas/rooms to ignore, although I'm not sure that would have mattered much since I constantly move things around.

I have no idea if any other models run without smartphone/tablet setup but if so, that would potentially eliminate any privacy issues ;)

Maybe it's time to create a public spreadsheet with a list of models that run without a smartphone, and potentially any downsides to doing so...

https://valetudo.cloud is a project which allows you to use many vacuums without connecting to the cloud.

Not directly. Valetudo exists though, it's a custom firmware you can flash to a lot of different models that is privacy focused.

It doesn't even have to be a privacy angle, but complexity. There is nothing I would actually want a robot vacuum to do that requires a network connection, and few things that would even benefit from it (e.g. makes firmware updates easier, which you mostly shouldn't have to/want to do anyway).

I like starting it up automatically when I leave the house. For that you need automation and network connectivity

But not necessarily internet connectivity.

That's true.

Yes, assuming this isn't vaporware. They're supposed to start shipping in March. https://maticrobots.com

Edited to add this quote from the website:

Matic's intelligence is localized on the device, and it never sends any of your data to the cloud for processing. That means no user information is ever sold, shared, or even collected in the first place.

I bought into the Eufy ecosystem on the same premise, but it's still internet connected, so all you really get is a pinky swear that they're not copying your data for their own purposes. Just because it's on-device doesn't mean it's not also elsewhere.

Anoth quote from the website:

> The HEPA bag is designed to hold about a week’s worth of debris with daily vacuuming and mopping. Replacement frequency will vary based on your usage.

The "membership" (ie. prepaid refills) is advertised at $180. The best-case scenario is you're trading the always-online smart appliance debacle for the overpriced ink cartridge debacle. Pick your poison.

Probably not, because that is a niche interest. We both know that. I’m not salty about it. But come on, get off the soapbox.

That's not true at all. Consumer reports often has privacy as a quality category in device judging. Clearly many people care about privacy _in addition_ to other concerns.

I bet 99% people of who buy privacy invading products do not care. Yes, I know that HN loves to go on and on about privacy invasion. Yes, many educated people will tell you that they don't like companies monetising their personal info and habits, but if you watch their actions, they do not care.

I don't care.

I have a Roborock. I genuinely don't care if the Red Army knows how dirty my apartment is.

Sure; apologies for not providing a comprehensive history of the space - I was just speaking from my (limited) experience.

I've had the LiDAR on three Neato Botvacs fail over the past 7 years. In Norway robot vacuums have to last for 5 years, so I essentially got a new robot every couple of years for free. Probably the reason they went out of business.

I think they did a great job. But VSLAM was a mistake. The fact that the robot is not reliable at navigating unless you have all the lights on in your house is just stupid.

LIDAR is clearly superior. There’s a reason every reasonable competitor is using it, even on very cheap models.

I’d be happy to go back to them but I’m not touching them again until they have LIDAR.

“Yeah, but humans have two eyes and they do just fine!” /s

"Yeah, but have you tried cleaning the house blind folded!!?" /s

The problem with allowing an acquisition to proceed just to save the company being acquired from failing is you end up with deals being structured to intentionally to cause harm if the deal collapses

Look at what Kroger is doing with Albertson's for an example. If that merger fails, it's very likely Albertson's will go bankrupt because the shareholders looted the company of all their assets to ensure it can only survive if it's acquired

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/11/03/albertson...

How do shareholders loot a company? They own the company, which means they get to decide what to do with the company's assets.

Believe it or not, some people think "the purpose of a business is to produce useful things". Crazy, right?

Yeah, and some people believe the earth is flat.

If we wanted a society where the purpose of a business is to produce useful things, then we should not have the rules set up like they are.

You can't create an entire system of rules and regulations that set it up so the incentives are all aligned for companies to exist to make money, and then be surprised when those incentives work.

It's not crazy that people are wrong about facts, but then they should keep their opinions to themselves.

I agree. It's crazy that someone who didn't put up the skin to acquire the business thinks they should get to run it anyway.

Providing shareholder value is the useful thing they are supposed to produce. Anything else is a side effect

It's not exactly true. A company is a separate legal entity and its owner can't do as he pleases with the company's assets.

The company can still be acquired to save jobs. Just not by Amazon.

That's valid, but then requires asking who.

If the company is on the verge of closing, clearly there is something wrong with the business model. So for it to actually save jobs they have to first have the 1.7 billion that Amazon was going to pay and then have enough capital and a business reason that makes the acquisition make sense.

There are not many companies like that out there, particularly for a company like iRobot. There was synergy between iRobot and Amazon.

I am not advocating for a monopoly, but clearly another company wasn't stepping up to take amazon's place.

Is this a thing that needs fixing, though? Isn't part of the goal of capitalism to let the different business models fight with the idea that the best ones win and everybody else fails and shuts down? Closing when something is wrong with your business model is the goal, not something to be avoided.

There is still the technology, the people.

While you're not wrong, just because the model doesn't work doesn't mean there isn't still value there.

If you are presented with the choice to shutdown a company or have it live on in another company saving some jobs. I would think the second is the better option.

It is possible that the only reason the business model doesn't make sense is not having a diverse enough of a catalog so research in a specific thing can be justified by multiple products.

The technology can be sold. As for the people, they entered in a contract with a business. If the business does not pan out, I don't see why they should be "saved". If the failure was due to bad leadership, there will be another company in the same sphere. And the value of these skills is rarely tied to the product itself.

That’s a very lopsided agreement. And I’d prefer to live in a society where workers are treated with some level of dignity and respect.

Workers rights are orthogonal to socialism for businesses. And there's more opportunity for abuse when companies are "too big to fail". Business survival should be tied to market fit and the ability to attract talent and retain them, not handouts and acquisitions.

Workers (people in general) should be taken care of (provided a floor for quality of life) by the government.

Let them eat cake, amirite?

> That's valid, but then requires asking who.

Neato! Oh wait, they shut down.

Google! Maybe, but would the EU see that any differently anyway?

Yeah, there's not really a long list here. Maybe one of the non-US home automation companies might make sense, but they'd likely just put it on a glidepath to shutdown.

I feel like google acquired a ton of robotics companies and then completely failed at productizing any of them. They’ve sold them off now I think so I don’t think this fits with anything they’re doing.

Exactly, the closest thing with Google is probably Nest. It'd make some sense, but I'm not sure if making sense is considered a plus at Google. :)

Google likely wouldn't be allowed either, I mean they may not operate a store like Amazon but I highly doubt the idea of searching "robot vacuum" and iRobot always being the top or in a special box would fly.

I mean there is Microsoft who would have the money but it just doesn't really fit into anything they are doing.

Dyson? Sony? But yeah a non US company also opens up other questions that may block it.

IBM of course ;)

If you are an acquirer, and you suspect that the company you are planning to acquire is likely to go under, it can often be cheaper to wait for that event then buy up IP, and hire as many staff as you can for continuity.

For example, see Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space station tech and then Sierra Space's tech. I don't have any inside knowledge, but I'd imagine the path Sierra is on is likely one similar to the above strategy.

The fall of Roomba shows that capitalism is working exactly as intended. The company got complacent and stopped innovating. Their products stagnated, quality decreased and prices kept going up. Meanwhile competitors brought better products to the market. Roomba's market share started reflecting that reality.

What happens if they get taken over by Amazon? Investors get a big exit, and employees hold on to their jobs for a bit longer (before the inevitable layoff). Amazon then uses its massive retail power to push an inferior product and edge out the smaller companies doing better work and competing on merit, leaving the space worse for everyone.

> The fall of Roomba shows that capitalism is working exactly as intended.

Only if your definition of capitalism includes a robust antitrust component (which mine does, but I know I differ from the mean here).

Roomba strikes me as having a very similar challenge to many hardware companies:

1. Prove you can do something amazing 2. Raise a bunch of capital to scale it, betting on future revenue 3. Deliver! Great product, stellar growth, soaring revenue, re-invest in product 4. Flood of copycat competitors, drives up acquisition costs, eliminates higher price point, revenue tanks 5. Pivot. Try to sell another story, build the start of another product leap, loose traction in a new way, pivot. 6. Seek an acquisition before the music ends 7. FTC

In other words, product development (esp. app + hardware) is expensive, difficult, and constantly changing.

We don’t have a capitalist system competing on product merit but acquisition arbitrage. In almost all cases the inferior product wins.

My roomba was cleaning much better 4 years ago than last 2 years, their app was slick 4 years ago and clunky in last 2 years. Random Product innovations degraded the core product. They did get complacent.

Or maybe the wheels are worn and slipping. Before you junk it, put new rubber on it. Mine was completely transformed.

I think Chinese competitors just undercut them too much and provide quality that is almost as good, and they are able to innovate faster to boot.

Have Chinese based electronics improved in the last decade. I remember the concerns about devices catching fire (hoverboards) and lead in vinyl and other materials (I remember an Amazon kids pencil bag that was recalled two years ago)

For a household product that runs autonomously throughout my house and interacts with many surfaces, and with small kids in the house, I want a reputable supplier, not just whiz bang features and a slick app.

Maybe Roborock is that, but there is so much opacity when dealing with Chinese companies even in cases where the govt is not involved.

Obviously, but there are some serious contenders here who are actually working on a reliable brand. But if you just buy a random generic bot...ya...it probably isn't going to work out well.

Ignoring political concerns (which is a big problem); Chinese manufacturers make great products.

DJI, huawei and insta360 are three off the top of my head that are perfectly capable of going up against global brands.

Additionally, almost every high quality brand has manufacturing in China; Apple, Microsoft, Nikon, Canon, Dyson, the list goes on.

This is more a problem of “you get what you pay for”. No name hoverboards were a real problem because designing a compact, high power draw, lithium powered device is hard to do. Segway, ninebot, etc all make great ‘hoverboard’ like products.

> Chinese manufacturers make great products.

this should read "A few Chinese brands make great products"

Most Chinese brands make low quality products; corner cutting is rampant.

> Additionally, almost every high quality brand has manufacturing in China; Apple, Microsoft, Nikon, Canon, Dyson, etc.

That is because the foreign brands set the specs and define the standard of quality, which the factory (i.e., Foxconn) follows to the letter. So Chinese _manufacturers_ can make great products (when required and paid) but Chinese _brands_ generally do not.

This is one reason why Chinese brand products are cheaper than their foreign brand counterparts even when the foreign product was also manufactured in China.

DJI and Anger are two Chinese brands that have worked hard to develop a good reputation internationally, and deliver top products. I wouldn't trust Huawei though.

So Chinese factories are capable of high quality manufacturing. And Chinese brands are capable of high quality design and manufacturing.

That’s what I was trying to get across. As I said earlier you get what you pay for. I can buy great products made in China by Chinese companies and terrible products made in Switzerland by Swiss companies.

You're saying "it's possible" and your parent post is saying "it's unlikely". You're not disagreeing, exactly, but...

Chinese can make great products. You can also lose your shirt with some sort of shanzhai abomination. And you don't always pay bottom dollar for that, you are just getting 不便宜，也没好货. This is why it is very important for China to develop some reliable high quality brands.

The Roborock vacuum experience is pretty good. We have a fearless cat and I've never felt it was unsafe around the vacuum. Generally it just works.

The only "issues" I've had to deal with are: a) it'll eat cords so the cleaning area has to be picked up before vacuuming (or bad areas zoned off) b) it can (rarely) get stuck so the cleaning area has to be picked up (ie. a step stool I left out) c) it can (rarely) get lost if there are major changes to stuff in the cleaning area (ie. if a bunch of cardboard boxes are left out) d) very rarely (less than once a year) I have to "restore" the map (I think if c happens it might start hallucinating new map area)

I don't know what the replacement part or customer service experiences are like though. We've had our Roborock for 3+ years now, which isn't a huge amount of time but I wouldn't consider it poorly made. Maintaining it to clear out pet hair and such is simple.

> Have Chinese based electronics improved in the last decade

You would surprised. The answer is yes and yes. Roomba like robots are dominated by Chinese companies and they are the most advanced manufacturers technology wise as well.

There’s no moat on robot vacuums, they just had their initial brand recognition. Lots of companies should pay attention…

I love my Roomba, it’s been truly a life-changing invention for me and my go-to mental construct for how robots can improve our lives and how good design can be very simple yet effective. But I probably bought it used on eBay and I continue to buy batteries every 5-10 years for it on eBay when it needs a new one.

They can go back to their base station and self-empty/refill a water tank for mopping now, which is an amazing upgrade over just a vacuum cleaner. Or at least in theory it is, my DreamE somehow got progressively dumber with subsequent updates and now not only gets stuck and confused all the time, but usually can't even find its way back to the station. It seems the software on these things still has a ways to go.

What if allowing Amazon to purchase iRobot harms the market and shuts down three other competing companies, sending many more people out of a job. Oh, and iRobot still lays of people because they can share a bunch of functions with Amazon now.

What Amazon acquisitions have put other companies out of business?

Amazon bought Eero, yet I haven’t seen other WiFi router companies go out of business.

Amazon bought Ring, then a competitor was so successful that Amazon bought Blink.

This notion that Amazon’s acquisition would put competitors out of business seems to be a weird dream. Especially when it is known an easier path to “unfairly compete” would be to just create an Amazon-labeled robotic vacuum and put that on the market.

> them selling a stick vacuum next to their iRobot is sure one way to say "our expensive robot doesn't do everything we claim it does".

> I finally ditched my iRobot for a Roborock a couple months ago and it's been amazing.

I'm not saying those two sentences are totally incompatible, but Roborock's home page at https://us.roborock.com/ is basically half divided between "Robot Vacuums" and "Cordless Vacuum Cleaners"

Who says the layoffs wouldn't have happened with the Amazon acquisition? Who says the CEO still had a role to play as Amazon VP and wouldn't have left soon after closing anyway?

These acquisitions tend to come with huge layoffs anyway.

The phrase you're looking for is "Too big to fail". We tried that, payed the credit cards of a lot of bankers while a lot of people lost their homes. Make no mistake, people losing their jobs is bad, but saving a bad company doesn't make it better. Everything dies, we should let companies die too.

I wonder if Roombas are wide spread enough to cause outrage if they stopped working because the company went out of business?

Isn't this an implicit risk anyone who purchases a 'smart' device takes? Every company will eventually discontinue their cloud service for a product line when it suits their needs. We have seen this countless times in technology and that anyone assumes that cycle will repeat with all these devices is fooling themselves.

For those who understand there even is a cloud service, yes. My guess is that roombas are sufficiently common that most purchasers have no idea.

This isn't a too big to fail situation. Amazon wanted to buy iRobot. iRobot wanted the acquisition to go through. The government stepped in and blocked the acquisition on the grounds that they'd rather Amazon and iRobot remained competitors.

But what actually happens now is that iRobot lays off its core staff in a desperate attempt to avoid insolvency. The regulators could wish all they want that iRoomba stay a competitive player in this space, but businesses don't run on wishes and rainbows.

I think the claim is that some other company in the robot vacuum business can buy iRobot instead of Amazon and get that sweet sweet IP

Banks have counterparty risk in the way that robot vacuum companies don't. Letting the banks go bankrupt would have destroyed a lot of perfectly viable businesses among their customers.

The cloud companies will count as TBTF too for the same reason. Although it's harder to see how Amazon might get into a "we'll have to switch the datacenters off tomorrow unless we get bailed out" financial position", since it's easier for them to trade as a going concern, if there was a risk of that happening they would definitely get a bailout.

Also, remember that the bailouts were in almost all cases loans.

> At what point should an acquisition be allowed on the sake of something being able to continue to exist and possibly save jobs?

Never? The entire point of private companies is that they take risk on themselves. If we have to bail them out we might as well just nationalize them. See: the entire american airline industry.

I got a Roborock because it was cheaper, but it's been amazing.

It seems Roomba was just selling on it's brand name.