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 ;)