News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amazon terminates iRobot deal, vacuum maker to lay off 31... by cortesoft on Monday January 29, 2024 @07:36PM (#39184829)
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?
Re:Amazon terminates iRobot deal, vacuum maker to lay off 31... by ironmagma on Monday January 29, 2024 @09:30PM (#39185713)
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."
Re:Amazon terminates iRobot deal, vacuum maker to lay off 31... by throwaway2037 on Monday January 29, 2024 @10:40PM (#39186140)
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.
Re:Amazon terminates iRobot deal, vacuum maker to lay off 31... by bombcar on Monday January 29, 2024 @11:10PM (#39186324)
Chapter 11 is basically finding a lower bidder - the lenders are willing to take ownership of the failing company.
Re:Amazon terminates iRobot deal, vacuum maker to lay off 31... by troupo on Tuesday January 30, 2024 @12:14AM (#39186605)
> 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?