User talk:Bayern71

Welcome

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Welcome!

Hello, Bayern71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crashlytics acquisition price.

Thank you for cleaning up some pages related to Crashlytics. I just want to point out that relying on solely the S-1 is incorrect. An article on Xconomy (see here) talks about this exact reason. Given that 1) the founders speak about the pricing, 2) the Xconomy article and 3) numerous others cite the pricing, and 4) the investors also cite the pricing as over $100million+, it would seem disingenuous to report a number far below what has been reported. Again, respectfully as you to read this article. Thank you for your time and making these articles more accurate! Zaraclip (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaraclip:I hope you are not serious. The "up front payment" price IS the acquisition price, period. All founders joining the acquirer as employees get compensated in the future, and this does not get to magically retroactively count toward the acquisition price. First, the startups own founders and investors, particularly in this case as the founder seems to be extremely eager to exhibit perceived wealth, are heavily incentivized to exaggerate the purchase price as much as possible as it reflects positively on their performance as entrepreneurs and investors. Luckily the S-1 is a legal financial document to verify a purchase price, and here the S-1 is the most accurate and unbiased account by far. Pretending that founder-turned-acquirer-employee salary and employment performance incentive compensation counts toward an original acquisition price, or as the Boston-based (like the article subject) blogger Gregory Huang describes it in the blog post you cited, "equity consideration which was to be paid to certain employees of the acquired entities contingent upon their continued employment with the company," is too much of a reach... particularly because this was a stock deal and the acquirer's stock performance is significantly lower than the time of acquisition. Imagine counting ongoing founder and employee compensation toward purchase price for all startup acquisitions... WhatsApp, Instagram, OpenDNS, etc... there's good reason that the figure cited in the S-1 stands, no matter what Boston startup cheerleaders, 'sources', and acquisition stakeholders would like you to think. Bayern71 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]