Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...

Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Web3/Crypto: Why Bother?
One thing that keeps surprising me is how quite a few people see absolutely nothing redeeming in web3 (née crypto). Maybe this is their genuine belief. Maybe it is a reaction to the extreme boosterism of some proponents who present web3 as bringing about a libertarian nirvana. From early on I have tried to provide a more rounded perspective, pointing to both the good and the bad that can come from it as in my talks at the Blockstack Summits. Today, however, I want to attempt to provide a coge...
>400 subscribers
>400 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
In December 2010 I wrote a post saying that Google shouldn’t buy Groupon but that it would be a good idea for Groupon to sell at the then rumored price of $5.3 billion with a $0.7 billion earn out. As of Friday’s close, Groupon’s market cap is $6.3 billion or 5% above what the full deal consideration would have been. So should they have sold back then?
It is still far from clear, especially now that important details around the deal have emerged from an article in the WSJ. The key point from the article is that a deal might have taken as long as 18 months to close due to scrutiny by regulators. Google was willing to offer a $800 million break up fee to account for that but it is still a monstrous overhang and is an issue for Google in acquiring companies of scale.
Groupon did succeed in going public and is an independent company now. So one way to look at the decision is trading off execution risk against regulatory risk. While execution risk is huge it is to some degree more controllable than regulatory risk. It does seem though that Groupon may have relied on some overly optimistic projections on how much better it could do using data going forward (as Business Insider found the researcher who came up with that estimate had just joined Groupon from Google).
We will soon be able to read more about how the deal almost happened and the decision making around it when the book “Groupon’s Biggest Deal Ever” comes out tomorrow. Should be a great case study in decision making under extreme uncertainty.
In December 2010 I wrote a post saying that Google shouldn’t buy Groupon but that it would be a good idea for Groupon to sell at the then rumored price of $5.3 billion with a $0.7 billion earn out. As of Friday’s close, Groupon’s market cap is $6.3 billion or 5% above what the full deal consideration would have been. So should they have sold back then?
It is still far from clear, especially now that important details around the deal have emerged from an article in the WSJ. The key point from the article is that a deal might have taken as long as 18 months to close due to scrutiny by regulators. Google was willing to offer a $800 million break up fee to account for that but it is still a monstrous overhang and is an issue for Google in acquiring companies of scale.
Groupon did succeed in going public and is an independent company now. So one way to look at the decision is trading off execution risk against regulatory risk. While execution risk is huge it is to some degree more controllable than regulatory risk. It does seem though that Groupon may have relied on some overly optimistic projections on how much better it could do using data going forward (as Business Insider found the researcher who came up with that estimate had just joined Groupon from Google).
We will soon be able to read more about how the deal almost happened and the decision making around it when the book “Groupon’s Biggest Deal Ever” comes out tomorrow. Should be a great case study in decision making under extreme uncertainty.
No comments yet