This really makes me sad as an aspiring entrepreneur.
What would be the use of starting a business if the government can arbitrarily block it from being acquired?
I understand this happening in Europe but not America.
I think America is going to lag behind in tech entrepreneurship just like Europe and I wonder what the next potential tech entrepreneurship hub will be.
Ummm. This seems like a huge overreaction. Do you think the founder of Figma -- which is still worth $B's, making him obscenely wealthy 'on paper' (but 'on paper' in a way that most wealth is counted) -- plus, he likely sold enough via secondaries during the later rounds to be set for life -- is bemoaning his career path?
Furthermore, there's something like 20k M&A deals / yr completed in North America alone, the majority that are still life-changing wealth creation events for the founders.
So don't despair - 1 problematic anti-competitive M&A deal blocked by the government does not signal the end of entrepreneurship in the US.
What I find most sad about entrepreneurship is that almost all the successful founders appear to have been 'chosen' by a famous VC or investor. It's almost like what you do doesn't really matter. I've seen some 'chosen entrepreneurs' keep failing and they keep getting second, third, fourth chances and eventually succeed. Being chosen seems to be the most important element for success. But how to become chosen? It seems so random, in a world of 8 billion people, you need to be hand-picked by one of maybe 100 people... And the criteria is weird; basically they need to like you and for that to happen, you basically need to remind them of a young version of themselves... Which is not something you can control.
If you're very different, none of the famous investors will like you (that's assuming they even learn about your existence) and your chances in this industry will be very bad.
Hey friend - you're wrong on this, although I understand how it might be comforting to think this is all some vast elite conspiracy.
The reality is that you "become chosen" by building a company that is growing very quickly in a big market. That's it.
Most successful startups didn't wait around for some name-brand VC to pick them (that's the most anti-entrepreneur mindset I can think of). The big funding happens much later than the initial traction and momentum.
Yes, you have to be personable enough to be able to talk to clients, investors, recruit top talent, etc -- but that's not the VC arbitrarily choosing whether they like you or not -- that's a cold reality of being a great founder.
I don't believe that for a second given how tightly controlled all the social media and search engines algorithms are. I've never met anyone ever who built a successful software company who wasn't well connected to some elite.
How is that a comforting thought? It's difficult to imagine anything more disturbing. At least if I admitted I was just a failure by my own hand, it would be much easier as I could try to improve myself. It would look like there is a small chance. That would be far more comforting.
Perhaps you could aim to actually make money through your business? As in, selling a product at a profit? Taking dividends? I know it sounds wild, but that's how it went down in the olden days.
I am currently working for a company with a few thousands employees around the world.
The founder is still the CEO owning a majority of shares and his second and third in command (or their families) hold most of the remaining shares. He's getting close to retirement and probably will do so in a few years passing the torch on to his children.
AFAIK he came from a very upper middle class background but not real wealth and kept the company alive by being profitable (not Tech margins though). That seems to be a quite sustainable business model that made him, his cofounders wealthy enough to not worry about money even we'd close tomorrow.
Nothing wrong with that and certainly something an aspiring entrepreneur could aim for. It's more difficult though and you need to run a tight ship at times and actually think longterm and how to sustain your business.
There seems to be some misconceptions here. This wasn’t arbitrary. Most acquisitions are not blocked. The US government can block a lot of things for companies, but is generally speaking pro-business. That said there’s a longish history of regulating monopolies, in order to benefit consumers and the economy, so no evidence of a new trend wrt Europe based on this case. (Consider whether that history may be part of why the US had a lead in tech entrepreneurship in the first place.)
What would be the use of starting a business if the government can arbitrarily block it from being acquired?
I understand this happening in Europe but not America.
I think America is going to lag behind in tech entrepreneurship just like Europe and I wonder what the next potential tech entrepreneurship hub will be.