Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Color Labs Acquisition Involves Only Color's Engineering Team
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd suspect it has to do with the jab at the poor and the alleged poor quality of Samsung devices.
Least you didn't mention how Apple devices are for people with more money than sense.
Yes. Sarcasm. Because when another company does something (good or bad) it can be crap and called crap. Somehow (with slight exception) Apple could release the very same thing and it is marveled as "magical" and ahead of its time.
It's possible to be a really good engineer and still push out product after product that nobody wants.
It's kind of like it's quite possible to be a really good writer and still push out product after product that nobody wants to read. If you're being paid to write product manuals for model 8083 extra wide shirt presses, it doesn't matter how good a writer you are, nobody is going to want to read them. They may have to, but they won't want to.
A good developer can write an app that performs its function well. An entirely different skill set is necessary to determine what kind of app people actually *want*. And a third skill set is necessary to design one with a good user interface. Apple can presumably provide these people with the other two things, and has presumably judged that they're good developers. Sounds reasonable to me.
I can understand the source of "bad blood". Apple effectively neutered the original company, is paying the primary human capital to switch teams, receive a signing bonus and an employment contract. Apple is the Borg in this scenario. It's gonna need a bigger spaceship!
The "Corporation" retains everything it had before except the trained, optimized and tasked engineering team itself. I suppose they could hire 4x as many engineers from India and carry on.
It's not clear what recourse they have if any, but they did really get screwed.
Remember, corporations are people too.
Rocketman
The "Corporation" retains everything it had before except the trained, optimized and tasked engineering team itself. I suppose they could hire 4x as many engineers from India and carry on.
It's not clear what recourse they have if any, but they did really get screwed.
Remember, corporations are people too.
Rocketman
Apple has made it pretty clear that they are looking to expand their "streaming" capabilities...first it was iTunes in the Cloud, then it was shared Photo Streams, now they are clearly looking to expand into video streaming. This is a good thing.
Well, it looks like Color HQ is about 10 miles from Apple HQ... so I don't think relocation will be a deal breaker.
But your point is taken. This is a really mysterious announcement, especially considering the rumors about Color liquidating earlier this week (which they denied, I think). It's hard to imagine what a high-tech startup is going to do without its engineering team. It seems to confirm that Color is dissolving.
I doubt that Color's engineering division is a legally separate entity, and if it's not, then I also doubt that it could be sold piecemeal to another company. Color can't sell equity in their engineering division, they can only sell equity in the company as a whole. The rumor says there is also no transfer of IP or any other assets. *So what is Apple buying?*
My intuition (IANAL) is that Apple is paying this supposed $5M just to make offers to Color's engineers -- silencing any potential reprisals from Color for Apple going after their talent. If Color spent a lot of money hiring the best engineers in the world and relocating them to Palo Alto, then they may see that labor pool as an asset worth defending.
+1 for correcting any grammar snob who can't spell "ridiculous".
If they create a YouTube-like site it would be competing with the like of - oh I don't know - youtube, but I see no benefit as YouTube is so big already, but this would be interesting to see what happens if it really does happen.
There is absolutely no reason for Apple to refrain from trying to compete with YouTube. I'm well aware, as I am sure Apple is, that YouTube is huge. It is a very recognizable brand for sure but far be it for Apple to not at least try. My point is a YouTube like service where you can upload your videos (like a photo stream situation) for anyone to see. I'm not certain it would or could ever compete with YouTube but these acquisitions certainly suggest some sort of video sharing/streaming.
If Apple were to create a Youtube like service, it would consist of only Apple videos and videos the staff of Apple want you to see. Userswouldn't be able to upload.
Apparently you don't know exactly what 'literally' means.
Apple is *not* paying for the people. I know that, because you can't buy people. That would be *slavery*, and slavery is illegal.
I never claimed they were buying the company. They are (as I said originally) buying a *division* of the company. These people are employed by that division of the company. You're right, though, that they don't belong to the company, and they have no obligation to remain with that division. They are every bit as free to quit before, during, or after the acquisition of the division they work for. That wouldn't be the case if they could be bought and paid for.
There's nothing unusual about these sorts of acquisitions, so I'm not sure where you're getting it mixed up with 'buying people'.
You know what "your personal reward for your personal contribution to that sale price" is? It's the salary you would have been collecting and continue to collect. Seriously. You get paid for the job you do.
Please show me where I stated non-competes are valid in California. That was an example of reasons why these sorts of acquisitions are done rather than actively head-hunting entire departments away from a company (which would be cheaper). It also provides a more stable transition for the employees, and provides an explicit way of removing NDAs from the equation. Likewise, it ensures that medical plans transition with no gap in coverage. There are *multiple* reasons for these sorts of acquisitions. The fact that I provided two as *examples* doesn't somehow limit it to *only* those.
The rest of what you continued with has absolutely no bearing on this or any similar situation, so I've snipped it in its entirety.
----------
Typically when these sorts of deals happen they are structured as follows:
1) The division in question is 'spun off' into a wholly-owned subsidiary of the original company (Color, in this case).
2) The division (now a distinct legal entity) is sold to the buyer (Apple in this case).
3) The subsidiary is fully absorbed into the new parent company (Apple)
4) The, now empty, subsidiary is dissolved.
I'm guessing some wrist cuffs to keep them at their desks. Maybe a big iron ball chained to an ankle. We'll see.
No way! Slavery is illegal? Since when? Crap, thanks for letting me know!
Apparently you don't know that the phrase 'quite literally' refers to refers to something that is almost literally true, but not quite. Thanks for pointing out that Apple can't buy the body and souls of people and condemn them to a life of servitude.
In this case, Apple is quite literally buying the people. Not absolutely literally, as you've taken such pains to point out; but in the sense that the presence of those people was the only thing that Apple found valuable.
For your reference:
Meddiam-Webster said:
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
Wow, you get paid for working these days? Is that related to the slavery thing? I don't believe you; this must be one of those 'only in America' things.
Yes. Legally you are compensated for your work by your salary. However...
Basically sums it up. If you want the people to work for you, don't pay their boss a few million dollars to get them to come work for you; pay them directly. Again, I don't know that this isn't what's going on (as has been pointed out, much of the deal is private).
I can't understand why you're taking so much time to argue against my one-line comment that I wouldn't be happy for my employer getting such an enormous reward so that I'd move to another company. I don't think it's an alien idea that a person would feel exploited in that kind of situation. Especially when someone like Apple comes along and essentially says "that work you've been doing for your employer? Junk. However, you're quite a talent. Even though you could freely quit and join us, we're going to reward your bosses with a multi-million dollar windfall instead." Since you're being so rude, I'll continue...
I don't know what these guys get paid, but I'm guessing it would take them a fair old time to that save that sort of money from what's left of their salaries. $100K-$200K isn't the kind of cash you lose down the back of the sofa. They aren't major executives; they're mostly engineers.
Pray explain why a business would pay millions of dollars to overcome contractual obligations that are unenforceable? If it was just an example, it was a bad one. Non-competes aren't worth the paper they're printed on in most parts of the world.
It also provides a more stable transition for the employees, and provides an explicit way of removing NDAs from the equation. Likewise, it ensures that medical plans transition with no gap in coverage. There are *multiple* reasons for these sorts of acquisitions. The fact that I provided two as *examples* doesn't somehow limit it to *only* those.
Oh, come on! You're grasping for anything now. Those are some of the weakest reasons imaginable. $200K not going to cover your medical insurance for the couple of months it takes to sort the paperwork? NDAs are also an especially weak reason, considering the circumstances.
Do you think that nobody but yourself can contemplate multiple reasons for an action? Obviously there may be multiple reasons (and indeed there will be at least one reason), but neither of us so far have come up with a single good one.
Also:
has 2 commas too many. Stop being such an arrogant, condescending grammar nazi. My 8 year-old knows how to use commas.
Last edited:
Nothing. Then they can do another start-up and be bought again. Ad Naseum. But they can't have an office in the Spaceship. They don't stay long enough. They have to office in the industrial park.
But if Apple releases something designed by the team it will be MAGICAL - no worries, The Phazer
Yes. Color + Mobile me + Ping.
What could possibly go wrong?
Glad to be of service, since you keep making the claim that "Apple is quite literally buying the people".
Literally doesn't mean 'like', it means *actually*, and quite doesn't mean 'kinda' or 'almost', it means 'wholly', 'completely'. Combined, 'quite literally' means 'wholly or completely actually', not 'almost actually'.
I find it exceptionally odd that you got it mixed up because you use the phrase 'almost literally true, but not quite'.
Again, 'literally' is not a synonym for 'figuratively'.
And here we have you going into full-blown troll mode because you can't *factually* argue that your claim that "pple is quite literally buying the people" is correct. Guess I'm done here. Won't be seeing anything from you in the future, either.