Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the unicorn-cannibalism dept.

According to a Monday report in Bloomberg Businessweek, Square has acquired the "five- to ten-person" engineering team of Yik Yak for $3 million. That leaves just a handful of employees at the Atlanta-based social networking startup. In December 2016, the company already fired 30 of its 50 employees.

Since late last year, Yik Yak has largely gone silent. Its Twitter account hasn't posted since January 4, and its corporate blog has not posted since a month before that. According to Bloomberg, Square has not acquired any other companies since it bought the food delivery startup Caviar in 2014. (Square was founded as a mobile payment company in 2009 by Jack Dorsey, who also founded Twitter.)

Sounds like bad news for Yik Yak, good news for Yik Yak's engineers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:06PM (5 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:06PM (#500751) Journal

    Yes, but, being paid is only half of the whole "Freedom from bondage" thing, the other is "Being able to choose your own work." You should see the laws a couple southern states passed after the civil war, "Black employees are to be paid 1 penny per day, must call their employer 'master", and must file with the state government one year in advance of changing jobs unless their master approves their job change".

    In what world does it make sense for a third party to receive money in order for me to work for a second party?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by requerdanos on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:35PM

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:35PM (#500770) Journal

    In what world does it make sense for a third party to receive money in order for me to work for a second party?

    In every known world, I imagine.

    If I buy the company you work for, consider this.

    The third party, the previous owners, receive money.

    You would then work for me, the second party, since I would then own the company.

    This is just, right, and proper.

    I don't see your grounds for grievance or protest here. Quit, if you don't like it.

  • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:45PM (3 children)

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:45PM (#500784)

    I'm beginning to wonder if your username was poorly chosen.

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:12PM (2 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:12PM (#500797) Journal

      Meanwhile, I'm beginning to fall into the trap of taking my half-joke seriously and trying to defend it.

      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)

        by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:27PM (#500806)

        It's always a danger. We need annotations for humour and sarcasm.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:42PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:42PM (#500813) Journal

          Well, the problem is more the half part than the joke part. I really do resent the idea of being bought and sold as some fungible commodity for rich assholes. But I also am not a complete moron and recognize how radically different it is from real chattel slavery.