https://blog.darklang.com/goodbye-dark-inc-welcome-darklang-... includes this, which is a really interesting pattern that I don't remember hearing about before for this kind of company:
> In conversation with our investors and the board, we believed that the best way forward was to shut down the company, as it was clear that an 8 year old product with no traction was not going to attract new investment. In our discussions, we agreed that continuity of the product was in the best interest of the users and the community (and of both founders and investors, who do not enjoy being blamed for shutting down tools they can no longer afford to run), and we agreed that this could best be achieved by selling it to the employees.
Any other examples of that? I'm particularly interested in that for this kind of software product.
> Any other examples of that? I'm particularly interested in that for this kind of software product.
As far as I know, this pattern is not uncommon among traditional businesses. King Arthur Flour Company is the largest one that comes to my mind, but on a local level; grocery stores, restaurants, mechanic shops, plumbing businesses, etc very often "change ownership" this way.
In software, it's pretty common in informal OSS project to transition ownership this way when the original owner/author loses interest or is otherwise unable to maintain the project.
In terms of commercial sortware, something like SketchUp comes to mind, though it's not exact path. It was a startup, acquired by Google, then spun off again with its employees
I wish the owners of Komoot would have done this.
They sold the company because they didn't see a future of growth, and the employees were notified of the sale of the company just a couple of days before.
The new owner then fired most of the employees, it's an Italian "tech company" (Bending Spoons) which already bough companies like Evernote, Brightcove or WeTransfer, and has nothing to do with the outdoors.
Komoot was the best outdoor-community app in Germany and very popular in Europe, made mostly for hiking and biking.
You can see in this really moving video, made by the employees after they got fired, how much they loved their team:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLJkK4Wn1HI
That seems like an exemplary way to handle a failed rocketship that nevertheless produced something useful to certain customers. Big thumbs up to those who made it happen.
> an 8 year old product with no traction ... and we agreed that this could best be achieved by selling it to the employees.
Can someone with more business sense than me explain this? Why would employees want to buy an 8 year old product with no traction? At face value this sounds like a "holding the bag" scenario, not?
They're not buying the product. They're buying the company so they can pivot and implement their vision.
Basically, the investors lost interest but the team is passionate and see a path to success. They won't be maintaining the old product, they're going in new direction.
It's actually the opposite. They're buying the assets (the software), not the company.
> To ensure continuity for users and fans, as well as to continue building what we regard as an important technology, Dark Inc has sold the assets – the Darklang language, the blog, the hosted service, the Discord, etc, darklang.com, etc – to a new company started by Dark Inc's former employees.
(from https://blog.darklang.com/goodbye-dark-inc-welcome-darklang-...)
In other words, there's a new company (Darklang Inc.) that has purchased the assets of Dark Inc. (for probably relatively little money). This clears the cap table, making it easier for the former employees (now founders) to raise money for the new corporation.
So, they pretty much bought the entire thing without transferring company ownership? It's weird to split the information on multiple posts.
They want to maintain the community they have because it's the real asset for any open-source project, which is the direction they're betting on.
Yes, this is correct. So for being unclear!
> investors lost interest
The founder lost interest, he started a new company and he is the CEO of it!
Seems more like activism than a company to me.
business is just market activism
Have you ever been to a great restaurant that happened to be on the wrong corner? Or been at a company where one change in execution made or broke the company? My guess: the founder lost interest but the employees still believed in the [impressive] tech. Because of the lack of traction: the cost of the tech wasn't prohibitive for the employees?
> "holding the bag" scenario, not?
Only if they are buying it for what the investors had already put into it, which is not likely. They most likely discussed how much the investors values physical assets and trademarks the company holds (like how much they are likely to get back in a bankruptcy) plus whatever makes a deal fair and maintain a happy cordial relationship with said investors for future endeavors.
Corrected by @justincormack. Post was about Docker Inc.
Thats not what happened. There was no new company, the company continues to be the same. They didnt sell off the business for money raised.
Really? So it was just a recap?
Who are we talking about here? Looks like a comment was edited but now it seems like you're talking about Darklang?
They were referring to Docker, after some claims regarding some corporate activity (forget details)
I mentioned docker was recapped but also wrongly assumed the existing entity was sold off and they formed a new entity in that process. Justin kindly corrected me.