OnLive Acquires OnLive 154
techfun89 writes with an update on OnLive shutting down. From the article: "The restructured OnLive has issued an press release and FAQ to attempt to clear up any rumors and misinformation on the companies recent changes. OnLive is emphasizing that the streaming game service will go on uninterrupted and the 'Newly formed company' will continue to use the OnLive name. The press release also outlines the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (ABC) process OnLive used to settle debts and that an affiliate of Lauder Partners, a technology investment firm, was the new OnLive's first investor. The firm talked about the necessity of laying off its staff, stating that 'neither OnLive, Inc. shares nor OnLive staff could transfer under this type of transaction,' and confirming that nearly half of the previous staff had been offered positions at the new company. The new firm mentions that this acquisition holds hope for the future 'of transforming the OnLive vision into reality.' This effectively means that OnLive was essentially bought out by OnLive, or rather, more specifically, one of their original investors in the company who backed the startup back in 2009."
Sounds Like a Shell Game (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like some loophole method of getting out of your debts
Screwed Early Employees (Score:4, Interesting)
The ONLY reason to do this is to screw over the other early investors and employees who had options in the company.
Yet another reason why a minority stake (including options) in a private company is worthless. Dont work for options people, you should always assume that they are totally worthless, because they can be made worthless by things like this.
Re:we're fucked (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like an original investor held shares in OnLive(1). He lost all of his original shares of OnLive(1) just like everyone else. Rather than pump more of his own money into OnLive(1) and remain saddled with debt and overhead, he chose, along with others, to put the company through the bankruptcy process. Remember, he paid his own money to help start and run the company. He has no obligation to continue to support it personally.
He then used his own money to found OnLive(2). He used his own money in OnLive(2) to purchase the latent assets left in OnLive(1) and then proceeded to offer jobs to employees from OnLive(1).
So, it doesn't sound like all the investors in OnLive(1) divested the employees, kept their own shares and started over after screwing over the staff. It sounds like investor(s) bootstrapped a whole other company with a whole bunch more of their own money and bought the assets of the shell of the original company.
Re:we're fucked (Score:5, Interesting)
Purchase? From whom? Not the shareholders of OnLive(1) -- they get nothing. Perhaps the creditors of OnLive(1)?
Does anyone know how much OnLive(2) paid for the assets? Did OnLive(2) pay a reasonable price?
But I like raging... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's lots and lots of problems here, but the fundamental one is that the workers are at a marked disadvantage over the Capitalists. Those employees can't really do anything about any of this. OnLive wins, they lose. Even if they get a lawyer and go all class action they'll probably get nothing except a $5 off coupon for a 12 month subscription of OnLive.
I was just reading Wikipedia's articles on Voluntary Slavery and Wage Slavery. The point made by the Capitalists was you should have the right to sell yourself, the point made by the Socialists was that if you're in that position you're bargaining from such a weak stance that you don't really have any right's to begin with.
I guess my point is this: "Free Market" Capitalists argue that freedom will win out in the end. As near as I can tell this is either a hopelessly naive sentiment, willful ignorance, or a carefully calculated lie. I'm still waiting to be proved wrong. After all, it'd be nice to believe in the basic good of people and civilization. But I'm a cynical ole coot.
Re:we're fucked (Score:4, Interesting)
As usual, the shareholders will get whatever is left after the debtors get paid. Which will very likely be nothing since the company was bust. That is how it is supposed to work (unless you are an investment banker in which case you get a government bailout instead).
I'm sure there'll be law suits filed if they didn't pay a reasonable price (and probably if they did anyway) or if the transaction wasn't sufficiently at arms length.
i worked for another Lauder company (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, we were doing something similar, back in 1990 (ICTV). We had computer gaming over remote hardware using cable return path for the display (cheap custom box for keyboard/mouse). We eventually figured out that this was a fundamentally impossible to win game because of the light speed latency issue. OnLive will figure it out too.