some people look at business as making money for the sake of making money. However other people look at making money as a means to better society. This goes back over a century to the Quaker run businesses, like Lloyds, Rowntree, Cadburys, etc.

You can imagine if your ultimate aim was to improve society, then acquiring a firm but having to sack a bunch of employees as somewhat of a failure.

▲

Invictus0 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Option A: the business goes bankrupt, investors lose money, customers lose the product, all employees get fired.

Option B: the business stays afloat, investors make money, customers keep the product, some employees get fired with a severance.

You think option A is superior?

▲

supoxblade an hour ago | parent [-]

Here's the rub: Vimeo was profitable, and had no debt. Per their last public filing(s), in 2025 the company had: - ~$400M expenses - ~$420M revenue (therefore ~$20M profit for the year) - ~$300M of cash in the bank (no debt)

Vimeo has not had major growth in recent years, but it was making progress, however slowly. Just nowhere near the 10x expectations out there. Nobody was going to lose anything.

	▲	makeitrain 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		For a company that makes a flat $20 mil per year, how long will it take to make back the $1.4 billion they paid for it?