| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> This buy out for something vibe coded I think all of these comments about acquisitions or buy outs aren’t reading the blog post carefully: The post isn’t saying OpenClaw was acquired. It’s saying that Pete is joining OpenAI. There are two sentences at the top that sum it up: > I’m joining OpenAI to work on bringing agents to everyone. OpenClaw will move to a foundation and stay open and independent. OpenClaw was not a good candidate to become a business because its fan base was interested in running their own thing. It’s a niche product. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | tummler 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I don't mean to be cynical, but I read this move as: OpenAI scared, no way to make money with similar product, so acqui-hire the creator to keep him busy. I'd love to be wrong, but the blog post sounds like all the standard promises were made, and that's usually how these things go. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sathish316 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think the blog says @steipete sold his SOUL.md for Sam Altman’s deal and let down the community. OpenClaw’s promise and power was that it could tread places security-wise that no other established enterprise company could, by not taking itself seriously and explore what is possible with self-modifying agents in a fun way. It will end up in the same fate as Manus. Instead of Manus helping Meta making Ads better, OpenClaw will help OpenAI in Enterprise integrations. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | TSiege 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair enough. Call it a high profile acquihire then | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | SilverElfin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is to avoid open claw liability and because hiring people (often with a license to their tech or patents) is the new smarter way to acquire and avoid antitrust issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | keepamovin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think both this comment and OP's confuse this. It appears more of a typical large company (BIG) market share protection purchase at minimal cost, using information asymmetry and timing. BIG hires small team (SMOL) of popular source-available/OSS product P before SMOL realizes they can compete with BIG and before SMOL organizes effort toward such along with apt corporate, legal, etc protection. At the time of purchase, neither SMOL nor BIG know yet what is possible for P, but SMOL is best positioned to realize it. BIG is concerned SMOL could develop competing offerings (in this case maybe P's momentum would attract investment, hiring to build new world-model-first AIs, etc) and once it accepts that possibility, BIG knows to act later is more expensive than to act sooner. The longer BIG waits, the more SMOL learns and organizes. Purchasing a real company is more expensive than hiring a small team, purchasing a company with revenue/investors, is more expensive again. Purchasing a company with good legal advice is more expensive again. Purchasing a wiser, more experienced SMOL is more expensive again. BIG has to act quickly to ensure the cheapest price, and declutter future timelines of risks. Also, the longer BIG waits, the less effective are "Jedi mind trick" gaslighting statements like "P is not a good candidate for a business", "niche", "fan base" (BIG internal memo - do not say customers), "own thing". In reality in this case P's stickiness was clear: people allocating 1000s of dollars toward AI lured merely by P's possibilities. It was only a matter of time before investment followed course. I've experienced this situation multiple times over the course of BrowserBox's life. Multiple "BIG" (including ones you will all know) have approached with the same kind of routine: hire, or some variations of that theme with varying degrees of legal cleverness/trickery in documents. In all cases, I rejected, because it never felt right. That's how I know what I'm telling you here. I think when you are SMOL it's useful to remember the Parable of Zuckerberg and the Yahoos. While the situation is different, the lesson is essentially the same. Adapted from the histories by the scribe named Gemini 3 Flash: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [deleted] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||