←back to thread

OpenAI’s Windsurf deal is off, and Windsurf’s CEO is going to Google

(www.theverge.com)
757 points rcchen | 1 comments | 11 Jul 25 21:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
metadat ◴[11 Jul 25 21:58 UTC] No.44537176[source]▶
It's another Character.ai situation [0]. Unfortunate for any employees who aren't founders or researchers, as they don't get any payout or a nice new job from this exit structure. In fact they lose their whole time invested at the company.

What a harsh time to work for an AI startup as a rank and file employee! I wonder how the founders justify going along with it inside their mind.

[0] Character.ai CEO Noam Shazeer Returns to Google https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41141112 - 11 months ago (87 comments)

Edit: Thank you @jonny_eh for the clarification. I can't imagine it feels awesome being a leftover but at least you vested out. "Take the money and leave" is still a bit raw when the founders and researchers are now getting the initial payout + generous Google RSU's.

replies(8): >>44537275 #>>44537276 #>>44537278 #>>44537375 #>>44537758 #>>44538608 #>>44538906 #>>44539698 #
pydry ◴[11 Jul 25 22:24 UTC] No.44537375[source]▶
This might be the beginning of the end of tech VC startups in general.

High interest rates make VC funding more expensive and now bigtech can swoop in, poach all the necessary staff and deprive investors of an exit.

What is the point any more?

replies(1): >>44537752 #
lsllc ◴[11 Jul 25 23:14 UTC] No.44537752[source]▶
Isn't there not some contractual agreement between the VCs and the founders? (I understand that a non-compete might not apply [in CA], but taking VC money is a little different that simply getting hired).

Were I a Windsurf investor, I'd be pissed right now and calling my lawyer.

replies(2): >>44538002 #>>44538208 #
1. wadefletch ◴[12 Jul 25 00:31 UTC] No.44538208[source]▶
the founder is on a vesting schedule set with the vc. walking away forfeits his ownership in the company (not sure of the specifics of this weird deal, but this is true in 99% of situations) which returns his ownership to the VCs either directly or functionally.

the only reason he'd walk away is because he thinks other opportunities are higher EV. if he believes this, a) the investors investment is likely worth virtually 0 anyway and b) if it's not, removing a leader who doesn't want to be there probably increases P(success) for the company and further increases the value of the investment.

founder departure isn't good for the narrative, but it's a symptom of an investment going bad, not often a cause.