973
submitted 11 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] erwan@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

The difference is that a hostile takeover can't happen.

Unless the founder still owns a majority of the shares, you can take control of a public company without needing the consent of the board (and CEO, founder, etc)

[-] BeAware@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

A hostile takeover doesn't have to happen. If Gaben decides "fuck you all" and decides to close the company, then there's not a damn thing you can do about it. It's his company and it doesn't owe you the privilege of continuing to exist.

[-] erwan@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

I know it can happen, but that still makes a difference between public and private companies. That's one risk less.

Especially for Valve which is a very desirable company for their position as de facto PC games online store.

this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
973 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

60148 readers
1977 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS