Apple and Meta shopping Perplexity shows chequebooks replacing R&D. But if founders keep saying no, does that force incumbents back to building in-house?
Meta dangling $100 M bonuses and hearing “nah” feels like a tipping point. Are top AI minds betting their upside is bigger outside the FAANG mothership?
Meta’s $100 M bids landing flat feels like peak late-stage tech. Does this open space for mid-size players to snap up the next wave of researchers?
The old “acqui-hire” model looks shaky when nine figures can’t sway talent. Is prestige shifting from logos to personal labs?
Watching elite AI folks pass on Meta’s blank checks makes me wonder: is freedom to publish the new currency?
$100 M used to buy startups, now it barely rents a senior researcher. Does this reset how we value IP versus people?
Apple and Meta shopping Perplexity shows chequebooks replacing R&D. But if founders keep saying no, does that force incumbents back to building in-house?
Hundred-million sign-ons getting rejected says loud things about where power sits today. Could independent labs become the new VCs for talent?
If Meta can’t buy brains at $100 M a pop, have we hit the ceiling of cash persuasion—and the dawn of mission-first recruiting?
The fact $100 M isn’t enough tells me autonomy now beats salary at the highest tier. Do we need a new playbook for retaining geniuses?
When $100 M can’t close the deal, maybe talent sees more leverage in building than being bought. Is Big Tech’s legacy lure fading?
Meta dangling $100 M bonuses and hearing “nah” feels like a tipping point. Are top AI minds betting their upside is bigger outside the FAANG mothership?