I agree, the last paragraph is great. My issue is with the last word. A better ending might've been something along the lines of "Paying twice cost less than paying once," and left out characterizing this fortuitous win as a "genius" strategy.
English isn't my first language and I really have a hard time grasping the meaning, the subtelty, of the end of the article.
Does the author say: "Apple bought some employes for a high price ($80M). Later, those employees left Apple for another venture. But when leaving, those employees also left some kind of shares/bonus or something very valuable they obtained by being acquired earlier. They were acquired again later (color) for a much lesser price so in the end they "lost" some money/shares/opportunity".
The Lala acquisition was worth a total of $160M. $80M up front, and $80M as an earn out (over time). When they left Apple early to do Color, they lost a huge chunk of that $80M (earn out money) because they left early before receiving it (vesting) which in the end was worth a lot more due to increase in stock value. Apple bought Color (and those same engineers returned to work at Apple) for a lot less than what they would have paid in the earn out had the engineers stayed and not leave for Color in the first place.
