I don't think there should be undue stigma or speculation when founders move on. The type of person who can cast a vision that brings a company to this point isn't always (or rarely is) the same person who will thrive on the task of maintaining a company once it reaches, or nearly reaches the founder's original vision for it. There is nothing wrong with finding the most opportune moment to bow out, provided you aren't screwing over anyone else.
There's plenty of fuel for speculation in this particular case! There is the open question of whether Last.fm/CBS handed user data to the RIAA (covered at http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/22/deny-this-lastfm/). Fast forward a month from that article (which alleges the CBS overlords did it unilaterally, then asked Last.fm to lie about it), and all three founders are looking to cash out ASAP. Conveniently, this is the two year point of the acquisition, which is likely the end of the vesting/retention period for the founders. That is due speculation.
The first part is worthy of some speculation, I agree. However, the second is just a matter of course. It only makes sense to wait till you have fulfilled your contract obligations and can cash out. There's little wrong with that that I can see.
There's clear evidence that a leader that founded the company with a clear guiding vision is irreplaceable. The large companies that have survived for 15+ years; Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon come to mind; are those that are most successful even upon maturity.
You are probably pretty much correct, but at the same time if it was that cut-and-dried then the contracts would stipulate tenure a lot longer than 2 years for founders when a startup gets bought out.
Notice that the examples I gave aren't companies that have been bought out; they're still being led by their founders. The problem is that less and less companies are having IPOs and reaching massive size to carry out their original vision properly. Instead, their liquidation option is acquisition, which keeps the CEOs of big, rich companies in power and lets them carry out the visions of acquirees the way they see fit -- which usually isn't the optimal solution.
A founder is much more suited to carry out his or her vision by having millions of dollars in the bank and no constraints, rather than be constrained by the acquiring company in a system that is bloated and become increasingly bureaucratic.
I agree that you need a leader with clear vision. In my opinion, the definition of a leader is "someone who has a clear vision". I don't think it needs to be the founder, though. In fact, one of the jobs of a leader is to train a successor (I think "Good to Great" mentions this).
Empirically, though, vision seems to be a scarce commodity, so having the founder stay on for a long time is a good approach.
There's lots of evidence that the best leader usually is the founder. For example, Henry Ford made his company possibly the biggest and best auto-company in the world (especially at the time) because he had a vision and the vision was to make vehicles cheap enough that anyone could have one. He paid workers the equivalent of $105 dollars an hour and sold vehicle the equivalent of $7,000 by the time the Model T was retired.
He was then forced to switch to the annual model that other companies were doing, which is currently credited with severely damaging the car industry due to the severe lack of brand cohesion. At the time, everybody knew the Model T was a very sturdy vehicle, but today you've got to rely on a models previous generations. Now car companies are considering Henry Ford's original model, instead of releasing a new model every year, you release a new model say every decade so that it gets progressively cheaper and more reliable. People with less money will buy a reliable model later in the cycle when it's cheaper, where as people with large disposable incomes will quickly switch to the new expensive version, which is evidenced by the iPod phenomena.
I have mechanics in my family, in fact my father owned his own shop at one point, and when you hear people discuss vehicles they invariably end up saying things like "The 92-95 were good cars, but the 96-97 were disasters". Apple wouldn't have turned the iPod into such a needless necessity by having bad models; the iPod Nano 1G was at serious threat of this with the whole easy screen breaking because they reduced the surface coating too much, however after a bit of a rough start the Nano is now of the same standard as the classic, you don't have to worry about the screen breaking (even though I think they still have to ship with a case because of the EU's 5 year lifetime law for electronic products).
The whole founders leaving the company appears to be a Web 2.0 invention. Creators now can get enough buzz about an idea for someone to pick it up and run with it. However, back even twenty years ago if you failed so did your company. IIRC Henry Ford had two failed automotive companies before he started the current company, I believe he also had a third which he used to get majority control of the current company from the shareholders; I believe his second company was a partnership with the Dodge Brothers. The Dodge Brothers Company was sold almost 5 years after their death, by their widows, and it was the biggest monetary transaction in the world, at the time. If Henry Ford had had the buzz around the mass production of the automobile, I doubt his first company would have gone out of business, however I doubt he would have had the knowledge and experience to run the business himself, famously without a single accountant during his lifetime and IIRC the longest period for a large company in the US to not be audited for taxes.
I think that was in the context of leaving a big company to start a startup.
Joining a big company after your startup is acquired is a bit different dynamic. Maybe it can be likened to opium. I've never tried opium, nor sold a company.
But it must feel good, with obviously bad and brewing side effects.
I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but the first thing that crossed my mind was the whole crappy drama with techcrunch.
Have the founders discovered that there was a data leak - and, given their opinions on the matter - decided it better to quit than work with whoever made it happen?
I hope not (edit: because I was rooting for last.fm, not because I want it to be true).
I would say given the constraints on founders being tied to their companies, the turnaround for leaving is far greater than the length of the TC debacle.
(I work here, and have had no indication that the TC allegations are true)
all 3 founders leave at the same time, only two years after being acquired? there is more to this than simply leaving to do other things. founders of sites like last.fm don't just let their babies go so easily, acquisition or not (think myspace, facebook, bebo, etc.)
I would say that it is connected to the RIAA drama and CBS sending them user info. If they resigned because of that, then full props to them (they just owe TC one big apology).
If the data sharing with the RIAA did happen and they didn't resign - then shame on them.
I don't think all 3 leaving at the same time means anything. One would assume that they're probably great friends, and feel that their combined effort in a new project (when the time comes) is better than 1 or 2 going separate ways.
Well, if they all left at the same time, I really hope they are working on something new. It's interesting that Felix, RJ and Martin were actually the original team (I thought at first that they were just part of the original team): http://www.last.fm/about/team so I'm looking forward to see a new startup from them.
That's why you should start something that you really believe in. :) Start-ups aren't a get-rich-quick scheme -- it just happens that the market desperately needs some product or good that leads a select few company to explosive growth, which the media then focuses on.
As a founder when (if ever) do you pass over control of a business you started?
That's a hard question to answer. Obviously it depends on what your goals were initially (build something, make some cash) and whether or not you've met them.
After building and selling a business what do you do next? Build another business and sell it? Or perhaps build a business, and keep on building it for the rest of your working days? Is that what twitter is up to? EV sold blogger a while back.
the reason i would read more into this than just 'it's time to move on' is when all 3 founders leave at the same time.
or is that more common than i would suspect?
It's getting a bit trite that every time Last.fm is mentioned (in good or bad light) that someone mentions libre.fm.
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice project, but it's as annoying as constantly plugging your startups alternative to a popular service, the fact it's open-source doesn't dull that.
