This was very similar to my thinking as well. If you look for reasons you will find them. The simplest explanation was the acquisition was for $X + All engineers. It was stated that the acquisition was done under duress (the company was out of money) She wasn't an engineer, she wasn't part of the deal. I would wonder why as a founder she wasn't part of the discussion with Google but that certainly can happen when its just the board (typically CEO and the early investors doing the discussion). Depending on the culture the CEO may or may not bring the other founders into the process.

So this is the mind disease that "Amy" needs to cure:

> "I feel like I have no power, that this happened to
> me, and it’s my fault," she said. "I feel so
> betrayed. And, at this point, I don't really
> feel like I have it in me to fail again."

She didn't "fail" any more than the rest of the group "succeeded", it was a business transaction and had nothing to with her and everything to do with Google hiring more engineers. She now has a CEO type person who she can note as someone who doesn't have her interests at heart (the company representative in the negotiation should have gotten her a decent severance package from the deal) and she's been through a company from start to finish so she has an idea of what it takes. Armed with that experience and, if she's spent some time processing it, wisdom, she is in a position to start again and potentially be more effective. What part of the marketing worked? What part didn't? Were the traction issues product or messaging related? Did they reach their target audience? If not why not? Do the whole post mortem thing and learn.

I've been doing this a long time and know it is rarely "about you." You're resume now has a startup with a "successful" exit (acquired by Google), almost everyone reading it will know that is a better outcome than Chapter 7 bankruptcy. (everyone went home and got nothing) You get the respect of having 'been around the block.' which is awesome. So if you do go into a startup situation again, this time as part of the negotiation you say to your potential boss, I want it in my offer that we're acqui-hired and they decide not to hire me, I'll get 6 months severance with benefits so that I can work on my next thing. That is an "easy" thing to agree too since it both clarifies your position in a future acquisition strategy, and it only pays off when the company is being acquired. The second startup I did the Marketing VP had this in their agreement because they knew, as marketing, they were associated more with the product/space and not simply tech talent that could easily be re-purposed[1].

Bottom line, it isn't you, it's never about you, its about what the company wants. Move along. For grins and giggles though check in with your engineer colleagues to see if they would have preferred not to be hired later on. Often such acquisitions include a "retention" clause which, in practice, means the acquiring company can put you (an engineer) on really crappy projects that nobody else wants and you're going to do it anyway because you're locked in for some amount of time to get your bonus. A friend of mine, who has been acquired by Cisco twice, we would ask "So, how long are you in for?" because for an entrepreneur, being stuck at BigCorp for 18, 24, or 36 months really wasn't a vacation.

[1] That engineers are fungible and marketing folks are not is of course not true but a lot of technical acquisitions treat it like it is I've found.