Interesting how everyone is falling for this logical fallacy of a question.
There are 2 modes in which Google buys a company.
1. For the product. This is the case that might entail 5x valuation and in this mode the intent is never to "kill" it. That would be stupid.
Obviously, it doesn't always work out and the product might end up dead but it's never the intent of neither party at the time of acquisition.
2. For the people i.e. acu-hire. In that case the startup is effectively dead anyway and the founders and investors know it. Google won't pay 5x in that case, both parties know that the product will be shut down (but it would be anyway at some point) and the team simply gets a lucrative (?) job offer.
There is never a case where Google pays 5x for a product they intend to immediately "kill".
There are 2 modes in which Google buys a company.
1. For the product. This is the case that might entail 5x valuation and in this mode the intent is never to "kill" it. That would be stupid.
Obviously, it doesn't always work out and the product might end up dead but it's never the intent of neither party at the time of acquisition.
2. For the people i.e. acu-hire. In that case the startup is effectively dead anyway and the founders and investors know it. Google won't pay 5x in that case, both parties know that the product will be shut down (but it would be anyway at some point) and the team simply gets a lucrative (?) job offer.
There is never a case where Google pays 5x for a product they intend to immediately "kill".