It's cynical but there is a lot of cognitive dissonance surrounding software startups. The players involved in a deal like this seem to go through a lot of twisted internal logic to convince themselves that what they are doing isn't just an investor shell game. Whereas a corporate raider type simply wouldn't care about having extra-financial justifications for the deal.
I'm not saying that is what happened here, but I have been involved in a startup acquisition which was an investor shell game, and even guys who lost in the acquisition had to come up with a warped internal history about what happened in order to not feel bad about it, or something...
To be honest, I wish I wouldn't have use that phrase because it adds negativity that is probably unnecessary.
In my case, what happened is the failed startup I worked for was "acquired" by another company that was funded by the same investors. The acquiring company wasn't acquiring anything: the software was open source, none of the founders worked there anymore, no key engineers were left, etc. The deal was done to avoid a loss on the VC balance sheet so that the fund wouldn't lose face with its institutional investors. The people who benefit: investors, and also mediocre late hire employees who stuck around through the transition. They ended up with a higher salary and better title than they would have if they had been hired directly by the acquiring company.
When I read about an acquisition where it doesn't seem like anyone is going to make money, nobody uses the product, the founding team isn't there anymore and key engineers have left, it just reminds me of this situation I already lived through.
I'm not saying that is what happened here, but I have been involved in a startup acquisition which was an investor shell game, and even guys who lost in the acquisition had to come up with a warped internal history about what happened in order to not feel bad about it, or something...