Our practices for covering AI acquisitions have shifted meaningfully, and the specific changes are worth naming directly.
We became more skeptical of same-day integration framing
Early coverage sometimes repeated optimistic integration plans stated at announcement time without enough skepticism. We now treat these plans as claims to revisit rather than outcomes to assume.
We started systematically following up on past acquisitions
We didn't consistently report on what actually happened to acquired teams and products months later. We now try to do this follow-up reporting more deliberately, since it's often where the real story lives.
We got more precise about distinguishing acquisition types
We used to describe most acquisitions in similar terms. We're now more careful to distinguish acqui-hires, product continuations, and full integrations, since these represent meaningfully different outcomes for the companies involved.
Why this evolution is worth stating
Acquisition announcements are almost universally framed positively by both parties, and we think being explicit about our increased skepticism and follow-up discipline serves readers better than accepting announcement-day framing at face value.