Google does not Digg it, walks away from the deal
Written on July 26, 2008 – 3:53 pm
Joop Dorresteijn, Contributing editor
A dispiriting update about Google wanting to acquire Digg, the deal is off! The guys at Digg were about to close the deal and walk away with 200 million dollars. But for some reason, Google decided to walk away from the deal yesterday, leaving Digg to be the ugly bride nobody wants to have.
The acquisition had passed the term sheet stage and entered final negociations this week. During these non-binding negotiations, Google had closer research into Digg’s technology and financial statement, the teams from both parties might not cooperate as expected before.
Could Google have a strategy by walking away? Or is there something fishy to Digg’s financial status or technology? Perhaps it’s the fact that Google News already makes $100 million revenue per year, and does not need Digg. As Valleywag reports, Digg would be inconsequential for Google’s traffic. Either way, Interest of other parties might be questionable after the turndown by Google. I’d say: Just sell the site to the first buyer Jay, while you still can!
I hope you like that post!
Do you have a start-up that we should write about? Contact us! Thanks for visiting and hope you come back again!








The Next Web Blog is closely associated with The Next Web Conference which is held annually in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. At this event speakers from all over the world come together to talk about, and show of, the future of the Web. (
By GoodAdvice.TV on Jul 26, 2008
Thanks for the article.
I really enjoyed reading it. I particularly liked your phrase of ‘Top Tea’ :-)
Keep up the good work.
[Reply]
By PJ Brunet on Jul 26, 2008
Wasn’t Digg coded for $400? Maybe they looked at the sourcecode and got scared ;-)
[Reply]
By David Hobson on Jul 26, 2008
I dont see why Google would want to buy Digg its not going to bring them any benefits.
[Reply]
By Sarah on Jul 28, 2008
How can you not want digg? If I had that kind of money, I’d buy digg.. (And theNextWeb ;-) )
[Reply]