Understood, I'm looking for an analysis - it would cost x to hire the same size team of researchers with comparable research experience for the same amount of time to build out these datasets as proof-of-concept products, plus whatever other costs an ML research team accrues.
You're missing the variable N, the number of times you'd have to repeat the experiment to replicate the quality of the results. N might be 10, might be 100.
As an analyst it should be easy for you to figure out x for Maluuba, just McKinsey it. But that isn't really a meaningful number. Researchers aren't fungible commodities traded on an exchange.
Sure, but I think the size of a research team's budget/grant allocation is a good proxy for how "valuable" that research team is. Also, just because you and I are paid salaries doesn't make us commodities, but it does give info on our worth to our organization's/context in the overall economy.
Someone had to evaluate this deal, and I'm interested in understanding the process behind valuing something so far-removed from any commercial product or market.
If you want to know /how "valuable" that research team is/, find out what Microsoft paid for the Maluuba. The number is not in line with their salaries. A few notes on that:
"DeepMind was said to have around 75 employees when Google picked it up in 2014. If the deal closed at the rumored amount, that would put the cost per employee at an eye-popping $6.66 million. Magic Pony is said to have had a team of 14 when it was acquired by Twitter—$10.7 million per employee."
http://pitchbook.com/news/articles/tech-giants-paying-big-mo...
