Forget the hacker/maker vs. "business guy" distinction. The article's central claim is the rise of a kind of person adept at playing the political game of VC -- raising a round, and then getting soft-acquihired if their company fails.
I, for one, have a hard time believing that every startup M&A transaction adds shareholder value to the acquirer. A more likely narrative, and one the author of the article calls into question, is that the entrepreneur has friends/other back-channels at the acquirer and uses these personal connection to engineer the "acquisition" of their company, at the expense of shareholders.
I can't say for sure this never happens, but I've never seen an instance of it. A startup is composed of its people. For an acquiring company to take on people they didn't want would be the ultimate sacrifice.
I, for one, have a hard time believing that every startup M&A transaction adds shareholder value to the acquirer. A more likely narrative, and one the author of the article calls into question, is that the entrepreneur has friends/other back-channels at the acquirer and uses these personal connection to engineer the "acquisition" of their company, at the expense of shareholders.