Here's something weird about yesterday's Arc browser acquisition: nobody can agree on how much Atlassian actually paid. The numbers floating around range from $610 million to nearly $1 billion, which is a pretty fucking significant difference when you're talking about buying a browser that maybe 500,000 people use.
Most US outlets are reporting $610 million. Reuters says $610 million. TechCrunch says $610 million.
But then you look at Australian financial media and the numbers go completely insane: Forbes Australia claims $937 million, and The Sydney Morning Herald says "nearly $1 billion".
So what's the real number? And why can't financial journalists figure out basic math?
The Currency Conversion Theory
The most likely explanation is currency confusion. Atlassian is an Australian company, so their financial reporting might be in Australian dollars while US media converts to USD.
$610 million USD equals roughly $937 million AUD at current exchange rates (1 USD = ~1.54 AUD). That would explain the Australian media's higher numbers - they're reporting the AUD price while US outlets stick to USD.
But here's where it gets weird: some Australian outlets are using different exchange rates or including additional costs that aren't in the base acquisition price. Deal structures often include earnouts, retention bonuses, and other costs that can inflate the total beyond the headline number.
Why This Matters More Than You'd Think
The difference between $610M and $937M isn't just an academic curiosity - it completely changes how insane this deal looks.
At $610M USD, Atlassian paid roughly $1,220 per Arc user (assuming 500K active users). That's expensive but not completely unprecedented for a strategic acquisition of productivity software.
At $937M USD, they paid $1,874 per user. That's getting into "did someone accidentally add an extra zero?" territory.
At $1 billion, it's just pure financial madness - $2,000 per user for a browser that couldn't figure out how to make money.
The Reporting Problem
Financial journalism has a weird relationship with acquisition prices. The "official" number usually comes from press releases, but the real cost often includes:
- Base acquisition price
- Earnouts based on performance metrics
- Retention bonuses for key employees
- Transaction fees and legal costs
- Currency hedging costs for international deals
So when Atlassian says "$610 million in cash," that might just be the upfront payment. The total cost to actually complete the acquisition and keep the team around could easily hit $900+ million.
What Atlassian Actually Said
Atlassian's official announcement was surprisingly light on financial details. They mention "acquisition" and "cash deal" but don't specify the exact amount.
The $610 million figure seems to come from sources close to the deal rather than official company statements. Which means it could be incomplete, miscommunicated, or deliberately lowballed to make the deal seem less crazy.
The Australian Media Angle
Australian financial outlets have more reason to dig into Atlassian's numbers since they're covering a local company. They also have different sources - Australian fund managers, local investment banks, regulatory filings that might not be immediately available to US media.
If Australian outlets consistently report higher numbers, they might have access to more complete deal information. Or they might be using different currency assumptions and deal structure interpretations.
Why Nobody Wants to Clarify
Neither Atlassian nor The Browser Company has much incentive to clarify the exact total cost:
- Atlassian shareholders would probably prefer the lower number so the deal doesn't look completely insane
- The Browser Company might prefer the higher number to make their exit look more successful
- Investment banks collecting fees don't care as long as both sides are happy
So we're left with financial journalists trying to reverse-engineer deal details from incomplete sources and conflicting currency assumptions.
What This Teaches Us About Tech Reporting
The pricing confusion reveals how broken financial reporting is around tech acquisitions. When major news outlets can't agree on whether a deal is $610 million or nearly $1 billion, it suggests:
- Press releases deliberately obscure total costs to avoid scaring shareholders or competitors
- Currency conversion assumptions vary wildly between outlets
- Deal structures are complex enough that the "price" depends on what you include
- Financial journalism prioritizes speed over accuracy when chasing acquisition scoops
The real number probably falls somewhere in between - maybe $750-800 million total cost when you factor in all the extras. But the fact that we're having this conversation at all shows how fucked up tech acquisition reporting has become.
Either way, it's still too much money for a browser that couldn't figure out how to charge its users $5 a month.