LetTheRightLensIn said:
If Google had no use for it, why did they have to buy the company? They have billions, but they just had to raid this tiny little company? Couldn't find anyone else to hire? Couldn't stand to lose 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of budget to competition in a field they don't even do much in?
Welcome to capitalism. They saw something they thought would make them more profitable, so they bought it. Why did they buy the whole company rather than the single product they really cared about? Maybe it worked out better legally. Maybe they wanted all the engineers that were working at the company. Maybe they did care more about the full range of Nik products at the time. Regardless, this happens all the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Microsoft
(curious that Amazon's not on there)
Some companies do it more often than others, and companies treat their acquisitions differently, just as they treat their employees and their customers differently. If you care enough about how a company behaves, that's your cue to support them or take your money elsewhere.
EDIT: On the subject of the fates of acquired companies, this can't even be called a failure yet. Compare to:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8910999/microsoft-job-cuts-2015-nokia-write-off
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/29/5358620/lenovo-reportedly-buying-motorola-mobility-from-google