At least it wasn't Oracle • Hacker News Board

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#31

Post by tonyedgecombe » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

apohn wrote: post #2

I've worked for companies that got acquired and also acquired other companies. Year 1 is usually nothing and things stay the same unless there is some serious fat that needed trimming. The interesting years are 2 and 3. That's when the parent company tries to optimize things (e.g. streamline the sales force), create synergies, etc and you start seeing the changes. Depending on where you are in the acquired company, i…

My experience was different, things changed within a couple of months although they were both relatively small companies.

The process was remarkably similar even though they were quite different businesses. Middle management was purged quite quickly, shortly after that all the value creators walked.

In both cases the purchaser ended up with a customer database and some residual support revenue. This may have been their expectation all along, I don't know how the figures looked.

I've read somewhere that most acquisitions don't deliver any value for the acquirer. This is why their share price usually falls on the news.

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#32

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #10

With Oracle/Sun it was pretty inverted...the first year was a huge cash infusion, and if anything Sun hardware projects had greater potential than before. And yet, within 5-6 years the entire hardware division imploded. And, meta-comment: this site layout is frustrating on mobile, the text runs off the left/right edges slightly and it refuses to allow pinch/zoom. Sites really need to stop writing code to intentionall…

[deleted]

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#33

Post by hectormalot » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #23

gutnor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The interesting years are 2 and 3. Indeed, after all what would be the point of going through the trouble of acquiring a company if major changes weren't coming ? If you don't need something special, there is a myriad of other option from simple client account to investment or the various partnership level, including shared owned subsidiary for R&D/other.

Conversely, what would be the point of going through the trouble of acquiring a profitable company and trying to impose disruptive changes rather than sitting back and raking in the profits? AFAICT this is what Berkshire Hathaway does, and it seems to work out well for them. (Though this isn't necessarily intended to deflate any fears about IBM meddling at Red Hat; for a company as important to OSS as they are, any c…

Eg look at the acquisition of Anheuser Busch by InBev.

AB was a profitable company, but InBev is just very good at efficiency in brewing. IIRC they paid handsomely above market price at the time and were able to translate their efficiency to AB in such a way that the combined reduction in cost and uptake in revenue creates value net/net for InBev (and therefore AB)

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#34

Post by tonyedgecombe » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #10

With Oracle/Sun it was pretty inverted...the first year was a huge cash infusion, and if anything Sun hardware projects had greater potential than before. And yet, within 5-6 years the entire hardware division imploded. And, meta-comment: this site layout is frustrating on mobile, the text runs off the left/right edges slightly and it refuses to allow pinch/zoom. Sites really need to stop writing code to intentionall…

>And yet, within 5-6 years the entire hardware division imploded.

I always wonder what would have happened if Apple had bought them.

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#35

Post by chrisseaton » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

> for $34 Billion (with a B)

What does the capital B mean? Is this long and short billions? I've never seen capitalisation used as a notation for that.

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#36

Post by programminglisp » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

IBM aquisition is not bad in my point of view, it is big corporation which guarantees stability to the employees.

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#37

Post by tyingq » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

imbusy111 wrote: post #24

Not sure why Chris felt so much anxiety about the acquisition. Red Hat was already a huge company and things change. After all, it is just a corporate job and he can find another one, especially in this climate. I can only understand his anxiety if he is an exec high up the chain and likely will be trimmed and his multi-million dollar salary is affected, and he has a huge mortgage, and lots of bills to pay and so on.…

I'm sure there's more than one reason, but he seems to indicate he works from home.

IBM apparently changed their policy on that in 2017.

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#38

Post by phoe-krk » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #35

> for $34 Billion (with a B) What does the capital B mean? Is this long and short billions? I've never seen capitalisation used as a notation for that.

As in billion, not million.

It's a pretty big sum.

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#39

Post by AlexB138 » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:54 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #35

> for $34 Billion (with a B) What does the capital B mean? Is this long and short billions? I've never seen capitalisation used as a notation for that.

The "with a B" thing is just an idiom meant to underscore the magnitude of the amount paid. Essentially saying "You heard me right, Billion, not Million!".

Re: At least it wasn't Oracle

#40

Post by dave5104 » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:54 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #35

> for $34 Billion (with a B) What does the capital B mean? Is this long and short billions? I've never seen capitalisation used as a notation for that.

Usually, that's just a stylistic way for the author to really push the fact that the dollar amount was in billions and not millions.