Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#31

Post by nradov »

snackbroken wrote: post #30
nradov wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally impossible. Closed source software often contains IP licensed from other entities. Just because a company folds doesn't mean they can violate licensing agreements.

> Just because a company folds doesn't mean they can violate licensing agreements. It does if that's the law. Every jurisdiction routinely overrules contracts as unenforceable on the basis of some overriding law, so it wouldn't even really be that unusual. Whether it's a good idea or not is another question and one that depends almost entirely on second, third and higher order effects. There probably is a world where…

Nah. No jurisdiction is going to violate the IP rights of a separate company just because one of their customers or partners is forced to liquidate.

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#32

Post by kotaKat »

shrubble wrote: post #19

PepsiCo had been raising the prices on their snacks, including Doritos, far faster than their costs or the rate of inflation. They "suddenly" realized that many less people were willing to pay $7 for a bag of Doritos and that they had priced their product higher than they should have. There's a curve, not unlike the Laffer Curve, that applies to everything you are selling; something that Broadcom is learning (though…

And now much like Pepsi, those that found their store-brand version of KVM to replace VMware are certainly happy with their new chips and don’t want to switch back if they don’t have to…

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#33

Post by jandrese »

headwayoldest wrote: post #3

I don't think we really need those quotes. Broadcom bought an existing, successful company, and immediately skyrocketed the price of their most used commercial offering. You don't need a degree in business to surmise that short term profits will also skyrocket but you will eventually lose the market.

The term of art is Profit Taking. When you cash out your reputation to make a big quarterly profit. Did they also slash the research and development teams? Classic VC behavior.

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#34

Post by bakoo »

jlokier wrote: post #25

Even though VMware Fusion (for Mac) is free* and very good, Broadcom is pushing me away to Parallels for silly reasons. The reason: No matter how I try, even as a registered customer, I can't find a way to download current versions . When I run VMware Fusion it tells me there's a new version, with bug fixes, support for newer macOS, etc. Would I like to download it? (Months ago it said the URL to check for a new vers…

The worst part about the convoluted download process is that it seems someone have actively been making it more difficult since the first iteration, and I can't for the life of me understand why. Is it being done by someone who hates Broadcom? Or perhaps struggle with mental illness? Or is it due to a mix of micro management and extreme incompetence? I can't remember seeing something this bad since the horror shows people managed to create using stuff like Flash and Silverlight.

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#36

Post by jasomill »

jlokier wrote: post #25

Even though VMware Fusion (for Mac) is free* and very good, Broadcom is pushing me away to Parallels for silly reasons. The reason: No matter how I try, even as a registered customer, I can't find a way to download current versions . When I run VMware Fusion it tells me there's a new version, with bug fixes, support for newer macOS, etc. Would I like to download it? (Months ago it said the URL to check for a new vers…

I've been able to download free Fusion and Workstation, but my ability to download existing versions of perpetually licensed VMware products was removed the day my (non-renewable) maintenance subscription expired, and they've also paywalled the update servers, again even including older updates I'm entitled to under the perpetual license and my (involuntarily) expired subscription.

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#37

Post by jasomill »

bakoo wrote: post #34
jlokier wrote: post #25

Even though VMware Fusion (for Mac) is free* and very good, Broadcom is pushing me away to Parallels for silly reasons. The reason: No matter how I try, even as a registered customer, I can't find a way to download current versions . When I run VMware Fusion it tells me there's a new version, with bug fixes, support for newer macOS, etc. Would I like to download it? (Months ago it said the URL to check for a new vers…

The worst part about the convoluted download process is that it seems someone have actively been making it more difficult since the first iteration, and I can't for the life of me understand why. Is it being done by someone who hates Broadcom? Or perhaps struggle with mental illness? Or is it due to a mix of micro management and extreme incompetence? I can't remember seeing something this bad since the horror shows p…

Probably just an unfortunate side effect of reusing the same systems used for restricted subscription downloads for free product downloads, combined with underfunding for the free product lines.

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#38

Post by jcgl »

colechristensen wrote: post #27
me_again wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was VMWare dying prior to the acquisition? I don't really know the financials but that wasn't the impression I had.

VMWare din't have a growth trajectory and didn't have a reasonable expectation of one. You don't make these kinds of sales when you're circling the drain, you do it when you can see that future coming for you.

But they were a mature company. Why would growth be the expectation?

Note: I’m not asking for the Reddit armchair kvetching about the evils of modern capitalism and the failings of line-must-go-up. I’m wondering why, when serious financial decision-makers are involved, it makes sense to blow something up rather than steadily take profits over time, even if those profits aren’t always going up.

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#39

Post by jcgl »

wolvoleo wrote: post #26
me_again wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was VMWare dying prior to the acquisition? I don't really know the financials but that wasn't the impression I had.

Dying no, but their business certainly had a downward trend on it since so much is moving to containers instead.

Doesn’t VMware have Tanzu, a container-based offering? Why not keep trying to adapt?

Re: "Negative" views of Broadcom driving VMware migrations, rival says

#40

Post by colechristensen »

jcgl wrote: post #38
colechristensen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VMWare din't have a growth trajectory and didn't have a reasonable expectation of one. You don't make these kinds of sales when you're circling the drain, you do it when you can see that future coming for you.

But they were a mature company. Why would growth be the expectation? Note: I’m not asking for the Reddit armchair kvetching about the evils of modern capitalism and the failings of line-must-go-up. I’m wondering why, when serious financial decision-makers are involved, it makes sense to blow something up rather than steadily take profits over time, even if those profits aren’t always going up.

Because more than sales growth also technology growth was done. Nobody new is excited to use VMWare, the only big significant customers of VMWare are the ones it already has. At best you get a trickle of new customers already so accustomed to your product that they don't want to figure out something new. All of that is a sign for a long term slow death where to stay profitable you have to slowly lower headcount and raise prices.

Like a sitcom in the 7th season or a champion fighter approaching 40 you quit near the top.

Post reply on HN