81–90 of 94 posts
It must be tough for the business, as more and more web development has fallen in love with PostgreSQL. While the support business for PostgreSQL exists, I am not sure if they can get similar profit margins / earning multipliers as early 2000 software businesses, even open source ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MariaDB scales much better, with native clustering support, native partitioning support, as well as better single-node performance: https://www.databasebenchmarks.net/benchmark-charts.html
That link isn't particularly convincing. As far as I can see, the only Postgres test performed on the hardware that the top MariaDB entries had was on a positively ancient Postgres version (9.2.1).
And I'm seeing versions tested up through 16.3 which was released in May. In fact even 9.2.1 is less than three years old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d say less. This acquisition screams that some MBA looked at their financials, saw money left on table, likely by not completely screwing over customers, and said, let’s do this! Think Broadcom/VMware on smaller scale. You don’t put yourself in debt and replace the CEO unless you see some value not currently being realized. They might even try license shenanigans but with GPLv2, not sure what they can do.
I'm usually skeptical of private equity, but in this case I see reasons to not be immediately cynical. The purchase price was only ~$37 million USD, which is quite reasonable considering MariaDB's reach and potential. MariaDB plc has some really talented C++ engineers who are experts in database internals. Their DB has some compelling features that many competitors lack, for example system-versioned tables, Oracle DB…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm usually skeptical of private equity, but in this case I see reasons to not be immediately cynical. The purchase price was only ~$37 million USD, which is quite reasonable considering MariaDB's reach and potential. MariaDB plc has some really talented C++ engineers who are experts in database internals. Their DB has some compelling features that many competitors lack, for example system-versioned tables, Oracle DB…
They are, let’s call it 40 Million in the hole. That’s not money invested in RD or anything. It was given to shareholders and they will pocket it.
There were, however, multiple interested buyers (at least 3 from what I recall reading over the past year) because there's a lot of potential upside if their execution improves.
If you think my statements are incorrect, what do you propose was the motivation for this purchase?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are, let’s call it 40 Million in the hole. That’s not money invested in RD or anything. It was given to shareholders and they will pocket it.
The company sold at a considerable loss to shareholders. No one got rich there. Their SPAC was not good and should never have happened. Even if they hadn't sold the company, their stock would have been de-listed anyway, due to being deficient on both market cap and share price. A reverse-split can temporarily fix the latter but not the former. There were, however, multiple interested buyers (at least 3 from what I re…
It doesn't matter about loss to shareholders, money paid is NOT going to the company, it's going to shareholders unless the company is significant shareholder. K1 has -40Million on Spreadsheet about MariaDB BEFORE any additional investments and they want that money back. So how is K1 going to make its money back? My gut is my original post is more correct than some investing in the product to make a better database and beat out the competitors. I'll point out the new CEO, while having engineering degrees, seems to be more a business type person.
i'm predicting K1 flips MariaDB to Oracle as soon as the dust settles
MariaDB does not need to win against MySQL, it really needs to win against PostgreSQL