4 ms·
The author gives a very one sided picture why such investments make sense. Well, he earns a lot of money in this business. I would be more interested how many
by usr1106 8y ago
The author gives a very one sided picture why such investments make sense. Well, he earns a lot of money in this business.
I would be more interested how many of these acquisitions are successful?
I remember Nokia buying Navteq for €5.7 billion (US$8.1 billion) in 2007. And selling Here for €2.8 billions in 2015 (US$3.1 billion, US$2.9 billion according to another source, I didn't check the exchange rates, 200 million seem to be peanuts in the context). Inflation-adjusted the numbers would look worse.
Burning more than half of the acquisition value did obviously not save Nokia's mobile business on the way.
While we are at it Microsoft bought Nokia's mobile business just to close it down 3 years later and writing off US$7.6 billion.
Google bought Motorola phones for US$12.5 billion to sell it off for US$2.91 billion.
All this demonstrates is that corporations have immoral amounts of money to gamble with. The little droplet we can contribute to avoiding this is trying to spend our peanuts in favor of smaller businesses. (Yes, I still have a Skype, a LinkedIn and a github account)
- matt_s 8y agoI think that is what the author means as strategic vs. financial. For example, buying a company for its list of customers, to eliminate them as a potential threat, to get some IP/technology they have, etc. You are right that the large tech companies have extremely large bankrolls to just do what they want in a sense. If you view it from their perspective, a success might mean they get access to 1000's of companies using GitHub to try and sell Enterprise hosting, development tools, etc. to. All it cost them was $7.5B in stock.
- skinnymuch 8y agoGoogle sold off different parts of Motorola. And i believe in the end they still kept some patents. Google didn’t end up losing much money over Motorola.