22 ms·

IBM Closes Acquisition of Red Hat for $34B

• unixhero 7y ago
  Great for Open Source?
  • devalnor 7y ago
    Bam!
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• ilovecaching 7y ago
  Feel sad, I know it's just the way things go in big business, but watching a prime example of a fiscally successful company built on open source who has committed so many resources to kernel development and making the Linux community better get bought by a beached whale like IBM just shakes me.
  • rxhernandez 7y ago
    At least it wasn't Oracle?
    • iamnotacrook 7y ago
      All companies will end up sucking in the end, because they're all in it for the money, and you can always make a little more money acting unscrupulously. Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, Google - they're all essentially one company, at heart. --- I like the Walrus best," said Alice, "because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters." "He ate more than the Carpenter, though," said Tweedledee. "You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise." "That was mean!" Alice said indignantly. "Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus." "But he ate as many as he could get," said Tweedledum. This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, "Well! They were both very unpleasant characters—
      • billman 7y ago
        +1 for storytime
      • rxhernandez 7y ago
        I agree that all profitable companies share similar characteristics and have a similar baseline for malice driven by profit, however, there do exist worse companies. I feel like Blackwater was a much worse company than Oracle will ever be and Oracle is much worse than most of the companies on that list.
  • rwmj 7y ago
    I mean, Red Hat has 12,000 employees already (granted IBM has 200K - edit 350K, see reply). Red Hat is not a small start-up.
    • allrightyeo 7y ago
      ibm has 350k employees.
  • baybal2 7y ago
    Yes, I am shocked too. Who will be developing the lion share of what makes "the Linux desktop?" If IBM wants to ever make money of this deal, the only way available for them is to kick everybody, but support people, and crank up fees to the max from big corporate clients. Ubuntu has certainly stole the crown of "the server linux" as being built on a more sound foundation, and being more conservative in bringing disruptive novelties — something that just any sysadmin likes.
    • bmicklea 7y ago
      Red Hat's commitments to the open source projects it works on from linux, to kubernetes, to java, and many others will remain unchanged.
      • baybal2 7y ago
        I hope so, but how will IBM make money then?
        • kryptiskt 7y ago
          Red Hat is already making money with the current business model.
      • DocTomoe 7y ago
        Without a timeframe, that statement is worthless. And that timeframe might be shorter than you'd think. My guess would be "days".
        • babarock 7y ago
          > And that timeframe might be shorter than you'd think. My guess would be "days". Any evidence to back up your guess, or is it just the hunch of some dude on the internet?
      • rleigh 7y ago
        Unless those commitments are in the form of formal contracts, written down, then I would not place a great deal of faith in them. Unless they have legal obligations to abide by them, then IBM don't need to keep them.
  • dalbasal 7y ago
    I have no specific bad feelings about IBM, but I don't like the constant drive towards consolidation. It makes us worse off, I feel. Nearly all these big mergers are about cornering markets, reducing competition and avoiding innovations. At best they're about finance shenanigans. It's not as if redhat customers are likely to be excited about this.
    • Frost1x 7y ago
      I agree. I think there's enough evidence at this point in time to show that corporate consolidation after a point is no longer beneficial to our society. After a certain point, it's pretty clear to me that consolidation only benefits a few significantly invested shareholders and no one else. I suspect this is somewhere greater than the "big 4-5" we've become accustomed to accepting in every sector, when economies of scale stop showing significant sizable benefits to consumers and the market at large. Instead, it turns into pure financial strategy to maximize the few most significant investors' ROI which becomes significantly disproportionate to their contribution to society. Antitrust cases are quite slow to react to these circumstances, be it intentional (financial influence in government) and or structural (government intentionally moves slowly).
      • dalbasal 7y ago
        Antitrust can't be left in the hands of courts. For one thing, the practices legally defined as "trust" behaviour are, to an extent, specific to time, place and time and industry. Laws made for railroad and raw material trusts are not really applicable to operating systems or social media. A second reason is that practices evolve around legal limitations. Monopolies can stay on one side of the legal letter, and that evolves over time. To actually deal with trusts requires legislation specifically tailored to the monopolistic tendencies of (for example) the 2019 tech sector. Maybe "data share" needs to be a concept like market share is/was.
      • kortilla 7y ago
        Where is this evidence you are talking about? This acquisition has the potential of IBM using RH to disrupt the cancer of putting everything on AWS/GCE/Azure by pushing open source-based models. If there is one thing that’s obvious, it’s that people in this thread have very little imagination of the benefits of teamwork and conjoined efforts. The only thing this is evidence of is the shocking ignorance about businesses.
  • bmicklea 7y ago
    I run Red Hat's Developer program, our developer tools portfolio and our developer relations team. When I first heard the news I had a similar reaction. But I've worked with IBM'ers in open source projects for years and they've always been great contributors. Perhaps more importantly both IBM and Red Hat are very committed to not changing our open culture and open source development model. That's been the source of our growth and why IBM felt we were worth 34B. Ultimately words are cheap, so if you see Red Hat's actions in the open source community changing please say something - I for one am committed to continuing to work the open source way. You can read my blog post and comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20391504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20391504
    • jbob2000 7y ago
      Open source doesn't make money, you're at IBM now to save their failing cloud business. If you can't do that, expect your time on open source to dry up.
      • bmicklea 7y ago
        Open source creates market share, that's the foundation on which money can be made. Red Hat's business model wasn't charging for the open software, it was charging for the expertise we have in supporting that open software. The more market share the open source software has, the greater the monetary opportunity for us and the more we can put back into the communities. Red Hat has offices in ~40 countries and IBM is in ~175. That's a lot more touch points for us.
      • rwmj 7y ago
        Open source absolutely does make Red Hat money, billions of dollars a year.
        • jbob2000 7y ago
          Open source doesn't make them that money, servicing open source does.
  • allrightyeo 7y ago
    and the purchase was made on the costs of employees performance. a major reduction of people movements, bonus, enchanges, etc. happened at the exact cost of the declared purchased (internally it was reported 18bi, now it is published 34bi). whole european workforce was impacted.
  • abvr 7y ago
    That I feel is just hyperbole, too many people tend to think this deal is some kid of death warrant to Red Hat, but in reality it is only going to strengthen it by adding more and providing support, both financial and managerial to any dearth of resources that may come around ope source companies, that is if IBM can keep their hands out of the technology and management of Red Hat. I think and hope they will be wise about handling things and learn from companies like Oracle who are now infamous for obliterating good technology.
    • magduf 7y ago
      >I think and hope they will be wise about handling things and learn from companies like Oracle who are now infamous for obliterating good technology. That's the problem with your thinking and people like you in this thread: you're entirely banking on faith that IBM won't ruin RH, even when you cite a great example here about Oracle making similar acquisitions and running them into the ground. Seriously, what makes you think IBM is going to be any different?
      • abvr 7y ago
        Just their word, and I also said I hoped they kept their word. I'm just trying to be optimistic in this case, although I agree with how acquisitions always run into the ground regardless of the company, but something tells me IBM would think twice about doing something remotely like that to RH. For one thing, they contribute excellent work into the kernel and some of their senior engineers have had pivotal roles in adding components to the kernel which may have been a significant factor in improving it, and a minor testament that they care about the system as a whole. That doesn't guarantee anything but it is quite evident from their perspective that they are just looking to both increase their foothold in the industry and improve the base system.
      • sgc 7y ago
        There is little reason to compare IBM to Oracle, they have a very long history of their own acquisitions. I make no claim to understand what most of these are or how they have fared, but the list is public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_IBM#Acquisitions_since_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• christi_meyer 7y ago
  Elastic is the next Disclaimer: I own a bunch of Elastic stock
• neogodless 7y ago
  Share price was $187.71 prior to the announcement. As posted in the article - $190/share agreed purchase.
  • AznHisoka 7y ago
    And to give even more context, it was $170.00 back in Oct 29 when it was first announced. Thus, if you bought then and sold now, you'd have a 11.7% return in 8 months. The S&P index would've returned 12% in comparison. Not risk-free by any means, but almost certainly less risk than buying the S&P index during that time period. There was a reason Warren Buffett parked a ton of cash into Red Hat stock after it was bought.
    • brianwawok 7y ago
      Is it less risky? Say a decent chunk of your portfolio in a single stock? And something weird happens during due diligence , not only is the acquisition over - the stock will bomb. Not sure how often acquisitions fall through after being announced, I assume very low. But still seems similar or higher risk then a stock fund.
      • lonelappde 7y ago
        Redhat has a 20year history as a public company, it's very unlikely that there'd be a big surprise in due diligence.
        • bklyn11201 7y ago
          I think the worry was less due diligence and more a weird anti-trust case from USA, China, or Europe.
      • RickJWagner 7y ago
        I saw (felt) this happen. Worked for Acxiom when they were to be bought by Silverlake. The stock shot up to near-sale-price levels, where I should have sold (but did not). The deal came unraveled, Acxiom stock dropped like a rock and the company had a reputation as 'damaged goods' for many years. Lesson: There is a small upside, but a massive downside that can materialize.
• avip 7y ago
  Prev. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18321884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18321884
• yitchelle 7y ago
  Does this acquisition open up the market for a Linux company to move into the Linux enterprise space? Maybe Ubuntu could pivot into this space.
  • dalbasal 7y ago
    I think the market is probably there regardless. It's not necessarily an easy market, but it's a class of service that fulfills needs and I think demand will be there if you identify and solve the right problems. Enterprise is hard though, for total outsiders.
  • jake_morrison 7y ago
    Probably Ubuntu will be bought by Microsoft. With the cloud, especially containers, there is little future in a business that involves paying for operating systems licenses. Most interesting is probably supporting legacy versions of operating systems for customers who value compatibility to be able to continue to run existing applications with the minimum changes.
    • jaboutboul 7y ago
      I sort of agree with this. Either Microsoft will purchase Ubuntu outright from Shuttleworth or they will just create Microsoft Linux, in whatever form that is, probably something more container focused than a general purpose OS.
      • testvox 7y ago
        https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel
      • magduf 7y ago
        >they will just create Microsoft Linux This sounds like something right out of a dystopian nightmare I might have had in the early 2000s.
        • 7y ago
• meddlepal 7y ago
  This is a great move for both companies. The doom and gloom in this thread is depressing. RedHat gets access to IBMs massive sales machine and IBM picks up a number of key technologies. Win-win.
  • ilovecaching 7y ago
    People are horrified because IBM is a sinking ship and a monolithic big business that will attempt to look at everything from a fiscal perspective with no real love for what made Redhat great. Is IBM really going to give Systemd, Fedora, the full time kernel maintainers a break and pay them to make “unprofitable” software? We’re also seeing the end of independence that was making the open source model work with dignity. It was a huge milestone for the company and many people view this as a regression.
    • lonelappde 7y ago
      What's the antibody response? Can someone else pick up the mantle of wrapping Fedora in an Enterprise offering?
    • rusticpenn 7y ago
      IBM spends so much on R&D. I am not sure if the company is solely focussed on short term profits.
      • fny 7y ago
        IBM spends a fraction of what other household names spend. > That’s according to an analysis by Recode, which found the e-commerce giant [Amazon] spent nearly $23 billion on R&D in 2017. Technology companies rounded out the top five, collectively spending $76 billion on R&D last year. The other tech companies that spent the most on R&D were Alphabet (GOOG), Intel Corp. (INTC), Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Apple Inc. (AAPL). Alphabet was in second place with R&D spending of $16.6 billion while Intel had spending of $13.1 billion and Microsoft spent $12.3 billion. Apple rounded out the top five with $11.6 billion. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) spent $10.4 billion while Ford Motor Co. (F) weighed in with 2017 R&D spending of $8 billion. Potentially telling, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), once the innovator in techland, spent the least at $5.4 billion. (See also: IBM Traders See Stock Plunging 20%.) [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/news/amazons-23b-rd-budget-sets-record-recode/ https://www.investopedia.com/news/amazons-23b-rd-budget-sets...
• calgoo 7y ago
  I really hope IBM can keep their fingers out of Red Hat, if not, it does not matter how many promises they make, they will run it into the ground. If they actually manage to keep away, and let their cloud business grow without interference; they actually have a chance to grab a big piece of the cloud business.
  • DevX101 7y ago
    You don't spend $34B to not interfere.
    • bmicklea 7y ago
      I respectfully disagree - I'm a Red Hatter so you can take that for what it's worth. To me the 34B buys IBM the real estate in the open hybrid cloud market which Red Hat has built up in the last 5 years. That is part of a large and rapidly growing market. If IBM interferes with Red Hat they will likely squander the value of what we've built. If they foster what Red Hat did to win that critical ground then their 34B could stand to increase substantially.
      • ilovecaching 7y ago
        They’re IBM, of course they will squander it. How do you think they went from king of the hill to grumbling behemoth that is constantly behind the times? As someone who has worked at a company like that before I can foresee continual IBM management changes until you get the right combination of buiness minded leadership that will can everything at Redhat that isn’t directly related to developing what they consider obvious money makers.
        • deleted 7y ago
          [deleted]
      • awill 7y ago
        Respectfully, I think you are being overly optimistic. I worked at a company acquired by HP several years ago. They bought us because we were beating them, and yet, they still thought they knew better, and intefered. You can guess how things ended up. I am certain IBM will think they know better than Red Hat, and will intefere. It is in their culture. The HPs and IBMs of the world no longer innovate. They acquire innovation and sqaunder it.
• raesene9 7y ago
  I don't doubt the committment of RH to Open source, but looking at IBMs rather chequered history with regards to how they look to minimize costs, there must be some concern that next time there's a bad set of results, executive management will be looking for cost savings. There are plenty of examples https://www.thelayoff.com/international-business-machines https://www.thelayoff.com/international-business-machines specific example related to RH https://www.thelayoff.com/t/ZJ4vNfo https://www.thelayoff.com/t/ZJ4vNfo TBH I hope I'm wrong and that IBM corporate leaves RH alone long term, but that's not the general trend with acquisitions...
  • Mindwipe 7y ago
    As the very good comment above points out, IBM will need to cut costs very significantly regardless, as they've paid so much the interest on the debt is more than Red Hat makes.
    • dmix 7y ago
      They could easily make it up by cross selling to Red Hats consulting customers and likewise for Red Hat to IBM customers. They shouldnt have to gut Red Hat to extract additional value from an M&A. Plus other intangibles like access to talent and access to new markets in the future for both sides. Cost cutting isn’t the only business strategy. Although one that modern (public shareholder driven) businesses became obsessed with since the 1980s.
    • sumoboy 7y ago
      I give IBM two quarters before they start layoffs regardless how RH performs.
• friendscallmejw 7y ago
  Here's the official announcement from Red Hat Developer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20391504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20391504
• PaulHoule 7y ago
  I think it may have been RHAT's plan all along to get bought by IBM.
  • PaulHoule 7y ago
    Not so sure why this is being voted down. RHAT has always been seen as an anomalous case of an open source company that has done well on the stock market on a sustained basis. All along they were working on things that IBM lacked, waiting for the day that IBM would be floundering and would need a big acquisition to boost confidence.
• vikramkr 7y ago
  Hopefully this helps validate the red hat model to spur more investment into the space and create a new crop of competitors to fill the void after IBM ruins red hat.
  • bmicklea 7y ago
    I really hope so too. To me this is a huge signal that open source has won. That alone is exciting.
  • h1d 7y ago
    Who is likely to fill the void?
• billman 7y ago
  What does this mean for centOS?
  • yebyen 7y ago
    I was going to say that CentOS is independent from RedHat, but then I realized I don't know what I'm talking about. From CentOS wikipedia page: > In January 2014, CentOS announced the official joining with Red Hat while staying independent from RHEL,[7] under a new CentOS governing board. So, good question!
    • techntoke 7y ago
      After taking over they are now slow to ship new releases. It doesn't really make sense to use CentOS unless you may need to pay for RHEL support.
• qserasera 7y ago
  One can only hope IBM does not mismanage Red Hat. They will certainly twist workflow for their benefit. Owners will probably get a well deserved windfall.
  • tech_tuna 7y ago
    We're all watching Microsoft with GitHub. . . it'll be interesting to see how the tech industry evolves over the next 5-10 years.
• tontonius 7y ago
  So IBM buys Red Hat for $34B, of which $20B are borrowed monies. The debt is priced at 1.05 percentage points above Treasury yield rate [1] which would be somewhere around 3.5% which puts interest on bond debt at ~$700m every year. Now consider that Red Hat had a net income of $433m. Even if they reach $500 this year, Big Blue will still be $200m short, every year. At the moment, IBM is trading down at -0.5% on an otherwise slight green Nasdaq. Just from these numbers we can conclude that IBM is seeing some pretty significant synergies in the purchase that the market isn't. [1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/ibm-bond-sale-red-hat-51557347372 https://www.barrons.com/articles/ibm-bond-sale-red-hat-51557...
  • asdf21 7y ago
    >Now consider that Red Hat had a net income of $433m. I wonder how much of that is from IBM anyway..
  • jsight 7y ago
    Free cash flow may be the more important metric for this purpose. I believe it is closer to $1B/year and presumably growing?
  • jcampbell1 7y ago
    You need to add back income taxes of about $80M, so they are only $120M short. Interest expense is pre-tax.
  • coliveira 7y ago
    But IBM bought RH only because they believed that the company has growth ahead. If it grows a little more than 1% a year (which should be easy) that will be enough to break even. I think that was a smart move by IBM.
    • colinmhayes 7y ago
      You are forgetting about the opportunity cost of $34 billion.
      • 7y ago
• Allower 7y ago
  Does anyone actually believe the line about "unwavering commitment" to open source?
• roymurdock 7y ago
  IBM is all in on the multi cloud story since they missed the cloud memo, and RH openshift is their key to allowing customers to lift and shift from AWS to Azure to GCP etc. Plus it's pretty clear they know how to do layoffs and that knowledge may be applied to RH soon to boost profitability.
  • Zenst 7y ago
    So more an IP acquisition and IBM sure does know from decades of experience to recognise some company that fills a gap that has usurped their own offerings and acquired it. You may well be right, indeed that was along the lines of my initial thought about this and would explain the size and scale of investment. Then if RH fails as they would currently to keep up those interest payments, then accountants can just rub their hands and use that debt to offset profits down the line. Time will tell, certainly IBM has the kit and for years had its own dark fiber internet backbone globally, so have been well placed for years to capture the cloud market, yet failed to move on. Which for a company that saw a shift towards service offerings, was probably a big source of embarrassment internally at some levels.
    • babarock 7y ago
      "IP acquisition"? Honest, if all the code that RH writes is open source, how can this be an IP acquisition?
      • SkyMarshal 7y ago
        Maybe it's more of an infrastructure + customer acquisition then. Or maybe it's about eliminating one of the few cloud competitors that IBM is capable of eliminating (not AWS, Azure, GCP).
      • sverige 7y ago
        Well, there's probably some intimate knowledge of RH's customer base, their needs, their goals, etc., plus whatever processes RH uses to service them. It's not tech, but not all intellectual property is tech.
• infraCode 7y ago
  i'm just a lurker and i have a lot of respects for this community but why some of you acting like somehow RedHat is not going to make money anymore after IBM bought them. RedHat already make billion doing what they do now. Why would that change? IBM is basically a consulting company and adding RedHat is more than a perfect match since RedHat main business is selling supports. this thread just wow.
  • marcosdumay 7y ago
    Both companies have very different, even incompatible cultures. And it's not part of IBM culture to buy a company and not integrate it. Specially, IBM is used to much fatter margins than RH's market allows.
    • kortilla 7y ago
      IBM does not integrate companies beyond putting their logo on stuff. Look at the weather company and Softlayer.
• tictoc 7y ago
  The title looks wrong.
• bitwize 7y ago
  IBM basically has control of all of Linux now. They've gotta love that sweet, sweet strategic leverage over the entire Web and cloud ecosystem.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • stirfrykitty 7y ago
    There is a lot of truth to this. Since Fedora is the upstream for Red Hat, and IBM historically kill off anything not making a profit, how long before this happens? I wonder if they'll split the two? Red Hat does "control" a disproportionate amount of Linux development. Everything is also now basically dependent on systemd. I'm seeing more and more IT guys I know move over to Free/OpenBSD because they don't like the direction Linux is taking. While Linux is only a kernel, the entire userland is basically dependent on systemd. Linux has become what it hated in Windows. A massive, bloated mess. I've always preferred BSD on the server and something else on the desktop (hurry up, Haiku!). I still wish BeOS would have gotten more traction beyond the BeBox. Methinks the move towards FreeBSD--and it's happening in quite a few circles, will continue, especially if IBM get heavy handed with Fedora/Red Hat. I'm not worried, per se, but I am concerned, for the aforementioned reasons.
    • einpoklum 7y ago
      The userland is absolutely not dependent on systemd _at all_. Have a look at Devuan, and you'll see that almost all of the userland remains exactly the same. See: https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/433159/34868 https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/433159/34868
      • stirfrykitty 7y ago
        Devuan is but one fork among many. It has zero traction in the enterprise space. Devuan, Gentoo, et al, are niche players. While their userlands may be "pure", they represent a minuscule fraction of Linux users. And yes, systemd is a dependency for quite a few userland programs. Here is one of the best articles I've read on why systemd is really bad. https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/systemd-it-keeps-getting-worse/ https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/systemd-it-keeps-ge...
• einpoklum 7y ago
  IBM now has control over systemd, and as other users here point out, also pulseaudio, dbus, gnome, wayland, and a significant share of kernel. IMHO this is a good time for the Debian project to reconsider the decision to rely on systemd. If you also think so, consider letting them know.
  • _delirium 7y ago
    Is there really any likelihood of that happening? If Torvalds got cold feet about systemd and started making it less integral to the upstream kernel (or at least more walled off as an optional subsystem), there's a chance Debian would take that as an opening to move in a non-systemd direction. But as long as the upstream kernel imports more and more systemd-related stuff and treats it as the default/expected configuration, and then things like desktop environments follow suit and depend on it, Debian would need to maintain what amounts more and more to its own fork of the rest of the Linux world to do otherwise. When this was last discussed, most Debian developers didn't think it had the dev resources to do that.
    • bonzini 7y ago
      That makes no sense. As long as Linux is concerned, systemd is totally irrelevant: it is not "integrated" in the kernel in any way and cannot even be considered a subsystem.
  • PlutoIsAPlanet 7y ago
    Don't be stupid and hysterical, no one wants to use the joke of an OS called Devuan. systemd is an open source project and it isn't just Red Hat that work on it.
    • dang 7y ago
      Comments like your first sentence here (and also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20381009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20381009) are bannable offences on HN. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the spirit of this site to heart when posting here? We'd be grateful.
• galaxyLogic 7y ago
  Is Red Hat's strategy multi-cloud or hybrid cloud? In other words is it easy enough to run your RH cloud-applications at the same time on all of AWS, Azure and GoogleCloud? Or are they "hybrid" in the sense that you can run your apps both on-premises AND a CHOICE of Azure, AWS etc. ?
  • alexeldeib 7y ago
    These aren't really exclusive (although they might be), right?
  • jacques_chester 7y ago
    The answer is "it depends". Their main offering in this space is OpenShift versions 3 and 4. They have different underlying management planes. v3 is on a bunch of different clouds, v4 is still catching up but probably will within the next 12 months or so. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, a competitor in the same space (most directly through PKS).
• tareqak 7y ago
  A different source with the same news: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/09/ibm-closes-its-34-billion-acquisition-of-red-hat.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/09/ibm-closes-its-34-billion-ac... .
• aussiegreenie 7y ago
  At least 80% of ALL acquisitions destroy value. IBM has overpaid just like the vast majority of M&As.
• technological 7y ago
  It would be curious to see how Red Hat OpenShift works with parallel to IBM Cloud Private. Both offer same functionality to the customer and IBM invested so much amount revenue and time into IBM Cloud Private, so would they co-exist or merge into one offering is something worth a watch. Openshift - https://www.openshift.com/ https://www.openshift.com/ IBM Cloud Private - https://www.ibm.com/cloud/private https://www.ibm.com/cloud/private