I think that's a fallacy. $55B can still get you a great product and a lot of customers, and you can probably do a better job of product development. You don't

I think that's a fallacy. $55B can still get you a great product and a lot of customers, and you can probably do a better job of product development. You don't need SF's particular customers, or if you do, maybe you don't want them with the products that SF has. Why buy a legacy when you can do something better? I guarantee you that whatever SF has can be done better and cheaper. Why not get hungry sales people who are willing to take SF's customers away from them? I see these deals coming from people who are incapable of technology development, who have been stalled in corporate culture and who have to justify their existence by making big deals. They are terrified of doing development because they don't know how to -- but they know how to "do deals" and so that's what you get out of them. Microsoft's successes seem to come from buying technology (not all the time). Historically they haven't been very good at buying customers or teams, or doing strategic "Deals" (capital-D). It's a waste of money. It makes me want to vomit.