> On Dec 11, 2024, at 12:55 pm, Enzo Damato via VoiceOps > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree that it would have probably been much simpler for them, but that's > not how big tech really operates. FANG an MS by extension are really into the > cult of the acquisition, and almost never license anything (I honestly cannot > think of a single major product that any of the big cloud corps license > rather than building themselves.) Just look at all of the companies that > google has bought, merged, then killed. It may not make sense for any of us, > but it's totally in character for a big tech.
True, true. I can think of two or three reasons for doing things that way: 1) As David Russo already pointed out, it also takes Metaswitch off the table for anyone else; 2) Despite the complexities of acquisitions, it may be anatomically simpler, as a transaction, than complex licensing arrangements, and it's also a one-time special item instead of an ongoing expenditure commitment to a third party; 3) In that same vein, this format provides for the most optionality: if you're not really sure what you want to do yet or where the winds are blowing, owning the thing outright gives you the most choices, whereas licensing a technology confines you fairly narrowly to the shape of the licensing deal. -- Alex -- Alex Balashov Principal Consultant Evariste Systems LLC Web: https://evaristesys.com Tel: +1-706-510-6800 _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
