MySQL Hits $50 Million Revenue, Plans IPO 124
An anonymous coward writes "MySQL, purveyor of the open-source database of the same name, is on the road to becoming a publicly traded company, bolstered by $50 million in revenue in 2006. "It's still in the pipeline," Chief Executive Marten Mickos said of the plan to hold an initial public offering of his company's stock. He declined to discuss when the company planned to go public, but said, "We're making good progress, doing all the things we need to get done.""
Check into this stock. This is not a pump-and-dump (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Check into this stock. This is not a pump-and-d (Score:1)
interesting timing for an IPO (Score:5, Insightful)
The contention between the two giants has been heating up, and MySQL is steadily gaining ground on SQL Server for marketshare.
Couple that with Google's recent contributions to the MySQL project and statements by one of thier engineer's (Callahan?) that they would continue to enhance the DB & pump the code back into the community... focusing on stability, recovery, and fine tuning code.
Looks like Google could be contending with M$ on at least three fronts soon counting search, office, & now DB's through MySQL.
I want to see them rumble. The timing of this IPO is very interesting.
Regards.
Re:interesting timing for an IPO (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks everyone for the comments! Let me first note that there was no specific news item in the article referred to at the top. We have had plans for IPO for several years. We don't see an IPO as an end-goal, but as a natural step in the evolution and growth of MySQL.
As many of you will know, when a company brings in venture capital (VC) as we did 6 years ago, you essentially set a plan to either be acquired or go public (IPO) after some time. We think that MySQL is a great business and one that can and should be independent and do an IPO at some point.
We share a passion for open source business - i.e. a passion to demonstrate what great businesses you can build on open source. And we want to provide the best database developers with great rewards: the good feeling of producing a product that changes the world, and the financial reward that comes with business success.
We have numerous users and customers ask us about buying MySQL stock. Today we are privately held and there are no shares for sale, but once we go public anyone can buy shares in our company. And being a public company we will have more strength to grow, to hire more great developers, and to serve new customers.
Does this make sense to you? It does to us.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:interesting timing for an IPO (Score:5, Informative)
Here is my quick view of risks with going public, and how we are dealing with them:
Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)
Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.
Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.
Feel free to list more risks and I will be happy to address them.
Marten
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the comments about timing ... ah, it seems that companies want to go public when the market is going up... Rarely does a company want to go public right after a crash. Financial events often coincide because people make decisions based on financial stimulus.
I like the idea of an open sourced company being publicly owned. I have to admit, my fears are that the bureaucratic mindset that dominates the insurance companies and mutual funds that own this world will force another great company into mediocrity
Re: (Score:2)
I wish you luck with this, but I have to say my experience with RedHat soured me on this sort of thing. They basically did everything they legally could to make their source effectively inaccessible to users that hadn't
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there any business practices that you guys avoid that might be more difficult to avoid after going public?
Egregious VaporWare (or at least totally premature) announcements occur to me as a stockholder appeasing move that a lot of public companies make. Any opinion on this?
Regards and good luck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a publicly traded company, how would you avoid a hostile takeover by a company like Oracle who has the means to buy a controlling share of the stock?
'As many of you will know, when a company brings
Re:interesting timing for an IPO (Score:5, Informative)
For part of your questions, see my response to another question on this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232285&thresh
And here comes more risk analysis:
Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.
Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.
Marten
P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.
Re:interesting timing for an IPO (Score:5, Interesting)
'Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)'
That certainly makes sense. Is there any assurance that such growth will occur? Is there more to this move than a spin of the roulette wheel coupled with a great deal of optimism about the outcome?
Oracle already knows they want to purchase MySQL. Is there any way to protect the company if they move to make that purchase right away without giving the company a chance to grow?
'Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.'
I can't really poke a hole in that. But would like to remind you; Google had a 'do no evil' policy as well. That policy and greed battled within the company and in the end, greed won.
'Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.'
Do you mean to suggest that bug reports and other things that concern the community will only be released in SEC filings? Surely not, companies release information that concerns their business through the press and other outlets all the time.
'Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.'
Isn't this nothing but pure optimism? Anyone can purchase the stock. Are MySQL public stockholders likely to share the same characteristics as the stockholders of most companies?
'Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.'
Don't many of those investors play key roles in MySQL today? Isn't there a good chance that many of those individuals will use this as an opportunity to cash in? Also, increased financial resources does not equate to superior results. Microsoft is probably the most typical example of this.
'P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.'
Good luck Mark. I'm sure having you at the helm of the company gives everyone comfort, I know it gives me comfort. I wish you and MySQL the best and hope going public works out for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.
Shareholders not employed the company rarely have anything but dollar signs in their eyes and only care about their own short-term gains. I have watched a lot of tech companies go public since 1990 and many of them are gone now. Bought out, sold out, sued out of business, or mis-managed by chief's who's only concern is their own wallets. And when that happened each time, only the chief's escaped with any money, leaving the employees with nothing but a resume entry.
Without using management-speak, plea
Re: (Score:2)
Best of luck! You guys are amazing.
Re:interesting timing for an IPO (Score:5, Funny)
2. Profit
3. Fork MySQL
4. ???
5. Profit (again)
Sounds good to me
Re: (Score:2)
In practice it does two things:
1. Temporarily boost financial resources.
2. Lose all control over your own company.
The financial boost is nice, but rarely necessary and I assume most people care about the company they built and wish to have it's values and culture remain intact.
Re:interesting timing for an IPO (Score:5, Interesting)
I must say I disagree with your analysis of IPO. But let's first back up. It was in 2001 that the founders of MySQL decided to get venture capital on board and to go for business growth and an IPO or an acquisition in the future. I don't know if you were around back then, but that would have been the right time to ask why the founders wanted an IPO.
Then to your analysis. I believe that an IPO has the opportunity to boost your financial resources for a very long time. I also believe that you don't have to lose control over your company. Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow - no matter whether the company is public or private. Even if you own all of a private company - if it does not grow then you don't have too many options as to how to run it. So although you may not have lost control to another shareholder, you have essentially lost control to the circumstances.
And then there are other benefits of IPO. It gives you a currency for making acqusitions. It gives you exposure and typically add to your credibility among conservative customers. And it can be highly inspirational for the employees.
Make sense?
Marten
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the problem with growth, that eventually you will reach a ceiling, unless you are able to drive out competitors, in which case you become a monopoly ?
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for assuming that we will reach that level!
Seriously, sure that can be an issue, but getting there takes 20-30 years in the software industry. In the meantime the world will evolve and there will be some new entrepreneur with a revolutionary way to manage data, and that will be the growth story, and whoever is the huge leader at the time will have to deal with this.
Marten
Re: (Score:2)
Then you're either using a different definition of 'control' to everyone else, or you're waffling.
If you own 51% of the company, you have the same amount of control whether its [revenues|market share|any other measure] doubled, stayed the same or fell by 25%.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 50% plus 1 share, not 51%. In a publicly traded company with potentially billions of shares, it makes a HUGE difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very nice, quite correct - and totally irrelevant because that wasn't my point. My point was 51% would give you the same amount of control irrespective of the size of the company or the trend of the size. You even quoted that statement - did you read it? 51% is an arbitrary number greater than half. The same would be true if I'd written 73%, 67% or 99%.
In other words, the statement by martenmickos that "Control is lost (in my mind) if
Re: (Score:1)
Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow
Companies don't need to grow. If it's a profitable company at it's current size, there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is more usually after a burst of growth, a company suddenly finds it has outgrown it's market. It's easy to quickly sell large volumes of shiny new shrink wrapped software. Following that you need to hire a bigger support team and hope the money you made selling the boxes covers support costs, or that you can keep selling more copies. If you've just grown quickly, that's a calc
Re: (Score:1)
Eh? How so?
I own my own small business and it's been about the same size and doing about the same thing for the past fifteen years, and will continue to be about the same for the next fifty years (or at least I hope it does.)
I do what I want to do, when I want to do it. And I get to make a living doing what I like to do.
How does that translate to a lack o
Re: (Score:1)
Oh no... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't like that. I like MySQL for what it is. Not what is can do with cash or depending on stockholders approval...
Re:Oh no... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This makes me all jittery too. I have very little trust of public companies. I think the laws surrounding them are in need of even more serious reform than they've gotten so far (SOX and HIPPA being examples of laws that bring back some accountability).
But, the other person to reply made a really good point about InnoDB. This may not be all bad. And realistically, if it turns bad MySQL can be forked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh no... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's something about the diffusion of responsbility involved in a company being public that tends to cause such companies to become inordinately rapacious and evil. All the decision makers can point to the fact that they're 'morally' obligated to do whatever it takes for the company to make as much as it can for stockholders. And the stockholders have a really hard time getting together to tell the company that some actions are just too far.
But when the number of stockholders is smaller and known, their sense of personal responsibility and morality can be appealed to, and they're more likely to pay attention to it regardless.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
worrying (Score:5, Interesting)
This http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000842.
If they offer a second class of shares(dividends but no voice) then maybe it will work, but I'm not sure there's a point in it.
Re:worrying (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the beauty of free software. If MySQL goes bad the codebase will be forked and another project will rise to take its place. It will be interesting to see what the MySQL prospectus will have to say to investors about this risk.
Good luck to MySQL. I hope they make a go of it, get rich, and don't shoot themselves in the foot by causing a code fork.
Re:worrying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where is the profit going? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. It is by no means, in any way, EVER acceptable in your minds if anyone makes money from developing software, but just in case anybody does, they must immediately hand it over to Stallman?!?
The rank hypocrisy exhibited by you people at times literally leaves me gasping. It is beyond description.
Re: (Score:1)
Where else do you expect the FSF to get money from to protect the GPL?
Re: (Score:2)
I know they can't get money from anywhere else. My point was that most people that I've seen on Slashdot find the idea of people making money from software at all to be completely intolerable. I've also seen transcripts from a speech he gave where Stallman said he felt that people wanting to make money from software development should find something else to do.
If it's true that there's nowhere else for the FSF to get money from, please
Pump and Dump Scheme (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a warning to everyone who thinks that mysql will be immediately better for going public.
In my finance class I learned that the best way to grow a company is on revenues. Second best is private equity. Near the bottom of the list is public equity.
It's probably the case that Mysql's early investors are looking for their pay day. That's fine, but I'm more concerned about the long term effect of being a public company on the quality of mysql product.
The clever slashdotter with a little cash to gamble with should buy some mysql hold it for a year and dump it. They should come out ahead and be getting out while the picture looks rosy.
Food for thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah hold onto it until Larry Ellison buys it which, let's face it won't be long!
So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them out? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean hell, remember this [com.com]? A private firm can turn down an offer, but a full public company has to go to its shareholders.
Its not about the software, its just that MySQL is a nice company that worked hard to get where it is. I just don't want to see it get destroyed because they just needed a bit more capital.
Re:So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them ou (Score:2)
An IPO doesn't need to mean the existing core loses control: Google demonstrated that quite well I think.
Re:So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them ou (Score:2)
A private firm must go to its shareholders as well.
Re:So... When will Oracle or Microsoft buy them ou (Score:2)
Of Geese and Golden eggs... (Score:4, Insightful)
By going in for an IPO, Mr.Marten Mickos may be right in that the company will be flush with funds, but then, people will be able to invest in MySQL, the company -- without caring for MySQL, the product or service or technology. Even companies like RedHat making over a billion dollars a year face enormous challenges everyday, in staying loyal to their philosophies and the customers; and avoiding takeovers by unprincipled thugs of all hues in the share markets.
If Mr. Mickos thinks the company is going to get more business because it will now be a public firm, I think that optimism is misplaced and will be short-lived. That new business is going to come from MySQL's reputation of being a public company, not based on the technological superiority or suitability about the product. Should MySQL indeed care for such customers, given that the current mindshare and marketshate has come from the Open Source loving community?
No one can prevent a firm from having an IPO, but I would be very surprised if MySQL can resist a takeover for even 12 months from the IPO. What that would do to employee morale which Mr. Mickos talks about, remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess...You'd probably be offended if in response to this, somebody accused you of Communist inclinations, wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're suggesting that a for-profit business refuses to serve new paying customers... because they're 'n00bs'?
What is this, the Soup Nazi school of open source business?
Re: (Score:2)
Finally! Hmm...more money for lawyers??? (Score:1)
Not suprising. SCO has some extra cash around (Score:1, Flamebait)
I expect the 60 million got invested into the pump-n-dump also, so there should be
plenty to stick in MySQL's G-string.
[*]
http://uk.builder.com/0,39026540,39338281,00.htm [builder.com]
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html [mysql.com]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/19/105522 3 [slashdot.org]
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5057033.html [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Be gone, troll.
Looks good to me (Score:1)
-BA
Re: (Score:1)
Should you ever want to port your app, or just learn to use a different RDBMS, you'll have a lot of extra grief to overcome.
Re: (Score:2)
-BA
Re: (Score:1)
What Happened? (Score:2)
Oracle pressure? (Score:2)
Although the effect on the GPL version of MySQL is negligible, the possible effect on MySQL AB as a company cannot be ignored. Remember that MySQL AB licenses its database to enterprise customers under a non-GPL license, and now Oracle holds the proverbial sword.
First, MySQL bought solidDB [baheyeldin.com], then started developing the Falcon transactional engine in house, which shows promise,
Re:Capitalists = Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Programmers gotta pay the rent you know..
Re:Capitalists = Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Free != Free
Re: (Score:1)
Hell, even if they sell the software I'm happy if they give me the source. Open source != free.
Indeed. The relationship is more like: Open source -> free.
Re:Capitalists = Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, if they're making money through support, that means there are people, and more importantly companies, willing to put their faith in OSS. That's major, really.
Re:Capitalists = Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
No. If nobody was being paid to code or profiting from open source software that would be true. Selling closed source software is not the only way to profit from software. IBM hosts OSS, codes OSS, and makes a boatload of cash on OSS. The same is true of many companies. Most programmers work on in-house applications, the idea that companies like Microsoft are where programmers get their bread is a myth.
More open source software means more companies have a greater potential to make money since they have the source code to make applications run in a way that is tailored to them. That opportunity existing means that more companies would take advantage of it and that my friend means more jobs for programmers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly! I'm living a real world example. The company I work for re-sells an accounting package tailored to the construction industry. We sell, train and do support for the product and we also work as a
Re: (Score:2)
give me reasons to mysql over postgres (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
By the same token, they could just as easily use PostgreSQL then realize that they might have to distribute source code of their product, which they hadn't originally intended to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I use MySQL in my company (population 1) in some software I wrote to keep track of customers, and I HAVE read the license(s).
Re: (Score:1)
MySQL has never hidden their license fees, either. Sorry they can't provide you with totally free software, but they have to eat, too.
Re: (Score:2)
MySQL *is* completely Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). All you have to do is licence your own application under a FOSS licence, and there will never be an obligation for you to pay anybody a fee for using MySQL.
The motto of MySQL and of the GPL licence is "share, and share alike" meaning that we eagerly share it openly and free of charge with those who themselves share their source code with others.
The only ones who would suffer from this principle are the ones who are building a close
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you meant by that. PostgreSQL is licensed under the BSD license.
Re: (Score:1)
Or better yet, substitute Oracle's "personal edition" that was (still is?) free and then assume that if that edition is free for personal use, it must also be free to distribute for any purpose! It'd be exactly the same situation as the GP's claim.
(Off topic: I just noticed a cool Google feature - type "Postgresql license" in, and I got: "PostgreSQL -- License: BSD". "Linux" -> "Linux -- License: GNU General
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when a company becomes publically traded they begine to ignore everything the founders and management set up to create that success. They start to become ran by the accountants and only serve the shareholders.
Piss off our entire customer base but increase profits this quarter by 34%? Let's do it! Lay off the entire engineering force to make the books look good for the last quarter of the year? Let's do it!
publically traded companies spiral into a crappy company fast.
Re: (Score:2)
The situation you describe is about short sightedness, such as your gut reaction to the concept of a company going public.
Badly run companies behave as you describe above. But the majority of companies that are listed on Wall/Bay Streets (eh?) for more than a few years are typically well run organizations. The fact that y
Re: (Score:2)
Such companies go under or are supplanted in the OSS community by other projects. If, for example, MySQL went this way they would be replaced in the 'lamp' by postgres 'lapp'. Its the nature of opensource and someone profiting from it is *good* for the OSS community. For all the compl
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
There's no evidence to say that turning public is bad for a company.
Re:So much for them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
if anyone is forced to bend over and take it, it's the workers, and the workers are who make your products. If managment work it well, the extra cash can build the business and employ smarter peopel and produce happier workers, which means a better product. if they don't, it goes down hill VERY fast.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see your point: This is true of any CORPORATION, both public and private, except those one-person one shareholder corporations that primarily exist for liability limitation/income tax reduction.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you care, like really care, about Open Source companies perhaps it would be a good idea to set up an open source investment "club" or fund to take a more serious stake in these companies. A Slashdot fund anyone?
You have other ethical funds these days (green, Islamic etc...) which invest according to additiona