Dell is Considering a Sale To VMware in What May Be Tech's Biggest Deal Ever (cnbc.com) 94
CNBC reports: Dell Technologies could emerge as a public company through a reverse-merger with VMware, the $60 billion cloud computing company it already controls, according to people familiar with the matter. The reverse merger, whereby VMware would actually buy the larger Dell, would then allow Dell to be traded publicly without going through a formal listing. It would also likely be the biggest deal in tech industry history, giving investors who backed Dell's move to go private in 2013 a way to monetize their deal, while helping Dell pay down some of its approximately $50 billion debt.
Re: (Score:2)
*shrugs*
This strategy worked well for Apple/NeXT, where NeXT bought Apple for negative $429 million. I'd imagine Icahn would approve. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
*shrugs*
This strategy worked well for Apple/NeXT, where NeXT bought Apple for negative $429 million. I'd imagine Icahn would approve. :-)
That meme has long passed its usefulness.
There was some technology-transfer, and some engineering and managerial talent came over, just like in any "tech" acquisition; but, other some significant parts of the OS (which is obviously what Apple REALLY wanted), Apple in no way became "NeXT".
1. No H. Ross Perot.
2. No change in marketing focus. NeXT was virtually unknown outside of large Universities. Apple was always much more "General Purpose".
3. No Display Postscript.
4. No Monochrome-Only monitors.
5. Longstan
Re: (Score:3)
*shrugs*
That's the way people who worked at Apple through the transition often jokingly described it. The current macOS is, despite your protestations, almost entirely derived from NeXT + new code. It shares almost no code with Mac OS 9 and earlier. Basically, NeXT acquired Apple's name and marketing department, and then slowly integrated Apple's engineers over the course of half a decade.
Regarding your five points specifically:
1. (Perot) Out of NeXT's board, Apple kept the ones with actual computer i
Re: (Score:1)
LOL... Just gave him some extra paid vacation time.... He was already going to leave, having announced his retirement weeks ago.
For that you will try and invent a charge of Treason? Obstruction? Collusion? What now? You all need to lighten up a bit on this, because you are riding a crazy train worse than Trump's.
He's not even 50 yrs old and is retiring already? Comey is 57; Mueller is 73
So Dells service will get even worse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Never thought that could happen, but here we are.
Re: (Score:1)
Why get rid of a money maker? (Score:1)
...or how IBM sold all of its divisions.
If it's bringing in money, why not let it happily chug along?
Re: (Score:1)
because they've over extended their financing, and would like to cash in sooner rather then 10-20 years from now
Re:Why get rid of a money maker? (Score:5, Informative)
Because it allows the company to put more money in resources that make more money.
Lets say you have a Lemonade stand.
That sold Lemonade, and Cookies.
Every glass of Lemonade makes a profit of $0.50
Every cookie makes a profit of $0.25
You find that Customers will buy a glass of Lemonade or a Cookie but rarely both.
So lets say on average you make $75.00 a day on that one stand.
Now your line at your stand is very long, so there are people leaving the line or just not waiting.
You need to have an other stand, but you do not have the money to make a new stand and man it.
So you sell your cookie recipe and rights to it for the cost of making a new stand plus some extra for an other employee.
So now you can sell twice as much Lemonade as before, even at the expense of not having cookie sales. You end up with more money.
Because you will now make $100.00 a day for each stand, with 2 stands you make $200.00 a day.
So by selling off a profitable item and reinvesting its money, you now have 2.5 times the profit.
Re: (Score:2)
So by selling off a profitable item and reinvesting its money, you now have 2.5 times the profit.
Or you can just make a decent product that people actually like without having to race to the bottom with your dozens of exactly-alike competitors, and end up with $200 BEELION in the bank, and NO long-term debt!
In other words, you can be smart, like Apple; or just another "me too!" shitbox maker like Dell, circling the drain for the past 15 years or so...
Re: (Score:1)
Corporate Raiders (Score:5, Insightful)
Right out of the Corporate Raiders playbook. Buy a company, bleed
it dry, make it borrow (hence the 50 billion debt), and dump it, in this
case to the public.
Re: (Score:1)
Even better:
Buy a company, take it private, bleed it dry, go public again, repeat as often as desired.
Predicted in 2013 (Score:3)
As predicted by My Comment [slashdot.org] back in 2013.
Unfortunately, these "going private" deals usually end with an IPO 2-3 years later. Same old compay with extra debt! The refinancing will make no difference to Dell, since "providing useful products and services at a profit" is what management should be concentrating on.
1) Use other people's money to buy up company
2) Pay self fees for being the Buyout fixer (Profit $$$)
3) Wait 2-3 years
4) Perform IPO
5) Pay self fees for being the IPO fixer (Profit $$$)
6) Sell new shares (Profit $$$)
I only have one question (Score:2)
Is this more or less a game on paper to get an infusion of cash for Dell, or could this actually have an effect on the VMWare business where I should be prepared for a chance of VMWare dying off?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I hope VMWare doesnt die off. They still have the best product for locally hosted VM's. Their pricing is what sucks and thats easily fixable.
I also like Dell a lot lately. I just bought a Ryzen 7 1800X desktop from them an a decent 13 inch inspirion laptop. The prices are reasonable and the quality has been acceptable. If this merger/buyout thing improves them both then I'm all for it.
I want VMWare to add native CEPH storage to esxi (Score:1)
I want VMWare to add native CEPH storage to esxi with changed blocks for easy diff backup.
Re:I only have one question (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are a shareholder in VMware, you're about to be screwed. If you think Dell will hang like an albatross around VMware's neck and you are a VMware customer, you're screwed. If you are an investor in Dell, your are about to spread the cost of your fuck-up on the public market, and specifically on VMware's other shareholders. (See stories hitting the wire that look like "VMware plunges on news...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I only have one question (Score:5, Interesting)
Who can tell?
Dell has mostly re-branded themselves as DellEMC, which I think was supposed to be an upgrade for the Dell name to associate it with the EMC brand. That being said, I always thought buying EMC was just a gimmick to get VMware but in my exposure it sure seems like EMC won internally, and the Dell people were shoved aside.
Overall, I don't understand their conflicting strategy. If you talk to a "Dell EMC" rep for more than 5 minutes, they will try to sell you their 3x overpriced EMC vxRail platform which is VMware vSAN on top of proprietary mini-blade chasis of like 4 nodes.
The strange part of the whole hyperconverged storage/virtualization model coming out of DellEMC is that EMC is a major SAN vendor selling against its own brand/products, made worse by ALSO selling Nutanix which directly competes against VMware vSAN *and* the SAN business.
I think the company is so big and has so much overlap they need to reconsider what they're doing and greatly trim product lines. I can't help but think VMware innovation is totally choked by being owned by a giant hardware company -- any innovative ideas that don't involve selling more and more expensive hardware will die on the vine. The hardware side can't adapt to emerging software defined storage unless its meant to boost VMware first. And of course everybody has to bow to EMC's giant portfolio lest someone mess with their accounts.
I would have thought the smarter play for Dell would have been to have kept VMware as a wholly owned subsidiary but let it self-manage (even if self-managing didn't mean coding for Dell's proprietary platform) and then sell off EMC. EMC seems like the dinosaur whose market can't really ever grow that much because the products are too expensive for anything but Fortune 500.
Re: (Score:2)
What's weird is that Compellent, which was a big deal, now feels like a bastard stepchild, almost worse than Equallogic was relative to Compellent before the merger.
The product overlap is crazy and pre-merger Dell partners are now stumbling around trying to sell high margin EMC products but most weren't dealing with EMC-scale customers before hand and aren't being successful at it.
The extreme focus on HCI and VxRail is also kind silly, IMHO. It's way more expensive than standard host + san solutions and I
how does anyone make money? (Score:2)
I don't get it. If you have an IPO then you can sell shares. SOmething is missing here. I think the missing thing has to be that VMware will have to issue new shares. For something this big, It's existing shareholders will need to approve that or else the Board has to vested with the ability to sell a massive amount of new shares.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this more or less a game on paper to get an infusion of cash for Dell, or could this actually have an effect on the VMWare business where I should be prepared for a chance of VMWare dying off?
If VMWare dies, check out https://www.proxmox.com/ [proxmox.com] . Not a drop in replacement I admit, but a very impressive open-source VM server. Something to keep in mind for emergencies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What they are doing is making private debt (Dell) into public debt (VM Shareholders) so that the wealthy people who are owed a lot of money by get get it back and the risk/failure is pushed onto small share holders who lack to voting power to stop it.
At this point, one of the wealthy people who pulled out early will get to buy the only asset worth anything (VMWare) cheaply and make even more money.
This is why the share market is like a casino. The Wealth (call th
Re: (Score:2)
Like Bill Gates understood decades ago, if you're willing to need them, then yes they will screw you over.
If you were already ready to switch to a different supplier if needed, then you don't need them and you won't get screwed by them unless you're an idiot.
This isn't surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes. Good time to invest in the mid/large cap US market. It is going through the roof! Big business won.
And I'm winning as a stockholder and employee of same.... Wages/bonus increases, income tax reduction and my stock portfolio is doing very well. So big business won, and I won too as a result.
Not for your bonuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile the mergers and acquisitions are putting everybody's jobs at risk. After all, what's the first thing a company does after a M&A?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
LOL... In the current labor market we are approaching nearly full employment. Historically, you simply don't get much under 4% nation wide because about that many are unable/unwilling to actually work at any wage. A bit of churn isn't going to be a huge issue, nor is it going to blow up the unemployment numbers. Mergers in this situation don't create unemployment, but grows productivity and drives GDP increases, which is an all around good thing.
Currently we are starting to see labor shortages in some j
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it has nothing to do with willingness/ability, but with people transitioning jobs. If you are unwilling/unable to work you are not on the unemployment rolls.
When companies merge (Score:4, Insightful)
Unemployment might not be as low as the stats make it look. If it really was 4% we should be seeing much, much stronger upward momentum on wages. So far it's barely keeping pace with inflation. Walmart's seems higher because they've been putting off pay raises for 7 or 8 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, you assume way too much.. I hired on at a telecom that had just been merged from two companies in 2000 and kept that job for 12 years while the company went from 1200 employees to less than 500. I finally got the ax just before one of our customers purchased us to save money. The company apparently knew what was going to happen so they took pre-sale steps to adjust their books. So I've been there, done that. I've been left behind and the victim of a layoff. (The layoff was the best financial thing th
You'll forgive me if after 8 years (Score:3)
We're in full trickle down mode (minus the trickle down, which never happens, just ask Kansas). This is what happens when you give all th
Re: (Score:3)
Oh please spare me the Social utopian clap trap and class envy. It doesn't help your case.
On most of this we disagree. I guess we will simply have to wait and see if the "trickle down" part actually works. I think it will, you don't. Seems that it's doing pretty darned good right now and things are looking to get better, but you don't. So let's discuss how things are going in two more years or so...
Also, remember one simple fact.... Bulls and Bears are both eventually right. Which means that if you st
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing. When you fire redundant staff, you improve the efficiency of the remaining staff, which will eventually result in higher pay for them. The staff who were fired are freed up to find other jobs where they can be productive elsewhere. The overall result is a net increase in aggregate productivity.
It's like if a bridge was designed with 15 supports but only needs 12. If you can figure out a way to remove the 3 extra supp
Show a little class (Score:2)
Just make sure you get out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dell be another IBM? (Score:1)
That would fine by me. Dell at one time 20 years ago used to care about consumer PCs and their customers. Ever try to buy one now off their website? You get a Dell customer ID, purchase ID, order ID. As if you were a corporate customer. But the first two mean nothing and will not help you until the order ID is issued. God forbid you have to call them. They have no understanding of English so they cannot help. Orders that say will ship in a week usually ship in a month. Assuming it ships at all. I
Cheat (Score:2)
This insanity should be illegal (Score:1, Insightful)
Why is this even vaguely legal? If corporations are legally allowed to be persons, then why is it legal for one corporate person to buy and enslave another corporate person, and then turn around and sell that other person for profit?
We must hold corporate persons to the same standards of behavior and ethics as other persons. President Trump excepted, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing. I can have a baby in the Cayman Islands tomorrow, and nobody even has to have sex!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jesus, people still harp on this "Corporations are people" bullshit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Read that and try to rationally argue against it. The very first paragraph should shut your whining up but god forbid people actually educate themselves and understand what "personhood" actually means in legal terms.
FFS its a tired ass argument with zero merit and a shit ton of FUD behind it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That'll only happen when a corporation can have an IQ of less than 60.
Re: (Score:1)
What's yours? 59?
Re: This insanity should be illegal (Score:2)
Sell it off, Return the Money to Shareholders (Score:2)
Eat those words well, Michael Dell.
Apple has ZERO long-term debt, and $200 BEELION in the bank.
NOW who's laughing?!?