|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Just because they paid $7.4B, doesn't mean that was what it was actually worth,
goodwill usually multiplies that by ten at least.
And they were a hardware and software company
Storage Arrays
Servers
Workstations
Operating Systems
Java
Pretty much all of which was stagnant.
Sun culture was always to be very open about software and sharing friendly
because it leveraged into their hardware business.
For $7.4B someone didn't do their due diligence very well.
And I'll lay evens that Larry only bought it so that he didn't have to pay a MS
license fee every time he deployed one of his databases :o)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
I've always thought Sparc, Solaris and other related server/data-centre products
were the more significant part of the purchase. Aside from Java, there was MySQL
as well. That was once considered a (potentially?) competing product to Oracle's
flagship product by some (not to mention the marketing Sun put into PostgreSQL
for Solaris as well). There should be enough evidence that Oracle had plenty of
other motivation to buy Sun, even without taking Java into account, and even at
that price point.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, April 16 2012 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
Infoworld, April 2009, excerpt from page 2 of article
Update: Oracle agrees to buy Sun for $7.4B,
quoting Larry Eliison
Calling Java "the single most important
software asset we have ever acquired," he said Oracle's Java-based middleware
business, bolstered first by the BEA acquisition and now by the purchase of Sun,
is on track to become as large as Oracle's flagship database
business.
Oracle's Fusion middleware is based on Java.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
