gestures doors opening upwards vs doors opening outwards
In the short term stuff doesn't need to bring in revenue - if the belief that it might make a lot of money moves share prices that is good enough.
You don't even need to believe that yourself, you just need to believe that a sufficient number of other people will be fooled.
What bugs me about recent circular dealing along these lines is, it seems like sort of trick that can be used to steal from people holding indexes. If companies like Nvidia and Oracle go up as a result of circular deals that are not creating "real" value - that nonetheless causes index funds (i.e, people's retirement accounts) to buy more of them.
It would be rather glorious if the company that ate Sun Microsystems in the aftermath of the dot com crash were itself to be vanquished by a bubble pop.
The acquisition happened in 2009 , perhaps the 08 financial crisis was a factor, but attributing the .com crash from full 8-9 years before seems a bit of a stretch
There were long series of missteps at Sun not just one, those started well before the bubble and continued till the end.
The dot com crash helped none of course, the $2Billion Cobalt Network acquisition was particularly dumb. However by 2007 they were no longer in red, they had just spent a billion on MySQL that year and were in decent financial shape.
Sure they weren’t growing, but there was no urgent need to sell . They could have stuck around and who knows MySQL or Open Office could have grown or even Java Licensing from Android adoption or be selling hypervisor or core tech to then emerging cloud tooling OpenSolaris had ZFS , Containers, DTrace and some really cool software that Linux simply lacked. Sun had developer mindshare and ton of goodwill which would have quite valuable to just anyone not named Oracle particularly so around the Ballmer years.
Oracle itself is a testament that sticking around pays eventually, for that matter NVIDIA stuck around to twice ride a hype cycle first the crypto one and now AI.
The board and management just didn’t have any vision so jumped at the second offer, that is hardly attributable to dot com burst, just poor management.
Even selling to Big Blue, when IBM came knocking first would have been better for everyone(including arguably also Oracle). Oracle was and is not to be equipped to engage with the developer community.
The only rationale for that billion dollar purchase of MySQL that has ever made sense to me was that they wanted it to attract the attention of Oracle and IBM for acquisition purposes.
Why has everyone with money lost their damn minds over this?
It’s a giant leap of technology? Investing in that is the perfect usage of debt.
It makes no money, especially with open source models around, which companies can run on their own hardware.
gestures doors opening upwards vs doors opening outwards
In the short term stuff doesn't need to bring in revenue - if the belief that it might make a lot of money moves share prices that is good enough.
You don't even need to believe that yourself, you just need to believe that a sufficient number of other people will be fooled.
What bugs me about recent circular dealing along these lines is, it seems like sort of trick that can be used to steal from people holding indexes. If companies like Nvidia and Oracle go up as a result of circular deals that are not creating "real" value - that nonetheless causes index funds (i.e, people's retirement accounts) to buy more of them.
It would be rather glorious if the company that ate Sun Microsystems in the aftermath of the dot com crash were itself to be vanquished by a bubble pop.
The acquisition happened in 2009 , perhaps the 08 financial crisis was a factor, but attributing the .com crash from full 8-9 years before seems a bit of a stretch
They didn't immediately keel over and die, but the dotcom crash started a long, slow decline that Sun never managed to reverse.
There were long series of missteps at Sun not just one, those started well before the bubble and continued till the end.
The dot com crash helped none of course, the $2Billion Cobalt Network acquisition was particularly dumb. However by 2007 they were no longer in red, they had just spent a billion on MySQL that year and were in decent financial shape.
Sure they weren’t growing, but there was no urgent need to sell . They could have stuck around and who knows MySQL or Open Office could have grown or even Java Licensing from Android adoption or be selling hypervisor or core tech to then emerging cloud tooling OpenSolaris had ZFS , Containers, DTrace and some really cool software that Linux simply lacked. Sun had developer mindshare and ton of goodwill which would have quite valuable to just anyone not named Oracle particularly so around the Ballmer years.
Oracle itself is a testament that sticking around pays eventually, for that matter NVIDIA stuck around to twice ride a hype cycle first the crypto one and now AI.
The board and management just didn’t have any vision so jumped at the second offer, that is hardly attributable to dot com burst, just poor management.
Even selling to Big Blue, when IBM came knocking first would have been better for everyone(including arguably also Oracle). Oracle was and is not to be equipped to engage with the developer community.
The only rationale for that billion dollar purchase of MySQL that has ever made sense to me was that they wanted it to attract the attention of Oracle and IBM for acquisition purposes.
Good. I'll be pleased to see them get kicked in the nuts when the bubble bursts
You mean we will get kicked when the inevitable bailout comes right?
Everyone commenting here, am I the only one who doesn't have a subscription to Barrons?
The title is enough for most HN users
Some other discussions recently:
Oracle will have to borrow at least $25B a year to fund AI fantasy, says analyst
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45417523
The biggest sign of an AI bubble is starting to appear – debt
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461975
[flagged]