Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

First it was getting Kodak to manufacture pharmaceutical chemicals. Now it's getting Oracle to buy tiktok. Is there a reason behind these baffling choices by the current administration? Why are they giving sweetheart deals to dinosaur companies? Is there some insider trading angle? Did those companies have better lobbyists?

View on HN

It’s certainly fair to consider nefarious reasons, but it’s also important to consider less interesting reasons, like Kodak already (historically) dealing heavily with chemical production and Oracle making a bid to pivot and stay relevant. Who else might want to pay the most for TikTok US? From FAANG, only Facebook seems like a fit but Facebook won’t pay “market” rate for TikTok because they already have Reels, Microsoft and AANG don’t seem like fits. Outside of those, it’s some private equity group but they would need to spin up an operation around actually running and developing TikTok, that’s complicated.

Or it could all just be sweetheart deals.

How is Oracle a better fit than Microsoft? At least Microsoft deals with customers and not only businesses.

It is a better fit because they can pay the most.

I believe Microsoft is a far better fit than Oracle.

Microsoft already has products that appeal to younger customers: Minecraft, Xbox, several game studios, etc.

What does Oracle currently offer the younger market?

MSFT has business interests in China and ORCL doesn't.

Github is a social network, and Microsoft hasn't manged to screw it up yet.

What's the N, is it a typo from an Avatar fan?

'N' in FAANG is Netflix. They're tech-adjacent for sure, but they're mostly just in there so that the acronym isn't offensive.

Microsoft has consistently been in the top three companies by market cap — whereas Netflix is basically nowhere to be found — but I guess FAAMG just isn’t as cool!

Netflix pays engineers a lot and presents an interesting technology challenge. But you're right. They're actually a pretty amazing story. Burned 10 billion in the last 5 years and probably at least double that over their life. And they're on their third business model at this point with the first two having, more or less, failed.

I think MS was more or less at its nadir when the acronym first showed up.

GAFAM has been used when MS is swapped for Netflix. One could also drop Facebook and have MAGA.

At this point I expect the acronym to stay put (at least for a spell) even if the roll call doesn't.

I suspect that FB would pay a lot for tiktok, as reels is probably too early to have traction. The whole antitrust investigation will a) make it skittish and b) make government regulators unlikely to approve the deal.

Consider that people are pushing FB to divest instagram, something it has invested a ton in post-acquisition! Do you think the DOJ would allow FB to buy another giant social network?

> like Kodak already (historically) dealing heavily with chemical production

This baffles me. What's left over? Has that business not been dead for decades, so what relevant asset would they still have? Machinery? Supply chain? Knowledgeable people? Seems like all of it should be long gone.

Kodak still employs hundreds (or maybe thousands) of engineers, and has made substantial investments in the machinery required. https://www.kodak.com/en/advanced-materials/home

According to the Financial Times[1], it's Microsoft-envy and close ties to Trump.

“I still think it’s possible to beat Microsoft, believe it or not, for us to be a more important company than Microsoft,” Mr Ellison told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2014. Since then his nemesis in the software business has soared on the back of the booming cloud computing market, while Oracle’s fortunes have sagged.

Oracle operates in the guts of large-scale IT systems, selling the databases and business applications that are core to the way large organisations run. But it has lost ground to Amazon, Microsoft and Google as corporate computing has moved to the cloud.

The Oracle chairman has also kept close ties to the Trump administration that could pay off as the president looks for a quick resolution. Both Mr Ellison, who now serves as Oracle’s technology strategist, and Safra Catz, its chief executive, have been close to the Trump White House. Ms Catz was a member of the president’s transition team in 2016, while Mr Ellison recently hosted a fundraising dinner for the president.

Oracle is also one of only three companies to have been granted more than one seat on the president’s task force to reopen the economy following the coronavirus lockdown — Mr Ellison and Ms Catz have been granted places.

[1] Oracle’s Ellison steps out of character with approach for TikTok: Business and politics converge in pursuit of Chinese-owned video app’s US operations | Aug 19, 2020 https://www.ft.com/content/b32bf50c-2b8a-406c-97e6-4ffe4b56e...

The administration opposes economic freedom, and is attempting to replicate the sort of heavy-handed approach to meddling with private businesses that is traditionally associated with authoritarian regimes.

There is absolutely no reason to ban TikTok in the first place, and Trump's comments about the sale enriching the treasury are outlandish and should themselves disqualify him for office.

The US is giving up any shred of credibility it had with respect to fostering fair competition in US markets.

I mean I read the article and Trump simply said they'd be a good buyer. There is nothing about "sweetheart deals" or any actual facilitation of the deal whatsoever.

Perhaps “sweetheart” isn’t the best description but he did make an executive order specifically targeting TikTok putting the company in position where their bargaining power is more limited. TikTok having to choose between fighting the current administration in court or selling to an American buyer within some fixed time period likely is advantageous to the buyer no matter who buyer is.

I think a much simpler explanation is: Mr. Trump has heard of these companies before. Full stop, thats the extent of his analysis.

>Is there some insider trading angle?

for kodak, the answer is a very blatant yes. for oracle, it might be as simple as Larry Ellison is a Trump donor.

I don't mean this as a joke but it will probably sound like one: Maybe Trump wants to punish TikTok and their users by having the second most unlikeable man in America run it.

At least some people actually like Trump. Is there anyone who even likes Mr Oracle?

I'm sure Larry is a pretty big fan of himself. Outside of that...

I think he's less hated if only because he's less known.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com