Maybe buying and laying off is a profitable move, but I'd expect it to be done by investment firms that specialize in that. It'd be a bizarre financial gamble for a chip company. So there must be some angle where this makes sense for them and not for anyone else
Edit: clarity
Anything to make money other than innovating and actually building better products.
All these plays converge into allowing a company to buy their entire Enterprise Infra stack from Broadcom.
Jesus HNers are dense.
These new owners however are not interested in catering to customers' needs - they just want to milk license fees like Oracle and outsource as much product development and customer support overseas as possible.
with predictable outcomes obviously
By only concentrating on direct sales and renewals for F100, you will still have around 80% of the same sales revenue as before, but at a lower operational cost.
This is the same operating model that ZScaler, Crowdstrike, and PANW use.
Sometimes, that dollar on the ground simply isn't worth picking.
And ime, there's a reason why most VCs, PEs, and Sales Leadership are strongly opposed to companies and startups that target a Channel Sales GTM strategy.
Better Broadcom network drivers for VMware?
There's a lot of potential synergies, like tailoring network card to VMware, adapting their APM to enable for VMs easily. Storage solution optimized for VMware. I just don't believe that they think in those lines, or maybe they do when they want to justify their purchases, but then never follow up.
Overall I think it's weird that VMware has such a hard time existing as an independent company. They are pretty dominant in their field which very little competition. Most companies I've dealt with run VMware for at least part of their business. I see this as being just as much a failure of VMware management to run a successful near-monopoly.
It's this. They are very strategic about where they invest money. If they can get around a 20x RoI they will build it. If they can't they'll shut downt the division.