[gutnor]

> The interesting years are 2 and 3.

Indeed, after all what would be the point of going through the trouble of acquiring a company if major changes weren't coming ? If you don't need something special, there is a myriad of other option from simple client account to investment or the various partnership level, including shared owned subsidiary for R&D/other.

[kibwen]

Conversely, what would be the point of going through the trouble of acquiring a profitable company and trying to impose disruptive changes rather than sitting back and raking in the profits? AFAICT this is what Berkshire Hathaway does, and it seems to work out well for them.

(Though this isn't necessarily intended to deflate any fears about IBM meddling at Red Hat; for a company as important to OSS as they are, any change is worth being wary of.)

[Spooky23]

Berkshire Hathaway is a different animal, it's a value investing play -- they have access to cheap cash and need a home for it.

[hectormalot]

Eg look at the acquisition of Anheuser Busch by InBev.

AB was a profitable company, but InBev is just very good at efficiency in brewing. IIRC they paid handsomely above market price at the time and were able to translate their efficiency to AB in such a way that the combined reduction in cost and uptake in revenue creates value net/net for InBev (and therefore AB)

[kpil]

But what is IBM truly good at that can be applied at Redhat? A lethal legal department? Super efficient HR processes? Office supplies management?

I doubt something in engineering and sales? Or perhaps sales is the closest answer.

[awad]

Procuring large contracts from enterprise and government. It's pretty handy in business.

[canhascodez]

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", is what they used to say. IBM has 100 years of brand-name recognition going for them. They have to be doing something right.