[streetcat1]

Hard to develop tech is a huge moat. The issue here is timing. Hard tech buys you time. Most of the M&A today is not done due to hard to replicate, but due to time. Even if I can replicate the tech, I do not have time to do that.

[powowow]

Can you name, say, three notable software businesses whose advantage was hard-to-replicate tech?

[eloff]

Google (search), Microsoft (OS, especially early on), Dreamworks (rendering, animation), Oracle (database, early on before OSS database got good).

It's the exception, not the rule though.

[powowow]

Microsoft licensed their early OS. Dreamworks led with SKG and the tech followed. Oracle always had meaningful tech competition and fought with sales/marketing.

Google is pretty true, though.

[streetcat1]

Yes. Any tech acquisition over 1B is never done for customers. For example deep mind from google.

Just this week Intel bought Havana labs for 2B due to their AI chip hardware.

Also, look at what AMD is doing to Intel. This is pure tech play (and pure moat).

The underlying rule in play, is that the tech business is bound to "leapfrogging", I.e. a better technology can destroy companies almost overnight (see the case of Nokia). So hard tech is more important than customers.

Look what Tesla is doing to GM, etc.

[powowow]

I said software business, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up AMD or Intel.

As for billion dollar acquisitions.... Visio, GitHub, Yammer, LinkedIn, Instagram, Parse, etc.... shit-tons of them are done for market reasons.

[streetcat1]

Right, network effects are also moat.

[powowow]

But I thought you said nobody ever did large acquisitions for customers....

weird, I must be thinking of somebody else. Since it would make no sense for you to try to take both of those sides at once.

[streetcat1]

Why not. There are no sides here. There are different moats. If you want a more elaborate view:

http://reactionwheel.net/2019/09/a-taxonomy-of-moats.html

[phonon]

Ksplice, kdb+, Google search, Mathematica