You may want to fix your numbers there. You transposed 0 and 4 or an additional 36M was added at some point.
Sorry, I’m just dumb and human. Sorry.
Need to use AI, it’s flawless.
Blaze, always sarcastic and nice 
The entire economic system of the US is the reason? Well in that case it would be:
Q. Why did you shut down this OSS project? A. Capitalism.
Q. Why did raise prices? A. Capitalism.
Q. Why did you keep this module in the project? A. Capitalism.
Basically every business decision reason is just “Capitalism”. I was asking for reasons. Is this the only one?
Sometimes, when a company gets purchased (and always when bought by Private Equity) the purchasers achieve their ROI by reducing expenses and extracting capital. Formerly free services might become billable revenue.
On the upside, purchasers can be a breath of fresh perspective, bring new management talent, and invest capital, resulting in a growth surge.
Wait and watch.
I’m trying to remember a VC acquisition where in the end I thought, “the product is so much better now”. And I’m drawing a complete blank.
They rarely get in for the long haul: Acquire, extract as much cash as possible, sell off (often in pieces), or leave an empty husk behind.
Alright folks there seems to be a lot of talk here and a lot of “Well VCs and PEs do this” blah blah blah. Let’s understand something when VCs and PEs get involved there’s a ticking clock. Their entire goal is to buy it and liquidate it to get the most out of it in usually a 10 year period. A Holding Company has no time line and is an operational foundation for the subsidiaries.
In the US alone, how many times have you walked into a Dunkin’ Donuts and thought “Well Inspire Brands is going to destroy this in a year.” You don’t because you probably don’t even realize Dunkin’ Donuts is owned by a Holding Company. Same with Burger King or Taco Bell or Pizza Hut…all owned by a holding company.
Disney is a holding company. Marvel, 21st Century FOX, ABC. etc.. Almost all major media, entertainment or even fast food is owned by a holding company of some sort.
Duracell, Fruit of the Loom, Benjamin Moore and even Dairy Queen are subsidiaries of a holding company.
So please stop with the VC and PE comparisons because you’re comparing apples and oranges. Also realize that most of places you shop, buy media, eat fast food is own by a holding company. Brands that have been around for decades before and after being bought by a holding company.
We won’t even know if the shareholders will vote for this at the next shareholder meeting in December. Even if they do, we have no idea what will actually happen because at this time…the deal isn’t even completed.
I’m already seeing talks from people about migration and moving platforms two months before the deal is even approved and 4-6 months before it would even take affect if it is approved. Everyone already has doomsday scenarios about the future of things. What I haven’t seen is any rational logic or critical thinking in regards to this.
Good points. I actually work for a holding company. And it’s always a plus to have a diverse portfolio of subsidiary companies under our collective umbrella. When you look at tech holdings companies, there can be subsidiaries who are in similar industries. With some cycles of expansion and contraction that can come into play. Not being familiar with BRC Holdings, I’m not sure if they have any subsidiary in the same arena as Sangoma.
While technically not a holding company, many years ago I worked for a larger tech hardware company that acquired similar companies. Over time those acquired companies were rebranded of course, and some were phased out. But that’s apples and oranges to this potential scenario as well.
While adopting a doomsday approach for something not even approved yet is overreacting, over my past 30-plus years in tech I do prefer to have rational contingencies for dealing with most any solution.