Thread regarding VMware layoffs

What is the actual concern here? What server hardware components does Broadcom actually make? (Aren’t they really just a PE firm that plundered the Broadcom name from one of the companies they acquired?) And how is Broadcom owning VMW any different than Dell owning them? (Actually you’d think Dell would be worse?) But that was fine, so why are people so worked up about the potential of Broadcom owning them?

When does phase 2 get confirmed, I thought it was tomorrow, assuming all outstanding points have not been addressed by BC?

So UK Phase II is exactly as they said it would be. 20 weeks minimum. That gives us a better idea on timeline. That means Broadcom will use its final extension. Can they keep extending after that? FTC is certainly taking its sweet time.

yes, MS-ACTV had the same exact issues - phase II from CMA back in Oct 22 anti-trust warning from EU in Jan 23. the FTC is the wildcard

Govt agencies have to raise flags. It's their job. This assessment is reasonable. The deal will go through.

Regarding MS and Activision, were there also warnings and remedies? If that’s the playbook then I’m curious if it’s truly the same pattern

Microsoft Activision is the blueprint - they got by the EU and the UK came right after. FTC fighting a losing battle, but they have sony and a few other companies on their side. Dont know of any other major companies fighting vmw-broadcom

Is the merge still going to be that attractive if EC and FTCe ask for different demands? And they’d also want remedies for each of their concerns. Easy to dismiss one regulatory body but all combined? Death by a thousand cuts.

If those CMA concerns are the only thing standing in between BC closing the deal, this is a slam dunk. Basically commit to open testing and integration practices for top 3-5 producers of HBA, FCA, Storage Controllers, and NIC... and to not steal their IP via the interop process. That is 101 level Chinese Wall stuff in any diversified business...

Hock will say and do anything for the deal to close. If he violates anything he promises, he can go to court at a later date and drag that process out for years.

Dear bell end, how is it semantics? It’s just wrong.

However, If you want opinion, BC might provide the details required to keep the transaction alive, and if they do, the CMA will approve. If they don’t, they won’t.

The article bring fu-k all new from the other posts on the topic from Wednesday, you bell end.

“ Again, it hasn’t. It hasn’t, as the headline suggests, ruled against anything; it has given BC an ultimatum.”

No one disagrees and the OP’s headline on this layoff post was misleading, not the headline on the article pasted.

Next time don’t be a bell end, and elaborate more on your response instead of posting 2 words, and then try to look smart but arguing over semantics.

Now can someone please post their thoughts on this article and provide us something intelligent and helpful?

Again, it hasn’t. It hasn’t, as the headline suggests, ruled against anything, It has given BC an ultimatum.

No ruling, no decision, simply a request for further info to inform a decision they will make in the future.

The headline is misleading and you bell ends have sucked it up.

“It hasn’t”

Hock is that you posting on these boards again?

“The CMA said that Broadcom has five working days to offer legally binding proposals to address the concerns identified.

The CMA would then have a further 5 working days to consider whether this addresses its concerns, or if the case should be referred to the next stage – a Phase 2 investigation.”

This is true!

To the mo--n who says it hasn’t, please go away and keep your stupid uninformed comments to yourself

It hasn’t.

Hot off the press ??