VAMatt said:
While this is strictly correct, I'd say that one of the primary reasons that an acquisition is beneficial to shareholders is because it is beneficial to customers. At the end of the day, every dollar that Microsoft brings in comes because a customer chose to buy from Microsoft. The better the value to a potential customer, the more likely they are to give you their dollars. In other words, I'd say that acquisitions, and the vast majority of business decisions, are made with both of these things in mind, because they aren't really competing ends. |
They aren't competing ends, but they're also not the same.
The point you're missing is that value is relative. You can increase revenues by increasing the value of your product. Or you can do so by harming another company's product, or by simply getting rid of a competitor.
I would say that's more often the point of an acquisition. Mergers and acquisitions frequently have incredibly negative impacts on consumers, which is why most countries have rules governing when companies can merge.
In this particular case, I don't really see anything Microsoft customers are getting that they wouldn't have or couldn't have without a merger.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 21 September 2022
