Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Jul 2005 15:14 UTC
Microsoft In more evidence of Microsoft's increased interest in security technology, the software company said on Wednesday that it plans to acquire FrontBridge, a provider of secure messaging services. Microsoft plans to use its acquisition of FrontBridge to deliver a secure, highly availabile e-mail service that will be marketed to companies with limited IT resources, Microsoft said in a statement.
Thread beginning with comment 7340
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Where is the difference?
by on Thu 21st Jul 2005 19:24 UTC

Member since:

What is the fundamental difference, if a company buys another product, or, if it develops the product?

In both cases, money is being spent. If you develop it, you pay your developers. If you buy it, you pay the money to the other company, the developers of the other company are getting paid.

Same thing.

And, no work is wasted. Why develop a similiar product, if you can buy it already? Why re-invent the wheel? The result and the amount of money-spending (And that counts in the business world) is in both cases the same.


And by the way, I have never heard, that MS bought forcefuly a product, by a hostile take over as example.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Where is the difference?
by rcsteiner on Thu 21st Jul 2005 21:11 in reply to "Where is the difference?"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

What is the fundamental difference, if a company buys another product, or, if it develops the product?

As a programmer who has been invovled in the development and support of software products in both situations, I can tell you one huge potential difference.

In the latter case, the chances are good that the folks who designed and implemented the product are still around to help support it. Also, lessons learned by developing the original product can be used down the road when creating new features for the same product or even when designing/developing/enhancing other products.

In the former case, the folks who created the product may or may not transfer to the new company, and in the latter case all of the above knowledge is lost (and has to be regained slowly by the acquiring company).

One situation can be easy to build on. The other may not be.

Even if the original designers and developers are kept as part of the original team, there are often other team members introduced by the new company who have different ideas about how to do things (along with the tenure to enforce them). Even basic corporate cultures can vary tremendously and have a fairly large impact on the way ideas are generated, on the way projects are staffed/funded, and on the way the ideas are actually implemented as part of a real product.

I'm sure there are cases where the core team was kept together with the purchased product and was able to operate the same way as before, but my guess is those cases are few and far between...

Reply Parent Score: 1

rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

I see I could have phrased parts of that better. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Where is the difference?
by on Fri 22nd Jul 2005 00:38 in reply to "Where is the difference?"
Member since:

In an increasing number of situations MS cannot develop a similar product or they would face a dozen lawsuits claiming they stole the idea.

It's less messy to just buy the company who owns the technology from the git-go, rather than go thru five years of legal BS only to pay to license the technology.

Suing MS has become an industry of it's own. The only thing keeping open source products out of the court system is the lack of money held by the developers, though you will begin to see cases filed none the less.

Reply Parent Score: 0