The company sold at a considerable loss to shareholders. No one got rich there. Their SPAC was not good and should never have happened. Even if they hadn't sold the company, their stock would have been de-listed anyway, due to being deficient on both market cap and share price. A reverse-split can temporarily fix the latter but not the former.
There were, however, multiple interested buyers (at least 3 from what I recall reading over the past year) because there's a lot of potential upside if their execution improves.
If you think my statements are incorrect, what do you propose was the motivation for this purchase?
The motivation for the purchase is Enterprise Database software is extremely sticky. So what I said in my original post, jack up the licensing the costs and cut expenses and squeeze the customer base for more money.
It doesn't matter about loss to shareholders, money paid is NOT going to the company, it's going to shareholders unless the company is significant shareholder. K1 has -40Million on Spreadsheet about MariaDB BEFORE any additional investments and they want that money back. So how is K1 going to make its money back? My gut is my original post is more correct than some investing in the product to make a better database and beat out the competitors. I'll point out the new CEO, while having engineering degrees, seems to be more a business type person.
> Enterprise Database software is extremely sticky. So what I said in my original post, jack up the licensing the costs
Nope, that doesn't make any sense in my view. Let's say e.g. the cost of both MariaDB Enterprise and MaxScale is jacked up significantly. Then customers can easily switch back to MariaDB Community Server, and/or get paid support and products from Oracle MySQL, or Percona, or ProxySQL, or Pythian, or Vettabase, or Mydbops, or any number of other companies with significant experience in this exact space.
> and cut expenses
Prior to this sale, MariaDB plc already had major rounds of layoffs, discontinued several product lines, and spun off their cloud database. What do you suggest the new owner is going to cut, specifically?
> money paid is NOT going to the company
That is blatantly obvious, why do you keep repeating it? No one in this thread is saying the money goes to the company. That's not how acquisitions ever work!
> I'll point out the new CEO, while having engineering degrees, seems to be more a business type person.
Looks to me like a very similar profile to their two previous CEOs, except the outgoing one didn't have an engineering degree!
