Nah, if they wait anyone out it will be the CMA. If the CMA is decided then they’ll move to close over the FTC and force them to get a preliminary injunction or move aside.
Weeks ago, many considered this deal dead (at least some era and twitters users lol), although nothing is certain until it is over, it seems that the waves are moving so that this is closed, there is no reason to leave it behind (well, yes) but I think Microsoft has more pros that cons
MLex
What a week for Microsoft in this whole deal. Outpouring of support, regulators approving all over the place, getting games on other cloud providers already. Woo, this week was eventful and positive!
Even with a load of positive news and more incoming, a few users on other forums still telling ppl the deal is dead cuz “CMA blah blah…”, like wtf bro🤣
That would spell the long term death of ABK, and having to sell to Tencent or some Saudi Arabia fund for less that half what MS is paying. It would be a totally crazy move.
It should be very obvious to everyone that if MS didnt think this would go through they would have already dropped the deal. They clearly see a path foward.
Microsoft was strategic in teaming up with Nvidia for cloud gaming. CMA talks about ABK as an input foreclosure for cloud gaming. Still, Nvidia dominates the hardware side of server rack chips as input foreclosure in running the graphic-intensive games over the cloud. The CMA lacks depth in understanding how the cloud market operates. Nvidia provides chips to other competitors for cloud gaming services while promoting its cloud service.
As we all knew day one this was going to be a waste of time.
Those are all welcome, but CMA can dismiss them as being reactive and not planned from the very beginning.
Doesnt really matter, I dont think the follow through is for the CMA anyway. Their focus is to weaken the FTC in eveyway possible right now.
FTC will be weakened. They may even not fill an injunction. FTC was always hoping that MS would give up. All Khan discourses have been to increase its budget and power (even asking the right to investigate past acquisitions), because she know she can not break acquisition based on political opinions about the BigTech. Based on her last audition at the House of Commerce, she will not get any of this.
For her defence, the current MS offer is much more open than 1 year ago with all the offered contracts.
There is no such thing as a favourable structural remedy. Structural remedies are permanent divestment. MS won’t accept that.
This is, essentially, my impression of 99% of all merger chat online.
The internet: “I’m from the UK, I know a lot about M&A law here.”
Me: “I’m from Canada. I know fucking nothing about M&A law here. But you for sure check out.”
Discussion is fun. Nothing we will say will change anything.
It’s the culmination of “Dude Trust Me” from all grounds in internet.