@ASIC_AUBURN Thank you for your reply. I agree with you that both Marvell and Cavium have, in the past, been technically driven by creative engineering. My concern is what happens going forward. I do not expect to see the same emphasis on technical ability by the joined companies. US mergers and buyouts are caused by strictly financial matters and short term profit for investors. I can not think of a company that was more technically competitive after being bought than before.
1. I don't see your comment for Marvell could hold water. "They no longer require engineering for their products" We are accelerating our networking product line at datacenter/enterprise/Automotive. All of these needs engineering talent and we are making huge progress since the new CEO took over the seat. "They do not require manufacturing engineers since they outsource fab and packaging." We are fabless. 2. For cavium side How could you even call a company that are trying their engineering best to challenge INTEL at server market and Broadcom at Networking line as "non-creative" at all? You better think twice before you comment.
As I predicted last year around this time Mellanox will get bought. Well, here you go. Marvell wants Cavium and Mellanox.
Since Eyal has such an overblown ego though he said no to even having talks. That's because he lives in some fantasy land where Mellanox is as good as Broadcom and Intel.
So an activist investor has come in and bought 10% of Mellanox. You know they are pushing for Marvell to buy Mellanox now.
How can you applaud a merger between 2 companies who are past their time of real innovation and all that is left for them is to hang on to and squeeze more profit from their existing products. They no longer require engineering for their products. They do not require manufacturing engineers since they outsource fab and packaging. The engineers they had have already left.