(Total Views: 291)
Posted On: 12/12/2017 2:39:14 PM
Post# of 82687
To me there are multiple layers. StrikeForce provides the core software for a fee, ACS value-adds onto the product and sells to McAfee - who in my opinion is the marketer.
SFT gets paid by ACS imo.
Note: For those naysayers about SFT only getting a percentage from ACS (15%-25% is it?); think about this, SFT doesn't have to spend money on R&D, Marketing, support, billing, etc. so in effect, the 15%-20% is a good deal.
I suspect some sort of percentage of Intel/Thoma Bravo/TPG *was* interested in ACS but also suspect they were not appreciative of B. Deitl losing it during that debate and discussing (blabbing) a deal/sale publicly. (That stung me more than the SA ruling). Really unintelligent move.
I have more to say on the subject and everything else but all just pure speculation. You would need to be in one of the many circles to really know what's going on. Also, this seems posed to reach all over the globe in the near future, so much $$ at stake. CA 101 decision has backroom discussion written all over it. That stuff doesn't happen for beer money.
SFT gets paid by ACS imo.
Note: For those naysayers about SFT only getting a percentage from ACS (15%-25% is it?); think about this, SFT doesn't have to spend money on R&D, Marketing, support, billing, etc. so in effect, the 15%-20% is a good deal.
I suspect some sort of percentage of Intel/Thoma Bravo/TPG *was* interested in ACS but also suspect they were not appreciative of B. Deitl losing it during that debate and discussing (blabbing) a deal/sale publicly. (That stung me more than the SA ruling). Really unintelligent move.
I have more to say on the subject and everything else but all just pure speculation. You would need to be in one of the many circles to really know what's going on. Also, this seems posed to reach all over the globe in the near future, so much $$ at stake. CA 101 decision has backroom discussion written all over it. That stuff doesn't happen for beer money.
(4)
(0)
