No, but Broadcom didn't buy them to build a company over time. They have a long pattern of buying a tech company, jacking up the prices, and making enough money (before customers switch) to more than make up for the purchase price of the company, netting them a tidy profit. Plus, at the end what they're left with isn't completely value-less either.
Everyone who followed Broadcom (and that included many VMWare employees) knew exactly what was coming the moment the acquisition was announced.
But they were a mature company. Why would growth be the expectation?
Note: I’m not asking for the Reddit armchair kvetching about the evils of modern capitalism and the failings of line-must-go-up. I’m wondering why, when serious financial decision-makers are involved, it makes sense to blow something up rather than steadily take profits over time, even if those profits aren’t always going up.
Because more than sales growth also technology growth was done. Nobody new is excited to use VMWare, the only big significant customers of VMWare are the ones it already has. At best you get a trickle of new customers already so accustomed to your product that they don't want to figure out something new. All of that is a sign for a long term slow death where to stay profitable you have to slowly lower headcount and raise prices.
Like a sitcom in the 7th season or a champion fighter approaching 40 you quit near the top.
They do but they missed the boat on it. Docker is the standard now, and Kubernetes.
But it doesn't matter anymore now, Broadcom's strategy is to drive the company into the ground while extracting as much as possible during the death spiral. So any future strategy is no longer relevant.
