Or the Wiz IoT company, which seems like something Google might assimilate into Nest, but they didn't.

I'd argue an internal framework isn't a "product", but the confusion is real.

Probably a diversification play and a play to see out bigger contracts. If you've worked in the FEDRamp space, you may be aware that Wiz (last a checked, a year or so ago) is one of the few and possibly ownly player certified to operate in FedRAMP Medium/High deployments operating with the technology it does (eBPF instrumentation).

I'm really hoping this means GCP Security Command Center quickly gets subsumed by Wiz

>or they will keep it cloud agnostic?

They grossly overpaid if they aren't keeping it cloud agnostic. It's impressive software, but if it's only compatible with GCP it will not survive in this space.

Thats the entire purpose, the reality is that large corporations are increasingly “multi cloud” and Google wants to have an offering for them and for companies that are on AWS and Azure to be able to move some of their workloads to GCP.

AWS and GCP also made a joint announcement about multi cloud networking for a similar reason

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery...

Make it easy to use google cloud and plug into google ai

Wiz customer here, when fully implemented it provides an incredibly detailed and comprehensive view of your infrastructure.

I'm curious how much of that information is going to pass between Wiz and Google Cloud product/sales. It's effectively x-ray vision into some huge workloads running on their competitors.

If you think Google is capable of making a singular coherent decision on a topic like this, you're dreaming. There's likely multiple competing visions.

That said: the goal with Google M&A remains the same as always. Take competition off the board. I don't know this company or how they compete with Google, but 80% chance that's the play.

They are culturally incapable of merging other people's tech into their own stack and have both the tendency to rewrite everything from scratch on their own bespoke technologies and also internal engineering teams that will bristle at having a foreign body invade their cathedral.

You could say it would be talent acquisition but most everyone who comes from a startup walks as soon as their golden handcuffs loosen and they can find something else to do. Going from startup to Google is usually torturous.

Been through this 15 years ago. I don't think anything has changed.

There already is an integration with SecOps: https://www.wiz.io/integrations/google-security-operations and https://docs.cloud.google.com/chronicle/docs/soar/marketplac...

Is that the kind of integration you are refering to?

These offerings are to pull customers to GCP. That is what Google is paying for because they couldn't get the traction organically.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47337644

I thought it was about home automation at first https://www.wizconnected.com/

W = Winners, it's just science ;)

I bet someone has actually studied the effect of leading letters in startup names and funding & acquisitions, I vaguely seem to remember a story about it in the past.

They could put up a page for all three acquisitions, under "www".

Wiz and Waze are both Israeli companies. Not that suspicious, I think it probably just sounds better in Hebrew.

Title should be: Wiz Waz

RIP Wave

There aren't that many Alphabet acquisitions[1] that start with "W", compared to all the companies that start with "A":

      1 2
      1 6
      1 @
     28 A
     15 B
      8 C
     18 D
      6 E
     10 F
     10 G
      4 H
      9 I
      5 J
      5 K
      8 L
     14 M
      8 N
     10 O
     22 P
      4 Q
     13 R
     27 S
     12 T
      3 U
      5 V
      9 W
      1 Y
      8 Z

Normalizing these counts with respect to English character frequencies that appear in text[2], the top three unexpected company initials appear to be "Q", "J", and "P".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency

Maybe someone typod in an email "I want you to buy woz" the i and o are next to each other on the keyboard. ;)

I thought it was WiZ of the lightbulbs fame. Figured they were going all in their smart home approach. But yeah, the other Wiz makes more sense.

Someone else will rise to compete.

Then Google will buy them too.

> It's a pity going public isn't worth it anymore.

Israeli VCs tend to be uninterested in IPOs in general - too much of an operational headache and it's difficult to exit a position quickly.

In most cases an IPO isn't worth it for founders because an IPO means you lose operational control. It's basically the "Rich versus Kings" dichotomy [0].

Edit: can't reply

> you can control the share allocations going into an IPO to give you solid voting power

Investors do not like that - they want some degree of operational control in order to right the ship if needed.

In the early 2010s, IPOs like Tesla and Facebook were on terms that gave outside investors little control on operations and that's why Musk and even Zuckerberg to a certain extent can choose to reorient to a new boondoggle with little-to-no investor pushback.

In 2026 if you want to IPO, it will be on the terms of JPMC, GS, etc who are underwriting the IPO.

In a private company, it's easier for an investor to offload or get bought out of their position if the founder wants to maintain operational control.

> While you’re accountable to a board of directors and theoretically accountable to stockholders, in reality management often runs the show

In publicly listed companies, it is magnitudes more difficult to build a board that is aligned with you at a personal level versus in a private company because both the board and strategic shareholders will act as checks against you.

> If you’re acquired, you’re giving up ownership and you tend to lose operational control unless you have agreements in place that say otherwise

An acquisition happens when both the founders and investors want to exit, and has less operational overhead and due dilligence versus going thru the process of an IPO in the US.

> This is counterintuitive to me

Well, that's the reality. This is why Stripe, Databricks, and others have remained private for so long despite having hit IPO-level metrics years ago. If you're already generating high 9 to low 10 figures a year in revenue, you can remain private indefinetly and as a founder you would be able to give yourself a compensation package comparable to a public company, but with much less oversight and stress.

> Interesting, why is this more true of Israeli VC's as opposed to VC's in other markets

Significantly less capital.

"Big" funds like YL Ventures, Cyberstarts, and JVP only have an AUM of $800M, $1.4B, and $1.9B respectively.

And if you were going to IPO in the US anyhow, why would you even invest in an Israeli fund, which wouldn't have enough people with experience for an IPO.

And the handful of Israeli IPOs that happened like SentinelOne or CyberArk weren't that successful.

[0] - https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=38550

> will result in less competition

The system working as intended.

“Competition is for losers” - Peter Thiel

The lack of competition is at this point choice American politicians and the voters. They should be breaking up mega corporations or at least taxing them at really high rates.

Instead, it looks like all the existing incumbents will just continue to rule over society. They have capital, monopolies, and the moats of distribution channels and contracts with their current customers. There is no fair competition - they’ll just replicate your clever product easily.

Did you read the article? First line: "Nearly a year ago, we shared that Wiz would be joining Google."

well if you are waiting for the monopolies to be broken don't wait they will not be broken monopolies are here to stay, capitalistism for the rich and socialism also for the rich they best thing you can do is be rich yourself