Re: Speculations on oracle buying sun

From: Michael Austin <>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:45:23 -0500
Message-ID: <IVJJl.15582$>

joel garry wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:41 pm, wrote:
>> On Apr 26, 6:38 pm, Noons <> wrote:
>> snip
>>> Like I said before to another person: look it up.
>>> This comes up in a simple google search:
>>> why is it that folks refuse to do a simple search?
>>> Anyways: who cares?  IBM is IT history, their products just can't
>>> survive for much longer.  Even their software is cactus, nowadays.
>> IBM is going to be around for a very very long time.

> About a dozen years ago, someone in one of the computer rags (exactly
> who escapes me at the moment) had a contest to predict the size (sales
> revenue, perhaps) of IBM at Y2K. Apparently I was one of two people
> who predicted 0.
> Funny, yes, but would you buy a Pontiac just now?
>> HP numbers would probably look a whole lot different if you subtracted
>> out revenue related to printing.  Maybe not in the short term but
>> probably sooner than later printing revenue is really going to turn
>> into outdated technology.

> And yet, the guy in charge - didn't he come out of the printing group,
> because they were the most profitable while the other stuff was going
> to hell in the Carly rockstar basket?
> People forget that outdated technology is where the margins get big.
> Looking at the big picture is where strategic growth comes from.
> Whoever is in charge needs to keep the proper perspective of all that
> stuff. Previous success may be a big predictor of that, but it has to
> be relevant.
>> Not that any of that has much to do with why Oracle decided to buy Sun
>> after the deal with IBM fell apart.

> It actually does. When you start talking about large computer
> organizations, you start really limiting the pool of upper management
> talent. If you don't, you wind up with idiocy like soda pop people
> running computer companies into the ground. Printer products may be
> more like razor blades than soda pop - but then again, upgrades and
> support may be, too. So do you have a Braun electric shaver with a
> charger and periodic cleaning refills and shaver head replacement, or
> a Schick disposable?

especially since most "shaver head replacements" cost 2/3 of the original cost - I have one where the replacement head actually cost more than the original shaver.

> jg
> --
> is bogus.
> Open Org spinoff discussion on /.
Received on Tue Apr 28 2009 - 15:45:23 CDT

Original text of this message