Re: Speculations on oracle buying sun
From: Michael Austin <maustin_at_firstdbasource.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:45:23 -0500
Message-ID: <IVJJl.15582$%54.12810_at_nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>
joel garry wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:41 pm, johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> About a dozen years ago, someone in one of the computer rags (exactly
> who escapes me at the moment) had a contest to predict the size (sales
> revenue, perhaps) of IBM at Y2K. Apparently I was one of two people
> who predicted 0.
>
> Funny, yes, but would you buy a Pontiac just now?
>
>
> And yet, the guy in charge - didn't he come out of the printing group,
> because they were the most profitable while the other stuff was going
> to hell in the Carly rockstar basket?
>
> People forget that outdated technology is where the margins get big.
> Looking at the big picture is where strategic growth comes from.
> Whoever is in charge needs to keep the proper perspective of all that
> stuff. Previous success may be a big predictor of that, but it has to
> be relevant.
>
>
> It actually does. When you start talking about large computer
> organizations, you start really limiting the pool of upper management
> talent. If you don't, you wind up with idiocy like soda pop people
> running computer companies into the ground. Printer products may be
> more like razor blades than soda pop - but then again, upgrades and
> support may be, too. So do you have a Braun electric shaver with a
> charger and periodic cleaning refills and shaver head replacement, or
> a Schick disposable?
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:45:23 -0500
Message-ID: <IVJJl.15582$%54.12810_at_nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>
joel garry wrote:
> On Apr 26, 4:41 pm, johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Apr 26, 6:38 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> snip >> >>> Like I said before to another person: look it up. >>> This comes up in a simple google search:http://www.techspot.com/news/23591-hp-surpasses-ibm.html >>> 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
> --
> _at_home.com is bogus.
> Open Org spinoff discussion on /. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/28/1639201
Received on Tue Apr 28 2009 - 15:45:23 CDT