Comments on: IBM Plus Sun Equals What?

By: tecosystems » Mobile is the New Desktop: The HP/Palm Q&A

tecosystems » Mobile is the New Desktop: The HP/Palm Q&A — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:36:12 +0000

[...] wisdom had IBM buying Sun (coverage), so of course Oracle ended up as the actual buyer (coverage). Speaking of Oracle, you might recall [...]

By: People Over Process » IT Management #39 - Rumor Central

People Over Process » IT Management #39 - Rumor Central — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:23:50 +0000

[...] also several rumors we go over: IBM and Sun and some more nutty [...]

By: If you're an enterprise, developer, or economist, IBM is not the right buyer for Sun | Programming and Development | TechRepublic.com

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:47:31 +0000

[...] the rationale for the buyout is fishy. A lot of other analysts are holding their noses too. UPDATE: Good analysis from Redmonk’s Stephen [...]

By: Z

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:26:01 +0000

I completely disagree with:
“it’s more difficult to envision IBM actively pushing sales of Solaris at the expense of Linux”

IBM does not make money selling Linux (it basically resells redhat), however it will make money selling Solaris.

You are obviously a Linux fan, and your “analysis” proves that. Remember IBM is a business and all it cares is making more money (as it should). You say they will relicense ZFS to be included in Linux, nonsense, it will not be in their interest, since it will give ZFS as a feature to HP and Dell systems. Currently if HP and Dell systems want ZFS they need to use Solaris (more money for Sun/IBM).

The rationale behind IBM’s strategic support for Linux will change with this acquisition…

Not to mention IBMs oem deal with NetApp….

By: If you’re an enterprise, developer or economist, IBM is not the right buyer for Sun | Dana Gardner’s BriefingsDirect | ZDNet.com

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:14:10 +0000

[...] the rationale for the buyout is fishy. A lot of other analysts are holding their noses too. UPDATE: Good analysis from Redmonk’s Stephen [...]

By: Dana Gardner

Dana Gardner — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:04:14 +0000

Excellent points and analysis, as always, Stephen.

As you say IBM is a profit culture, and so when I say the acquisition doesn’t make sense, I should say, cents.

Even with you well-explained value-add than Sun brings to IBM, it’s hardy going to produce a ROI on the $6.5 billion, never mind profits.

If there were profits to mine in the intellectual property and product/technology alignments, they would be a few years out, at a time when the market and economy are rather difficult to forecast.

Indeed, a great deal of the R&D Sun has invested in mightily over the past 7 years — and which you think largely explains the rationale here — was developed expressly to undercut IBM in the market!

The deal only makes cents if it is being done not to leverage the IP and Sun’s cloud ambitions, but to do the opposite, to de-leverage, de-commission, or at least control the potential disruption that compelling low-cost cloud (built on OSS components) offerings could do to IBM’s profit. More: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2868.

This may a good deal for IBM, and that’s about it. I still think it doesn’t make sense for Sun (except those late-comer private equity players), enterprise customers, OSS middleware, SOA and cloud communities, and so the general productivity vector of IT.

By: c0t0d0s0.org

c0t0d0s0.org — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:00:36 +0000

links for 2009-03-21…

tecosystems » IBM Plus Sun Equals What?

(tags: sun IBM subm)
…

By: Niraj

Niraj — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:20:22 +0000

To me if this happens it is a defining moment for open source companies and what to expect. Being a strong supporter of open-source and now having burnt a few tens of thousands in Sun stock, my POV has moved towards the notion that opensource companies cannot scale beyond $250Mil.

more here
http://www.gandalf-lab.com/blog/2009/03/death-of-billion-dollar-opensource.html