Look, I love Cisco, as anyone who's been on this thread for a long time knows. However, this snippet of an article is a piece of trash. They've got it all backwards. They say that Cisco was proven right in their overpayment of Cerent, because Sycamore came out and had a hell of an IPO.
Well, open your eyes folks. The reason WHY Sycamore had a hell of an IPO is because everyone looked at Cisco's track record, thought "damn, if Cisco says this market is worth that much, it must be so. Therefore, Sycamore must be worth $X." Next thing we knew Sycamore was as overpriced as Cerent.
Folks, that doesn't prove Cisco right. The only thing that will prove Cisco right is if Cerent brings in the billions of dollars of revenue we all expect it to. Until then, the market will just follow Cisco's lead, hoping that their record will hold.
PS My personal belief is that Cisco did make the right choice (as evidenced by Nortel's white hot optics sales), but backasswards journalism like that really makes me hot. Sometimes it seems journalists don't use their brain. |
