twister - you seem to be intent on ignoring both the content of my original post and the question I was answering. Your post says a whole lot more about your bias on what you read than what I actually posted. But let me attempt to respond to your questions here...
you said that the numbers can be ingored from IDC
I did not say anything like that. I was responding to Marvin's post, pointing out that IDC is an independent agency which does not do "sponsored studies" and is one of the base metrics for the industry. One can not ignore their numbers, they are the gold standard. Perhaps you could point to the language in my original post which confused you??
THEN YOU WENT INTO A LONG DISSERTATION about the pc workstation market.
Well, since the post was primarily about how to read and interpret IDC data, the discussion about the PC workstation marketplace is perfectly relevant... I can't see how anyone could fall under the mistaken assumption that a discussion about NT workstations had anything at all to do with UE10000 or S80... I was pointing out that the use to which OEM marketing teams put the IDC data is not a reflection on IDC.
I pointed out that this is UNIX because you brought up DELL and Compaq and the NT workstations. Again, WHY??
You seem convinced that I can not talk about IDC or its data gathering and dissemination methods without referencing the UE10000 / S80 issue. You want to talk about Unix, S80... that's fine but it's not what I was addressing, except peripherally. The discussion of the NT workstation business was related to the way in which neutral IDC data can be "spun" by OEM marketing teams, and why it is important to go back to the base data.
I have visited the ibm site on the S80 and everything I read tells me that the price performance SHATTERS anything suncom offers. Please dispute this is you have proof.
I don't intend to dispute it, I agree with it. I even said so in my posts. It also has nothing to do with whether S80 will displace UE10000 or UE6500 sites. Alpha Unix machines have had double the performance per processor or more for most of their history, and until the launch of the UE10000, equally large machines. It didn't help them to sell in anything but traditional DEC markets. IBM will have the same trouble with the S80. I'm sure it's a fine machine, well designed and with the latest and most potent stuff IBM could pack in. I'm sure that IBM will sell a bunch of these - they have sold a lot of RS6000 and SP2 over the years. But that's not the criteria that determines customer decisions in the space where UE10000 and UE6500 are selling.
I say denial because I don't think you have a handle on how impressive this new (late 1999) entry is. You fluff off the fact that it OUTPERFORMS suncom with FEWER processors, WITHOUT mentioning the COST of FEWER PROCESSORS. You are in denail about the effect that LOWER ASPs for SUPERIOR UNIX boxex from HP , and IBM will have on the MARGINS of suncom.
I don't see where I "fluffed" the cost issue but I am prepared to address it head on. The value proposition for SUNW's architecture is not much affected by base capital hardware cost - if it was they would be very vulnerable to high end Intel machines running either Win2K or some Unix variant, since those machines provide equivalent performance at about 25% of the cost, and have for a while. The S80 does not redefine the economics - it is another attractive price performance package in the race. That is neither necessary nor sufficient to present a significant competitive threat, in itself.
IBM, like the Wintel vendors, is trying to fight the battle on ground they can win. IBM has more weapons than the Wintel guys, since they have great services, a history of understanding the needs of the enterprise, and a pretty complete product offering. But everyone in the game has been trying to get SUNW customers to ignore the fact that all capital purchase costs, hardware and software included, are less than 20% of the 5 year cost of ownership, and concentrate on the fact that IBM (or CPQ) can hit the performance target for half of the initial capital costs - or even 25% of the money - when they increase the cost of the other 80% of what an IT shop actually pays. Customers did not by that argument in 1997, 1998, or 1999 and they are not any more likely to buy it now.
But then you just make MOVEMENT bets on the DIRECTION Of suncom in the tech stock mania, I don't supppose that takes you very deeply into the SUNCOM financial model.
I would say that my current investment style with SUNW is a reflection of my belief that the stock price is based much more on perception than underlying financials, and I am betting that the trend will be up... so far I am about a double in less than 90 days so I guess I don't really care about whatever deep analysis you think I should have made, at least from a financial perspective. |
