Mike (and all):
While I responded to a post Mike made at the start of this, it was a question for all, not trying to get Mike to answer. I hope that somebody can interpret what I'm trying to ask, so that this doesn't go 'round in circles.
if you're genuinely interested in discussing the company in context of the manual
I posed the question about Siebel because it had just been mentioned; it could have been posed, and in fact has been posed by others, regarding numerous other companies, i.e., are they dominant chimps or gorillas (or even kings). I'm perfectly willing to discuss in terms of Siebel, but as I brought up in my last post, perhaps the question is really what the requirements are (in terms of control) for an applications gorilla. Yes I've read the manual, if you want to think of me as having poor reading comprehension (or terrible memory) fine, but if it is so obvious it shouldn't take too long to explain.
What makes you think Siebel isn't a gorilla?
I don't know as I'd phrase it that strongly, but the reason for my question was in my first post on this. At the (reported, perceived) level of market share that they have, their proprietary architecture would not seem to be dominant in that space. Market leading, yes. But even accounting for the idea that an applications gorilla will not necessarily have the market share that an enabling gorilla will have...I don't see right now how to phrase the question better. I guess what I'd put to those who have by concensus determined it to be a gorilla - purely in terms of control over their space, how would you phrase the requirement?
- Pirah
(Good with numbers and valuation, may be losing brain cells used for language functions.) |
