My expectation, if you see any negativity, it'll be in
forward projections for Q4/next year rather than any
change in Q3 results.
That would have been my guess, too, DS and pirate. However, the notion does raise a question in the context of IT Dep't planning and spending. Let me start with an analogy: (i)in the recent destruction of the telco and F/O pic and shovel companies, we've seen companies warn that equipment orders either "fell off a cliff" or "were cancelled," leading to warnings and trashing of the stocks. (ii) Presumably, some of this savaging of orders that had either been recognized as revenue or was included in backlog was due to the difficulties the telcos (second tier and lower) have had in securing financing.
My question in the IT area is how relevant are these factors in the IT context? Obviously, re. (i) above, orders can be cancelled or a prospective book can dry up, but are there limits to how much an IT Dep't and corporate planning can hamstring the need for more storage without sabotaging the system? Re.(ii) above, this factor would not seem to apply in NTAP's case.
We have seen the analysts talk about reduced IT budgets, talk which picked up momentum this week and last. DS has made the point that NTAP may be able to buffer some of the downturn because of its unique filer system that avoids the need for new servers, and it's product offering has traditionally been priced below EMC's for supposedly equivalent benchmarks.
The question, then, is NTAP's product mix sufficiently flexible to weather the storm that we've been told has brewed for 2001, which would encompass Q-4 and Q-1/2002? |
