Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New QLogic (ANCR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roy Sardina who wrote (22523)	6/10/1999 5:04:00 PM
From: Patrick Sharkey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

Roy, thanks for the posting, and I wonder if you have a couple of more minutes to share your views. It sounds as though you heard the same rumors that rapport heard, and it truly is stunning, to me, to hear rumors that Brocade turned down the number 1 OEM. Even if that is true, however, Brocade turning down the transaction does not tell us much about how valuable this deal is for Ancor. A few questions illustrate just that in relation to your response No. 4 to KJ's questions: 1. Did Sun offer Brocade the same gross price per switch that it agreed to with Ancor? 2. With respect to the switches that are the subject of this deal, how does Brocade's marginal cost per switch compare with Ancor's marginal cost per switch (higher, or lower). Obviously, if Ancor has a lower priced switch, on a marginal cost basis, it has more room to offer a lower price to SUN? 3. Does Brocade have any capacity or delivery constraints which influenced the negotiations with SUN to insist upon full margin for the deal. See para. no. 2 above? 4. Did SUN offer to do business with both Ancor and Brocade, at the same time so that price competition, future developments and availability would inure to SUN's benefit? 5. When Brocade said "no" to SUN, was an offer outstanding to Ancor from SUN, so that it was clear to Brocade that two suppliers were going to be involved, thereby not permitting Brocade to make up on volume what it would be losing through lower margins on individual sales? 6. When Ancor said "yes" had Brocade already said "no", so that only one supplier was going to be involved, thereby increasing the overall profitability? Thanks in advance, Pat Sharkey

To: Roy Sardina who wrote (22523)	6/10/1999 5:28:00 PM
From: Pigboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

Roy, Thanks for posting again. Congrats on your Brocade shares. You are cleaning up over there. ;-) I have a few questions. I believe you say that Ancor bagged the #1 SAN OEM in Sun and you also say-- << Ancor had a product Sun could use, and was willing to sell it and the company (re: warrants, Intellectual Property) at a price that Sun was willing to pay. >> Isn't it possible that Ancor's lower costs to implement their switch architecture and their future roadmap (rumored ASIC coming down the pipe) was the reason that ALLOWED Ancor to get this deal? This is a company that you thought was worth 2 bucks last year and yet they manage to get two Major switch OEMs recently...and one (SUN) of which is, in your mind, probably going to have MUCH larger switch shipments than the largest guy, StorageTek, now. I figured by now, you MUST have a different opinion of Ancor. ;-) Thanks for any thoughts. Oh, also wondered if you had seen SanCastles switch and what your opinions on them were? all imho, pigboy

To: Roy Sardina who wrote (22523)	6/11/1999 6:58:00 AM
From: KJ. Moy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29386

Roy, Thanks for taking the time to answer some of my questions. This board is lucky to have an industry insider who is willing to share some info with us. However, I disagree with your accessment of Brocade turning down the SUN deal. It is just not logical to me. <<<Q: Based on your vast FC industry knowledge, which Tier 1 OEM's are likely to generate the most FC switch volumes , comparing Sun, IBM, HP, EMC, Hitachi, Compaq, DELL, Gateway, DGN, Seimens?? A: Sun, Dell, HP, EMC, IBM in that order (just a guess)>>> Concerning your order of Tier 1 OEMs, why do you put Dell in front of HP, EMC, IBM? Dell is a light weight in the Server business. Granted, they sell lots of computers online but not in the server class. The largest early adoption of FC/SAN IMHO will be pre-dominently UNIX base. Many of my consultant friends hardly ever used Dell in a mid-range server environment. You didn't even include CPQ, Hitachi, DGN (i.e. Clariion). Would you care to explain? BTW, when is G2 going to IPO? Are you still with them? Can you get me some shares?<g> KJ