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 : Commerce One Inc - (CMRC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Lotozo who wrote (697)	1/22/2000 3:19:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 1938

Your recollection is the same as mine. Also I do recall that Sybases backers, which were a top tier vc firm (can't recall which - KP most likely), had listed Sybase as their #1 portfolio company in the year of the Sybase IPO. You have to credit the founders with that... and since we know know that the Sybase architecture was not really superior technically this was all image marketing - and Hoffman did it. I know Sybase had triggers and stored procedures prior to Oracle but in general the image that their product was technically superior - and fault tolerant - was really a stretch! Go Mark Hoffman!

To: Bill Lotozo who wrote (697)	1/25/2000 1:50:00 PM
From: Eric Miner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1938

Good point Bill. And, who was it that set up that deal? Hoffman. A serious mistake on his part. As I recall he's "partnering" with MS again. Let's see what comes of that. Lizzie, as for Oracle being superior then or now...I have to disagree with you on that. Sybase still beats them in performance and ease of use as it has for a long time. If the lack of RLL is what killed Sybase's market. Well, Hoffman had several chances to include the feature but didn't seem to do his research on how important it was to the market (no matter if it was actually needed or not). Nope, marketing under Hoffman was horrible and barely even visible. Hoffman had a policy of giving bonuses to managers only. A good example of this failing was System 10. A release that the engineers loudly warned was buggy. But, since management's bonuses were dependant on meeting release date....and the rest is history. No, my question is why can someone destroy a leading company and not raise at least some suspicions when he takes over another company? I can't figure that one out. Hoffman never really had a good picture of what was going on in the company. He was OK for a small company but watch out if the company grows.