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 : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Montgomery who wrote (8052)	5/12/2000 4:40:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

David, Maybe all the spending on the Y2K "solution" makes the Citrix solution all that much more attractive. For a fraction of the cost, these older apps can be "updated" for use on the web. I don't know enough about it to know if you're right or wrong about it being for a fraction of the cost, but I am certain that your thoughts about Y2k spending are on target. You might remember that the financial media was willing to predict that Citrix's revenue would dramatically slow because of Y2k issues, despite that management repeatedly was telling analysts that Y2k issues helped customers evaluate Citrix's solutions and make decisions to adopt them. --Mike Buckley

To: David Montgomery who wrote (8052)	5/13/2000 1:07:00 AM
From: dwayanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

David: From observing the Y2K fixups at AT&T and at Paradyne Corp (FR & DSL hardware company) ... A lot of large corporations spent millions of dollars updating old programs to get around the Y2K problem. Absolutely. And bought new versions of all their commercial apps, replaced most of the workstations, upgraded the servers, and surveyed/inventoried nearly every loose electron. In light of this, it is really doubtful that they will soon spend millions more to rewrite these applications. True. But watch out for the term 'applications'. There are at least three classes of applications involved, 1) applications purchased per workstation like Microsoft Word/Excel/Powerpoint or per seat like software development or desktop publishing tools, 2) in-house applications like AT&T's network monitoring and billing programs, and 3) programs being sold by the company, such as Paradyne's Network Management program. Maybe all the spending on the Y2K "solution" makes the Citrix solution all that much more attractive. For a fraction of the cost, these older apps can be "updated" for use on the web. Not really. Why go to any additional cost or effort at all? All the y2k work resulted in a (historically abnormal) well known and stable 1) workstation infrastructure and 2) operations and admin systems. Nobody is going to bust up something that is now working (relatively) smoothly, until maybe a year or two from now at budget time when maintenance cost capping is seen as more important. And a lot of 2)'s lightweight internal systems are already web-enabled, applications like HR, building maintenance, and purchasing. Most workers with workstations are fixed in one place. The small number of (high-profile) laptop carriers already have a variety of (admittedly clumsy) solutions for their mobile needs, a mixture of things like remote dialin for email, Palms, Internet/web access to selected small applications, and the usual Microsoft suite on their laptop. Someday, with more telecommuting and widespread high-bandwidth connections, the ASP model will be necessary. But not today. There isn't enough pain out there. Or, from another view, right now the volume of pain to corporate budgets is much less than the volume of pain an ICAR conversion would cause to the IT department. "We just got thru Y2K, and you want us to do it again !!????" For 3), programs being sold, most companies (including my work at Paradyne) are already web-enabling the applications, because web-enabled is a great buzzword currently (and somewhat useful, if truth be told), and we have to be able to sell to anyone without considering whether or not they have ICAR licenses. - Dway "To Citrix, or not to Citrix, that is the question. Whether 'tis cheaper in the halls of finance to suffer the slings and arrows of swollen maintenance contracts, or to fight, to strive, perhaps to die at the hands of outraged IT departments ..."

To: David Montgomery who wrote (8052)	5/14/2000 8:56:00 AM
From: Heeren Pathak	Respond to of 9068

David, A lot of large corporations spent millions of dollars updating old programs to get around the Y2K problem. In light of this, it is really doubtful that they will soon spend millions more to rewrite these applications. Maybe all the spending on the Y2K "solution" makes the Citrix solution all that much more attractive. For a fraction of the cost, these older apps can be "updated" for use on the web. I unable to put together any synopsis since there are too many variables involved. A couple of points to ponder... 1) The Y2K spending will help anyone with Internet-enabling technology. Enormous amount of money was spent by IT for Y2K. Like any organization, IT folks are relunctant to give that portion of the bugdet up. Luckily, there is this strategic initiative called the Internet / E-business that companies want to spend money on and the IT folks (and consultants) are happy to spend it. This should be a positive for Citrix, depending on if the IT folks add-on to an existing product vs. rewriting it. 2) Companies that started early with Y2K upgraded many of their systems with new ones. The others patched their existing systems. Some of the people who patched their systems did intend to upgrade to non-homegrown system. However with the crisis behind us, I suspect that those plans may fall on the wayside in favor of more Internet-focused plans. I view this as a positive for Citrix. 3) Replacing internal systems with a commerical ERP system was the big trend pre-Y2K. This experience has left a lot of companies with a bad taste for ERP. One of the "hidden" stories about ERP is that you need to change your business to conform to the ERP system. Like most software packages, SAP, Oracle, BAAN, etc., all have limited flexibiity. If your business model does fit, you either change the model or risk an implementation failure. It is not in the interest of ANY ERP vendor to trumpet failure so you may not have heard about it. However, there have been a fair number. This fact become very relevant for an IT dept. I suspect many will prefer to stay with their existing system instead of risking failure. They will need to provide access to their existing system. They can use browser-based technology (JavaScript & HTML) to do this, but I suspect many will use traditional Windows RAD technologies (Visual Basic, Powerbuilder) since they have lots of people already trained with these tools. The only counter argument to this is that technical people are always looking to upgrade their skills, so IT managers are going to be underpressure to train their personnel with web-based technologies. Otherwise, they run the risk of losing their best people. Most managers will probably try and strike a balance here, mixing new web-based initiatives with traditional approaches. This should be a positive for Citrix. 4)Most older apps will require some work to use Citrix. Most of these apps run on non-Windows machines (VMS, MVS, VM, etc.) Unless a company has made an Windows-based client for these apps, Citrix will require additional work to use. If this additional work is required, then Item 3 above will come into play. For those apps that have a Windows-based client, Citrix could be a no brainer. On the whole, I think the future is bright for Citrix. I see corporations focusing on customer portals, one-on-one marketing techniques, and integrated supply chains / vendor marts over the next few years. They will love to have a quick solution to Webify their existing apps. Depending on the apps, Citrix might provide that solution. They key factor is whether a Windows-based client exists. Heeren