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 : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kilo_watt who wrote (34536)	11/1/2000 12:06:32 AM
From: Paul Fiondella	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

service model vs building new software In many respects this is putting your finger on it. The way I see it the failure to commercialize technologies such as digitalme was a very big bump in the road for Novell. Scott seems to have taken it upon himself to say "I" (since Scott seems to have trouble with "we") failed to get digitalme to be the breakthrough killer product for Novell because "I" didn't treat people right and see the possibilities that were there to make that success happen. Then "I" went into Fred Smart mode which "I" regret. Well Scott is right about some of this. He may however have totally underestimated his own lack of power to get things done irregardless of his mindset at the time. I don't agree that digitalme didn't happen because of Scott's failures. It didn't happen because of the culture of the company. Novell is a systems engineering company not a software applications company. That is why digitalme never became the locus of eCommerce. The day for such systems engineering company mindsets is long gone in this industry. Notice that Lucent is having similar problems. And where did John Young run to! The analogy is the auto industry when GM overcame Ford in the late fifties because GM recognized cars were no longer merely utilitiarian but a consumer product. Microsoft overcame Novell because Novell failed to understand that consumer level technology not perfection is where the software industry has had to go. LINUX after all is not the perfect UNIX. The perfect UNIXs are all lost causes. Employees and managers at Novell should learn from Microsoft about how to develop software products. They cannot do what you expect them to do kilo_watt without having learned from Microsoft something about the current state of the software industry. Ford is still around because it did learn from GM. Novell painted itself in a corner some five years ago when it more or less isolated itself from its roots. Even today I read an interview with Noorda and he clearly didn't have a clue how to respond to Microsoft going after the "low end" of networking. That low end of networking is where Linux came from and where every innovation in the industry comes from. Unfortunately where Novell stands now is that they have not resolved the issue. They haven't backed creativity enough in product development and marketing. They don't have a relationship with the end user of their technology. Eric has embraced an infrastructure model for Novell. The legacy management has embraced a service model. No one is committed to taking the risks and chances of going out there with an earthshaking killer app built upon Novell's identity management technology. At least not in the "low end" of the market where everyone makes the money now a days. Not as a box for the channel whether an appliance or a software package. Nor can anyone at Novell seem to be persuaded to go in this direction anymore. ======== As for myself I am pursuing the strategy I laid out in my speech at the annual meeting. The net content division needs to be spun off with a tracking stock just like PALM and the rest of the company acquired by a marketing or sales oriented company in a buyout. The current situation is a deadlock.

To: kilo_watt who wrote (34536)	11/1/2000 3:28:23 PM
From: solutions_R_IT	Respond to of 42771

kilo_watt, Let me clarify... <<I guess the real question is: succeed at what?>> Deliver component technologies and services that enable the creation and delivery of high value business solutions by solution partners resulting in significant revenue for the partner and Novell. The Novell revenue must be comprised of both license and services revenue. <<This response is virtually the rote response internally at Novell. But consider there are two statements here. This is actually a post loaded with meaning>> The internal rote response that you reference does not match what I intended. My definition of "professional services" combines expertise from Novell and the partner resulting in a business solution not just a point technology solution, with Novell playing the role they are best suited for. (Novell core technologies and the services required to support them.) << The first statement is somewhat at odds with the reality though. Novell Consulting is being sold as far more than simply the assisted implementation of core technologies. >> I agree. <<The second statement is a different world altogether, and from my experience at Novell the partner relationships (primarily Big 5 and MarchFirst) didn't deliver a lick of value. I would support the second model, IF in fact the partners were truly supporting the model.>> Change your last sentence to read. "IF in fact NOVELL were truly supporting the model." Meaning the balanced version of professional services and core technologies to deliver solutions with partners. And I will support that. IMHO solutions_R_IT