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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (115477)	10/31/2000 11:59:11 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

A year ago, I believed that SUNW was selling on the perception of architectural dominance in the internet space. I say the PERCEPTION because in fact there was nothing particularly innovative in SUNW technology, only in their marketing, which was first rate. Yes, I believe their marketing was/is remarkably good. Somehow, however, I suspect it is so effective because they are often dealing with CIOs whose overwhelming tendency is to simply stay the course. I believe, over time, CIOs will be forced by economics to take a more realistic approach. Since you are in the industry, is there any truth to this....or am I way off base? Do CIOs actually realize how less reliable Suns's UNIX server solutions are? It would seem this recent cache memory problem (my take is that is far more serious than one would gather from the information available) would have precipitated a much larger defection away from Sun servers. Is this too just a result of Sun's remarkable marketing spin?? They have apparently been able to contain a potentially very dangerous situation. Spin is very powerful but equally VERY dangerous once it no longer has the desired effect. I'd be interested in your comments. TIA THE WATSONYOUTH

To: rudedog who wrote (115477)	11/3/2000 7:00:52 AM
From: Pigboy	Respond to of 186894

rudedog, << But I think their string is about played out. They have bet the farm on a centralized architectural approach which will, in my humble opinion, lose to the distributed approach because the internet is itself inherently distributed, and the scale required for a centralized model (not just processor horsepower but also bandwidth and connectivity) is already being outstripped by an internet in its infancy. It may take a while, but the party's over for that model. >> This is a great question with regards to the central vs. distributed approach. There is a point about SUN that I don't see stressed enough. RIGHT NOW, Sun is taking a MASSIVE gamble in my opinion on attacking STORAGE. I know several Sun employees and this is their battle mantra going forward...STORAGE. It is their FUTURE. And it is very risky, and at the same time I believe that it is what they must do. With their large installed Fibre Channel base, they have a good groundstone to work with, but being a Qlgc (thru ANCR) investor has allowed me the unfortunate practice of forever waiting for their strong initiative in the storage arena to attack EMC (the big Cahuna in storage). I know the Sun switch SAN product is close to shipping (I've been waiting for many months ;-) and the SAN may not mean squat to most here, it is vitally important to the Next Generation Network being built out. Sun has failed going against EMC in the past, but now the stakes are higher and I know they have been recruiting several higher EMC uppers. EMC on the outside. Sun on the inside. With the periphery attacking the middle from all sides in this build-out revolution, SUN has to hit hard (ie. gain 'storage' market share) over the next two years or they may get in trouble. Perhaps it's just best to be hedged with SUNW, EMC, INTC, and MSFT here rather than acting spectacular and 'knowing' what will happen. Not a shot at you or anyone, but just thinking out loud. cheers, pigboy