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 : EMC How high can it go? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Fischofer who wrote (11842)	1/13/2001 7:32:48 AM
From: Allegoria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

Thanks for your comments wrt G&K - the particular points you made have been explored in depth on the G&K quite often. I am still searching for the answers to my questions and still hope someone can substantiate some answers to the following? I'll make a stab at with a provocative answer... "NTAP is competing in EMC's centralized storage SAN domain." How and with what product? ZAnswer: NTAP competes in the SAN market only with their NAS products. Because NTAP's unique WAFL architecture is inherently so superior to EMC's architecture, the NTAP product will eventually take over the SAN market as well. (But I thought NAS cannot do what SAN can do, or is this not true?) "EMC is not competing in the content management/distribution NAS domain." It this true, EMC's new NAS product offering does not? ZAnswer:: : EMC's new NAS product is sooo lame that it effectively does not compete???? The product can only be used for centralized storage because NTAP WAFL's product is so much superior??? "EMC is competing against NTAP but only in the mid-range to small scale centralized storage domains with its NAS Chameleon offering." And not in the content distribution NAS domain? Why can't EMC compete, NTAP's WAFL? ZAnswer: Because EMC has not introduce an architecture even half as good as NTAP's WAFL, to date? "EMC's architecture for centralized management (Symmetrix) is "closed/proprietary which is evident by the fact that EMC must engineer its microcode to interface with each application server platform that it supports. In fact, EMC is interfacing its closed/proprietary architecture to the app server vendor's closed/proprietary architectures (channel to channel)." And NTAP's "distribution NAS architecture" is not? How is NTAP's not closed/proprietary to the relative extent as EMC? ZAnswer: NTAP has established a much larger 'value chain' and WAFL is too general to even require standards, much less closed/proprietary systems. "The only barrier to entry to EMC's domain is the cost/time of developing these channel to channel interfaces and writing software to manage the central store." Is this the only barrier to entry to EMC's domain? I would have guessed much more, but apparently NTAP owns us, or will in the future. ZAnswer: What about all the hardware widgets. Most software companies don't deal hardware too? Thanks in advance to all who contribute, Eric