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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cfimx who wrote (45058)	9/7/2001 2:11:00 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Unfortunately I basically agree with the points in your post (except those concerning Charles, which I think are exaggerated and unduly harsh). I believe the managers of Microsoft are lawbreakers, but I don't blame them for Sun's problems. Sun had to try to build a future for themselves in the face of powerful competition and appear to have failed, partly by by fumbling the basics, partly by investing in a series of far-flung black holes (example: Jini evaporated while the much later-starting Universal Plug'n'Play will take over and become standard with the release of WinXP) and partly by getting caught up in history's most vicious investment bubble. Microsoft's illegal extortion of PC builders, software developers and consumers had little to do with it, and Intel still hasn't even shipped a 64-bit processor. It's a pity; but I believe what they did was done in good faith but bad judgment. While George W. Bush has done and will continue to do a lot of damage to this country and the world for as long as he's allowed to remain in office, he has had nearly nothing to do with the current state of the economy and the stock market. He inherited a dying mania. Some columnist in the paper said it well the other day: if CNBC instead of ESPN is playing on the TV screens in sports bars on inauguration day, that President's term will end badly. Also it's time to say that you weren't wrong, just early. You wanna manage my debt? :-) --QS

To: cfimx who wrote (45058)	9/7/2001 5:21:14 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Dear Twister: Sun's R&D investments were logical and accurate to the point of executing their business plan which was to sell more servers. ALl the R&D projects you mentioned were meant to push for a server centric computing model. And that my friend was totally and completely executed. So I respectfully disagree with your statement that such R&D projects (e.g. jini, Java, etc.) did not produce anything. They may not have produced anything directly in terms of revenue, but indirectly they made sure Sun sold a lot of servers during the 1997-2000 capital spending boom. The problem Sun has come to face is in fact a result of their own success in pushing their server centric computing model. What we have now is a severe competition from IBM, HWP/CPQ, DELL, among others who (because of the wide spread de-facto server centric computing model) also sell servers focused on the very same server centric computing model Sun successfully executed. Hence Sun no longer is the king of the jungle. I do not believe Sun will ever gain the momentum growth it had a couple of years ago - based on their current business model. Not because they do not have a sound business plan, and/or a strong management team, but simply because they have strong competitors now who have crowded the server market. As for you being correct, I disagree. It is sort of like a guy who never left his house simply because he predicted it would rain someday! In the meantime years passed by without any rain and he missed out enjoying life outside! You could have made a fortune during the time Sun was booming and instead you decided to either short the stock and lose money, or sit on the sideline and predict that the gloom-and-doom for the company would someday arrive! And now, with all due respect, eventhough you are correct in your assertions that Sun can not go to its previous highs, you are still missing the point! At $10/shr, Sun is priced at around $80/shr (pre 3 splits ago back in 1997 when the capital spending boom started). I do believe at its current price of $10/shr the stock is still overpriced and it should come down to around $5-$6 (or about $40-$50/shr pre-3-splits ago since 1997) before it becomes fairly priced and attractive to buy - but only to sell at around $10-$12/shr (or about $85-$90/shr pre-3-splits ago in 1997) - unless of course there is a fundamental shift in their business model to something more innovative. And knowing Sun, I am sure that will ultimately be the case. Regards,