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: Gus who wrote (14247)	5/20/2002 8:28:39 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

"The reason you keep on clinging to this specious argument is because you can't accept the fact that NTAP has lost major market share each of the last two years." What planet are you from? Last two years - 2000 and 2001? In 2000 NTAP grew revenues faster than EMC and the storage divisions of CPQ/HWP/SUNW. Only Dell grew storage revenues faster. In 2001 NTAP's decline from 2000 was less than the declines for EMC and the storage divisions of CPQ/HWP/SUNW. Only Dell's storage revenues declined less. You want to explain how NTAP lost share while outperforming everyone except Dell, when Dell is at the very low end of storage and hardly a player in NAS? Yawn yourself.....

To: Gus who wrote (14247)	5/20/2002 11:22:36 AM
From: pirate_200	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17183

RE: EMC's manufactured market share numbers Each time I post this, you go off on a rant. I'm asking for something simple: an explanation of why this isn't consider double-counting revenue, which to me it certainly looks like is occurring. I said nothing of NTAP, so why are you ranting? I'm asking about EMC's double-counting of SAN+NAS revenue to inflate their market share numbers. It is encapsulated below, explain to me why this math doesn't work. Also explain to me why we should believe market share numbers extrapolated from it. ======== Follow the math for last quarter: 1. EMC says their NIS revenue (SAN+NAS) was $449M. 2. EMC said the SAN revenue was $385M. 3. EMC said the NAS revenue was $148M. $385M and $148M is $553M, why isn't the NIS number $553M rather than $449M? The reason, is that "hybrid" revenue is counted both in the SAN and NAS market segments, so if EMC left it in, they would be reporting non-existent revenue. So, $84M has to be subtracted out to report the real revenue $449M. If you don't think this is true, then EMC has $84M of revenue that they aren't reporting because they are reporting $449M in revenue for both SAN and NAS, not $553M. EMC could have easily said we have $84M split between SAN and NAS, let's split the $84M. If so, SAN would be $343M and NAS would be $106M, the total (NIS, SAN+NAS) would be $343M + $106M or $449. The math works. Instead, some "genius" in EMC marketing says let's count the "hybrid" revenue both in the SAN and NAS markets individually to boost our market share. ========