Hello Steve,
I hope that you had a nice holiday so far! Things got very busy, but now that we have the week shutdown I can try and get caught up on work and interests!
You asked some questions in your post ... I wanted to make sure that I addressed them ...
> I don't understand how opinions can be inaccurate...maybe I forgot
> to label a couple as such.
Quite right. Opinions are opinions ... I do believe that I misinterpreted some of your statements as fact ... it wasn't always clear ...
> Coming from the guy who generally throws around statements like
> "released early next year", when the press releases clearly state
> otherwise
I certianly hope that I am not posting inaccurate information, and would like any such occurrances brought to my attention. I will admit that where I have internal knowledge and can not risk speaking out of line, I do sometimes have to be vague.
> (simple example, I'm not wasting my time rereading all
> your posts), and the guy where everything is fine and well (typical
> Novell attitude) until asked about the most serious issues, which
> from my perception you just kinda dance around, seems your
> credibility could be questioned as well as mine.
I again will admit that at times I have to bite my tongue. I *have* said numerous times that I can not argue with some of the perceptions that are expressed here. I too am very frustrated at times ...
> Only difference, I believe you honestly think you're helping, in
> many cases you are, showing you're belief in the company and
> offering education on their products.
I appreciate this ...
> On the other hand I don't think you always paint a clear picture of
> reality. I have no interest here other than getting back into this
> stock if and when something looks like it may happen, and to make
> sure the turn-around success story is not blown out of proportion,
> cause at this point, based on revenues and the stock price, no
> turnaround has occurred yet, and from what it sounds, will not next
> quarter.
I agree with you ... there is an incredible amount of *potential* in this company ... now execution is key. Conversion of potential energy to kenetic energy! ;-)
Per issues about the BOD, you said:
> Legal-shmegal. Neither you or anyone at Novell would explain what a
> Vice-chairman was,
Correct. I have no idea. That's why I asked ...
> and neither you or anyone at Novell has divulged as of yet when
> John Young's consultant charge was reduced from 10K a week, and
> what it was reduced too.
I believe that an e-mail has been posted several times that indicated when John Young's compensation was decreased ... but you are correct that I have not seen information as to how much, or in what ways. Where will this come out? Does this have to be reported in Annual Reports? Anywhere?
> In any case, you can post all the names, titles, and legal opinions
> you want, but when it comes to any kind of power struggle, the
> winner is clear...the old timers on the board, headed up by John
> Young. Do you disagree with this?
I can neither agree nor disagree. I do not understand what information you have that makes this "clear" ... and this is just because of my ignorance in this area. Can you please outline the proof, or even the specific details of how to evaluate this "clear" situation ... I have to say that I don't know enough about these things.
I asked:
> >>Are you suggesting free maintenance forever? If not, then you are
> suggesting that we should offer an upgrade path for them ... and we
> have. That's v3.2. If you want us to give this to them for free,
> then you do want free maintenance forever ... and as a shareholder
> I'm not sure that I agree with you.<<
And you replied:
> Of course I'm not suggesting free maintenance.
I'm not sure that I understand your solution here. You commented that Novell is not providing a solution for NetWare v3.11 customers, and I suggested that we do have a solution ... upgrade. Just as Microsoft is no longer supporting DOS, Windows v3.11, and Windows NT v3.x, except with Windows95 and WindowsNT v4.x and 5.x, I don't believe we should be supporting NetWare v3.11 except with NetWare v3.2 and v4.x. That's why we wrote these versions. To upgrade the OS and to add new features and functions.
> I don't believe it to be in Novell's best interest to force the
> issue. Maybe Novell will have turnaround by 2000, but I'll bet most
> organizations make they're decisions long before than.
This does not address my question: What is the solution? Do you want free software upgrades or do you agree that Novell provides the customer with the solution via an upgrade that is purchased? I'm not sure that I see any other way to do this. Either we give it away for free or we charge. Which should we do? What other solutions are there?
> I'll bet many have already. Based on the difference in mindshare,
> especially amongst the little guys, I'll bet Novell loses most of
> them. Seems smarter to charge nominally for an upgrade good for a
> year, maybe two, (based on Novell's optimists a year should be
> more than enough to turn that mindshare around), and save the
> customer, rather than losing them to MSFT as I believe you will.
And this is what we do. Charge a nominal upgrade charge to gain all of the benefits of our latest releases.
> I'd be curious to hear where Novell ends up with Vinod's company.
I'll be following this also ...
Per tradeshow participation:
> "Novell's new head of marketing, John Slitz, was specifically
> planning things differently for 1998, with more attention being
> paid to reaching the decision makers reading financial and trade
> journals rather then lifestyle publications, he said. At the same
> time, Novell would be reducing its participation in events such as
> exhibitions and trade shows to "do fewer things but better,"
> Ehrlich said. "
Ehrlich represents Pac-Rim ... I think that this statement is accurate and wise. I don't see any specific events listed here ...
> "Events such as Novell Brainshare - which Ehrlich was attending in
> Beijing when he spoke to Newsbytes - would continue, but its
> participation in the likes of Comdex would be cut back. The
> latter particularly since it was very expensive and visitors had a
> notoriously low attention span, he said.<<
>
> Go for it Scott. Certainly a new approach. You might want to read
> the entire link from EKS above. Novell has certainly had it's share
> of professional speakers.
I checked with some people and have heard that it is true that we are re-evaluating the ROI on Comdex ... funny that I just got a note forwarded to me from my brother-in-law (who works for IBM) that indicated that IBM will no longer participate at Comdex ... sounds like either both companies are pretty smart, or both companies aren't thinking ...
> It was my understanding Novell terminated these leases but I could
> be wrong. Very few details of these construction plans have been
> released that I'm aware of. If you can obtain the plans including
> completion dates of all phases of construction and financing
> information I'd appreciate it.
Doing a search on the Novell web site for "new buildings" gave me this link which provides information on the San Jose site ... I haven't found the same for Provo yet ... I'll continue to look around. novell.com
> And what's going to happen to the Orem campus? Is it being sold to
> enhance shareholder value, or some other plan. If other, what is
> it, and how will it benefit shareholders?
Good questions. I'll keep looking around ... have you posed these questions to Investor Relations or any other Novell "official" sources?
> I agree the developers should be brought together. I believe Novell
> should bite the bullet and move out of UTAH all together.
And move to where? The Bay Area? I don't understand the logic. Microsoft does not feel any need to be anywhere other than Redmond (I was recently informed by businessmen in India that Gates blew them off on a proposal to do development there!) and their Bay Area presence is minimal ...
After I have done two start-ups in the Bay I have the opinion that this is not the place to create a long-term, loyal employee pool. There are just too many opportunities to jump ship to another new Bay Area start-up. And the costs are just too high.
> It dosen't take a business major to understand that a struggling
> Novell shouldn't be maintaining main locations in two different
> states. This defies logic IMO. I would think the best solution
> would be to close up and sell out of UTAH all together. Give the
> key employee's incentive to relocate, and replace the rest. It
> could be done over a period of time to minimize chaos. Maybe
> Novell has figured out some way to accomplish all this construction
> profitably, but the details are either vague or non-existant.
In my opinion Utah is much more desirable than the Bay. The relocation costs, and the "incentive" would be incredibly high. Having two friends (and a relative) just relocate to the Bay from the east coast and Seattle, I have been informed that housing costs are almost unbearable and the commute times from affordable housing ar two to three hours per day.
About Eric's statements:
> Although this is common in the software industry, it seems to me
> that there is not much the doctor has been correct about yet, other
> than flat to down sales.
This was my point. He has been accurate in his statements about flat and down quarters.
> Seems we never got the marketing plans he talked about either.
This is now John Slitz's area ... and we are starting to get information ...
> Unlike someone upthread, I feel the battle is directly between
> Novell and MSFT. I highly doubt MSFT will lose the battle.
I don't believe there is *one* battle ... and as history proves, fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts can be very difficult. I think that MSFT is showing some signs of the wear and tear of warfare. I think that this industry follows the same paths as other natural systems ... partnerships are better than competition in that everyone grows. I don't believe that MSFT can (or will be allowed to) become the one world power.
> Novell will be around a while yet, maybe forever in some form or
> another, but IMO, Novell has wasted so much time that they will
> continue to lose ground to MSFT, as every other MSFT competitor
> does. Maybe MSFT will be split up badly enough to buy Novell a
> little more time. Novell dosen't have a great track record of using
> borrowed time wisely though.
I will not argue your position on wasted time ... and I will not argue the usage of borrowed time! ;-) I too am frustrated by the ability of the company to convert potential ...
> sf
Scott C. Lemon |
