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 : INPR - Inprise to Borland (BORL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Graham Wideman who wrote (1438)	10/25/1998 12:52:00 AM
From: Cube	Respond to of 5102

Graham, The technical aspect of what INPR is into is over my head. I know the basics, but I would not begin to think of myself as well versed. There are a lot of big, big guns out there with competitive products. And it seems like I hear of another company everyday that is climbing aboard the enterprise information train. Guys like Compuware etc, seem to have deep pockets and vast resources. That is why I have been saying that every quarter that Del lets slip by is not just a missed financial quarter, it is a missed quarter with respect to the next technological quantum leap. As far as to when the turnaround will actually begin, Del has been telling us "just a few more quarters" for a few years. Plenty of bright talent out there that could really make a viable shot at turning this company around. Lou Gerstner is one, Gordon Bethune is another, Delbert Yocam - aint!! Cube

To: Graham Wideman who wrote (1438)	10/25/1998 5:36:00 AM
From: David Miller	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

Good set of questions, Graham. Do you feel that the "enterprise information infrastructure" direction that Borland/Inprise has shifted towards is the right one (or at least a good one) considering their position of, say, 2 years ago? Definitely. In fact two years ago, they were already headed in this direction - the bid for Open Environment was in Spring 1997, that's two and a half years ago. But yes, they had to move away from reliance on desktop revenues and margins: Microsoft taught them that. If so, how long would you expect such a redirection to take, and what sort of timetable would you have had for a vendor to establish a good position in that market? One year to transition the organization, two years (maximum) to have established the "foundation market share" from which growth can be leveraged. Anything longer, (particularly with organization transition) and there will always be problems with execution, the market simply moves too fast. What seems to be a rock-solid, killer strategy one day, can quickly become "just another spanner". Look at Forte for a good example of this. Is any other company attaining the performance in that market that you would like to see Not so far, which is in itself very interesting. The role of the small company is to be a technological leader, unfortunately there seem only to be a bunch of technological "me-toos" in this segment. Pure technology companies such as Visigenic, Kiva, WebLogic and NetDynamics are the ones who set the pace, and get absorbed very quickly. Ultimately, it probably means that this market will soon become populated with the major players such as Microsoft, Oracle, CA, IBM, who have either built or acquired the necessary technologies and can market them as part of an overall strategy for an enterprise. david

To: Graham Wideman who wrote (1438)	10/26/1998 12:28:00 PM
From: Dennis Nicks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5102

Del's performance... Let's see, where to begin.. It doesn't take all that much to look back and see where Del has done a pretty decent job. 1. Inprise is not the hemoraging monster it was before, we've been turning a profit lately and as long as the 1-time charges can be held at bay, Inprise will continue to be profitable. 2. It's obvious to me that Enterprise sales, especially Visibroker licenses have been a significant portion of our sales revenue. Had Del not decided to bite the bullet with Visigenic, what would our sales be now? 3. Expenses have been low (the primary reason for profitability at our low revenues ~$50 million) and we've increased sales force with direct marketing and increased our consultant base. These new ventures must be holding their own cost wise. In the future, margins will increase. 4. We've seen significant commitment from large multinational corporations. These companies are willing to pay now for services and licenses later. This shows confidence in both the product and the company. The only major criticism is the lack of revenue growth and the dilution of shareholders equity. On the revenue growth, I can see where we've run into some tough economic times. Many of the services companies (ie PSFT) are in dire straights. This must also be affecting the tools vendors. As for diluting the equities, we have a buy-back plan that started out as window-dressing and could end up as a solution to this problem (thanks to Starfish). I'd like to echo PCSS' plea for intelligent and constructive criticism. This Rush Limbaugh name-calling is ridiculous.. Dennis