SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (26628)4/13/1999 1:07:00 AM
From: Frederick Smart  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 42771
 
Compaq Thoughts......& Novell.

Welcome Back Scott and thanks for the BrainShare.

Have Eric give Eckhard a call - have not met either, but I'm sure they can brainshare more today than prior to Friday.

Share the wealth: Novell and Compaq.

Posted on SI's CPQ thread this evening......

To: Kenya AA (57505 )
From: Frederick Smart Tuesday, Apr 13 1999 12:49AM ET
Reply # of 57518

How Does Compaq Enter Internet Space???

>>"In the longer term, it's really a question of will the Internet's tail continue to wag the PC dog," Milunovich says. "I guess I would like to see Compaq move further into this area." Milunovich, who has been calling for IBM (IBM:NYSE) to pare its PC business for some time now, says he isn't sure what's the best path for Compaq to take in the Internet space.>>

As a new shareholder to Compaq I'm going to share some thoughts on this subject for I thinks it's important to take ownship of your investments, give out your ideas as a way of attempting to freely stir up energy for a cause: change.

By way of some background, I am not one of those investment "thought lunatics" who discounts 5-10 gorilla years of consolidated portalization to justify Amazon-like valuations.

The way Compaq should enter "internet space" is the same way Novell is quietly turning heads: basic blocking and tackling with a lot of thought provoking ideas that support a vision for an intraconnected world.

What the heck am I talking about and why Compaq??

First some background.....

1) The world needs a major box vendor that understands that the right vision behind this IP revolution is NOT necessarily hidden in Redmond.

2) IBM and Lucent are stepping out into this space with gusto. Dell is content going direct and has too much legacy invested in their relationship with Microsoft - but they might just "get it".

3) Sun is still in the halo of their deal with AOL/Netscape - which has clouds - and could get AOL'd on the consumer side of things.

4) Leadership behind Java is losing its edge as Microsoft teeters on falling away just as IBM, Novell, Oracle, Intel and others beef up their support.

5) Novell is totally redesigning the future infrastructure of the Internet with its critically acclaimed, award-winning technologies
(Directory Services), products (BorderManager caching) and services (Groupwise - now - and Digital Me, iChain - future).

6) The e-commerce era - Internet Wave 2 (Wave 1 was simple browsers, content, growth and consolidation of ISPs, rise of portals) - is consolidating into "portal pyramids" that are reverting to the Old Business model ways of expecting customer to come to them, etc.

7) A New Internet Wave 3 is now upon us that can be characterized as "the rise of the individual" - where virtual communities evolve and grow in power and influence (not via traditional consumer TV mass market approaches used today by Yahoo & Amazon) but by simple, viral, word of mouth energy. Where values and information are shared among people who know their niche verticals and who share freely with others in the spirit of serving vs. selling. This is about the rise of individuals who individually and collectively look out for what's ahead BEFORE others cross the road, think and plan strategy in open forums using open tools that more efficiently spread thought, ideas and information more efficiently, with more leverage and power for positive change.

8) Wave 3 represents the TRUE essence of the Internet in an intranetworked world. Wave 3 will demand openness and get it. The internet during Wave 3 will abhor mass, arrogance, obstructions, politics, hierarchies, bureaucracy and fixed procedures. Marketing and selling will gradually fade from view for more and more people will assume the reigns of their true innate power to help and serve others. If companies don't open up, serve and give during this phase and truly mean it, they simply won't receive and grow.

9) The end game is all about TRUST and relationships - not bits, bites and boxes. Who's gonna morph first? Who's gonna shed pretensions behind their world brand, power and might? Who's gonna get off their high horse, step down out of their ivory tower and go belly to belly with consumers, people, clients who have hopes, values, feelings, families and dreams, etc. Companies CAN'T mine trust that isn't inherently there or deserved anymore. You can't milk the branded cow anymore. Digital smigital. AltaVista schmista. Shop.com drop.com.

10) Every single person on earth now has the collective corporate world by the balls right now. Every corporation on earth has been checkmated by the Internet. It's all about "we". But they must meet "me" first. Come to mama corporations. Mama is me.

11) The internet is starving for order, logic, automated maps, tools, platforms, some massive collective intelligence in the form of a technology that can identify the who/what/where/when/how/why behind every individual, piece of information, app, device, record, bit and bite that makes up our virtual digital existence.

12) Directories ARE the solution. Individuals - not companies - will provide the answers.

13) Compaq's future rests with it's ability to open up its network, its process and procedures to every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jonie, Toni and Terry end user. Make boxes that are secure. Support apps that allow us to leverage this new found security to leverage our impact in virtual space. Partner with local companies and individuals who are building the virtual distribution networks of the new millenium. Embrace connectivity. Embrace open standards. Embrace cross-platform messaging. Embrace high bandwidth. Support high-bandwidth solutions. Drink, support and give Java.....

14) Compaq can remain confused about what it wants to be when it grows up or it can get out of its own way so those that DO know what they want can execute. But they need to have INDIVIDUALS drive this process - not starched, brand hungry, has-been heavy hitters.

15) This whole process Compaq is going through is a lesson in humility. For the ARE no ultimate answers INSIDE Compaq. The answers are with OUT THERE with people like you and I who have choices. And we'd like for Compaq to be more accessible, more open, friendlier to get to know and support from year to year, etc.

16) The last time Compaq got a lesson in humility was back in '91 when a few junior engineers squirreled Rosen away to a COMDEX show and showed him how easy it was to buy parts from suppliers and construct PCs that could make them competitive again.

17) Now Compaq needs another good lesson in humility so it can jettison the baggage - the egos, strict thinking-types - and begin to humbly take more risks by getting to know their customers more directly, etc.

I could go on and on, but I trust you all get the general idea.

Risk is the energy of life......

This is when the pedal hits the medal. This is when internal challenges can be waged to the status quo. It's time to rethink this arrogant global enterprise strategy. Compaq visuals on the NYSE floor - get real!! Q this, Q that, Q up, Q down, Q sideways.

Get a Q FIRST, then humbly walk the talk.

I see this time as a great opportunity for Compaq to reinvent itself.

All individuals have become "enterprises". We all are unlimited. We are ALL interconnected, thanks to the net. It's time for Compaq to "net go", "get smart", do more, serve us better, show us the way as WE individuals lead the way.

How's this for starters:

Compaq: Leading The Individual Enterprise Revolution

Enter "the space" Eckhard.

GO!!



To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (26628)4/13/1999 10:26:00 AM
From: PJ Strifas  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42771
 
Hello Scott!

(somewhat OT)...
In your argument you tend to agree that there will be a balance between security and privacy as we have today? I mean, there can not be 100% guaranteed privacy while belonging to a community - you have to interact with people who interact with others. Heck, every business in the world depends on "word of mouth" as a form of free advertising! This happens when one person divulges some information to another.

But you are correct, there are trust relationships formed at the communal level. These relationships are governed by our individual needs as well as our communal needs. If digitalme can provide us the tools we need to define those relationships, it will go a long way to liberating the internet from the current model.

My point is this, the balance of privacy and security is very real. We tend to think in grand terms when we talk about privacy but in what context does that privacy live? It doesn't live in a vacuum. There is some give and take on just how much privacy one can have and still be a participant in society (or community).

So with that in mind, there will need to be much debate on just how much privacy will be sacrificed to maintain some semblence of civility in cyberspace. This argument grows from our real world experience which does not define our cyberworld experience. In that essence, this debate almost fails but only to a point.

The same technology that gathers information can also be used in a reverse fashion. Quite frankly if my personal information can be tracked thereby allowing me to uncover the "guilty" parties, I feel my privacy doesn't need to be 100%. I can make an informed decision on which relationships to maintain or sever. Allowing me the power of choice multiplies as others join in.

That's the problem with our information today in the real world. We want to protect our personal information because there is no control, no path for me to follow it. If companies know that they can and will be held responsible by individuals regarding the handling of their personal information, things would be alot differnet in our world today.

I feel that a model that would empower the individual to the point whereby their decisions to cut relationships or maintian them will directly affect corporate policy regarding the gathering of information is a step in the right direction.

There needs to be more debate on this at a different level in our society where marketing and sensationalism are not factors in the presentation of the arguments made. This will take some time for us to figure out but I have confidence. We were able to make good with the telephone (these same arguments of tracking were presented when the phone first began to populate homes) so I can see us following a similar path.

Also, one other thing - AOL's involvement in the Melissa case - perhaps I have a very "inside" perspective on just how that sort of thing works but AOL's Terms of Service explains things very fairly and openly. Almost like our laws in the real world. It's no secret that if you do wrong, AOL will comply with authorities. They can't do otherwise without reprimand from those authorities (obstruction).

Also, from my understanding of the case, the virus writer "compromised" someone else's account so isn't that a crime? If someone stole a user account in your corporation and then used it to create/distribute a tool of destruction how would you feel?

[Sure we can point to AOL's shortcomings in it's security model but the weakest link in that model is the end-user.]

That point I won't argue here since it would take too long but if AOL didn't do what it did, does it then open itself to civil lawsuits as the source of the problem or at least as a facilitor?

Now that's a chilling affect -

It would send a chilling message if in some way AOL were to be held responsible for the actions of a "hacker" or as a haven for such activity. I for one would not want AOL "protecting" anyone who in my mind and the law's eyes had facilitated or committed a crime PERIOD. That goes for any service or company or agency or whatever.

Privacy should never shield foul deeds. I'm not willing to sacrifice that for 100% privacy.

Peter J Strifas