5 ms·

NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.

by staunch 12y ago

CyberDildonics 12y ago
These companies always seem to find a niche in companies that need hardware that is 100x faster so they can write software that runs 100x slower.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
nate_meurer 12y ago
What are you talking about? Oracle's main goal with the Sun acquisition was to bolster their Engineered Systems business. The result so far has been quite successful: - http://www.eweek.com/servers/slideshows/oracle-continues-to-grow-hardware-business-5-years-after-sun-deal.html http://www.eweek.com/servers/slideshows/oracle-continues-to-... - http://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2015/03/31/how-engineered-systems-became-the-iphones-of-the-data-center/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2015/03/31/how-engineered...
- rodgerd 12y ago
  So successful Oracle keep missing their numbers and refuse to tell anyone how their divisions break down, leading analysts to assume it's because the hardware and OS division is a money sink.
  - parasubvert 12y ago
    Oracle is a massive company, mostly software; it's very hard to keep engineering growth in enterprise software given most innovation is driving prices down. Keep in mind Oracle's hardware division is a little over $5b, or 14% of their annual revenue. Not likely the reason for their problems. Most of the press has been pretty positive on how they've leveraged hardware compared to their competition (IBM, HP, Dell). [1] [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/27/oracles_sun_microsystems_acquisition_5_years_later/?page=1 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/27/oracles_sun_microsys...
    - the_why_of_y 12y ago
      The article you quote puts the hardware revenue at 5%, not 14% - but perhaps that is only "Products" excluding "Services"... hardware services revenue should be smaller than products, so 14% still seems wrong. $5b is less than 2/3 as much as Sun's yearly hardware revenue in FY2009, which was substantially lower than in 2008 due to the financial apocalypse (big finance was busy trying not to go bankrupt instead of buying the best hardware money can buy). (Unfortunately Sun's 10-K does not break out hardware revenue specifically, but was split up in "Server Products", "Storage Products", "Support Services", "Professional and Educational Services" so it's not obvious to me how the news reports back in the day got their ~$9 billion number for hardware, but at least they're consistent on that)
davidgerard 12y ago
And I remember the Sun X4500 - specifically intended to be a NetApp killer: a bucketload of disk, with ZFS. Unfortunately it didn't actually work out much cheaper to buy or run.
- gaius 12y ago
  Codename Thumper. I really, really wanted to like it, but it ran like a dog for our workloads, which flew on Netapp.
  - davidgerard 12y ago
    That too. Nice try, but ehh no.

NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.

by staunch 12y ago

NetApp can join Sun and Oracle in the pile of great technology that was massively overpriced and oversold by short-sighted fools.

CyberDildonics 12y ago

These companies always seem to find a niche in companies that need hardware that is 100x faster so they can write software that runs 100x slower.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

nate_meurer 12y ago

What are you talking about? Oracle's main goal with the Sun acquisition was to bolster their Engineered Systems business. The result so far has been quite successful: - http://www.eweek.com/servers/slideshows/oracle-continues-to-grow-hardware-business-5-years-after-sun-deal.html http://www.eweek.com/servers/slideshows/oracle-continues-to-... - http://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2015/03/31/how-engineered-systems-became-the-iphones-of-the-data-center/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2015/03/31/how-engineered...

rodgerd 12y ago
So successful Oracle keep missing their numbers and refuse to tell anyone how their divisions break down, leading analysts to assume it's because the hardware and OS division is a money sink.
- parasubvert 12y ago
  Oracle is a massive company, mostly software; it's very hard to keep engineering growth in enterprise software given most innovation is driving prices down. Keep in mind Oracle's hardware division is a little over $5b, or 14% of their annual revenue. Not likely the reason for their problems. Most of the press has been pretty positive on how they've leveraged hardware compared to their competition (IBM, HP, Dell). [1] [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/27/oracles_sun_microsystems_acquisition_5_years_later/?page=1 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/27/oracles_sun_microsys...
  - the_why_of_y 12y ago
    The article you quote puts the hardware revenue at 5%, not 14% - but perhaps that is only "Products" excluding "Services"... hardware services revenue should be smaller than products, so 14% still seems wrong. $5b is less than 2/3 as much as Sun's yearly hardware revenue in FY2009, which was substantially lower than in 2008 due to the financial apocalypse (big finance was busy trying not to go bankrupt instead of buying the best hardware money can buy). (Unfortunately Sun's 10-K does not break out hardware revenue specifically, but was split up in "Server Products", "Storage Products", "Support Services", "Professional and Educational Services" so it's not obvious to me how the news reports back in the day got their ~$9 billion number for hardware, but at least they're consistent on that)

davidgerard 12y ago

And I remember the Sun X4500 - specifically intended to be a NetApp killer: a bucketload of disk, with ZFS. Unfortunately it didn't actually work out much cheaper to buy or run.

gaius 12y ago
Codename Thumper. I really, really wanted to like it, but it ran like a dog for our workloads, which flew on Netapp.
- davidgerard 12y ago
  That too. Nice try, but ehh no.