Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Technology

Tech Companies That Won't Survive 2009 385

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the in-a-blaze-of-glory dept.
buzzardsbay writes "Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009. It's important to note that these aren't the opinions of the magazine or its editors. The list comes from folks who work in IT, mostly technology resellers, who are out in the field selling, installing and maintaining this stuff. If there were ever canaries in the tech coal mine, they'd be these service and solution providers who live and die by the slightest shift in the markets. Some of the companies on this list, like Sun and AMD, are shocking because of their size. Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising." What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Companies That Won't Survive 2009

Comments Filter:
  • The list (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:31PM (#26420407)
    Here's the list for those who are too lazy to read TFA or allow Flash:

    1) Novell
    2) NetApp
    3) Checkpoint
    4) McAfee (let's hope so!)
    5) Salesforce.com
    6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.
    7) Sun, no surprise there
    8) Citrix
    9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)
    10) VMware
    • Re:The list (Score:5, Funny)

      by eln (21727) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:37PM (#26420495) Homepage

      If you believe the "Channel Insider" predictions, this is more a list of the companies that are highly unlikely to go out of business in 2009.

      Summary of article:
      "Our readers predicted these companies will fail. Our readers are idiots, all of these companies will be fine."

      • Re:The list (Score:5, Insightful)

        by edsousa (1201831) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:53PM (#26420721) Journal
        Not funny your comment.. More like insightful and tells the story on one line.
        My first impression reading that article (can I say it is an article? I think that flash slideshows are not articles) was that my Engrish tricked me, but no...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Amarok.Org (514102)

        Summary of article:
        "Our readers predicted these companies will fail. Our readers are idiots, all of these companies will be fine."

        Exactly... my first thought when reading these was, "Should they really be contradicting their readership and alienating their subscribers?" I mean, I'm all for journalistic integrity, but when's the last time a publication had any?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by lpevey (115393)

          Keep in mind that many (most?) of these are public companies. Channel Insider would probably get a lot of flak if they published an article flatly predicting their failure in the next year. This way, they can point to their own comments and say they did no such thing.

      • Re:The list (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:09PM (#26421003) Homepage

        I don't know... I guess it's somewhat interesting that lots of people believe these companies will fail. If nothing else, it says something about their PR challenges. People aren't as likely to purchase products from companies they feel have an uncertain future.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by earlymon (1116185)

          You make an excellent point. To carry it a step further, all we know is that a publication claims that their readers think this.

          This sort of thing raises interesting ethical questions with respect to stock trading, as well.

          What's inside information? Where is the accountability?

          Perception is often as important as substance - in some cases, more so.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ByOhTek (1181381)

      Any suggestions on a good AV package for windows then?

      Note: I agree, McAfee home is disappointing, but their enterprise AV, if you have access to it, is nice.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Joce640k (829181)

        All of them seem to be leaping over sharks at the moment.

        AVG and Avast! are both still usable if you disable all that heavy-handed link scanning.

      • Re:The list (Score:4, Informative)

        by duguk (589689) <dug.frag@co@uk> on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:30PM (#26421393) Homepage Journal
        ClamAV, but no live scanning. AVG is what I recommend for most customers; it's pretty decent but not amazing.

        For testing individual files; I highly recommend trying Virus Total [virustotal.com]. Upload a single file and they'll test it with a LOAD of different antivirus programs. Worth it for those small files you don't trust.
        • Re:The list (Score:5, Informative)

          by ShadowBlasko (597519) <shadowblasko@gmail.OPENBSDcom minus bsd> on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:49PM (#26421747) Homepage
          How quickly people forget that AVG was the same company that spammed the internet for 2 weeks pretending to be IE, and then deleted user32.dll thinking it was a virus after a bad update from their servers.

          Nod32 for the win. now.

          (And I still have 5 valid licenses for AVG that I PAID for and will not use)
      • Sophos. Their support is outstanding, license terms extremely reasonable, their management tools excellent, and the software itself is of exceptional quality.

        I don't work for Sophos. I transitioned our company from Symantec to Sophos on a Windows network of about 300 desktops/laptops and servers. Initial scans can be about as resource intensive as a Symantec scan was, but 99% of the time I don't even notice it's there. So far I've only had it interfere with proper operation of a program a couple times over

    • Hmm... I'm no math expert, but if three are tied for sixth place, should't sun be in 9th, not 7th?

    • by golodh (893453) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:01PM (#26420865)
      Nonsense.

      Those who read the article will see that the survey hedges in every way possible and that the above list is _not_ a list of companies that people expect to see disappear. It's a list of companies that people discussed, looked up the turnover of and then wrote noncommittal "analysis" next to.

      Please Anonymous, if you're going to try and summarize the article for those too lazy to click on a link, at least make sure you get it right. This is rubbish.

    • Re:The list (Score:4, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:22PM (#26421221) Homepage Journal
      What is interesting is the numbers, which indicate most people can't decide on who is actually in trouble. About 1 out of 4 respondents think Novell is in trouble, which they have been since MS Windows 3.11 for networks made their extremely convoluted product a absolute non player in the SOHO market. How many years ago was that? Almost before we SOHO became everyday market speak. Somehow they survive. Maybe in SCOX is allowed to spend all of Novells money on litigation, they may not be able to recover from that. In other words, 75% of the people thing they will be ok.

      The we get to AMD, Sun, Citrix, Symantec, where about 1 out of every 6 people think these companies will fail. Certainly these companies have problems, but each has products that could keep or gain marketshare. Some mght be in trouble, again, those that align themselves with MS, such as AMD and Symantec, are at the whim of MS, which can be dangerous, but, OTOH, about 85% of the respondents believe that these companies will be ok.

      Then there is VMWare, in which a whopping 89% predict stability. They might be in trouble if a traditional OS continues to be utilized as a base OS, rather than relegated to guest status. On wonder why one would want MS Windows eating up resources with IE and Media Player and all the other stuff that gets loaded in, when one could run a custom version of *nix and VMWare, and then run MS Windows as a guest OS only when needed. I am sure for many with enterprise licenses to MS Windows, running it might virtual windows might make sense, but 90% of the respondants indicate that VMware has the better idea.

    • Re:The list (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ngarrang (1023425) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:44PM (#26421679) Journal

      Here's the list for those who are too lazy to read TFA or allow Flash:

      Cool. Thank for saving the click.

      1) Novell

      Odd. SUSE Linux is a popular product with many tie-in deals. They will be fine.

      2) NetApp

      Overpriced products easily duplicated with FreeNAS or any number of products at a fraction of the cost.

      3) Checkpoint

      Too many corporate support deals to go away quickly.

      4) McAfee (let's hope so!)

      Horrible products for years. Illicit money has been propping this company up for years.

      5) Salesforce.com

      Won't go away, but may have to scale back the development staff. Their product is too close to helping SaaS succeed.

      6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.

      AMD is stable. Juniper I could see going away.

      7) Sun, no surprise there

      Sun is a good company. Why do people harp on them?

      8) Citrix

      Their product is licenses by MS and integrated into Windows Server. I just don't see them going away.

      9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)

      This is wishful thinking. Despite many years of bad product, their tie-ins with OEMs keep them afloat.

      10) VMware

      Now this is just crazy talk. VMware is a good product with a strong user base and good support. The free solutions simply don't compare in scope and flexibility.

    • Re:The list (Score:4, Funny)

      by debrain (29228) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:48PM (#26421729) Journal

      I note that SCO is not on that list ... it's like a cockroach, it'll survive nuclear holocaust.

  • Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009.

    Wrong. Everyone falters at some point. You could probably make a claim that 60% of companies will "falter" this year and be able to point to some debacle, low quarter or misstep to claim you were accurate. Hell, in one of the many fields it's in, Microsoft will falter in 2009--I guarantee it. From the actual article:

    In the Channel Insider 2009 Market Pulse Survey, we asked solution providers which vendors they thought would go out of business or be acquired in 2009.

    So you're underscoring just how stupid the people that filled out this survey are. Because to say that Sun, AMD or even Novell will be acquired or out of business by December 31st, 2009 is like betting on your favorite American Football team to win the Super Bowl in 2025.

    The Channel Insider Prediction at the bottom of these reveals just how unlikely every single one of these predictions comes across as. They predominately disagree with every single reader prediction.

    It means that not only are we, the readers, being presented with completely contradictory statements on every page but every single statement is unfounded and backed up by nothing. No market saturation analysis or even talk of operations and profits. Market cap and revenue are good indicators but they don't mean everything.

    Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising.

    "Not so surprising?" Tell me, what has changed so dramatically for 2009 that makes you say that these companies will be acquired or go under?

    So tell me, what is a list of reader predictions dealing with the finances and markets of tech companies doing on a 'news for nerds' site?

    What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

    Ah, the coup de grÃce for this article ... I'm certain that the Slashdot community will proffer only on the most unbiased and strongly founded suggestions for this objective question.

  • by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:32PM (#26420423) Homepage Journal

    This is the same sort of stuff we hear on Slashdot every day. The actual evaluation at the end of nearly every entry says, "Not very likely".

    Though I do think that Sun needs to expand their product strategy or face extinction. Their current high-end market may be lucrative, but it's continually being eaten away at by cheaper and cheaper equipment.

    Personally, I think Sun would do well to enter the desktop market. Their Mad Hatter system was a good first try, but they abandoned it before it had a chance to mature! (Speaking as one of Sun's customers who paid money for the software just to be left out in the cold.)

    • by javacowboy (222023) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:21PM (#26421201)

      Desktop market? You must be joking.

      Hey, I'm as much of a Sun fan as they come, but Sun doesn't have any expertise in writing user-friendly GUIs. There's no way they could compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple that have been doing this for decades.

      The best that Sun could do is make OpenSolaris as much of a developer workstation OS as they can, in competition with Linux. Still, as much as OpenSolaris has improved, they still have a long way to go to catch up to Linux distros like Ubuntu. Perhaps they could make is a Java developer OS, with a wide array of Java packages in their IPS packaging system.

  • by liquidpele (663430) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:33PM (#26420433) Journal
    Look like every large tech company except MS and Google are going down.
  • by ivoras (455934) <ivoras @ f e r .hr> on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:34PM (#26420437) Homepage
    How would you feel if you were the owner or a shareholder of one of companies so prominently set to fail? Self-fulfilling prophecies all around. Given how sensitive to subjective perception these things are, it's by now probably enough for a company's name to be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "bankrupt" for it to really do so.
    • by Anonymous Cowpat (788193) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:01PM (#26420857) Journal

      Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:

      1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
      2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
      3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
      4. Company X collapses
      5. Hack says 'I told you so'

      STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!

      • by Ohio Calvinist (895750) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:28PM (#26421361)
        If companies are losing credit due to newspaper articles instead of semi-reliable sources such as credit history or earnings reports (for public companies) then there is a bigger problem than telling writers to "Shoosh." If the company is profitable and current on its debts, only a foolish lender would turn down their business. Now, if a company is already millions in the hole, and SHOULDN'T be credit worthy, if a newspaper expose about their board of directors droping millions on yachts, hookers and blow; I'd say the media is doing what it is really "supposed" to do... that is give the public truthful information to make us all make better decisions. In either case, the fault lies on the part of the lenders for having previously extending credit to the unworthy, or for being foolish lenders in trusting an Op-Ed piece over emperical data.

        However, I could see PHBs reluctant to purchase their products if they believe they will be sold out and potentially have a sharp decrease in product lines, quality or most-importantly, support quality on their existing purchases. However, there is nothing to say that any company at the drop of the hat won't see off a division or exit a market, and I'd do a little more research before changing a vendor... particularly a one we've had good experience.
  • No problem (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:36PM (#26420481)
    We'll just release 2010 ahead of schedule.
  • by OglinTatas (710589) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:37PM (#26420485)

    So THIS is where I find out I'm being downsized?

  • Virtualization (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:38PM (#26420501) Journal
    Both EMC/VMWare and Sun Microsystems (VirtualBox) are on the list. Does anybody honestly think that Microsoft will rule the virtual machine market? I think it's one or the other.
    • Re:Virtualization (Score:4, Interesting)

      by anomalous cohort (704239) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:49PM (#26420649) Homepage Journal

      I'd like to see /.'s predictions on that, especially with regards to VMWare. In my own ad hoc findings, it is true that Microsoft shops are leaning towards HyperV but isn't that to be expected? I find non Microsoft shops to be leaning towards VMWare. What are you finding?

      • I heard here were going from MS visualization to VMWare.
        I don't know if we even considered MS HyperV.

      • From a database perspective, both Microsoft and Oracle have their own virutalization products and their support for their databases on VMWare is sketchy at best.

        Perhaps that will cut into VMware's market a bit.

      • Re:Virtualization (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MBGMorden (803437) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:42PM (#26421609)

        We're mixed. All the desktops are on Microsoft. The servers are on a mix of Linux, BSD, and Microsoft. However, one of the admins has decided that Unix "isn't worth the hassle" (read: it doesn't work with all the proprietary junk he wants to throw into the system) so our installed base of Unix servers has been slowly dwindling.

        Anyways, we're on VMWare virtualization products exclusively. Hopefully we can keep it that way. That same admin has been trying to talk up "How much better the Microsoft virtualization products have gotten" lately.

    • Re:Virtualization (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Amouth (879122) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:50PM (#26420673)

      Vmware isn't going any place.. to have them on the list just shows how much of a joke this is

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Ignacio (1465)

      Unless Citrix or Red Hat ends up ruling it.

    • Basically the story states Visualization and Security will suffer during this period.

  • by ericrost (1049312) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:41PM (#26420539) Homepage Journal

    Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by danieltdp (1287734)

      Besides the fact that I agree with you, I will explain the reason: flash make things pretty and the masses don't want just information, they want it conveyed in the nicest way possible. For the majority of the users, flash is not a problem.

      After that, allow me to say that I hate flash. Even more because it doesn't work properly on my job workstation. Too bad we are minority on the internet wild and people simply don't care.

    • by Thelasko (1196535) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:00PM (#26420839) Journal

      Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

      Now there is a company I would like to see go out of business. Unfortunately, Adobe [google.com] appears to be doing just fine.

    • Simple reason: Suppose you work for one of those companies and you just went and bought an iPhone? Would you like to read that your company is "at risk" after spending that money.

      eWeek is actually doing all those iPhone users a favor. We should thank them.

    • by rusl (1255318)

      Because it is a flashy article without substance.

  • The list (Score:2, Informative)

    by 427_ci_505 (1009677)

    10. VMWare
    9. Symantec
    8. Citrix
    7. Sun
    6. AMD
    6. CA
    5. Salesforce.com
    4. McAfee
    3. Checkpoint
    2. NetApp
    1. Novell

    Why is this in Flash? Why did that page need javascript?

    • Re:The list (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Telvin_3d (855514) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:47PM (#26420633)

      The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.

      • The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.

        It sounds like you didn't read the article, but in this case, that's a compliment, not a criticism. The article was an unbelievable waste of time, and although it was in a "top 10 list, countdown to 1" style, there was no payoff at the end.

        Anyway, for each of those 10 companies, their conclusion was basically, "not likely to go away".

        I want my 5 minutes back.

      • Except for NetApp (Score:4, Informative)

        by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:14PM (#26421067) Homepage Journal

        The NetApp vs Sun lawsuit over ZFS isn't going the way NetApp would like it to ...

        http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs/index.jsp [sun.com]

        To the contrary, NetApp may end up like SCO vs Novell, where the initial complainant ends up owing the respondent. Sun could very well end up both pwning AND owning NetApp.

        As for the antivirus companies - I wish, but there will always be *some* "useful fools" around, and people whose financial self-interest aligns with enabling them to stay dumb and foolish.

    • by GPLDAN (732269)
      And on that list, only Sun is sinking. (You know that will be the byline in every traderag when it happens.)

      The rest of the selections are idiotic.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The Sun sets; it doesn't sink. You insensitive clod!

    • Re:The list (Score:5, Funny)

      by lekker biltong (1117517) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:51PM (#26420695) Homepage

      0. SCO

  • So much for RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Paul Carver (4555) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:45PM (#26420603)

    I usually RTFA but in this case there doesn't appear to be an article. There's a bit of an intro but no list of companies that I can see.

  • "Anti" Virus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drakkenmensch (1255800) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:45PM (#26420607)
    The scumbags who make the popups that tell you that your computer's been infected and needs to buy their product or OMG you'll lose all your family photos and pr0n! Such low-life tactics should be amptly rewarded with a swift chapter eleven - or should be, at least in my opinion.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:49PM (#26420655) Journal
    Sites that code cluelessly and need javascript and flash to display a simple list will die first (hopefully, I am not so sure). Topping the list is http://www.channelinsider.com/ [channelinsider.com]
  • Not Very Accurate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zwekiel (1445761) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:49PM (#26420659)
    How can you expect a list based on reader predictions to be accurate? Moreover, how can you expect the list to be taken seriously when the "Insiders" contradict the majority of the reader predictions?

    While people can be quite intelligent, allowing the mob to make investment picks based on rumours they read on Blogspot is simply ridiculous. If many analysts couldn't see the collapse of Bear Sterns coming before the last week, I doubt that these readers have the technical skills to predict the collapse of these companies a year in advance.
  • by david_thornley (598059) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:52PM (#26420697)

    SCO!

  • if AMD went under (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wjh31 (1372867) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:53PM (#26420729) Homepage
    would they take ati with them, or would ati be sold off. And if AMD went under what would that mean for intel in terms of monopoly rules, and to nvidia if ati went with them
  • I wish (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:54PM (#26420753) Journal

    Watching CA and Symantec die would be kind of satisfying, if only from a "revenge for all the problems your shitty fucking products have given me over the years" perspective.

    Doubt it, though.

    • by VEGETA_GT (255721)

      I want CA to go away, dam there freaking Directory server system. Maybe my companey will get the Sun Directory server if CA folds, atleast there support for it is GOOD.

  • Only one choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorbaTHut (126196) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:56PM (#26420773) Homepage

    Creative Labs.

    Have they released a good product in this millenium?

  • Lamest list ever (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jd.schmidt (919212)

    Why make a list of companies that will "go out of business", then hedge by saying they might be bought up, then finish with, well we don't think much of this is likely.

    Reminds me of a skit I saw once.

    Interviewer: You have an facinating new book called, "Was Hitler Welsh?" Well was he?
    Author: After exhaustive study, I can confidently say, no he wasn't.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:00PM (#26420831)

    OK, here goes:

    10)HP
    9)eBay
    8)Nintendo
    7)Adobe
    6)Red Hat
    5)Amazom.com
    4)IBM
    3)Microsoft
    2)Apple
    1)Google :D

  • Apple? They've been going out of business for YEARS!!!

    And why isn't SCO on that list? Isn't it about time they die already?

  • If you actually go through the list, the comments on all of the companies listed state they're not going out of business in 2009.

    What was the point of this again?

  • Slide decks should not go on the web. That is just sick and way too time consuming.

    NetApp going down, would surprise me.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I recently spoke to a director of sales.

    His sales pipeline is double the one he had last year, because customers have decided to stop fooling around with start ups that will probably be out of business next year, and go with known brand names.

    I'm not giving any more details because I'm not very familiar with insider trading laws, and don't want to get in trouble. But anyone who thinks that larger companies that sell into the IT marketspace are in trouble, clearly have no clue about what's really going on

  • by asv108 (141455)
    I'm sorry, but how did this make to the front page? The selections on the list are wrong or obvious, but the list itself is a freaking flash slideshow with only 1 item per slide! The editors need to do their jobs.
  • Why flash? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:20PM (#26421177)

    C'mon, folks. You've been watching the news in the last, say, two decades and you're asking "why flash"?

    Didn't you notice, the less content one has to present, the more you have to put into the presentation to cover it up.

  • by Animats (122034) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:24PM (#26421267) Homepage

    Big companies with real products and a user base can hang on for a long time. Unisys is still around. NCR (National Cash Register), amazingly, is still around, and still selling cash registers [ncr.com] (now "Point of Sale Workstations"). Most of the names on the list, like CA, Sun, VMware, and Novell, still have an installed base to service. They can shrink and remain profitable.

    I'd look for collapses in advertising-funded companies. We'll probably see some of the social networks go bust. Companies that get most of their revenue from Google ads are at risk. Marchex (the people with "www.90210.com" and hundreds of thousands of similar junk domains) have had their stock drop from 25 to 5. Expect to see free hosting sites, free mail services, and free blog services shut down.

    I did a list like this [downside.com] back in the dot-com area, based strictly on cash-flow analysis. That was quite accurate. It's easy to do this analysis for money-losing startups. The definition of "dead" used was "stock dropped 90%". From a stockholder perspective, that's "dead", even if some vestige of the company hangs on. That's was quite common with overfunded startups, by the way. Some of them succeeded, some of them went bust, but many of them become what VCs call "zombies"; they could generate enough revenue to cover their costs, but they couldn't pay back the money invested in them.

  • Come back in 2010 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FishandChips (695645) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:25PM (#26421289) Journal
    Several of the names on that list crop up every time the doomsters gather for another round. In any case, there's nothing wrong with being "sold off". Sometimes that's the making of a company which now has access to capital and markets it would never have had on its own. The only thing one can say for certain is that no one know what's going to happen, and one can say with some degree of likelihood that if some big names do falter in the next two or three years then among them will be some names that have never been on a a Doomsday list because everyone thought were fine. There'll be a lot of execs out there sitting on some awkward secrets (read: big holes appearing in the balance sheet and the banks unwilling to refinance) or some awkward legal claims (read: massive damages for corporate IT scams the victims have so far kept secret for fear of affecting their sales and stock price).
  • by Muad'Dave (255648) on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:57PM (#26421931) Homepage
    What
    What is
    What is with
    What is with the
    What is with the infinite
    What is with the infinite refresh?
    ???
  • by Gerzel (240421) * <brollyferret&gmail,com> on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:59PM (#26421961) Journal

    Maybe not today, maybe not tommorow, but some times and soon...

    Someone will notice that Intel has beccome a full-scale monopoly that does indeed prevent other competitors from entering the market and competing.

    With AMD, Intel has a nice biopoly which it can easily and truthfully claim competition(not fair market competition mind you). AMD is all too happy to allow this and even lend a helping hand sometimes.

    If AMD goes then someone will pick up the pieces, and if they don't eventually you'll get back to monopoly litigation. Might not happen within the year, but it will eventually happen. That sort of litigation can force Intel to split and worse.

  • and the headline is completely wrong - the article lists ONE company that MIGHT go out of business or be acquired and also speculates that Novell MIGHT be acquired (by whom? Who knows?)

    Total garbage. Don't waste your time.

  • Symantec (Score:3, Informative)

    by JSmooth (325583) on Monday January 12, 2009 @10:24PM (#26426719)

    bias: I use to work for Symantec 3 years ago.

    I always love this one. I was at Symantec for almost 7 years. I never even saw Norton products. Yes they use to be crap (have gotten aLOT better recently but I still don't run them) but Symantec has a huge stake in the Enterprise networks. I guess most people who bother to respond think their network of 500 users is big. This past year as a consultant working with Symantec products the average network I was in was 70,000+ seats.

    John Thompson was smart. 9 years ago he realized the consumer AV space was going to get crowded. The merger with Veritas took longer than was hoped for but now things are going gang busters and most of the Symantec partners have more work than they now what to do with. Sym has dozens of key pieces of software all over the security spectrum. You may not like Norton but don't count them out.

If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst

Working...