Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

Tech Companies That Won't Survive 2009 385

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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?

  • 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:The list (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ByOhTek ( 1181381 ) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:51PM (#26420685) Journal

    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:Virtualization (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ignacio ( 1465 ) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:52PM (#26420717)

    Unless Citrix or Red Hat ends up ruling it.

  • 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
  • Lamest list ever (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jd.schmidt ( 919212 ) on Monday January 12, 2009 @02:59PM (#26420819)

    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 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.

  • by ThinkingInBinary ( 899485 ) <<thinkinginbinary> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:03PM (#26420881) Homepage

    If you want to include a Mac in the mix, you have to do the latter, as the former doesn't support Mac OS X as a host or guest.

    Why would anyone want to include Mac OS X as a guest? Apple goes out of their way to make it not run on things that aren't Macs. Why would someone then adopt it as a virtualized guest?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:06PM (#26420945)

    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.

  • 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.

  • Where's SCO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:17PM (#26421133)

    Or are they counting it as already gone (since it seems to be a zombie now...)?

  • 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.

  • 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).
  • 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:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2009 @03:58PM (#26421945)

    Exactly. My constant irritation comes from the fact that the readers (and suppliers of said survey) of those magazines come from a vast majority of SA's who "claim" they are executives and have no say or understanding whatsoever in the market. Anyone who bases anything on the value of FREE magazines is not thinking clearly. Think I'm mistaken? Why not put a review of the stupid things people thought of in 2009 when 2010 turns the corner. In fact, where are 2008, 2007 etc... predictions that were grossly inaccurate. The only thing these articles do is hurt vendors who work hard at making a good name for their employees. Stop listening to marketing all the time and just work.

  • Re:The list (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2009 @07:49PM (#26424925)

    VMWare?? Ok, disclaimer time - I am currently doing research in virtualization. But seriously, who thinks that virtualization will die out? VMWare is a leading player in the virtualization game and will continue to be so.

    There's even talk of running entire data centers using virtual machines and watching temperatures for hot spots. When a certain group of computers in close proximity start rising in temperature, the networked monitoring system can shuffle them around to provide a stable power and heat distribution.

    This kind of stuff is just the tip of the virtualization iceberg. Desktop virtualization is probably just an expensive toy, but server virtualization may get much bigger very quickly.

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...