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?
The list (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, Insightful)
Well what I was trying to say is that even if the subscribers are morons, that doesn't make the poll completely meaningless. This poll might not give you the slightest hint about the health of the companies it's talking about, but the public perception of these companies might be considered meaningful information.
After all, you could take a poll of morons asking, "who's would make the best president of the US?" and it might not give you any indication of who would make the best president. Depending on th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. You're assuming that popular opinion has a lot to do with who gets elected, or what companies survive. That's rarely true.
For instance, who gets elected president isn't up to popular opinion, but the mass media. Yes, the people in general get to pick between the final two, but the ones who actually run are chosen by the media, creating a false dichotomy: "your guy sucks!" "no, your guy sucks more!".
With tech companies, it's a little different, but the fact is still that companies can be deepl
Re:The list (Score:4, Insightful)
For instance, who gets elected president isn't up to popular opinion, but the mass media.
Talk about false dichotomies-- who gets elected is a result of popular opinion, even if popular opinion is caused by the media's coverage.
Anyway, that was just supposed to be an example of something: when someone answers a question, their answer may be wrong, but it might still have some meaning. It just might not have the meaning that the answerer intended it to have.
Now clearly the people answering these questions aren't giving correct answers, and obviously their opinions don't have a direct causal relationship with the failure of those companies. On the other hand, their answers still might have meaning. For example, you could just treat it as a measurement of public opinion of these companies. If lots of people think you're going to fail, it could perhaps be a sign that people aren't happy with your products, or else maybe that people just haven't heard your name lately. The companies' marketing departments might care about that sort of thing. A bystander might find that interesting.
Beyond that, general opinion of these companies can have an effect on these companies' future success. People are less likely to buy enterprise products of a company when that company's future is in doubt, since people generally want long-term support. Bad perception can cause funding to dry up, stock prices to drop, and business deals to fall through.
Now I wouldn't come close to claiming that being on this list will cause a company to fail. But just because the list doesn't have that particular meaning doesn't mean that it's meaningless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What you're missing is that, especially for enterprise software products, popular opinion isn't important, because the users are not the ones making the purchasing decisions. The people making purchasing decisions for that crap are CTOs and other management types, who choose overpriced "solutions" after being wined & dined (and possibly bribed or laid) by the vendor salespeople. Then the low-level employees get to suffer with using the software, but their opinions aren't important.
It's much like polit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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, Funny)
From personal experience, Avast! is rubbish. It failed to find 8 viruses on my system.
If you have that many viruses on your system, I think that scrapping the whole thing and buying a new hard drive is the only solution for you. ...it's the only way to be sure.
Re:The list (Score:4, Funny)
Don't blame an innocent computer for the failure of it's operator.
Scrap the operator, and give the computer to someone who can properly care for it.
Re:The list (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Nod32 for the win. now.
(And I still have 5 valid licenses for AVG that I PAID for and will not use)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like you need a decent snapshot system to save re-installing, mind you by the time you come to use it, all the old software needs updating anyway. I'd stick to *nix boxes.
Still, that site *is* good for testing little files you're slightly suspicious of, rather than being unsure. Hell, I use it sometimes just cos I'm wondering what e
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It's free, but you get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't agree: it found stuff that Norton and Panda couldn't. On the other hand, it lacks online cheking, so it's great to use as a backup AV only, for full system scans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I scan things with ClamAV when I download them and that's about it. Works for me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I had AVG on my mom's computer, was rather disappointed compared to McAffee enterprise.
Re:The list (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm beginning to believe there's no such thing as a good antivirus...
The reasons Norton and McAffee don't qualify should be obvious...
AVG was nice until version 8. Then it decided it wanted to start acting like Norton (Slows system, misses a lot)
Antivir might be tolerable (still misses some, but that nag screen is a dealbreaker)
Clamav is close, but others already mentioned the lack of on-access (I'd be prefer on-write) scanning.
How depressing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you tried NOD32 from eset? Been using that for a year or two now, doesn't take up a lot of space and is fairly unobtrusive. (Their heuristics aren't the best, and I usually shut that part down).
Re:The list (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I'm no math expert, but if three are tied for sixth place, should't sun be in 9th, not 7th?
Demise *not* predicted ... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
4) McAfee (let's hope so!)
Horrible products for years. Illicit money has been propping this company up for years.
This one is highly unlikely. The federal government recently spent a ton of money on McAfee's host-based security solutions. If they were smart, however, they might consider ditching their consumer-level stuff (it's crap...not saying the enterprise stuff is a lot better, but well....)
Like I said...illicit money. ;)
Re:The list (Score:4, Funny)
I note that SCO is not on that list ... it's like a cockroach, it'll survive nuclear holocaust.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad day or not, what's the real benefit of running OS X as a guest? Sure, it's good for some people on the desktop, and if that's your use, you probably have a Mac already.
Virtualization is mostly used for servers. What "server" tasks can OS X do that Linux/Solaris/Windows can't do better?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It can "look and feel" better....
Re:KVM (disambiguation)? (Score:4, Insightful)
Running OS X as a guest would be perfect for a linux- or windows-based web developer who wants to test out how their client-side code runs on a mac.
Or for a mac software developer who wants to maintain multiple versions and configurations of OS X to test their software against.
Or for windows users who want to try out OS X on their existing expensive hardware, without having to lay waste to their existing installation, or fork out a sizeable chunk of money for more hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No it can't.
Re:KVM (disambiguation)? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes it can!
Re:KVM (disambiguation)? (Score:5, Insightful)
An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
See the error in that analogy now?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pats.
"Pats?" I haven't heard of them ... are they like a team of sexually indeterminable players? [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not Very Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Not Very Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Well now they're doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well now they're doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:
STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!
Re:Well now they're doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well now they're doomed! (Score:5, Insightful)
AMD not of value? Are you insane? Why do you think Intel invests so much in making their chips better/faster? Hint, it's because they have competition...
No problem (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
So THIS is where I find out I'm being downsized?
Virtualization (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Virtualization (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
I heard here were going from MS visualization to VMWare.
I don't know if we even considered MS HyperV.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
Unless Citrix or Red Hat ends up ruling it.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically the story states Visualization and Security will suffer during this period.
Can I be the first to ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Can I be the first to ask (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with Flash. There is everything wrong with using Flash in stupid ways. Youtube is not a stupid way to use Flash, this slideshow is.
Instead of blaming the gun, blame the person who used it. It's better that way.
Re:Can I be the first to ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Youtube's sucess speaks otherwise. The simple fact is that the vast majority of systems have some working version of Flash on them. Youtube leverages this fact to the extent that rather than worrying about system architecture, browser, installed codecs, etc, it simply plays a video in flash. It doesn't look great, but it works almost everywhere and for the quick/stupid content present on Youtube the quality is mostly sufficient.
Re:Can I be the first to ask (Score:4, Insightful)
flash make things pretty and managers don't want just information, they want it conveyed in the nicest way possible.
Re:Can I be the first to ask (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is a flashy article without substance.
The list (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the selections are idiotic.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Sun sets; it doesn't sink. You insensitive clod!
Re:The list (Score:5, Funny)
0. SCO
So much for RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Sites that are going to die in 2009 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sites that are going to die in 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)
I predict a growth in marketshare for this site.... They're starting to master the "sensationalistic troll" article, so they should be gaining impressions despite the poor layout and navigation.
I bet you hadn't even heard of them until now.
Not Very Accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
And if we're really lucky.... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO!
if AMD went under (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:if AMD went under (Score:4, Insightful)
In the early 90's it was Apple. Sun is a perennial favorite now. I never read one of these things saying Hayes or Zeos would get bought or go under. Where's my Hayes DSL adapter?
Zeos merged with Micron and now they are Crucial and MPC. Now guess who's in chapter 11 [mpccorp.com]? MPC/Micron is.
What poll foresaw Digital going to Compaq or Compaq going to HP? Magitronic sure seems to have failed. eMachines was bought. Alienware is owned by Dell.
These polls are silly. Some of these companies have more cash reserves than small countries have budgets. There's always a risk of a company large or small failing, but this poll means nothing.
I wish (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Creative Labs.
Have they released a good product in this millenium?
Lamest list ever (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
*My* Predictions (Score:5, Funny)
OK, here goes:
10)HP :D
9)eBay
8)Nintendo
7)Adobe
6)Red Hat
5)Amazom.com
4)IBM
3)Microsoft
2)Apple
1)Google
where is ... (Score:2)
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?
The list is the opposite (Score:2)
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?
Its too hard to RTFA. (Score:2)
Slide decks should not go on the web. That is just sick and way too time consuming.
NetApp going down, would surprise me.
I happen to work for a listed company... (Score:2, Interesting)
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
A Flash slideshow? (Score:2, Redundant)
Why flash? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Most of those companies aren't in big trouble (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Infinite refresh? (Score:4, Funny)
What is
What is with
What is with the
What is with the infinite
What is with the infinite refresh?
???
If AMD goes Intel will have a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This was one seriously stupid article (Score:3)
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)
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.