On Apr 20, 2:08 pm, Jan Goyvaerts <[email protected]> wrote: > What's the reason to sell anyway ? Is Sun's financial state that bad the had > to find an acquirer or close the books ?
The reason is explained nicely by The Register (http:// www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/22/sun_legacy/): "The thing is that the top Sun people are simply not business people. They exhibited behaviour which showed they didn't have the amount of grip required to take hold of Sun's wildly disorganised set of products, some of which were impossible to value, and reduce them down to ones that it paid a dollar to produce and sold for $2, with realistic prospects of continuing to do so. That's all they had to do, and they blew it big time. [...] McNealy and Schwartz took a recoverable business after the dot com boom and ran it so badly they've had to sell it off after years of seeing it essentially go nowhere in share value terms, while other dot com fall out sufferers prospered." For me, putting Schwartz (a software guy from the inside) in charge when Sun was in trouble. His recipe for fixing Sun which had only lost money since the dot com bust: Give away all software for free and figure out how to monetize it later. Hm... When IBM was near-bankrupt in the early 90s, they put a business leader from the outside (and IBM user) in charge, and he turned IBM around successfully. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
