On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:50:36 -0400
Timothy Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Investing in Linux (mostly), plus a few other open source technologies
> is highly profitable to IBM, because it helps them sell hardware. But
> would they consider it to be profitable to invest in another graphics
> chip? They already have some of their own.
Beside, IBM is moving away from selling hardware to selling
services. Which is a totally different business.
> Also, how would the community feel about the degree of corporate
> control that IBM would inevitably try to wield over it? If I were
> them, I would want to make sure my investment didn't get away from me.
> But what they want and what everyone else wants may not be the same.
> Yes, it could be a great opportunity to them, but would they see it
> that way?
That needs to be negotiated and put into a contract.
Like all founding.
> At full production, Traversal could make millions/year from
> OGP-related products. Is IBM going to care about a few million/year,
> when they usually try to invest in things that make billions?
Don't overestimate IBM. Although they can move large amounts
of money, most investments they do are quite small.
Beside, IBM isn't in a good shape at the moment. It wouldn't
surprise me if they had to sell another well running business.
> IBM, like any good business, believes in what's good for business.
> Trust me. They're not into open source on principle. I don't say
> that to put them down. It's just good business. We give them kudos
> for picking Linux, but as a company, they didn't choose it for the
> same reasons we did. What's likely is that IBM had employees who used
> Linux at home, and those employees made a good business case for using
> Linux, and IBM LISTENED to them, which is the impressive part.
> Businesses are often slow to adapt, huge ones especially. IBM wasn't.
Too true. IBM is not into linux. It's only one part or their business.
A very small part. But it gives good PR, especialy to those who
are involved into OSS. But they make their involvement look larger
than it actually is. So, i wouldn't be surprised if they turn us down.
Actualy i would be surprised if they wouldn't.
What's IMHO most important in such a funding, is that we clearly
state what we get, under what conditions we get it and how
we may use it. But also what they profit from it, what control they
get etc.
And Martin, do not try to argue that we do not need much money.
The amount does not matter. What does matter is what they get
from it. So you have to clearly state their advantage in
the deal. Anything else is not important to them.
Attila Kinali
--
心をこめて聞け心をこめて話せ
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
