31–40 of 108 posts
Hope the Delliverse works out for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm just fascinated by the fact that in 2016 there are still huge companies like this making their money on ancient tech that is insanely overpriced to the alternatives. It is basically about switching costs. Even if you have the money you don't want to disrupt your operations because IT is doing a monster migration to different technologies.
I guess what I'm saying is: the companies that are in this situation should hire top-notch developers to solve the problem. But the whole problem is that these companies can't hire top-notch developers because of who they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess what I'm saying is: the companies that are in this situation should hire top-notch developers to solve the problem. But the whole problem is that these companies can't hire top-notch developers because of who they are.
Cough . I work there. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> services 98% of all fortune 500 companies. So it's a short list of ten for the other 2%. IBM, HP, ... ?? (Clarification: the ten who don't buy from Dell+EMC. Just curious about that. Direct competitors is my first guess ...)
AAPL.
The new company services 98% of all fortune 500 companies. That's a pretty incredible reach. And 140,000 employee's. If I were a betting main, I'd expect that number to drop in the very near term. Selfishly I'm very interested in following a private Dell,as tech tends to lead to huge companies in monopoly/winner take all verticals. Dell being private is a decent case study to see how well a private company does again…
I'm just fascinated by the fact that in 2016 there are still huge companies like this making their money on ancient tech that is insanely overpriced to the alternatives. (~20 years ago when I started working in software I thought I would eventually get how these enterprise software giants actually were worth it. The more I learn and age...) In the end I guess what companies like Dell and EMC do is to provide access t…
You're not wrong.
The problem with your point of view (which I share - it is also my point of view) is that you're operating on the wrong layer of abstraction.
These customers don't need a server (or a network or a SAN) - they need business objectives to be met - again, at a very highly abstracted layer.
You're thinking about technology and capabilities and features and configuration options ... and maybe you're even thinking about price ... but that's not the layer they are operating at. They need an airplane to be built. They need a mine to be dug. They don't care about LUNs or stripe sizes or jumbo frames. They do care about contracts and legal commitments and "synergy". And that's why they rely on heuristics like business lunches and enterpris-ey sales guys and CIA guys giving keynotes at RSA.
I don't like working at that layer of abstraction so I built a business that operates on the layer I like to work at.[1] But as much as I dislike the higher layers of abstraction, it would be childish of me to think they were "wrong".
[1] You know who we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm just fascinated by the fact that in 2016 there are still huge companies like this making their money on ancient tech that is insanely overpriced to the alternatives. It is basically about switching costs. Even if you have the money you don't want to disrupt your operations because IT is doing a monster migration to different technologies.
I guess what I'm saying is: the companies that are in this situation should hire top-notch developers to solve the problem. But the whole problem is that these companies can't hire top-notch developers because of who they are.
This is a simplistic view. You can even imagine that all the issues can be solved with free open source development but the organization works in a specific way and changing the way they work, in that scale, involves a lot of risks.
Funny, I just got back from an interview with EMC. Would now be a good time to take a position?
The new company services 98% of all fortune 500 companies. That's a pretty incredible reach. And 140,000 employee's. If I were a betting main, I'd expect that number to drop in the very near term. Selfishly I'm very interested in following a private Dell,as tech tends to lead to huge companies in monopoly/winner take all verticals. Dell being private is a decent case study to see how well a private company does again…
> The tracking stock, DVMT, that EMC owners were given has traded pretty well since it was released, it's slightly up, so atleast people who want out of the new entity have an easy avenue. It's trading at a 35% discount from VMW, which is pretty steep.
Sure is, but keep a few things in mind..
1) This is the first time tracking stock has been issued on a public company so there are alot of people out there who aren't really sure what to make of this class instrument yet.
2) You'd expect a steep discount due to liquidity and lack of typical share holder rights. For example, if VMWare did pay a dividend, then the tracking stock would not necessarily have to pay that out to unit holders.
3) EMC paid a dividend. There are alot of funds that bought EMC to get the dividend. They've been forced to sell the tracking stock as VMWare doesn't pay a dividend and the tracking stock won't pay one.