Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Wed 27th Aug 2008 17:09 UTC, submitted by stonyandcher
Thread beginning with comment 328198
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think the economy does have something to do with it. In my own recent purchases, I have gone with Dell and Red Hat over Sun and Solaris (which I actually prefer) for no other reason than cost.
If the economy wasn't tight, I don't think cost would have been the deciding factor and I would have gone with Sun servers.





Member since:
2005-07-08
The economy is tough for everyone right now, when it turns around Sun will bounce back, these slupms just happen. economics 101.
Mmmh, no, the economy is not tough for "everyone". In fact, companies competing with Sun in the server space seem to be improving their market share and their benefits faster than Sun. In Q2 2008, Sun revenue was 6.8% lower than the same quarter the past year. All the other server guys grown except them and Fujitsu. IBM revenue grown 11.5%, Dell 15%. Shipments grown 24% for Dell, HP 8.7%, IBM 4.7%, Sun 1.1%.
So yeah, the explanation must be the economy. But only for Sun.
It hasn't been very different in the latest years (with some exceptions). Sun is just selling less than their competitors. I recommend taking a look at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/gartner_server_q2_2008/ . Unless they fix this trend, I don't see why Sun couldn't be bought, just like any other company, if they accept the deal.
Edited 2008-08-27 18:47 UTC