Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!encore!pinocchio!cook From: cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) Newsgroups: comp.sys.encore Subject: is there interest ... NP/1 Summary: Where is this bs coming from? Message-ID: <10512@encore.Encore.COM> Date: 1 Dec 89 14:35:04 GMT Sender: news@Encore.COM Reply-To: cook@encore.com Followup-To: comp.sys.encore Distribution: na Organization: Santa's Helpers, Woodville Division, AFLCIO Lines: 97 [mchinni@PICA.ARMY.MIL ("Michael J. Chinni, SMCAR-CCS-E") recently posted that: | |What makes you think that Gould was in trouble It was common knowledge both within Gould and "on the streets" that it was "on the blocks" (for sale) for a period of about a year before we bought it. Many potential suitors looked it over. Also, most of the people I have talked with who lived through the Gould -> Nippon Mining days volunteered the view that "we were in trouble". Where do you get information to the contrary? | and was "brought down", and that the NP line was loosing a lot of money. That was the explanation given by Ken Fisher when the merger was explained internally. I have no reason to not believe that was the case. I'd assume that Mr Fisher studied the bucks pretty closely before doing the deal and can't think of any reason why he would misrepresent them to us internally. Again, where's your data from? | The story I heard (and read in a UNIX |trade publication) was the Gould, Inc. was bought by a Japanese Mining Corp.. That's accurate. It's also true that Nippon Mining was having trouble selling to DoD who don't like doing (much) business with foreign controlled companys. Their management currently holds a minority position on our board of directors. |Since Gould Inc., Computer Systems Division (CSD) had several contracts in |place at the time with the DoD, the sale required DoD approval. DoD said, the |sale would be approved -IF- CSD was sold off to a U.S.-owned company. Encore |then bought CSD. | The deal certainly required federal approval (I think all big mergers do, if nothing else to make sure there is no monopolistic advantage to the new company.) I doubt very seriously if Dod or anyone else made any stipulations on how Encore was to manage the new company. That's a pretty bizarre claim. Can you back it up with data? |{ My opinions start here } Some of us think they may have already begun! |Encore then found itself with two competeing UNIX lines - their's and CSD's. |Therefore, since their's was their's and CSD's was the former competitor, | CSD's had to go. I get this opinion from: | - talks with CSD service reps. who mentioned that no further upgrades | (other than bug fixes) are to be done for the CSD UNIX line | (PowerNodes and NP/1s) | - talk in this list with mention made of further upgrades for the | Encore UNIX line. | Well opinions are like noses: (and other parts of the body) everyone has one! Mine is that if there was some good business reason to have multiple UNIX products, we would surely do that. Why wouldn't we? DEC now offers ULTRIX in direct competition with VMS. Why? Because there are bucks to be made there. I think the decision came down to the fact that there was not room (financially) in the new company for both lines and Multimax was chosen because of its leading edge multiprocessing technology (a decision recently validated by OSF's selection of our Mach operting system upon which to base OSF1.) It sure seems straightforward to me. |Assuming that the basis for my opinions is true (not neccessarily a vaild |assumption). My conclusion is that the decision to close down the CSD UNIX | line may have been made in part for business reasons, but that the other | part was the opportunity to kill off a competitor. | I think you have a pretty active imagination if you think large corporations think like that! Look at Chrysler/AMC. They kept the lines that looked promising and killed the rest. There's not a lot of room for cops and robbers in modern American business. You have heard of "the bottom line"? |This may sound harsh, but has anyone ever heard of a company buying a |competitor, and then replacing it's own established product line with the line |of its new acquisition (and former competitor). | Hogwash! Many mergers are done for the specific purpose of ACQUIRING a product to market. Sometimes the new company phases out both sides old products to produce a completely new line. This deal was done so that a small company (Old Encore) could aquire an old and fading company's world-wide sales, service and marketing organizations to sell (eventually) new products to the benefit of both. Come back and talk to us in a year if you still think this is some kind of plot to kill NP! |- Standard Disclamer about me not speaking for my employers - | God I hope you realize that I am not either! Again, I'm just a tiny cog in the vast machine called Encore; I just happen to be a very loud-mouthed, partisan and opinionated one! | Michael J. Chinni - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "In the carriages of the past you can't UUCP: buita \ go anywhere." -- Maxim Gorkey talcott } !encore!cook bellcore /