back to article Sun proxy details its dating game

You've been curious about the back story when Sun Microsystems, as Intel chief executive officer Paul Otellini succinctly put it, "shopped around the Valley and around the world." And now, thanks to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the preliminary merger proxy statement Sun has to file by law as part of Oracle's …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward

    Money,Money, Money, It's a rich man's world

    And for that, Schwartz gets $35m? How come?

  2. GT

    Why did they miss the obvious suitor?

    The big question is why Sun missed out on the obvious combination. Apple has fanatically loyal users in the client space: Sun has the same in the server space. Both companies had seen a move in architectures to Intel: in Apple's case, a wholehearted conversion, in Sun's case a start. Both companies' solutions are based on Unix: Apple has arguably the best client Unix, Sun the best server Unix and these could have been merged over a period of years. Sun could have provided a great channel for Apple to sell its clients, from iMac to iPhone, into its installed base. Apple would have given Sun financial stability.

    Compared with this, the Oracle "merger" (=takeover) makes little sense for either organisation.

  3. David Halko

    Why & Why

    Anonymous Coward posts, "And for that, Schwartz gets $35m? How come?"

    Unless you are paid to sell a company, why would a CEO sell the company (when he would most likely get fired in a re-org)? The CEO would most likely hang on as long as possible, raking in the doe, for years to come

    The CEO was paid to sell the company, that is why. This was part of Jonathyn's reimbursement package upon being promoted. Large stock holders put increasing public pressure on him to sell the company.

    GT posts, "The big question is why Sun missed out on the obvious combination. Apple..."

    Apple and Sun nearly merged a half-dozen times over the years.

    This is, perhaps, is the most significant question in the minds of many people. Apple and Sun had several opportunities to merge. Every time I saw video with Sun demos, Sun used Apple laptops. With X being built into every MacOSX instance, compatibility with accessing Sun server application was built in. Apple bailed on their storage business with Sun entering the storage business. Apple is ports Sun ZFS and DTrace to MacOSX; Sun ports Apple windows compatibility code to Solaris.

    Perhaps, Sun was too broad a company for Apple to consume. Apple seems to be a very focused company, making significant dollars on very stove-piped business areas where it intends on competing in.

    Sun competes in a lot more areas than Apple does - while this made Sun a visionary in the eyes of analysts, this may have been a detriment to the Sun brand among consumers, and may have been considered a possible negative as far as an Apple buy-out.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like