back to article 'Seagate's OCZ gobble was real, but went sour in CEO row'

Juicy scuttlebutt from storage insiders suggests the Seagate acquisition of OCZ fell through because the larger firm refused to give OCZ's CEO Ryan Petersen a seat on its board. According to our sources, this, in combination with flash NAND shortages at OCZ, led to Petersen's eventual resignation. Petersen founded and ran OCZ …


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

    Both companies in trouble

    OCZ has been smoke and mirrors since it's inception, IMO with questionable products at best. Seagate is not doing all that great either with eye-watering HDD prices premised on bogus typhoon damage. It would not bother me if both of these unscrupulous companies go tits up.

    1. IronTed

      Re: Both companies in trouble

      Nice troll! I never had any problem with Seagate hd's. And I have used them for more than 5 years. WDs? They go tits up in a year.

      1. J.T

        Re: Both companies in trouble

        Your single point of reference is fantastic, and completely opposite of my experience.

        However, actual studies have been done, and Seagate has the highest failure rate of the industry. A lot of this is from their use of the liquid bearing drives from the purchase of Maxtor, but anyone who works in the enterprise space can tell you about Seagate firmware issues.

  2. Dylan Fahey



    Then buy after the quarterly report...

  3. simplifried

    The NAND device makers, perhaps in partnership with HDD companies, will control any serious market in flash based SSDs when it comes. If Peterson overplayed his hand it was most likely because he was an ardent believer in their class of products and thought it was enough to leverage into a board seat. However, I think there was more than the board seat at play here.Keeping my first statement iin mind, Seagate already has what it needs to be player in solid state via their deal with Samsung. (part of their acquisition of Samsung's HDD business). I believe that view became more broadly understood by Seagate as preliminary diligence went forward and more contributors could weigh in with their respective views. As Seagate's ardor began to cool, Peterson overplayed his hand. I suspect the deal went upside down at that point.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like