An HP and EMC merger still seems like a fanciful sticking plaster to heal two tech giants, but financial analysts in the US are advising that such a transaction not only looks logical but more likely. Wall St money men spent last week analysing HP’s direction in the corporate enterprise following the Discover event in Las …
This is the comment more voted to favor, but people have very bad memory, the purchase of companies on the part of HP most of times they have been a success, for example the controversial purchase of Compaq rises to HP in what is today, the first servers supplier, Window and Linux of the world, the purchase of 3PAR in the company of more growth in storage. It seems that in this forum this subsidized by the disloyal competition of Hewlett Packard
Will these "Financial Analysts" please shut up already?
Here they go again, prescribing another of those big corporate moves motivated by a desire to "increase share price", and again, no one thinks of what happens when the Customers of both firms start walking away. And they most certainly will, as surely as night follows day.
When will they ever learn?
A). Sounds a lot like Wall Street pushing a deal to bump up M&A activity to benefit Wall Street
B) Merging two big organizations from opposite sides of the country with different cultures? Just the internal political wrangling would take years to fall out.
C) Where's the value for customers in this? I don't see an improvement in products/service/pricing coming out of this.
D)If HP and EMC were serious about this, HP could have just sold off their enterprise business to EMC months ago, without the disruption of the intermediate step of creating HP Enterprise.
My impression is that EMC are an exceptionally well run business (at least by large enterprise standards) that is facing choppy waters because of uncertainty in its core market. It's made some solid efforts to diversify, but there's only so far you can do that when you're a storage business of that size.
HP, in contrast, are a historically important business that have been poorly run for years now and whose executive team show no sign of getting a clue any time soon.
I have three points to note:
1) Given that HP have explicitly identified the move away from giant monolithic contracts as a challenge to its business that will require it to get leaner and more agile is a mega-merger really going to help?
2) Even if a merger were a good idea shouldn't it be EMC's management team (competent) rather than HP's (incompetent) that shareholders trust to front it?
3) It's amusing that financial analysts are one of the best paid professions and probably the only one that most of us don't at all trust to be better informed than the lay person.
As a former Compaq employee, I have to agree with you. Horrible for employees. And anytime I see the word "Synergy" (i.e. firing people) I feel like inflicting a BOFH-style halon incident (or the cattle-prod) on the person who uttered such nonsense.
I'm sceptical. Instead, what would be really cool, would be a reverse take over by EMC. So EMC could add some servers, switches n' stuff to its own portfolio, and drop the less interesting parts.
There would also be no overlap on the client side, but since the margins are razor thin there I highly doubt anything will happen there.
Rajesh Ghai [said]: “...HP Enterprise - the enterprise part of HP - will be a lot more aligned with the current EMC and VMW businesses in terms of end-market focus and selling motions, which will enable the revenue and cost synergies across the two organisations to be a lot more apparent.
We also believe the worsening secular backdrop and the trends towards software-defined architectures and pubic/hybrid cloud may also compel the two parties to do a deal...”
Seriously. Do these people go on a special course to learn to Twat-Speak© like this? Or do they come out with guff like this over tea and toast at the breakfast table too?
So, other than VMware, what does EMC actually have to offer that isn't an overlap with hp's business already? I suppose they could finally ditch the XP array and wave goodbye to Hitachi seeing as EMC can offer mainframe capability, but that's about it from the EMC storage portfolio. And whilst EMC do have some very good sales, support and services people, that's not really a good enough reason to want to pay up for them. It can't be Dave Donatelli's doing, I hear he's finally and totally cracked and gone to work for Mad Larry's vapourware division.
"vmware....." Duh, I said other than VMware!
"......pivotal, isilon? data domain? should I continue?....." No, you can just try and explain why all those amazing results had EMC talking cuts - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/29/emc_results_q4_layoffs/
"...... each of these make more money than any other BU in HP right now......" Ahem, did you not read the actual results before you decided to be silly? The article above stares the following for EMC - "....Full-year 2014 revenues were $24.4bn...." Now read the hp Q1 results here - http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?wireId=1923229#.VXepFBSCOrU - "......First quarter net revenue of $26.8 billion....." (emphasis mine) Now, seeing as maths is obviously not your strong point, would you like me to explain the difference between a quarter and a full year?
I see you didn't mention VNXe, VNX, VMAX, Vplex or Xtreme in that list :-)
VMware and Isilon yes, Pivotal - meh and even though DD has a larger revenue share today StoreOnce is way ahead from a technology and scalability front.
Unlikely to happen, just imagine the fun all the other Vendors would have during any such merger / takeover