>The Register has asked HPE to clarify its server plans and, if the company does so, we'll update this story or write a whole new one. ®
Probably the latter. If they say anything it will be a buzzword bingo flood again.
HPE has quit the business of providing custom servers to big cloud operators. Which may come as a surprise to readers who recall our story from October 5th. In that piece, HPE's Carlo Giorgi told us the cloud server business “... is being re-engineered or engineered to be more fit for purpose. It will still be a tailored …
This post has been deleted by its author
El-reg outdoes itself again as the tech equivalent of the Sun/Daily Mail - clickbait headline not backed up by the story.
So the headline is that HPE have stopped selling "cloud servers" - but what the article actually says is they have stopped building "custom cloud servers". And if you read the actual slide it says they are still providing standard SKU cloudline servers.
So they won't be working with customers to architect and build a specific cloud server (the sort of thing that Google/Facebook etc. want to do), but they will be working with the next tier down of service providers on standard cloudline servers. Still an interesting development but not quote the "HPE Armageddon" the headline claims
sheesh - your sub-editors need to take a long hard look at themselves.
"I think he may be right, there is no such verb as "to architect" as that would be a prepositional verb"
In English verbs have the (really redundant) "to" to identify an infinitive. Prepositional verbs are verbs which consist of a normal verb + a preposition and have a different meaning, e.g the normal verb "to care" is intransitive, but the prepositional verbs "care for" and "care about" are transitive ("She cares about him" or "he cares for her"). Russian goes mad on prepositional verbs, though the preposition comes first, so they are certainly not limited to English.
So "to architect" is just an ordinary non-prepositional transitive verb as in "I architected an XMPP based remote control system."
I'm sorry your 9 year old daughter had to come back and tell you she hadn't got very good marks for her homework.
HP(E) seems to have figured out the strategy GEC (remember them?) used so successfully (/s) back at the turn of the century.
1) Our shareholders want bigger dividends.
2) So let's sell off all the stuff we know how to do, because the rate of return is rather low.
3) Then we take all that money and buy into speculative technologies we don't know how to do but which seem to promise high returns (because they're so fucking risky and/or fucking stupid).
What could possibly go wrong?
"Get rid of all the R&D staff because their salaries are holding back profits."
GEC did that one too, and put the money into the bank rather than paying it out in dividends. Then when they realised they needed a bit of modern technology Real Soon Now, they used the cash in the bank to either buy a hopefully-relevant company with the relevant technology readily available, or to set up a joint venture with a suitably qualified candidate.
Worked OK for a while, although as time went by GEC fell further and further behind their competitors. When the dot-con boom arrived, they had no relevant carrier-class offerings, so bought two US companies (Fore? Raltec?) which turned out to have been disastrous acquisitions and contributed significantly to the eventual collapse of Lord Weinstock's former empire.
Obviously HP management were far too bright to permit disastrous acquisitions like Fore and Raltec.
@handleoclast - Interesting analogy and from your reference to GEC I am assuming you are over 50!! :-) My first job was in GEC Contracts Department in Head Office whilst Lord Weinstock was around. GEC wasn't exciting but it made money and almost bought BAe! Then Lord Simpson arrived and the rest is history (read bankruptcy)!! A friend of mine invested almost GBP10k and now has a framed cheque for 28p on the wall of his home office
"GEC wasn't exciting but it made money and almost bought BAe! "
Simpson was a management disaster at GEC/Marconi and elsewhere (e.g. Lucas, and Rover). See e.g.
but that article and your comment misses a major part of the picture which any GEC engineering employee or any potential GEC customer looking for high-tech products/services (rather than MoD-style cost-plus contracts) would probably understand:
GEC may have "made money" for years according to its books, but part of the reason it appeared profitable was Weinstock's investment strike - for years he'd overseen a strategy of putting money in the bank rather than investing significantly in its own people, processes, and products. What happened after Weinstock was an inevitable consequence of that investment strike.
In which case, what would HP's sales and marketing folk know about what the top tier high volume market wanted, and what could be delivered by HP's chosen 'partner'? Why would a top-tier customer not go direct to someone like HP's supplier for this kind of customer-specific huge-volume lowish-spec kit? Why didn't HP management see this coming ages ago?
Are you sure you wrote the original quote down as the sentence seems to contradict itself:
"It will still be a tailored offering for service providers, but will not have only standard SKUs and [its structure] will depend on the type of compute [required]."
I think the 'not' shouldn't have been there, in which case he's saying the same as they are saying now?