Comments on: Feldman’s Hits and Misses of 2009 http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/21/feldmans-hits-and-misses-of-2009/ HPC News Without the Noise for Supercomputing Professionals | insideHPC Sun, 19 May 2013 10:46:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: HPC in the first decade of a new millenium: a perspective, part 1 « scalability.org http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/21/feldmans-hits-and-misses-of-2009/#comment-202141 HPC in the first decade of a new millenium: a perspective, part 1 « scalability.org Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:49:14 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=9311#comment-202141 [...] excellent blogs and news sites are giving perspectives on 2009. Magazine sites are talking about the hits in HPC [...] [...] excellent blogs and news sites are giving perspectives on 2009. Magazine sites are talking about the hits in HPC [...]

]]> By: Peter http://insidehpc.com/2009/12/21/feldmans-hits-and-misses-of-2009/#comment-200701 Peter Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:03:34 +0000 http://insidehpc.com/?p=9311#comment-200701 It'd be hard for anyone other than the executives of those companies to know for sure what led to their acquisitions. Its conceivable that the poor economy played a part in the acquisitions. For example, one or more might have been facing cash flow problems, and just didn't have many other options than to sell the company. Whereas in a booming economy, they might have been able to raise money from other investors, get lines of credit, had more customers, etc. But I tend to agree that they simply had technology that Intel and Microsoft felt they needed quickly, and were willing to pay for. All three of these companies were focusing on software for developing software, and HPC customers are notorious for not wanting to pay for such software ;-(. So being acquired by a larger company was a likely exit strategy all along... It’d be hard for anyone other than the executives of those companies to know for sure what led to their acquisitions.

Its conceivable that the poor economy played a part in the acquisitions. For example, one or more might have been facing cash flow problems, and just didn’t have many other options than to sell the company. Whereas in a booming economy, they might have been able to raise money from other investors, get lines of credit, had more customers, etc.

But I tend to agree that they simply had technology that Intel and Microsoft felt they needed quickly, and were willing to pay for. All three of these companies were focusing on software for developing software, and HPC customers are notorious for not wanting to pay for such software ;-(. So being acquired by a larger company was a likely exit strategy all along…

]]>