Board index » delphi » IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?

IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?

Today, Novell announced that it is "unlikely" that a merger will happen between
it and Borland. Soon after the announcement, Borland stocks dropped more than a
dollar.

Borland fans, let us discuss the following situation:
(1)     IBM wants to enter the PC and workgroup software market.
(2)     IBM buys Lotus.
(3)     Lotus is not very strong in creating development tools.
(4)     Lotus is not very strong in personal databases.
(5)     IBM has over 7Billion in it coffers, which it would like to spend on an
investment.
(6)     IBM would like to fight MicroSoft in whatever businesses available.
(7)     The major threat that Microsoft has in development tools comes from the
new Borland Delphi (Visual Basic Killer).
(8)     The major threat that Microsoft has in personal databases comes from
Borland DBase, Paradox and Interbase.
(9)     Borland's main problem (challenge) is that some people doubt its
existence in 10 years.
(10)    A much smaller percentage doubts the existence of IBM in 10 years.
(11)    Borland has what IBM severely lacks in terms of personal databases and
PC development tools.
(12)    IBM has what Borland severely lacks in terms of contacts, sales and
marketing force, and reputation for a solid financial position.

Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company than their
individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

Ramy Taraboulsi.

 

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
gl...@big.aa.net (Glenn Pittenger) writes:
>>Ever heard of DB/2 for OS/2 Did you know that IBM invented the
>>relational database and SQL?
>Your point does not change the poster's point.  How much market share
>does DB/2 have on the PC platform, or in the C/S area?

OS/2 has a pretty large share of the corporate market, I believe.
DB/2 may be doing well there.  Windows does best in the educational
and home markets.  There is still a big corporate pressure to buy IBM.

Quote
>>>(9) Borland's main problem (challenge) is that some people doubt its
>>>existence in 10 years.
>>>(10)        A much smaller percentage doubts the existence of IBM in 10 years.
>>>(11)        Borland has what IBM severely lacks in terms of personal databases and
>>>PC development tools.
>>Ever heard of C SET/2 for OS/2 also see previous remark re DB/2
>Like most of the market, no.  

In my view, IBM committed a huge blunder with C Set... it is *way* too
expensive.  If they want people to write for OS/2 they have to make
the development tools cheap.  They didn't so nobody writes for it.
Borland have always known to make their compilers cheap.  Why did I
start writing for Windows back in 1991 with TPW 1.0?  Because it cost
me 60 pounds + VAT, and the only alternative was Microsoft C 7.0,
which was well over three hundred pounds.  No contest.

Quote
>>>(12)        IBM has what Borland severely lacks in terms of contacts, sales and
>>>marketing force, and reputation for a solid financial position.

>>>Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company than their
>>>individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

>>>Ramy Taraboulsi.
>>Right now IBM has it all, also ever heard of Power PC!
>Yep, heard of the Power PC.  What is going to happen to OS/2 and
>the Power PC when Windows 95 becomes {*word*109}?  They won't be able
>to run the software written for it.

Surely not!  Even Microsoft acknowledges that the PowerPC is the
future.  Hence the existence of NT for the PowerPC.  If people have a
requirement for a PowerPC class machine, they will probably also
require a solid OS like NT rather than Win95.

Quote
>I'd have to agree that Borland may look like a good buy to IBM.

I'm not so sure.  If IBM controls everything that's written for OS/2
(let's face it, Borland and Lotus were the only two big companies
really taking it at all seriously), they have a monopoly and that
can't be healthy.  They may of course use it to make everything very
cheap, in order to boost OS/2's standing.  I got a full copy of AMI
Pro 3.0 for OS/2 for 9.00 pounds on an IBM CD.

Tim.

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
joh...@ix.netcom.com (John Casey) wrote:

> In <1995Jun22.18141...@orion.yorku.ca> as360...@orion.yorku.ca writes:

> >Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company
> than their individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

> +++
> Microsoft everything scares me (the lemmings are already lined up
> waiting to buy Window95...WHY???).  Novell leaves me with a lot of
> doubt.  IBM has done a nice job with OS/2.  Borland has done a nice job
> with development tools.   The Lotus acquisition assures long term
> commitment to good products available on OS/2.  A Borland acquisition
> would do the same.  Doubtful IBM would make another move so soon...but
> I'd hate to see Borland acquired by a company without the commitment
> and resources to continue producing Borland quality (and priced)
> products.

Actually I would have rather seen Novell buy Borland...IBM is big enough
as it is...the corporate sector isn't exactly small....and at least here
in Canada, when you walk into almost any bank, what equipment are they
using ?.....

IBM....

But, hey, perhaps a re-structuring/focussing of Borland is enough to keep
it alive....If Borland concentrates on powerful development tools, addons,
client/server items, database engines, it could do quite well.....

ttyl
Jason

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


In a previous article, phod...@ibm.net wrote:
Quote
>In <1995Jun22.18141...@orion.yorku.ca>, as360...@orion.yorku.ca writes:
>FACT:

 ^^^^  ?

Quote
>    BEFORE IBM bought LOTUS IBM sold more Software than The next 5
>competitors COMBINED! (That includes Microsoft and Novell of course)

1.) IBM has _NOT_ bought Lotus.   Get your "FACTs" right.

They are trying to, but it hasn't happened yet.
On June 21 they got tacit approval from the U.S. government of their takeover
attempt, but they have yet to buy a single share of Lotus stock since they
announced their takeover intentions.  

2.) In 1994 MicroSoft was the runaway leader in  software sales.  

    In spite of the {*word*99} Microsoft peddles, no one else was even close.  
    Imagine how much further ahead of the pack they would be if they had a
    half decent operating system to sell.

I am also curious about where the ?^&!~`#(* the original poster got the subject
for this thread.  A better one would have been "I am trying to start a stupid
rumour on the net."

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
In article <3sd06f$1...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,  <phod...@ibm.net> wrote:
>In <1995Jun22.18141...@orion.yorku.ca>, as360...@orion.yorku.ca writes:
>>Today, Novell announced that it is "unlikely" that a merger will happen between
>>it and Borland. Soon after the announcement, Borland stocks dropped more than a
>>dollar.

>>Borland fans, let us discuss the following situation:
>FACT:
>    BEFORE IBM bought LOTUS IBM sold more Software than The next 5
>competitors COMBINED! (That includes Microsoft and Novell of course)

Would you care to cite your source?  I find it very hard to believe that IBM
could outsell 5 major companies (Microscum, Novell, and Borland I would presume
are in the top 5).  Especially since I see so many Microscum and Borland
products floating around, and I have seen very few from IBM.

Quote

>>Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company than their
>>individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

Good question.  On one hand, Novell has good software, and quite a market
share.  On the other hand, it is a possibility that Borland products would
be ported to the PPC, which you would then see an influx of programmers from
the PC to the PPC.  I'm sure that we would all love to see BP7 on the PPC.
I would buy one in a minute if they had that.

Quote
>>Ramy Taraboulsi.
>Right now IBM has it all, also ever heard of Power PC!

Power PC!? What's that!? ;)

--TCA of NewOrder       | "Every time I see you falling,
newor...@carina.unm.edu | I get down on my knees and pray."

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
In article <3sd1mh$...@big.aa.net>, gl...@big.aa.net (Glenn Pittenger) wrote:

>Yep, heard of the Power PC.  What is going to happen to OS/2 and
>the Power PC when Windows 95 becomes {*word*109}?  They won't be able
>to run the software written for it.

I would hate to see Windows 95 become {*word*109}. Windows NT or OS/2 Warp
are at least real operating systems. Windows 95 is a bad joke by
comparison.

Quote
>I'd have to agree that Borland may look like a good buy to IBM.

Lets hope that Borland does not say "Good Bye" to us.

Vince
=====

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
In <1995Jun22.18141...@orion.yorku.ca>, as360...@orion.yorku.ca writes:
>Today, Novell announced that it is "unlikely" that a merger will happen between
>it and Borland. Soon after the announcement, Borland stocks dropped more than a
>dollar.

>Borland fans, let us discuss the following situation:

FACT:
        BEFORE IBM bought LOTUS IBM sold more Software than The next 5
competitors COMBINED! (That includes Microsoft and Novell of course)

Quote
>(1) IBM wants to enter the PC and workgroup software market.

Ever heard of OS/2 Warp and LAN Server ?
Quote
>(2) IBM buys Lotus.
>(3) Lotus is not very strong in creating development tools.
>(4) Lotus is not very strong in personal databases.
>(5) IBM has over 7Billion in it coffers, which it would like to spend on an
>investment.
>(6) IBM would like to fight MicroSoft in whatever businesses available.
>(7) The major threat that Microsoft has in development tools comes from the
>new Borland Delphi (Visual Basic Killer).
>(8) The major threat that Microsoft has in personal databases comes from
>Borland DBase, Paradox and Interbase.

Ever heard of DB/2 for OS/2 Did you know that IBM invented the
relational database and SQL?
Quote
>(9) Borland's main problem (challenge) is that some people doubt its
>existence in 10 years.
>(10)        A much smaller percentage doubts the existence of IBM in 10 years.
>(11)        Borland has what IBM severely lacks in terms of personal databases and
>PC development tools.

Ever heard of C SET/2 for OS/2 also see previous remark re DB/2
Quote
>(12)        IBM has what Borland severely lacks in terms of contacts, sales and
>marketing force, and reputation for a solid financial position.

>Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company than their
>individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

>Ramy Taraboulsi.

Right now IBM has it all, also ever heard of Power PC!

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


In <3sd1mh$...@big.aa.net>, gl...@big.aa.net (Glenn Pittenger) writes:
Quote
>In article <3sd06f$1...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,  <phod...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>In <1995Jun22.18141...@orion.yorku.ca>, as360...@orion.yorku.ca writes:
>>>Today, Novell announced that it is "unlikely" that a merger will happen between
>>>it and Borland. Soon after the announcement, Borland stocks dropped more than a
>>>dollar.

>>>Borland fans, let us discuss the following situation:
>>FACT:
>>        BEFORE IBM bought LOTUS IBM sold more Software than The next 5
>>competitors COMBINED! (That includes Microsoft and Novell of course)

>Are measuring in units or dollars?  Do you have any sources to back this
>up?  Seems most sources I've heard list Microsoft as the #1 retailer of
>software.  I suppose of you look at the non-pc market, IBM may be ahead,
>can't really say.  But since the trend is toward PCs and away from the
>big iron (where IBM is most {*word*109}), I'd say the original poster has
>a good point.

>>>(1) IBM wants to enter the PC and workgroup software market.
>>Ever heard of OS/2 Warp and LAN Server ?

>Yep, and those products are doing _so_ well, that most of the market is
>waiting for the vaporware from Microsoft.

>>>(2) IBM buys Lotus.
>>>(3) Lotus is not very strong in creating development tools.
>>>(4) Lotus is not very strong in personal databases.
>>>(5) IBM has over 7Billion in it coffers, which it would like to spend on an
>>>investment.
>>>(6) IBM would like to fight MicroSoft in whatever businesses available.
>>>(7) The major threat that Microsoft has in development tools comes from the
>>>new Borland Delphi (Visual Basic Killer).
>>>(8) The major threat that Microsoft has in personal databases comes from
>>>Borland DBase, Paradox and Interbase.
>>Ever heard of DB/2 for OS/2 Did you know that IBM invented the
>>relational database and SQL?
>Your point does not change the poster's point.  How much market share
>does DB/2 have on the PC platform, or in the C/S area?

>>>(9) Borland's main problem (challenge) is that some people doubt its
>>>existence in 10 years.
>>>(10)        A much smaller percentage doubts the existence of IBM in 10 years.
>>>(11)        Borland has what IBM severely lacks in terms of personal databases and
>>>PC development tools.
>>Ever heard of C SET/2 for OS/2 also see previous remark re DB/2
>Like most of the market, no.  

>>>(12)        IBM has what Borland severely lacks in terms of contacts, sales and
>>>marketing force, and reputation for a solid financial position.

>>>Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company than their
>>>individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

>>>Ramy Taraboulsi.
>>Right now IBM has it all, also ever heard of Power PC!
>Yep, heard of the Power PC.  What is going to happen to OS/2 and
>the Power PC when Windows 95 becomes {*word*109}?  They won't be able
>to run the software written for it.

As Barnam and Bailey said when asked "Why did you sell the Circus?"
"The trouble is", they said, "The suckers is wize!".
This is what has happened to Windoze 95, The suckers is wize. You can
only go to the well so many times, buy a good OS buy OS/2!

- Show quoted text -

Quote

>I'd have to agree that Borland may look like a good buy to IBM.

>Glenn
>gl...@aa.net

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
In <1995Jun22.18141...@orion.yorku.ca> as360...@orion.yorku.ca writes:
>Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company

than their individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

+++
Microsoft everything scares me (the lemmings are already lined up
waiting to buy Window95...WHY???).  Novell leaves me with a lot of
doubt.  IBM has done a nice job with OS/2.  Borland has done a nice job
with development tools.   The Lotus acquisition assures long term
commitment to good products available on OS/2.  A Borland acquisition
would do the same.  Doubtful IBM would make another move so soon...but
I'd hate to see Borland acquired by a company without the commitment
and resources to continue producing Borland quality (and priced)
products.

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
>Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company than
their
>individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

>Ramy Taraboulsi.

IBM bought Lotus (or rather is buying) because they have a strong
presence in the corporate networking environment, and already
have a commitment to OS/2 software. Borland has neither.

                              [sam]

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
> I would hate to see Windows 95 become {*word*109}. Windows NT or OS/2 Warp
> are at least real operating systems. Windows 95 is a bad joke by
> comparison.

Ok WWIII on the Net....ok here's my story about Win95 after 2 weeks of
running it.....Beware this is a long story that emphasizes the meaning of
boredom :)....and the tru story behind Win95s' new features and  {*word*99}py
mutli-tasking.

I was running with OS/2 Warp for the last 4
months, really great OS and great multi-tasking but man is it {*word*82}#$%@
ugly.  Any OS/2 Fan has to at least admit it can use a major face lift.  
Now for the last 2 weeks I've been using Windows 95 Final Beta
release...and all I can say is wow, it's so beautiful...it's by far one
of the most beautiful OS's out there (Next Machines and Sylicon graphic
machines (the one I saw and use) being the nicest).  A bit annoying at
times but non the less a beautiful OS until you attempt to multi-task.  A
shitier multi-tasker doesn't exist...oh sorry I stand corrected Windows
3.1 but not much worse.  I'll give you an example, D/L files from my
server to my house, when I'm on the Dos screen it goes fine about 1580
chars per sec...as soon as I switch to Windows screen I get an error on
my D/L (thank god for Zmodem) and my chars per second drop to 1100 if I'm
lucky, normaly less.

But not all is bad about win95, its plug & play technologie is pretty
impressive, it recognized evrything I had by itself (including modem).  
Os/2 had a problem with the modem.  Another plus for Win95 is its ability
to switch resolutions on the fly, IE: i'm presently in 800x600 and I can
easily go to 1024x768 or 1280x1024 (just a mouse drag away) and
tada....Screen flickers for a sec and I'm using a new resolution, no
reboot.  Never really tried it with OS/2 so I can't say if it can do it.  

Now another plus for Win95 is the way it rights and reads from HD, Floppy
and CD-ROM...very impressive.  I copied 1.44 megs of data from C to A in
less then 30-35 secs...an easy 80% improvement then usual.

Now the final question, will I be a Win95 user in the future, Nope!  Like
most people, I hate limiting myself to one thing and with Win95s'
multi-tasking capabilites, that is exactly what is happening.  So the
m{*word*203}of the story (and quite a long and boring one if I may say) is
Gates wasn't kidding when he said 'IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT GOOD, MAKE IT
LOOK GOOD'!

P.S
  As you noticed I didn't mention NT, I think it's a waste of time, space
and it's just so {*word*82}#$%@ ugly that it makes OS/2 look like a princess.

IBM please give OS/2 a face lift....it's just to ugly but so damn good.  

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


In a previous article, Christopher Fynn <cf...@sahaja.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote
>In article <23JUN95.10265...@skyfox.usask.ca> s...@skyfox.usask.ca  writes:

>>     In spite of the {*word*99} Microsoft peddles, no one else was even close.  
>>     Imagine how much further ahead of the pack they would be if they had a
>>     half decent operating system to sell.

>They do - it's called Windows NT (_not_ Windows '95).

NT is impressive - when you have the hardware to run it at acceptable speeds.
It doesn't even come close to being a half-decent operating system when you
consider that the vast majority of the home and office computers out there
don't even have enough RAM to let you install it, much less run it.

8 MB of RAM is what most people have, so until the amount of RAM a typical
user has rises to at least 16 MB and NT apps that run at more than a crawl
on a system with only 16 MB are developed,  NT will never be a serious
contender for the home and office market.  

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


In message <1995Jun22.18141...@orion.yorku.ca> - as360...@orion.yorku.ca writes
:

Quote
>Do you think that Borland and IBM would produce a stronger company than their
>individual sums? Would IBM be a better acquirer than Novell?

>Ramy Taraboulsi.

I think it would be a good idea. Maybe then we could finally get some
decent programming tools for OS/2

Francis Pauwelyn

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
In article <23JUN95.10265...@skyfox.usask.ca> s...@skyfox.usask.ca  writes:
>     In spite of the {*word*99} Microsoft peddles, no one else was even close.  
>     Imagine how much further ahead of the pack they would be if they had a
>     half decent operating system to sell.

They do - it's called Windows NT (_not_ Windows '95).

--
Christopher J Fynn <cf...@sahaja.demon.co.uk>

Re:IBM buying Borland: rumor or fact?


Quote
>Microsoft everything scares me (the lemmings are already lined up
>waiting to buy Window95...WHY???).  Novell leaves me with a lot of

Because Windows is the {*word*109} platform. Even if Microsoft decided
that 32 bits was a passing fad, it would still be so (most polls
show that people don't know or care what 32 bits is).
Very little in the PC world has been acomplished on technical merit.
The CPU was considered second rate, and was failing against the
68000 until IBM used it in the PC. GEM lost to windows, even though
it was first and faster. DOS beat UNIX, the first 32 bit operating
system on the PC. No matter how you feel about Unix, it is hard
to imagine that DOS could be held up as a better OS, in any way,
shape or form, and now Unix even takes up less memory (than the
typical DOS/WIN combo).
Looked at in the light of PC history, win95 actually looks like the
most os we have received from microsoft for the money, ever.

                                         [sam]

Go to page: [1] [2]

Other Threads