Sun seeks new offer, stronger commitment from IBM

First, word was that IBM and Sun were in merger talks. Then, the deal seemed about to close when Sun purportedly rejected IBM’s formal offer and sent Big Blue on its way—at least, that’s the rumor mill’s version of the facts. Over a week later, Bloomberg now reports that Sun is trying to get IBM to commit again.

Bloomberg quotes two people familiar with the situation who claim Sun "would be willing to resume takeover talks . . . if IBM makes a stronger commitment to close the acquisition." Commitment is part of the reason Sun backed off in the first place—the firm supposedly thought IBM’s formal offer gave it too much room to walk away if the going got tough with antitrust regulators. Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz thought the price was too low, as well.

It’s no surprise to see Sun trying to lure IBM back. Sun’s stock price jumped from just under $5 to almost $9 after word of the talks got out, and it dropped to $6.56 after the talks reportedly broke off. Bloomberg also notes that Sun "may have difficulty finding another bidder."

Comments closed
    • just brew it!
    • 11 years ago

    One more thought on the Open Source issue…

    I know of multiple instances where someone who has participated in an Open Source project has been offered either a full-time job or a consulting gig, as a direct result of their Open Source work. Participating in an Open Source project gets your name out there, and can serve as evidence to potential employers/clients that you know what you’re doing!

    • stmok
    • 11 years ago

    *This is in response to Post #5 (*[

    • etymxris
    • 11 years ago

    Too bad. Now, IBM does not want Sun “at any price”.

    §[<http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN1626153820090416<]§

    • alsoRun
    • 11 years ago

    In the 90s, Java was the software star everybody was using. But Sun is now begging IBM to buy it. How sad.

    Is Java still great? I do not know. What will happen if Sun goes down?

      • UberGerbil
      • 11 years ago

      Java may no longer be the “write once run anywhere” pervasive client-side technology it was once promised to be, but it continues as an important and widely used technology in the server segment. SpecJBB, one of the key benchmarks for commercial (ie non-fp-intensive) server workloads is a Java application.
      §[<https://techreport.com/articles.x/16656/6<]§ §[<http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/<]§ And Sun doesn't own the Java language (though it owns the Java trademark and other IP). Multiple 3rd party vendors offer their own Java compilers and VMs , and in fact a lot of commercial Java users don't employ any technology from Sun (which part of the reason Sun is where it is). IBM has long been a major vendor for Java developers (and probably makes more money off Java than Sun does) §[<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/<]§ In fact most of the top scores on SpecJBB employ either IBM's JVM or JRockit from BEA (now owned by Oracle) §[<http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/results/jbb2005.html<]§ §[<http://e-docs.bea.com/jrockit/webdocs/index.html<]§ In fact looking strictly at Java (which is just a part of the overall picture in this merger) you could view IBM's bid for Sun as a response to Oracle's purchase of BEA.

        • squngy
        • 11 years ago

        There is also the little not so insignificent fact that almost all 3rd party aps for phones (and other similar devices) are writen in java.

        + you still don’t have to compile it as many times as C 😛

    • alsoRun
    • 11 years ago

    I might be naive but a simple truth is still truth: open source can be bad for making a living as a programmer. It is all good to care about the broad good of humanity when one does not need to worry about own living.

      • barleyguy
      • 11 years ago

      The reason you’re naive is because you state something to be truth that isn’t.

      Open source programmers fall generally into 3 camps:

      1. People who work for other industries and are getting paid to solve specific problems, and contributing to open source in addition or in conjunction with their day jobs.
      2. People who get paid to write open source.
      3. People who can afford to contribute. This generally includes students, programmers who are already financially stable because of a successful career, or those who simply choose the social benefits of open source over financial gain. Read “The Cathedral and the bazaar” for a good explanation of those benefits.

      Open source is no more bad for programmers than open science is bad for scientists.

      (Also, there is a reply button in the upper right hand corner above each post.)

      • Turd-Monkey
      • 11 years ago

      Open source software is often used as a platform so developers don’t need to re-invent the (lower level) wheels. They can instead focus more on the problem they are trying to solve.
      (weak example: 2 Front-End Developers vs 1 Front-End and 1 Back-End)

      This has huge benefits, the same amount of developer time will result in a higher quality end product and the lower level (open source) bits may end up with fewer bugs because they’ve been looked at and used by many more developers than would happen if the code was only developed and used in house.

      A couple examples of this model: Apps built on top of Ruby on Rails, Django, Android (though give it a bit longer), etc

      • stmok
      • 11 years ago

      *[

    • alsoRun
    • 11 years ago

    Sorry to see once a shining star of high tech come down to this. Java was great but did not make them much money.

    I always wondered if this open source software stuff will eventually kill professional programmer as a profession. Why will a customer pay if some programmers are willing to work for free?

      • barleyguy
      • 11 years ago

      No offense intended, but that’s a pretty naive comment.

      A large percentage of programmers (by most estimates over 50%), don’t work for software companies. They work in a variety of industries such as banking, communications, etc. To those industries, open source is a way to produce higher quality software while investing less time and expense. Ideally, code should get contributed back to the community to benefit other developers. This is similar to what has happened in other fields of science. Where would chemistry and physics and medicine be today if results of experiments and developments were kept secret? Open source is good for programmers as a whole, as well as the quality of the software we create.

      Seriously, do some research on what open source is, and why it’s the future.

      • squngy
      • 11 years ago

      What do you mean “Java *[

      • eitje
      • 11 years ago

      q[

      • just brew it!
      • 11 years ago

      Does Open Source require a different business model? Maybe, depending on what kind of software you’re developing.

      Will it kill off professional programmers? No way! There will always be a need for custom applications, embedded code, etc., and these represented a huge percentage of software development even /[http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/16713<]§ Going forward, smart companies will learn how to leverage Open Source to get things done more efficiently. While it is true that improved efficiency may cause a few people to lose their jobs over the short term, in the long run it benefits everyone by allowing developers to focus on the stuff that really matters -- i.e., providing solutions that actually add value, rather than spinning their wheels doing stuff that has already been done 1000 times. (Or are you arguing that we should be keeping a bunch of programmers employed by giving them pointless busy work, reinventing the wheel?) We make use of Open Source where I work. Leveraging Open Source tools and infrastructure has allowed us to focus on our application. We also contribute back to the Open Source community -- one of our developers found and fixed a couple of bugs in the Intel embedded graphics driver for Linux which were giving us grief in our product. These fixes were sent back upstream (to the person responsible for the official version of the driver), and the fixes are now part of the official driver release; everyone benefits. Which brings up another point -- in a Closed Source model, we would've been completely at the mercy of whoever was maintaining that graphics driver, since we would not have had access to the driver source code. If the vendor had been unable to fix the bug in a timely manner, we would've been unable to deliver our product on time, and this would have probably caused us to lose a multi-million dollar contract. If we had chosen a Closed Source solution (and hit a similar bug), it could easily have cost several of us our jobs. (And I really do feel that we may have dodged a bullet here; Windows CE was originally in the running as a potential platform.) FWIW I've been a software developer for over a quarter of a century. Does the Open Source movement represent a change from the way things have traditionally been done? Sure it does... and many people are afraid of change. But I prefer to see it as an opportunity rather than a threat.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This