Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:12:29 PM
If you've been following my thoughts you should know I'm almost obsessed with an ADS/ACS combo package. The reason many companies do not change databases is because of the "migration headache". Depending on the situation you often spend lots of time and money to accomplish moving from one database to another with possible loss of data. Solving this problem for the ADS via the ACS or AAA might cause a flood of buyers to move to our database product. #!!!##!#!!! Rik! Do we own it or not? And how much did we pay for it if so? And with what?..............And on and on....
I'd have to go back and check historical prices and the OS, but guessing very roughly would have had it fluctuating between 100 and 200 million. So if that comp still has merit, you can see there's lots of potential here even without the fireworks that I believe are still hidden from view.
The ADS came first, and my understanding was that in making their database product more and more "compatible" led to their Ants Compatibility Server(ACS). According to an anonymous poster on Ragingbull Rik and team had a bunch of contracts for the ADS lined up and Joe had already decided to go a different direction so he canceled the sales. The same poster says more sales of the ADS were made than were ever reported to shareholders. Even if all this is true, we don't know how much those early sales were discounted, which is common practice. Revenues never really indicated anything significant. I think most of the ACS sales were discounted as well.
The only things I'm aware of on Doc's AAA were in his CEO corner. What makes it special? It was mentioned in the "corner" that Don Haderle examined it acknowledging that this was the technically correct approach. That is a very important endorsement for those that have doubts about Doc. Do you really think Frank could get away with posting something like that if it wasn't true with no repercussions. The problem is we have no idea as to it's status. Is it even finished? Could it be what is on the current website? Remember the other ACS has to be written specifically for a pair of databases, and there are only 2 known to exist. Does that sound like what's on the website? Rik, please clarify.
Here's some more thinking out loud. It is my understanding that companies often buy databases based on special performance features in regards to data. There must have been some specific reason that Sybase was so entrenched in the financial community. Some things that database would do with data that others wouldn't. Now here's the point of all this. If you want to consolidate but like the feature set of a particular database don't you get to keep that without paying the license if using the ACS? Am I out in left field here?
I'd have to go back and check historical prices and the OS, but guessing very roughly would have had it fluctuating between 100 and 200 million. So if that comp still has merit, you can see there's lots of potential here even without the fireworks that I believe are still hidden from view.
The ADS came first, and my understanding was that in making their database product more and more "compatible" led to their Ants Compatibility Server(ACS). According to an anonymous poster on Ragingbull Rik and team had a bunch of contracts for the ADS lined up and Joe had already decided to go a different direction so he canceled the sales. The same poster says more sales of the ADS were made than were ever reported to shareholders. Even if all this is true, we don't know how much those early sales were discounted, which is common practice. Revenues never really indicated anything significant. I think most of the ACS sales were discounted as well.
The only things I'm aware of on Doc's AAA were in his CEO corner. What makes it special? It was mentioned in the "corner" that Don Haderle examined it acknowledging that this was the technically correct approach. That is a very important endorsement for those that have doubts about Doc. Do you really think Frank could get away with posting something like that if it wasn't true with no repercussions. The problem is we have no idea as to it's status. Is it even finished? Could it be what is on the current website? Remember the other ACS has to be written specifically for a pair of databases, and there are only 2 known to exist. Does that sound like what's on the website? Rik, please clarify.
Here's some more thinking out loud. It is my understanding that companies often buy databases based on special performance features in regards to data. There must have been some specific reason that Sybase was so entrenched in the financial community. Some things that database would do with data that others wouldn't. Now here's the point of all this. If you want to consolidate but like the feature set of a particular database don't you get to keep that without paying the license if using the ACS? Am I out in left field here?
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
