Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tech Companies That Won't Survive 2009

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the in-a-blaze-of-glory dept.

Businesses 385

buzzardsbay writes "Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009. It's important to note that these aren't the opinions of the magazine or its editors. The list comes from folks who work in IT, mostly technology resellers, who are out in the field selling, installing and maintaining this stuff. If there were ever canaries in the tech coal mine, they'd be these service and solution providers who live and die by the slightest shift in the markets. Some of the companies on this list, like Sun and AMD, are shocking because of their size. Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising." What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The list (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420407)

Here's the list for those who are too lazy to read TFA or allow Flash:

1) Novell
2) NetApp
3) Checkpoint
4) McAfee (let's hope so!)
5) Salesforce.com
6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.
7) Sun, no surprise there
8) Citrix
9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)
10) VMware

Re:The list (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420495)

If you believe the "Channel Insider" predictions, this is more a list of the companies that are highly unlikely to go out of business in 2009.

Summary of article:
"Our readers predicted these companies will fail. Our readers are idiots, all of these companies will be fine."

Re:The list (5, Insightful)

edsousa (1201831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420721)

Not funny your comment.. More like insightful and tells the story on one line.
My first impression reading that article (can I say it is an article? I think that flash slideshows are not articles) was that my Engrish tricked me, but no...

Re:The list (2, Insightful)

Amarok.Org (514102) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420891)

Summary of article:
"Our readers predicted these companies will fail. Our readers are idiots, all of these companies will be fine."

Exactly... my first thought when reading these was, "Should they really be contradicting their readership and alienating their subscribers?" I mean, I'm all for journalistic integrity, but when's the last time a publication had any?

Re:The list (2, Insightful)

lpevey (115393) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421103)

Keep in mind that many (most?) of these are public companies. Channel Insider would probably get a lot of flak if they published an article flatly predicting their failure in the next year. This way, they can point to their own comments and say they did no such thing.

Re:The list (1)

Amarok.Org (514102) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421151)

Interesting perspective... a [potentially] tongue-in-cheek analysis to absolve them of retribution from shareholders and advertisers...

Re:The list (4, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421003)

I don't know... I guess it's somewhat interesting that lots of people believe these companies will fail. If nothing else, it says something about their PR challenges. People aren't as likely to purchase products from companies they feel have an uncertain future.

Re:The list (1)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421091)

Yeah! That's just what I came here to report. What kind of crap is that? Do they just want to run around asying that their readers, and survey respondents, and survey designers are complete crap?! What a waste of time.

Re:The list (0, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420503)

VMware holy shit. KVM FTW.

KVM (disambiguation)? (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420711)

VMware holy shit. KVM FTW.

Did you mean "Kernel-based Virtual Machine", or did you mean "buy multiple computers and plug them into a Keyboard Video Mouse switch"? If you want to include a Mac in the mix, you have to do the latter, as the forme rdoesn't support Mac OS X as a host or guest.

Re:KVM (disambiguation)? (2, Interesting)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420881)

If you want to include a Mac in the mix, you have to do the latter, as the former doesn't support Mac OS X as a host or guest.

Why would anyone want to include Mac OS X as a guest? Apple goes out of their way to make it not run on things that aren't Macs. Why would someone then adopt it as a virtualized guest?

Re:The list (2, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420685)

Any suggestions on a good AV package for windows then?

Note: I agree, McAfee home is disappointing, but their enterprise AV, if you have access to it, is nice.

Re:The list (1)

xaositects (786749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420855)

clamav

Re:The list (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420935)

It's free, but you get what you pay for.

Re:The list (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421025)

I don't agree: it found stuff that Norton and Panda couldn't. On the other hand, it lacks online cheking, so it's great to use as a backup AV only, for full system scans.

Re:The list (1)

Republican Gun (1174953) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421191)

Avast - great for free and it supports 64 bit.

AVG Enterprise - Like it a lot better than the hog that was Norton Symantec.

Re:The list (1)

wcb4 (75520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421223)

The only problem with clamAV is the lack of on access scanning capability. I don't mind running a scan every so often, but its much nicer when the file is scanned as I access it.

Re:The list (2, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420999)

All of them seem to be leaping over sharks at the moment.

AVG and Avast! are both still usable if you disable all that heavy-handed link scanning.

Re:The list (0)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421227)

From personal experience, Avast! is rubbish. It failed to find 8 viruses on my system.

Re:The list (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421179)

...but their enterprise AV, if you have access to it, is nice. Rephrase to: but their enterprise AV, if you have access to it, is bearable. It's certainly better than a lot of alternatives. But we use it at our offices (not my choice) and we've had a significantly high number of problems due directly to bugs in the mcshield.exe service. As for decent AV package for windows (home) use, I recommend Avast! But then, I'm a pirate, so...well, you know...

Re:The list (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420791)

Hmm... I'm no math expert, but if three are tied for sixth place, should't sun be in 9th, not 7th?

Demise *not* predicted ... (4, Informative)

golodh (893453) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420865)

Nonsense.

Those who read the article will see that the survey hedges in every way possible and that the above list is _not_ a list of companies that people expect to see disappear. It's a list of companies that people discussed, looked up the turnover of and then wrote noncommittal "analysis" next to.

Please Anonymous, if you're going to try and summarize the article for those too lazy to click on a link, at least make sure you get it right. This is rubbish.

Re:The list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420923)

while we are in "let's hope so" land how about SCO...

Re:The list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26421011)

Thanks for posting. Saved me the 5 minutes I would have spent reading that article, which is obviously bullshit based on this list. VMWare? AMD? Complete crock.

9) Symantec (I really hope not) (1)

markdowling (448297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421013)

Not because they don't deserve to rot in hell for the bloat that is NAV, but because they just bought Messagelabs.

Re:The list (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421063)

1) Novell
2) NetApp
3) Checkpoint
4) McAfee (let's hope so!)
5) Salesforce.com
6) Juniper, CA, and AMD are tied for sixth place.
7) Sun, no surprise there
8) Citrix
9) Symantec (again, let's hope so!)
10) VMware

Are you fucking kidding me?? This looks like a highly biased wishless from a FOSS advocate, instead of a likely scenario. I hate proprietary crap as much as the next slashdotter, but c'mon people, let's be realistic.

Where's SCO (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26421133)

Or are they counting it as already gone (since it seems to be a zombie now...)?

Re:The list (3, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421221)

What is interesting is the numbers, which indicate most people can't decide on who is actually in trouble. About 1 out of 4 respondents think Novell is in trouble, which they have been since MS Windows 3.11 for networks made their extremely convoluted product a absolute non player in the SOHO market. How many years ago was that? Almost before we SOHO became everyday market speak. Somehow they survive. Maybe in SCOX is allowed to spend all of Novells money on litigation, they may not be able to recover from that. In other words, 75% of the people thing they will be ok.

The we get to AMD, Sun, Citrix, Symantec, where about 1 out of every 6 people think these companies will fail. Certainly these companies have problems, but each has products that could keep or gain marketshare. Some mght be in trouble, again, those that align themselves with MS, such as AMD and Symantec, are at the whim of MS, which can be dangerous, but, OTOH, about 85% of the respondents believe that these companies will be ok.

Then there is VMWare, in which a whopping 89% predict stability. They might be in trouble if a traditional OS continues to be utilized as a base OS, rather than relegated to guest status. On wonder why one would want MS Windows eating up resources with IE and Media Player and all the other stuff that gets loaded in, when one could run a custom version of *nix and VMWare, and then run MS Windows as a guest OS only when needed. I am sure for many with enterprise licenses to MS Windows, running it might virtual windows might make sense, but 90% of the respondants indicate that VMware has the better idea.

An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420409)

Fresh off their annual market survey, eWEEK channel folks have compiled the list of tech vendors their readers think will fail, falter, or be sold off in 2009.

Wrong. Everyone falters at some point. You could probably make a claim that 60% of companies will "falter" this year and be able to point to some debacle, low quarter or misstep to claim you were accurate. Hell, in one of the many fields it's in, Microsoft will falter in 2009--I guarantee it. From the actual article:

In the Channel Insider 2009 Market Pulse Survey, we asked solution providers which vendors they thought would go out of business or be acquired in 2009.

So you're underscoring just how stupid the people that filled out this survey are. Because to say that Sun, AMD or even Novell will be acquired or out of business by December 31st, 2009 is like betting on your favorite American Football team to win the Super Bowl in 2025.

The Channel Insider Prediction at the bottom of these reveals just how unlikely every single one of these predictions comes across as. They predominately disagree with every single reader prediction.

It means that not only are we, the readers, being presented with completely contradictory statements on every page but every single statement is unfounded and backed up by nothing. No market saturation analysis or even talk of operations and profits. Market cap and revenue are good indicators but they don't mean everything.

Others, like CA and Symantec, not so surprising.

"Not so surprising?" Tell me, what has changed so dramatically for 2009 that makes you say that these companies will be acquired or go under?

So tell me, what is a list of reader predictions dealing with the finances and markets of tech companies doing on a 'news for nerds' site?

What other companies are headed for implosion, or should be if all were right with the universe?

Ah, the coup de grÃce for this article ... I'm certain that the Slashdot community will proffer only on the most unbiased and strongly founded suggestions for this objective question.

Superbowl in 2025. (0, Offtopic)

taxman_10m (41083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420601)

Pats.

Re:Superbowl in 2025. (2, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420637)

Pats.

"Pats?" I haven't heard of them ... are they like a team of sexually indeterminable players? [imdb.com]

Re:Superbowl in 2025. (1)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420781)

Sox

Re:An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421001)

Because to say that Sun, AMD or even Novell will be acquired or out of business by December 31st, 2009 is like betting on your favorite American Football team to win the Super Bowl in 2025.

See the error in that analogy now?

Re:An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421087)

Would you really be that surprised if Sun went under in 2009? Linux is eating Sun alive.

Re:An Exemplary Article for Making Stock Picks! (1)

wizzat (964250) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421241)

Yes, because sun does alot more than Linux does. Sun will not be going out of business.

Not Very Interesting (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420423)

This is the same sort of stuff we hear on Slashdot every day. The actual evaluation at the end of nearly every entry says, "Not very likely".

Though I do think that Sun needs to expand their product strategy or face extinction. Their current high-end market may be lucrative, but it's continually being eaten away at by cheaper and cheaper equipment.

Personally, I think Sun would do well to enter the desktop market. Their Mad Hatter system was a good first try, but they abandoned it before it had a chance to mature! (Speaking as one of Sun's customers who paid money for the software just to be left out in the cold.)

Re:Not Very Interesting (4, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421201)

Desktop market? You must be joking.

Hey, I'm as much of a Sun fan as they come, but Sun doesn't have any expertise in writing user-friendly GUIs. There's no way they could compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple that have been doing this for decades.

The best that Sun could do is make OpenSolaris as much of a developer workstation OS as they can, in competition with Linux. Still, as much as OpenSolaris has improved, they still have a long way to go to catch up to Linux distros like Ubuntu. Perhaps they could make is a Java developer OS, with a wide array of Java packages in their IPS packaging system.

I can't believe Sun is on this list... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420429)

...since Java will never die...just multiply...colors...colors...colors...I am a night-mare walkin', Java-code stalkin', wearin' these colors I choose....colors....

Well that's it (5, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420433)

Look like every large tech company except MS and Google are going down.

Well now they're doomed! (5, Insightful)

ivoras (455934) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420437)

How would you feel if you were the owner or a shareholder of one of companies so prominently set to fail? Self-fulfilling prophecies all around. Given how sensitive to subjective perception these things are, it's by now probably enough for a company's name to be mentioned in the same sentence as the word "bankrupt" for it to really do so.

Re:Well now they're doomed! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420857)

Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:

  1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
  2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
  3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
  4. Company X collapses
  5. Hack says 'I told you so'

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!

Re:Well now they're doomed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26421075)

Your supposedly viable company had crappy assets and was massively overleveraged. A good stiff breeze could knock it over.

Better stop the breezes!

Re:Well now they're doomed! (0, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421123)

Umm... looking at that list, it doesn't look like anything of value would be lost...

Ok, except SUN.

Re:Well now they're doomed! (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421197)

Absolutely - we should stop giving articles like this publicity. ~ This is what's been happening in the UK over the last few months:

      1. Some hack writes that company X looks like it might be in trouble
      2. All the lenders think company X is now a very bad risk
      3. Company X suddenly finds that all their credit has dried up
      4. Company X collapses
      5. Hack says 'I told you so'

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! you're killing perfectly viable companies!

You're looking at this wrong.

6. Convince viable companies to pay you not to write about them in step 1.
7. Profit.

AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420461)

AMD is to Intel as Apple is to Microsoft.
 
AMD isn't going anywhere - it will cost Intel more to not have them around, than to prop them up.

AMD is too something to fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420463)

Intel really got them on the Core 2 front, but at the same time they get on top with r700 on the GPU front.

I just can't see Intel being left as a sole source of CPUs and nVidia as sole source of GPUs.

My bet is AMD will manage to muddle through.

Re:AMD is too something to fail (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421073)

Hell, Via is still muddling through in both of those markets, and they're much smaller than AMD.

No problem (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420481)

We'll just release 2010 ahead of schedule.

Thanks Slashdot! (4, Funny)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420485)

So THIS is where I find out I'm being downsized?

Re:Thanks Slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420567)

I'll be sure to send you another copy of that memo [imdb.com] .

Virtualization (4, Informative)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420501)

Both EMC/VMWare and Sun Microsystems (VirtualBox) are on the list. Does anybody honestly think that Microsoft will rule the virtual machine market? I think it's one or the other.

Re:Virtualization (3, Interesting)

anomalous cohort (704239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420649)

I'd like to see /.'s predictions on that, especially with regards to VMWare. In my own ad hoc findings, it is true that Microsoft shops are leaning towards HyperV but isn't that to be expected? I find non Microsoft shops to be leaning towards VMWare. What are you finding?

Re:Virtualization (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420957)

I heard here were going from MS visualization to VMWare.
I don't know if we even considered MS HyperV.

Re:Virtualization (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421049)

From a database perspective, both Microsoft and Oracle have their own virutalization products and their support for their databases on VMWare is sketchy at best.

Perhaps that will cut into VMware's market a bit.

Re:Virtualization (5, Interesting)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420673)

Vmware isn't going any place.. to have them on the list just shows how much of a joke this is

Re:Virtualization (2, Interesting)

Ignacio (1465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420717)

Unless Citrix or Red Hat ends up ruling it.

Re:Virtualization (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420743)

Basically the story states Visualization and Security will suffer during this period.

Another dumb article from eweek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420515)

Does anyone really believe these companies are going to go under.
If we go by what eweek says there will be no more tech companies.
Plus the sheer size of the companies metioned, Symantec alone is too big to be acquired by anyone other then Cisco or MS.

Can I be the first to ask (5, Insightful)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420539)

Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

Re:Can I be the first to ask (2, Insightful)

danieltdp (1287734) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420807)

Besides the fact that I agree with you, I will explain the reason: flash make things pretty and the masses don't want just information, they want it conveyed in the nicest way possible. For the majority of the users, flash is not a problem.

After that, allow me to say that I hate flash. Even more because it doesn't work properly on my job workstation. Too bad we are minority on the internet wild and people simply don't care.

Re:Can I be the first to ask (5, Interesting)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420839)

Why the fuck is this presented in Flash? It has NO added value and makes the material harder to digest.

Now there is a company I would like to see go out of business. Unfortunately, Adobe [google.com] appears to be doing just fine.

Re:Can I be the first to ask (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420933)

Simple reason: Suppose you work for one of those companies and you just went and bought an iPhone? Would you like to read that your company is "at risk" after spending that money.

eWeek is actually doing all those iPhone users a favor. We should thank them.

Re:Can I be the first to ask (2)

rusl (1255318) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421035)

Because it is a flashy article without substance.

The list (2, Informative)

427_ci_505 (1009677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420543)

10. VMWare
9. Symantec
8. Citrix
7. Sun
6. AMD
6. CA
5. Salesforce.com
4. McAfee
3. Checkpoint
2. NetApp
1. Novell

Why is this in Flash? Why did that page need javascript?

Re:The list (5, Insightful)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420633)

The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.

Re:The list (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420735)

The list is obviously bull. Most of the companies on there could survive in some form for years just on legacy support contracts. Sure, some of them might shrink, have some layoffs or toss out a department or two, but go under? Not on your life.

It sounds like you didn't read the article, but in this case, that's a compliment, not a criticism. The article was an unbelievable waste of time, and although it was in a "top 10 list, countdown to 1" style, there was no payoff at the end.

Anyway, for each of those 10 companies, their conclusion was basically, "not likely to go away".

I want my 5 minutes back.

Except for NetApp (3, Informative)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421067)

The NetApp vs Sun lawsuit over ZFS isn't going the way NetApp would like it to ...

http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs/index.jsp [sun.com]

To the contrary, NetApp may end up like SCO vs Novell, where the initial complainant ends up owing the respondent. Sun could very well end up both pwning AND owning NetApp.

As for the antivirus companies - I wish, but there will always be *some* "useful fools" around, and people whose financial self-interest aligns with enabling them to stay dumb and foolish.

Re:The list (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420639)

And on that list, only Sun is sinking. (You know that will be the byline in every traderag when it happens.)

The rest of the selections are idiotic.

Re:The list (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420741)

The Sun sets; it doesn't sink. You insensitive clod!

Re:The list (5, Funny)

lekker biltong (1117517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420695)

0. SCO

So much for RTFA (5, Informative)

Paul Carver (4555) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420603)

I usually RTFA but in this case there doesn't appear to be an article. There's a bit of an intro but no list of companies that I can see.

"Anti" Virus (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420607)

The scumbags who make the popups that tell you that your computer's been infected and needs to buy their product or OMG you'll lose all your family photos and pr0n! Such low-life tactics should be amptly rewarded with a swift chapter eleven - or should be, at least in my opinion.

Re:"Anti" Virus (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421121)

More like a swift trial and long prison sentence. Fraud is a felony.

I hope CA Fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420647)

CA makes some of the worst products, and their support is terrible.

I hope they fail

Sites that are going to die in 2009 (4, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420655)

Sites that code cluelessly and need javascript and flash to display a simple list will die first (hopefully, I am not so sure). Topping the list is http://www.channelinsider.com/ [channelinsider.com]

Re:Sites that are going to die in 2009 (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420847)

I predict a growth in marketshare for this site.... They're starting to master the "sensationalistic troll" article, so they should be gaining impressions despite the poor layout and navigation.

I bet you hadn't even heard of them until now.

Not Very Accurate (3, Insightful)

zwekiel (1445761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420659)

How can you expect a list based on reader predictions to be accurate? Moreover, how can you expect the list to be taken seriously when the "Insiders" contradict the majority of the reader predictions?

While people can be quite intelligent, allowing the mob to make investment picks based on rumours they read on Blogspot is simply ridiculous. If many analysts couldn't see the collapse of Bear Sterns coming before the last week, I doubt that these readers have the technical skills to predict the collapse of these companies a year in advance.

And if we're really lucky.... (5, Funny)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420697)

SCO!

FOSS projects that won't survive 2009 (0)

freddy_dreddy (1321567) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420703)

Any idiot can make a list like that, allow me to demonstrate

1. Open Office [slashdot.org] , or maybe we should call it Open Orifice
2. Mozilla Firefox [google.com]
3. Ubuntu [slashdot.org]

if AMD went under (3, Interesting)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420729)

would they take ati with them, or would ati be sold off. And if AMD went under what would that mean for intel in terms of monopoly rules, and to nvidia if ati went with them

Re:if AMD went under (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420853)

I've been reading these things since the late 90's that AMD is going to fail.. Just more guessing with out having any idea of what to say. I can guess all day on who will fail and may get luck here and there. Yes some will cut staff and products that's business.

Re:if AMD went under (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420975)

Intel will never let AMD go under. They have a similar relationship as Microsoft and Apple had in the 80's. Microsoft made sure Apple never became a real threat. Every time it came close to being a threat, Microsoft would just start a price war and bring Apple to the brink of bankruptcy, BUT never allow bankruptcy to occur so they can claim to the justice department that they are not a monopoly.
Intel plays the exact same game with AMD. When Opteron-64 posed a threat, Intel simply lowered prices to the point where AMD would bleed and not be able to invest as much in R&D allowing Intel to catch up.

I wish (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420753)

Watching CA and Symantec die would be kind of satisfying, if only from a "revenge for all the problems your shitty fucking products have given me over the years" perspective.

Doubt it, though.

Re:I wish (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421061)

I want CA to go away, dam there freaking Directory server system. Maybe my companey will get the Sun Directory server if CA folds, atleast there support for it is GOOD.

Only one choice (4, Insightful)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420773)

Creative Labs.

Have they released a good product in this millenium?

Re:Only one choice (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420937)

I think they only make MP3 players now....but im not sure.

Re:Only one choice (2, Informative)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421089)

(disclaimer: I do not work for Creative nor have I received compensation from them in any way)

X-Fi Expresscard

Zen Vision:M

These two products alone are wonderful. The former is one of a few Expresscard audio interfaces available, and it sounds awesome. The latter is what the iPod should be - natively supports MPEG 1/2/4, DivX, XviD, virtually every audio format except APE, FLAC, and M4P (but does do M4A).

Their customer service is utter crap, as we can gather from the daniel_k fiasco, and even the $30-$50 "bench fee" for items reqiring service under warranty. However, I will say that they do have some solid products and have a solid lineup of MP3 players that are quite competitive to the iPod.

Joey

Lamest list ever (2, Interesting)

jd.schmidt (919212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420819)

Why make a list of companies that will "go out of business", then hedge by saying they might be bought up, then finish with, well we don't think much of this is likely.

Reminds me of a skit I saw once.

Interviewer: You have an facinating new book called, "Was Hitler Welsh?" Well was he?
Author: After exhaustive study, I can confidently say, no he wasn't.

*My* Predictions (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420831)

OK, here goes:

10)HP
9)eBay
8)Nintendo
7)Adobe
6)Red Hat
5)Amazom.com
4)IBM
3)Microsoft
2)Apple
1)Google :D

where is ... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420883)

Apple? They've been going out of business for YEARS!!!

And why isn't SCO on that list? Isn't it about time they die already?

Slashdot involved in stock scams now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420889)

What is this? An attempt to kill some confidence for a quick buck?

The list is the opposite (1)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420911)

If you actually go through the list, the comments on all of the companies listed state they're not going out of business in 2009.

What was the point of this again?

Its too hard to RTFA. (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420941)

Slide decks should not go on the web. That is just sick and way too time consuming.

NetApp going down, would surprise me.

I happen to work for a listed company... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26420945)

I recently spoke to a director of sales.

His sales pipeline is double the one he had last year, because customers have decided to stop fooling around with start ups that will probably be out of business next year, and go with known brand names.

I'm not giving any more details because I'm not very familiar with insider trading laws, and don't want to get in trouble. But anyone who thinks that larger companies that sell into the IT marketspace are in trouble, clearly have no clue about what's really going on.

A Flash slideshow? (1, Redundant)

asv108 (141455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26420951)

I'm sorry, but how did this make to the front page? The selections on the list are wrong or obvious, but the list itself is a freaking flash slideshow with only 1 item per slide! The editors need to do their jobs.

Dvorak named AMD his 10 bagger for 2009 (1)

Benji Minoskovich (1266090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421039)

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amd-10-bagger-pick-2009/story.aspx?guid=D82F39D6-90CC-442A-AECF-FC1C7CE9BD1C&dist=SecMostCommented [marketwatch.com] Which means he thinks the stock could sell for $20 in 2009 (10x current share price, which was ~2 when the article was written). I'm not saying this is a realistic prediction (I hope it is since I'm a shareholder), but just goes to show how meaningless these stupid predictions are. Just like this summer when nearly everyone was predicting $200+/barrel oil.

Worst article ever (2, Insightful)

RetroRichie (259581) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421085)

This is the worst post ever. Even according to the article itself the most likely percentage is 25? How does that qualify as "Won't Survive 2009?" Waste of time.

My predition: Apple (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421117)

Just got a mini this weekend, first mac ever. Everything I touch always seems to die so I predict they'll be gone before we pop the corks on '10.

I've tried using this power for good by giving Bush a hug but the Secret Service wouldn't let me through the rope line.

Title is wrong (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26421137)

If you actually read closely, the article discusses companies that could go out of business. So it's a list of major tech companies whose businesses are being buffeted by some force and for whom 2009 is going to be a rough year, one that they might not live through if they're careless. The "insider predictions" are all confident that the companies will live, and even the "reader predictions" predict at best a 20% chance in failure. So one can assume that only one, maybe two, of these companies (at most) will actually go under this year.

Why flash? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26421177)

C'mon, folks. You've been watching the news in the last, say, two decades and you're asking "why flash"?

Didn't you notice, the less content one has to present, the more you have to put into the presentation to cover it up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?