VMware's Stock Rocks on First Day Out
VMware had the kind of opening day companies dream about. After opening
with a share price of $29
, enthusiastic investors helped kick
the price up to more than $50
by the end of the day yesterday. It's good
to be VMware.
VMware hopes the IP will raise about $900 million. That shouldn't be a problem,
judging from the initial response. Primary shareholder EMC Corp., which bought
most of VMware for $602 million in 2004, is also sitting pretty. EMC currently
holds 87 percent of the virtualization powerhouse. That's now priced at $9.5
billion, as of yesterday's IPO. Not a bad return on investment, eh?
Intel and Cisco Systems have also bought a piece of VMware's action. Intel
bucked up $218.5 million for a 2.5 percent stake last month. Just after
that, Cisco bought 6 million shares for $150 million.
VMware's market value was $10.9 billion after the IPO that will no doubt go
down in the company's history as "Fat Tuesday." Revenues are expected
to hit the $1 billion mark this year for the first time ever. Sales for the
first half of this year were $555.5 million, nearly twice as much as the same
period last year. Yep -- it's good to be VMware.
How does virtualization fit into your IT strategy? Are you virtualizing the
desktop? The server? Applications? Send me a real message at email@example.com.
Yahoo Tops Google in Survey
Just when it seems like nothing or no one can dethrone the mighty Google...
For the last three years, Yahoo has been inching upward in customer satisfaction,
according to an annual University of Michigan customer satisfaction survey.
At the same time Google has been slowly and steadily slipping. There's now a
six-point difference between the two, with Yahoo on top. That's the primary
take-away from the results of this
year's recently posted survey.
Google held steady in the Internet portal/search engine category for 2003,
2004 and 2005. It started dropping slightly in 2006 and 2007, losing one customer
satisfaction point per year. Then last year, the mighty Google slipped by three
points in the survey.
Yahoo also held steady in 2003 and 2004, then, after a slight decline, ended
up one point above Google for 2007. This may not be a huge difference, but it's
a three-point gain over last year. That trend, combined with Google's trending
in the other direction, means things could be looking good for Yahoo after a
rough few years.
If nothing else, the top Yahoo has confidence in her company. Yahoo's president
Susan Decker purchased 47,000 shares worth more than $1 million this week, just
after the stock scraped along on a three-year low. Decker, who has to be smiling
about the University of Michigan survey, now owns more than 424,000 shares of
Do you Yahoo? Do you Google? What's your choice when it comes to Internet search?
You don't need to Google or Yahoo me to find me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Microsoft Makes Biggest Grab Yet
Microsoft has just wrapped
up its acquisition of aQuantive, the multi-faceted Internet advertising
company. Priced at $6 billion, this is Microsoft's biggest acquisition to date.
As of last Friday, aQuantive became a wholly owned subsidiary of Redmond.
Microsoft's decision to buy the Web ad firm earlier this year was part of
a gaggle of deals in the online ad world. Google is still
trying to buy DoubleClick for $3.1 billion. Yahoo plans to plunk down $680
million to snap
up the rest of Right Media (it owns 20 percent now). Even the beleaguered
AOL is getting in on the fun, stating its plans to buy a group called Tacoda.
What do all these technology company and advertising agency deals mean? Get
ready to be barraged by online ads. There'll be no escape.
The Microsoft-aQuantive deal includes three individual companies:
- Internet ad agency Avenue A/Razorfish
- Atlas Media Console, which helps clients (advertisers and ad agencies)
buy online ads, then manages and tracks them once they're running
- Drive Performance Media, which buys and resells online ad space
How does the rapid blending of the worlds of technology and advertising grab
you? How do you feel about the Web as the brave new world for ads? Do online
ads affect your Web surfing usage or habits? Check in with me at email@example.com.
I promise I won't try to sell you anything.
Novell Scoops Up Senforce
In other acquisition news, Novell just
acquired Senforce Technologies, which focuses on endpoint security management.
Novell had already started wrapping the technology into its ZENworks enterprise
Earlier this year, Novell partnered with Senforce Technologies on ZENworks
Endpoint Security Management. This added endpoint protection to the ZENworks
suite, enforcing encryption at the desktop to help protect against security
breaches, data leaks and other Web-borne threats. It also promises to secure
removable devices, personal firewalls, wireless devices and applications.
"More enterprises and government agencies are losing mission-critical
and confidential information through theft and loss of unsecured corporate and
personal devices," says Joe Wagner, Novell senior vice president and general
manager of Systems and Resource Management, in a press release. "Combining
Senforce's technology with Novell's existing systems and resource management
solutions creates a new level of control and protection."
Wagner's comments and the completion of this deal were well-timed, coming on
a day when the Idaho National Guard reported the theft of a portable device
containing personal information on nearly 3,400 soldiers.
How does endpoint protection figure into your security framework? Do you use
a one-company suite or a best-of-breed smorgasbord? Send me your secure response
Mailbag: Who Really 'Got It Wrong'?
Monday, Doug wrote about the controversy surrounding
Pvt. Scott Beauchamp, whose column about abuses in Iraq ran anonymously
in The New Republic magazine. Later, rival magazine The Weekly Standard
would claim to uncover inaccuracies in Beauchamp's column. Readers sound off:
It looks like you've slammed Scott Beauchamp (the blogger) and The New
Republic unfairly. In fact, it appears that YOU are the one who hasn't "bothered
to check his facts"! Have you even read TNR's official position on the
Beauchamp saga? Here are a couple of links, in the likely event that you haven't
bothered to check on them yet: "A
Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp" and "A
Scott Beauchamp Update."
Now, it may turn out that the facts of the case are as The Weekly Standard
reports, but for now that's far from proven, and, in fact, I believe that
the case TNR has made in favor of Beauchamp's veracity is far more compelling.
Regarding the TNR military blogger mistake: The soldier in question is
not the first blogger or reporter to make up a story and get caught. However,
for TNR to continue to stand by the story AFTER the soldier had admitted he
lied about the whole story is inexcusable.
Seems you have fallen into some of the same trap that TNR did while "fact-checking"
the story. From what I have read and seen on various Web sites, the military
is not blocking Scott from talking to the media; he has free access to the
phones and everything, but it is he who is not talking to the media.
I read the story in a couple of places about the blogger who "got
it wrong." Seems like there are a few possibilities here. Who do you
want to believe? There are stories that other soldiers do not back up his
facts. Then there are stories that other soldiers DO back up his facts. It
seems that it would be in the best interests of the military to deny everything
he said. I can think of a few instances where that's been done before and
we later found that the denials were untrue.
What I'm trying to say here is that it may be premature to state that
this guy "got it wrong" or that he is a moron. Too many stories
have been coming out lately that would point to the possibility that his facts
are at least partially true, but there are plenty of people that would not
like them to be known.
The New Republic writer Pvt. Scott Beauchamp purposely made up stories
to slander the American miltary. And TNR purposely looked the other way and
pretended to believe the stories. That they printed such lies shows they are
on the side of our enemies.
Please don't use this forum to explain what the news means to me. We already
have enough shouting voices on CNN, FOX, etc. I don't believe them. Why should
I believe you?
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.