FERGUSON@TMASL.EXXON.COM (04/15/89)
I just had my Dad read me the Wall Street Journal's coverage of the takeover.
Thomas Vanderslice said something to the effect that Apollo is excited
about this whole deal. The HP spokespeople said that 'a wave of happiness
will spread over the installed base of Apollo users'. Supposedly this is
a good thing for all of us.
I talked with my Apollo sales team (they're convincing me to buy a DN10000),
and they gave me the full positive reply. Here's a couple things they
mentioned to me:
1) Combining Apollo and HP's installed base and production,
they have become the world's largest workstation vendor.
2) The combination gives Apollo a whole lot more buckaroos
for R&D, which can't be a bad thing.
3) HP Bought Apollo BECAUSE of the existing installed base of
Apollos, and because of the superior products Apollo has
created. They're not just going to sink them, but use them
to get an edge on the other guys.
I do like the idea of the extended research budget, but that could turn into
wishful thinking if they're not careful.
What scares me is that these takeovers/mergers tend to completely disorganize
a corporation, ruining customer support AND innovation. Will HP go and replace
half of Apollo's top management with HP people, leaving a huge sales/support
force angry and un-promoted?
I've done my share of yelling across the net about Apollo's business types,
but at least they know their own company. I'd rather yell at familiar
Apollo businesspeople than unfamiliar HP ones.
I guess a lot of good could come out of this, but so could a lot of greed
and cost-cutting for the sake of a nice profit figure. Let's hope they
do this right.
Scott Ferguson
ferguson@erevax.bitnet
...the views expressed here in no way reflect those of Exxon Research and
Engineering Co.mike@hpdstma.HP.COM (Mike Carl) (04/19/89)
> I guess a lot of good could come out of this, but so could a lot of greed > and cost-cutting for the sake of a nice profit figure. I can understand your doubt in this matter. The public cannot assume that all large companies have noble intentions and that, even if they do, they'll create the safeguards and spend enough money to ensure the public welfare (i.e., the Exxon Valdez). In the case of the Exxon Valdez, a brief list of mistakes would include using a ship without protective double bottoms; not establishing procedures that would ensure that somebody capable were on the bridge at all times; failing to keep its oil-spill cleanup crews vigilant and ready to deal with spills; reacting slowly once the wreck occurred; and not having a cleanup plan three weeks after the Valdez went aground. > Let's hope they > do this right. I can understand your concern. > Scott Ferguson > ferguson@erevax.bitnet > > ...the views expressed here in no way reflect those of Exxon Research and > Engineering Co. --Mike Carl