Board index » delphi » Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?

Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?

Quote
>PR Newswire
>Wednesday March 31 9:28pm

>SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., March 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Inprise Corporation
>(Nasdaq: INPR) today announced the resignation of Delbert W. Yocam as
>the company's chairman of the board and Chief Executive Officer. In
>addition, Kathleen Fisher has resigned as the company's vice president
and
>Chief Financial Officer.

CEO Yocam resigns. Share price in the toilet (sliding for several weeks
on the trot,
today $3.3, down 15%).

Does anybody have the skinny on this? What the hell is going on?
Time to get worried about the future of our favourite development tools?

John.

 

Re:Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?


: John O'Sullivan <j...@tinet.ie> wrote:

Quote
>Does anybody have the skinny on this? What the hell is going on?
>Time to get worried about the future of our favourite development tools?

Just FYI: This is something that people on the Borland newsgroups have
been yearning for for many months now.

And it is only the CEO and the CFO - both of whom made wrong decisions
- that are going. It does not help to calm down matters, but the
PRODUCTS are still intact.

--
Stefan Hoffmeister    (http://www.econos.de/)
No private email, please, unless expressly invited.

Re:Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?


Quote
John O'Sullivan wrote:

> >PR Newswire
> >Wednesday March 31 9:28pm

> >SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., March 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Inprise Corporation
> >(Nasdaq: INPR) today announced the resignation of Delbert W. Yocam as
> >the company's chairman of the board and Chief Executive Officer. In
> >addition, Kathleen Fisher has resigned as the company's vice president
> and
> >Chief Financial Officer.

> CEO Yocam resigns. Share price in the toilet (sliding for several weeks
> on the trot, today $3.3, down 15%).

> Does anybody have the skinny on this? What the hell is going on?
> Time to get worried about the future of our favourite development tools?

The funny thing about Borland (I hope they take that name back!) is
that, like Apple, "the tools are so good that they keep going along in
spite of the company that makes them!"

I have long wished that Borland would realize, "we make compilers.
That's what we do.  The best damn compilers in the business.  That's
what we do."

I don't know how much profit you make from making compilers, but you
don't need to put a lot of song-and-dance on top of it when you're
selling to technicians. Anyone and everyone who produces software uses a
compiler to do it, and is profoundly affected (good or bad) by how good
that compiler is.

Therefore, any effort and money that is put into "image" and other
puffery, and not into the compilers -- l productes! -- is wasted.  And,
without an operating system monopoly to shore up the bottom line, a
company like this one is never going to have bundles of cash to waste.

Maybe the board or the shareholders finally figured that out.

Re:Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?


Quote
Sundial Services wrote in message <3704DC15.7...@sundialservices.com>...
>The funny thing about Borland (I hope they take that name back!)

They have - kind of. As I understand it, there will still be
Inprise (they desperately want to get into the "enterprise"
market where the big bucks are), but there will also be
a "Borland.com" with the more traditional Borland focus.

--
Jeremy Collins

Re:Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?


Quote
Jeremy Collins wrote:
> >The funny thing about Borland (I hope they take that name back!)

> They have - kind of. As I understand it, there will still be
> Inprise (they desperately want to get into the "enterprise"
> market where the big bucks are), but there will also be
> a "Borland.com" with the more traditional Borland focus.

The problem with that strategy is that all of the true enterprise
players are well aware that every Tom,{*word*106}, and Harry is courting them
with their "enterprise solution."  They have to look beyond the
marketing hype and so they are conditioned to do just that.  (When
everyone is blowing smoke at you, you learn to cut the smoke and you do
it instinctively.)

All that an "enterprise strategy" does for you is to push your cost of
goods sold right up to the moon.  And when your product costs $100 on
the street, that's really hard to sustain for any length of time.

Our favorite country singer ;-) should have known that, along with the
rest of his "record company." (the board)

The irony in all this is that Borland's products ARE the best of their
breed and have been since the company's inception.  I'm glad that
Microsoft paid hundreds of millions of dollars for developers who might
improve their own highly-influential but highly-inferior products, but
that's only because they need to do that.  Borland does not.

Compiler vendors have a captive audience.  It's of finite size but
fiercely loyal.  They will buy improvements - from the host vendor or
from one another.  They will tell you in no uncertain terms what matters
to them.  And as they go from place to place they will carry a
preference for your products with them.  

A company like that does not need to "reinvent" itself.  It needs to
"know its core business like nobody else does and stick to it."

Borland does not need to be or to become Microsoft.  The only reason why
Microsoft is the way it is today is that it has a cash-cow.  But even
that cash-cow driven behemoth is not going to steal much business from
Borland.

Re:Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?


The problem is that a publicly traded company is expected to show two digit
revenue growth year to year, and as you correctly point out the compiler
market is fairly static. Borland certainly makes the best compilers around,
and if they would just stick to that I think they could become a solid, but
not financially flashy, company.

I was very concerned when Borland became Inprise and started to pursue the
enterprise market. I'm just as concerned with the split. Borland.com seems
to have two different missions: internet business and compiler/tool
development. Why can't they spin off the compilers into a company dedicated
to them? Such a company might be small (compared to MS and IBM) and might
not show incredible growth but it would have, as you have pointed out, a
solid, stable, and loyal market base and I expect that, for its size, it
would be very profitable.

Quote
Sundial Services wrote in message <3704DC15.7...@sundialservices.com>...
>John O'Sullivan wrote:

>> >PR Newswire
>> >Wednesday March 31 9:28pm

>> >SCOTTS VALLEY, Calif., March 31 /PRNewswire/ -- Inprise Corporation
>> >(Nasdaq: INPR) today announced the resignation of Delbert W. Yocam as
>> >the company's chairman of the board and Chief Executive Officer. In
>> >addition, Kathleen Fisher has resigned as the company's vice president
>> and
>> >Chief Financial Officer.

>> CEO Yocam resigns. Share price in the toilet (sliding for several weeks
>> on the trot, today $3.3, down 15%).

>> Does anybody have the skinny on this? What the hell is going on?
>> Time to get worried about the future of our favourite development tools?

>The funny thing about Borland (I hope they take that name back!) is
>that, like Apple, "the tools are so good that they keep going along in
>spite of the company that makes them!"

>I have long wished that Borland would realize, "we make compilers.
>That's what we do.  The best damn compilers in the business.  That's
>what we do."

>I don't know how much profit you make from making compilers, but you
>don't need to put a lot of song-and-dance on top of it when you're
>selling to technicians. Anyone and everyone who produces software uses a
>compiler to do it, and is profoundly affected (good or bad) by how good
>that compiler is.

>Therefore, any effort and money that is put into "image" and other
>puffery, and not into the compilers -- l productes! -- is wasted.  And,
>without an operating system monopoly to shore up the bottom line, a
>company like this one is never going to have bundles of cash to waste.

>Maybe the board or the shareholders finally figured that out.

Re:Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?


Quote
Bruce Roberts wrote:

> The problem is that a publicly traded company is expected to show two digit
> revenue growth year to year, and as you correctly point out the compiler
> market is fairly static. Borland certainly makes the best compilers around,
> and if they would just stick to that I think they could become a solid, but
> not financially flashy, company.

> I was very concerned when Borland became Inprise and started to pursue the
> enterprise market. I'm just as concerned with the split. Borland.com seems
> to have two different missions: internet business and compiler/tool
> development. Why can't they spin off the compilers into a company dedicated
> to them? Such a company might be small (compared to MS and IBM) and might
> not show incredible growth but it would have, as you have pointed out, a
> solid, stable, and loyal market base and I expect that, for its size, it
> would be very profitable.

Much as they did with Interbase, Inc.  and perhaps were trying to do
with Borland.Com.

The insatiable thirst for numbers is what has driven some companies to
go private! (And I think it's what drove IBM to say "to hell with you"
to the market a few years ago... which of course boosted their stock
price in the long run.)

I read not long ago that Ingram Micro missed their earnings projections
by about eleven cents a share -- and laid off 1,400 people to get the
numbers back.  I'd hate to have been one of those people who lost their
jobs to less than the price of a pack of gum.

Re:Borland's CEO Yocam resigns. What's up?


Quote
>The insatiable thirst for numbers is what has driven some companies to
>go private! (And I think it's what drove IBM to say "to hell with you"
>to the market a few years ago... which of course boosted their stock
>price in the long run.)

>I read not long ago that Ingram Micro missed their earnings projections
>by about eleven cents a share -- and laid off 1,400 people to get the
>numbers back.  I'd hate to have been one of those people who lost their
>jobs to less than the price of a pack of gum.

Yeah. What is even more ludicrous is that the numbers were an educated guess
made more than 12 months earlier. If governments worked that way, in a few
years there wouldn't be any civil servants. Um . . .

Other Threads