Phil (phil@phil.com) on 2/6/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>savantu (savantu@email.ro) on 2/6/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Phil (phdny@mac.com) on 2/6/09 wrote:
>>---------------------------
>>
>>>"with Itanium sales having exceeded SPARC sales last year " - Excuse me? Did you
>>>drink the coolaid from Intel or HP on Itanium vs SPARC sales?-check your facts before
>>>making clueless statements. Last time I checked (IDC Q1-Q3CY08), Sun SPARC volumes
>>>exceeded Itanium sales by over 4x (13,802 vs 48,585 servers) and SPARC revenue exceeded
>>>Itanium-just look at Sun's CMT sales alone @ over $1BN-surpassing Itanium. Clearly,
>>>Itanium volumes will continue to hurt ISV ROI investments and with Nehalem scaling
>>>upwards, how can Itanium survive without any volume? Sounds like a similar fate as Alpha...
>>>
>>
>>I'm talking about revenue, not units. SUN was still shipping large amounts of small servers.
>>
>>Itanium sales are [b] above $1B[/b] per Q and IIRC it surpassed SPARC worlwide at the end of o8.
>
>Last quarter of data available from IDC is Q3CY08 as far as I know and IDC is showing
>$1.219M for Itanium and $1.233M for SPARC so I'm not sure where you are getting
>your data from. And yes, Itanium is high in revenue (and close to SPARC) but unfortunately,
>this isn't a good indicator of "Sales" as it was labeled. Sales usually means how
>many units sold, not how much money you can charge your customers for 4x fewer systems.
>Without volume, you become a niche player and eventually get squeezed out of the market.
>

Review what direction IPF and SPARC sales, either
by revenue or shipments, have been heading over the
past few years. Also compare the financial/business
situation of HP and Intel to that of Sun over the same
period.

Either will show your comments above to be wrong or
at least quite inapplicable to this situation.