Tag Archives: Historical Footnotes

Dinosaur Down: IBM’s Q3 Earnings

Scene: Armonk, New York

The earnings release speaks for itself (love that typeface – they must still do press releases on a Selectric typewriter in the IBM museum), but a few comments:

A billion dollar (as in $1,000,000,000) miss on the top line. Everything in varying levels of freefall, led by the swan dive of the hardware business (Power Series down 38%!). After a decade of the consistency so prized by Wall Street, that is three misses in a row for IBM and six straight quarters of declining revenue. Yet they beat their EPS number (modulo “other stuff”) and recommitted to the EPS roadmap for the year. Somehow, profits keep going up even as revenue declines (key contributor: a materially lower tax rate).

The earnings release in a nutshell: “Growth markets revenue down 9 percent”.

Cloud is starting to bite IBM and as I have noted, they lack a relevance amidst generational change. The company made some more detailed yet meaningless claims about cloud revenue. As with Q2, “cloud revenue up more than 70 percent year to date” but with no definition of what constitutes cloud (last week they were out making a distinction between “cloud-enabled” and actual cloud services). They did break new ground and say “$460 million is delivered as a cloud service” which presumably is mostly SoftLayer. Most glaring, IBM still doesn’t seem to have any material customer references, either in terms of the cloud technology being consumed or in terms of business impact.

IBM’s fundamental problem: they supply those being disrupted by technology, not those doing the disrupting. Today an IBM dependency can be an existential risk.

Exploring Alternative History

Tablet circa the year 2000

Bloomberg has a nice piece revisiting the broad vision Microsoft laid out in June 2000 at the grandiosely named Forum 2000. They even have an edited cut of some of the scenario videos developed for the event to bring the vision to life.

The event was originally scheduled to open the new millennium in January with a bang and more importantly to lay out Microsoft’s vision for the 21st century. The company felt intense pressure to reassert its thought leadership on at least three fronts. Microsoft, by virtue of being a business with actual profits, probably had an even greater relevance problem during the height of the dot com mania than it does today. Second, the unrelenting antirust assault on the company was building to its climax and the company desperately wanted an alternative narrative. And, largely forgotten today, the company was very concerned about demonstrating it would not lose a step in the transition to its brand new CEO, one Steven A. Ballmer, who had just taken the reins from Bill Gates.

The event was pushed from January to March and then ultimately June because the dates kept overlapping with antitrust rulings. That event kicked off a train of events that lead us directly to Microsoft’s current situation and the search for a new leader. It definitely provides a glimpse of a different trajectory for Microsoft over the last decade.

The original process to define Microsoft’s forward vision was through a set of technical committees made up of Microsoft’s best and brightest technologists. Despite high hopes and leaks to the press that such a process was under way, this approach was pretty much a complete bust. As that became apparent, Steve asked Paul Maritz to oversee an effort to pull together a compelling vision for the company. Paul described this exercise as “creating a new parade”.  A small and fairly eclectic group was formed of people from across the company but largely outside the engineering ranks. We sketched out the broad attributes of what things going forward would look like and then five sub-teams were tasked with making this brave new world come alive for consumers, small business, enterprises, knowledge workers and an end-to-end healthcare scenario that illustrated what developers would be able to build. Each group scripted and then shot professional quality videos from the user perspective.

I don’t think people appreciate how close Microsoft came to completely imploding in 2000. Employees woke up every day to relentlessly negative headlines from the DoJ case. It was not yet evident that the surreal world of the dot com bubble had ended, and even if you weren’t being wooed daily to join revenue-less startups with ridiculous valuations, you felt obligated to explore options.

Forum 2000 changed all that internally. It provided a sense of purpose and showed how the whole could be greater than the sum of the parts. Soon after Forum 2000, Mark Lucovsky, one of the key contributors to Windows NT, the inventor of Win32 (he also likes to brag he invented “DLL Hell”) and one of the company’s distinguished engineers, showed up with an architecture to make the Forum 2000 videos real (the ability to actually implement had not been the foremost consideration in painting the vision…). This lead to .NET My Services (aka hailStorm) which was announced in the spring of 2001.

.NET My Services was a cloud-centric model using web services to deliver consistent, personalized experiences across a wide variety of devices (including non-Microsoft devices – the very first device demonstrated was a Palm). It was also an API-first model, which meant any endpoint could access the system (this is an approach the Facebooks and Twitters claim, but regularly violate in the name of “protecting the user experience” which really means protecting ad revenue). It was a major departure from Microsoft’s traditional PC-centric platform and also introduced a subscription business model as opposed to the traditional license model. It was an open platform accessible from any device or service through open XML-based protocols but could be bootstrapped using Microsoft’s vast footprint of devices, applications and services. It represented a fundamental shift to a service-centric world, both technically and in terms of business model.

By 2001, it was clearer that the dot com mania had been a giant bubble and wasn’t coming back, plus the appeals court ruled that Microsoft would survive the antitrust proceedings intact. The confidence stemming from these positive external factors, however, ultimately undermined Microsoft’s desire to invest and realize the new vision.

Competitors like Sun Microsystems, no doubt horrified that their years of lobbying had failed to hobble the company, now faced a revitalized Microsoft with a vision for the future that was compelling to customers and driving the industry discussion. When they probably should have been figuring out how to save a business shackled to the dot com ship, Sun embarked upon a very effective campaign of demagoguery around Microsoft leading the shift to a user-centric model. As a result, My Services ushered in the first big industry debate around identity and privacy in the cloud. In retrospect, Microsoft’s personal computing heritage and fundamentally user-centric approach to give users full control over how their data would be shared looks vastly superior to today’s world administered by the almost interchangeable Big Brothers of Facebook, Google and NSA.

With the competitive and existential threats from dot coms and the DoJ having abated by this time, Microsoft chickened out on seeing it through. It was easy to back down from the industry debate over identity, shirk the challenges of figuring out the subscription service model and revert to the comfort and familiarity of good old Windows and Office. Harvard Business School later did an interesting case on the tensions between the old and the new camps inside the company and how it played out.

I don’t think it is widely appreciated that WinFS was born of a desire to realize the My Services scenarios, but to do it in a Windows-centric way. There was broad agreement on the importance of the scenarios, but strategic nostalgia for Windows resulted in the company trying to rethread them through the franchise and revisit the eternal dream of integrated storage. Instead of the truth being in the cloud, the truth would reside on Windows and everything would have to sync with your PC (just don’t turn your laptop off…). This decision triggered a sequence of events that directly brings us to the present day where the erosion of the Windows franchise played no small role in Steve Ballmer’s departure,

My Services was shut down, with CTO and WinFS cheerleader David Vaskevitch dismissively telling the team the company “didn’t need another $500 million business”. The fixation on WinFS technology brought down Longhorn, the release of Windows scheduled to follow Windows XP. Simply put, WinFS was too ambitious technically. After much internal debate, Longhorn came to an end with the “Longhorn Reset” whereupon the company embarked on the far less ambitious Windows Vista (and WinFS was never to be seen again, although I have flashbacks when I listen to the Hadoop guys talk today). However, given it had been over five years since Windows XP had shipped, the company felt pressure to rush the product out the door to meet obligations to customers who had paid for a new version of Windows as part of their enterprise agreements. Hence the “Vistaster” of shipping a half-baked version of Windows.

The company then spent three more years cleaning up the quality, performance, haphazard user experience and packaging of Vista, resulting in the very solid Windows 7, but failing to move the PC industry forward in any material way during that time. Windows XP remained the most popular version of Windows and Microsoft was forced multiple times to extend the end of life of Windows XP by a customer base that was just not compelled by multiple subsequent releases.

Meanwhile, iPhone and iPad (and imitators like Android) were in market and Microsoft’s Post-PC nightmare was looking very real. The company decided to focus Windows 8 almost exclusively on tablets, hoping to pull the tablet category back into the PC universe. Except that didn’t happen. Windows 8 on tablets received mixed reviews. Surface was a costly mistake, both financially and in its impact on critical OEM relationships. And it screwed up the desktop experience for billions of PC users (one senior Microsoft executive told me Windows 8 was only for tablets, but didn’t answer my question of why they neglected to mention that in the advertising). Which brings us to the present and the search for a new CEO.

In retrospect, this sequence of events is crystal clear in a way it never is in the fog of the present. Even with greater commitment, there are a million other ways the Forum 2000 vision could have gone wrong. Parts of the vision were dead on, others such as assuming tablets would rely on a stylus were big misses. It was still predicated on bootstrapping from the current Microsoft installed base, which would force a myriad of tradeoffs between old and new every day. There were major business challenges to overcome in building a successful subscription business, particularly as the Google advertising revenue volcano was just beginning to erupt. Microsoft subsequently spent years drooling over the prospect of hundreds of billions of dollars of advertising moving online, without fully internalizing that capturing those revenues would require behavior that was in many ways antithetical to the personal computing ethos at the core of the company. The good news is the rise of the tablet kept Microsoft from turning Windows into an ad-funded desktop billboard monstrosity.

The Price of Success

And of course, Microsoft faced the innovator’s dilemma in spades. The last decade of Microsoft’s history is a classic and very public case study on how a very successful company deals with disruption (disruption it knows is coming). The dissipation of the Forum 2000 vision was very much the result of a battle between seemingly reactionary forces exercising their fiduciary responsibilities and the hazy dreamers of a less distinct and unproven future. The counter-revolution obviously prevailed, at least temporarily.

Some have even argued that Microsoft did the right thing by maximizing Windows profits for as long as it did (and is still doing even though Windows profits dipped slightly below $10 billion in the last fiscal year). Horace Dediu’s recent podcast “The Limits of Executive Power” has an interesting take on this (and smart commentary recently on Microsoft is hard to find):

We begin with a defense of Ballmer for preserving great things, continue by condemning him for not having destroyed those very same things and end by asking whether anyone could have done the right thing.

The Innovator’s Dilemma came out in 1997. We all read it at Microsoft and were looking for disruption behind every tree. Discussions about the need to cannibalize Windows before someone else did have been going on for at least 15 years. And in the meantime, the company has banked profits from Windows alone in excess of $100 billion (I have not done the actual math but the number is of this order of magnitude). Clearly undermining that profit stream proactively 15 years ago was the wrong thing to do, but how should the company have avoided its current situation? The company invested in pretty much every kind of non-PC device including smartphones (Microsoft was the leader in this space as recently as 2006), tablets (albeit with styluses) and a bunch of goofier form factors.

I believe the fundamental problem was the unwillingness and/or inability to transcend the single device (UPDATE: I should make explicit that this is a reference to Tim O’Reilly’s popularization of Dave Stutz’s farewell from Microsoft missive which was written after the My Services experience). Microsoft had the vision and means to both lead the industry and bridge its existing businesses to a cloud-centric, multi-device world, but failed to follow through. Now it finds itself belatedly embracing this model but from a disadvantaged position. It is yet another technology industry example of innovations conceived in one place being successfully commercialized elsewhere that lacks the baggage of the conceiver.

Near the end of my tenure at Microsoft, I was in a meeting with a cast of thousands. One of the presenters said “we wouldn’t want to do another hailStorm”, expecting all the heads in the room to nod in unison. The SVP in the room turned to me and said “we should have done hailStorm” to which my answer was “damn straight”. The rest of the room was aghast. I suspect this viewpoint is not as contentious now, even at the board level. Success can be a bitch.

Open Season: A Short Industrial Drama

Cloud Foundry had a pretty good week with endorsements from Baidu and IBM. Both relationships were developed after I left VMware so what follows is purely speculation on my part. But some companies have a tough time getting over their history and playbooks, so it is easy to imagine how things went down.

Warning: this post contains serious “inside baseball” about the past and present of software standardization and open source mechanics. If you don’t know what ECMA oxymoronically used to mean or haven’t debated the merits of different open source licenses, you may want to stop reading right now (go see Pacific Rim or read up on Bitcoin instead). I may be the only person who gets some of these jokes. Apologies to David Mamet.

OPEN SEASON

Scene: a hipster office in SOMA populated by dogs, twenty-something Siamese programmers and two older gentlemen trying with limited success to project a casual air.

Characters:
Jim – a Pivotal executive
Dan – an IBM executive
Angel – an IBM standards executive

Dan: We’re from the IBM company and today is your lucky day. We have decided Cloud Foundry is going to be the platform-as-a-service for the cloud.

Jim: Oh…

Angel: It’s still early days for the cloud.

Dan: The way this will work is IBM will make Cloud Foundry open and therefore viable for the enterprise. We know how to do this and will tell you what you have to do.

Jim: I’m not sure I follow as our strategy has been to make Cloud Foundry as open as possible from day one. Am I missing something?

Dan: Cloud Foundry cannot be used in the enterprise until IBM gives it our blessing. It is critical that enterprises only use open technologies.

Jim: Open like the mainframe?

Dan: Watch your tone son. We’re from IBM and we make sure that enterprises are not locked into proprietary technologies.

Jim: I’m definitely not following you. What do you mean by “open”?

Dan: Openness depends on having a comprehensive governance strategy. We will work with you to create a Cloud Foundry Foundation to manage the governance of Cloud Foundry.

Jim: What exactly would such a Foundation do? And isn’t “Cloud Foundry Foundation” kind of awkward phrasing? Did you consider just Foundration? That domain might still be available.

Dan: The Cloud Foundry Foundation will handle the governance of Cloud Foundry. With a formal governance process as defined in bylaws, Cloud Foundry will then be open so enterprise customers can embrace it.

Jim: Hmm.. I assume you’d describe GE as an enterprise customer. They’ve embraced Cloud Foundry to the tune of investing $105 million. And they’ve never mentioned the word governance as far as I can recall. They have been known to throw around terms like productivity and time-to-market.

Dan: Let me help you understand how this will work. Do you remember Java and Linux? IBM made those technologies successful in the enterprise by ensuring they were open. We will do the same thing for Cloud Foundry. But you will need to follow our direction.

Jim: You’ll have to excuse me as I was in junior high school when you were running that playbook for Java and Linux. But I’m still not certain what this has to do with Cloud Foundry.

Dan: Enterprise customers expect new technologies have formal governance processes so they can trust them to be open. For example, it is critical there be explicit rules to specify the voting rights for different classes of membership and how to deal with conflicts of interest on the board of directors.

Jim: I am afraid I still don’t understand what this has to do with making it easier for customers to build applications for the cloud. I defer to your knowledge of the previous century as well as conflicts of interest, but it seems customers today are more focused on functioning code that solves their business problems than governance processes. But you should explain to me what governance you think is necessary.

Dan: The Cloud Foundry Foundation will be a legal entity with a steering committee which will define all the subcommittees necessary for different aspects of Cloud Foundry. Obviously, we will use Robert’s Rules of Order.

Jim: Is this how you created the Java programming model?

Dan: Exactly.

Jim: You do know the majority of enterprise Java development is done today with the Spring Framework which was developed to shelter developers from the horrors of committee-developed technologies like EJB?

Dan: Son, enterprises can’t build enterprise solutions without enterprise technologies like EJB. When you start doing transactions, it is no longer child’s play. You may have your simple solutions for simple problems, but IBM solves enterprise problems.

Jim: I won’t ask how it is that the biggest Internet companies on the planet somehow manage to do transactions at vastly greater scale than any enterprise that uses IBM technology. I guess I should also be surprised the cloud has gotten as far as it has without any committees and Robert’s Rules of Order.

Angel: It’s still early days for the cloud.

Jim: Your faith in committees is touching, but pretty much for every broadly successful technology in the world today, there was a committee-driven alternative that failed. Take IP vs. OSI, or HTML succeeding only by throwing away the vast standardized bulk of SGML. I think the world has learned from these experiences. We have seen over and over that committees are prone to making bad political tradeoffs, delivering least common denominator solutions and losing sight of the real problem at hand. Premature standardization is a killer; you need to allow for experimentation, evolution and finding the proverbial product-market fit.

Dan: Son, you need to understand how things work in the enterprise.

Jim: Is there more to IBM’s cloud strategy than a vague appeal for standards? Do you really think a bunch of random committees are going to keep up with Amazon Web Services? I guess it could be a good strategy if they’re laughing so hard they can’t get any work done.

Angel: It’s still early days for the cloud.

Dan: Let me give you a recent example. Have you heard of OpenStack? IBM is making OpenStack part of the open enterprise cloud.

Jim: I am familiar with OpenStack as it turns out. In fact, Cloud Foundry runs on OpenStack. I do seem to recall you guys jumped on the OpenStack bandwagon a couple years after it got started. Are you saying IBM is somehow responsible for OpenStack’s momentum?

Dan: IBM is making OpenStack open and acceptable for enterprises.

Jim: So what contributions have you made to OpenStack?

Angel: We have dozens of our best standards people working on OpenStack.

Jim: I was thinking more in terms of code. NASA and Rackspace have contributed major pieces of technology – what has IBM brought to OpenStack?

Angel: It’s still early days for the cloud.

Jim: Well, even if software development is not your focus, you do operate a lot of outsourced IT infrastructure. With IBM’s enterprise presence you must have a lot of customers running OpenStack today. How many megawatts of OpenStack capacity are you operating?

Angel: It’s still early days for the cloud.

Jim: I’m not sure where you guys have been for the last decade, but the world has changed. We now achieve openness at the engineering level, not with lawyers writing bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order. The days of heavyweight governance via committees staffed by people whose primary skill is sleeping while sitting up have probably come and gone. Cloud Foundry is extremely open today by any practical measure. The code is all on GitHub under the very permissive Apache license. Is there something we’re missing?

Angel: What is this Geet Hub? Can you spell that for me?

Jim: GitHub is a public code repository. Anyone can submit a pull request and contribute code to the project. If you don’t like the vision or want to do something different that is more tailored to your specific needs, you can always fork the project and take it in whatever direction you want.

Dan: (visibly flinching and frothing) Are you mad? Anyone can just contribute code? To a product that will be used by enterprises?

Dan: You encourage people to fragment the project by modifying it and making derivative works? (pause)  Do you not know any history boy? We spent years trying to minimize Java fragmentation. Microsoft would taunt us that even Ivory soap was only 99 and 44/100th pure. Despite Herculean efforts, we never quite achieved it, but we tell ourselves, much like with the current economic recovery, it could have been so much worse. You would let anyone do whatever they want with the software? (aghast)

Dan: How will enterprises ensure they’re getting the official version of Cloud Foundry? Do you not see how critical it is to have a Foundation that controls Cloud Foundry?

Jim: The market decides what the best version of Cloud Foundry is, not some committee. If you don’t like the direction, you could always fork and go in whatever direction you think is most appropriate. One would think with 400,000 or so employees, IBM would have some people who could write code as opposed to committee minutes.

Dan: Surely you jest. We can’t rely on the market to make decisions for the enterprise. That is IBM’s role and has been since the dawn of information technology. If you don’t fully appreciate the criticality of governance, we can go elsewhere. We have options. We could bless OpenShit, sorry I mean OpenShift instead. I bet Red Hat would play ball. We’re old friends with their standards guys.

Jim: Good luck with that.

Dan: Or we could bring the full might of IBM’s research labs to bear and build our own platform-as-a-service. Don’t underestimate the technological prowess of the IBM company. We get more patents every year than any other company. We can write the letters IBM at the atomic level. We are going to positively own the burgeoning robotic game show contestant market. We can make WebSphere the application platform for the cloud. WebSphere is the biggest middleware on the planet, though I’m not sure why the development team was laughing when they said that. If you don’t hand over Cloud Foundry to the Cloud Foundry Foundation, we’ll just compete with you.

Jim: You’d think with all those great patents, you’d have more innovation to show in your product line and wouldn’t be here trying to figure out how to co-opt the fruits of someone else’s R&D. I get that what’s yours is yours, like the mainframe, but you’d also like what other people have developed to be under your control. You’re welcome to participate in the Cloud Foundry ecosystem on the same level playing field as everyone else, but we’re not going to distract ourselves from building a great platform with some giant bureaucratic foundation. If you want to compete, by all means compete, but at some point you’re going to have to write some code people actually want to use. Maybe you can create an IDE that lets people write code at the atomic level. And with all due respect, WebSphere at this point is just a middleware museum. It is about as relevant to the cloud as the mainframe.

Dan (quietly to Angel): They’re onto us. Our strategy of blessing different piece parts defined by multiple slow-moving and conflicted committees that don’t work together well and need busloads of consultants to make them limp along may not fly in the cloud. This may be a problem for our earnings roadmap. Our CFO told Wall Street we’d have $7 billion in cloud revenues by 2015 and SmartCloud unfortunately isn’t looking that smart.

Angel: It’s still early days for the cloud.

Jim: I’ll tell you what. I’d hate for you to have to go back to Armonk and get yelled at by your CEO again for not working hard enough and not bothering to return customer calls. We’re doing a Cloud Foundry developer conference this fall and how about IBM sponsor breakfast there or something? You can buy some healthy fare and we can explain how in the past you would have brought donuts, but you’ve gotten religion about reducing middleware girth. You can even come to the advisory board meeting. And of course you can submit all the code you want to the project, but I realize that may not be your thing. But I do have one request if we’re going to work together: please don’t ever use that the word governance again in my presence.

Angel: It’s still early days for the cloud.

Jim: Yes, it’s still early days for the cloud…at IBM.

FINIS

Note: the voices in my head for this are the default Xtranormal voices. In the sequel, the Bernank will make an appearance.

Third Time’s a Charm?

So now Microsoft joins the rumored array of aspiring watchmakers.

TechCrunch mockup of Microsoft Watch

Every story includes an obligatory reference to the Microsoft SPOT watch and its FM sideband broadcast technology:

SPOT watch

Yet there was an even earlier Microsoft watch. Industry history, it turns out, predates the archives of any tech blog, even those that stretch all the way back to the early 21st century. The first Microsoft watch was a mid-1990s collaboration with Timex called the Datalink (check out this retro unboxing video, featuring a 3.5” disk and a CompuServe offer). The watch had an optical sensor on the face. You synced your Outlook calendar data to it by awkwardly holding your arm up in front of your monitor while the screen blinked madly. The technique only worked with CRT monitors, not LCDs, which certainly put a damper on its future prospects. I found mine, which is a little worse for the wear:

Timex DataLink watch

And if you go back to the 1970s, there is another famous industry watch which doesn’t even merit a Wikipedia entry, despite an industry titan’s efforts to keep it and the lessons it conveyed alive:

The Microma watch

We’ll see if the next wave of smart watches do better than the previous attempts.

Sundown

I’ve gotten multiple requests to dance on Sun’s grave, but Fake Steve seems to have the ceremonies well in hand.  I just need something from the wine cellar to accompany the festivities.  Perhaps a nice bottle of Churlish Chardonnay…

025

Mobile Photo Feb 7, 2010 11 29 55 PM (What ever happened to that Java ring?)

Mobile Photo Feb 7, 2010 11 46 53 PM

Mobile Photo Feb 7, 2010 11 47 03 PM

This was an Intel product if I remember correctly, underscoring how tough it is to pair chips and wine.

Live SkiFree or Die

Hey, I actually get this obscure xkcd reference:

SkiFree

We did three Entertainment Packs for Windows soon after Windows 3.0 came out (tagline: “Not the most fun you can have with Windows, the only fun”).  Each had about eight games.  Some like Minesweeper and FreeCell got bundled with subsequent versions of Windows, but I never would have guessed SkiFree would continue to have a cult following nearly two decades later.  There are SkiFree updates, ports, exhaustive overviews, numerous videos, cheat codes, fan mail and even fan fiction.  The Wikipedia entry has even dug into the philosophical underpinnings of the game (though inexplicably provides no scatological discussions of the sources of and scoring for yellow snow in the game).

The funniest part is (if I recall correctly), the origin of the Abominable Snowman was the game had a stack overflow bug and instead of fixing the bug (hey, we were on Internet time way way before it was popular, cranking these things out in a couple months), the Snowman was introduced as a way to sidestep the bug by devouring the player with a small loophole that if you outran him in a specific way (appreciate the annotated video and opportunity to buy the soundtrack…), you’d start again.

image I assume it is just a matter of time before the Snowman gets a movie deal.  Every other comic character with any nostalgic appeal already seems to have one.

From an Undisclosed Location

Scott McNealy's current office at Sun MicrosystemsSomewhere, the team of guards that has been keeping Scott McNealy gagged and under lock and key in recent years has been doubled and they’ve taken to sedating him to ensure he doesn’t pop off about the prospect of IBM buying Sun and perhaps prevent Sun from being put out of their (and our) misery through acquisition.

The ever pointed McNealy had some subtle insights on mergers and acquisitions.  Two that pop to mind:

  • On the merger between HP and Compaq: “Two garbage trucks backing into each other in slow motion.”
  • On Unisys, a merger of mainframe also-rans Sperry and Burroughs, whose slogan was The Power of Two: “That’s about their stock price!”

I’m sure he has had some fine IBM barbs as well over the years but I can’t recall any (probably because we were to busy ducking his incoming fire at Microsoft to appreciate well-aimed shots at others).  Anyone remember any choice Scott lines about IBM?  An IBM takeover of Sun would undoubtedly be a long and protracted process so we need some choice color quotes to be repeated in every story for the months it would take to close.