Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Should Acquire SAP, Not Yahoo
Reservoir Hill writes "Randall Stross has an insightful article in the NY Times that says that if Microsoft thinks this is the right time to try a major acquisition on a scale it has never tried before, it should pursue not Yahoo but SAP, another major player in business software, thus merging Microsoft's strength with that of another. This is more likely to produce a happy outcome than yoking two ailing businesses, Yahoo's and Microsoft's own online offerings, and hoping for a miracle. Stross points to Oracle as a company whose acquisition strategy has picked up key products and customers while avoiding venturing too far from its core business, or overpaying. Stross recommends that Microsoft acquire SAP and leave it alone as an autonomous division — which would avoid a culture-clash integration fiasco. Besides, large enterprise customers are arguably the best customers a software company can have. A few dozen well-paying Fortune 500 customers may actually be more valuable than tens of millions of Web e-mail 'customers' who pay nothing for the service and whose attention is not highly valued by online advertisers."
The article is looking at things totally from the wrong point of view - it's as if they believe that Microsoft's problem is that it has a huge pile of cash & don't know what to do with it.
It's not. Microsoft's problem is Google. Google are eating them in the only arena where you can make serious money on the web (ad brokerage) and doing things to threaten MS's monopoly elsewhere (Google Apps, Photoshop on linux, Webmail, etc)
The Yahoo purchase might not be a solution to this problem, but a SAP purchase sure as hell won't be.
(and frankly, I can't imagine SAP's websphere/java using userbase being enthused with the next SAP release being C# only)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
If the time is right for Microsoft to ruin some big corporation by buying it out, why doesn't it just by out Microsoft, it's only real competition. That's how life is for a monopoly.
Really, Microsoft's problem is that it's too big and doesn't do anything interesting on its own. Helping it buy some other huge corp is going in exactly the wrong direction. Microsoft should be spitting up, not borging yet another corp out of business.
--
make install -not war
MS has failed dismally with its various acquisitions, with very few exceptions. MS core money makers are OS and Office. They seem to be putting very little energy into Vista and fixing its problems, doing something which would make their core business sound. In fact it looks like they've just cut these adrift.
If Google had not emerged as the new obsession, they'd still be aiming for Apple with knock-off interfaces, Zune etc.
This is reaaly the MS tradgedy: instead of being customer focussed and delivering new exciting products and technologies (something such an organisation should be able to do with their huge resources), they have become competition focussed.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Many people don't realize that MS already has a business Strategy for ERP systems. They've bought several small to large system. Navision, Great Plains, Axapta, Solomons. They have built in house CRM system and they are creating the Dynamics Product. Getting TOP 500 customers doesn't make sense for MS. They have already spent their money and won't change or grow. It's the small-mid businesses that will be growing and MS will be right there providing them with the right software. MS already considered buying SAP 6 or 7 years ago and the culture clash and business model did not fit MS goal, which is every business to run on their ERP system.
I have to agree here. I've been using SAP for almost 10 years now from the technical support side, and I can only imagine what "improvements" MS would make. They only company I can see benefitting from this merger is Oracle and their ERP solution.
Oh, and I can promise you this, if one day in the future I open my SAPGui and that damn paperclip pops up to ask "I see you are trying to heirarchy to organize your material management, can I help?", I will drive to Redwood and burn it to the ground. Not just MS, the whole city.
1) Knock down their own share price by announcing ridiculous hostile takeovers of companies that will never agree to it.
2) Buy back Microsoft stock on the (relatively) cheap
3) Profit!
Well, OK, the math isn't all that impressive, but slowly taking the company private through stock buybacks is considerably more sane than most other suggestions of what to do with their cash horde. If you ignore the huge chunks of stock controlled by Gates and a few other early owners it looks more plausible. Effectively going private over time by getting rid of the public stockholders would give Microsoft the ability to take more risks. Paying dividends to employee-owners is a much better model than handing out stock options now that the dot bomb insanity has wound down. (It's late, hopefully that's coherent...)
That's simply not true.
Microsoft has been, for a lot of its history, very customer focused. They would not be able to achieve their current market position without being customer focused. It wasn't until they have secured their monopoly on Windows through OEM deals that they became the evil company they are today.
I can remember a couple brilliant examples where they outsmarted their competition by paying attention to what the market really wanted:
- Windows for Workgroups: They realized people did not want file and servers - they wanted to share files and printers and do e-mail. WfW, for all its failures, was a bright example of simplicity. With this, they more or less took the low-end of the NetWare business from Novell. This foothold allowed them to claim the rest of NetWare's share with NT.
- Visual Basic: People wanted an easy to use language to develop for Windows. The C/C++ tools they had were hideously expensive and painful to use (they more or less still are - C++ on Windows helps create the ugliest C++ I ever saw). VB surpassed all other development environments for Windows for flexibility, ease of use and productivity. It was the Ruby on Rails of its time. Sadly, it pretty much caused massive brain damage to a generation of programmers that never quite recovered.
Windows 3: People wanted GUIs but couldn't care less about bulletproof multitasking. OS/2 was great, but Windows 3 hit the sweet spot. 3.11 hit it even better with its TrueType rendering.
Windows 95: The last major overhaul of their consumer OS. Gave a nice (for the time) and easy to use GUI overhaul to the tired Windows 3 desktop. Thanks to the problems with the 68K to PPC transition, it was even stable compared to Macs - a first for MS.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
I agree, Google apps don't have the full feature set of desktop office software. But it is a way better for shared document editing than MS Office. Granted, I've never really seen Sharepoint used to it's best, so maybe that's not entirely true if you have the full MS kit setup.
If you have a group of people who need to work on a simple spreadsheet together to collect data (e.g. mailing addresses), a Google spreadsheet is perfect. Reasonably easy to learn, and excellent maintainability.
For some tasks, online document editors are going to dominate. For a shrinking portion of tasks, the desktop software will rule. Just like the old days, web mail did not exist. Today, for many (most?) people I would only recommend web mail.
Not everyone is a Slashdot level computer user...