Get APLawrence.com by RSSDefine "brutal"
Tue Aug 10 11:40:22 2004 Define
"brutal"
Posted by Tony Lawrence
Search Keys: sco lawsuit
Referencing:
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,95103,00.html
Acccording to this Computerworld story, SCO reported a 99% decrease in revenue for the quarter ending April 30 - but that's not "brutal", according to Darl McBride.
OK, I understand that a bad quarter doesn't mean a bad year. But taking in only $11,000 when the previous year had 8.25 million in the same quarter is a bit more than a "bad" quarter, isn't it? Sounds like a horrid, death-dealing, unimaginable disaster to me. In relative terms, that would be like me making around $40.00 last quarter. I think I might be just a little worried.
But McBride is still sounding optimistic, and predicting that by next year, opinion will be on his side.
Well, it's a little hard for me to imagine that I'll have a different opinion. Even if SCO can show that code they really own was improperly stuffed into Linux, that really doesn't change my feeling that the only winner here will be be Microsoft.
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
I sell and support
Kerio Mail server
Click here to add your comments
---August 10, 2004
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem possible. Considering the cost of licenses, media, etc., SCO didn't sell more than 50 items of any kind in 90 days??? Sounds more like they must have processed a huge number of returns from distributors and large resellers that all but offset any sales they might have had. I'd be curious to see the raw figures.
--Bob
---August 10, 2004
If it was returns, that's worse than a sales lag.
-----
---August 10, 2004
Here's the docs, which don't seem to agree with the article at all: http://eol.finsys.com/%5Cedgar_conv_html%5C2004%5C06%5C10%5C0001104659-04-016588.html
--TonyLawrence
---August 10, 2004
From SCOsource initiative - their licencing "product" - not the sales...
-- KimPetersen
---August 11, 2004
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=SCOX
Here at yahoo is a nice neat graph describing different financial figures I have no clue about. Although I do understand that SCOX has had a net income in the red for the past 3 quarters, and it's getting worse with each one. When the annual report is due out this Oct I don't think that SCO is going to have a pretty picture to paint, finacial-wise.
One thing that is interesting is when you check out the insider transaction reports. Those don't show a lot of confidence.
--Drag
---August 10, 2004
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem possible. Considering the cost of licenses, media, etc., SCO didn't sell more than 50 items of any kind in 90 days??? Sounds more like they must have processed a huge number of returns from distributors and large resellers that all but offset any sales they might have had. I'd be curious to see the raw figures.
--Bob
---August 10, 2004
If it was returns, that's worse than a sales lag.
-----
---August 10, 2004
Here's the docs, which don't seem to agree with the article at all: http://eol.finsys.com/%5Cedgar_conv_html%5C2004%5C06%5C10%5C0001104659-04-016588.html
--TonyLawrence
---August 10, 2004
From SCOsource initiative - their licencing "product" - not the sales...
-- KimPetersen
---August 11, 2004
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=SCOX
Here at yahoo is a nice neat graph describing different financial figures I have no clue about. Although I do understand that SCOX has had a net income in the red for the past 3 quarters, and it's getting worse with each one. When the annual report is due out this Oct I don't think that SCO is going to have a pretty picture to paint, finacial-wise.
One thing that is interesting is when you check out the insider transaction reports. Those don't show a lot of confidence.
--Drag
In most companies with that sort of dismal sales situation, the CEO's head would roll. I can't imagine SCO lasting much longer it that rate.
--BigDumbDinosaur
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar