2

 
 
By eweek  |  Posted 2006-02-08 Email Print this article Print
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


This targets a completely different customer view. Right. I had a meeting with a significant customer to tell [him] whats going on. His response was great: "I want you guys to continue to focus up and focus on owning the boardroom. I dont want to hear about features. I dont want you in the weeds, I want you up solving the problems so that from the boardroom I can see whats going on in my software development investments." And we hear that over and over again—maybe in different articulations, but the same message from our core customers.
Jackson: Our hope is that as we identify the new owner for the IDE business that we will establish an immediate partnership with them and as we are designing our ALM technology, our whole design goal is that you should be able to take an IDE of choice and plug it into the environment so that as developer[s are] working, they are getting access to the other assets that support the life cycle, and all of their actions are going into the data capture system.
So we believe that well continue to work with our JBuilder customers and the Pelaton customers. So somebodys taking all the IDE stuff? The announcement were making is weve had some inquires from third parties who have said they are interested in buying this business. And weve always said, "No thanks." Now were saying it is our intent to divest from this business. We dont have the buyer picked yet, but the commitment were making to our community is were going to make sure that it goes into a world that you will be taken care of and invested in. Fly, be free, is sort of the thing I say.
So will it necessarily be one vendor to take all the products? The assumption is it will be because theres so much synergy between those communities that I cant imagine it being multiple vendors. And the interest thats come to us has been along the lines of a single company. Was this move necessary because you were bleeding so badly from the IDE business that you had to get rid of it? No, its not a matter of bleeding, its a matter of focus. For instance, in marketing, Rick wears one hat that says Im focused on the enterprise. The other hat is I have a channel-based business where Im slinging boxes and making things happen. Im doing two completely different things and I have two different organizations. And its almost like Borland was becoming two companies. And were not big enough to be two companies; we need to be one focused company. Its absolutely a healthy, vibrant business. We just had to make a choice. What kind of impact do you think this move will have on Borlands mindshare with developers? Borland has always had a big community following. If you look at the Borland I used to think of prior to coming here that was certainly a core contingent and focus. But if you think about it, the most common statement when you talk to people about Borland is: "Gosh, Borland. What have you been doing the last 10 years?" So when I got here and spent time with customers I found out that theres a core set of customers who identify us with ALM, and then theres our Delphi and JBuilder folks, [who] had us in another bucket. So our hope is that well develop some clarity that hey, were hanging onto our developer roots and were expanding it. Much like Microsoft evolved from DOS to Windows, were evolving from IDEs to the full software development process. Well, theres still that mindset out there that Borland is an IDE company. Absolutely. But the interesting thing is that community is vibrant and contained, but its not growing. And its very loyal. Next Page: Differentiating from Rational and Microsoft.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Submit a Comment

Loading Comments...

 
Manage your Newsletters: Login   Register My Newsletters























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rocket Fuel