The IBM-Sun saga: Can McNealy let go? Should he?
Summary: IBM's acquisition of Sun Microsystems was shot down as its board split into two camps---one for the deal led by CEO Jonathan Schwartz and one against led by Chairman Scott McNealy---and the consensus appears to be that McNealy has a bad case of Yahoo-itis. Meanwhile, McNealy is also bordering on delusional by thinking Sun can get a better deal.
IBM's acquisition of Sun Microsystems was shot down as its board split into two camps---one for the deal led by CEO Jonathan Schwartz and one against led by Chairman Scott McNealy---and the consensus appears to be that McNealy has a bad case of Yahoo-itis. Meanwhile, McNealy is also bordering on delusional by thinking Sun can get a better deal.
Here's a sampling of the feedback I've been getting about Sun's decision to turn down IBM's acquisition overtures (Techmeme):
- McNealy has Jerry Yang-itis.
- McNealy has always thought more highly about Sun than anyone else has.
- McNealy can't let go of the company he founded.
- McNealy should stay on the golf course.
- McNealy has torpedoed the company and is becoming this year's Yahoo in the stupid corporate move department.
And I thought it was just me. McNealy's act got tired for me back in the last downturn. The quips got old. His keynotes got old. And the numbers stunk quarter after quarter from 2001 until Schwartz took over in April 2006.
Thus far, Schwartz has proven to be a better operator of Sun than McNealy was at the end of his tenure.
Here's a look at the annual figures (click to enlarge):
And.
Now let's get the caveats out of the way. McNealy was whacked by a terrible technology downturn and Schwartz is just getting his. Nevertheless, Schwartz was named CEO for a reason---McNealy had lost the confidence of Wall Street after five years of losses.
This IBM-Sun saga does raise one glaring question: What does it mean when the guy operating Sun day-to-day thinks the IBM deal is a good one but the founder/visionary type who is usually doing customer meet-and-greets doesn't?
It means that there's a disconnect going on that should be pretty worrisome to anyone in Sun's circle. It also means that there's a founder who has too much pride and can't let go of his baby. And it means that Sun may have torpedoed a lot of shareholder value over that pride.
Also see: Sun following the IBM deal collapse: Customer confusion en route
A few McNealy comments I've received:
- You can never overestimate the role perceptions play even in the face of stark reality. JAVA has floundered for an entire IT cycle and yet I'm sure many influencers within the company are SURE it's a $20 stock in waiting.
- You've probably seen it a million times in start ups (founders not being able to let go). From the outside, it looks so ridiculous, arrogant and selfish. However, I sometimes wonder how I would handle a similar situation.
- Scott thinks more of Scott McNealy than he does of his company. Scott puffs up like the GoodYear Blimp, when he's really the Hindenburg.
Top 10 Best Things About Not Being CEO10. I don't have to apologize for the stuff I say to Wall Street9. I'm no longer on the most overpaid CEO list8. I just say, "see Jonathan on that"7. I read Hockey News without guilt6. I shave even less often5. No more Sarbanes Oxley certification4. I have someone to blame3. I can sell my last business suit2. Jonathan doesn't golf, so I guess I gotta do it1. My office is very close to the men's room
"The best decision is the right decision. The next best is the wrong decision. The worst decision is no decision."
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Talkback
RE: The IBM-Sun saga: Can McNealy let go? Should he?
Sun's biggest problem is upper management. As this article points out, you've got one "chief" that wants Sun to give up and die... and the other that wants Sun to keep doing what it's been doing... which is dying. No one seems to understand the basic fatal flaw of Sun.
That flaw is... you can't make money selling a free product. Java is good. Solaris is good. And both are free. No matter what the idiots at the top think... Sun is not a software company. It's a hardware company. Sparq made Sun the powerhouse it was. Having the best and most reliable servers combined with the best, fastest, and more reliable field service is what has always separated Sun from the two-bit PC makers.
Even in this "new" era... customers don't have the money to buy throw-away systems. They can't afford down time. So, the server that never fails is still going to be King Of The Servers. That's what Sun used to be. But, with constant cuts to field and support services instead of cuts to administrative overhead, Sun has become and continues to worsen into a company that's far too top-heavy. Paperwork doesn't impress customers or many a profit.
It's time for both Johnny and Scotty to step out of the way. Time to stop trying to administrate out of slumping sales and let services and product superiority speak for themselves.
Otherwise... Johnathan's right. Sell while there's something left to sell.
Well put ...
Understatement of the century.
Worm-ridden filth? sheesh
Have you ever met the man?
This is how a conversation goes with him:
Hi Scott.
Arg, Microsoft evil. Java great.
Ok, how's Sun doing.
Arg, Microsoft evil. Open source save day.
Really?
Arg, Microsoft evil. The network is the computer. Arg, matey. PCs evil, and html mail too. Arg.
The guy hasn't had an original thought in 20 years. It's no wonder Sun is ending up like Wordperfect and Novell. He had the same mentality as the nutjobs that run those companies into the ground.
+1 Perfect Impression!
Every other minute of his speech went like this... in a strange raspy drawn out voice.
"Free... did you know Open Source is Free... It's Free... It doesn't cost anything... Did I mention that it's free?"
It was quite creepy the way he would say it too. I half expected him to start smelling the air with his tongue.
You should have heard his rants...
He is scum, plain and simple.
What was wrong with text?
1 with Dr John
same minds judging a CEO whose only achievement was to be the 1st blogging CEO as the best leader ever, especially over one who can't stand html in email.
now compare the two guys in terms of real achievements over their respective career and you come back and tell me which one was more effective as a leader. (and no, I'm not a mcnealy fanboy... just looking at facts)
biased article
McNealy knows more about Sun and its business than all the pundits and stock holders put together.
He created this great company and if history has any lessons, remember Steve Jobs resurecting Apple when everybody gave up on them.
McNealy is the charismatic lider Sun needs.
He can reinvent the company by opening the hardware design.
Takes a nutjob to know a nutjob
Yah, open up the hardware design. Brilliant. Honestly where do you morons come up with this stuff?
LOL...nt
Interesting choice of lanuguage
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
McNealy did the right thing
Re: McNealy did the right thing
Look at the time where IBM was in deep poo. They had the guts to find a way out without selling the family jewels.
The Sun research capabilities are respected, but I doubt IBM would have kept them around long. Think about all that talent being thrown out into the streets at one time. It happened in NJ with AT&T and RCA back in the 80s. NJ couldn't absorb them so many moved out of the state and NJ has never recovered.
I agree
Comparing the SUN/IBM saga with Yahoo/MS is ridiculous
On the other side IBM made what appears to be a legitimate offer to a company that is being looking for a buyer for over a year. SUN was on the market when IBM made the offer.
Did McNealy make a bad decision?? Probably, since the company was on the market and I don't see any other offer on the table. Yet, holding out for a better offer could payoff in the long run. The danger is that SUN will continue to loose money and there may not be a better offer.
Did Yang make a bad decision?? In my opinion, NO. The company wasn't on the market and the offer was unsolicited.
It would be ironic...
My analysis
Bigot has another word in Roget's thesarus Mcnealy
As far as the numbers are concerned, Schwartz was at helm for 3 years or so and did not do any better. The open source mantra havent raked in any services money for SUN, Where as Red Hat has been. If IBM can think they can pick up pieces of valuable software from SUN and make money out of it, If RHAT can make money out of purely being a services company and SUN cannot, What does that tell you?
Its the execution stupid. Having a grand vision is only 20%. Execution is the 80%. Blogging and getting 20K hits and loyal sun yes men praising schwartz. ehh! What ever!
My issue with IBM picking up SUN is IBM will mercilessly kill Solaris/Sparc and will single handedly cover the tape business. Do you really want IBM to do so? Knowing IBM, I would not want that to happen.
I hope SUN gets picked up by Google,Apple,Cisco or even Oracle or EMC or DELL but not IBM/HP.
Yahoo is starting to do better...