Conference 7.286::digital

    
    I don't think Digital has the ability to "evolve from within".
    Acquisition is the best way to go while the company still has
    cash in bank.  The best strategy is "follow IBM and do better" if
    Dec want to compete with them. 

    K.O. has publicly stated that DEC is not in the acquisition market.
    DEC will grow without acquiring other companies.
    
    On a side note, how could we ever hope to acquire a company and
    chop out all the redundant resources, when we can't even chop out
    the redundant and non-productive resources we currently have?
    
    -Don-

        Who did they buy?
        
        q
        

    re 3.
    
    20% of Policy Management Systems (software for insurance industry)

I believe we can no longer say that we've grown without acquisition.  While
it's not appropriate to discuss specifics here, is it proper to call it an
"acquisition" if we buy a company's entire product line?  If so, then we're
growing at least in part by acquiring.

                                    Steve

    Digital does own part of MIPS Co. That's where we are buying RISC
    processors.  I don't remember the exact details on this.  Take a look
    in the TRCO01::MIPSCO conference.   Press KP7, etc.

    re: .5
    
    Yes, I think we can still say that we've "grown" without acquisition. 
    Not meaning to pick nits but purchasing a portion of a company as an
    investment is different than acquiring a company for purposes of
    growth.  We're not claiming revenue on any of our acquisitions (at
    least not to the best of my knowledge), hence we're not growing as a
    part of those acquisitions.
    
    -tl

    IBM sells or abandons aswell, like the PBX company, ROLM or something
    like that ...

    >Digital has not embarked on such an acquisitive
    >campaign, yet many of us at Digital have heard the opinion that
    >we at Digital share the same future as IBM, that is, that our emphasis
    >will likewise be not on the hardware side.  Does all this mean that
    >Digital has decided to evolve from within instead of the acquisition,
    >or even joint-venture route?


    Re base note,

    DEC "acquired" the Triology facility in Cupertino CA some time 
    ago.  We 'bought' both the people and the technology, and the 
    physical facility.  I don't see that it (the Trilogy purchase) 
    was any different than what IBM  has been doing.

    We also "merged" with Maynard Industries in order to acquire ownership
    of the Mill buildings.  I suppose that doesn't count, though ...

    re 7.
    
    I don't think anyone (except perhaps IBM itself) would say that
    IBM's string of purchases of parts of software companies is merely
    "for investment" purposes.  Their purpose is at least to purchase
    direct influence in selected sectors of the software industry with
    a probable long-term goal of obtaining effective control of the
    sectors they are interested in.  In this way IBM could "become a
    software company" via acquisitions.
    
    If you think of software companies as "suppliers" to a hardware
    company, in the sense that software is as critical to the success
    of the hardware as are the suupliers of the hardware materials in
    the box, then IBM's strategy is not unlike Sear & Roebuck's famous strategy
    of becoming such a large customer of their own suppliers that Sears
    gobbled-up the suppliers one by one.                                                      
                                                             

:        If you think of software companies as "suppliers" to a hardware
:    company, in the sense that software is as critical to the success
:    of the hardware as are the suupliers of the hardware materials in
:    the box, 

    	Actually, it's the other way around.  IBM realizes that in the
    not-too-distant future, "hardware" will be a commodity.  Customers
    and end-users will be purchasing "solutions" or "applications".
    Joe Shmoe at Goombah Corp. will say "I want a system to do this,
    that, and the other thing."  Rather than solving that problem by
    buying a computer and then some software, Joe Shmoe is going to
    buy one integrated system to solve his business and strategic problems.
    The selling point of that system will be WHAT it can do, not HOW
    it does it.  This represents a big change for IBM.  Software will
    be the name of the game, and hardware will merely a commodity item
    which makes the software work.

    In other words, it would be more (though not entirely) accurate to
    think of "hardware companies" as suppliers to "solution (software)
    companies".
    
    -Don-
    
    P.S. This week's Business Week has a feature story on IBM's strategy.

    We also bought a stake in Gigabit logic, they build gallium arsenide
    ICs.
    
    Bruno

    We're talking about software (not hardware) companies!

    I think Digital bought the company that made our COBOL compiler (people
    and technology). Digital bought 20% of the Carnegie Group (an AI
    software company).
    
    Digital's treasury department invests hundreds of millions in
    diversified investments. But these financial analysts don't understand
    the businesses they're investing in -- other than how they look on
    paper. And that is where we have a major opportunitiy.
    
    There are some really hot software and semiconductor and computer
    companies out their which Digital, as software/semiconductor/computer
    experts, can pick *MUCH* better than the industry pundits at the
    investment firms. Marketing and engineering could help our treasury
    group make more educated guesses about which software/semiconductor/
    computer companies to make invest in. This would result in Digital
    making several times the earnings that it currently does on it's stock
    investments. And it could give Digital access to a lot technology at
    the same time.
    
    -George

    Re: .15
    
    Which COBOL compiler are you referring to, George?  As far as I know,
    VAX COBOL was entirely home-grown.
    
    			Steve

    I believe the COBOL compiler for the 36-bit line was acquired.  I
    didn't know we had bought the company, though.
        John Sauter

Re .17:

Nope.  I have it on good authority that while the project leader of Cobol-68 for
the -10 was hired specifically for that purpose, the compiler was written
entirely from scratch.  Its successor, Cobol-74 was derived from the Cobol-68
sources.  And the never-released Cobol-79 was written from scratch as well.
				/AHM

	I think it was the RSX-11D COBOL that came about in '75 or so that was
an acquisition.  I remember an early version that was an interpreter, and it
had someone elses' name in the listings.  Whether that was the basis for the 
binary-generating compiler in later times is not known.

    If memory serves me correctly, The PDP-10 Cobol compiler was written
    by Al Blackington with consulting support from Cambridge Computer
    Associates and 1 other Digital employee.  He wrote it in 1969-1970 time
    period.
    
    Ken

    re .19
    
    The Cobol compiler that ran under RSX-11D (and RSTS/E via the RTSLIB
    runtime system) and generated pseudocode was written by Computer Power,
    an Australian OEM. They still exist in one form or another. I presume
    they still OEM DEC equipment.
    
    gary

re .21

Where is Computer Power today? I first heard of Computer Power yesterday. In a
presentation on DECtp, CP was identified as a software consulting and
development company active in developing DECtp applications. We were told
that, in this market, they are a very significant player in Australia and that
they are now doing business in the U.S. 

- Bob

    Sorry, I thought PDP-10 COBOL was based on PDP-6 COBOL.  Wasn't PDP-6
    COBOL written in Australia?
        John Sauter

re .23

I've no idea about PDP-6 COBOL being written in Australia. I doubt that 
Computer Power were involved.

re .22

CP went through some massive changes and many of the original players left.
They were still very active 5 years ago, but were no longer in the compiler
business. Perhaps someone from the Melbourne (Australia, not Florida) office
can comment?

gary

    Computer Power is in Australia today a large and successful contracting
    and software development firm.  While still a Digital OEM, we and they
    sometimes bump heads over large bids.  For example, CP are the prime
    contractors at Parliament (Canberra) where much Digital equipment is
    installed.
    
    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they are a conglomerate, since
    they own software houses and vendors (such as Power Link).  The parent
    company tends to focus on contracting and so forth.
    
    They tend to be very IBM oriented, and don't seem much chop as DEC
    OEMs.  I know, I got an expensive lunch after bailing them out of
    trouble not that long ago!
    
    David (Canberra, Australia)