LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (February 2000, week 2)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:36:20 +1100
Reply-To:     Tim Churches <tchur@BIGPOND.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Tim Churches <tchur@BIGPOND.COM>
Subject:      Re: Possible Acquisitions for SAS
Comments: To: Xlr82sas <xlr82sas@AOL.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Xlr82sas wrote: > > February 08, 2000) SAS Institute today named Andre Boisvert as vice president > of business development and strategic investments. Boisvert brings nearly 25 > years of software industry experience to the newly created position in an > effort to centralize the company's investment strategies as they pertain to > complementary technologies and bolster its approach to investments and > acquisitions. > > If MS is broken up and SAS IPOs it might have enough capital to acquire (some > or all): > > 1. Sybase / SQL Server 7 / MS-Access/MS-EXCEL/MS-VB > 2. Arcinfo/Mappoint/fogot the other player > 3. SPSS(Answer Tree), S+ > 4. Seagate Crystal Reports > 5. Group1 and 'Group1 for Unix/NT'/Mailers-4 > 6. Syncsort > 7. Adobe > 8. Sybase Data Architect and Process Analyst > 9. S+ > 10. Minitab > 11 Statistica > 12. Cognos/Redbrick

Yeah, that would be great: then everyone could pay many times what they pay for these products now, and annually as well...

Seriously, as the world has seen with Microsoft (and others), it is not good for consumers if large software companies gobble up their smaller competitors. You'll pay less for SAS if most of the companies you list remain competitors to SAS. SI has never shown much interest in incorporating technology which wasn't invented in Cary, NC into its products anyway, so any acquisitions would probably remain as separate products or be killed off rather than have their best features incorporated into SAS. In any case, the SAS development cycle is so leisurely that it would probably be cheaper for SI to just redevelop the technology present in other products from scratch than to buy and incorporate it. Buying technology is only valuable if you in a hurry to get somewhere. SI feels that it has already arrived, I suspect.

Tim Churches


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page