Oracle To Sell Sun's Hardware Business To HP?

Underholdning writes "With the DOJ approving Oracle's Sun buyout, the question arises what Oracle might want to do with Sun's hardware business. It's no secret that what Oracle wanted was the software part. Now The Inquirer is running a story claiming that Oracle will sell the hardware business of Sun to HP. This will give Oracle a juicy check while HP can increase its services. Larry Ellison denies that it will take place, but a source for CNN claims otherwise."

Sweet!

[symbolset]

Oracle needs to unload the hardware hot potato and HP is a natural buyer for this.

Re:Talked to Sun guys yestorday

[Anonymous Coward]

Keeping Sun whole is unlikely given the way Oracle has dealt with its acquisitions in the past. They've tended to take what they like, integrate it into Oracle's offerings, save some support and development staff for those product lines, and jettison everything else.

Having said that, this whole article is wild-ass speculation. For every source you can find saying Ellison doesn't want to be in the hardware business, you can find another just as credible source saying the hardware business is a key component in Ellison's quest to offer a total end-to-end solution. We'll just have to wait and see how it all shakes out.

What does Oracle want from Sun?

[Futurepower(R)]

If Oracle does not want Sun hardware, what Sun software does Oracle want?

My theory about why has Sun Microsystems not done particularly well in the last few years is that the highly reliable hardware Sun Microsystems sells is no longer popular because it is far cheaper to use consumer-grade hardware with software that is fault-tolerant. The excellent 2008 book Planet Google [amazon.com] describes Google's experiences on page 54: "For about $278,000 in 2003, [Google] could assemble a rack with 176 microprocessors, 176 gigabytes of memory, and 7 terabytes of disk space. This compared favorably to a $758,000 server sold by the manufacturer of a well-known brand, which had only eight multiprocessors, one-third the memory, and about the same amount of disk space."

It's true that Sun hardware is more reliable than consumer-grade hardware. However, neither are completely reliable. Both require fault-tolerant software. Also, consumer-grade hardware has become very reliable.

HP buying the SPARC hardware biz -- seems unlikely

[twasserman]

While I think that it makes good sense for Oracle to sell off the hardware business that they acquired from Sun, I find it hard to imagine H-P as a potential buyer. I'd be much more likely to believe the story if the buyer were Fujitsu, who has been involved with Sun and SPARC since the 1980's.

Here's why I think that H-P is unlikely to do this:

• They are trying to focus more on their services business, having recently spent $14 Billion acquiring EDS

• The SPARC line and the Solaris operating system would go head-to-head with HP's high-end servers (Itanium-based) and HP-UX operating system. While it would take a strong competitor off the table, it would also create uncertainty with the large SPARC installed base, especially in the financial community.

• H-P's acquisition of COMPAQ wasn't exactly a roaring success. The only good thing that came of it was that it led to the downfall of Her Worship, La Fiorina, who viewed the acquistion as her crowning achievement, even though it led to firing 30000 people. Today the COMPAQ brand is fading away and mostly is used for inexpensive PCs.

• Mark Hurd is extremely cost-conscious and very focused on quarter-to-quarter results for Wall Street. A big acquisition like this would be very disruptive and require some significant writeoffs and future earnings impairments.

I would not be at all surprised to learn of talks between Oracle and HP, but I would really be shocked if this deal happened.

Re:Hey, why not?

[ThePhilips]

No no. You got it wrong. HP's model is "buy it, burry it, write off losses."

Frankly, having seen what HP did to DEC (acquired as part of Compaq; the ill-fated Alphas and Tru64), acquisition of SPARC and Solaris would spell rather quick death to both. In its current shape, HP unlikely to be allowed to do the trick again. (Nor Solaris customers would want to migrate to HP-UX, which is probably most POSIX-incompatible POSIX-certified OS I have seen to date.)

As a UNIX seller, HP is probably most backward company you can find out there. And their upper management who are forgetting at times that they still have UNIX business doesn't help to improve the image.

Oracle is advertising Sun hardware

[azrael29a]

Why in hell would they want to sell the Sun hardware business to HP when they have just started to advertise it? See http://www.oracle.com/features/sunoraclefaster.html [oracle.com]

Re:Not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Axing PA-RISC was the right thing to do, but Alpha was killed off because that's what Intel wanted. Intel promised big with Itanium and everyone but HP was smart enough to abandon ship when it became clear that Itanium was going to suck the big one, but HP are so slow on the uptake these past couple of decades, they went ahead and killed their only real alternative and put all their eggs in one Intel shaped basket.

The idea of a company so apparently brain dead as HP taking control of SPARC doesn't fill me with joy. Those knuckleheads wont be happy until they've managed to kill every possible alternative to Intel. Thank God for IBM (& I never thought I'd be saying that...)

Re:Sparc and Solaris

[garyisabusyguy]

And then HP can kill the Sparc cpu and Solaris os lines like they did DEC Alpha and OS1... While focusing on Itanium and HPUX... Yuck!

Re:HP buying the SPARC hardware biz -- seems unlik

[rubycodez]

desktops???? hp's x86 server line is very successful, and those DL and ML lines are Compaqs

HP, where RISC goes to die?

[damn_registrars]

As someone who has used both Alpha and SPARC chips in high-performance computing environments, I was a bit saddened when the Alpha went away for good. Seeing the SPARC also go the way of the Dodo would be a shame as well.