It was said recently that Borland is now playing a role of this “investor” we were looking for last 9 months.
I think Borland was surprised with outcome of the spin off. At the end, is it good for CodeGear? yes, it is (looking at final result).
Being an investor Borland is expecting “predictable profitability stream” (see interview Mike Hulme, Borland’s senior director of product marketing with The Register). Hm, good thing it is, don’t you think?
This should show:
- to the future potential investors that CG is profitable business as CG team was saying all along and might be, just might be, at some point it can became fully independent from Borland
- to Borland that if business is not “milked” it can grow and expand
- and if business is properly funded it is not a ballast and keeping you down, as some of the current Borland shareholders is suspecting, but rather a profitable division which could bring back investment.
Oh, then a few things come in mind when looking back at whole process:
- spin off was announced too early without proper prepared base and information package for potential buyers (we have seen how things were comming after announcment – new roadmap, new initiaitves, no past restrictions on communication, events, hotfixes)
- if having CG as subsidiary was a backup plan all along, then why not to do it not 9 months later, but rather 1 month later
- and then use this sample to show potential buyers, that CG is really worth what they were expecting to get for it
I do not really think that Borland did plan it this way.
0 Comments