Two big things at 3PAR today: We released our sales numbers to the world today and we showed strong sales growth - especially compared with the results from a lot of other technology companies. Comparing companies in our industry, our sales were certainly smaller than our largest competitors such as EMC, but we really like our sales trend and market position and we see excellent opportunities to maintain our growth, even in this tough economic climate. Here is a link to a webcast of today's call. It will be there for about one week.
But we also are saying so long to a great guy, Jim Dawson, our Worldwide VP of Sales, who has taken an opportunity with a small startup again. We are all going to miss Jim, he's a real pro and we wish him the best of luck! R.J Weigel is stepping up to take Jim's role (and we certainly wish him the best of luck too.)
Hmmm...3PAR shows a GAAP LOSS of $1,200,000 as compared to EMC's GAAP GAIN of $194,100,000.
And how coincidental that the net result of your Q4 loss, following as it did the fleeting Q3 glimpse of profitability, is the sudden departure of your Worldwide VP of Sales.
Wasn't that you we all saw dancing all over EMC's grave a couple of weeks ago?
I see now why you weren't worried about the SEC with all your happy dancin'...although spreading false indications of success might still catch their attention. You might want to go into hiding for a while, just in case ;-)
But seriously, Marc: how's that humble pie taste?
Posted by: the storage anarchist | May 06, 2009 at 04:52 AM
Not humble pie at all and it tastes great. We're growing and EMC is shrinking. Like EMC, we're losing a terrific exec. By the way, with all the obvious business skills you demonstrate, I'd have thought they would have given Donatelli's job to you.
Posted by: marc farley | May 06, 2009 at 06:25 AM
They apparently use a different metric of success out there in California.
Q3 GAAP profit of $507,000 vs. Q4 GAAP loss of $1,200,000 - sounds like you spent about $1,707,000 more money than you generated over the past 90 days - or about 3.5% of revenues.
I seriously doubt this is a sustainable approach to success. At least, it doesn't look like the stock market thinks that growing expenses faster than revenues is such a great strategy these days.
Congrats on the efforts, though.
Posted by: the storage anarchist | May 06, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Its called re-investment, a well-known strategy. You can read about it from many sources.
Posted by: marc farley | May 06, 2009 at 09:56 AM
Re-investment.
Operating Loss.
Deficit Spending.
What's in a word?
PS. I love it when you get all pissy! B^)
Posted by: the storage anarchist | May 06, 2009 at 12:05 PM
What, was there something I said, oh king of the rat holes? If there were a pissing contest between the two of us, I'm sure you would win by unanimous decision.
Posted by: marc farley | May 06, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Marc-
You have to be pissy to win a pissing contest. You'll lose this one.
Storage Anarchist-
EMC shrunk fast enough (see March 31 quarter end results vs. 2008 numbers) to avoid a loss. That's good management, I applaud them for takinng the initiative. But there is a ~bottom~ to that game. How many people can EMC take off the street and still bring in new business?
There are a whole lot of EMC (and NetApp) sales people, I should say ~former~ that took it in the neck in recent months and quarters, to make sure that these large vendors could cut expenses as fast as they were shrinking revenues.
Posted by: Bill | May 06, 2009 at 01:44 PM