While it may be true that businesses and consumers aren't buying as much hardware now (which is why Intel and other hardware manufacturers are looking a little ill), it would be useful to acknowledge that that is not the only thing that they are not buying or deploying, but for other reasons than the cost of the hardware.
But what do you think is the relative weight of the two factors -- hardware and software -- in "high tech"?
I work two buildings away from Sun MicroSystems and Oracle (in L.A., not in the Silicon Valley), who both inhabit large towers. They don't really produce hardware in those buildings, although they certainly have an influence on the server hardware market.
The other part of my point was that one doesn't simply "redeploy" computers ("server farms"). They need to be configured (and often extensively and expensively) to do what you want them to do.
Peter Kosenko
---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
>> Are we missing something here about the way computers work?
>
>We're not talking about computers; we're talking about capital
>deployed in the guise of network infrastructure. Buildings full
>of bandwidth and support -- power, HVAC, etc.
>
>I.e., something like these:
>
>http://www.exodus.net/idc/
>http://www.uu.net/products/hosting/datacenter/
>http://www.level3.com/us/services/colocation/
>
>Computers (as you rightly point out) aren't capital; they are
>practically not even depreciatable. The difference is supposed to be
>"useful life greater than a year" but ...
>
>---
>
>Where the hell is Brad, anyway?
>
>/jordan
>