Sep/100
Dell concedes to HP
TechOps Guy: Nate
It’s over. Dell has said it will not raise it’s offer any more.
Dell Inc. says it will not match Palo Alto-based Hewlett-Packard’s offer to pay $33 per share for 3Par Inc., or about $2.07 billion.
Probably will write more later
Been a busy morning.
Sep/100
Dell’s last stand
TechOps Guy: Nate
So apparently the news is official, 3PAR has determined the new $33/share bid is superior. Dell seems to be conceding defeat at this point. Apparently as part of Dell’s recent $32/share increased bid they also negotiated a long term reseller agreement that would somehow continue even if HP ends up buying 3PAR.
From 3PAR -
HP’s revised proposal of $33 per share values 3PAR at approximately $2.4 billion
Although 3PAR previously notified Dell of its intention to terminate its merger agreement with Dell, the merger agreement was not terminated and remains in full force and effect. Following 3PAR’s notice of intent to terminate the merger agreement, and prior to receiving HP’s revised acquisition proposal, 3PAR received a revised acquisition proposal from Dell in which Dell increased its offer price from $27 per share to $32 per share. Dell’s revised acquisition proposal also included an increased termination fee of $92 million payable by 3PAR to Dell as a condition to accepting a “superior proposal,” and a multi-year reseller agreement with Dell, which would by its terms be assumed by an acquirer of, or successor in interest to, 3PAR in the event of a change in control of 3PAR (including the acquisition of 3PAR by HP or another third party), and which contained fixed pricing and other terms that the 3PAR board of directors determined to be unacceptable.
So it sounds given the length of time that elapsed for Dell to get this new deal done and how decisive HP has been, Dell likely won’t come back again, and will instead rely on the reseller agreement to get 3PAR technology on the side. Interesting strategy,
I wonder if HP will try to terminate that, even if it means going to court just to block Dell from capitalizing on their pending investment. I would put money down that they will.
If they don’t I wonder how it will make Dell’s customers feel buying HP product from Dell? I mean with all of the sparkling HP logos plastered all over it.
I also believe Dell is putting the final nails in the coffin with their partnership with EMC with this move. EMC has a lot to lose if both HP and Dell are pitching 3PAR technology to their respective customers.
Just goes to show the value that 3PAR brings to the table.
(edited to strike out references to the reseller agreement since I obviously read too quickly before posting, just shows how excited I am I guess!! (not uncommon!) )
Sep/100
You will respect my authoritah!
TechOps Guy: Nate
The Register has an interesting angle on the bidding war for 3PAR from the HP side -
These technology advances should make enhanced sales of 3PAR systems more justifiable, enabling HP to recoup its $2bn investment by increasing InServ sales against EMC, HDS and IBM competition. Donatelli will be able to dangle his 3PAR prize in front of HP’s board and assert his credentials to be the next HP CEO, having demonstrated, he might say, authority, decisiveness, strategic thinking, determination and effectiveness, without over-paying for the 3PAR asset.
Sep/100
HP now offernig $33/share for 3PAR
TechOps Guy: Nate
Not much details yet, just notice that HP has upped it’s bid to $33/share for 3PAR a few minutes ago. The front page of the Wall Street Journal has about all I’ve heard from CNBC
Hewlett-Packard has raised its bid for 3PAR to $33 a share; Dell also offered a higher price and negotiated a higher breakup fee
What it seems like is at the last minute Dell finally came through with something around $30/share, sounds like they really struggled to get that one through. HP of course being decisive came back immediately with $33/share.
Here is another article that says the reason why the bidding is so intensive is 3PAR is the only game in town, there is no room for second best -
Looking at the landscape, 3Par is the only real alternative to EMC and Hitachi in terms of high end storage. EMC has its own ambitions for data center dominance, while HDS is part of a much larger conglomerate. If you believe you need to own storage and server, both to fulfill the vision above and to avoid partnering with a competitor, than 3Par is the only place to get this type of deep high end storage technology. Given HP and Dell have a much larger sales channel than 3Par, these guys can immediately double, triple or quadruple sales from 3Par products overnight once it is part of their catalogue. Both reasons afford the premium we are seeing.
Aug/100
Dell getting cold feet
TechOps Guy: Nate
3PAR announced today:
3PAR® (NYSE: PAR), the leading global provider of utility storage, today announced its board of directors has determined that the unsolicited proposal by Hewlett-Packard Company to acquire all of 3PAR’s outstanding common stock at $30 per share constitutes a “superior proposal” (as that term is defined in 3PAR’s previously announced merger agreement with Dell). The 3PAR board of directors notified Dell of its intention to terminate the merger agreement with Dell, immediately following the expiration of the three business day period contemplated by, and the satisfaction of the other conditions set forth in, the merger agreement with Dell, in order to enter into the merger agreement with HP on the terms set forth in HP’s acquisition proposal.
CNBC looked at a couple of past storage deals to compare the valuations of them vs the current deal:
- HP’s latest bid is 8.5 times 3PAR’s current projected revenue, 10 times last year’s revenue
- Dell paid 10 times revenue for Equallogic back in 2007; valuation now looks smart
- EMC paid 8 times revenue for Data Domain last year (too early to tell how it’s working out according to CNBC)
Tick, tock Dell. Throw in the towel go after Compellent or Pillar or maybe even Xiotech.
Looks like 3PAR announced a pretty big deal which has 3cV in it, expecting a lot more in the future!
With this new partnership, Nissho adds a disaster recovery (DR) solution to its enhanced service offerings, which currently include public cloud development and a private cloud environment service based on 3cV. “3cV” is a proven blueprint for the virtual datacenter featuring the combination of 3PAR Utility Storage, HP® BladeSystem c-Class Server Blades, and VMware vSphere™. This solution is designed to enable improved server efficiency and to enhance service levels in private cloud datacenters. All the cloud service-focused products that Nissho offers, including those based on 3cV, are available at the company’s CloudNagivate Center, Nissho’s private technology verification center where customers can verify the operation and performance of a cloud-based infrastructure built on 3PAR technology.
Dell simply doesn’t have an answer to HP’s c Class blades.
Aug/100
CNBC Videos on 3PAR
TechOps Guy: Nate
I’ve watched CNBC for a long time, I find it pretty entertaining, even though I don’t invest.
So often these mergers come about usually about industries and companies I have no interest in and can’t really gauge whether the analysts know what they are talking about.
This one is different of course as a user of 3PAR products for the past 3 years or so I know their stuff inside and out. And I’m constantly looking out for other interesting technologies.
Here’s several videos
- Squawk Box 3PAR discussion – talking about the unique urgency in the bidding for 3PAR.
- Squawk On the Street Faber report – Just talking about the bids, not much else
- Morning Call 3PAR discussion – They talk about this being about the cloud, and how HP has some presence in the cloud, and Dell has none, and Dell is desperate to get a presence there.
- Power Lunch 3PAR discussion – Was 3PAR taken public with the express purpose of finding a buyer?
- Street Signs 3PAR Discussion – This time it’s personal.
- Closing Bell 3PAR Discussion – is 3PAR worth more than $30/share ?
Aug/100
HP Now offering $2 billion
TechOps Guy: Nate
Dell apaprently is being a little bitch again and matched HP’s $27 offer for 3PAR, so HP came right back and offered $30 a share, or $2 billion, up from the $1.1 billion original offer from Dell ($18/share).
PALO ALTO, Calif., Aug 27, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — HP /quotes/comstock/13*!hpq/quotes/nls/hpq (HPQ 37.66, -0.56, -1.47%) today announced that it has increased its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of 3PAR Inc. /quotes/comstock/13*!par/quotes/nls/par (PAR 31.71, +5.68, +21.82%) to $30 per share in cash, or an enterprise value of $2.0 billion. The proposal represents an 11 percent premium above the most recent price offered by Dell Inc. of $27 per share. HP’s proposal is not subject to any financing contingency and has been approved by HP’s board of directors. Once approved by 3PAR’s board, HP expects the transaction to close by the end of the calendar year.
Cut your losses and run Dell. Go buy Compellent.
Aug/100
What should HP do with 3PAR
TechOps Guy: Nate
Assuming HP gets them, which I am optimistic will occur. This is what I think HP should do.
- Phase out current USP-based XP line with the enterprise 800-series of 3PAR systems, currently the T800
- Phase out the EVA Cluster with the enterprise 400-series of 3PAR systems, currently the T400
- Phase out the EVA 6400 and 8400 with the mid range 400-series of 3PAR systems, currently the F400
- Phase out the 3PAR F200, replace it with the EVA 4400-series
I’m sure this is all pretty obvious but it gives me something to write about
Why the changes to the EVA offerings and dropping of the F200 from 3PAR? To me, it all comes down to the 4 node architecture that 3PAR has, and the ability to offer persistent cache.
3PAR Persistent Cache is a resiliency feature designed to gracefully handle component failures by eliminating the substantial performance penalties associated with “write-through” mode. Supported on all quad-node and larger InServ arrays, Persistent Cache leverages the InServ’s unique Mesh-Active design to preserve write-caching by rapidly re-mirroring cache to the other nodes in the cluster in the event of a controller node failure.
(click on images for larger version)
Persistent cache allows service providers to operate at higher levels of utilization because they know they can maintain high performance even when a controller fails(or if two/three controllers fail in a 6/8 node T800 as long as they are the right nodes!), one of my former employers has a bunch of NetApp stuff, and I’m told they run them pretty much entirely active/passive, so as to protect performance in the event a controller fails. I’m sure that is a fairly common setup.
This is also useful during software upgrades, where the controllers have to be rebooted, or hardware upgrades (adding more FC ports or whatever).
Another reason is the ease of use around configuring multi site replication, and the ability to do synchronous long distance replication on the mid range systems.
3PAR® is the first storage vendor to offer autonomic disaster recovery (DR) configuration that enables you to set up and test your entire DR environment—including multi-site, multi-mode replication using both mid-range and high-end arrays—in just minutes.
[..]
Synchronous Long Distance replication combines the best of both worlds by offering the data integrity of synchronous mode disaster recovery and the extended distances (including cross-continental reach) possible with asynchronous replication. Remote Copy makes all of this possible without the complexity or professional services required by the monolithic vendors that offer multi-target disaster recovery products, and at half the cost or less.
I can understand why 3PAR came up with the F200, it is a bit cheaper, the only difference is the chassis the nodes go in, the nodes are the same, everything else is the same. So to me it’s a no brainer to spend the extra what 10-15% up front and get the capability to go to four controllers even if you don’t need that up front. Takes an extra 4U of rack space. If you really want to be cheap, go with the small 2-node EVA.
I find it kind of funny that on the main page for EVA, the EVA-4000’s blurb for what it is “Ideal for” is blank.
* Phase out current USP-based XP line with the 800-series of 3PAR systems, currently the T800
* Phase out the EVA Cluster with the enterprise 400-series of 3PAR systems, currently the T400
* Phase out the EVA 6400 and 8400 with the mid range 400-series of 3PAR systems, currently the F400
* Phase out the 3PAR F200, replace it with the EVA 4400-series
I’m sure this is all pretty obvious but it gives me something to write about
Why the changes to the EVA offerings and dropping of the F200 from 3PAR? To me, it all comes down to the 4 node architecture that 3PAR has, and the ability to offer persistent cache.
3PAR Persistent Cache is a resiliency feature designed to gracefully handle component failures by eliminating the substantial performance penalties associated with “write-through” mode. Supported on all quad-node and larger InServ arrays, Persistent Cache leverages the InServ’s unique Mesh-Active design to preserve write-caching by rapidly re-mirroring cache to the other nodes in the cluster in the event of a controller node failure.
(click on image for larger version)
Persistent cache allows service providers to operate at higher levels of utilization because they know they can maintain high performance even when a controller fails(or if two controllers fail in a 6/8 node T800 as long as they are the right nodes!), one of my former employers has a bunch of NetApp stuff, and I’m told they run them pretty much entirely active/passive, so as to protect performance in the event a controller fails. I’m sure that is a fairly common setup.
Another reason is the ease of use around configuring multi site replication, and the ability to do synchronous long distance replication on the mid range systems.
I can understand why 3PAR came up with the F200, it is a bit cheaper, the only difference is the chassis the nodes go in, the nodes are the same, everything else is the same. So to me it’s a no brainer to spend the extra what 10-15% up front and get the capability to go to four controllers even if you don’t need that up front. Takes an extra 4U of rack space. If you really want to be cheap, go with the small 2-node EVA.
Aug/100
Thank you HP
TechOps Guy: Nate
That’s more like it, HP knows what they are doing, they just boosted their offer to $27/share for 3PAR.
SEATTLE (AP) — Hewlett-Packard Co. has again raised its bid for 3Par Inc. above an offer from rival Dell Inc., suggesting that the little-known data-storage maker could be worth more with one of the PC companies’ marketing muscle behind it.
The latest offer from HP for $27 per share in cash, or about $1.69 billion, is nearly three times what 3Par had been trading at before Dell made the first bid last week.
Bring it on. Did I ever mention 3PAR went IPO on my birthday? Coincidence yeah I know but maybe it was a sign.. if I recall right they were supposed to IPO one day earlier but something delayed it by one day. I never did buy any stock(as I mentioned before I don’t buy stocks or bonds).
Aug/100
This is a joke, right?
TechOps Guy: Nate
So today, right after the jobless claims came out, Dell came out and increased their bid for 3PAR to $24.30, thirty cents above HP’s offer, which was $6.00 above Dell’s original offer.
Even now, hours later I can’t help but laugh, I mean this is a good example showing what kind of company Dell is. Why are they wasting everyone’s time with a mere 1% increase in their bid?
A survey recently done by Reuters came up with an estimated $29 final price for 3PAR.
[..] That’s why some analysts say traditional metrics aren’t sufficient in assessing the value of 3PAR — a small company with unique technology that could grow exponentially with the the massive salesforces of either Dell or HP.
This morning on Squawk Box folks were saying the next step is for HP to bid up again and get 3PAR to eliminate the price matching clause with Dell to level the playing field.
I keep seeing people ask who needs 3PAR more. I think it’s clear Dell needs them more, Dell has nothing right now. But I’m sure Dell will do a lot to screw up the 3PAR technology over time, so HP is the better fit, more innovative company with more market leadership and of course a lot more resources from pretty much every angle.

