The article didn't actually give any evidence as to why Opsware was a bad purchase for HP, and according the comments in the article the product still exists and has simply been rebranded.
I suppose I was trying to imply with the $1.6bn price tag that clearly HP thought the product was immensely valuable and I thought "who is the author to say that they were so wrong without a shard of evidence?" Admittedly, I failed to actually draw this line of reasoning in the post at all and have no reason to suppose others would infer it as well.
Comments
The article didn't actually give any evidence as to why Opsware was a bad purchase for HP, and according the comments in the article the product still exists and has simply been rebranded.
I suppose I was trying to imply with the $1.6bn price tag that clearly HP thought the product was immensely valuable and I thought "who is the author to say that they were so wrong without a shard of evidence?" Admittedly, I failed to actually draw this line of reasoning in the post at all and have no reason to suppose others would infer it as well.