This "interview" was really lame.
A couple of quotes which I wish the reporter would have asked more questions about.
" The debt refinancing will ensure that Avaya won't "have any significant liquidity situation until 2017 or beyond," Kennedy said.
So, they did some financing but they will have a significant liquidity issue in 2017??? That is only 4 years away! If I were a major company would I want to do business with someone who is going to have significant liquidity issues in 4 years?
Why didn't the reporter talk about the amount of money they are spending on servicing the debt.
And then KK goes on to say
One reason why bandwidth is important has to do with the future that Kennedy sees for one of Avaya's most significant market moves: Its acquisition, almost exactly one year ago, of video vendor Radvision. He said sales of Radvision systems have been growing 17%-20% quarter-over-quarter since the deal closed last June. And Kennedy made it clear that the big growth area he sees for video is in mobility, an area where efficient bandwidth usage is a must.
So it sounds like KK is betting the future is on video, especially video on mobile devices? KK said sales are growing 17 - 20% quarter over quarter. Does that mean they sold 5 one quarter and then 6 or 500 and then 600 or 5,000 and then 6,000? Why didn't he specify dollar figures and why didn't the reporter ask. If the numbers are ridiculously low then growing by 20% means nothing.
Also, video on mobile devices? Do businesses really want video on mobile devices? Do business people want to be on a video call when they are on a bus or a train or in their car or wherever? I mean seriously???? How many video products has Avaya/Lucent/AT&T developed? Why have they always gone no where? Could it be there is not that much of a market for video?