Rumour has been for sometime that ComQi have been in Irvine, California sniffing around Toshiba (since January 2013) as some form of partner cum saviour.
Stuart Armstrong, recently promoted to Chief Revenue Officer of course [1], has allegedly been leading the charge and spending a lot of time trying to forge a deal.
We cannot help but think though, that perhaps at his time of life, he might also be considering his next sinecure – maybe warm winters in California appeal to him these days a little more so than the chilly Big Apple?
5 Comments To "ComQi Sniffing Around Toshiba?"
#1 Comment By Sierra M37 On 26 September 2013 @ 03:41 @195
Good lord you are pathetically out of touch. Do you not have real, industry worthy news worth hearing? I herewith change my blog review from monthly to semi annually of this tabloid. Really, truly pathetic. Stop listening to Ronnie G. He is poisoning you.
#2 Comment By Industry watcher reality On 26 September 2013 @ 17:44 @780
I have real hard news, by paper confirmation that ComQi has just signed contract with major international retailer for digital deployment that will be game changer for industry. This was sourced, sold, and nailed by Stuart Armstrong using his years of key contacts and established goodwill. Congrats!
Sierra, I agree with you! “Ronnie G” – don’t know who you are but seems that you may want to tread carefully (re ethically and legally) in trashing Armstrong! Also, Adrian should pay attention. This type or ‘reporting’ offends fairness and law. This reporting is not worthy of Adrian and DD. I like to think that this was a ‘slip’ by them.
#3 Comment By Adrian J Cotterill, Editor-in-Chief On 26 September 2013 @ 17:51 @785
Guys, We’ve cut u some slack and posted your anonymous comments. Please do Ronni a courtesy and leave him out of YOUR judgements. Ronni has never ever been a source for us with regard ComQi either during or since his departure.
#4 Comment By Industry watcher reality On 27 September 2013 @ 15:52 @702
Adrian: Then who is your source? Do you have a policy (seriously) that guides your publication of rumours? For example, do you require one independent substantive confirmation before ‘going to press’? Stating that they are “rumours” does not give DD legal or ethical cover. And overall, is there ever justification for the ad hominems that you have been lobbing at Armstrong for a while now?
This IS serious stuff. The gossip is fun and interesting, but would be even more entertaining if you stopped the erosion of DD credibility by elevating your game. At some point, people will stop paying attention to DD’s opinions/comments.
This “industry watcher reality” observer is not a ComQi flack/hack. I am independent. Interested in the company and other software providers. I have reason to think that ComQi may become a leading power within the next two years.
(p.s. “judgment” has only one “e”)
#5 Comment By Adrian J Cotterill, Editor-in-Chief On 27 September 2013 @ 16:26 @726
Ian, we wouldn’t ever list our sources (and in fact on several occasions in the last 12 months have stood in a court of law and point blank refused to) but they are numerous and when we believe they are credible and can be backed up by other facts then we will publish, so yes like all journalists we have a policy that guides what we publish.
FYI We don’t need a lesson from those who remain anonymous on either ethics or the law when it comes to what we can and cannot publish.