Lake is what ultimately led to the company’s downfall.
Six years of investment driven by HA, TM, and DS yielded no revenue.
It’s disheartening to see Teradata—once the undisputed leader in data warehousing—reduced to this.
7 replies (most recent on top)
Not protected enough. SA to the rescue.
SM brought on DS. DS is protected.
How DS remains in his job is beyond me. I've never seen such a fraud in this business who thinks he is a gift. People just laugh at him behind his back.
Around the time those decisions were made, if you pointed out the obvious fact that a lot of big TD customers were happy running on prem for the foreseeable future and suggested we keep them happy where they are, you got shamed. And if you persisted, you got fired. All because arrogant, know nothing leadership just wanted to add the hot new thing to their resumes.
Product architects and the CTO appear disconnected from on-the-ground realities. Too many architects are pushing conflicting approaches, creating confusion rather than clarity. While Lake introduced some good ideas, its architects seem out of touch with modern implementation challenges — many are too old and still approach problems with a mindset rooted in 1990s-era technology
Completely agree. Turns out developing a modern elastic CDW with separation of compute, storage, and control planes is hard to do. And that lost time has impacted the Enterprise CDW.
This is 100% correct