Thread regarding Open Text Corp. layoffs

business network

@st "In the new OpenText context, I see non-core as :

SMBC
Small security products like Carbonite, webroot, non enterprise ZIX."

None of what you listed are "small", at all.

@st I have to agree on that last part.

By no means am I on a technical team - but gd are we caught in release issues. All the time since RE got gutted. The new content management/ecm (network) variant of OT capture had a very weird gimmick due to how it was created. So for now we pick a particular date on it for keys.

When we asked about it - we were told it'd be fixed in an upcoming release. But it really just has a different day to break. From our explanation we got, it's always going to have a date that breaks. Now it's just not the standard permanent one. Not a magical arbitrary date, one that some people in the company can live to see.

To this day I am still confused as he-l - are we doing these in MSPaint? Are we just waiting for these to break before seeing if they can be optimized? I'm not in a technical role so my view is extremely limited. I trust the PM/engineering folks have reason for it but. If it makes money, should probably be more willing to fix it. Even post consolidation. Having justification to fix it can probably mark a product's value and save it. Network can fix a lot of legacy issues and upsell other CTS/OTDS options.

In the new OpenText context, I see non-core as :

SMBC
Small security products like Carbonite, webroot, non enterprise ZIX.
Many of the garbage units we acquired with Microfocus. I see us keeping code security, ITSM, SMAX but getting rid of the rest.

We also need to consolidate our 12 different similar products into one modern rewritten product line (think BN, faxing, etc)

We put traditional apps in a container and called it containerized.
None of our products are built on modern architecture with memory safe programming languages.

@re I don’t get why you’re playing up ECM. I was personally surprised by cybersecurity’s performance.

Based on this website, ECM is top 3.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/OTEX/earnings/OTEX-Q4-2025-earnings_call-335261.html

@h6 Content is 40% of the revenue stream, Cyber is 25%, BN 10% according to the latest earnings. That should translate into 2b from Content and 1.25b from Cyber, 500m from BN. Why not sell the rest, IF you can find a buyer?

@b1 Webroot is the most profitable? How much does it bring in?

@pb maybe.

You got an offer? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
(I will actually take that over Content - some of the cases are absolutely insane)

Like tea time. One cloud folk interaction the people came to me a bit before quitting time. It became a P1 troubleshooting for key formatting (nothing missing); my team can't even control that and it took multiple calls to get that in em.

Some of those teams are not good. But unfortunately they make money.

lol this whole thread is an ad for opentext cyber before they sell it off.

It’s not revenue that matters, it’s margin. SMB Cybersecurity has the highest margin, full stop. Not sure it will be the only remaining “core” but we should keep the ones with margin. My understanding is that the Content margin is slim, but don’t know that as a fact. Content is more sticky so harder for customers to leave. With SMB we should be selling our products online or via partners/MSP. Not sure we’ll keep a direct sales org… but again I assume that different for Content.

@b1 Not sure where you’re getting your info, but 40% of OpenText’s revenue comes from Content. While Webroot is undoubtedly a solid product, Cybersecurity as a whole accounts for 25% of revenue, so it’s doubtful that Webroot by itself is keeping the whole thing afloat (as another poster suggested). But I’ve seen this kind of thinking a lot, especially with acquisitions - a lack of awareness of scope and actual value within the company. I hope OpenText holds on to Cybersecurity, but I’m not sure everyone regards it as “core.”

Core BU's are any BU's not making OT any good profit. What are these? Only god knows, this whole company is one gigantic bowl of random nonsense. Mark has 0 sense of direction, he's just jumping from one bandwagon to the next hoping to strike gold. The guy is a fraud with no real business expertise. MF was a mistake due to the debt OT took on, now it has to shed some stuff.

Someone mentioned Webroot. I'd say it's been keeping OT on life support this entire time and they are not pumping enough resources into it. Some MF systems have already been integrated pretty deep into OT, getting rid of them would make zero sense and send us 10 steps backwards. They might shred some of the left overs for MF that we have no need for. We will see if they choose to double down on the "AI" craze or take a step back. If there is no real profit there we might see some cuts in that space. I mean do we even have any in-house things? We seem to be mostly re-selling garbage. I'd say the profit margins for Mark's Titanium cr-p are pretty slim.

OT is stupid if they decide to back off the cybersecurity space, especially now when it's needed more than ever and they have real in-house solutions. We could be a gigantic player in content management and cybersecurity if we focused properly, instead of playing in Mark's Pokemon collection of stupid sh-t.

May not be necessarily popular, and thats aight.

The places I see gaps probably aren't saving OT unless we're in an absolute penny-pinch. And it'd be a large regulatory detriment. But some of our stories ARE that bad.

Leaning into webroot alone is a lot of revenue options getting dropped. It'd be a last-resort at best. The cloud/ai company dropping that so quickly doesn't look good. PS for some of their shortcomings (alongside cloud teams) have millions in revenue alone. With rapport that can expand or leave room to upsell. I don't really hear about webroot projects, we hear about a few larger portfolio products. We have 3 revenue sources- new sales, maintained renewals/extended support/ela - openpass options, and PS projects. Taking one of those pillars is just not ideal rn. We need to keep those higher project products. Tie them into one system and sunset old equivalents. Use those gaps for new sibling products.

We can disagree on which til the cows come home, but as someone seeing these projects, and when they go very
Very
Incredibly
Wrong

I can see the pattern on higher value products. The pricey ones people buy and pay to have set up. We should want ones that have opportunities across all 3 pillars, be it product, renewal uplift, or services. I don't think webroot has all 3 boxes.

Fax usually only has 2. Both major divisions. But I'm not sure those could be in content management or OTDS for example. Those are ones that generally can hit all 3, especially as more products get integrated.

@b1 If we lean that hard I'd be genuinely surprised.

Gives away where in OT I work but with the quantity of xm credit vouchers and RF orders, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot. Realistically more the knee.

Core is iffy, but I'd put it with cloud. If we can do it better great, if not I can see customer churn.

If products are too easy to get keys and setup for there goes PS income. Which despite some being chronically overbooked is a lot.

I'd say easiest way to start is by some portfolio work on both OT and microfocus. If you want to trim products you can probably cut a few teams in doing so.

But if you touch any of the MF people in my neck of the woods, my other teams are probably bailing. I feel we do need hires, but there's a couple changes that could make some of em redundant.

Course things would be better, easier, if Renewals were accurate and the obvious issues got fixed. The place would rather implode though ig.

The most profitable business is Webroot, so I would not be surprised if we sell off our other divisions to other big tech companies and changed our name from OpenText to Webroot.

OpenText has been deliberately vague in its press release around its plan to sell off non core assets because they are in negotiations with buyers.