- Question: Does your mobile phone service suck in San Francisco?
- Outsourcing and open source: A match made in...?
- Three Simple Things Sun Should Do to Win
- Investing in open source: timing is everything
- Five Runs-Open Source Systems Management
- Zmanda-Open Source Data Protection
- SolidDB and MySQL making open source databases better for enterprise
- Geoffrey Moore-Open Source, Linux and Darwin
- Competing with open
- Rules for open source asymmetric competition
April 30, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Question: Does your mobile phone service suck in San Francisco?
I am looking for feedback on whether Sprint coverage has gotten worse or my latest Treo 600 replacement (#5) is just awful. Dropped calls have become the norm and the phone doesn't have any reception, even with full bars in my office on Market Street.
It doesn't seem likely that Sprint would somehow make the service worse, but I am wondering if anyone else is experiencing this phenomenon. Please post responses in comments.
It's strange being in IT where you expect servers to have 100% uptime and yet my cellphone barely hits 75% uptime. For that matter my DSL at home (with dedicated IPs) is at a crawl...being a consumer is not all it's cracked up to be.
BTW-Hey AT&T and Verizon, this is your chance to provide me with complimentary mobile phone service, aren't blogs part of your new school "buzz marketing" campaigns? And, hey Apple, I need a new MacBook Pro. Thanks.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 30, 2006 08:10 PM
April 28, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Outsourcing and open source: A match made in...?
I'm on the phone with a WebEx technical support person. Not sure why tech support is necessary for taking my money (I'm just trying to set up a WebEx account for Alfresco - signed up online, gave my credit card number, and have received nothing in return), but whatever.
The thing that frustrates me to no end is that I went from talking with a local, US salesperson to a remote, India-based support person who gave me infinitely less support. He didn't understand the urgency of my requirements, though he tried hard to care. I eventually hung up in desperation and called back to the US sales team, telling them they were not allowed to transfer me outside their building. Result? Successful account setup.
Which got me thinking. I'm not a big fan of outsourcing in any situation - as I feel that support and development is best done as close to the problem one is trying to solve as possible - but in the open source world it seems insane.
Two big reasons:
- Development. In the open source world, source of code matters as much or more than the source code itself. It matters that JBoss employs the vast majority of developers that contribute to it. Ditto for MySQL, SugarCRM, JasperSoft, and others, including Red Hat.
In the open source world, enterprise buyers want to buy from the source of the source code - diluting this through outsourcing is a bad idea. (Yes, as Thomas Friedman writes, some outsourcing is a foregone conclusion. But not all. And in open source, I think Friedman's rules are less applicable. Open, it matters who writes the code in open source, and where they sit. Coders matter in open source.)
- Support. In many companies, support is not considered core. (Clayton Christensen talks insightfully and humorously about companies continuously outsourcing "non-core" functions until they have nothing left.) This is foolish at the best of times, but this thinking in open source is suicidal. At its foundation, whatever the business model around it, open source is always about superior support. There are two cores to any open source business: excellent code and superior service. Outsourcing one or the other is sheer stupidity.
If you're an open source company, you need to keep development and support close to home. If not, we'll be outsourcing your jobs next.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 28, 2006 08:18 AM
April 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Three Simple Things Sun Should Do to Win
ActiveGrid CEO (and former Sun exec) Peter Yared is back with some specific suggestions that he thinks will help new Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz right the ship.
Three Simple Things Sun Should Do to Win
The industry trends around Linux, x86 processors, and scripting languages are clear. Unfortunately, Sun is swimming against the tide on all three of these trends, in fear that it could cannibalize its existing business. Following is a simple, three step strategy for Sun to swim WITH the tide, while still maintaining its revenue.
#1 - Migrate Solaris to Linux
Operating systems are a commodity. The Unix wars are over, and they have been won by Linux. IBM is migrating AIX to Linux. Digital Unix is dead. SGI Irix is dead. HP-UX is dead. Sun should announce a long term strategy of moving to Linux and start migrating Solaris features like DTRace to Linux, just like IBM contributed SMP and journaling code to Linux. Sun is unique in that it has a full Unix System V license from AT&T, so it can sell an indemnified Linux.
Proof point: IBM has a long term strategy of migrating AIX to Linux, and it has not cannibalized AIX/Power sales.
#2 - Migrate SPARC to Opteron
Processors are a commodity. Sun should provide binary translation so that customers can easily move their applications from Solaris SPARC to Solaris x86. A decent binary translator will run SPARC machine code on an Opteron almost as fast as anything on the SPARC roadmap. And native Opteron code will scream compared to SPARCs. Either Sun can provide this migration to their Galaxy Opteron servers, or Dell and HP will continue their "Visine" customer programs where they migrate customer Solaris boxes to commodity Linux x86 boxes. And with its Fujitsu SPARC partnership, Sun can continue to extract revenue from SPARC on the very high end.
Proof point: IBM has a very strong, coherent Linux/x86 strategy and it has not cannibalized AIX/Power sales.
Proof point: Sun has successfully made such a transition from Motorola 68K to SPARC. Apple has has successfully made such a transition from Motorola 68K to Power to Intel.
#3 - Endorse LAMP and integrate it with Java
Java is great on the back-end, but LAMP is great on the web tier (as Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, Flickr, MySpace, Friendster, etc. have shown). Sun should endorse PHP and go one step forward and make sure the "P" languages run great on the JVM by open sourcing Java. Sun doesn't make much money on Java anyways.
Proof point: IBM and Oracle have strongly both endorsed PHP into their architectures and it has not cannibalized their Java middleware sales.
So there you have it. Three simple things Sun can do which would give it a coherent strategy relative to industry trends. Sun could then focus its energy on finding new revenue streams rather than protecting declining revenue streams.
Previously:
Sun's Open Source Strategy still MIA-An open letter to Jonathan Schwartz
Sun vs. Scripting Languages
Front End Integration-Lightweight Architecture Part 3
Enterprise SOA Apps Take Off on Lightweight Architecture
Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! point enterprise developers towards "lightweight" architecture
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 27, 2006 11:32 AM
April 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Investing in open source: timing is everything
LinuxWorld Magazine (written by Paul Sterne and Nicholas Herring) has an interesting piece on open source venture capital investments. The report focuses on the question: is now the right time to invest in open source? The answer to some is "Of course!!!" But the data might suggest we're in an inflationary period, with smart money waiting for valuations to come down.
From the article:
Starting in the mid '90s, a few brave pioneers like Benchmark invested in an open alternative to proprietary software and made a fortune. By the end of the decade, everyone wanted a piece of the action. A second waveIn short, venture investing is a roller coaster. Whether you "lose your shirt" or make a mint largely depends on when you enter and exit the market (and not merely when you enter and exit a specific investment).of VCs rushed in at ridiculous valuations and got their clocks cleaned. In 1999 and 2000, over-capitalized, over-valued open source companies burnt through hundreds of millions of dollars. Shame on the dumb money that gives efficient markets a bad name. Then, the bubble burst, and we entered nuclear winter followed by the trauma of 9/11. Valuations plummeted to the ground. Investors panicked and ran for the exits. Things hit bottom when the vulture capitalists waited until the CEO of SuSE Linux was in a cab on the way to file bankruptcy before agreeing to invest at a valuation set at 1% of SuSE's peak value in 2000.
In retrospect, the SuSE recap was the turning point.
In 2002 and 2003, more smart money like Benchmark, Accel, and AdAstra fueled the open source industry with much needed capital. With the sale of SuSE Linux to Novell in November 2003, the industry reached a new inflection point. Valued at 50% of its peak, the SuSE exit excited a new rush to invest in open source in 2004 (no one wanted to miss the boat). After a small dip in relative value in 2005, when Novell dropped the open source ball, venture capital investment is on the rise and valuations are healthy.
For example, take a look at the chart below. It shows the stock prices of Novell and Red Hat over the past 9 years. As an investor in either, you could be bankrupt or filthy rich depending on when you joined the party.
Funny enough, I helped to build that "smart money" period in Novell's history, and made nothing from it. Matt = stupid.
So, is this a good time to invest? It's certainly a great time to be in the business of open source. My decision to go to Alfresco has been the best career move I have ever made, and I suspect those at MySQL, Red Hat, JBoss, SugarCRM, etc. would concur. The problem for VCs, however, is that valuations are on the rise, and the amount of money in the market has moved well past the $1.3 billion I blogged earlier this year, making it harder and harder to make money, even on good exits.
Btw, if you want to know where to get the smart venture money, look to experience:
Posted by Matt Asay on April 27, 2006 07:58 AM
April 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Five Runs-Open Source Systems Management
FiveRuns offers system management software, both as open source software and as a hosted service. Functionality includes monitoring, analyzing, reporting and predicting system health.
In researching the business model, FiveRuns found that the barriers to adoption in SMBs have to do with TCO, complexity and risk that can get introduced into the environment. One way to overcome this is through open source (obviously)-low cost of entry gets passed on to customers. The software monitors the performance and availability of your servers and does analysis, reporting and prediction. This comes either on-site or via a hosted version which requires a client on the server that facilitates one-way information flow out to the managed service.
The complexity is removed because the software auto-finds and configures—basically you drop in, deploy and get going quickly unlike traditional behemoths like Tivoli. The other side of this is that FiveRuns aggregate knowledge-base articles relating to similar subject matter. This knowledge base aggregates information that is generic and and specific to your organizations infrastructure.
The software is also very hip, all, Ruby, Rails etc. with a very slick UI that makes system management a lot more pleasant. Correlated metrics etc...it's shaping up to be a great product.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 26, 2006 01:52 PM
April 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Zmanda-Open Source Data Protection
There is a huge market for storage products, backup and recovery, data protection and such. In the open source space, only Zmanda seems to be making any progress with the open source approach to this problem. I spoke with Ken Sims and CEO Chander Kant about their new offerings.
Zmanda network launched yesterday and is offering certified versions of Amanda, and support and services similar to the RedHat network model. The pricing will be much lower and easier to understand than traditional storage software. Roughly ~$50-250 per server or workstation. Linux is the primary platform for the solution, but they will be adding more operating systems to the mix over the next year or so.
Amanda has been out since 1991 so its battle tested already and the company has been pleasantly surprised by the number of people using it. "We think our market is the MySQL market. We're adding enhancements to make it better for customers-and adding value to the MySQL stack" Sims said.
The open source mindset is moving deeper into product and business model development. "If you build your business on open source you should use an open source product for data production as well. We believe we have a great offering and a great alternative to expensive proprietary vendors."
Kant says the best test of backup software is when things go wrong. "Backup is like insurance, you may not want to use it, but you are glad you have it."
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 26, 2006 11:45 AM
April 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
SolidDB and MySQL making open source databases better for enterprise
I spoke with Paola Lubet, VP of Marketing at SolidDB to discuss their recent announcements with MySQL. According to Paola, the major roadblock for OSS databases into mission-critical environments is the real time nature of transactional data. SolidDB has been developing real-time databases for the last 14 years with features that go beyond basic storage (as one might perceive OSS databases to offer). This advanced functionality is common to Oracle etc, but not regularly seen in OSS databases. MySQL is the first open source DB that will feature this functionality. Both camps think that this will help MySQL move deeper into enterprises.
A prototype is available for download now.
Beta is July
Production is planned for Q4.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 26, 2006 11:05 AM
April 25, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Geoffrey Moore-Open Source, Linux and Darwin
I am sitting in the Geoffrey Moore keynote trying to keep up with his fast delivery. Moore ran through what he calls the Evolution of the Whole Product and how this evolution moves up the stack as products mature. It's really interesting when you consider that the majority of open source companies-even the successful ones haven't reached the platform stage.
Sorry for typos and grammar--typing fast.
1. Projects
Value Prop
Unique deliverables meeting custom specs
Customer Sponsor
Enterprises and Governments
CIO, etc
Strategic Return
Customer Reference
Puts new tech on the map
Builds a deep relationship with a valued customer
2. Solutions
Value Prop
Solve a segment specific problem that is not addressed effectively
Customer Sponsor
Vertical markets
Departmental manager
Strategic Return
Niche market leadership with high barriers to entry
3. Products
Value Prop
Provide an industry-standard capability with better price/performance than the competition
Customer Sponsor
Complex systems
Volume Operations
Technical Manager-sponsored by IT exec
Strategic Return
Capture market share in high-growth markets
4. Systems
Value Prop
Integrated offerings simplify a complex infrastructure that lower TCO and provide accountability
Customer Sponsor
Enterprises and govt
Functional IT exec
Strategic Return
Consolidate position in category, gaining leverage
Enabling mechanism for customer loyalty
5. Transactions and Consumables
Value Prop
On demand services provided via standardized interfaces requiring minimal customer engagement
Customer Sponsor
At core: enterprises and govt
At edge: consumers and end users
Strategic Return
Recurring revenue stream plus ongoing customer loyalty
Able to use advertising to monetize the transactions
6. The Platform Model
Value Prop
Systems infrastructre that absorbs legacy complexity and creates eco-system for next generation innovators
Customer Sponsor
Partners in the ecosystem who commit to the platform
Strategic Return
Inclusion in all systems that partners distribute
Very high barriers to entry
Where are we today?
Server Linux is inside the tornado
-Creates a draft for the desktop
Desktop Linux is in the bowling alley
-Desktop of choice for Living in Linux
-Growing number of communities doing just this
Tornado potential for Linux off the desktop
-Communications and mobility
According to Moore, Linux is not well suited to the product model (listed above) and really is not the right choice to compete with Microsoft on the desktop--Moore believes that the places where Linux will really shine will be mobile devices and things like Tv and embedded devices.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 25, 2006 10:50 AM
April 25, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I've been watching the ruminations surrounding Red Hat's acquisition of JBoss with lively interest. Most of the past 5-10 years have been spent wondering how to beat Microsoft. Now, it seems, the struggle is to beat Red Hat...
...and it hasn't even won yet. :-)
It is testament to Red Hat's success that the Financial Times reports that Oracle has considered buying Novell. Stephe rightly points out that Oracle is not a middleware provider, per se, and so should not feel overly threatened by Red Hat's acquisition. Yet it clearly does.
Why? Because there's nothing more terrifying to a closed-source vendor, no matter where it sits in the software stack, than an aggressive, hungry, and successful open source player. Success with JBoss today should lead Red Hat to open up other areas of the stack tomorrow (or, I should say, tightly knit together other open components of the software stack into its own certified offering). Red Hat is not an applications company today, but why not tomorrow?
This is why Oracle, Novell, and others need to quickly learn how to compete in an open world. As I blogged recently, hybrid models are a short-term salve, but they don't effectively beat either closed or open source competitors.
So, it's great that Novell has announced an open source collaboration suite. However, to compete effectively against Microsoft's own Sharepoint + Exchange/Outlook + Office/etc. suite, Novell needs to engage in asymmetric competition: disrupt its proprietary competition by offering a truly open product. Novell's "open" collaboration suite should be...open. Of course, it's easier to say "open" than to actually open up GroupWise/etc. after years of their being closed. But third-party components tied into the suite should be open source, or there's simply no compelling reason to choose Novell over proprietary (or open source) competitors.
The software market will not be won in a day. Companies that take a long-term, open source approach to winning will dominate the next few decades of software. To Oracle, Novell, and others who want to put together compelling "stack" alternatives to Microsoft et al., I have one word:
Open.
If you don't, it's only a matter of time before the open source ecosystem combines in various guises to crush you. Today it's just Red Hat + JBoss. Tomorrow it's Red Hat + JBoss + MySQL, or MySQL + Google, or Alfresco + Compiere, or...you get the picture. The future is open, and your business is closed unless you are, too.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 25, 2006 05:20 AM
April 25, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Rules for open source asymmetric competition
I'm putting together an Executive Radar event with Tim O'Reilly for this year's OSCON in Portland, Oregon. One of the sessions actually has me somewhat sleepless (literally - I'm typing this at 5:17 AM...), and results from a seemingly innocuous blog post Tim had a few weeks back.
Open Source and the Future of Asymmetric CompetitionThe topic has me excited because it promises to help unlock some of the secrets of Red Hat's, JBoss', and MySQL's success.
For years the software industry has largely competed on the basis of symmetry: Oracle versus IBM in databases; BEA versus IBM in application servers; etc. Feature wars, price wars, but not true competition wars. That is, competing by playing a different game, with different rules. Open source enables an alternative battleground upon which to compete, with community, code, and culture the new competitive tools. This session brings together the top open source executives deploying these tactics of asymmetric competition, to learn from their experience.
A few hints in advance (based on my own experience "selling free"):
- To succeed with open source one must truly embrace open source. In the past, I have advanced a 'both source' strategy wherein a vendor provides both open and closed code to take on proprietary software vendors. I think this was a mistake. It may have been the right initial move for the company I was with at the time, because it was the most dramatic open source move possible at the time (for cultural and business model reasons), but it is not a winning strategy over the long run. Open source must be open to disrupt a market. Hybrid models are a decent short-term fix, but they don't provide long-term advantage. (Note: Putting our money (and code) where our mouths are, Alfresco is moving to a 100% open source model. So yes, I'm walking the walk, not just talking a good game.)
- Open source is a marathon, not a sprint, and requires marathon-minded investors and management. The best companies (Red Hat, Google, and others) recognize that a software empire - a Rome - is not built in a quarter. Open source requires patience - the best open source companies take years to build properly, because they cannot subsist on big, up-front license fees. The subscription business model slowly strangles competitors - they might spend months or years laughing, but eventually they suffocate, asphyxiated by their own lame, top-heavy business models. But it doesn't happen overnight.
- Open source companies should aggressively exploit their open advantage. It used to nettle me to no end to hear Matthew Szulik (CEO, Red Hat) decry "open source pretenders" and hammer on the point, again and again and again, that source code matters. I hated the message because it was winning against me in the market. Red Hat, more than any other company, has used source code - its quality and its openness - as a wedge to drive into enterprise buyers. Free to try (lower the bar to tasting the Red Hat product), with an open model (pay for superior support and software certification, not massive license fees) that makes it easy to use an excellent product. Red Hat has - just as JBoss, MySQL, Alfresco, and other do - made a fetish of openness: open roadmap, open pricing, open code. The proof of its success is in its income statement.
These are just a few of the lessons I've learned from my years in open source (starting in 1998). I'm looking forward to hearing what Michael Tiemann (Red Hat), Marten Mickos (MySQL), and others say in this OSCON session. Hope to see you there.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 25, 2006 04:54 AM
April 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Classic literature and open source
While in Costa Rica, I had lots of time for reading. I plowed through Thomas Hardy's Return of the Native, Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, Willa Cather's My Antonia, and (in desperation because I still had four more hours of flight time and my kids were using my laptop to watch Batman cartoons) re-read J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Four very different books, with some random ideas emerging from them....
- There's much more to life than software. I could be very happy with no computer and with lots of Charles Dickens.
- We spend a lot of time coveting others' things simply because others have them. This is the tragedy of Native, where a man and woman take turns casting each other aside in the hopes of latching onto a better mate, only to have everything end in calamitous tragedy in the end. In the software world, the best companies are not those that ape the successes of others, or seek to one-up the competition. They are those who completely reshape or re-create industries. This is why Microsoft struggles to compete with Red Hat and Google - in different ways, they significantly alter the rules of engagement. This is what open source promises for many vendors, and yet we spend far too much time competing on features. We don't, in short, engage in assymmetric competition. (This is actually a session I'm helping to put together at OSCON this year - should be cool.)
- Open source is sometimes governed by a mob mentality. This was the lesson from Two Cities. In it Charles Darnay foolishly thinks he can abandon his noble heritage in the face of a rabid mob. Madame Defarge sends him to la guillotine, refusing to believe that anything good can come from noble blood (except, well, blood). In the open source world, the free sourcerors are akin to the French revolutionaries - demanding an extreme breed of unthinking patriotism that brooks no opposition and allows for no reasonable debate. In this fixation on free (as in liberty), the free source movement tends to overly focus on software freedom at the expense of user of software freedom, it seems to me. BSD is not "free" because it allows people to freely decide what they'll do with software, whereas GPL-like licenses are free because...they force people to use software in a certain way. Don't get me wrong - I actually prefer the GPL precisely because of this control it allows me to exercise over my code and all that use it. But this is because I'm a shameless capitalist, and not because I'm a freedom-loving code fascist. :-) We need less ideology in open source, and more pragmatism.
- Harry Potter teaches me that the best code (authorship) doesn't always win. Often, it's just the group that markets the best story. This is as true in open source as it is in the proprietary world. JK Rowling is not a great author - she doesn't hold a candle to Dickens, Hardy, Dostoevsky, etc. But I've read each of her books 3-4 times for a reason - they're very entertaining (and my kids love them, so I've read each book to my older kids 1-2 times). In like manner, my software choices - and yours - are not usually governed by the best code, but rather by brands, convenience, cost, etc.
- From Antonia I was reminded of a similar theme - the greatest community and nation-builders have tended to be immigrants. Cather captures the influence Czech, German, Norweigan, etc. settlers had on the United States' plains, working the ground despite exhaustion until it yielded prosperity. In similar manner, it has been developers and companies from outside the United States that have created the world's most significant open source projects. Thoughts as to why?
Posted by Matt Asay on April 24, 2006 10:18 PM
April 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Quick Look: Versora Progression Desktop 2.0 Beta
I spent a few minutes with Mike Sheffey and the guys from Versora down here in San Diego. Versora offers an automated Windows to Linux desktop migration tool now in Beta for 2.0 release. The Progression Desktop now migrates files, settings, email etc from Windows in a straight-forward manner, migrating chunks (i.e. for CD burning) or complete file systems. It also has a nice UI that shows the process of the file transfer. They have even gone as far as to import iPod settings.
Progression Desktop is a good example of applications that support the move to a Linux desktop-making life much easier from both the administration and user side. It creates a seamless experience switching operating systems, right down to the folder settings and custom icons and succeeds in its main goal of transferring user files and settings, for example Outlook email/calendar etc. into Evolution. The excuses to not switch to Linux are becoming few and far between. If only we had an integrated office suite...
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 24, 2006 09:33 PM
April 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Free software movement continues to fixate on the wrong things
Hunkered down trying to meet and exceed my quarter at Alfresco, I had forgotten that some people still treat open source as religion. I'm used to dealing with CIOs who appreciate open source for its high quality code, for the communities that undergird it, and for the low cost.
While in Costa Rica this past week, however, news reports started trickling in from the FISL conference down in Brazil. Because I'm now on the OSI board (effective April 1), I also see a wide range of emails from those who see open source in religious hues.
I don't understand it.
I like software. But I like it in the way I like my house, my car, etc. It's an inanimate object that provides utlity for me. That utility is not something or someone to worship - I go to church for that. Rather, the utility is something that makes my job easier, saves me time, etc. Software is a productivity tool for me.
It's therefore funny to me to watch battles rage over whether BSD offers more freedom than the GPL (of course it does - freedom to do what the user wants, not what I, the copyright owner, wants, just as liberal democracy affords people to speak, exercise religion, assemble, etc. according to what they prefer, not what the government prefers (within bounds)), and to see so many wringing their hands over open source licensing. Fixating on licenses leaves the vast majority of open source's power untapped.
Open source is powerful because open source encourages communities to develop around a given software project. Open source is powerful because it offers a way for customers to benefit from code as it is and extend it as necessary to what it needs to be (yes, enterprises make short-term code changes all the time). Open source licensing is a means to these ends, but it is not the end in and of itself.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 24, 2006 09:26 PM
April 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
A prediction for Sun's new CEO
I predict that Jonathan Schwartz will cut his ponytail in some sort of act of solidarity in his new role as CEO. Isn't that the most obvious PR stunt that you could think of? I can just see him strutting out at JavaOne with a nice corporate hair cut and some messaging about fresh starts ...
Of course, there would be the constituency of hard core Sun enthusiasts that would cry that Schwartz had "sold-out" (sort of how I felt when Metallica cut their hair and I could no longer wear my "And Justice For All" t-shirt in public without feeling like a frat boy).
But for the same reason that most people shave in the morning before work and tuck their shirts in, Schwartz should cut off his pony tail. For the same reason that I don't drive a monster truck (my clients would find it inconvenient to have to swing their leg up to the running board), Schwartz should cut off his pony tail. For the same reason that I try to refrain from addressing people as "bro" or "dude" during business hours, Schwartz should cut off his pony tail.
One snip would make a lot of investors happy, I believe. Or maybe not...now that I think about it, I like the pony-tail. It's subversive and corporate all at once, the yin/yang of CEO hairstyles. I hope he keeps it.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 24, 2006 06:07 PM
April 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
McNealy steps down--I called it a month ago
Sun Microsystems' Scott McNealy is stepping down as CEO, and will be
replaced by Jonathan Schwartz, who had been president and chief
operating officer. Mr. McNealy, who co-founded Sun 22 years ago, has
come under fire in recent years for the company's erratic profits and
what was seen as a reluctance to cut costs. Sun shares jumped nearly 10%
in after-hours trading.
Via WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114590747910134387.html?mod=djemalert
Previously: Rumor Mill: McNealy will be out by April 1
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 24, 2006 02:19 PM
April 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
JasperSoft announces new open source BI products
Some interesting announcements from JasperSoft (open source business intelligence) this morning. They announced the release of JasperServer, their first standalone server product (they used to just offer a pluggable reporting library), but what caught my attention was their announcement of JasperIntelligence, a suite of open source BI products aimed at carving out a piece of the market for more full-service BI. This looks like a move to get the attention of customers who can't afford the BI tools from proprietary big guns like Microsoft, but still have a real need for good reporting and analytics - the mid-sized enterprise customers, the departmental workgroups on limited budgets etc.
It would make sense if more open source companies went after these segments, the customers who don't have the bank accounts or the man-hours for the proprietary alternatives. As open source companies develop more complete architectures, they're going to have to get better at winning that level of customer, where they don't have to compete as aggressively with closed source firms. By feeding on these middle-range markets, open source firms will further grow and mature until and mount a challenge to the big-time players in their space.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 23, 2006 09:19 PM
April 23, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Desktop Linux Summit Presentation 4/24
I am presenting at the Desktop Linux Summit down in San Diego tomorrow at 3pm. Besides the discussions around the new version of the Linux Standards Base (which BTW was embargoed until AP broke it) there is a ton of interesting stuff regarding the evolution of the desktop and Linux in general.
Here are a few topics for discussion:
-What's driving the trend to desktop Linux
-Why the time is right
-What are the challenges
-Why applications are key
-The Portland Project
-Community involvement
Be forewarned that I will be using a Mac for my presentation-and that I am now fully understanding the power management issues associated with Linux on laptops. One hour of battery life doesn't fly when you are traveling or presenting.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 23, 2006 11:33 AM
April 21, 2006 | Comments: (0)
News: Peter Fenton leaves Accel for Benchmark
I'm halfway back from Costa Rica and was just astounded to learn that Peter Fenton (who did the JBoss deal and is, in my estimation, one of the top "open source VCs" on the planet) has left Accel Partners to join Benchmark, a rival Silicon Valley venture firm.
No big deal, you say? It is a big deal, mostly because VCs rarely leave their firms to go to rivals. It just doesn't happen very often, for a range of reasons.
It will be interesting to see what happens with Peter's board seats (JBoss, Wily, etc.). Even more interesting will be what the Fenton + Kevin Harvey (Red Hat, Zimbra, MySQL, Qlusters) duo will cook up. Harvey is another top open source VC, and razor-sharp smart. He and Peter should be an exceptional team.
(Except that VCs don't generally hunt in pairs. Maybe putting them together puts too much competition for the same deal flow?)
Posted by Matt Asay on April 21, 2006 01:05 PM
April 20, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The software behind the new Lego Mindstorms NXT is only days away from being published as open source. No word on license yet, but seems likely to be something that's not GPL. Now I can finally build my Lego Deathstar without threat from LucasFilms.
While this might seem slightly off topic, it's actually pretty interesting that a major consumer product maker is experimenting with community development methods.
Via New Media Trends
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 20, 2006 11:11 AM
April 20, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Applying the principles of Open Source to the laptop
Is the laptop the final frontier for open source? LinuxWorld Mag Editor Mark Hinkle says yes. While I think it's an interesting idea to have 'open source hardware', hardware vendors like Dell are not really the problem. The key to adoption is having applications that make users want to use Linux and OSS apps on their computers in general.
The benefits of commodity hardware are well known. Competition among memory, storage, and chip providers has benefited the consumer and driven down PC prices. My belief is that the next big "open opportunity" is for the Open Source commodity laptop. The consumer would be rewarded by applying to hardware, specifically laptops, the same principles that have made Open Source software a success. Desktop PCs are fairly easy to repair and your local electronics superstore likely has all the parts to repair them. There are also plenty of local repair shops competing to fix them. This isn't the case with laptops. As laptop sales surpass desktops, I believe there's growing demand for local vendors to not only sell but fully service laptops on-site.Open Source Hardware
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 20, 2006 07:18 AM
April 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Infrastructure: You get what you pay for
A few months ago I wrote from Caracas, Venezuela on the importance of infrastructure. I'm on vacation in Costa Rica now with my family, and the same lesson is hitting home.
In software, we're largely coming to take infrastructure for granted, thanks to exceptional middleware from JBoss, databases from PosgreSQL and MySQL, etc. We think, in other words, that 280 (California), I-80 (CA to UT and beyond), I-95 (Massachusetts), M25 (London), and other roads just happen. They're free, like much of our best software. Infrastructure is FREE!!!!
Except that it's not. I drove on pseudo-free infrastructure Sunday as my family and I headed to church in Puntarenas, Costa Rica. The drive is roughly 60 kilometers, and took us 1.5 hours. Why did it take so long? Because try as I might, I couldn't jump our little Toyota over the massive potholes (often spanning the entire highway) safely, and so had to slow down to negotiate the craters in the road.
This pseudo-free infrastructure would start to look a lot more like the "free" infrastructure that Americans and Europeans take for granted if more of us were paying taxes in Costa Rica. Because, of course, our infrastructure is not free. We pay for it. Heavily.
For those who can afford to pay for great software infrastructure (like JBoss and MySQL), yet opt to free-ride, over time these decisions will be revealed in the quality of that "free" infrastructure we "drive" our applications on. Big potholes in which a minor planet could rest comfortably.
Whatever the open source project you use - from Mambo to Handbrake to Adium to Tomcat - keep in mind that someone, somewhere has to write that code, and however much they may like writing software for free, at some point they need to get paid. It might as well be by you. And me. After all, we're the ones driving on it.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 17, 2006 03:18 PM
April 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Oracle to launch Linux flavor?
The Financial Times reports that Oracle is contemplating owning a Linux variant to own the whole stack.
"I'd like to have a complete stack," he said. "We're missing an operating system. You could argue that it makes a lot of sense for us to look at distributing and supporting Linux.""Now that Red Hat...competes with us in middleware, we have to re-look at the relationship - so does IBM," he said.
On Red Hat's growing influence and its ambitions to reach beyond the Linux operating system, he added: "I don't think Oracle and IBM want another Microsoft in Red Hat."
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 17, 2006 05:34 AM
April 15, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Big List of Office 2.0 Applications
The IT Redux blog has compiled a giant list of 79 "Office 2.0" applications--basically browser based replacements for traditional desktop software.
A new programming model for web-based user interfaces called AJAX and a killer application for it "Gmail" are now bringing new life to this concept. The idea is pretty simple: use a generic web browser and a set of online services to provide all the functionality needed by a computer user, removing the need for any application to be installed on the computer itself. I call it Office 2.0.
IT Redux via ZDNet Office Evolution
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 15, 2006 11:38 AM
April 14, 2006 | Comments: (0)
New Patent Commons Whitepapers
Two new whitepapers from the Patent Commons Project were released today.
Understanding Patent Pledges: An Overview of Legal Considerations
A Developer's Guide to Using the Commons
The Patent Commons administers patents pledged to the open source community by open source developers, and companies such as IBM, Nokia, Novell, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 14, 2006 12:49 PM
April 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
The cost of open source: Implementations
The cost of implementing open source
At last week's LinuxWorld Boston I moderated a panel entitled "The Real World of Open Source Application Implementations: Case Studies from the Front Line." Contrary to what Fabrizio says, it is precisely because of sessions like these that Linuxworld (the conference) and OSBC still matter. Everyone knows Linux, true, but not everyone knows what it (and other open source technologies) actually costs, how and where best to implement it, which business models have been successful in the market, etc. What is needed, rather, is more candid information exchange, not less. OSBC is an unparalleled place to house that sort of exchange.
But I digress....
In my session, we brought together two SIs (CorraTech and Optaros) and three IT buyers (Putnam Investments, Athena Health, and The Christian Science Monitor) to figure out if open source is actually the bargain that people like me regularly spout off about. (Btw, Seth has a good summary of the session.)
I asked the IT buyers how they find new technology they buy, open source or proprietary. Answer?
- Talking with competitors/industry peers.
- Web (News sites, Google, etc.)
- Venture capitalists
It's clear that few want to be any technology's guinea pig. Hence, it becomes important for open source technologies, in particular, to establish visible customer credibility: case studies, press releases, Sourceforge download statistics, media mentions, etc.
As for venture capitalists, it makes sense that they'd be a trusted source: if they're willing to put down a few million on a company, surely they must believe in it. VCs also act as connectors to link together different IT buyers.
In the course of the session, I also asked both SIs and IT buyers whether open source was cheaper to implement, on the theory that source code access might facilitate development and integration. The answer? The cost of any implementation (at least, in CRM and ECM) is always 2-4x the license cost. The real value in open source is in how you spend the license cost savings: extra customization? More IT staff? Training? Documentation? etc. You choose.
Ultimately, then, you can choose whether you want to save money, or whether you'd like to invest those cost savings in achieving a tailored solution that is simply not possible in a proprietary world (at least, not without paying a massive premium).
Larry Augustin illustrated this well in his OSBC2004 presentation:
Where do you want to spend your money? You choose. Open source = more choice.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 12, 2006 07:54 PM
April 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Liberte! Egalite! Unemployment!
France's problem with basic economics
Not sure if you've noticed, but the French are outraged (again). When I lived in France, it was the farmers and truck drivers constantly blockading cities with leeks, potatoes, and, well, trucks.
This time? It's the youth.
What are they protesting? Work.
French President Jacques Chirac (or, rather, Prime Minster Villepin) last year introduced the CPE, which basically makes it easier for companies to fire younger workers. After the youth rampaged, the government capitulated and introduced the CNE, which allows for companies with fewer than 20 employees to fire employees without reason (during a 2-year trial period).
Sounds heartless, right? Letting big companies fire little workers?
The problem with the reasoning is that by not allowing companies to fire employees, France essentially makes it impossible to hire them. Expanding into France is a big risk because the costs of getting out (should anything go wrong) are too high. Why take that kind of risk when other, equal options are readily available with none of the same risk?
Employment is not a right. It's a privilege. To earn good work, you take a calculated risk: education, training, networking, etc. Perhaps the risk is wasted, and you don't get a good job. But the risk is worth the return when you do.
Markets don't work when they're heavily controlled, as in France. France's unemployment woes are caused and exacerbated by foolish state policies like over-protection of workers. French youth, trying to help themselves by desperately avoiding the possibility of failure, are guaranteeing the very failure (unemployment) they fear.
What does this have to do with open source? Nothing. I just get annoyed by inanity.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 12, 2006 07:50 PM
April 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Quick Look: OpenQRM Systems Management
This morning I spoke with the exec team from Qlusters (FYI-it's pronounced Clusters, not Q-lusters) about OpenQRM, their open source system management platform.
The goal of OpenQRM is to provide a basis to start uniting other open source management tools in a unified matter that allows for each of use and deployment. The fundamental painpoint that led to the development of OpenQRM was the fact that IT shops were moving to commodity hardware but finding that management tools lacked-which defeated the very economics behind using cheap boxes. This sentiment is very similar to a number of other companies-mainly proprietary vendors who have built large scale apps (Cassatt), and appliances (Levanta) to manage the proliferation of Linux boxes and open source apps.
According to the team, OpenCRM has consistently ranked in the top 20 projects on Sourceforge.net for the last 3 months. There have been approximately 6500 downloads including the live CD which gives you a test drive of the full suite. There are somewhere between 200-500 installations that the company is aware of...possibly more out in the wild.
OpenQRM is interesting because it allows for integration with other applications, rather than forcing a data center change. Every IT shop has some level of monitoring in place so extending rather than replacing has an appeal. And for the moment they feel it's less about competition and more about plugging in various open source applications. Thus far the community has been responsive and supportive of the efforts.
Use Cases
New Data Center:
For new infrastructure things like provisioning are top of the list. The software allows for decoupling of images and policy driven management.
Existing Infrastructure:
If you already have a decent sized infrastructure, things like centralized management consoles have been very popular-aggregating all these disparate applications.
So how does Qlusters make money? There is the open source OpenQRM project that is not entirely supported. Qlusters provides a subscription to the code that is tested with paid support-similar to the RedHat model. In the pipeline is an enterprise version that will include features that will be exclusive to the paid support versions. List price is $750 per managed server, per year and is discounted at volume.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 12, 2006 03:05 PM
April 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Open source applications: We've reached the "laugh at you" phase
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.Mohandas Gandhi
Linux is in the "win" phase. Apache webserver is in the "won" phase. MySQL and JBoss are in the stage where the laughter turns bitter and the pushing starts. Big wins are on the horizon.
Open source applications? We're at the point the ignorance is breeding laughter. SugarCRM, Alfresco, JasperSoft, Plone, Compiere, etc. These are all applications that used to be ignored, but ignorance is no longer serving proprietary competitors well.
As a case in point, InformationWeek just ran a story on Boise Cascade's use of Alfresco for invoice management. Big customer, big need, big value.
Documentum's response? Completely off-base, ill-founded commentary ("Boise's need to cobble together links between Alfresco and MySQL is one reason some parties turn to commercial document management systems") that open source solutions require development, and off-the-shelf proprietary software requires none. Not only is this not true, but it also cleverly hides a ball that every IT buyer already knows: EVERY ERP/CRM/ECM solution requires customization/development.
Documentum not require heavy customization to make it even remotely relevant for a company? Of course it does. The difference is that the entry-level cost for one of these proprietary systems is in the six figure range (server costs), which only is exacerbated by per user costs.
Run SAP or Siebel out of the box? Of course you won't. The fact that they have more features (in some cases) does not mean that any buyer immediately, out-of-the-box benefits from those features. Most proprietary systems in the ERP/ECM/CRM/etc. worlds are cobbled together "suites" from years of acquisition. Much of the integration work on any given IT project is likely due to getting their own products to work together, nevermind getting them to work within the business processes and infrastructure of the customer.
Let's not try to obscure the issue for IT buyers. Customization is standard. The question is how much a buyer needs to pay for a vendor to deliver the 20-80% of a products features they won't actually use. Open source (well done) offers a granular way to tailor software to an enterprise's needs. Do creative, development-minded enterprises benefit more from open source today than more passive consumers of technology? Probably.
But that is a momentary blip, if it's a blip at all. Laugh while you can. Better get ready to fight. Because we're planning to win.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 12, 2006 09:34 AM
April 11, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Desktop Linux-the new source of Microsoft angst?
I just stumbled upon one of those hysterical "Get the facts" pdfs from a few months back. Makes me wonder if MS will drop a big anti-desktop Linux campaign when Vista comes out, similar to the anti-server Linux campaign when Windows Server 2003 dropped.
I'm not the only one who thinks that Vista presents a huge opportunity for Linux on the desktop. Jon Oltsik from Enterprise Strategy Group:
Later this year, Microsoft will throw a $500 million PR and advertising party aimed at convincing users to upgrade their PCs to Vista. This provides a perfect opportunity for the Linux crowd to persuade CIOs to evaluate Linux and compare pricing. In this way, Microsoft will likely open the door to some unintended Linux desktop momentum.I have every expectation that Vista will be a much better OS than XP, but do users really need it? Perhaps. Then again, many CIOs may conclude that the more prudent choice would be a Linux desktop and Open Office migration offering good enough functionality, at 10 percent of Microsoft's price.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 11, 2006 03:50 PM
April 10, 2006 | Comments: (0)
An inside look at outsourcing via oDesk
Sarah Lacy told me about oDesk a few weeks ago but I haven't had time to check it out until now. While my initial assumption was some kind of Irish IT company (get it? O'desk?) its actually an online marketplace for offshore development talent where engineers/developers/etc can post their rates along with their credentials to take on your offshore work. And people with needs can post jobs for developers to apply to. Its very much like the now defunct Guru.com, only the per hour fees are dramatically reduced and the odds of you ever meeting your contractor in real life are much slimmer.
oDesk streams job postings on the front page, which you can correlate to what's going in the development world. There's a fair amount of C# and .NET, a fair amount of PHP and some other stuff like Delphi and Access. You can also see that there are 401 .NET development providers at just $14.91/hour. Offshore tech writers command the most cash at $21.21/hour. Mind you those rates fluctuate depending on the geography but it's pretty wild to see just how much offshore developers charge. oDesk also provides stats of how many hours the developers have logged thru the site which assumedly helps their reputation.
From the CIO perspective these reduced costs are obviously very appealing. But the struggle comes when trying to manage projects that are not one-offs or require production support. Most IT shops try to separate development from operations, but there are times (sadly pretty often) when you need to have someone in house who understands the code. That's difficult to accomplish when you are contracting out for a specific set of requirements.
I can't help but think I should offshore myself. It would prevent situations like this, and allow for more leisure time.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 10, 2006 09:41 PM
April 10, 2006 | Comments: (0)
FreedomHEC Conference for Linux Hardware Engineers
It's high time for Windows developers to learn how easy it is to use and develop on Linux. Don Marti is taking it on himself to make it happen at FreedomHEC.
FreedomHEC is scheduled for May 26 and 27, and will follow Microsoft's WinHEC, which takes place in Seattle May 23 through 25. The idea behind FreedomHEC is to provide a "shadow" conference to WinHEC to teach Windows hardware developers how easy it is to make hardware compatible with Linux and other free operating systems.
What you can expect to get out of FreedomHEC:
-Understand the Linux kernel development process and learn how it differs from the "traditional" operating system driver development process.
-Learn how to become part of the Linux kernel development community.
-Learn how to port any existing code to the Linux kernel
-Learn various technical bits about different parts of the Linux kernel (SCSI layer? Driver core? sysfs? USB? PCI? Network driver layer? Anything else anyone wants to learn about?)
-Learn how to properly submit code and get it accepted into the main kernel tree.
-Learn how an individual company can directly influence the development of the areas surrounding their product. For example, they can add new features to the SCSI core if they need them, and they don't have to rely on any other company to do the work for them, as long as they work with the community.
-Realize that Linux kernel developers are easy to approach, and work directly with, no management levels are present to slow things down.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 10, 2006 06:59 PM
April 10, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Earlier in this blog, Dave posted information that he received from an anonymous tipster. He shouldn't have posted it (though, in his defense, he wouldn't have known just how sensitive the data is), but more to the point, no one should have sent it to him.
I did not post that information and had no knowledge of its posting in advance (despite it being posted on the blog entry I had earlier posted on the Red Hat acquisition). Dave and I have co-commit rights on the blog.
The JBoss employee who sent the information deserves to be punished for sending it. Confidentiality means you don't share insider information. As an employee of a private or public company, you don't have the right to do this, and you have an ethical obligation not to do it. Keep private information private. Keep it to yourself.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 10, 2006 02:29 PM
April 10, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Red Hat's got a jihad going on. (JIhad, of course, does not denote "armed struggle," but rather a striving. In this case, Red Hat has just taken a major move up the software stack, with the threat reverberating from Redmond to Somers (IBM). Importantly for the rising stack business, as well, Red Hat has clearly decided to go it alone in building and deploying enterprise-grade software stacks.
Despite my earlier analysis on why Novell should acquire JBoss, it's clear that the synergy between the top Linux distributor and the top open source application server company is clear. Integration between the two companies will not be seamless, but it's arguably a better fit than with Novell:
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.I witnessed new wine (SUSE) being poured into old bottles (Novell) - it finally worked, but it was a difficult transition (cultural, business model, license model, etc.). Red Hat + JBoss doesn't have the same issue. Both use GPL licenses (GPL and LGPL). Both are used to service-based models.But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. Luke 5:37-38
What Red Hat adds to JBoss, however, is its ingenious licensing strategy, and both contribute to each other by feeding leads. Companies that use one open source technology are more likely to use another. In this way, the two companies mutually reinforce each other. And Red Hat offers JBoss additional teeth to its business model - a way to help users become paying customers.
This is a great step forward for open source, and for these two companies. Let the JiHAT begin!
Posted by Matt Asay on April 10, 2006 02:24 PM
April 10, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Today, Red Hat announced that it will acquire JBoss, and RedBoss is born. (My name, not theirs.) I was obviously wrong on suggesting Novell was the suitor, and I'm not yet sure if they were right to consummate the deal (not that they asked me ;-).
The price? $350M upfront (40% cash, 60% stock) and another $70M for hitting performance targets. Not bad for Matthew, who just acquired a very different organization, whatever its business model.
It will be interesting to see how long (and how well) it takes for Red Hat to fully digest JBoss. I'm not a believer in acquisitions - I've never actually seen one work well - but Matthew is a strong CEO and could pull it off, if anyone can. That said, he's also acquired a company that is 100% different from how he runs Red Hat. About the only similarity is open source and two strong, vocal CEOs.
EARLIER InfoWorld posted information that was received from an anonymous source (we don't know who sent it, but they had NO authorization to do so). That information has been purged. In the meantime, sit back and watch the JiHAT kick some tail.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 10, 2006 05:46 AM
April 09, 2006 | Comments: (0)
I'm in the process of evaluating a new CRM system to migrate off of our internally developed custom system and onto something that we don't have to maintain ourselves. In this final round I'm looking at Oracle, SugarCRM, NetSuite and Salesforce.com. The interesting (and depressing) fact is that any new application we consider requires a non-trivial level of development in order to integrate the systems together. In fact, it seems like engineering teams that used to be focused on development are now focused on integration.
My initial thought, was "hey great, now's the time to go fully SOA," but the reality of the situation is that SOA-at least in the way that vendors pitch it is a real palaver. I often joke that we have "the poor man's SOA" at my office, but it's fairly true. Our infrastructure communicates via services (where available) or via standards-based protocols, but we don't have all the fancy registry and governance software that seems to be top of mind, or at least top of marketing. We have been doing everything in custom frameworks but we're starting to use Mule, my favorite open source ESB for our integration efforts and I have to say it's going well. FYI-I looked at proprietary solutions, but the pricing was outrageous. This is a great place for open source.
My big realization is that integration is what matters, not SOA, or web services or whatever aspects of integration semantic arguments come into the fold. In the end, all I want is for all of the systems to talk to each other in an easy to manage way. And by easy to manage, I mean for developers. The odds of my business users doing anything in terms of mapping processes via some kind of BPM app are slim and none.
For my CRM thoughts so far I am assigning a 1-10 score for Features/Ease of Integration/Cost, which should help to make the decision for me.
SugarCRM
Odds are we won't do anything with the source code, so what we're looking at here is lower cost in relation to Salesforce with similar functionality. But SugarCRM doesn't have the nice web services APIs. Nonetheless, both the enterprise and OnDemand versions work well, and I do believe reach a level of comparable feature parity to Salesforce.com.
Features: 8
Ease of integration: 6
Cost: 9
Total: 23
NetSuite
Note to NetSuite Marketing Team: I know that you are backed by Larry Ellison and Oracle is notoriously cagey about pricing, but web-based CRM is a commodity. The fact that I couldn't figure out how much your products cost from your website drives me away immediately. Call it short-sighted, or just call me busy, but I found this lack of opacity incredibly annoying in this day and age-and contrary to the open source world I tend to live in. BTW-I did find the pricing. Thanks PC Mag.
Features: 8
Ease of integration: 7
Cost: 6
Total: 21
Oracle
The license is actually not that bad when you buy other Oracle components-and the software itself is very robust. It's also damn complicated and will take a lot of help to make it work for our business. Not sure this is a good idea. I couldn't even assign good numbers here as its very hard to determine true costs when you consider the integration efforts.
Features: 10
Ease of integration: 2
Cost: 0
Total: 12
Salesforce.com
Fundamentally, I think Salesforce.com is just too expensive. It's very robust, in fact it may be too much for us, but it does have all the features and functionality, including web services APIs for integration. There is also a positive perception issue here, sales people are familiar with Salesforce.com-and they should be considering the huge amount of advertising they do.
Features: 10
Ease of integration: 9
Cost: 4
Total: 23
My handy scoreboard
| SugarCRM | 23 |
| NetSuite | 21 |
| Oracle | 12 |
| Salesforce.com | 23 |
This little scoreboard is one of the curses of business school...they teach you to look at things in an analytical, objective fashion only to have a tie and no obvious resolution. Very frustrating. For now, no decision. Maybe soon.
NOTE:
Before you start spamming me with "use our product CRMxyz or whatever" take into account what I have posted here already. Chances are if your product met our requirements we checked it out already.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 9, 2006 11:32 PM
April 09, 2006 | Comments: (0)
RedHat (not Novell) to acquire JBoss
Our insider sources say that it's not Novell that's going to buy JBoss, but the other big Linux guys, RedHat. Apparently the deal will be announced tomorrow April 10. Keep in mind we have been wrong before, but give us the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Matt's reasoning behind Novell acquiring JBoss was damn good, but RedHat is a better fit and the company is much smarter and more aggressive than Novell. It's a good move and will further cement RedHat's ownership over the enterprise Linux market.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 9, 2006 05:54 PM
April 07, 2006 | Comments: (0)
JBoss is going to get bought.
It's no secret that Oracle wasn't the only one sniffing after JBoss. Red Hat has talked about buying JBoss (though it's hard to see Matthew and Marc getting along well :-), as has IBM.
But Novell is the best fit.
Disagree? You think JBoss + Novell = NoBoss? Think it doesn't make sense, or won't happen? I think you're wrong.
Why Novell? Let me count the ways...
Novell has lots of cash. Too much cash, comparatively. (See right.) Marc Fleury wants cash. (Who doesn't?) Perfect match.
- Novell has struggled to convince enterprises to move from NetWare to Open Enterprise Server/SLES, though results have been improving under Ron Hovsepian. Still, the needs something else to attract and hook would-be customers. Ximian? Nah. There's no Linux desktop market, at least not now. JBoss could be the answer....
JBoss has a large (and growing) user base. The biggest thing it lacks is a solid business model to monetize all its demand. The company did less than $20M last year, and will probably ink $50-60M this year, if things continue as they have. Where's the problem, you say? A lot more money could be made if the company moved away from a pure support model toward something like what MySQL, Red Hat, or others use. Something that makes it easier for JBoss to convince customers to pay for software they already love.
- JBoss and Novell already have a strong, profitable partnership. Novell distributes JBoss' application server, having dumped its Extend app server. (This is exceptional irony, btw. Novell's SilverStream/Extend app server came from David Skok, who founded SilverStream, which Novell bought. David was the lead investor in JBoss' venture round...which company's product replaced SilverStream at Novell...and which product Novell is going to acquire into the fold. David wins every way he turns. :-)
- Marc could use some toning down. Novell could use some livening up. (Having said this, Marc, you shouldn't overlook the fate of every other CEO Novell has acquired into the company. They don't last, and I'm not laying the blame at either Novell's or their feet. They just don't last, for whatever reason.)
- Oh, and Novell has cash, and Marc would like to have cash. Did I mention that one? :-)
- Lastly, it's unlikely that Marc Fleury would want to be the CEO of a publicly-traded company. I'm not saying he couldn't do it. I'm saying he wouldn't want to. Marc is a free spirit. The public markets tend not to like free spirits. Much better for JBoss to make Mark gobs of cash without the hassle that comes with public accountability.
Convinced? Better prepare for it, anyway. It's going to happen.
The real question is what a move like this would mean for JBoss' employees. Marc owns 50%+ of the company. I believe VCs (Matrix and Accel) own another 30% or so. That leaves very little for the employees, who likely won't see much from a deal. Will they stay? Do they have the incentive to do so?
(Note: In the Novell-Ximian deal, no one but 3-5 top executives made much money in the deal, and yet most people stayed with Novell. So perhaps this stock incentive-thing is overblown, and it will have no effect on JBoss employees staying through the acquisition.)
P.S. Why did Bob Bickel leave JBoss?
Posted by Matt Asay on April 7, 2006 01:19 PM
April 06, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Let's go build a great Open Source MS Office replacement
For all of the innovation that occurs in today's technology marketplace, the most commonly used business applications-those associated with Microsoft Office -- remain stale and hackneyed. While we wait for Microsoft to come out with a new version of Office that overshoots user need while ensuring that consumers, businesses and government remain locked into Microsoft specific standards, I put forth the notion that an open source business productivity suite has the rare opportunity to dislodge Microsoft's stronghold on the desktop - it just needs a little help from the community.
The Ultimate Battleground?
We are on the cusp of a unique time in the Microsoft product lifecycle. Both Office 12 and Windows Vista loom on the horizon and IT shops and end-users around the world will have to decide just how much extra they are willing to pay (again) for applications like Powerpoint and Access, and how much they plan to use InfoPath and Groove.
I would argue that not only is now the time for the emergence of a complete open source office suite, but that there are economic drivers that will make it a reality.
What's driving the need for the open source business suite is the same directive that has been driving the adoption of open source everywhere: the business need to reduce costs while achieving the same or better levels of productivity. While it may sound counter-intuitive, the trickle down revenue effect for the organization that develops the true replacement for MS office will be substantial. Consider that Mozilla generates tens of millions of dollars just from Firefox and then consider that an office suite has much larger potential.
Meeting the needs of the user
Users don't care about Open XML or OpenDocument file formats. They want their documents, spreadsheets and presentations to look and act the same regardless of who opens them. They want applications to be stable and secure and for macros to not subject them to security risks.
Office 12 adds a new level of application complexity and introduces a new user interface. To some extent users will be forced to relearn the application, which offers a natural opportunity to re-evaluate the desktop suite and consider one based on open standards and developed with the goal of pleasing the end-user.
Some pieces are already in place. Mozilla Firefox is already considered a superior web browser to Internet Explorer and Mozilla Thunderbird is a quality email client, if not truly enterprise-ready. OpenOffice.org is a functional, if not great replacement for MS Office but has quirks and it's own fractured development history to contend with.
What's missing in the eyes of the business user is the cohesion in terms of user interface, functionality and underlying integration. From the development side, the established developer community that one finds in non-business open source applications (like the Apache web server) remains intangible.
Why Open Source
There is revenue to be had from open source software, and commercial companies like MySQL and SugarCRM, as well as non-profits like Mozilla are recognizing real dollars meeting the needs of business users.
Open source projects have been highly innovative in terms of business models and technologies. Microsoft's Information Worker unit, which includes Office and related tools, generated more than $11 billion in revenue--more than one quarter of Microsoft's total revenue in fiscal year 2005. I submit to the open source community that there is enormous opportunity here. Tapping into that opportunity means rallying as a community to build a better business productivity suite that puts open source, standards-based software within reach of every worker around the globe. It's in our hands to decide whether we'd prefer to continue accepting a mediocre product, or actually do something about it.
Suggestions or Comments?
Suggestions on how to further this issue will be a key part of my discussion at the DesktopLinuxSummit. Please feel free to comment and let me know what you think we should be talking about.
Previously:
Matt's 15 seconds of OpenOffice (in)fam(e/y)
MS Office and open source office productivity apps
The open source market opportunity
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 6, 2006 10:11 AM
April 04, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Against Forrester's Jefferson: A call for Hamiltonian open source
So, if you haven't heard (Dave talks about it here and here, the sky is falling and open source may be destroyed by its very success. Or so opines Michael Goulde in a recent Forrester report. Lest you waste money to fuel anxiety on the matter, let me put your minds at rest. (Dave has already written a good counter, and Michael Tiemann offered up this gem:
"I believe that the effect of open source on the proprietary vendors is a force 1,000 times more powerful than the force of proprietary principles on the open source community." From time to time we do see some charlatans claiming to be committed to open source when it is really the success of open source that they covet, and from time to time we see them fail and blame open source instead of themselves.Amen."But looking for the effect of proprietary software on the open source community is like trying to measure the gravitational effect of the earth on the orbit of the Sun." [From an OSI email to LinuxInsider.
Open source is not a mask that one can don and pretend to be someone/thing else. Open source is a methodology for developing, distributing, and supporting software. If you sham it, you fail. If you fail, you go bankrupt. If you go bankrupt, no one cares to write about you anymore. Etc.
The risk in all this open source furor is that the idea behind open source will get tainted in people's minds, not that open source software, itself, will become ruined. If this happens, I suspect the good companies will keep chugging away, and eventually the cream will rise to the top (as happened in the dot-com fall-out).
In the meantime, let's not fall into a Jeffersonian trap of pining for the good old days of an agrarian economy - that idyllic pre-modern world of open source when everyone hugged each other and lovingly shared code. We don't need that. I much prefer Hamilton's vision: capitalism unleashed. In this case, open source capitalism unleashed.
Will we get chaff with the wheat? Of course. But the market has a funny way of obliterating dumb ideas and charlatans. The open source market, Hamilton style, will be no different.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 4, 2006 07:08 PM
April 04, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Forrester Open Source Report steps into BizarroWorld
A recent Forrester Report "Vendors Refine Their Open Source Strategies/The Risk of Subverting Open Source Freedoms Mounts," cautions the open source community about the "corrupting influence profit-seeking software players could have on its ecosystem." Not that I don't appreciate Forresters' concern for the community, but the motives behind the report are at best self-serving and at worst fodder for anti-OSS camps.
"As major software suppliers adopt open source software as part of their strategies, the risk increases that the goals of the open source movement -- user freedom to use, modify, and distribute software -- will be undermined"
Can we assume that Forrester is suggesting the following?
1. Profits in open source are evil
2. The open source community can't manage itself once money comes into play
3. That big vendors will corrupt open source to a point of irrelevance
Despite the fact that Forrester has thus far been pretty fair in terms of open source, this report strikes me as FUD. Don't just take my opinion-read more on TechNewsWorld. Disclosure: I have a few very weird quotes in the story...I was very tired.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 4, 2006 12:04 PM
April 04, 2006 | Comments: (0)