Microsoft: NYT Article Misleads Investors [View article]
Thanks for all the comments.
Here is a clarification and a further comment:
Clarification:. I would have been more accurate if I had said near the beginning "Apple does not embrace open source terms and conditions any differently than Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, etc." The point here, as I say at the end of the post, is that open source iissues are meaningless as IT investment factors: all the big boys have co-opted the movement to their own devices and for their own reasons. This is a blog post and not an article but I still could have thought that sentence through one more time before hitting the button.
Comment: Despite all the impassioned discussion pro and against Apple's open source terms and conditions and Microsoft's share value (I flatlined Microsoft's share value in 2008), the only reason I wrote the blog post -- as it says in the headline and in most of the post -- is that the NYT article is misleading. It never identifies Tim O'Reilly fairly so that investors understand the incredible biases in the article.
Forbes Releases Cloudy View of Cloud Computing [View article]
OBA
Thanks for the comment.
I was actually posting on cloud computing vs the various incarnations of 'AaaS' (anything as a service) on which you seem to be commenting. As I said, I do agree, based on my talks with the AWS guys, that Amazon could be a player in cloud computing if it so chooses.
I just don't think it will so choose. Retailers believe fast nickels are better than slow dimes; IT guys on the other hand have to invest very slow to pay back dollars.
UPDATE: I found the press release to which Dave Rosenberg was referring the morning of April 13. It is a PR Newswire release from IBM dated April 12 and refers to a Winterhaven report on SOA. IBM itself is the source of the overall middleware share figure but IBM says it expects the leading numbers houses to confim this later. I agree. Ho hum.
How California's Open Source Policies Affect Enterprise Software Investments [View article]
Mr. Picnic,
Thanks but I am not sure how you "divine" a bias against open source software out of my blog post above. My comments relate totally to the terms and conditions of the open source license and their effects on the enterprise software market. I do very clearly state the "pro" of the open source license in point 2: you get the source code. You are correct that I do not discuss any of the "cons."
Why Should Oracle Even Bother with the EU? [View article]
Thanks
You are referring to Oracle's statement, which it issud in response to the EU Statement of Objections adn filed with the SEC. I was trying to get the actual document that the EU gave to Sun but the EU says such documents are not public (but someone--probably SAP--will leak it).
Dennis
On Nov 12 09:11 AM reyito wrote:
> Dennis, > > The EU's statement can be found in Oracle's 8-k filing. > > Keep up the good work.
'The Shallowest Generation': A Rebuttal [View article]
Wow! I didn't realize from the earlier insults that you were the same person that wrote the original article. I have never seen anyone write under one name and comment under another.
But now I understand. Unable to prove even one of your points about Baby Boomers, you insult others who call you out on your lack of logic.
Oh, and you should carpool if you're commuting 120 miles a day--save the planet!
Dennis
On Nov 08 02:28 PM JGQ wrote:
> Hey Dennis > > Pretty touchy for someone who used the words: rant, blabbers, and > screed in his attempt to get someone to read one of his articles. > How does it feel to leech off of me to get someone to read your blather? > I hope you don't have to rely on your ability to write in order to > make a living. Let us know what kind of car you drive? How many miles? > Leased, bought, or did you remortgage your house for a Mercedes? > Why weren't you able to save enough to put your kids through college? > I have been saving since my kids were born. I won't be borrowing > to get them through college. > > Wah Wah Wah. That's abuse. Classic boomer.
'The Shallowest Generation': A Rebuttal [View article]
Most important, to Axelrod-Glad you got the humor. -------- To the guy (or girl) who doubts the Social Security numbers, go back and read how SS works (and I am not counting my Medicare contributions which I do fully expect to recoup). As I think Buffet or someone of that net worth says, most of you pay the same as I do in SS taxes. You did not have to be "highly compensated" over the last 45 years to have that kind of money "deposited in your account." You just have to be middle class depending on how that's defined. -------- To elcopone, if that was Quinn's point, he never said it anywhere in multi-thousands of words. He said: 1. ) "Our claim to fame is living way beyond our means for the last three decades, to the point where we have virtually bankrupted our capitalist system." and 2.) "Of course, not all Baby Boomers are shallow, greedy, and corrupt. Mostly Boomers with power and wealth fall into this category." He provides no proof for either statement, which is the reason I wrote the rebuttal over on this part of the site (I actually write about technology investments and related issues).
But to answer your question despite your insult, personally I believe volunteering in non-partisan local government and non-government charitable organizations is a means. That was my choice for 30 years but I don't contend that it is the only means to contribute back to society. Military service, teaching K-12, and social work are careers in this area. Coaching kids sports, elderly services, and working with the disabled are great volunteering opportunities.
Those who attack the Baby Boomers might want to find out how are age bracket does in these areas. ---------- To those of you who have been genuinely disturbed by and thoughtlfully replied to the original article's premise that the Baby Boomer generation is responsible for the financial crisis, note that the orginal author is missing in action. My contention is that there is no data in his multi-thousand-word article that connects demographics with the broad economics discussed here or that relates to the orginal author's specific claim (that greedy baby boomers, not all baby boomers mind you, did such and such).
I pointed out how two of his statistics are demonstrably wrong (or at least misleading)--( 1) where the "greatest generation" got its "wealth" and (2) the candard about savings rates. I'm still waiting for any other proofpoints linking generations to all the ills of society; I doubt if they exist at all but they definitely were not in the original article. ---------------- To the ad-hominem attackers, I would like to see SA management delete all such attacks as being below the purpose of this web site but the Internet being what it is, SA would probably go broke trying to do it.
But to the lowlife JCQ, as the "More by Dennis Byron" below indicates I write for a living on the Internet so I'm used to profanity and people who can't think through what they are writing calling me "idiot" or making some insane connection to Todd Palin. But attacking my children is a new low in incoherent Internet idiocy. Your comment is totally ad-hominem and should be reported as abuse.
Microsoft Spending on Vista Confirms Linux Foundation Theory [View article]
Thanks for the comment Kirk but sorry I don't understand your first question. If this helps explain, the overall point of the above post is to confirm using Microsoft data that the LF theoretical data talked about in the earlier post (vis a vis the R&D expense behind a major software project) is reasonable.
As for the difference with Intel, the difference is that the Linux ecosystem is "open sourced." Google, HP, IBM, Sun, etc. could use all of the LF and related software at no cost but in fact we know that the big companies are realizing some expense because they fund LF, Apache and also devote their own resources to open source. Sun funds most of openoffice.org, Google funds most of Firefox, etc.
The goal is to find out if what they spend as a group and individually is substantially less than what they would be spending if they were all still developing their own ecosystem. (And secondarily, are such savings dropping to the bottom line?)
On Nov 06 09:49 AM Kirk Lindstrom wrote:
> What is the difference between that analysis > > "It might have spent the whole $28 billion on XBox but we don't have > the data to know that." > > and throwing paint on the wall and calling it art? > > It is an interesting analysis but isn't the question similar to asking > "how much does Intel developing microprocessors save HP, Apple and > IBM?" > > >
Can Google Reach Its Pie in the Sky? [View article]
Good overview of the issues. I have a couple of nits but I'm not sure if they affect your conclusion:
1. Google's legacy/core business is an advertiser/publisher application delivered as a service, not "search/directory." The facts that the service uses sophisticated patented search technology and is monetized by selling ads are secondary (although the former has helped it succeed in delivering a "packaged" advertiser/publisher application where others failed).
2. Although Google builds "key technology in house," it supposedly (I have never personally researched its claim) does it with commodity and/or open source components, basically providing the "off the shelf" advantage you're concerned about.
I don't think this changes Google's chances competing head-on with Microsoft's SaaS strategy (which it will insist on calling Software Plus Service until Ballmer retires) however. Microsoft is most likely adopting the same commodity and/or open source technologies in its data farms (and even if it is using its own proprietary stuff, it doesn't pay list price). And Microsoft should be able to maintain application functionality superiority for 10 years simply based on momentum (barring some execution mistake which I think it unlikely Ozzie would make).
Neither company should try to deliver the network infrastructure itself. Going back to the utility metaphor, they shouldn't try to be GE circa 1940, delivering both dynamos and light bulbs (but not sure it does either anymore).
Microsoft, Sun Do Well in Open Source Census [View article]
The above commenters may not completely understand how the census works. The group conducting the census welcomes information from Mac, BSD, Solaris, and other platforms.
As for Java, I believe it is a prerequisite of even beginning the census so by definition it is on every "machine" scannned.
Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft [View article]
Dear Wild-eyed Zealot:
I would prefer to email you directly about this rather than bore other SA readers but I need to assure you that my definition is not "odd" or "bizarre," I am not confusing free and open source, and I fully understand all the implications of what I am writing about. You are missing something but I can't figure out what it is. Again, I assume it is your admitted zealotry.
In my research, I use the Open Source Initiative definition of open source. Please note that the word distribution and/or redistribuion appears in seven of its 10 characteristics, including the first (see www.opensource.org/doc...). In two of the three characteristics where the words are not mentioned (the discrimination characteristics, numbers 5 and 6), the subject is clearly about distribution. The concept of distribution appears ahead of the obvious characteristic of open source being source code related, which is only mentioned in two of the 10 characteristics.
That is why we say "The term Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution." Again I point out the word primarily. I did not say exclusively.
I still don't get your point about "free" but try me again and I urge you to email me direct.
Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft [View article]
Dear Wild-eyed FOSS Zealot.
At least you are honest about your biases. But I believe your zealotry makes you read things that are not in my article and ignore things that are.
If you do not understand why the sentence “Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution" is accurate then it is you who bases your opinion on ignorance. Note that I say "primarily related to redistribution." Most of the investment-research readers of this web site are sophisticated enough to know the obvious link between the word "source" and the phrase "source code" and we don't bog down each other by repeating things.
The rest of your comment is unclear since the original article clearly says there is confusion in the Stanford/Harvard abstract between the words free and open source. So are you re-iterating that or disagreeing with it?
Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [View article]
Cameron
Thanks for the comment. As Sacha describes above, the idea is to try to figure out what the acquired company did or will do the year after it was acquired. As the blog post notes, lining up the years will never be perfect.
We will never know on JBoss but Red Hat SEC filings indicate its revenue actually declined after it was acquired. As for Qumrannet, the 5X is simply based on the Red Hat press release of September 4, 2008 announcing the deal.
Bigger point: the trend line has gone from unbelievably high to a more normal multiple traditionally assoicated with any young hot software company.
Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [View article]
User 255819 -
I say there is no such thing as an open source company because open source is a culture and a set of license terms and conditions, neither of which can be used to define a "company," especially one you would want to invest in (which is the point of SA after all).
Every so-called open source company I have looked at (as opposed to a group such as the Apache Software Foundation or the Mozilla Foundation) looks just like every other software business I have ever looked at; it just recognizes its revenue slightly differently (as explained by Sacha in the other comment above). I say slightly differently because even most of the so-called non-open-source software companies (e.g., SAP, Oracle, etc.) recognize most of their "software revenue" as subscriptions in the same way Red Hat does.
Sacha -
I understand your logic but I'm still a Jerry McGuire guy. When I said "we are not able to compare revenue-per-year totally fairly in all these acquisitions because the acquired companies were all private," I could have also added the disclaimer--that I use in my reports--that a total subscription-based revenue model understates market share. But I didn't think it mattered for this analysis because all the companies acquired kept their books this way, no?
So--if I used your method--the multiples are still going down dramatically, just from different highs.
Google's Chrome Sounds Like 1970s Pressure Cooker [View article]
RickRusselTX and Captainccs -
Thanks for your comments and I'll take your word for it vis a vis the technical descriptions (skipping over the "disconnected" and "weakly connected" problem your descriptions don't address; for example, Gmail recently).
But this is an investment site, not slashdot. The idea is what will people buy/how will consumers use Chrome. Hence my comments about applications that would need to be ported to the net. Or how else will Google make money (that nice clean Chrome UI will look pretty messy with ads all over it) to make Google a better investment. Tim Armstrong, Google President, Advertising & Commerce, North America (recently picked up responsibility for Latin America as well), spoke Sept 2 at the Citi Technology Conference, and said basically the idea behind Chrome is to get users to use more Google services but there is no particular business model tied to the browser (or anyone’s browser). -- Dennis Byron
Microsoft: NYT Article Misleads Investors [View article]
Here is a clarification and a further comment:
Clarification:. I would have been more accurate if I had said near the beginning "Apple does not embrace open source terms and conditions any differently than Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, etc." The point here, as I say at the end of the post, is that open source iissues are meaningless as IT investment factors: all the big boys have co-opted the movement to their own devices and for their own reasons. This is a blog post and not an article but I still could have thought that sentence through one more time before hitting the button.
Comment: Despite all the impassioned discussion pro and against Apple's open source terms and conditions and Microsoft's share value (I flatlined Microsoft's share value in 2008), the only reason I wrote the blog post -- as it says in the headline and in most of the post -- is that the NYT article is misleading. It never identifies Tim O'Reilly fairly so that investors understand the incredible biases in the article.
Thanks again for the discussion
Dennis
Forbes Releases Cloudy View of Cloud Computing [View article]
Thanks for the comment.
I was actually posting on cloud computing vs the various incarnations of 'AaaS' (anything as a service) on which you seem to be commenting. As I said, I do agree, based on my talks with the AWS guys, that Amazon could be a player in cloud computing if it so chooses.
I just don't think it will so choose. Retailers believe fast nickels are better than slow dimes; IT guys on the other hand have to invest very slow to pay back dollars.
-- Dennis
IBM's Middleware Dominance: Enterprise Software Market-Share Looks Unchanged [View article]
-- Dennis
How California's Open Source Policies Affect Enterprise Software Investments [View article]
Thanks but I am not sure how you "divine" a bias against open source software out of my blog post above. My comments relate totally to the terms and conditions of the open source license and their effects on the enterprise software market. I do very clearly state the "pro" of the open source license in point 2: you get the source code. You are correct that I do not discuss any of the "cons."
-- Dennis
Why Should Oracle Even Bother with the EU? [View article]
You are referring to Oracle's statement, which it issud in response to the EU Statement of Objections adn filed with the SEC. I was trying to get the actual document that the EU gave to Sun but the EU says such documents are not public (but someone--probably SAP--will leak it).
Dennis
On Nov 12 09:11 AM reyito wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> The EU's statement can be found in Oracle's 8-k filing.
>
> Keep up the good work.
'The Shallowest Generation': A Rebuttal [View article]
But now I understand. Unable to prove even one of your points about Baby Boomers, you insult others who call you out on your lack of logic.
Oh, and you should carpool if you're commuting 120 miles a day--save the planet!
Dennis
On Nov 08 02:28 PM JGQ wrote:
> Hey Dennis
>
> Pretty touchy for someone who used the words: rant, blabbers, and
> screed in his attempt to get someone to read one of his articles.
> How does it feel to leech off of me to get someone to read your blather?
> I hope you don't have to rely on your ability to write in order to
> make a living. Let us know what kind of car you drive? How many miles?
> Leased, bought, or did you remortgage your house for a Mercedes?
> Why weren't you able to save enough to put your kids through college?
> I have been saving since my kids were born. I won't be borrowing
> to get them through college.
>
> Wah Wah Wah. That's abuse. Classic boomer.
'The Shallowest Generation': A Rebuttal [View article]
--------
To the guy (or girl) who doubts the Social Security numbers, go back and read how SS works (and I am not counting my Medicare contributions which I do fully expect to recoup). As I think Buffet or someone of that net worth says, most of you pay the same as I do in SS taxes. You did not have to be "highly compensated" over the last 45 years to have that kind of money "deposited in your account." You just have to be middle class depending on how that's defined.
--------
To elcopone, if that was Quinn's point, he never said it anywhere in multi-thousands of words. He said:
1. ) "Our claim to fame is living way beyond our means for the last three decades, to the point where we have virtually bankrupted our capitalist system."
and
2.) "Of course, not all Baby Boomers are shallow, greedy, and corrupt. Mostly Boomers with power and wealth fall into this category."
He provides no proof for either statement, which is the reason I wrote the rebuttal over on this part of the site (I actually write about technology investments and related issues).
But to answer your question despite your insult, personally I believe volunteering in non-partisan local government and non-government charitable organizations is a means. That was my choice for 30 years but I don't contend that it is the only means to contribute back to society. Military service, teaching K-12, and social work are careers in this area. Coaching kids sports, elderly services, and working with the disabled are great volunteering opportunities.
Those who attack the Baby Boomers might want to find out how are age bracket does in these areas.
----------
To those of you who have been genuinely disturbed by and thoughtlfully replied to the original article's premise that the Baby Boomer generation is responsible for the financial crisis, note that the orginal author is missing in action. My contention is that there is no data in his multi-thousand-word article that connects demographics with the broad economics discussed here or that relates to the orginal author's specific claim (that greedy baby boomers, not all baby boomers mind you, did such and such).
I pointed out how two of his statistics are demonstrably wrong (or at least misleading)--(
1) where the "greatest generation" got its "wealth" and
(2) the candard about savings rates.
I'm still waiting for any other proofpoints linking generations to all the ills of society; I doubt if they exist at all but they definitely were not in the original article.
----------------
To the ad-hominem attackers, I would like to see SA management delete all such attacks as being below the purpose of this web site but the Internet being what it is, SA would probably go broke trying to do it.
But to the lowlife JCQ, as the "More by Dennis Byron" below indicates I write for a living on the Internet so I'm used to profanity and people who can't think through what they are writing calling me "idiot" or making some insane connection to Todd Palin. But attacking my children is a new low in incoherent Internet idiocy. Your comment is totally ad-hominem and should be reported as abuse.
Dennis
Microsoft Spending on Vista Confirms Linux Foundation Theory [View article]
As for the difference with Intel, the difference is that the Linux ecosystem is "open sourced." Google, HP, IBM, Sun, etc. could use all of the LF and related software at no cost but in fact we know that the big companies are realizing some expense because they fund LF, Apache and also devote their own resources to open source. Sun funds most of openoffice.org, Google funds most of Firefox, etc.
The goal is to find out if what they spend as a group and individually is substantially less than what they would be spending if they were all still developing their own ecosystem. (And secondarily, are such savings dropping to the bottom line?)
On Nov 06 09:49 AM Kirk Lindstrom wrote:
> What is the difference between that analysis
>
> "It might have spent the whole $28 billion on XBox but we don't have
> the data to know that."
>
> and throwing paint on the wall and calling it art?
>
> It is an interesting analysis but isn't the question similar to asking
> "how much does Intel developing microprocessors save HP, Apple and
> IBM?"
>
>
>
Can Google Reach Its Pie in the Sky? [View article]
1. Google's legacy/core business is an advertiser/publisher application delivered as a service, not "search/directory." The facts that the service uses sophisticated patented search technology and is monetized by selling ads are secondary (although the former has helped it succeed in delivering a "packaged" advertiser/publisher application where others failed).
2. Although Google builds "key technology in house," it supposedly (I have never personally researched its claim) does it with commodity and/or open source components, basically providing the "off the shelf" advantage you're concerned about.
I don't think this changes Google's chances competing head-on with Microsoft's SaaS strategy (which it will insist on calling Software Plus Service until Ballmer retires) however. Microsoft is most likely adopting the same commodity and/or open source technologies in its data farms (and even if it is using its own proprietary stuff, it doesn't pay list price). And Microsoft should be able to maintain application functionality superiority for 10 years simply based on momentum (barring some execution mistake which I think it unlikely Ozzie would make).
Neither company should try to deliver the network infrastructure itself. Going back to the utility metaphor, they shouldn't try to be GE circa 1940, delivering both dynamos and light bulbs (but not sure it does either anymore).
Microsoft, Sun Do Well in Open Source Census [View article]
As for Java, I believe it is a prerequisite of even beginning the census so by definition it is on every "machine" scannned.
More information see www.osscensus.org/disc... .
Or just rant away!!
-- Dennis
Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft [View article]
I would prefer to email you directly about this rather than bore other SA readers but I need to assure you that my definition is not "odd" or "bizarre," I am not confusing free and open source, and I fully understand all the implications of what I am writing about. You are missing something but I can't figure out what it is. Again, I assume it is your admitted zealotry.
In my research, I use the Open Source Initiative definition of open source. Please note that the word distribution and/or redistribuion appears in seven of its 10 characteristics, including the first (see www.opensource.org/doc...). In two of the three characteristics where the words are not mentioned (the discrimination characteristics, numbers 5 and 6), the subject is clearly about distribution. The concept of distribution appears ahead of the obvious characteristic of open source being source code related, which is only mentioned in two of the 10 characteristics.
That is why we say "The term Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution." Again I point out the word primarily. I did not say exclusively.
I still don't get your point about "free" but try me again and I urge you to email me direct.
Dennis
Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft [View article]
At least you are honest about your biases. But I believe your zealotry makes you read things that are not in my article and ignore things that are.
If you do not understand why the sentence “Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution" is accurate then it is you who bases your opinion on ignorance. Note that I say "primarily related to redistribution." Most of the investment-research readers of this web site are sophisticated enough to know the obvious link between the word "source" and the phrase "source code" and we don't bog down each other by repeating things.
The rest of your comment is unclear since the original article clearly says there is confusion in the Stanford/Harvard abstract between the words free and open source. So are you re-iterating that or disagreeing with it?
Thanks
Dennis Byron
Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [View article]
Thanks for the comment. As Sacha describes above, the idea is to try to figure out what the acquired company did or will do the year after it was acquired. As the blog post notes, lining up the years will never be perfect.
We will never know on JBoss but Red Hat SEC filings indicate its revenue actually declined after it was acquired. As for Qumrannet, the 5X is simply based on the Red Hat press release of September 4, 2008 announcing the deal.
Bigger point: the trend line has gone from unbelievably high to a more normal multiple traditionally assoicated with any young hot software company.
-- Dennis
Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth [View article]
I say there is no such thing as an open source company because open source is a culture and a set of license terms and conditions, neither of which can be used to define a "company," especially one you would want to invest in (which is the point of SA after all).
Every so-called open source company I have looked at (as opposed to a group such as the Apache Software Foundation or the Mozilla Foundation) looks just like every other software business I have ever looked at; it just recognizes its revenue slightly differently (as explained by Sacha in the other comment above). I say slightly differently because even most of the so-called non-open-source software companies (e.g., SAP, Oracle, etc.) recognize most of their "software revenue" as subscriptions in the same way Red Hat does.
Sacha -
I understand your logic but I'm still a Jerry McGuire guy. When I said "we are not able to compare revenue-per-year totally fairly in all these acquisitions because the acquired companies were all private," I could have also added the disclaimer--that I use in my reports--that a total subscription-based revenue model understates market share. But I didn't think it mattered for this analysis because all the companies acquired kept their books this way, no?
So--if I used your method--the multiples are still going down dramatically, just from different highs.
(As for source, I'll send you an email.)
Google's Chrome Sounds Like 1970s Pressure Cooker [View article]
Thanks for your comments and I'll take your word for it vis a vis the technical descriptions (skipping over the "disconnected" and "weakly connected" problem your descriptions don't address; for example, Gmail recently).
But this is an investment site, not slashdot. The idea is what will people buy/how will consumers use Chrome. Hence my comments about applications that would need to be ported to the net. Or how else will Google make money (that nice clean Chrome UI will look pretty messy with ads all over it) to make Google a better investment. Tim Armstrong, Google President, Advertising & Commerce, North America (recently picked up responsibility for Latin America as well), spoke Sept 2 at the Citi Technology Conference, and said basically
the idea behind Chrome is to get users to use more Google services but there is no particular business model tied to the browser (or anyone’s browser).
-- Dennis Byron