Dennis Byron (Research 2.0)

http://www.research2zero.com

26 Comments

    • Microsoft Continues to Waste Shareholder Value on Standards [view article]
      And the Microhate begins.

      But for all of you that prefer to be "locked in" to Sun or IBM, it's a free country. (Oh sorry, no actually in your country, it's not. Nanny Neelie has to tell you which company's products to use.)       Mar 07 07:53 AM
    • Microsoft Getting More SaaS-y [view article]
      I agree with your analysis of Microsoft's SaaS tactic (that is, bring the functionality up to speed over the net at the pace the market demands). But SaaS should not be considered a feature itself; it is simply a feature delivery method. You'll probably always get more functionality "disconnected&quo... unless they revise the speed of light. Mar 03 09:38 AM
    • Server Operating System Indicator: Both Windows, Linux Gains Continue [view article]
      In thinking about Other gaining on Microsoft Windows in Q4, in addition to seaonality related to typical mainframe purchases (Q4 2006 and Q4 2007 both showed upticks in "Other"), there was likely some Q4 2007 decline in Windows demand as buyers awaited Server 2008.

      As noted in earlier blog posts, I expect Windows to move toward 50% evenutally at the expense of "Other." This would begin to show up in August 2008 numbers if I am correct and should be very obvious by this time next year.       Mar 02 01:05 PM
    • Server Operating System Indicator: Both Windows, Linux Gains Continue [view article]
      Thomas, that would require believing that the millions of people participating in a multi-billion ($54B) market do not act rationally. Market analysts like myself don't tend to think that way :)

      But just to be compensate for any possible skewing of the data as you suggest, I look at Unix and Linux as one market, and Windows and other as a second market. This is not a Linux vs. Windows comparison but a Unix vs. Linux and Windows vs. Other comparison.

      -- Dennis       Mar 01 04:59 PM
    • Sun To Skeptics: Open Source Has a 'Clear Economic Model' [view article]
      He's right, and it's the same economic model (annual maintenance support and initial implementation/trainin... services contracts on top of licenses) that everyone in the software business has used for 35 years. The OSS business model just says a slow dime is better than a fast nickel.

      As for "crippling licenses and sneaky licesning exceptions," that's called marketing.       Feb 27 02:09 PM
    • Yahoo + Adobe: It's a Vision Thing [view article]
      Great analysis, Victor, especially countering the Professor with the idea that 500 Fortune 500 customers are better than a couple of billion consumers. How 20th century of him.

      But I have a few issues that might change your overall thinking (in reverse order to where they appear in your article):
      1. Aunt Sue and all do object to advertising on TV--thank god for Tivo
      2. In addition to Microsoft Works, which is basically sold bundled by OEMs, Aunt Sue can get a pretty full "3-device" Office 2007 Home and Student(Word/Powerpoin... and something called OneNote) for $50 "per device." One of the devices doesn't even have to belong to a student or a teacher, which was the XP deal. So one for Sue, one for Uncle Jim's computer and one for someone else. Believe me, it's well worth not having advertising popups and overlays and " click here if you don't want to wait 45 seconds."
      3. Online applications have a major flaw. 40 years ago when I started we called it computing. Somewhere along the line it became offline computing. After a short hiatus, it made a comeback as disconnected computing. It's still important.

      Overall great analysis. Microsoft should buy both Adobe and Yahoo.

      -- Dennis       Feb 26 05:56 AM
    • The Real Danger to Microsoft [view article]
      Jason,

      Except for your closing shot at drunks, your analysis is right on. That is, you have it right on the ad-revenue issue and Microsoft's real intentions. But you really don't understand "online applications."

      Microsoft wants Yahoo to help it to go "live" faster, not for the ad revenue (see seekingalpha.com/artic...).

      As I say in that post, " If it chooses to, Microsoft is able to change the user’s total information technology experience in a way no other software supplier can. Microsoft can combine the role of the user who is at once a consumer, an information worker, an individual looking for entertainment or personal information, and so forth." When I say "no other software supplier," that includes Google.

      Speaking as someone who takes it one day a time, smart gamblers--whether addicts or not--don't drink and gamble at the same time. So don't bet against Microsoft just because some drinkers of the Google Kool-aid need to dry out.       Feb 15 06:05 AM
    • Microsoft's Last Big Beat: Internet Domination or Death [view article]
      At Research 2.0, we agree with your conclusion that Microsoft understands the information technology market situation well and is acting agressively to take advantage. I even go further and believe that Microsoft is uniquely positioned--because of its combination of enterprise and consumer computing experience--to stay well ahead of Oracle, SAP, IBM and Google in the enterprise category. Apple is a real threat on the consumer side and Yahoo will get Microsoft where it needs to get to respond on the consumer side faster than building something from scratch.

      I caution you on your underlying assumption about Linux being developed "at almost no cost" however. IBM, Intel, Novell, HP, Fujitsu, EMC, Oracle, Sun, Motorola, and all the other sponsors of the Linux Foundation (LF) as well as many that work on Linux without belonging to the Foundation have spent billions on maintaining and updating the Linux kernel both in cash and in-kind contributions to the development effort.

      If "low-cost Linux" is at all key to your conclusion, be careful. In fact, I believe relatively soon, Microsoft will become--along with Google--one of the largest users of Linux, thanking the LF profusely as it makes that transition.       Feb 10 06:57 AM
    • VMware Hammered in After-Hours Trading [view article]
      It's not really the nickel miss or the lowered expecations for 2008, Greg. The institutions moved like a herd into VMware last summer and the herd provides cover as they bail out of what they have known to be bad investment for months. The statistics are just an excuse.

      Analyst after analyst on the conference call whined, "But 50% annual growth really means only a 35% growth run rate by the end of 2008." If the fall of 2008 is like the fall of 2001 (the analogy many macroeconomic analyses are setting up), 35% growth rate next fall could be 35x software market growth.       Jan 29 09:00 AM
    • Sun-MySQL: The Real Winner is Oracle [view article]
      TIBCOMonkey --

      The reference to SAP should have made clearer that I was referring to its NetWeaver business. As described in many previous posts, SAP in CY 2006 made impressive gains in the middleware market. SAP landed “standalone” middleware business not dependent on its ERP business. Based on the exchange rate used in its 20-F, SAP recognized more than $1B in license/maintenance/li... revenue for NetWeaver in the 12 months ending March 31, 2007.

      In fact, counting Business Objects but not counting BEA, SAP probably surpassed Oracle in the middleware market in 2007. That's the part of SAP Sun will be competing with.

      Dennis

      Jan 23 04:30 PM
    • Users Lose Middleware Choice in Oracle Acquisition of BEA [view article]
      My apologies to Joe Forgione and Herb Osher. How could I forget Hyperdesk! Jan 18 12:15 PM
    • Users Lose Middleware Choice in Oracle Acquisition of BEA [view article]
      Did BEA "pretty much launch" the independent middleware market?

      In addition to the comment above questioning my middleware history analysis, I've received a few emails and a phone call on the subject. So here goes:

      The key word in my analysis is "market." Prior to BEA, most of the independent software vendors that made middleware positioned themselves as tools suppliers. I believe BEA led the way in turning the value proposition on its head, saying "here's the tools, pay us for the number of instances of the resulting run-time code you deploy." That's what makes a market: the value proposition behind the buying and selling in the bazaar, not just making the product.

      As I said in the post, Iona predated BEA as did Netwise, Transarc and a few others. But they didn't really push the deployment value proposition. And since IBM funded Camelot at CMU and quickly bought Transarc after it was founded, I would argue Transarc was not "independent.&quo...

      Independent is another key word in the analysis. Most of the early middleware was part of the leading systems suppliers' stacks (to which it has returned, which is the real point I was trying to make in the post).

      So whether you agree with my analysis or not, raise a glass of your favorite libation this weekend to Actional, Allaire, Antares, Ascential, Bluestone, Crossworlds (and the woman in the red dress), Haht, Mercator, Oberon, Persistence, SeeBeyond, Silverstream, Staffware, WebMethods, etc and all the other middleware memories.

      [By the way, lest you think I just fell of the turnip truck, I fell of the turnip truck a long time ago.

      I started researching "middleware" when Chris Stone was forming the Object Management Group in the late 1980s while still physically located in the Data General facilities on Computer Drive in Westboro.

      I was the primary "middleware" analyst for the Datapro division of McGraw Hill from 1991 to 1997 and wrote monthly articles for Application Development Trends during the same time period. I put the term "middleware" in quotes because I don't actually remember using the term "middleware" regularly until 1995 doing some consulting for Noblenet (later part of RogueWave, later aquired by Quovadx).

      After a hiatus doing ERP research, I was the IDC "middleware" analyst from 2003 to 2006. Again I put the term in quotes because by then it was called application deployment software :) ]

      Jan 18 12:13 PM
    • MySQL and BEA: Wednesday’s Two Big Acquisitions [view article]
      Sramana--SAP doesn't promote it a lot, particularly outside of Germany, but actually SAP does have a database called SAP DB. They bought it (or the rights to it) from Software AG, I think, and made it open source in 2006 or so. The acqusition was basically a customer protection move back around 2000 or so but it gives SAP a jumping off point as solid as Sun's with MySQl if it chose to do so.--Dennis Jan 17 09:03 AM
    • NetSuite: Not as Well Positioned as Larger Players [view article]
      Halo30K -

      Thanks again for time you put into your comments.

      Most important, here's hoping you didn't buy "N" at the top on the day you wrote the first post :) As for the historical points in your comment, I think you are violently agreeing with me?

      1. You say SAP was not involved in BPEL but you link to a page that correctly tells about SAP's involvement? But, anyways, the real point is that SaaS has nothing to do with the architectural and technical underpinnings like BPEL. SaaS is just how you sell it.

      2. Based on my experience I can compare SAP in 1980-1992 with D&B, MSA, M&D, etc. Specifically SAP did close to $300 million in sales in 1992, and clearly played in the same league with the guys you mention. The real point is, as you say, SAP was a "mainframe ERP" company and not a newcomer to the market when the C/S era started.

      I think your overall thesis is that a new crop of application suppliers emerges in each architectural generation. That is true historically.

      You also note that the same is happening in what you call the SaaS era, what I would call the SOA era. That is also true although not to the extent we saw at the beginning of the C/S era or during the dot-com boom (which is where Netsuite comes from by the way).

      And finally you believe that this new crop will replace the old because of architectural decisions (first comment) that the new crop of suppliers has made or new terms and conditions decisions (second comment) that the incumbents fail to embrace. That is not true historically.

      SAP, Oracle (and Microsoft) might fail to make the move to the next historical phase of the ERP market but that is not predetermined by past architectural decisions or by the introduction of new terms and conditions. Each has already come through multiple architectural phases, and multiple business models, to lead the ERP market.

      Thanks again       Jan 15 01:19 PM
    • VMware's Pipeline Looks Strong - Jeffries [view article]
      Those ELAs would hopefully go a ways in removing this wording from VMware's SEC filings: "we may have little or no contact with the ultimate users of our products..."

      But it's not clear that that's what's happening so the question is "Is the pipeline being filled by the many new partners VMware has lined up in the last few years?" These new partners accounted for less than 5% of the growth through the first three quarters of 2007 according to the Nov. 2007 10Q. Is the pipeline still heavily dominated by Ingram Micro, which provided 29% of 2006 revenue?

      Jan 15 09:48 AM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»