Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts

Sunday, February 03, 2008

The New Internets: Is Microsoft Already Ahead of Google? Who Needs Yahoo!?

Google has a clear lead over Microsoft when it comes to desktop based internet search and advertising. The big pond that Google is going after to expand its market is to aim for a bigger share of the advertising pie that includes print, radio and even television advertising.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying to catch up with Google in search and advertising. But that is not where they can out maneuver and beat Google. This may be the reason Microsoft is targeting ubiquitous computing - the new internets that are yet to be dominated.

My Car's Internet
Americans spend a significant amount of their lives in cars commuting and picking up kids from school. Microsoft, working with Ford, is far ahead in the connected-car game. Think of it as the Microsoft Operating System for Cars.

Source: msmobiles.com

The addition of Yahoo! to the basket of technologies and services Microsoft can offer, especially Yahoo! Go, can help Microsoft further gain leadership here. Yahoo! Maps activated by voice integrated with your car's GPS. The possibilities are endless.

My TV's Internet
After the car, we spend a significant portion of our lives vegetating in front of televisions. And even though the amount of time we spend on TV vs computers is declining - it is still significant.
Microsoft IPTV initiative, now re-branded as Microsoft Mediaroom, is a leader in this space. And Microsoft has done a tremendous job of building alliances around this. Taking a page from its Windows play book where the Dell, HP and IBM's of the world helped it become the leader, Microsoft is tieing up with partners be it global telcos like BT or regional leaders like Reliance in India.

My Game Box's Internet
So, we all know that after the initial hiccups and skepticism, XBox strategy is finally ready to pay dividends (Microsoft is expected to finally make a profit on XBox this year) - but even without the profits, it is hard to deny that XBox has captured a significant market share. Yahoo! has done well with its casual games and is a leader in the space. It would be interesting to see what synergies can be brought to bear through this alliance.

Searching for Success
So, yes search and advertising is a huge market. And Google could become the first trillion dollar market cap company according to some. By the way, where is Henry Blodget now that the Google stock growth has, how shall we say it, slowed down. I guess Henry Blodget timed it perfectly again - pretty much making the most bullish claim at the height of Google valuation - that should have been a signal to the rest of us (see my and Barron's post on the Blodget call).

Henry Blodget Timed It Again Perfectly In October
Image Source: Yahoo! Finance

Coming back to search and advertising - even if Google continues to win and maintain marketshare in search and advertising, Microsoft can win big by focusing on the new internets.

Theoretical Framework: Blue Ocean?
Although there may not be any method to this madness (the $45 billion bid), I am drawn to the blue and red ocean analogy put forward in the book, Blue Ocean Strategy. Here is a summary from Wikipedia.

Blue Ocean Strategy

The metaphor of red and blue oceans describes the market universe. Red oceans are all the industries in existence today—the known market space. In the red oceans, industry boundaries are defined and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are known. Here companies try to outperform their rivals to grab a greater share of product or service demand. As the market space gets crowded, prospects for profits and growth are reduced. Products become commodities or niche, and cutthroat competition turns the red ocean bloody. Hence, the term red oceans.[3]

Blue oceans, in contrast, denote all the industries not in existence today—the unknown market space, untainted by competition. In blue oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant because the rules of the game are waiting to be set. Blue ocean is an analogy to describe the wider, deeper potential of market space that is not yet explored. [4]

The corner-stone of Blue Ocean Strategy is 'Value Innovation'. A blue ocean is created when a company achieves value innovation that creates value simultaneously for both the buyer and the company. The innovation (in product, service, or delivery) must raise and create value for the market, while simultaneously reducing or eliminating features or services that are less valued by the current or future market. The authors critique Michael Porter's idea that successful business are either low-cost providers or niche-players. Instead, they propose finding value that crosses conventional market segmentation and offering value and lower cost.

Clearly, search and advertising is a red ocean with existing leaders and several startups getting funded by venture capitalists. Microsoft would do much better to use both its existing assets and Yahoo! properties - to go after the new internets.


Like this article? We can deliver to your email. Or RSS. We never spam. No ads either.

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Rumors of Facebook's Death are Highly Premature. Really?

Don Dodge opines 50M Facebook users don't care about OpenSocial APIs and tries to convince us that Facebook is not dead. Granted that Microsoft just spent $250M on Facebook so it must hurt to see all the coverage going to Google rather than letting Microsoft bask in the afterglow of its miniscule stake in Facebook. But, it looks like he is slaying an imagined Dragon.

Here is the opening salvo:

There are 50 Million Facebook users who don't know what OpenSocial APIs are...and don't care. There are about 5,000 tech bloggers and developers who think it is a revolution that will "Checkmate" Facebook and leave them with no moves. TechMeme has over 100 stories saying that OpenSocial is awesome and Facebook is dead. MySpace joins Google on OpenSocial initiative. OK, surely that settles it, Facebook is dead. Nope, not in my opinion.
I am with him so far, the battle is far from over - its not even fully begun. But then Don articulates his rationale for why OpenSocial is irrelevant and why Facebook is not dead.
Facebook is about the user community. Facebook has always been focused on the user community and providing a great user experience. Does this user community know or care that the apps are built using FBML vs. XML? Nope. There are already at least 20 other social networks out there to choose from. Are they fleeing Facebook for these alternatives? Nope. It is all about the community, and where your friends are. Are there some users who would like to transfer their Facebook friends list to another social network? Probably some. Maybe even 5,000.
Well, its been less than a week so its premature to count the numbers. And the whole point of having a well-defined standard API is that users don't have to care - the social networks can interoperate without having to understand APIs, import/export rules, etc. The sites can work with each other's APIs to make the user experience more seamless as she switches between sites. I repeat - integration is at its best when its invisible to the end users. I thought we-need-to-integrate-everything-under-the-sun-into-Windows Microsoft would have grokked this.
Are Facebook users going to cancel their account? Nope, I doubt it. OK, so every tech blogger and social network developer is going to cancel their Facebook account and go to what? Orkut? Even if they did that would amount to about 5,000 users which is less than one/one hundredth of one percent of Facebook users. Or put another way 99.9999% of Facebook users will be happy to stay right where they are. And, Facebook probably adds 5,000 new users a day anyway. So the impact (revolution) will be over in one day. By next week this is old news.
I have yet to see anyone suggest that users will be en-masse canceling their Google accounts. Nobody is burning their Windows machines just because they bought an iPod or a Mac. The question is: Will OpenSocial make it more likely for a user to expend the effort in maintaining a non-Facebook account knowing that the information she enters can now (or will in future) be leveraged across a broad spectrum of sites.

Did Facebook users approve this? When I agreed to be a friend of Robert Scoble, Mike Arrington, Marc Andresseen, and others on Facebook, that was just Facebook. Did I agree to have my "friend relationship" exposed on Orkut or 20 other social networks? No. Don't get me wrong, I am proud to be friends with Robert, Mike, and Marc. But, I think most users would agree that they didn't expect that their "relationship" would be exposed on other social networks. Or, that their name, picture, or any part of their personal profile would be exported to another social network. There may be a significant privacy issue here, or some questions about the use of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).

First off, this question is irrelevant Facebook is not part of OpenSocial. But let's apply this question to non-FB sites like Orkut. The OpenSocial API does not force any site or user to share her information - it creates a standard if they choose to do so. Significant Privacy issues is what Telco's bring up when they don't want to allow third-party apps on their networks. FUD at its very best. And to top it all off, Don conveniently forgets that Facebook itself has "Import" addressbook functionality for sucking up my Gmail, Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail addresses. What do they say about good for the Goose?


Who approved?
Will developers stop building Facebook apps? No, of course not. Facebook provides a pretty good API set and a pretty simple way to develop applications for Facebook. Does anyone really think that developers will abandon Facebook and instead only write to the OpenSocial API set? Seriously, what are these tech bloggers thinking? Developers are very skilled at building web apps that work on both Internet Explorer and FireFox, or Windows and Linux. It really isn't a big deal to use Facebook's FBML which is just XML with extensions.
"Does anyone really think that developers will abandon Facebook and instead only write to the OpenSocial API set? Seriously, what are these tech bloggers thinking?" I am not sure who suggested this. Seriously Don, what are you thinking? Did you just read the paranoia book by Andy Grove? Breathe, its going to be okay. No one is leaving anyone or killing any one. We are just letting sites exchange information using a standard API. May be, Mister Softee can learn. Could save you billions.

In fact, the very posts Don links to including this New York Times article say things like:
"The alliance is not likely to erode the popularity of Facebook or immediately alter the dynamics of the social networking market. But it could help revitalize the sites of some of its members, which have seen their social networks eclipsed by the popularity of MySpace and Facebook. Orkut, Google’s social network, for instance, is popular in Brazil and a few other countries, but not in the United States."

But Don continues-
Not one single app has been written and not one single user has left Facebook, and already the tech cognoscenti is saying Facebook is dead. Get a grip guys.
Who? Where? Get a grip. Seriously.


P.S. Note to the humor challenged- Read this post with your sense of humor flag set to true. And Don - I am sending you a Facebook invite! Remember - this is about social networking. ;)

(Disclaimer: Please read disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Personal opinion etc.)

Thursday, September 20, 2007

SaaS Event: Software Business Online Conference (Discount Code Included)

I will be giving a keynote the Software Business Online Conference in Santa Clara on Oct 2nd on the SaaS Ecosystem. In my role of working with Oracle SaaS Program partners, I have learned some lessons on where the SaaS ecosystem is headed, what mistakes to avoid, how to pick the right partners and ecosystems - and I will share this insight.

Some of the other speakers include:

Keynote and General Session speakers for the event include:

  • Theodore Forbath, Chief Strategist Software Development, Wipro Technologies
  • Thomas Lindeman, Group Product Manager Software Licensing & Protection Services, Microsoft
  • Grant Bodley, VP, High Tech Sector, SAP
  • Reza Sadeghian, VP, Strategic Operations, SAP
  • Ross Mayfield, CEO & Founder, Socialtext
  • Colleen Smith, VP of Software as a Service Programs, Progress Software
  • Anshu Sharma, Senior Manager, Oracle SaaS Program Office
  • Vladimir L Pavlov, Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer of the International Software and Productivity Engineering Institute
  • Chris Schin, Director of Product Management, Symantec
  • John Ciacchella, Principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP

You can register and receive a $400 speaker referral discount at http://www.infowebcom.com/speaker_reg.php

If you want to learn about Oracle's SaaS Program for ISVs and hosters, do visit http://www.oracle.com/technologies/saas/index.html.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

News:Tivo, Apple TV, SlingBox, Scientific Atlanta to live near a water heater

Yes, the time has come for all these devices that I have put up with in my living room - the cable box, the DVR/Tivo, Apple TV, SlingBox, storage backup, cable router, and even the gaming server (PS2/XBox) - to move out. They have made themselves a bit too comfortable over the years pretending to be part of my decor and furniture. The cute colors and silver containers are not fooling me anymore, the tangle of wires is a dead give away. You do not belong in my living room. The Businessweek story A File Server...in Your Living Room? notwithstanding.

Growing up, I recall how the air conditioner, the water heater, and even the washing machine were all conspicuously visible and tolerated. But in due course of time, they stopped being status symbols and we wanted them out of where we can see them. The same is true (or getting there) for these modern computing devices in the garb of gaming and entertainment.

We have all read the stories reported by business media on Apple v Microsoft (C|Net), Microsoft v Sony (USA Today) fights to dominate the living room. My living room! How dare they even try?

Here is what I am giving them and in 18 months from now, they better adapt or they will not be welcome in my shopping bag anymore:

  • Rack in my heater or laundry room with lots of Ethernet cables. Heck, I am willing to pony up cash for Gigabit Ethernet or whatever upgrades you want.
  • An infrared relay mechanism between my living room and the 'laundry server room' so that some devices that need to be operated by remote controls of today will still work. But plan to switch to Wi-Fi (or Bluetooth) as the communicating technology with the devices - I never really was a big fan of having to point my remote in the right direction just to switch channels.
  • Plan to integrate your displays with my (big screen HD) television. This is already true for most devices but those that have not yet paid heed, remember that I cannot see your device's puny little display in the laundry server room.
Just like a good Carrier split air conditioner that sits out in the sweltering heat, your devices must learn to serve the master (me) without asking me to re-arrange my furniture. Kapish?

Monday, May 14, 2007

AppExchange vs Windows Marketplace

I discovered Microsoft's Windows Marketplace by serendipity. And was surprised to see the breadth of the solutions being sold, ready for download. Yes, we all know that SaaS is the way of the future but the fact remains that over 90% of computers sold in the world come with a Microsoft OS and this site probably presents a channel as attractive to ISVs for Windows-based software as AppExchange is for Salesforce-based solutions.

I have not seen or read a lot about this Marketplace before and am curious to find out how much of Microsoft's sales are conducted via this site, and how much 3rd-party software do they sell. The original (declared) intent of the Marketplace was to sell Microsoft software but it appears to be an AppExchange like strategy to take a cut of the revenue made by the broader ecosystem by providing a popular channel. Meanwhile, my friend and fellow Irregular, Phil Wainewright asks How is AppExchange really doing?

The Marketplace goes beyond an online ordering system by introducing the concept of a Digital Locker.

What is a Digital Locker?

The digital locker allows you to download and install the products you have purchased on Windows Marketplace, make backup CDs, and view your software licenses. Browse Windows Marketplace and choose from a wide variety of software from hundreds of resellers. Every title you purchase is available for instant downloading and many are available to try before you buy.
It appears the Marketplace runs on top of Digital River's platform. There was a press release back in October 2006 by Digital River without much details. Here is a quote:
“Microsoft is committed to enabling customers to purchase Microsoft products any time, anywhere. With Digital River’s e-commerce expertise, global infrastructure and network of resellers, we look forward to expanding the availability of our software via the Internet,” said Joe Peterson, corporate vice president, Market Expansion Platform Group at Microsoft Corp. “Through the utilization of the Windows Marketplace and other online channels, we will make it easier and more convenient than ever before for customers to buy our products in multiple countries and at multiple locations.”
Some of the key benefits (and future 'lock-in's) to the consumer include:
  • Ability to try out the software before purchase. (Try & Buy)
  • Ability to burn the software on CDs if you wish to.
  • Backs up your software purchases online automatically.
  • Integration with Windows Vista or current Windows OS through a downloadable agent.
Question for my readers - do you have any experience with this service? are any ISVs using this channel to drive signficant revenue? do you think this is Microsoft's pre-SaaS answer to AppExchange and perhaps lays the foundations for a Software+Services AppExchange killer?

Friday, May 04, 2007

Eating Crow: Microsoft pursuing Yahoo! again

Will I have to eat crow on this one?

This has been long awaited by many industry watchers. Here is my Dec 2006 post where I ask the question and argue that its highly unlikely that Microsoft will acquire Yahoo!. Now, it appears that this deal may actually be taking place. Or is it?

The Yahoo? question: Will Microsoft buy them?

Yes, Yahoo! has gone from an exciting successful brand for consumers and employees to Yahoo?, a me-too player with more questions about its future than answers. And the question of Microsoft buying them keeps popping up.

..... (read full article)

What do you think?

Saturday, February 24, 2007

VMWare versus Microsoft

According to NYTimes, VMWare is on a collision course with Microsoft. Although Microsoft will fight this battle for a long long time, the battle is probably already over in virtualization and VMWare is the winner. In some ways, the times could not be worse for Microsoft with a whole host of competitors in its various markets one upping them- SOHO (Google Apps, Intuit), On-Demand (Salesforce, NetSuite), Web2.0 (Google), Web platform (Amazon, Google).

VMWare appears poised to be one of the hottest IPOs of the year. EMC's market capitalization of $30+ billion has already gone up by $10 billion over the last 6 months, and the upcoming IPO may make EMC shareholders and VMWare employees and shareholders very happy.

Do you think Microsoft will have to start acquiring companies to buy growth? Or does it still have some multi-billion dollar eggs ready to hatch?

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

The Yahoo? question: Will Microsoft buy them?

Yes, Yahoo! has gone from an exciting successful brand for consumers and employees to Yahoo?, a me-too player with more questions about its future than answers. And the question of Microsoft buying them keeps popping up.

Here are the reasons Micrsoft is not likely to buy Yahoo!
-Microsoft acquistion strategy and history shows that they look for small teams with exciting new technology. Yahoo has neither of those qualities. It is an ageing gorilla.
-Microsoft does not buy market share. They didn't do it during the dot-com when they could have bought out several small dot-com companies with 'eyeballs'. In fact, Google belongs to this camp too except with their recent purchase of YouTube where they basically paid for marketshare.
-Microsoft likes to have majority of its core development done at Redmond and very few other development centers. Yahoo cannot be absorbed in this manner. Although this is not a very big issue.
-Microsoft thinks they can beat Yahoo. And give them enough time and enough releases, and they probably could.

So, what does it mean for Yahoo!? Well, they could be sought out by media giants (unlikely given the whole AOL fiasco), telecom giants (unlikely given their reluctance to spend billions on 'content' companies) or private equity (unlikely given that Yahoo is not yet a cash cow, although you could turn it into one by shutting down all properties except profit making ones like search, mail and then use Google's ad syndicate to generate revenue).


The truth is that Yahoo! is a good business showing steady growth and generating cash flow. If there were no Google, investors would be satisfied and happy. This is a situation where Yahoo! looks bad in comparison although it has done a fairly good job- look where the other portals like AOL, Excite, etc. have gone.

(As always, the opinions expressed here are entirely personal.)