Comments on: Is Google Ring Fencing IBM? http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/ because technology is just another ecosystem Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:19:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: James Governor’s Monkchips » IBM’s Consumer Business: Tell The Story, Boost The Share Price, Deepen Customer Relationships http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-204836 James Governor’s Monkchips » IBM’s Consumer Business: Tell The Story, Boost The Share Price, Deepen Customer Relationships Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:21:46 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-204836 [...] what about the consumer angle? Stephen has argued that IBM needs a consumer business to ensure, for example, the kind of volume platform economics the IT industry [...] [...] what about the consumer angle? Stephen has argued that IBM needs a consumer business to ensure, for example, the kind of volume platform economics the IT industry [...]

]]> By: tecosystems » The Gears That Power the Tubes: The Google Gears Q&A http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-95426 tecosystems » The Gears That Power the Tubes: The Google Gears Q&A Thu, 31 May 2007 18:36:32 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-95426 [...] Office 2.0 Provider?, Zimbra: Derby for Offline Persistence, Grand Desktop Ambitions: The Q&A, Is Google Ring Fencing IBM?, and so [...] [...] Office 2.0 Provider?, Zimbra: Derby for Offline Persistence, Grand Desktop Ambitions: The Q&A, Is Google Ring Fencing IBM?, and so [...]

]]> By: tecosystems » Correcting the Record on Dual Licensing http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-72775 tecosystems » Correcting the Record on Dual Licensing Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:47:42 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-72775 [...] us criticizing a customer in public: we do that all the time, and will continue to. As an example, here’s a piece I wrote just last Monday heavily criticizing IBM, one our patrons - i.e. largest [...] [...] us criticizing a customer in public: we do that all the time, and will continue to. As an example, here’s a piece I wrote just last Monday heavily criticizing IBM, one our patrons - i.e. largest [...]

]]> By: Mike Dolan http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-69562 Mike Dolan Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:23:30 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-69562 I firmly believe Google's greatest issue commercializing these services will be their channels to the customer. Not saying they couldn't do it, but it's also not apparent to me they are looking to make the required strategic investments to get there. Google is closer to MSFT's back yard than IBM. Now if you want to talk about lost opportunity to grow more or shift technical direction long term.... that's a different angle but doesn't necessarily involve fencing. I firmly believe Google’s greatest issue commercializing these services will be their channels to the customer. Not saying they couldn’t do it, but it’s also not apparent to me they are looking to make the required strategic investments to get there. Google is closer to MSFT’s back yard than IBM.

Now if you want to talk about lost opportunity to grow more or shift technical direction long term…. that’s a different angle but doesn’t necessarily involve fencing.

]]> By: dave http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-69196 dave Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:17:45 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-69196 Isn't the more common term for this "Disruptive Innovation"? That is, you do something in a fundamentally different, often cheaper, way and eat away at the customer base from the bottom and work your way up as the product improves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology Isn’t the more common term for this “Disruptive Innovation”?

That is, you do something in a fundamentally different, often cheaper, way and eat away at the customer base from the bottom and work your way up as the product improves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

]]> By: Anshu Sharma http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-69040 Anshu Sharma Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:12:17 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-69040 James: What is the solution to IBM's woes in your opinion? They can't wish Google away and its hard to beat them, just as the guys at Microsoft and Yahoo! Ian's approach is probably the best of some really poor options. This is a topic close to my heart and I often blog on it. James: What is the solution to IBM’s woes in your opinion? They can’t wish Google away and its hard to beat them, just as the guys at Microsoft and Yahoo!

Ian’s approach is probably the best of some really poor options.

This is a topic close to my heart and I often blog on it.

]]> By: Niraj J http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-68871 Niraj J Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:21:28 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-68871 The difference between Enterprise Grade and Consumer Grade is 1. Customization : ability to fine tune the software to suit the perceived needs of the enterprise. 2. Tradition : Enterprise Software has to have a stamp from the IT department. Traditions will change and Customization's will be known as Mashup's in the new world. Have a look at http://www.gandalf-lab.com/blog/2007/04/software-as-service-or-is-it-community.html The difference between Enterprise Grade and Consumer Grade is
1. Customization : ability to fine tune the software to suit the perceived needs of the enterprise.
2. Tradition : Enterprise Software has to have a stamp from the IT department.

Traditions will change and Customization’s will be known as Mashup’s in the new world.

Have a look at http://www.gandalf-lab.com/blog/2007/04/software-as-service-or-is-it-community.html

]]> By: James Governor http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-68145 James Governor Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:14:13 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-68145 its a good line to take, ian, but IBM has been failing to do just that (sell to SaaS vendors). i might even argue the chickens have come to roost when it comes to "not selling apps" - look at the position SAP and Oracle have established. When all your partners have been acquired what do you do? Oracle sells apps, and still sells database. SaaS vendors have so far chosen more open source and not so much IBM tech. its a good line to take, ian, but IBM has been failing to do just that (sell to SaaS vendors). i might even argue the chickens have come to roost when it comes to “not selling apps” - look at the position SAP and Oracle have established. When all your partners have been acquired what do you do? Oracle sells apps, and still sells database. SaaS vendors have so far chosen more open source and not so much IBM tech.

]]> By: Ian Skerrett http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-67977 Ian Skerrett Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:52:20 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-67977 Let me be a bit of a contrarian, to spur the conversation. :-) Ten years ago, when ERP or online commerce sites were huge, people said IBM needed to buy SAP or start a 'marketplace'. Instead IBM adopted a strategy of selling their infrastructure software to companies that were building ERP systems or online commerce sites. The strategy seemed to have been pretty successful. Fast forward to today, why can't IBM adopt a similar strategy of selling their software to vendors that provide SaaS? Therefore, IBM doesn't need to move downmarket, they just need to be able to sell to those that service the consumer market. Now of course if the SaaS model consolidate into just Google or 2-3 other players then IBM is in trouble. However, I just find it hard to believe this will happen. Google and 2-3 others will be the gorrillas but there will be LOTS of high value niche players; can't this be IBM's market to lose? Let me be a bit of a contrarian, to spur the conversation. :-) Ten years ago, when ERP or online commerce sites were huge, people said IBM needed to buy SAP or start a ‘marketplace’. Instead IBM adopted a strategy of selling their infrastructure software to companies that were building ERP systems or online commerce sites. The strategy seemed to have been pretty successful.

Fast forward to today, why can’t IBM adopt a similar strategy of selling their software to vendors that provide SaaS? Therefore, IBM doesn’t need to move downmarket, they just need to be able to sell to those that service the consumer market.

Now of course if the SaaS model consolidate into just Google or 2-3 other players then IBM is in trouble. However, I just find it hard to believe this will happen. Google and 2-3 others will be the gorrillas but there will be LOTS of high value niche players; can’t this be IBM’s market to lose?

]]> By: James Governor http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-67963 James Governor Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:08:06 +0000 http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2007/04/23/ibm_google/#comment-67963 Google's ambitions go right to the heart of Information Management- an area IBM considers its bailiwick. Flat Table, Google Coop, Enterprise Search this ain't no disco. Google’s ambitions go right to the heart of Information Management- an area IBM considers its bailiwick. Flat Table, Google Coop, Enterprise Search this ain’t no disco.

]]>