XyEnterprise Goes for $15 Million
July 1, 2009
Publishing companies relied on specialized, expensive, and very exotic systems to make magazines, books, technical manuals, and other serious types of documents. Then along came Word—unstable, unable to number, and miserable at layout. Then along came long document software for the desktop computer. Within the last five years, the number of low cost, free, subscription, host, and open source publishing systems have flooded into the Beyond Search computer lab in a damp hollow in Kentucky. The addled goose relies on the aging Framemaker program and when he has sufficiently low blood pressure the whizzy Adobe InDesign.
Life became tough for the specialized high end developers of bespoke publishing systems. These software systems cost six figures or more and could create a footnote that could occupy most a book page. Today’s software decides where to put the footnote and how long it may be, thank you. Most folks don’t get too bogged down in footnotes because the systems available in Word and InDesign can be quite challenging to manage.
Trading Markets reported that XyEnterprise is now part of a global integration company. The name of the company is now SDL XySoft. What’s interesting to me is that venerable company changed hands for $15 million. “SDL Acquires XyEnterprise for $14.7 Million” reported:
The acquisition is being funded from SDL’s existing cash resources. A global business, XyEnterprise has a turnover of $9.9 million.
I think that other content management companies will face a similar bargain basement sale price or simply fold up their tent and move to another business sector. Why? Check out free content management systems in Coding Cow. Alternatively, look at SquareSpace.com. The writing is on the wall in our office in Harrod’s Creek. You can follow SDL XySoft on Twitter, which will definitely generate some new sales here in Kentucky.
Stephen Arnold, July 1, 2009
Microsoft Plumbing: Big Online Facility in Big Shoulder Territory
June 30, 2009
The Microsoft data center news keeps on swirling in my Overflight intel system. Patrick Thibodeau’s “Microsoft to Open Two Mall Sized Data Centers” levered my interest. Computer World reported:
Microsoft Corp. on Monday said it is preparing to flip the switch on what will eventually be more than 1 million square feet of data center space in two facilities, one in Chicago, the other in Dublin, Ireland. These centers will house hundreds of thousands of servers to help support the company’s Bing search engine and other online services.
Google does not provide this type of detail about its plumbing. My hunch is that Google doesn’t want to help anyone figure out how much the company invests in infrastructure and Google may not want to get tangled in a “who has the bigger facility” argument with its competitors, azure chip consultants, and besmirched MBAs seeking a commission from stock churn.
The numbers reported in the Computer World article stunned this addled goose. For example:
The Chicago center, which opens July 20 and is now said to be 700,000 square feet in size, will use containers that can be the size of tractor-trailers, with 1,800 to 2,500 servers each. The first phase of the Chicago center to go live has more than 50 parking stalls for shipping containers, which Microsoft said can be wheeled in and installed in hours. The facility’s second floor will have server racks.
Now that is a lot of Windows servers. Imagine the configuration work required to set these up, verify that the ever wonderful SQL Server clusters are running like clockwork, ensure that the fail over does not fail, and test to make sure that back ups actually restore.
Chicago has nuclear power generation facilities. That’s a plus. This data center is likely to consume more electricity than Blue Island. “Just Bing it” has new meaning to the executives at Exelon Corp.
Stephen Arnold, June 30, 2009
Lucid Imagination Offers Connectors to Lucene Solr Systems
June 30, 2009
Lucid Imagination now resells ISYS Search Software file filters to offer content access capability to Lucene/Solr open source search systems. This clever move has the happy side effect of allowing Lucid to market the filters, a set of .dlls (dynamic link libraries) normally used in retail products for text extraction, to their own customers, effectively stretching its Lucene/Solr search product into the pay-for-service enterprise data field. It’s a streamlined effort designed to be significantly cheaper than competitor connectors and gets around one of the barriers to broader uptake of open source search technology. Most commercial search vendors do not unbundle their connectors and often use them to justify higher price-tags. This deal may take a lot of wind out of their sails. Lucid will offer five categories of content filters, available separately or in any combination, so a company can customize based on their search needs. Beyond Search was surprised that commercial search vendor is unbundling its technology. The plus is that it gets the Australian company’s foot in the door to the open source market. Meanwhile, Lucid is on the move to strengthen its position bridging the gap between open source and commercial software and will be signing up other commercial software components so Lucene/Solr users can build more robust search solutions.
Jessica Bratcher, June 30, 2009
Google Reassures World
June 26, 2009
Short honk: I am enthused about positive thinking. I like it even more when a company with a friction free method for generating $20 billion plus a year in revenue reassures us in Harrod’s Creek that the worst of the financial crisis is over. Yep, lots of enterprises are like Google. Tall cotton for sure. I just left a conference where some corporate types may choose to disagree a tiny bit.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
Microsoft and Its Many Brands
June 26, 2009
Business Week from its Olympian perch in Manhattan has broken new ground. News is no longer what the New York media mavens “do”. News, in case you missed the Iran story, is now in the hands of those with mobile devices. Reportage is the way to track events. Analysis is now where the Business Week type of publications claim purchase. “Microsoft Defends Its Empire” was an fascinating read for me. The premise of the business school type write up was:
The Internet has thrown even the mighty Microsoft back on its heels. No longer able to impose its will on the computing world, the Redmond (Wash.) software giant is scrambling to catch up with all the changes the Web is unleashing. Over the past few years, CEO Steve Ballmer has come to two conclusions about the future of his business. First, Microsoft needs to move away from selling software and toward renting it out, in order to compete with cheap or free Web alternatives. Second, it must revamp its programs to satisfy customers’ desire for more Internet-based collaboration. Now, Microsoft is putting those ideas into action, overhauling not only what it makes but how to deliver and charge for it.
I remember a long ago logic class in which “warrants” played a large part. The idea was that a “sign” could support a line of reasoning. I am not sure why this dusty idea crossed my mind. I think I reacted to the blend of open source, cloud computing, and “unified” communications. Each of these plays a part in Microsoft’s business actions.
Two ideas bubbled up. First, I don’t think any of these ideas is at the root of Microsoft’s present situation. For example, Microsoft has so far not been able to diversify its revenue streams. As a result, Microsoft is vulnerable to perturbations in a couple of the cash cows on which its cheese and milk depend. As most organizational development wizards might point out, the deeper management structures play an important part in this ossification. Related is the cost of maintaining the baggage train. For instance, Apple upgrades and insists that its customers shift to a newer chunk of software and hardware. So, Apple does not invest so much in its older software and compatibility with those programs. Microsoft has a built in “cost friction” and I think the cost problem is exacerbated by piling more stuff on the baggage train. Powerset, Zune, Xbox, multiple accounting software, etc.
Second, Google is more of a problem than any one of the factors that I noted in the Business Week write up. Here’s why:
- Google exerts gravitational pull on Microsoft, its customers, its competitors, its developers. The gravitational effect stretches the fabric of the Microsoft environment. Gravity is hard to see and harder to explain. But it is present and leaving it out of a discussion of larger environments can misrepresent reality. A bridge can collapse. Period.
- Google does not have to do too much to cause Microsoft to demonstrate a reflex action. In fact, Google can roll out a minor tweak to Google Apps and Microsoft reacts. Google showed a demo of a modest dataspace function and in my opinion upstaged Bing.com. Spending $80 million to get my dad to use Bing.com seems to be quite a reflex.
To wrap up, I wonder if the shift from news to analysis will be enough to keep the business magazines in tall cotton. Low cotton means backbreaking work at a low wage. In the meantime, will the giant Microsoft be moved by technology thunderstorms or the more pervasive force of gravity?
And what about brand? I don’t think this write up was about brands.
Stephen Arnold, June 26, 2009
Yahoo and Execution
June 26, 2009
WebProNews reported in “Yahoo Has Execution Problem: Stop Comparing It to Google” that Yahoo has ideas but making them reality is difficult. Mike Sachoff wrote:
She also said that Yahoo did not have a “vision problem” but that it did have an “execution problem,” which it was working on fixing. Bartz repeated her plan to update Yahoo’s main properties, including its homepage and mail service. She said Yahoo was working on allowing users to customize more services to focus on things they are interested in. Yahoo is also evaluating other existing products to “shut down, repair or outsource.”
In my opinion, thinking up some whizzy service is easy. I recall a Yahoo senior executive slapping a cost of $200 million or so on the amount needed to build a search service. That type of thinking is more deeply flawed than the ability to set a goal, execute tasks, and roll out a service. Crazy notions about cost and complexity will lead a company into more severe problems than non delivery. Yahoo is a technology company and its engineering focus is blurry. Add to that the pressure Google brings to bear on the company and toss in a pinch of economic downturn, and you have a recipe for trouble flan.
The comparisons with Google are inevitable. Yahoo followed the AOL portal path and Google did not. Yahoo stagnated in ads; Google did not. Comparisons are going to be the stuff of business school essays for years to come. Yahoo does not have an execution problem. Yahoo has deep technical, strategic, and financial challenges woven into its business model. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 27, 2009
Future of Journalism
June 26, 2009
Short honk: I read “Exploring Journalism’s Future. Civic Media Conference Helps Hatch New Ideas” within interest. MIT is a great place to talk about technology. But what struck me was this quote from the MIT News Office:
“How could anyone worry about the future of journalism after being with these people and seeing what they and so many others are doing?” Gillmor [director of the Knight Center for Digital Media Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University] said.
When I read this, I asked myself, “Why not ask those journalists who have lost their jobs in the last nine months and those journalists who must endure furloughs without pay, editors at New York publishing houses now looking for freelance work, and the new journalism grads seeking their first job?”
No need to ask an old, addled goose. Not even an online search can turn up jobs for these people who are collateral damage of mismanagement in my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2009
Microsoft Explains the Reset of the Advertising Economy
June 25, 2009
I like poetic flourishes. Call me old fashioned. The notion of pushing a reset button and causing the economy to reboot in a bit of rhetoric that jarred my sensibilities. The story “Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer: Traditional Media Will Not Bounce Back” in the Guardian backs into the ad argument. Mark Sweney wrote:
Ballmer, speaking at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival, argued that traditional broadcast and print media would have to plan business models around a smaller share of the advertising market, as revenues continue to move to digital outlets. “I don’t think we are in a recession, I think we have reset,” he said. “A recession implies recovery [to pre-recession levels] and for planning purposes I don’t think we will. We have reset and won’t rebound and re-grow.”
My question was, “What is Mr. Ballmer edging toward?” My thought is that the subject of this remark might be the Google. If advertising goes farther south, ad dependent Google would be hurt. I am not so sure. If ad revenues decline, Google has a baseline of ad revenue. Declines might suppress Google’s growth but a slowdown might force Microsoft to slash ad rates in an effort to get share. Buying market share means that Microsoft would have to grow traffic to make cheap ads pay. What if ad revenues don’t reset but just remain flat. Microsoft will still have to market the heck out of its services in the hopes of getting strong ad revenue. But what if those marketing costs spike? Google is not lousy at Microsoft style marketing. Google doesn’t approach marketing as Microsoft does, so it has a different cost mix.
My hunch is that the remarks were not directed at the media attendees. Those executives know exactly what is happening with their ad revenues. Month on month declines are bedeviling some publishers and media companies. Microsoft’s bold statement triggered my idea that Microsoft itself may be a victim of an ad reset. Cost control may be more of an issue at Microsoft than Google. Reset is not exactly the right metaphor for a revenue and cost challenge.
Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, June 25, 2009
Netbooks Are Losers
June 25, 2009
NPD has a direct connection to New York mainstream media. The company reports on data on which one get no purchase. The report that netbooks are not what consumers want is a good example. I went to a Best Buy on Sunday to look at the netbooks advertised in the Sunday newspaper supplement. No joy. The sales person told me that the netbooks sold out. I could order one. I asked if this was a weird graduation spike. He said people have been buying them because they were cheap and worked pretty well.
Now NPD reports that netbooks annoy buyers. You can read the news release that plopped into my RSS reader today. It’s headline is one that will make Microsoft weep with joy: “NPD Finds Consumer Confusion about Netbooks Continues.” Microsoft makes less money on the low end operating systems that are “good enough” for the small form factor computers. Microsoft wants full boat machines running the high end operating systems and software.
What makes no sense to me is that these small machines which Tess, my expert in small Web surfing devices (see picture on this blog’s splash page), tells me are just the ticket for those who want to avoid the hassle of the giant luggables.
When it comes to search, the netbooks work well for me. I suppose addled geese and experts like Tess are not included in the NPD sample. Come to think of it – I did not see too much data about sample selection, margin of error, and demographics of those 600 adults. I wonder who funded the research as well. I suppose NPD did the work in the interests of consumers. I wonder if a large software company provided some oomph.
I do know that Dell has changed its line up of netbooks in order to force buyers to pricier machines. I ordered a Dell net book for Tyson and returned it when I found the memory module was not upgradeable. I am deeply suspicious of these research results, but I am an addled goose with a rescue boxer who surfs the Web with a Dell Mini 9. I recall reading that net book users opting for the low end version of Windows 7 won’t be able to change their wallpaper either. Hmmm.
Stephen Arnold, June 24,, 2009
Yahoo in a Pickle
June 24, 2009
27/7 Wall Street published an eye opener called “Why Yahoo! Will Never Recover”. Categorical negatives are absolute and I think “may” might make an equally compelling headline. That’s small potatoes. The meat of this write up was:
Yahoo!’s most important strategic blunder is likely to be the refusal of CEO Bartz to form a search partnership with Microsoft quickly after taking the top job. The industry has known for months that Microsoft was about to launch the next generation of its search product. Bartz and many experts believed that Microsoft did not have the product development and engineering expertise to build a highly competitive search engine. This turned out to be an underestimation of Microsoft’s resolve, its willingness to invest great sums of money on risky ventures, and the prowess of its developers.
You must read the rest of the analysis to assess the impact of this review of Yahoo. The one point that I think warranted more beef was Yahoo’s fragmented technical infrastructure. Yahoo has many problems, and the odds of revitalization of the company are long, long indeed.
Stephen Arnold, June 24, 2009
