Open Source is not Commoditizing Software

Perusing the title of this essay I imagine the reader bursting out, "what? Preposterous!" Or at least, that's what I imagine if I was writing this a hundred years ago, and my subject was petroleum oil. If that were the case, you'd be right, of course. The development of the oil industry did result in the reduction of its product to a near-perfect commodity. In my actual context, the first decade of the 21st century and the continuing evolution of the software industry, however, I stand by the statement: Open Source software is not turning software into a commodity.

"But," you might say, "you can download and use for free any flavor of Linux or BSD, OpenSolaris, Apache projects, Mambo, Drupal, Wikimedia, SugarCRM, Compiere, Nagios and the list goes on and on." The acceptance of the commoditizing effect of Open Source software (OSS) has gained credence through the statements of various industry luminaries, such as Johnathan Schwartz. If the new CEO of Sun says OSS is commoditizing his own products, who am I to disagree.

Except, at the risk of repeating myself, what is happening to software is not that it is turning into a commodity. Without wanting to sound too pedantic, a commodity is defined as a good that can be obtained from any supplying vendor without preference. The suppliers market interchangeable 'versions' of the commodity. No one will claim that SugarCRM and Apache HTTP server can be used interchangeably. Even restricted to a single category, choosing OpenSolaris or RedHat Linux involve very different skills requirements and deployment practices.

To draw the contrast even more sharply, we can return to oil. Software is not oil, a sea of bits to be stored in enormous steel tanks, pumped through pipes (Senator Ted Stevens notwithstanding) and purchased without preference at whatever retail outlet is most convenient to your computing needs. Network connectivity may be oil, but software most definitely is not.

So what is OSS doing to software? If not commoditization, then what? Extending our analogy to the oil industry may prove illustrative. Finding oil, extracting it from the earth, refining it and distributing it required the development of very sophisticated tools and techniques. As the technology of oil exploration, production and distribution developed, innovative applications of the newly available energy source developed in parallel. Oil-fired ships, airplanes and automobiles all drove demand for oil quicker than the industry could create the supply. Each new application had broad direct and indirect effects on our society, and created massive amounts of new economic value.

The technology of oil production also made some people very very wealthy -- the Hughes fortune, for example, came not from the ownership of oil fields but from the manufacture and sale of innovative drill bits and well equipment. However, as innovation solved the initial set of hard problems, the value slowly leaked out of the tools and equipment. They transitioned from exotic, differentiating advantages to everyday appliances, utilitarian, indispensible, but simply table stakes for an oilman.

I submit this is what the emergence of OSS represents to the software industry. The hard problems of multi-user operating systems, of relational databases, of office productivity, of systems management, and the like, have been solved. Or at least the solutions to the problems that most people want to solve most of the time have been solved. Those tools are no longer exotic. Linux doesn't drive innovation in and of itself, no more than Sugar does. They adopt and implement the hard-won lessons learned in the R&D labs, Comp Sci departments, and IT departments over the past forty years.

This is in no way meant to denigrate what these OSS projects represent -- only a fool spends time reinventing the wheel. And if these OSS projects do not innovate at the core of what they are, by standing on the shoulders of giants they free up energy and resources to innovate all around the OS or the database or the office suite. Building a new consumer electronics device? Grab an embedded Linux distro. Want to host Web Services on it? Embed Apache in it. Tie it into live, network-delivered customer service? I hear SugarCRM works quite well in a hosted mode, maybe you can leverage that and extend the customer-facing function onto your new toy.

Solving the hard problems doesn't mean the solution becomes a commodity. It just becomes commonplace. When formerly exotic tools become commonplace, it enables exploration at deeper and deeper levels, unlocking the potential for value creation in previously unimaginable ways.

Why the enterprise software industry should be afraid

What I like best about 37Signals, poster child of the Web 2.0 "movement" because in an odd, tangential way, it captures the essence of the Internet-flavored gung-ho attitude that is fueling the trend.

As a complete aside, check out the etymology of phrase gung-ho. Who knew that the most reproduced GI Joe figure was named "industrial workers' cooperative?" Or, for that matter, that a kiwi founded early industrial unions in China? File under "Truth stranger than fiction." For the record, I am using the phrase in the "work together"/"we can do it!" sense, not the GI Joe, workers' collective, or even anime sense.

Anyway, what I find is the distinguishing trait of the Web 2.0 crowd is a determination to return to the roots of the founding of the Internet, with its insistent focus on the simplest solution for maximum leverage of affect. This set the Internet right from the start at odds with the cathedral builders who had brought the computing industry into existence. Not surprising given the animosity between the hackers and the CS department at MIT that tilled the soil from whence the Internet would spring.

When the enterprise IT world woke up to the Web in the 'nineties, a slow process of subverting the "more with less" thinking of the Internet began. E-mail became Outlook or Notes, HTTP servers became application servers, awk and perl became Visual Basic and Java, and the whole thing came to an overly-complex head around J2EE and .Net. The entire transformation was in the service of adding complexity to justify IT investments by the customer firms of the IT industry. Enterprise License Agreements, upgrade cycles, professional support and services, bigger servers, more storage, faster, newer, more spending in a relentless cycle. Sometime around the dot-com bubble bursting the enterprises paused and asked "what am I getting for all this money, exactly?"

What they found is that quite often they are forking out millions of dollars in software licenses to fix the problems created by last year's spending on software licenses. The original "sure, we can do that" spirit of the Internet was dead.

Wait, or was it? The argument is often raised that Web 2.0 is nothing new. That argument is correct, there is nothing new in the collection of technologies and trends collectively referred to as "Web 2.0." At its heart there is something actually quite old - the original spirit of harnessing just the right amount of technology to get the job done. Not enough to justify charging the customer more than you did last year, perhaps, but just enough. And so the software industry faces a threat from "good enough" thinking once again, this time dressed up with rounded corners, neat acronyms that evoke mythical heros and cute made-up names that could be Star Wars characters.

In fact this is a very old struggle, going back through Bill Gates' angry letter to the hobbyists telling them that if they don't stop copying software, no-one will get rich; through the MIT hackers leaving their source tapes in the desk drawers for the next person; through all the way to deep, ancient issues about human ownership, dominion, rights and privileges. But we'll leave the mythic roots for another day.

I found this slide on 37Signals site, in a discussion thread about the relative merits of this slide's design and message. The accompanying discussion centered on its obvious PowerPointiness - "it's too vague," "it's marketing fluff," "programmers suck!" "designers suck!" etc. All the while missing the simple message conveyed by the slide. Marketing message aside, (I know nothing about the AppSight BlackBox software from BMC that this slide is promoting and therefore am ignoring the middle bit with the "Hummer tires" as one comment put it) the important point is: if you dedicate 80% of your time to simply thinking about and analyzing the problem, and 20% to the fix, you will save 70% off your time, cost and effort. I believe this 70% to be a magic number to watch in particular. More than once I've heard CIOs mention numbers in this neighborhood as the potential savings off their current IT budget that they hope to realize by taking another look at how they use technology. A slow-boil approach that emphasizes thinking deeply about the problems and goals, then attacking the fix with a "less is more" attitude.

A market opportunity that is up to 70% reduced, that's a trend about which the enterprise software industry should be very nervous.

There is no Open Source bubble

I've heard rumblings from some quarters about a return to the salad days of the '90's for the IT industry, this time with Open Source and Web 2.0 inflating the bubble. Setting aside the question of whether the dot-com bubble was something to which we'd actually want to return (it isn't), the possibility of a repeat is pure fantasy.

The rocket fuel at the core of the dot-com bubble had two main constituents: first, the availability of the IPO as an exit. A public offering made the VC a 10X return on his investment, made investment banks mountains of cash for nothing, and allowed institutional investors and fund managers to pad their return rates and bump up their bonuses and credibility.

Second, the fear of the telcos that they were becoming obsolete. In the early days of the Web the telco, the enterprise and Wall Street didn't take it or firms based on Web technologies seriously. The telcos in particular allowed ISPs to spring up using their phone lines, IP-based network equipment and Web-based businesses to develop, all without lifting a finger. Probably because that finger was bloated on all the free cash on which the telcos were gorging.

Then, seemingly overnight, the enterprise woke up to the fact that thousands of web servers were springing up internally, matching the grassroots growth of Web-based companies like Yahoo!, Lycos, and Amazon. The IT analysts like Gartner and Forrester smelled enterprise IT spending and started talking up the Web, VCs began funding an increasing number of companies with ".com" at the end of their names, and The Street started taking the whole phenomenon seriously.

The Street's interest was really the boost that got the bubble truly under way, because it was their efforts to promote the IPOs they were underwriting to their big institutional investors as a quid pro quo that got the telcos annoyed. Here were nothing little software companies like Netscape with market caps that rivaled the firms whose phone lines upon which their business model depended. The telcos struck back with the ridiculous "ASP" story around 1997, claiming they were going to sell enterprise applications as services to the biggest companies on the planet. As soon as they could figure out their billing systems. And build the infrastructure to host the applications. And figure out what an enterprise application was, and where to find one. But anyway! The important part was the "build the infrastructure" stuff, because it meant a massive surge in telco spending on IP-based equipment and Web technologies attracting the VCs and investment banks. Sure, there were detours down deadends like ATM and WAP, but it was still money. The quote that is seared into my mind from this period was from the CEO of a systems management company who, during a workshop on future scenario planning, when the opinion was expressed that the telcos would all fail at their ASP plans, said, "sure, but they're going to spend a lot of money failing." Which to me sounded like a business plan focused on polishing the marble floors of the ballroom in the Titanic.

The other crucial ingredient brought by The Street and their promotion of the building pipeline of IPOs was new money the equity markets, supplied by a new class of investor: Joe and Sally Lunchpail. The massive influx of capital into the equity markets triggered by the migration from pension funds to 401(k)'s and mutual funds was encouraged to play the Las Vegas version of The Street. High risk, high gain lottery tickets that got all the publicity like Amazon and Netscape, where an individual could make 40% gains or lose everything. Of course, the banks didn't fully disclose the way underwriting works - the bank gets to pre-allocate big chunks of the offering, handing out candy to the Big Boy customers to lure in more of their money. That meant that by the time Joe and Sally got a chance to buy shares the price was already inflated. The Lunchpails paid a premium and by the end of their buying wave the Big Boys would start to take profits, sucking the momentum out of the overvalued stock. In the technical argot this is called a Ponzi scheme, more colloquially "bait-and-switch."

This long-winded analysis of the dot-com bubble is really just a setup to explain why Open Source and Web 2.0 won't create another cycle of overvaluations and overnight millionaires. In case you haven't noticed, there isn't an IPO market, so that exit is effectively closed to startups. The Lunchpails licked their wounds after the 2001 bust, then started sinking their money into their homes and real estate in general. That's the current bubble that's about to burst. With middle class families' "savings" tied up in increasingly illiquid assets, there is little possibility of pools of capital flooding the equity markets and goosing the growth rate.

With no 5-year path to a 10X exit, the VCs are not nearly as excited about startups these days. In fact being a VC is much less glamourous in the 'naughties than it was in the 'nineties. Frankly, from the VCs I have spoken with it sounds like it kind of sucks. While The Street would like the VCs to find the golden egg that would hoover more pocket change out of the heartland and into their bank accounts, they still have lots of M&A activity, consumer spending, real estate and energy prices to drive their income.

So what is behind the buzz around Open Source and Web 2.0 startups, then? It is a little more than a nostalgic wish to return to "the halcyon '90s, when Pets.com ruled the world." There is an exit that allows a lucky few to realize some significant gains, but the emphasis is on "few." Both Open Source and the Web 2.0 obsession with quick, simple results threaten the incumbents in the IT industry - IBM, Microsoft, SAP, and Oracle. These giants are slugging it out as the industry consolidates around three big platforms - .Net, J2EE and SAP itself - and the last thing they want is to have to fight over a diminishing pie. But that's exactly the net effect on the market of the commoditization effects of Open Source and the 'do more quicker with less' approach of Web 2.0. Enabling the big guys' best customers to spend less on IT and get the same results is the best way to ensure an exit through acquisition. The buyer can be the incumbent you are hurting the most, the competitor most interested in hurting the incumbent, or a 2nd or 3rd tier IT company seeking a way to be more attractive to one of the big platforms and therefore ensure either their continued existence, or future acquisition for a bigger price tag. That was the force behind Red Hat's acquisition of JBoss, IBM's acquisition of Gluecode, Oracle's near acquisition of MySQL, and many more acquisitions to come.

If it sounds like I'm describing a world where little fish are gobbled up by successively larger fish, well, that's what a consolidating market looks like. Two important points, to circle back to our topic: first, that exit by acquisition nets 2-4 times your invesment, maybe 6X tops, but not the astronomical returns that a 'nineties IPO reaped. This is bad news for the typical VC portfolio management model of "one grand slam, two singles and seven strike outs," which depends on those 10X grand slams to even out the losses from the rest. Second, being a consolidating market, there is a finite and rather close horizon for this acquisition market and the exit it represents. So instead of a throwing a lit cigarette into a National Park, this flurry of activity is more like holding a lighter to a pile of trash in an barrel.

Of course, this analysis is not directly addressing the new face of the IT industry: the Google/Yahoo/eBay struggle. For the moment I think Cringely has written most of what needs to be said on that topic, and for those interested I can think of no better essays to read.

Communicating

I am the product of two extremes - my father's family only gets together once a decade, at most, and if they are in contact with one another in between those instances it is an occasion for maximum awkwardness, guilt and discomfort. My mother's family has organized weekly teleconferences in order to plan for an upcoming semi-annual reunion, and if more than a week goes by without some contact among any given pair of the nine siblings, it is an occasion for growing anxiety and guilt until the breach in communications has been repaired.

Is it any wonder, then, that the degree to which I stay in contact with friends and family varies wildly and wanders aimlessly from diligent and thoughtful to callous and distracted?

What does it mean when we fall out of touch with a friend or family member? Does it mean that we don't care for them anymore? Or does it merely mean we don't have enough time to spare them? Is that prioritization something that should be taken personally by the out-of-touchee? In other words, should the radio silence be interpreted as meaning that everything else in that person's life is more important than you are at this moment?

Of course this is an absurd point to contemplate. Of course the other aspects in another's life are more important to them than you are. They are the demands on his time, the requirements of his job, the needs of his children, his spouse, his own needs, desires and goals. You are external and peripheral to all that, and by definition take a secondary role in his life.

In fact, this is the root of my suspicion of those who are so diligent with their communication with others. There is a dishonesty at work, implying that you do occupy some level of importance in this person's life that demands regular and intense sessions of communication. In fact I suspect that one of the person in question's own intimate needs to be fulfilled is to feel as though he is doing a "good job" with keeping in touch. If he did not prioritize the weekly phone calls, the semi-annual reunions, the special trips and the like, he would feel the other party would think him negligent in his communication duties, and would feel bad about himself. In other words, the real priority is always the self, not the other. Interpersonal relations quite naturally obscure and confuse this basic point of human nature, because it entails a commingling of two impulses with diametrically opposed goals - each to fulfill its own, self-contained needs.

PGPfone for the VoIP age

Thank goodness for graybeards like Phil Zimmerman, the creator of PGP in 1991, PGPfone in 1996, and now Zfone, a "bump in the protocol stack" that can encrypt all VoIP packets leaving your PC. As the site puts it, "Zfone lets you whisper in someone's ear, even if their ear is a thousand miles away."

An intriguing detail - the key agreements & management are handled peer-to-peer over the RTP packet stream. That means no reliance on external servers, trusted third parties, or even personal keychain management. All that admistrivia that has bedeviled the use of encryption in email and kept it marginalized as something practised by only the geekiest of geeks.

My only complaint? Is Mr. Zimmerman so needful of personal recognition that he must embed his last initial in not only the product name but the encryption protocol it uses - ZRTP?

Literary lubrication

What is it about alcohol & writing?

A couple of of rum punches and a casual remark about a crappy movie yields an insight into successful character creation. H asked, "are we supposed to care for this dude with the little glasses?" The response from the other females of the household came, "no, he was a jerk to his ex-wife, and he's obnoxious." My first thought - "but he explained she put her career over their relationship... he's an ok guy." And I realized - the best characters are those that can be sympathetic and unsympathetic to equal proportions of the audience at the same time. The callous, insensitive husband is the misunderstood man; the over-acheiving bitch is the modern woman struggling for personal identity.

And earlier, another chance remark I made, that we expect too much from movies - most are just comic books, very few can move us like a great novel. Novel and comic book are the wrong terms - it's more like merely diverting versus deeply affecting. And then there was the position taken by Artaud - that Shakespeare ruined drama by making it too realistic, causing us to expect the depth and complexity of real life from plays. Before Shakespeare, the Elizabethan masque - a comic book, merely diverting. Unless you were in the right frame of mind, the writing of the masque of such high quality that you were truly moved.

Urban adventures

A piece in the New Yorker about urban cons reminded me of what felt at the time like a near-mugging I experienced a few months back. It may in fact have just been a micro-comedy of error, who knows. I was walking down 125th st at around midnight or later, fast. I was ten feet behind another guy who was also walking fast, I guess I was drafting on him. Abruptly, he turned left and stopped on a dime, in front of the tattoo parlor/medical equipment retailer/gift shop that doubles (quadruples?) as a neighborhood tough hangout, home to flamboyant and elaborate hand signs and smoldering glowers. I slammed into him, nearly full speed. I walk really fast. Though he was a big guy he was shaken enough that a big brown bag slipped out of his hand and fell to the sidewalk with a big glassy clang... and no shattering tinkle nor blub of escaping fluid. All that I experienced and recorded in a half a second or less.



He turned to me, I began to apologize, as is my habit when I run into someone, whether they are partly to blame or not. Own up to the fact that you are genuinely sorry that the thing happened, is my attitude, whether you are accepting responsiblity or not. Did I want that to happen? No, indeed, I was sorry it had occurred. Anyway, he indignantly told me to watch where I was going and when I agreed and added that his sudden stop was a contributing factor he began claiming I'd broken his bottle of rum. He'd retrieved his bag from the sidewalk and was looking in, saying his forty was busted. I didn't see any wetness at the bottom of the bag so I indicated my skepticism.


It was at this point that another, smaller guy came walking up to us, demanding to know what the problem was and simultaneously claming that the collidee was his cousin. That was the moment I got the "is this a setup?" vibe. The collidee told his cousin to chill, no problem, we were just dealing with the matter of the broken rum bottle. Now he pulled the massive 40 ounce bottle of white Bacardi rum from the bag and pointed at a seam in the glass - "see?" he demanded, "see how it's cracked on the inside?" His cousin contributed moral support for collidee's claim of interior cracking, and out of the corner of my eye I could see two or three other associates of collidee and his cousin at the building's entrance, watching us closely.


I think I may have allowed my incredulity and impatience to be apparent at this point - how a giant glass bottle could be cracked on this inside, invisible to the eye, and not be a pile of damp shards in a bag was beyond belief. Why were we debating this in the wee hours of the morning when I'd rather be settling into bed? I indicated as much to my new companions. The location of the liqour store directly across the street was raised at that point, and the idea that I'd buy him a new forty of rum. My memory gets fuzzy from this point on. The interchange involved me saying a) it's not broken, b) I have no money on me and c) it wasn't entirely my fault, in various combinations, phrasing and with increasing insistence. I do remember taking out my wallet and showing him the Canadian $5 bill that was there to convince him I had no money. Nothing says "broke" like foreign currency to the average American - they can't seem to conceive that these weirdly colored slips of paper with total strangers' faces on them can be used for anything, anywhere. Just whipping out a Canadian $20 has garnered considerable sympathy for me in the past.


Collidee didn't muster sympathy for my pathetic foreign $5 but it did seem to soften his indignation and insistence that I was going to replace the non-broken forty. Spotting my opening, I remembered a couple US dollars in my pants pocket, retrieved them, said "how about I give you my last $2, for your trouble?" He sullenly acquiesed, I slapped the two wrinkled bills in his hand, and, before he could reconsider or get reinforcements, I turned on my heel and stode off as confidently as I could, not looking back. About a half block later I felt a wash of elation - I had stood my ground, been polite but insistent, hadn't displayed weakness and got out of there with my wallet and person intact. There was the matter of the $2, but I felt like that had been a very inexpensive lubrication for my exit - it gave him a reason to let the matter and me go, for just the price of a subway fare.


After I tried to figure out if collidee was as surprised by our sudden meeting as I or whether it was part of a pre-existing plan. His cousin appeared sort of quickly to be just a happy coincidence. And the location - directly in front of the creepiest place I pass on 125th on the way home from the 4,5,6 line. Maybe the only surprise was that the bottle didn't shatter, and that improbability messed up the script, pacing and outcome of what was supposed to be a quick $30 profit. I also fantasized about how collidee would regard me if we met on the street again - as an annoying broke foreigner deserving of revenge, or as a worthy adversary who'd stood his ground and deserved respect? In either event, I felt lucky and proud of how I'd conducted myself, and it was with that I went to sleep that night.

Adventures in Turnaround

The experience with the cooperative is quite an enriching one for me, thus far. The people I think are the most valuable from the organization's standpoint are all looking to me for insight, direction, and leadership to get through this tough period and towards a fulfilling future. This is new for me - to be seen so explicitly as a leader. I've always felt as though I had better answers and skills than those in charge, but I've stayed on the sidelines. Not that I've shrunk back from responsibility, just that there has always been someone either in the position of power already or more intent on assuming that position of power. Machiavellian power politics are not my forte.



When I first attended a coop board meeting, it was obvious that there was one individual who had amassed all the reins of power through fiscal control, process control, and influence over two or three board members who formed his voting bloc. At first I deferred, assuming that his opaqueness hid a good grasp on what the business was doing, where it was headed, and what needed to be done. But there was all that flailing about future directions for the organization, and I thought I could bring some clarity around strategy. I tackled that task as a consultant, interviewing the principals, collecting as much data as I could, and workshopping the results with the board into a pretty decent document.


Two things were learned from that experience - one, that the secretary was extremely reluctant to give up information, and two, when that information was obtained the picture it painted was not very pleasing. A picture was forming in my head of the cooperative as a machine or a system with inputs, functions and outputs, and I began to realize where the machine was needing a bearing replaced or a gasket fixed. I used the phrase "current cashflow crisis" on one slide and explained that every month, less revenue was being made than was being spent to make that money. The effects were being masked by the use of the credit line in the summer of 2005 to buy the inventory, but the debt was not being paid off fast enough now that the inventory was being sold. There was going to be a shortfall at some point. I was surprisingly nervous to present this bad news - the secretary was there and I knew he wouldn't be pleased with my analysis. Still, I naively believed it was spur some decisive action.


In fact, nothing effectively changed with the way the organization was operating. The secretary managed to defuse the bombshell I had delivered and kept everyone plugging along, blind to the growing financial woes and spinning in tighter and tighter circles operationally. The only entrepreneurial type involved in the coop had been the one who brought me into the picture, but his clashes with the secretary had grown so bad that he stepped down from the board when I began my consulting project, thinking that if he was out of the picture things might improve. He kept active on the sideline, though, and brought another entrepreneurial type, a farmer, into the picture. This farmer was willing to help out the cooperative because he saw the potential for its future that got me and the original entrepreneur excited in the first place. The organization reacted so violently to this newcomer that I became convinced that nothing would divert it from its self-destructive path. Shortly thereafter, I withdrew from the organization.


That was a hard choice to make. On the one hand, it felt like I was giving up when the challenge became too daunting, and that was sending a bad message to the members and employees to whom I still felt loyalty. It was letting the secretary and president win, in effect. Except refusing to participate in the charade that corrective actions were being taken was the only power I had over the direction of the organization. My hope was that leaving would be the splash of cold water needed to wake the board members whom the secretary had in his bloc. It didn't, and that was a bit of an ego blow. Again I felt I was involved in something where I had more ability than those calling the shots but that wasn't enough to put me in a position of power.


What it did do was put me at the center of a bit of a shadow government - the people who had disengaged fully or partly from the theater of the board's actions and who increasingly looked to me for salvation for the organization. I kept tabs on the progress or lack thereof, and then a few weeks later the call came. The president had been presented with a real honest-to-goodness cash shortfall which very nearly caused the coop to default on a loan repayment. The bullet missed, but it scared him enough to realize that the coop was failing and it was going to collapse under his management. He came to me. Once again I interviewed princials, collected data, and performed analysis. This time my understanding of the business and all its constituent parts was quite a bit more accurate and deep, and the resulting analysis is that much better. It's pretty solid, I think. The organization is salvageable, but it needs fiscal discipline and a complete organizational overhaul. The culture is sick, and I'm going to make it healthy.


The coolest thing now is that we are purging the bloc and bringing in all the people who'd been in the shadow organization. The energy and shared enthusiasm, and especially the collective faith in me, is exhilerating. I am going to get the organization righted and get its culture healthy through simple transparency and inclusion and fair practise. Then I want to work on the quality of the work that is being done. Our products need to be of the highest quality in order to build differentiation in this market. And then I want to steer them towards the old ways and organic ways and sustainability overall. This feels like my chance to try to prove that food can be raised humanely, in a distributed fashion, and then economicially processed into something that is pleasing to all the senses, and then sold for a fair price that pays the farmer a living wage. I feel like I'm right at the center of that, like I get to define that mission, and that its success is entirely dependent on my involvement. That's a new feeling, and a good one.

Having established that even software that is becoming commoditized still requires skills to deploy, and that those skills are offered by the Systems Integrators to the market as IT services, one other observation about the IT market must be made. That is that the services segment of the industry is highly fragmented. The biggest SIs, the so-called Global SIs or GSIs, such as IBM, EDS and Accenture in sum account for only about 10% of the market. The vast majority of the market is made up of smaller SIs who focus on a particular region or industry. These Regional SIs or RSIs are very hard to compete against for the GSIs because they are nimble, have close relationships with their customers and know their particular niche inside and out.



This last point is particularly important, because if we harken back to the beginning of the previous piece of writing we'll remember that I believe IT is in a transition phase in which it moves closer into the core of the business, instantiating rather than just supporting business processes. These RSIs are in an excellent position to help this transition along since they understand intimately the particular challenges, dynamics and drivers of the business processes that are characteristic to their customer segment. RSIs specializing in Healthcare are familiar with the applications and systems prevalent in those customers, the challenges facing their IT departments as they try to support the business, and the processes like billing, insurance, patient records and diagnosis that are increasingly migrating to IT-hosted processes.



Services span more than IT but maintain this basic structure. Management consulting firms are the complement to IT consulting services as practised by RSIs. Like IT services, management consulting is very fragmented. The big guys like McKinsey take more share collectively than in the IT services market but still smaller firms that specialize in an industry dominate. Returning to our Healthcare example, the boutique consulting firm understands in precise detail what the critical efficiency drivers for a provider are and how patient privacy regulation and insurance processes impact those factors. Together the boutique consulting firm and the regional systems integrator are in an ideal position to capture the value from aligning IT more closely with business process.



There are two problems that keep this from happening: both have difficulty scaling without losing the laser focus that gives them their advantage; and they each barely know the other exists. The consulting firm tends to have very low IT skills and the RSI knows very little about business process and management.



Here comes the play, finally! First, start acquiring small SIs and boutique consulting firms that are the best at what they do and who strongly complement each other in a particular industry or region. Prioritize the industries and regional markets, find the #2 player in each of those markets, and acquire. As the acquisitions begin, build a small development team who assess the technology base of each SI you acquire and begin to build a stack of enterprise software using open source components. Start with Linux for the operating systems, Apache for the web server, MySQL or Postgres for the database, support PHP/Perl/Python/Ruby whatever for the execution environment, and pay close attention to the Web Services libraries and capabilities. You want your stack to make it very very easy to build Web services interfaces and to consume Web services from other locations. More on this later.



As you build your stack you want to involve the developers from your acquired SIs as much as possible, and include as many open source applications that are relevant to their customers as possible, whether they are horizontal applications like CRM and ERP or vertical industry applicatins. When the stack is ready, stipulate that whenever and whereever possible the stack will be used to develop custom capabilties, to integrate application function, to extend legacy systems' functionality, or whatever the customers' needs demands. The way in which the stack will be used is to develop the desired capability as a component that plugs into the stack and is accessed via a Web service. If performance demands, it can also have a native interface but the Web service interface is non-optional.



While this is happening, two other changes will be made to the way your acquired firms do business. One, your RSIs will develop close relationships with your boutique consultants that play in the same markets as they do. They will learn the business strategy and management consulting side of their industries, and they will educate the boutique consultants as to the technological aspects of the customer. Over time they will begin to engage customers shoulder-to-shoulder, with management consulting engagements being sold in parallel or in sequence with IT services engagements, and vice versa. Second, the engagement contracts signed with customers will stipulate that intellectual property and code developed as part of the engagement remains the property of the firm, and does not revert to being owned by the customer. Hopefully, the use of open source software represents enough savings for the customers that they will not balk at this arrangement, but if they do, more care might have to be taken to abstract the specific customer function from the generic industry function, with the customer's "proprietary" code being owned by them and the generic functional code remaining the property of the firm.



Over time more and more Web service-enable components will be in the portfolio, ready for use for the next customer engagement. This will introduce efficiencies that will allow the firm to scale by using less developer resources to code from scratch on every engagement. These components will also represent the best practises for the customer industries, built as they are from a position of intimate knowledge of the technology infrastructure and key business drivers for that industry. They in and of themselves will be very valuable, and their reliance on Web services for integration makes them consumable by any vendor who is pursuing a services-oriented technology strategy. An outbound technology licensing business can now be developed, catering to software vendors seeking to augment their platforms with industry business process knowledge and lacking the granular relationships at the industry level.



The reliance on the shared stack also means that scale can be acheived by either building an offshore services resource or partnering with an existing off-shore firm such as Wipro, Infosys or Tata. The stack can be developed on, deployed and modified without any licensing to anyone, and therefore makes a good collaborative tool with which to leverage offshore developers and integrators.



The goal of the business model is to build up to a new breed of GSI that is, under the covers, still a loosely coupled collection of small firms collaborating at an industry level to generate deep business process knowledge and building an asset-based services business for increased profitability.

Nintendo's breakout videogame strategy

I find myself increasingly excited about Ninentdo.

Engadget has two pieces on the Wii controller, the first on the specs and capabilities of the "Wiimote", and the second a hands-on account of using it at E3.




Pretty promising stuff, and so remarkable in comparison to the strategies of the big boys they are up against, Sony and Microsoft. I'll be posting on their overall strategy and why I find it so refreshing soon.

Explaining the Enterprise IT Industry Landscape (for those who care)

I want to explain my second business idea, the niche services firm roll-up play. Catchy name, no? However, to do it justice requires some understanding of how I see the IT market landscape shaping up these days, so today I'll delve into that.



The over-riding theme in IT has been and stil is the "alignment of IT with business process." There are innumerable variations on that phrasing, but it all means basically the same thing: that IT is shifting from being a parallel activity supporting the business model to an integrated activity that instantiates the business model. Sounds complex and in a way it is, since there are so many facets to the trend. However, at its core it really just means the shift of IT from something exotic to something commonplace.



The best way to explain may be with an analogy. In the late nineteenth century during the early days of electricity, it was an exotic, high price toy of the rich. Individual homes would have a generator in the basement with its very own electrical engineer and crew to keep it running. Obviously in the ensuing hundred-odd years it has become a perfect commodity, delivered remotely in a consistent form and used in a myriad of ways. These are the two extremes of the scale.



While IT is not electricity in that it can never be reduced to a single uniform product, it nonetheless is undergoing a similar type of transition, from exotic to commonplace. In fact the transition has been occurring since its very inception, with the early computers filling entire floors of buildings and requiring specialized technicians to care and feed them around the clock and modern computers almost at the point of being given away for free in cereal boxes. Of course, hardware is only one part of the IT equation, the yin to software's yang, and software is still more exotic and specialized than hardware, and therefore not as far down the commoditization curve.



Software represents the specific way in which a business will use IT in order to enhance or create value for itself. It is designed according to an algorithm that both describes its goals and how those goals will be achieved, or to state it slightly differently, the problem it seeks to solve and the chosen solution to that problem. This is not that different than the specific characteristics of a given firm - its people and physical assets and the business processes that they play out represent the specific way the firm uses capital to create or capture additional value. The counterpart to the algorithm is the business plan. The infinite flexibility and fuzzy-edged quality of activities that center on humans means that a firm's business plan is not usually as precise as a software algorithm, and its businesss processes are not as crisply defined and rational as software.



The primary indicator of the commoditization of software is the rise of open source. The skills are more common in a larger population of students, hobbyists, enthusiasts etc. and the activity of writing code has been streamlined and disseminated (thanks to the Internet) across loose global communities. They have produced increasingly sophisticated code that is extremely high quality and available for anyone to use in any way. Open source software now threatens the business models of the most successful firms in IT, those who build and sell proprietary software to businesses, often with a gross profit margin of 80-90%. It is increasingly difficult to justify the enormous price tags these IT firms demand for their software licenses and maintenance agreement when one can download and use virtually the same thing for free from an open source community.



Open source software doesn't install, configure, customize and maintain itself, however. It still requires some level of specialized technological skills which most firms lack. It is equivalent now to any other piece of business technology - a cash register or a fork lift - which is acquired from a vendor along with installation and training services to integrate the business technology into the firm. That role in IT is played by the "Systems Integrator" (SI), a supplier of IT services. Where the software business has enjoyed the highest profit margins in the IT industry, the services business has generated the largest revenues. The margin is pretty slim in services because revenue generation requires a constant amount of human capital. Hire a skilled worker for X dollars per hour, put her/him on the customer's problem billed out at some multiple of X per hour. Subtract the substantial overhead required to run a large people-intensive business and you get your margin. Contrast that to software, where you hire a programmer for X per hour, she/he writes a piece of code that you market as a product for some multiple of X and sell to as many customers as you can. It is the equivalent of assigning a single skilled practioner to hundreds of customer's accounts simultaneously.



The stage is now set for my business idea, but the idea itself will have to wait for tomorrow.

Venture development firm

Mind's a blank slate this morning, and it's later than usual. The day with all its competing demands is pressing in on me. Not sure how much I can write before I'm swamped and spinning and pulled in all directions. Have been having a series of business ideas for the past few months that share a similar theme, though I can't quite articulate the theme yet. Maybe I'll describe each idea in as much detail as I can over the next few days and see what happens.


The first idea occurred to me in February or so, when I was chasing down leads for development teams to code for a friend's business idea. His idea ended up on hold but the episode suggested to me a larger pattern. He is a business man, quite smart and creative, but in a field that is decidedly not high tech. Nonetheless, the opportunity that was getting him excited was one with a strong Web component at its core. In other words, it was a Web-based startup being proposed by someone without a development background or skills.


If there is substance to the Web 2.0 hype it seems to me that it has to do with the Web becoming increasingly "business-like." That is, concerned with, optimized for and supportive of commerce. The first wave of "e-commerce" (ew) was just a storefront or mall with a catalog and checkout as its technological advances. This wave promises more, but not necessarily technologically. The tools and components are still pretty basic but the difference is their granularity and the familiarity that has grown with the Web itself in the business community. It seems natural for a new business to depend on the Web for some or all of its critical functions, even to a non-technical businessman. The web-based services that can be used to assemble these functions are granular enough to express a very broad array of business model components and aspects.


Therefore, my idea: the average businessman outnumbers the tech-savvy entrepreneur, and therefore the great ideas of this generation of Web-dependent businesses are more likely to come from regular guys than techies. Regular guys can't develop Web applications or services or host them or maintain them. Nor would many of them want to retain and manage Web development teams fulltime from the start of their idea. So what's needed is a new flavor of venture capitalist - one that eases access not to financial capital but intellectual capital. The new VC firm needs to focus on technology enablement and augmentation of startups rather than business enablement.


The new VC firm would center around a top-flight development team, a small one. Individuals would come in to pitch their businesses with a focus on the whole model and their particular dependence on Web technology, a Web application, and Web development. The firm would offer a range of services, from pure outsourcing of development & maintenance, to vetting and rounding out the startup's technology strategy to taking an equity stake in the firm in exchange for becoming its CTO and IT department. Over time, the firm's portfolio of companies would expand and the traditional exits could be sought.


One major benefit of this model is that the firm could be self-funding - those startups it doesn't want or can't take an equity stake in would pay full fee for the outsourcing services, which would be managed by the core development team but sub-contracted out to lower-cost, larger scale teams, possibly offshore.


The challenge I suppose is reducing the idea to something that is easily communicated and marketed, so that a steady stream of startups begin coming in the door. However, my experience with looking for an outsource developer for my friend's idea taught me that it's pretty hard to find programming services - a simple google search won't do. If I make it easier to find this new VC/programming firm than it currently is that would go a long way, I think.


So there's the idea. I wonder what Paul Kedrosky would think of it? (shameless linkage)

Effing the Ineffable

(With apologies to every other person who's used this clever turn of phrase)


This is the short essay I wrote based on the thoughts that brought the title phrase to mind the other day in the garden. I confess I'm a little hesitant about posting it - the thoughts are more personal than I would normally consider publically revealing, and it takes a pretty hard stance against beliefs to which some of my friends no doubt subscribe. However, the combination of reading Douglas Rushkoff's post about faith and a brief visit to a private school the other day caused these thoughts to surface quite vigorously in a way I could not suppress or ignore.


The title phrase popped into my head yesterday while gardening and I couldn't get it out. The context was a train of thought that started from our reaction to the religiosity of a private school we saw yesterday. Morning "worship" of a non-distinct Christian flavor and my kids instantly veto what is otherwise a pretty appealing educational option. I'm proud of that reaction. And yet we are, I think, more "spiritual" as a family that most - we believe very deeply in the sancitity of the human condition, our unique position of privilege and responsibility in the world. The dual-edge of joy and pain that comes from consciousness and conscience. Deeply moral, sometimes to the point that perception of injustice suffered by others can cloud our own enjoyment. Ethical, pacificistic, humanist. Sounds like a giant subset of the "teachings of Christ" especially when stripped of the dogmatic trimmings that accompany them.


So why the violent reaction against formalized ritual of any stripe? Because organized religion of every flavor falls into one of the most basic traps of the paradoxes of the human condition. Codifying morality into a set of rules attempts to make concrete the wholly abstract, the ineffable. By doing so it perverts its basic goal and creates an opportunity for the true original sin: domination of one person by another. Dogma has been the basic toolbox of tyrants and autocrats and big men and chiefs and dictators as long as we've been human. Thou shalt not sets the stage for the punishment if thou happens to anyway, for the monitoring of thine actions to make sure thou dost not, and for further restrictions on your behavior to ensure thou doesn't even get the opportunity to dost it again, even by accident. In the hands of society's institutions those restrictions seem inevitably to lead to fascism of one flavor or another. Extreme? Maybe. I admit my definition of fascism is broader than Franco, Hitler and Mussolini. But I don't know a better word to describe the rule of a master over his slaves, which is what, literally or figuratively, organized religion produces.


At this point in human history whatever good organized religion can claim to have contributed to the world is overshadowed by the suffering, death and oppression it has produced. Time for a little less religious tolerance, and Douglas Rushkoff has written over on his blog. Time to treat religious faith for what it is: a dangerous desire that can make one a member of a dangerous mob or give one the tools to manipulate that mob to one's own ends. We consider the 'primitive' societies that practised the various forms of human sacrifice barbaric, but we should also consider what brought them to the point of offering human souls to the gods -- taking their own myths as literal truth.


Effing the ineffable, it turns out, completely effs things up. Don't eff with the ineffable. But that desire, to express what is impossible to express, is a basic component of the human condition. It's vital in fact to the pursuit of human knowledge, vital to communal life, to loving and living with another soul. I think the line that needs to be respected and very rarely crossed however, is accepting someone else's codification of the ephemeral on blind faith that it will work for oneself. That the motivation of the originator of the codification was pure and benign. We have reached a moment in the development of the human soul when it is vital for each and every individual to make up her or his own mind about the meaning of life. Make it up for yourself, don't subscribe to someone else's. Effing up your own ineffable minimizes the damage you can do. We lose some cohesion in our society, perhaps, but that's a small price to pay. The modern state of angst and alienation is vastly superior to the comfort that can be had by belonging to a bunch of thugs.

The name doesn't fit

I have to say I find Bob Cringely consistently clever and amusing. For instance, in this column, entitled "Killer Apps" he manages to slam Sun in a brutally honest and funny way:

...Sun is simply doomed. Their software isn't better, their hardware isn't better, and they can't see themselves as anything but a maker of hardware or software, so my simple recommendation is that they take the rest of their cash and try entering a hot new field like -- say -- space flight. Or making really fine cakes. The world will always need fine baked goods. Or just give it back to the shareholders. Really.

And he nails why Microsoft is not on a righteous path to domination of the technological future:

Microsoft tends to assume that if the PC goes away it will be replaced by something -- ONE thing -- when in fact it looks like the platform will be at least bifurcated between televisions and mobile phones, neither of which Microsoft dominates and neither of which it is likely to dominate.

Which succinctly captures why the "one converged device" vs. "many purpose-built devices" debate is so darn important and interesting. And why MSFT doesn't get it. Nice job.

Other things I was going to call this blog (or, why it takes me a long time to get things done)

• Effing the Ineffable. Title of the short opinion piece I'll post next, came to me while gardening, thought it was stunningly original until I googled it and found over 30,000 hits, including two blogs already with that title and its use in the London Review of Books. News of my unoriginality could have, on a bad day, completely derailed my attempt to get this blog going. Again
• The Misanthropic Humanist. A label I very proudly applied to myself in high school. Now it sounds like an attempt to impress others by using a four syllable word with a three syllable, which it probably was. I still like the paradoxical juxtoposition (a shameless pairing of two five syllable words) and I'll probably write about my views on the paradoxes of being human at some future date, when I feel the need to impress others with my massive (yet humble) intellect again.
• Happy Chaos Freedom Machine. This was the title of a feeble previous attempt at a blog, abandoned shortly after the first post. Or was it halfway through the first post? And now lost to the ages, unretrievable even via the Wayback Machine. I love this phrase as well, a translation of a pictographic character designed to signify the Internet as imagined by me. A long way to go for a witticism, I know, but imagine a culture with a language something like Mandarin where words are built up out of simpler constructs trying to come up with a representation of this crazy new technology. Okay so maybe it isn't that witty. It's not, I will point out, the title of this incarnation of my blog.
• A half dozen other clever/cute combinations of words - these I can't even remember, only the feeling of deflation as I realized that a) they were too clever by half and only revealed that I was trying too hard and b) I was spending uncountable hours on titling my blog and not on actually writing for it. More on procrastination later.
• Frommitz' Patented All-Purpose Thingamebobby Collecting Contraption. One split-second of shame later and I'd simplified this to "All-Purpose Stuff Collector." Which I can live with. For now. I'll probably revisit this. Can you tell I think about doing stuff more than I actually get stuff done? Thought so.