IBM Adopts Solaris! - BladeCenter Gets a Leg Up

You've probably seen, the Solaris team just cleared the 3,000,000 licenses downloaded milestone today! OUTSTANDING WORK, folks! (And you're more than a year ahead of schedule.)

We continue to see more and more software providers and customers joining up - even governments are looking to the open source license and governance model we're using as a great foundation for local industrial and economic development. (In fact, I was with officials from the government of Venezuela last week, and this was a hot topic of discussion - I was stunned to learn that despite being an OPEC nation, only 5% of Venezuela's population has network access. You can count on free and open source software playing a prominent role in bringing the remainder on-line).

And if you ever wanted proof that volume drives value, I'm pleased to announce we've signed up our first tier 1 systems vendor as a Solaris supporter: it's IBM, and their decision to provide comprehensive support for Solaris on Bladecenter definitely puts them ahead of the other blade vendors in offering a truly OS neutral product.

As a result of our agreement, IBM will be adding value to BladeCenter, optimizing Solaris for IBM hardware offerings, adding volume to the Solaris community, and proving that the best choice for customers is, in fact, real choice. It sends a clear message to IBM accounts that Solaris is now a top tier option for BladeCenter deployments.

This first step in extending the IBM/Sun relationship we announced back in July, now drives a very interesting value proposition for IBM against HP and Dell. Only Sun and IBM can say they support all the volume OS's on industry standard hardware - Solaris, Windows and Red Hat Linux. But HP and Dell look to be limiting their market opportunities.

To that end, to my colleagues at Dell and HP: the invitation remains open: we'd love to partner around the fastest growing open source operating system the market's ever seen. With customers demanding more choice, now's exactly the *wrong* time to lean proprietary. How long are you willing to give IBM the advantage?

Posted on 11:04PM Oct 26, 2005 |

Share this post  | | | | | |

OpenOffice.org, AJAX and Common Sense

First, let me start by congratulating the global OpenOffice.org community for setting version 2.0 free to the world - you have my heartfelt congratulations (but you were a day early for having a great birthday!). With 50,000,000 downloads and counting, we have all clearly established OpenOffice.org, and its enterprise supported cousin StarOffice, as the most popular cross platform app suite the world's ever seen - for academics, individuals, developing nations, and enterprises looking to save millions.

But Sun's announcement with Google seems to have fueled a ton of speculation about what happens next with OpenOffice - speculation that seems to end in "now they can rewrite OpenOffice.org in AJAX." So I'd like to talk about why we're not driving the community to simply rewrite OpenOffice.org in AJAX.

Before I receive 2,000 email critiques, you should know my roots are in desktop software. So lest you think I'm coming at this from the perspective of a knuckle dragging big iron computer guy, that's not me.

As a software guy, here's a simple (though often irritating) rule behind user oriented software: The language in which a product is written has nothing to do with the value it conveys. Coming from the company that produced Java technology, that probably sounds a little odd. But it's a simple truth, especially when it comes to users: if the app's no good, it's no good, even if it's implemented in Java. Or PHP. Or Rails.

For whatever reason, the first internet boom led a very broad developer audience somewhat astray with opportunity - no end of new software products were produced that were, in essence, simply old products either rewritten, or built to run through a browser. Granted, many succeeded. But at least as many (actually, way more) failed. Why?

Because rewriting an app simply to use a new toolkit isn't creating value for consumers. Creating an application or service that delivers unique value is what captures users. And the internet gave some developers a tremendous opportunity to deliver unique value - by radically simplifying basic networking, enabling connectivity and community on a truly global scale.

So then, what's up with the future of OpenOffice.org? Or FlickR? Or Firefox? Or Google Earth? Or iTunes?

First, note that none of these apps are written as browser based applications - but all of them are focused on capturing users and delivering unique value through the network. Could they be rewritten in AJAX? Sure. But why? They're all capturing users and delivering value today. (I included Firefox for a reason - to point out that some things just wouldn't make sense rewritten in AJAX.) Could an AJAX interface be used to extend some portion of their functionality? No question, yes - the diversity of requirements on the internet is giving services an opportunity to project multiple user experiences (thus, the app to upload your photos is different than the service that let's you browse them).

Could these apps I mention, above, be enhanced with better network connectivity, more collaboration, and better integration into your daily life? Absolutely.

So if you want to know what the future portends for OpenOffice.org, that's a fine place to start (and AJAX will likely play a role).

But the single biggest achievement of the OpenOffice.org community is that they've driven broad global adoption, in the face of a competitor not known for being gentle. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, "so what's next?" But it's also important to note how OpenOffice got to where it is - by focusing first, and foremost, on delivering value for users. Not picking a technology to highlight (although there were plenty to pick from).

There is a rich and fruitful future in front of OpenOffice.org, based upon focusing on user experience and creating value. A point with which BusinessWeek clearly agrees.

Stay tuned.

Posted on 10:37PM Oct 20, 2005 | Comments[8]

Share this post  | | | | | |

Brands, Parody and Competitive Advantage

I had the pleasure of being interviewed, along with Mitchell Baker, by Tim O'Reilly at his Web2.0 conference last week. Notwithstanding my disagreement with Tim over the dynamics of the software industry (which boils down to his belief that open source matters more than free software, my assertion that the opposite is true - watch the first few minutes of the interview (still searching for a link), you'll see the sparring start), it was a good dialog. One of these days, Tim, you and I should sit down in front of a podcast and hash it out.

What we didn't spend a lot of time talking about, given that the focus seemed to be more on source code than free software, is the value of brands. Brands, and reputation, are everything in a community. (And that's not to dismiss the value of advertising, which some are quick to do, just to point out that brands are more like billboards you can't buy, they run in people's heads.)

Brands are only increasing in value on the 'net - when price is no longer a differentiator (as most services will trend to free), only three things are going to be relevant. Brands, communities and convenience.

To kick off that focus, I figured I'd share with you a video parody we did of the brand surrounding "good enough" computing. A concept that seems to be losing its sheen, helped along by $70/barrel oil, high real estate prices and a few other realities.

Dell seems to be the company whose customers face most of those realities - at least that's what we consistently hear. So we're sending an open letter to their customers tomorrow, first showing up in the Financial Times. Which really highlights Dell's focus and brand around selling things cheaply; and Sun's focus on innovation - backed up with data for handy comparison. It's great to once again have the best servers in the market.

Interestingly, the New York Times refused to run the ad*. Reminding me once again, the best thing about the internet is it doesn't have an editorial policy.

So here's the ad/open letter. Click the image for the .pdf version. And of course, feel free to print and distribute freely :)

_______________

* my opinion, it was the mouse type...

Posted on 11:04PM Oct 10, 2005 | Comments[2]

Share this post  | | | | | |

Putting the Sun/Google Partnership in Context

Do you remember back to the clash in New York a few years ago - pitting a cable television network (Cablevision) against a powerful sports franchise (The New York Yankees)? Cablevision deemed Yankees games "premium" content and priced them accordingly - the Yankees felt such a decision minimized their audience and filed suit, claiming the operator was exercising monopoly control over price and distribution. The net result - given Cablevision's extraordinary market reach - few New Yorkers could watch Yankees games while they worked out the kerfuffle. That's an example of a distributor having (in the short run) more power than the owner of content (ironically known in the industry as "programming"). MLB.com came to everyone's rescue, delivering an incredible breadth of major league baseball programming to anyone with an internet connection - the network is the ball game. (Go check out MLB.com, it's one of the finest internet sites out there.)

All that said, there are few cable operators powerful enough to skip over the big franchise content brands, like HBO, or ESPN - if your consumer offering lacks their programming, you're going to have a tough time selling service to consumers. Some folks get cable, after all, just for ESPN.

In the personal computer industry, such a conflict has existed for a long while - the distributor (Microsoft) has legendarily had the power over what programming (software, in this case) is distributed with the underlying Windows platform. Implying non-Windows products and programming have a higher hurdle to clear in earning a path to consumers - a barrier cleared only by value.

Two of the internet's most valuable brands have clearly achieved that status: Java and Google. Could you imagine a PC that couldn't access Java services? Or how about a browser that couldn't get to Google? My view, either would be a tough sell. Other programming, such as Macromedia Flash, Firefox and OpenOffice are in the same league - along with services such as Yahoo.com, eBay, or AOL.com. The world of network services is enormously competitive, and it's driving enormous innovation (and quite a few deals harkening back to the early days of the internet). Much of this next wave of innovation is referred to as Web 2.0 - the convergence of technology and services that underlie the Participation Age.

Now, the volume distribution of Java (there are hundreds of millions of runtimes out there), coupled with the extraordinary success of the standards supported by OpenOffice (most recently in Massaschusetts), create an opportunity to partner with one of the hottest network service providers, Google. A point we confirmed in announcing our partnership yesterday.

So, what are we going to do together?

First things first, we're going to complement one another's volume distribution. Google's looking to reach consumers with their next generation search client, as are we looking to reach more consumers, and simplify the user experience. By joining together, we can achieve far greater mutual reach for Java, OpenOffice and Google. The two of us continue to define choice, value and freedom to an ever growing internet. The best way to get people to participate on the web is give them the Tools of Participation. For free. And as more folks realize the deficiencies of a "submit button internet," Java's role is only growing.

Second, we're going to drive platform innovations. Stay tuned for more on where this is headed, but notice the fact that Google is a member of the Java Community Process, the collaborative effort that drives the Java platform. We're both big believers in client platform development, from AJAX to Java and OpenSolaris, and the era of rich clients is on its way back (it actually never left, but that's another blog). If you've seen what you can do with Limewire or Zimbra, you have to believe the demise of the Submit button may be upon us.

Where will our collaboration take us - great question. Stay tuned. (And please don't read in to my comments that I'm not convinced the world needs an AJAX office suite (any more than we need an AJAX browser) as anything more than a perspective on today's reality.

Third, we're getting down to business - Google's acquiring a growing array of Sun products and technologies for their business. And we (like it seems most of the planet) are continuing to be a loyal Google customer.

The net of all this (sorry for the pun)? If you have the time and wherewithal, I'd recommend you watch Eric's opening speech during yesterday morning's festivities - in which he talks about Google being built atop an open, neutral, interoperable network. The growth of that network is of value to Sun, and to Google - and to consumers the world over. And earning a path to those consumers and broader opportunity comes only through value - value in services, in technology, and in the choices delivered by freely available, and increasingly open source software.

The good news is, we're not the only ones saying that now - this is the start of conveying that message to the whole world.

Posted on 10:10PM Oct 05, 2005 |

Share this post  | | | | | |

The Value in Volume

How did you buy software a couple decades ago (for those old enough to remember)?

You went to your local retailer (or back then, they sent a sales rep), you bought a box, with a manual, 20 floppy disks, and a heavy carton. As a software company, you had to pay for the distributor, pay for the cost of packaging, and you asked customers to pay for the products before they were used. The companies that had the most power in the industry were those that owned the "distribution" networks (which back then were store retailers and direct salesforces, if you can believe it).

The rise of PC software obviously changed that - the distribution network was no longer the physical distribution network, it was displaced by the logical distribution called Microsoft Windows. You used what came bundled into Windows, and got a new slug of functionality each time you upgraded. It was a good gig.

But now how do you "buy" software? You go to yahoo.com, or java.sun.com, or opentable.com, and you use what they offer - for free. Software as a service has done more than introduce a technical revolution in the delivery of software (no more upgrades, just hit the reload button). It's fundamentally changed the business model. (David Kirkpatrick has some good thoughts.)

The first thing the internet did was allow companies to bypass Microsoft's legendary distribution power. From eBay to Google to opentable.com, the rise of industry standards allowed services to emerge on an open network platform. From community services to dinner reservations, no one can possibly doubt the immense volume and value of innovation delivered through a browser. But the technology, frankly, was less valuable than the services themselves. I did say was.

Frankly, all of these services are trying to outrun Windows Vista and Office 12 - with which Microsoft will once again attempt to recover the distribution advantage, preloading Windows, Internet Explorer and Office with Microsoft content and services. They argue it's necessary to secure the platform, 3rd parties and government officials argue it's anti-competitive. You pick.

But there are a couple of trends running counter to this looming force - especially among consumers. The trend is away from the upgrade cycle that benefits this traditional notion of distribution. For example, when's the last time you upgraded your set top box? The answer's probably never, and suggests that at a certain level, convenience has more value to consumers than the hassle of upgrading. Or ask a teenager which they'd rather have, a new iPod Nano, or a new PC, I'll bet you money it's the former (underlying the global trend that suggests more of the world will experience the internet through handsets than PC's).

Or finally, as I did last week at a keynote, ask the audience which they'd rather give up - their browser, or all the rest of their desktop apps. (Unanimously, they'd all give up the latter without a blink.) All these trends show a slowing upgrade appetite calling into question the power of traditional distribution. In stark contrast to the value of volume, community and participation.

Now, I have been nothing if not tediously repetitive in stating my belief that volume begets value - best demonstrated by the rise of the free software movement (whose volume is derived from its price, its value from innovation, in all forms). The cost of reaching customers, traditionally the most expensive part of building a business, has largely been eliminated - resulting in massive, global participation. Value's literally everywhere the network travels, on every device it touches (and it's subsidizing some very interesting ideas.)

But value is returning to the desktop applications, and not simply through Windows Vista. But in the form of applications that are network service platforms. From the obvious, to music sharing clients and development tools, there's a resurgence of interest in resident software that executes on your desktop, yet connects to network services. Without a browser. Like Skype. Or QNext. Or Google Earth. And Java? OpenOffice and StarOffice?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet the world was about to change. And that what just happened in Massachusetts, when a state government made what was to me a very rational statement - we will pick an open standard to protect the right of our citizens to access data and services; we will then buy from vendors that support standards - will be a shot heard 'round the world.

Strap on your seatbelts. Volume and value are about to speak...

Posted on 06:20PM Oct 01, 2005 | Comments[2]

Share this post  | | | | | |