Jean,
SEBL seems like the best software play I can do, on top of my MSFT.
Time will tell if it is the best applications software provider to invest in, but I'll be surprised and disappointed if it doesn't prove to be one of the best. But there is no slam dunk. We need to watch the ERP players' progress and others who might decide in the future to compete.
SEBL is MUCH bigger (I think) than any other in it's space of web-enabled CRM, right?
Leave out the web-enabled and you've definitely got it right. However, the term, web-enabled, is a sensitive one. A long time ago I asked an expert software guy about the difference between "web-enabled" softare and "web-based" software. I got a great and long answer that made sense at the time. But the innuendo that distinguishes the two is subtle enough for a non-techie like me that I couldn't repeat it to you. The forum his post is located in longer provides access to previous posts.
The issue of web-enablement is important. Web enablement IS the future of CRM software, if not the present. The companies that are the most successful at it in the shortest time frame have a distinct advantage over the competitors.
Siebel Systems's products are being criticized for not being web-enabled, despite Thomas Siebel's insistence to the contrary. Granted, one of the people saying that is the ever biased Larry Ellison. But consider this from page 277 of the manual, version 2.0:
"The vendors that built their technology around traditional client/server computing have all been forced to rearchitect their technology around zero install client computing. Siebel, who has a really 'big' piece of software, what its competitors would call a 'fat client,' probably has more rearchitecting to do than most of the other vendors. Vendors like Oracle, who arrived later to the CRM game, pretty much bypassed the whole client/server wave and instead bnuilt their technology with zero install client computing from the beginning." (If you haven't read the revised manual, zero install computing is what I think you and I are calling web-enabled computing.)
[Siebel Systems] REALLY dominate their space and their competition has been totally inept ...
I wouldn't go so fas as to call them inept. Clarify has been doing a superior job for a couple years now, having recovered from a disatrous attempt to integrate an acquisition a few years ago. Vantive, despite its many mis-steps, is still the third largest (measured by revenue) in the market. That's out of literally hundreds of front office software companies. Chimps maybe, but not inept.
{Siebel has} Weak competitors(but lots), relatively NON-mass market(CRM), but very advanced technically, from what I understand. And their customer management is something else, a la Cisco.
Agreed.
GMST seems like a good product that might possibly take off in a major way, if it has not already.
Stew and others who have seen the product tell me it's the most robust of the IPGs. As my earlier post mentioned, data indicates that the product has a LONG way to go with huge upside potential.
Risk: High, but less than Qcom
I'm not sure whether you're talking about Siebel or Gemstar. Because Gemstar might or might not be in the tornado yet, I think their risk is still higher than Qualcomm's. My opinion about that can change on any day that a major announcement is made about pending litigation.
If you're talking about Siebel, I'm not sure I agree with you there either. Perhaps more important is that I always view risk in the context of opportunity. I like Qualcomm's risk/reward scenario better because of the hugely larger opportunity for Qualcomm. Don't forget that enabling technologies have a LOT more power over competitors than applications software.
About Gemstar, you mention More "chasm" potential as their market is VERY Mass Market. What do you mean by "chasm potential." You lost me.
You also mention that not for a long time will it be a Global mass-market guide (I think). Why would it not be for a long time? If they become the gorilla, Gemstar will have all the abilities to protect its turf for a long time that any gorilla has.
We all know about the Q, it's opportunities and it's risks. i.e. GSM not dying and CDMA Not taking the world by storm, and of couse, with the handset sale, can they grow REVENUES fast enough by being a fabless semi maker (admittedly with a LOT of patents <smile>)
I'm with you until I see your emphasis on revenue. Under Q's new business model, revenue will be important but less important than growing margins and increasing earnings. I'd even say that the way they put to use the billions of new-found cash might be more important (and thus greater risk) than any of the above.
[Qualcomm is a GORILLA in CDMA But King ONLY in the cell/wireless area, a.k.a. GSM, TDMA etc.
I hope I don't offend you, but that comment makes me think you might not understand the difference between a king and a gorilla. To say that Qualcomm is a king in any market is to say that they have twice the market share of the next closest competitor. Besides, Qualcomm doesn't compete in the GSM or TDMA market area that I know of.
Am I completely out to lunch my friend ?
Not at all! I'd be happy to take you or anyone in this thread out to lunch. Then we can be out to lunch together!
--Mike Buckley |
