software licensing is a good model but firms like broadcast.com, yahoo, excite, lycos have proven that providing a service matters more than software
the inherent weakness in being a software company is microsoft crushing you
ironically it may be harder for any giant to crush a service
with a service microsoft's edge isn't as good as with software
software relies on the OS more while services are open to internet protocols
the new OS is the Internet itself, every link on every home page or Web site is the code for this new OS
being a service company allows you to grow not based on technology investment internally but by the investment of others to make better internet server software
said another way, a small company cannot compete in the software business if the giants want that space -- microsoft wants the multimedia streaming media space, that's what windows media player is all about
but microsoft had to buy into msnbc and the cable firms it invested in since they were based on programming and brands, in some cases, brands stronger than microsoft
microsoft understands software but not media
the internet is more media like than software like, the experience itself of using the internet is more valuable (in my view) than the technology behind it
just as watching tv -- the superbowl for example -- costs several $million for an ad. what's changed technologically between superbowl sunday and the sunday before or after it? nothing. you're watching the same tv with the same technology behind it
the programming, brands and context make superbowl sunday more valuable
this is a service and shows how 'service' is more valuable than technology
i believe service wins, that's why yahoo has done so well, and amazon, and ebay, and earthlink and mindspring
that's also why netscape ended up losing the internet game -- it thought of itself as a 'software' company and played according to microsoft's rules: code warriors, browser-a-browser, server-a-server, mano-a-mano
service wins in my book
|
