Clarification on my Tibco comparison, hopefully!
I wanted to attempt to provide a clearer picture of why I see a lot of parallel between Tibco and Perceptronics, so here goes. Also, I do not see Tibco as a competitor. While logically, they do similar things, it's their models where I really see similarities.
Tibco is both a financial and a software company. The software side built a messaging infrastructure/framework used for high throughput messaging. Their messaging software product is one of the most viable publish/subscribe (PUSH) implementations available and it is built upon existing standard protocols (UDP, TCP, IP). These folks didn't build the protocols, they built a framework for high-end messaging that uses the protocols. If you were to build a stock ticker application that needed to support a vast amount of clients real-time, you could use Tibco's messaging framework. Instead of writing all of the code necessary to handle low-level messaging functions (communications, security, audit, etc.), you'd simply implement their framework and use the code provided. The framework saves you a huge amount of time and effort (not just in development, also in testing).
The financial side of Tibco develops products for the financial industry using the software side's messaging framework. Product offerings include Trade Systems, Order Execution, Inventory (assets), etc. This doesn't mean that Tibco's messaging product is only suitable for the investment industry; Tibco's messaging software is suitable for any environment that needs to pass around vast amounts of messages real-time to a large number of clients. The financial industry just happens to be Tibco's market specialization. A key point is that Tibco was a financial company before they were a software company. Their experience gave them a great deal of insight into high-throughput messaging needs. And as a result, they built what is arguably one of the best messaging products around. Anyone can build a messaging product, the protocols are standards that anyone can use. Tibco's experience in an industry that was totally high-throughput messaging oriented gave them an edge!
Another side of Tibco is their consulting business. For instance, when NASDAQ decided to use Tibco's messaging software to handle it's messaging needs, do you think they implemented it all themselves. No way! While I don't have specific info as to consulting services used, I'd bet a good deal of consulting fees were racked up as is usually the case.
So where's the similarities. Perceptronics is building a messaging infrastructure/framework for use in building real-time collaborative 3D applications. Their software is built upon existing protocols (HLA, RTI, IP) and serves to greatly simplify the process of building real-time collaborative 3D apps. Instead of building all the low-level messaging functions (communication, synchronization, compression, etc.), you simply use their framework and write to their API. The amount of time and effort saved is HUGE. Does this mean that Perceptronics is the only company that could build this stuff, no. Other companies could write the same sort of software, HLA, RTI, and IP are open protocols. But who has the edge? I'd have to say the company that pioneered real-time 3D simulation for the DOD is in the driver's seat.
Another similarity is in product development. While I don't know if Perceptronics will, alone, develop 3D apps using their own infrastructure, it does appear that they are putting partnerships together to do just that. Look at Shout Interactive - these folks are HOT in the VRML world. Likewise, look at Skyline, the work they're doing is very impressive. It appears that Perceptronics is building teams that will allow them to reap benefits from content production while focusing on their core competency, IC3D. Also, keep in mind that just because Perceptronics, an expert in simulation, is using IC3D to write simulation apps, this does not mean that simulation is the only app applicable to IC3D; IC3D may be used in any application that requires real-time collaborative 3D.
Last but not necessarily least, there's the consulting angle. If IC3D proves to be THE framework for developing real-time collaborative 3D apps, you can bet your &^%$ these folks will be making a pretty penny from consulting services. While their product simplifies the process, the process is probably anything but simple. Most likely, companies that choose to use IC3D as their standard for development will want both consulting and training.
Like I've said before, there's a lot about this company's tech that I still don't know. However, what I do know excites the &*^% out of me. These guys pioneered 3D simulation, they've hit all published deadlines (they know how to develop), they appear to be making smart partnerships, they're continually receiving both local and federal funding, they know how to grow a business (they've been big before), they've got less than 6 million shares outstanding, they've brought people experienced in target markets onto the board, their developing a product that could possibly be huge, AND THEY'RE PRICED AT A BUCK. How many $6 million dollar companies look this attractive?
JN
p.s. - It's the last book I write, promise:)
|
