SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/16/2009 1:55:30 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
New Enterprise Associates Said to Be Raising $2.5 Billion Fund

By Tim Mullaney

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- New Enterprise Associates, the venture-capital firm that invested in Juniper Networks Inc. and Salesforce.com Inc., has almost completed raising a $2.5 billion fund, two people familiar with the matter said.

The fund will close shortly after the California Public Employee Retirement System formally makes a commitment to invest, said the people, who declined to be identified because the details are confidential. The firm said in a regulatory filing on Dec. 18 that it might raise as much as $3 billion. Kate Barrett, a spokeswoman for New Enterprise, declined to comment.

The fund, which at $2.5 billion would be tied for the fifth-biggest in the venture-capital industry’s history, suggests that the largest firms can still raise money in the midst of a recession. Investments will fall 10 percent or more next year, as venture firms demand lower prices for fledgling companies, the National Venture Capital Association said in a study last month.

“The big firms can do what they want, because everyone knows this fund may be your one chance to get in,” said Lise Buyer, a former venture capitalist who consults for companies preparing to go public. New Enterprise usually only takes money from pension funds and foundations it has dealt with before, she said. “If you can get in, you can stay in.”

The fund will reflect the firm’s emphasis on the health care industry, the people said. New Enterprise, based in Menlo Park, California, and Chevy Chase, Maryland, hired four new partners last year. Three focus on health care, including former MedImmune Inc. Chief Executive Officer David Mott, according to New Enterprise Associates’ Web site.

13th Fund

The fund will be the 13th raised by New Enterprise Associates since 1978. About 60 percent of the new money will be invested in emerging companies, with the rest slated for deals involving larger businesses, such as divisions or product lines of existing companies, the people said.

New Enterprise Associates’ fund comes as partners in many venture funds are being forced to sell off their stakes. The secondary market for venture stakes has doubled in size since mid-2007, said Hans Swildens, a principal at Industry Ventures LLC, a San Francisco-based firm that buys stakes in venture capital funds.

The value of venture stakes traded on secondary markets fell to 61 percent of their original value in the second half of the year, from 85 percent in the first half, Dallas-based Cogent Partners reported Jan. 8. Cogent represents institutional investors buying and selling positions in venture and private- equity funds.

Scaling Back

Plunging stock markets have forced universities and pension funds to scale back their venture capital investments. Many institutional investors have written guidelines that limit the percentage of assets they can devote to venture capital, private equity and other “alternative investments.”

Even New Enterprise Associates, which has invested in more companies than any other venture firm since 2002, had to scramble to get its deal done, said Dixon Doll, co-founder and general partner at Doll Capital Management in Menlo Park.

Calpers had to get a waiver from its investment guidelines to be able to participate, Doll said.

Calpers raised the percentage of assets it can invest in private equity, including both venture capital and buyout funds, to 18 percent from 13 percent on Dec. 15, Calpers spokesman Brad Pacheco said. He said he didn’t know whether the pension fund would invest in New Enterprise Associates’ new fund.

“Because of market volatility, our funds have gotten out of their target ranges,” Pacheco said. “We expanded the ranges to give our staff more flexibility.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Tim Mullaney in New York at tmullaney1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 16, 2009 00:01 EST



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/16/2009 2:02:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Bartz’s Challenges at Autodesk Resemble Yahoo Malaise (Update1)

By Brian Womack

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Joel Orr had a dream job as a distinguished fellow at software maker Autodesk Inc., guiding the company’s technology strategy. When Carol Bartz arrived as chief executive officer in 1992, Orr was soon let go.

“It was done in a very businesslike way,” Orr said in an interview. “Money was going out in a lot of directions. The first thing was to establish the company on solid footing.”

Bartz, who became Yahoo’s CEO this week, will need to balance cutting the fat at the Internet company against efforts to stem a talent drain of executives and engineers. A three-year stock slide and dwindling market share have weighed on morale. Former CEO Jerry Yang agreed in November to step down after rejecting a $47.5 billion takeover bid by Microsoft Corp.

Bartz’s style should inspire loyalty among employees at Yahoo, said Steven West, founder of the consulting firm Emerging Company Partners LLC in Incline Village, Nevada.

“There are a lot of people that will want to step up and work with her,” said West, who sits on Autodesk’s board. “She’s a team builder, but she expects people to toe the line.”

The leadership drain at Yahoo picked up pace last year. Qi Lu, senior vice president of search and advertising technology, left in June, resurfacing at Microsoft in December as head of its online services unit. Jeff Weiner, former head of the network unit, and Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, co-founders of the Flickr photo-sharing site, also departed in June, as did senior vice presidents Vish Makhijani and Brad Garlinghouse.

Engineer Cabal

Overhauling Autodesk, the San Rafael, California-based provider of computer-aided design software, was hardly an easy task for Bartz. While sales were growing, the company struggled with a loose “cabal” of engineers who held too much influence, making it rudderless, said Charles Foundyller, CEO of research firm Daratech Inc. in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Cliques formed into different camps, he said.

“They were in danger of a train wreck,” Foundyller said.

Some Autodesk engineers were loyal to co-founder and former CEO John Walker, who helped drive the company’s growth. Some of these developers were scared of Bartz and felt she wasn’t technical enough to run a business like Autodesk, said Orr, the former employee of the software maker.

“The technologists were kind of on top of the food chain,” Orr said. “That didn’t always lead to wise business decisions. Carol changed that. She made it a business.”

Bartz assembled a group of lieutenants who implemented her ideas without second-guessing, Orr said. Eventually, the engineers came around.

Respected

“She wound up being respected by pretty much everyone,” Orr said.

Female chief executives were rare in technology at the time, and Autodesk was especially male-dominated, said Kathleen Maher, an analyst at Jon Peddie Research in Tiburon, California. On top of that, she battled breast cancer in the days after joining the company.

“Don’t expect rash decisions,” Maher said. Bartz took time to learn about Autodesk and didn’t “crack the whip” immediately, she said. She’ll likely “reshuffle the deck in terms of putting in a senior management team.”

Yahoo rose 30 cents to $11.91 at 9:45 a.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. Before today, the shares had lost almost three-quarters of their value since January 2006.

Profit has declined in 10 of the past 11 quarters. Fresh leadership and a new direction for the company, even in the face of a recession, may encourage people to stay, said Bob Forman, of RLForman & Associates, an executive search firm in Charleston, South Carolina.

“Everybody likes a good fight,” Forman said. “Everybody likes to be a bit of an underdog and come back. That’s what the Silicon Valley is known for.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Womack in San Francisco at bwomack1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 16, 2009 09:50 EST



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/16/2009 2:16:37 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Jobs' Privacy vs. Investors' Right to Know

abcnews.go.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/16/2009 2:33:54 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Can Apple Fill the Void?
__________________________________________________

By BRAD STONE
The New York Times
January 16, 2009

It has been in the air for some time, but Apple can dodge the question no longer: How important is Steven P. Jobs to its future?

By all accounts, Mr. Jobs’s perfectionism, autocratic managerial style and disregard for conventional wisdom are at the heart of Apple’s remarkable streak of success.

Since he returned to Apple in 1996, the company has set a new standard for design in personal computers, built a chain of sleek and always-crowded stores, jump-started the sale of digital music and turned the mobile phone into a fun, flexible computer.

This is clearly the stuff of business legend. But now the company faces the real possibility that its inspirational leader may fade from the scene. Mr. Jobs, Apple’s co-founder and chief executive, said on Wednesday that he was taking a leave of absence from Apple until June because his health issues — he is a survivor of pancreatic cancer — are “more complicated” than he first thought.

That terse letter, after he had played down his illness just last week, left Apple watchers asking what might happen to the company if Mr. Jobs does not return in June as planned.

Analysts are quick to point out the strength of the company’s management bench. Timothy D. Cook, its longtime chief operating officer, will take over at least temporarily and is responsible for Apple’s manufacturing and sales operation, which are the envy of the consumer electronics industry. Jonathan Ive, Apple’s design chief, runs the team that has created much of the functional, visceral and emotional allure of Apple products, whose design ambitions extend right down to its elegant packaging.

But some Apple watchers and former employees are skeptical about Apple’s fate if it is forced to soldier on without Mr. Jobs.

“If you look at the history, Apple can coast for several years and still do very well,” said Paul Mercer, who worked for Apple in the 80s and subsequently developed software that was used to design the user interface for the first iPod. “But it’s very risky, and without Steve, the long term is untenable.”

The stories about Mr. Jobs are well known, like his insistence that even the insides of the Macintosh computer, which hardly anyone ever sees, should look good. His obsession with detail permeates everything Apple does, and that principle will certainly not disappear from the company if he is gone.

But there are other aspects of his role that do not get as much attention and may be more difficult to replace. At many technology companies, various divisions often work at cross purposes, competing with one other to develop related products. This can lead to devices and software that are sometimes incompatible, frustrating customers.

Mr. Jobs, former Apple employees say, has the authority and long-term vision to yoke Apple managers and employees together under a single cause.

“Steve is terrific at attracting and retaining people, creating an agenda and getting people to stick to it,” said Stephen G. Perlman, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who was a principal scientist at Apple in the 1980s. “It’s very hard to find somebody who is so credible, and who has such a strong following that he is able to cut through corporate politics.”

Mr. Jobs has also been Apple’s chief deal maker. After introducing the iTunes store in 2003, he persuaded entertainment companies to sell digital versions of their products when they were largely bivouacked, hiding in fear of piracy. In large part because of Mr. Jobs’s efforts, those barriers have fallen, though other challenges remain like getting the Hollywood studios to relax their restrictions on renting or downloading movies over the Internet.

In their moments of great anxiety, Apple fans look back to the late ’80s and early ’90s for a glimpse of Apple without Mr. Jobs. After he was ousted in a boardroom coup in 1985, Apple actually thrived for several years, unveiling the first Mac with a color screen, the PowerBook laptop and QuickTime, which broke ground in bringing video to personal computers.

But then, to the horror of its diehard fans, Apple withered. Its stock fell 68 percent from its 1991 peak to Mr. Jobs’s triumphant return in 1996.

In the meantime, three chief executives came and went, and Apple’s core product, the Macintosh, did not evolve as fast as computers based on Microsoft Windows.

Part of the problem, say people who were at Apple during the lean years, could be traced back to Mr. Jobs himself: he had not allowed anyone with talents similar to his own to rise at the company. Some think that may also be true today.

“Steve’s personality is such that he had not brought up other people who could do what he does. He’s the kind of person who pushes away people who are like himself,” said Ted Kaehler, who worked on the original team that developed the first graphical user interface at the research center known as Xerox Parc, and he later worked at Apple in the ’80s.

But some Apple watchers are reluctant to use the past as a guide. Andrew Hertzfeld, who helped develop the original Macintosh and now works at Google, says that Apple has had 12 more years under Mr. Jobs’s leadership to soak up his unique values.

He also notes that products already in the pipeline — which analysts say may include new iMacs and smaller iPhones — already bear Mr. Jobs’s imprint and can sustain Apple for years to come. “It will take half a decade for the absence of Steve to really show up in the products,” Mr. Hertzfeld said.

Some think Mr. Jobs’s imprint on Apple could last even longer, perhaps for decades, even if for some reason he is unable to come back in June. James W. Breyer, an influential Silicon Valley venture capitalist, sits on the board of Wal-Mart and says the values of its founder, Sam Walton, still drive the retailer 17 years after his death.

“I can’t recall a board meeting where Sam’s spirit and contribution have not been cited in some way,” Mr. Breyer said. “In the same way, I expect Steve Jobs, through his genius, will always represent the DNA of Apple.”

After the initial shock of Mr. Jobs’s letter sent Apple’s stock sharply lower in after-hours trading on Wednesday, investors were a little calmer on Thursday. The shares fell 2.3 percent to $83.38.

Still, there are those who worry that Mr. Jobs’s absence will have an impact even beyond Apple.

“The whole world is concerned about Apple. I’m concerned about Silicon Valley,” said Mr. Perlman, the entrepreneur. “I need Apple to be harrying Microsoft. We need someone stirring the pot. God forbid that there is no one stirring the pot anymore. We’ll become Detroit.”

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/16/2009 4:29:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
FirstDocs gets $3 Million in backing
________________________________________________________

[from Mass High Tech: The Journal of New England Technology]

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Westwood-based FirstDocs Inc. has received a $3 million Series A funding from Boulder, Colorado venture capital firm Foundry Group, the website PE Hub reported, citing regulatory filings.

FirstDocs makes document management and sharing software for the legal industry.

Foundry had disclosed the investment on its blog on Jan. 6, but had not specified an amount.

In that blog post, the company noted that FirstDocs does not fit Foundry’s typical investment themes, which it describes as startups that “have the ability to drive a cycle of innovation (and hence provide multiple investment opportunities) over a period of five to ten years or more.”

However, FirstDocs CEO Dan Gaffney contacted Foundry partner Jason Mendelson after reading some of Mendelson’s ideas on inefficiencies in the legal business (this was a result of what Mendelson wrote in a post on his personal blog). Foundry said it was comfortable with Gaffney’s business plan based on its previous success as an investor in the legal e-Discovery provider Stratify Inc., acquired by storage company Iron Mountain Inc. in 2007 for $158 million.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/16/2009 6:42:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Another GP Parting Ways with Sequoia
_______________________________________________________________

Posted on Private Equity Hub - January 16th, 2009

Last year, we reported that Pierre Lamond is quietly segueing out of Sequoia Capital. Turns out that Mark Stevens, a partner at the firm since 1989, is also transitioning slowly out of the firm, he told me earlier today.

“I’m still on the boards of a handful of companies. I still have an office at Sequoia. But I’m not a GP in the latest [$930 million] fund [announced in September],” said Stevens, who is now spending a good chunk of his time working on his nonprofit interests; with USC, whose investment committee Stevens co-chairs; and on the board of the public school that his children attend.

I asked Stevens if his focus on semiconductors — an unfashionable area of investment these days — played a role in his decision to scale back at the firm. He said no.

“I do think the number of new white space opportunities in [the] semiconductor [industry] is fewer than a decade ago, and that Sequoia and the rest of the venture community realizes that and therefore less money gets allocated to semiconductors and components,” said Stevens. Nevertheless, he added, “If I still wanted to work 60 hour weeks, there are plenty of other categories I could have spent time in [at the firm].”

Stevens added that Sequoia’s growing focus on more mature companies – for which it recently added several professionals with public investing experience — wasn’t a factor in his newly reduced role, either. “We’ve been late-stage investors since 1987. All our GPs work on both [Sequoia's early-stage and late-stage] funds.”

Stevens has grown rich at Sequoia over the years — so we see donations like the $22 million he gave to USC’s engineering school in 2004. Little wonder that going forward, he says that he’ll spend “a good chunk of my time just managing my own net worth and finding opportunities for my own balance sheet.”

In the meantime, he said, “I’m still working on building value for our investors at Sequoia.”

Stevens numerous past investments include AtWeb, acquired by Netscape for $95 million in stock in 1998, Billpoint, acquired by eBay in 1999 for $275 million, and publicly traded Terayon Communications, which IPO’d in 1998. Stevens still sits on the boards of Sequoia-backed Miradia and MobilePeak, both chip companies, as well as the wireless communication company Rayspan.




To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/17/2009 3:27:34 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Madoff's fund may not have made a single trade

reuters.com

Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:55am EST

By Jason Szep

BOSTON (Reuters) - Bernie Madoff's investment fund may never have executed a single trade, industry officials say, suggesting detailed statements mailed to investors each month may have been an elaborate mirage in a $50 billion fraud.

An industry-run regulator for brokerage firms said on Thursday there was no record of Madoff's investment fund placing trades through his brokerage operation.

That means Madoff either placed trades through other brokerage firms, a move industry officials consider unlikely, or he was not executing trades at all.

"Our exams showed no evidence of trading on behalf of the investment advisor, no evidence of any customer statements being generated by the broker-dealer," said Herb Perone, spokesman for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Madoff's broker-dealer operation, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, underwent routine examinations by FINRA and its predecessor, the National Association of Securities Dealers, every two years since it opened in 1960, Perone said.

Madoff, a former chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market who was a force on Wall Street for nearly 50 years, allegedly confessed to his sons the firm's investment-advisory business was "basically a giant Ponzi scheme" and "one big lie," according to court documents.

He estimated losses of at least $50 billion from the Ponzi scheme, which uses money from new investors to pay distributions and redemptions to existing investors. Such schemes typically collapse when new funds dry up.

Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades conducted by his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a statement to one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft Corp, Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others.

It also showed transactions in Fidelity Investments' Spartan Fund. But Fidelity, the world's biggest mutual fund company, has no record of Madoff or his company making any investments in its funds.

"We are not aware of any investments by Madoff in our funds on behalf of his clients," Fidelity spokeswoman Anne Crowley said in an e-mail to Reuters.

Neither Madoff nor his firm was a client of Fidelity's Institutional Wealth Services business, their clearing firm National Financial or a financial intermediary client of its institutional services arm, she said.

"Consequently, his firm did not work with our intermediary businesses through which firms invest their clients' money in Fidelity funds," she added.

There also appear to be discrepancies between monthly statements sent to investors and the actual prices at which the stocks traded on Wall Street.

For example, his November statement showed he bought software maker Apple Inc's securities at $100.78 each on November 12, about a month before his arrest.

But Apple's stock on that day never traded above $93.24. The statement also showed he bought chip maker Intel Corp at $14.51 on November 12, but Intel's highest price on that day was $13.97.

"You could print up any statements you want on the computer and send it out to a client and the chances are the client wouldn't know, because they are getting a statement," said Neil Hackman, president and chief executive of Oak Financial Group, a Stamford, Connecticut-based investment advisory firm.

To some, the numbers did not add up.

About 10 years ago, Harry Markopolos, then chief investment officer at Rampart Investment Management Co in Boston, asked risk management consultant Daniel diBartolomeo to run Madoff's numbers after Markopolos tried to emulate Madoff's strategy.

DiBartolomeo ran regression analyses and various calculations, but failed to reconcile them. For a decade, Markopolos raised the issue with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which has come under fire in Congress in recent weeks for failing to act on Markopolos's warnings.

(Additional reporting by Muralikumar Anantharaman; Editing by Andre Grenon)



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/17/2009 2:42:10 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Tim Cook and the State of the Mac

havemacwillblog.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/17/2009 2:56:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Forecasts 2009, IT Companies: Intel, Apple, Microsoft

havemacwillblog.com

Posted on January 13th, 2009 by Robin Bloor in IT Trends

It will not be surprising if every vendor I mention here sheds staff this year. Staff cuts and revenue reductions are poor ways to judge the success of companies in these parlous times. The economy is messing with our metrics. We should judge success by:

1. Movements in market share

2. Sustainability of business strategy

3. The profitability picture (not short term, but over the medium term - because there may be quarters where profits vanish into necessary restructuring)

Having said that, let’s consider the situation of Intel, Apple and Microsoft in that order…

Intel

Intel presents a mixed picture. It has done serious competitive damage to AMD in the x86 market. So in terms of market share, the situation looks positive, despite the fact that Intel’s revenues will inevitably suffer to some degree this year. The competitive challenge for Intel is that it must now compete with Nvidia and AMD’s subsidiary ATI in the graphics market. Graphics is where the action is on PCs, Macs and laptops, because the graphics card is doing most of the work. (To be honest you could put a puny cpu in many of these devices and as long as you plugged in sufficient memory and a powerful graphics card, the user wouldn’t notice.)

In theory Intel should be feeling the heat in the graphics market from both Nvidia and ATI, who appear to have superior technology. Nevertheless, Intel dominates the market and it actually increased its market share last year. It now has 47.3% of all desktop and notebook graphics, mainly because it has 57.1% of the notebook market - and that by the way, is the market that’s growing.

Aside from these competitors, there’s also IBM, which - just in case you hadn’t noticed - has about 100% of the home games machine market (if you only count the most recent consoles from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft.) As far as chips are concerned, IBM, like Intel, AMD and Nvidia is all about graphics. Ultimately, a computer game is 99.99% graphics and the most advanced graphics applications from that perspective run on IBM chips. There can be little doubt that IBM will ultimately come into direct competition with these other players. The battleground for that fight will most likely be around the “home entertainment center.” It’s too early to know how that market will pan out.

In my view Intel is doing better than it could have expected and that may be due to the effective leadership of Paul Otellini. I don’t think we need be concerned for Intel this year, unless we witness its market share slipping in any of its important markets.

Apple

My coverage of Apple is on-going so I’ll just upgrade it a little here. In case you’re unaware of it, my view is that Apple has broken Microsoft monopoly irreversibly, with the consequence that it can no longer be stopped in the desktop market or the laptop market. Microsoft, Dell, HP et al will simply have to get used to Apple having a growing share of those markets (by revenue.) I’d go as far as to say that “the Mac is now a saloon car, while the PC is a small run-around.” The products are not really in direct competition. If you want a Mac then you don’t really want a PC - and vice versa.

The more interesting aspect of Apple is that the iPhone is a much bigger success than anyone (including Apple) ever expected it to be. Apple has single-handedly recreated the mobile phone market and recreated it in its own image. The App Store is a huge success that must be dispiriting for RIM and Nokia (the two also-rans in this market.) It was bad enough for them that Apple redefined what a mobile phone should be, now they’ve redefined what the business model should be. The mobile market is going to be important this year because preliminary signs indicate that it may not stop growing - at least in terms of corporate investment.

In a way it’s logical. There’s a technology revolution going on that reminds me a little of the application avalanche that occurred as the PC market developed. The old mobile phone is dying and now everyone and his country cousin wants to be in on the new device, which is at once (and by varyng degrees):

A mobile phone
A PDA
A geographical reference resource with GPS
A games machine
A web access device
A music/video player
An ebook reader
A camera

From here on in, it’s Apple’s to lose and there’s no indication that it will lose it. Most likely it will establish a monopoly that’s every bit as solid as it’s iPod monopoly has proved to be. The iPod is, of course, starting to fade, but the iPhone is much more powerful.

The recession will not stop Apple’s momentum, even if it succeeeds in holding down its share price.

Microsoft

Microsoft is looking very much like a sunset company these days. It was no secret in Redmond or anywhere else that it needed to go beyond the gushing revenues streams of Windows and MS Office and reinvent itself. It’s a rare event in industrial history that any vendor gets to be in such a powerful position as Microsoft achieved in the 1990s and it’s more than surprising that it has failed so clearly to carve out more territory.

Taking it piece by piece:

Server market: In the server market Microsoft has done really well. As far as business growth and technology direction is concerned, it has performed powerfully after a faltering start. This area of its business remains healthy, is populated by good products and is much to be admired.
The XBox: Had it not been for a surprising innovation from Nintendo, the XBox would now be the dominant games console and qualify as yet another stellar Seattle success. You cannot even accuse Microsoft of having failed to innovate. Microsoft has done well. It’s just that Nintendo did far better.
The Web: Microsoft has compeltely failed to dent Google’s dominance. Despite Ray Ozzie’s new initiative and his unbridled optimism, this is unlikely to change any time soon.
The Mobile World: Game, set and match to Apple.

That’s a mixed pciture and none of it would matter much were it not for the threatened state of the jewels in the Microsoft crown; Windows (as a PC OS) and MS Office (as PC Apps). Both of these are now under threat.

Windows Vista quite simply failed to compete with Apple’s OS X. This broke the Windows monopoly. So far it’s not as much of a disaster as it could be. Microsoft cannot compete effectively with Apple, because Apple does the whole business stack from the iron to the apps, including the channel to market. Apple can innovate at points in that stack where Microsoft has no position - and it does (think hardware design, think Apple Stores, think iTunes, etc.) The truth is that Microsoft cannot actually compete effectively with Apple at all.

This is not as much of a disaster as it might be, because Apple doesn’t want to own the PC market. But Microsoft’s partners (Dell, HP, Acer et al) are hurting. There is a possibility that one or two of them will hitch their wagon to PC linux in one of its varieties and head off in a non-Microsoft direction. Microsoft has played a very effective game of whack-a-mole (or whack-a-penguin perhaps) with Linux so far, smacking it down wherever it crops up. The more successful Apple is, the less likely that a whack-a-mole strategy will work against Linux.

The brightest jewel in the Microsoft crown is MS Office. There’s little doubt that MS Office in its various forms (Star Office from Sun, Open Office and Lotus Symphony) is drawing some users away from Microsoft and so are Zoho and Google Apps, but so far it doesn’t really qualify as a haemorrhage. If and when it does, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in Redmond.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/17/2009 4:37:23 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Obama plans to keep his BlackBerry

computerworld.com



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/17/2009 4:40:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
A new era in application delivery

computerworld.com

Robin Layland

January 15, 2009 (Network World) The CIO sends out an e-mail to his IT managers saying that because of the economic downturn, networking costs must be reduced.

At the same time, cost-saving projects such as consolidating branch office servers into the data center must be continued. End users are clamoring for improved response time to help increase productivity, no matter how much data the new Web applications or data center consolation creates.

The CIO also decides that there will be increased collaboration using telepresence and videoconferencing to reduce the travel budget.

Adding to the network manager's growing headache is that there is no letup when it comes to criminals and hackers attacking the network. The bad guys are now launching sophisticated and financially motivated attacks at the application layers with malware that is even harder to detect.

But the CIO does not want to see a flood of new security devices each with their own installation and maintenance cost.

On top of all that, the corporate compliance office is calling for the network to play its part in ensuring that the enterprise is in compliance with corporate policies and regulatory mandates. If something is violating the new rules and regulations, then the network manager must either prevent it or at least report that it has happened. To top it off, operations has said that if you bring in one more new appliance, they will bar you from the data center and wiring closets.

What does it all add up to? The network is being asked to provide more services at the application layers.

There are several ways to address these issues. For example, WAN optimization and application acceleration tools provide a way to reduce response time, control bandwidth costs and support cost reduction projects, such as server consolidation.

Filtering and QoS allow network managers to control nonbusiness traffic and plug the security holes they create.

A range of application security solutions -- from secure Internet gateways, Web/application firewalls, antivirus aimed at application layer threats, to data loss prevention -- are the way to stop hackers and criminals. Control and reporting at the application level -- along with many of the security solutions -- allow IT to meet compliance.

The problem is that implementing all these necessary but separate solutions will cause the number of appliances to grow, increasing cost and complexity.

What is needed is an integrated solution that can classify, prioritize and control traffic at the application layer while also providing most, if not all, of the needed application layers services. The banner this solution flies under is application delivery networking.

Application delivery networking
Application delivery is an overlay on the existing packet forwarding infrastructure. Switches and routers, along with network devices such as network layer firewalls, perform an excellent job of moving data around the network and providing security based on the TCP/IP layer and below (layers 1-4). Application delivery complements this packet-forwarding infrastructure by providing services at the application layers (5-7) within the network.

Application delivery provides four types of services:

The first is application visibility. This is monitoring at the application layers. For example, application monitoring breaks Web/HTTP packets flowing over Port 80 down even further by showing which Web application and the specific transaction type.

The second set of functions is service load balancing (SLB) and server health monitoring. SLBs provide a single view of the application to the user while sending the traffic to multiple servers running the application and monitoring response time.

The third grouping goes by two names, either application acceleration or WAN optimization. Its job is to improve response time and reduce bandwidth usage.

The last grouping is application-level security. Examples of application security are Web and application firewalls, data loss prevention, secure Internet gateways, Internet filters and malware prevention.

The key to application delivery meeting the new challenges is to integrate in a single solution the right mix of application visibility, acceleration, optimization, security and SLB. Two key features are needed to transform the current disorganized state of application delivery into Application Delivery Networking (ADN). The ADN solution needs to understand the applications as well as control the services. Only tight integration will provide this.

Classification and visibility
The first building block of an ADN solution is good application classification. The application delivery solution needs to have very efficient deep-packet inspection (DPI) that can determine the message's application and its function, along with who is sending and receiving the message and where they are located. For example, the classification needs to know if the HTTP XML message for the company's product catalog is a general inquiry or a transaction to buy the product.

The purchase request may need to go to a specific XML gateway and firewall while the inquiry may not. The ability to make these types of distinctions is becoming more critical and requires that the ADN solution have good classification.

Performing the classification in the application delivery solution has the benefit of reducing the time and cycles spent performing the DPI. The old way had each device performing the DPI, adding latency each time.

An important issue for network managers to consider is how often the vendor updates their classification engine. The reason frequent updates are needed is that new applications are being invented constantly and existing applications are constantly changing. Regular updates allow the solution to keep pace with the changes and are especially important since many of the new applications can adversely impact the performance of the enterprise's network.

The flip side of classification is visibility and monitoring. If a device can classify application traffic, it is in the ideal position to perform the monitoring function, reporting to network operations what is happening across the network. Combining monitoring with the ADN solution overcomes a problem with the current approach of performing the monitoring in separate equipment.

For example, let's say a message needs to run through a Web/application firewall, data loss prevention appliance and then an application specific XML gateway. If there is a complaint about response time, it is critical to know how much latency each of these appliances added.

A traditional monitor would not know the answer because it sees the message only once. The ADN solution knows how much latency each service added, giving a clearer picture of what is happening to network operations.

Controlling the flow
The second building block of an ADN solution is the ability to control the acceleration, security or other application services that are needed, based on the application classification and policy definition. The ADN solution knows which services are needed and can vary the services based on the application and even the transaction type, orchestrating the services the application flow receives.

For example, when the Citrix desktop virtualization application sends a screen update, all that is needed is for it to be accelerated, monitored and checked for security. If the same application is sending a print job to a local printer, it should be run through a data-loss prevention service to ensure that no sensitive data is being printed, since it is easily carried out by anyone.

Controlling the traffic flow is important to guarantee that voice traffic is treated correctly. The ADN solution needs to prioritize voice traffic at the front of the queues for application services. Additionally, it needs to understand voice traffic and know not to accelerate it, since there is nothing acceleration can do for voice traffic that is already highly compressed.

Control combined with classification lets the ADN solution understand what traffic is important. While some peer-to-peer and video traffic is business-related, much comes from nonbusiness applications. Control allows the ADN solution to filter out or move it to the back of the queue. It also allows more security to be applied to the nonbusiness traffic.

An ADN solution may not have integrated all the application services an enterprise needs, requiring the enterprise to use an application service appliance from another vendor. For example, if the ADN solution sends an e-mail with an attachment to a data-loss prevention appliance, the DLP decides whether the e-mail needs to be stopped or can be forwarded with some encryption. It then communicates what to do with the message to the ADN solution, using ICAP.

Network managers should look for an ADN vendor that certifies that the communication between the ADN solution and their application service works.

Customization in the ADN solution is important because each enterprise and application is different. ADN vendors should be judged on their built-in customization and how easy they make it for an enterprise to develop additional customization.

A good feature is to provide role-based management where different application groups can provide customization for their application, while the ADN solution ensures that they don't interfere with each other.

ADN in the enterprise
ADN with application classification and control will allow enterprises to gain control of the applications flowing over the network. Application visibility and control allows enterprises to meet the regulatory requirements while allowing them to know what applications are running across the network. This will allow enterprises to provide effective security, control cost and provide better service. Nonbusiness applications will not overrun the network and mission-critical applications will be protected.

Where does the ADN solution need to be? It is needed wherever application delivery services and security are applied to the application traffic. It is needed in the data center, the branch office and remote locations and at the Internet boundary. It is also needed in each mobile employee's laptop when they are outside the enterprise. One day it will be needed in all smart devices such as phones and handheld devices.

What application services need to be in an ADN solution? Application visibility is a must since it is needed for efficient classification and thus application monitoring should come with the package. Network managers should always consider a solution that has integrated as many application services as they need in the same box.

There are several reasons why an integrated ADN is the best approach. The first is it reduces the number of appliances that need to be deployed and maintained, reducing operation cost. An integrated solution also can reduce latency since the time it takes a specialized appliance to process the packet and perform its own deep-packet inspection is eliminated.

It also eliminates the communication that has to happen between the appliance and the ADN, reducing both the time it takes and eliminating potential problems. Policy management is simplified because the technical staff only has to create the policies for the ADN and not for additional appliances.

Having an integrated ADN that performs traffic filtering can save time and processing by the other appliance services by eliminating traffic before it reaches them. Thus, as a general rule, the more application services that are packaged within the ADN solution, the more efficient it will be.

What product name does the ADN solution point go by? Application Delivery Controller (ADC) is a good candidate, but the problem is that this name is already taken and associated with the server load balancers in the data center. ADCs can function as the ADN solution for the data center but currently they are highly optimized for the data center and are not appropriate for the network edges. Therefore we need a name for the ADN solution outside the data center and a good candidate might be the Application Services Controller (ASC). While enterprises would prefer one solution for all locations, this is not realistic in the foreseeable future.

It is clear that application delivery needs to make the step up to an architected ADN solution that brings order to the application layer. Without it, network managers will be overwhelmed with application services and security devices that will drive up their cost and lead to poor service. Given the recent dramatic changes in the economic landscape, now more than ever, network managers should start demanding an architected application delivery networking approach from vendors and not settle for a collection of point products.

Layland is head of Layland Consulting. He can be reached at robin@layland.com.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (47711)1/17/2009 9:12:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 57684
 
Lizzie: Jobs is more important to Apple than Gates was to Microsoft. Anyone who doesn't see the difference doesn't understand what Steve Jobs really brings.

It's not his design sense, etc...it's his absolute refusal to put out something that's not as good as he thinks it can be.

That attitude is incredibly rare in business where there's a lot of 'get it out the door and get some $$ in the bank, we can fix it later' going around. Steve Jobs pushes people to do better than they know they can and the risk if he doesn't return is that no other executive will be so insane about this. And even if they are...Jobs FOUNDED Apple. That gives him a power that no one else can really duplicate, one that's rooted in something that no other exec can have no matter how bright or good that exec is.

Will Apple survive if Jobs leaves permanently? Yes. Will they continue to be special and put out things that change how people use technology? Maybe.