Microsoft Favored to Win Smartphone War, Really?
April 10, 2011
I am an optimist. I see blue sky behind gray clouds. I see flowers beneath the snow.
Here in Kentucky, we figured it was wishful thinking to include the University of Kentucky Wildcats in the final four on the March Madness brackets. We were all very surprised when this ideal became a reality. However, we believe this is just poor statistical reasoning: “IDC Beancounters Predict Microsoft to Win Smartphone War.” Wow. Microsoft cannot update its smartphone software. I don’t know one person who owns a Microsoft smartphone.
By 2015, the IDC states that Android will be the top smartphone competitor, followed closely by Microsoft. Apple will be booted down to third place. Android will continue to dominate, however, with half the market and the other divided between Blackberry and Apple based off current market predictions. According to the write up:
The report said that smartphone vendors will ship a total of more than 450 million smartphones this year, up from 303.4 million in 2010. IDC predicts that the smartphone market will grow four times faster than the overall handset market.
Other predictions include the Symbian market will transfer to Microsoft after its recent merger with Nokia and Hewlett Packard’s WebOS will never gain much of a foothold. Don’t rely heavily on IDC’s predictions. Back in 2006, the beancounters never accounted for the rise of the iPhone or Android. The University of Kentucky’s win was a sweet surprise, but based off current market trends unless Microsoft creates the next big phone, Android runs out of batteries, or Apple just fails, this won’t happen. And I am an optimist, not a consulting firm trying to pump up revenues, get headlines, and compete with other mid tier consulting firms for clients.
Even more intereseting is that Gartner, a rival to IDC, issued a report that said the same thing. You can check out the Gartner predictions at http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1622614.
Coincidence or a Microsoft PR push? We will never offer an opinion on the cheesecloth separating independent consulting firrms and clients with a real need to flash cash.
Whitney Grace, April 10, 2011
Freebie
Caveat Software
March 22, 2011
“Time to Rethink the Analyst Firm?” puts it to IT analysts and their clients, straight-up: Firms need to make changes in how they do business, and their clients should hold them accountable.
Author Dennis Howlett cites and expounds upon five recommendations from Zia Yusof :
Get industry-specific. Instead of developing horizontal software for the masses, analysts should develop more individualized solutions for specific industries. Yet few analysts have the courage to champion the smaller, lesser-known vendors that are filling these niches.
Rate the analysts/firms. A mechanism should be developed by which software buyers rate analysts and firms and share these ratings with other potential software buyers within a given industry.
Keep it transparent. Analysts should be upfront about how they make money, and disclose the vendors they are doing business with. If they don’t the client should ask.
Ditch the IT lingo. Analysts and vendors need to make information clear and understandable.
Go Indy. Some of the smaller, independent analyst firms are doing things the big guys can’t (or won’t). Some mentioned in the article were Constellation Research, Panorama, Computer Economics and Redmonk.
For software buyers, here are the important take-aways:
There was some useful advice tool The write up emphasizes that everyone should be aware that analysts work for vendors first and you second. What you’re hearing from the analyst may be PR from the vendor rather than objective information. We recommend that you ask questions and expect full transparency. Not everyone has an About page that explains what’s what.
We have one other tip as well: Verify whatever information you get from your analyst.
Robin Broyles, March 22, 2011
Freebie
Consultant Identifies Employment Opportunity
March 12, 2011
Read Write Web has the article, “Forrester: Business Intelligence Careers Offer Hope for IT Workers.” It reiterates what we already know: tough job market for information technology workers. Forrester, a consulting firm that often links sweeping generalizations with for-fee reports, recommends that IT specialists should focus their energies on business intelligence.
We learn from this assertion that Developers, integrations professionals, and database administrators are well prepared for BI careers. But—and it is an important caveat—the hopefuls will need to bolster their skills by actively working in business intelligence. Is this somewhat circular?
The article pointed to these consultant observations about business intelligence:
Organizations are increasing investment in this area.
- BI is not easily outsourced and requires quite a bit of face-to-face collaboration with management
- BI projects need to be iterated on a frequent and ongoing basis
- BI hiring is already up dramatically
My colleagues and I at ArnoldIT.com are not sure what business intelligence means. The more we talked about this employment assertion, we concluded that there is a Catch 22 operating: one needs to be working on an active BI project to become familiar with these technologies otherwise one cannot learn the skills. We do agree that information professionals should continue to improve analytical and technical skills.
After reading this article the only thought that came to me was, “really?” Autonomy does not use the phrase “business intelligence”. What’s that tell us? Well, $800 million in revenue suggests that the phrase is probably not necessary to enjoy financial success.
Whitney Grace, March 12, 2011
Freebie
Teradata Crows; Risky Bets Are No Shows
February 19, 2011
Yowza. Point your browser at “Independent Analyst Firm Declares Teradata ‘the Most Scalable, Flexible, Cloud-Capable EDW Solution in Today’s Market”. I am not sure traditional databases or data warehouses are going to do the job for the type of big data we consider. If you are a Fortune 1000 company, you will want to buy a brand name. Teradata is the champ, according to an “independent analyst firm.” Okay, maybe. What is more interesting is that the nifty graphic showing the big dogs in big data has a couple of interesting categories; namely, Risky Bets and Contenders. Why does this interest me? There are no entries listed. I can name some new contenders. I can also name some risky bets. In fact, some of those contenders would, in my judgment, rank ahead of the big dogs in the mid tier consulting firm’s listing. Why are there any companies in the Risky Bets and Contenders? Let’s speculate.
- No one at the consulting firm knows anything about this sector so the notion of identifying Risky Bets and Contenders does not come up as a consideration.
- The smaller companies, the open source outfits, and the companies operating outside the US are “off the radar” because the likelihood of getting these outfits to become clients and consumers of the consulting firm’s reports is low. I too would chase those most likely to be prospects and skip the small fish.
- The whole set of categories is ill conceived. Why not lump everyone into the achievement culture ranking of “Great”, “Even Greater,” and “The Bestest Ever.”
No complaints about Teradata or even the companies that bring up the dull normal ranking of “Strong Performers.” I love this consulting stuff. It makes real news and gives anyone in the magic whatever cause to celebrate. But I still wonder why there are no Risky Bets.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2011
Freebie
Search: So Yesterday, Relevance Seems So Far Away
February 14, 2011
We knew it would happen. Search is no longer trendy.
“Accenture Identifies Eight Trends Driving the Future of Information Technology” had us doing a double take. The consulting / accounting firm identified current trends, and search is not one of them. Are we wasting our time at Beyond Search? Probably.
The article asserts that the use of business technology is fundamentally changing:
We took a look around the corner and saw a world of IT that barely resembles what enterprise computing looks like today,’ said Gavin Michael, managing director of R&D and alliances, Accenture, who supervised the project. ‘The role of technology changing; it is no longer in a support role. Instead, it is front and center driving business performance. . . .’ One of the most significant trends identified in the report finds that the age of ‘viewing everything through an application lens is coming to an end.’ Instead, platform architectures will be selected primarily to cope with soaring volumes of data and the complexity of data management, not for their ability to support applications.
That last point is as it should be. Finally.
Given that the focus is still on data- data in the cloud, big data, data security- search can’t help but permeate the entire field. What good is all that information if we can’t find the bit we need when we need it? I think search is just transitioning from trend to cornerstone.
Cynthia Murrell February 14, 2011
Freebie
Question the Cloud, Question the Experts
January 31, 2011
InfoWorld’s Bill Snyder’s “Beware the Fool’s Gold in the Heated Mobile and Cloud Predictions.” is an in depth analysis of Gartner’s rosy predictions. Finally, a real news publications questions azure chip consultants’ estimates. Let’s hope the critical thinking continues. If you are not familiar with the lingo of Beyond Search, “azure chip” is shorthand for low- or mid-tier consultants, consulting firms that hire retired “experts”, and unemployed journalists, English majors, and Web masters. Each of these groups position themselves as experts, and the knowledge-challenged farm yard animals gobble up the corn and kitchen scraps. Beyond Search has lots of English major and other no-good varmints as well, but, hey, we have to have some fun, don’t we?
Cloud computing and mobile apps are hot topics right now, as Gartner’s research has found. In fact, as portable tools, they go well together.
Though respectful of Gartner, Snyder warns against sinking too much time and money into transitioning to the cloud just yet, especially since analysts have observed inhibited server virtualization.
With regard to mobile applications, there is no doubt that downloads are up and will continue to rise. However, since most are free and the rest are about a dollar, revenue will only be so juicy.
Snyder summarizes the issues:
“I don’t question the trend, but I do question the rate of change. As I’ve said before, the PC era isn’t over — yet — and neither is the day of the enterprise app. We’re certainly moving away from the old paradigms and business models. You’d be blind not to see that. But it’s all too easy to see theoretical money pouring from the skies. . . . Stay skeptical — and beware fool’s gold.”
This article is full of stats to back up Snyder’s opinion. Be sure to check it out.
Cynthia Murrell January 31, 2011
Big Bandits? Apple, Google, or Microsoft
January 16, 2011
I feel enervated when an azure chip consultant forces me to decide which company is not just a bandit, the biggest bandit. Navigate to “WebM vs. H.264: Google Bets Big on Itself.” The write up does a good job of explaining how these large monopolies are trying to become even larger and exert more control over things digital. I am not a video hound, but the goslings and many other folks in Harrod’s Creek cannot get through a day without large doses of kick back, couch potato action. The addled goose? Not so much.
The story quotes a poobah from the azure chip consulting firm, Yankee Group. Here’s the quote I liked:
“The question is, who are you going to trust to not hold standards licensees to ransom? Little MPEG or giant Google?” Howe [Yankee Group expert] asked. “At this point, I don’t think we know who is the bigger bandit.”
Wow. Apple, Google, and Microsoft described as alleged bandits. Exciting.
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2011
Freebie, unlike the advice of azure chip consultants commenting about banditry.
Poobah Tilts at Azure Windmill
January 11, 2011
Before reading my comments, point your browser thingy at “Gartner Gets It Wrong With Cloud Quadrant.” Read it. Note this set up paragraph, worded to avoid litigation but worded to make the azure chip outfit “pundits” steam:
The Gartner Magic Quadrant isn’t an entirely accurate, or even objective, measure of who’s who in any given IT field. If you haven’t heard, the analyst firm’s ranking system has been called out as being everything from merely subjective (as opposed, I guess, to being only partially subjective like every other list of industry leaders) to rewarding vendors that have paid Gartner the most money for its services. I can’t comment on these allegations, nor do I care to. What I can say is that with its latest Magic Quadrant for Cloud Infrastructure as a Service and Web Hosting, Gartner just flat got it wrong.
So what’s the subject?
Cloud computing, one of the many, many next big things in computing. Never mind that timesharing and online services have become part of the furniture for living. Cloud computing is a big deal. Gartner sees the cloud revolution one way and the author of the “Gets It Wrong” write up another. I am not sure either is correct. The one true way is a tough path to discern.
Where did Gartner allegedly slip off the gravel path and tumble in the muck? Here’s the passage I noted:
Initially, it seems inconceivable that anybody could rank IaaS providers and not list Amazon Web Services among the leaders.
Yeah, mon. Gartner excludes outfits who don’t match their criteria. Don’t like it. Well, there are some options, which I will leave to your imagination.
What outfits are leaders in cloud ystuff? My view is just check out the vendors in lists like this one. You can get some color on this Y Combinator list here.
🙂
What happens when poobahs fight? Clarity gets trampled. Loss of clarity, just another way to say marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, January 11, 2011
Freebie
Forrester Tips on Metadata. Whoa, Nellie!
January 4, 2011
The growth of the Internet over the past couple of decades has created a massive amount of regulated and unregulated data that can be a headache for enterprises to sort through.
According to the ZDNet article “Metadata Virtualization and Orchestration Seen as Critical new Technology to Improve Enterprise Data Integration,” business leaders are now recognizing that managing and exploiting information is a core business competency that will increasingly determine their overall success. Therefore, they need to invest in technology and often third party solutions that will manage their data for them.
Noel Yuhanna, Principal Analyst at Forrester Research, and Todd Brinegar, Senior Vice President for Sales and Marketing at Stone Bond Technologies help readers better understand these issues in a panel discussion.
The article asserts:
This discussion then examines how metadata-driven data virtualization and improved orchestration can help provide the inclusion and scale to accomplish far better data management. Such access then leads to improved integration of all information into an approachable resource for actionable business activities.
Behind all of the unbelievable double talk and jargon, there is a good point to this article. However, one must winnow.
Jasmine Ashton, January 4, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Repositioning Search: A Cultural Shift for BI
December 28, 2010
I am in the baloney business, and I have no problem making clear my professional life. Sure, a few products made a couple of bucks, but I was trained in the consulting business by some good mentors at Halliburton Nuclear Utility Services and Booz, Allen & Hamilton. Consequently, my baloney recognition system works reasonably well. Today, I find, it lights up frequently. Recent examples include:
- A 20 something wishing good luck in my career. The lass did not know that I am 66 and at the end of a long, dismal career. Things won’t get much better in my opinion.
- A CEO who just wanted to chat, brushing aside my reminder that I charge for my time.
- A VP of technology at a Fortune 100 company wanting me to provide competitive profiles on a number of companies in the text processing sector. The communication problem was that I did not want to work for that firm on its bureaucratically polished terms.
This post focuses on some business recommendations that, I suppose, are relatively harmless. Nevertheless, I found the write up fascinating because it has the potential to perpetuate some methods that are almost certain to increase costs and yet another failed information access system. Let’s begin.
Baloney As Knowledge and Insight
I found “Business Intelligence Programmes Should Be Viewed As a Cultural Transformation” interesting and wildly out of touch with the reality in many US organizations. That reality, as you know from the opening paragraphs, goes through the motions of resolving a problem and often creates a great cost black hole. The problem? Unsolved so the cycle begins again.
The write up reports on three actions to address a problem with business intelligence. Note that the definition of “business intelligence” is not included, so the reader is supposed to “know” what “business intelligence” is. Hmm.
What’s the article recommend?
Three actions, each oh-so-easy to convert to business platitudes.
First deliver “the right information to the right people.” Okay, but what if one does not know what information is available or if it is correct. Once that has been addressed, who are the right people. Most organizations have had some staff reductions. Who needs what? Good question and one that is often not answered in a way helpful to the people trying to level up to a business intelligence system.
Second, “change the mindset” in order to answer the “right questions”. Okay, but what happens if we don’t know what questions to ask because our view of the information is limited or just incorrect. What if the company allows professionals to make decisions without worrying about checking with the boss on every matter?
Finally, “create a project team based on information needs.” Great idea, but the reality of organizations is that if the view of the information available is incorrect and the questions the team wants answered are wrong, how will the project team be the “right team” for the task.
Looks like a recipe for management disaster. In fact, the present economic problems many organizations face are a result of this type of second-class thinking. The use of a fuzzy term to replace a now discredited and equally fuzzy term is part of the problem.