Now that’s how to chart.
Original source: All the president’s tweets
Now that’s how to chart.
Now that’s how to chart.
Original source: All the president’s tweets
“fully 50% of the 872 respondents said their company is giving a ‘green light’ for IT spending. That was the highest reading since 2007, and 13 basis points higher than the average survey response for the month of November for the previous five years”
Original source: Green light for IT spending in 2018
I assume this is across distros, and including use of just the ope source stack,
The downward spiral (driven by budgeting, risk-aversion, and ROI-think) that make legacy IT bloom like algae in a stagnant creek, from Chris Tofts:
With a limited budget for maintenance or improvement, how will it be allocated to the various systems managed by IT? Remember that in having to justify the spend at all, the primary need is to demonstrate business impact and – equally – guarantee that there is no risk to continued operations.
Inevitably, depending on organisational perspective, there are essentially three underlying approaches. First, maximise the number of systems that have been updated: demonstrate lots of work has taken place. Next, minimise the risk that any update will fail: have no impact on the ongoing organisation. Finally, maximise the apparent impact on the direct customers for IT systems – improve the immediate return to the business.
If the organisation maximises the number of systems updated then the clear imperative is to choose systems that are easy (cheap) to update. The systems that are cheap to update are invariably the ones with the least difference between in-use and current. In other words, the systems that were updated during the last round of updates. So the organisation will choose to improve those systems just beyond some minimum obsolescence criteria and until all of the budget is spent.
And then, you get bi-modal infrastructure:
It’s hard to say what the fix is beyond “don’t do that.” Perhaps a good rule of thumb is to attack the hard, risky stuff first.
Getting The Business to pay attention to legacy like they do cash-losses is also an interesting gambit:
As boring as it sounds, if organisations had to carry technical debt on their books – just like they carry the value of their brand on their assets – then, finally, they might understand both their exposure and necessary spend on their critical IT assets.
As covered by Axios, in a report from IAM/PwC. As noted in the notes below the chart, these figures are based on a sub-set of the market, 20 advertising outfits. No doubt, they represent a huge part of revenue however. It’s hard to imagine that there’s many more millions in podcast advertising.
Also as highlighted by Sara Fischer:
Edison Research and Triton Digital estimates 98 million U.S. adults listen to podcasts.
Each year, Mary Meeker and team put together the Internet Trends report that draws together an ever growing collection of charts and analysis about the state of our Internet-driven world, from the latest companies to industry and economic impact. Over the years, the report has gone on to include analysis of markets like China and India. Being a production of the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture capital firm, the focus is typically on new technologies and the corresponding business opportunities: you know, the stuff like “millennials like using their smartphones” and the proliferation of smartphones and Internet globally.These reports are good for more than just numbers-gawking, but can also give some quantitative analysis of new, technology innovations in various industries. The consumer and advertising space consumes much of this business analysis, but for example, in this year’s report, there’s an interesting analysis of health-care and transportation (bike sharing in China!). For enterprises out there, it may seem to over-index on startups and small companies, but that doesn’t detract from the value of the ideas when it comes to any organization looking to do some good, old-fashioned “digital transformation.”
Normally, I’d post my notebook things here, but the Pivotal blog overlords wanted to put this in on the Pivotal blog, so check it out there.
A nice way of explaining Amazon’s success in charts, e.g., as compare to Wal-Mart:
Just thinking aloud without any analysis, it seems liken Amazon is an example of how difficult, long, and confounding doing continual innovation as your business is. Many companies claim to be innovation-driven, but most can just eek out those “incremental innovations” and basic Porterian strategy: they improve costs, enter adjacent marketers, and grow their share of existing TAMs, all the while fending off competitors.
Amazon, on the other hand, has had decades of trying new business models mostly in existing businesses (retail), but also plenty of new business models (most notably public cloud, smart phones and tablets, streaming video and music, and whatever voice + machine learning is).
All that said, to avoid the Halo Effect, it’s important to admit that many companies tried and died here…not to mention many of the retailers who Amazon is troubcibg – Wal-Mart has had several goes at “digital” and is in the midst of another transformation-by-acquisitions. Amazon, no doubt, has had many lucky-breaks.
This isn’t to dismisss any lessons learned from Amazon. There’s one main conclusion, thought: any large organization that hopes to live a long time needs to first continually figure out if they’re in a innovation/disrupting market and, if they are, buckle up and get ready for a few decades of running in an innovation mode instead of a steady-state/profit reaping mode.
Another lesson is that the finances of innovation make little sense and will always be weird: you have to just hustle away those nattering whatnots who want to apply steady-state financial analysis to your efforts.
You can throw out the cashflow-model chaff, but really, you just have to get the financial analysis to put down their pivot tables and have faith that you’ll figure it out. You’re going to be loosing lots of money and likely fail. You’ll be doing those anti-Buffet moves that confound normals.
In this second mode you’re guided by an innovation mindset: you have to be parnoid, you have to learn everyday what your customers and competitors are doing, and do new things that bring in new cash. You have to try.
After all these years, print media still struggles versus the Internet. This long piece on how the travel magazine industry has been suffering covers many great topics. I suspect much of the analysis is the same for all of print media.
One of the problems is the new set of demands on writers in that field:
There is the pain point of figuring out an internal work flow that functions across platforms. Journalists, writers, and content creators often have specialized skillsets, so asking one to write a story, create a listicle, take photos, and film compelling videos about a trip is a major challenge.
“We just started working more efficiently that way and it really, it’s painful to integrate digital and print,” said Guzmán. “The plays are different, the workloads are different, the story ideation is different. In doing this, there’s this huge cultural shift that is exciting and difficult.”
And, then, even after suffering through all that “cultural shift,” the results are often disappointing:
“The iPad was just going to be this Jesus of magazines and I never really quite believed that because I knew how challenging it was was to rejigger the content to fit that format,” said Frank, who oversaw Travel + Leisure’s digital strategy in the early 2010s. “Having just gone through the process of signing up and downloading a magazine, it took forever and was buggy and it just wasn’t necessarily a great solution. I was never really bought the gospel that the tablet was going to be our savior. But we did it. I mean, we created a great app and it was beautiful. It won awards, but that was knowing what the usership was is a little disheartening.”
And, as ever, there’s the tense line between blaming “most reader are dumb” and “rivals are evil” when it comes to what’s to blame:
“I could have written the greatest travel story ever known, and it would not have gotten on the cover of the traffic oriented site because a Swedish bikini teen saved a kitten from a tree; which is going to be more popular?”
Let them watch cats.
Still, as the article opens up with, it’s the old Curse of Web 2.0 – former readers, now just travelers – writing the useful content in the form of reviews on TripAdvisor and such:
“In general, people don’t read a review and make a decision,” said Barbara Messing, chief marketing officer of TripAdvisor. “Consumers will read six to eight reviews. They might dig in a certain characteristic that they are interested in, maybe they really are interested in what the quality of the beach is, or maybe they are really interested in whether it’s kid friendly or not kid friendly. In general, people will hone in on the characteristics of something that’s most important to them, find that answer on TripAdvisor, get that most recent insights, check out the photos, check the forums, and really be able to make an informed decision of whether something is right for them. I think that the notion that people could rely on the wisdom of the crowd and the wisdom of individuals to their detriment, I just think that’s false, and I don’t think the reality is that is going to happen.”
There’s also some M&A history of trading various assets like Lonely Planet, Zagat, and Frommer’s back and forth as different management figures out what to do with them.
As ever, I’m no expert on the media industry. It seems like the core issue is that “the Internet” is so much more efficient at the Job to be Done for travel (as outlined by the TripAdvisor exec above) that the cost structure and business process from print magazines is not only inefficient, but unneeded. Those magazines are now over-serving (and thus, over-spending) with a worse product.
While the quality of TripAdvisor (and Yelp, for example) reviews is infinitely worse than glossy magazines, since there’s an infinite amount of more crappy reviews, with the occasional helpful ones…it sort of more than evens out in favor of Sweedish bikini cat rescuers. Plus, digital advertising has so much more spend (and overall, industry profit, if only by sheer volume if not margin) – it must be because it’s better at making the advertisers money and because it creates a larger market:
Thus far, it seems like the large banks are fending off digital disruption, perhaps embracing some of it on their own. The Economist takes a look:
The dramatic surge in PE activity is primarily due to the ever-deepening pool of financial buyers. In the history of the industry, there have never been more tech-focused buyout shops that have had access to more capital, collectively, than right now. New firms have popped up while existing ones have put even more money to work in the tech industry, which is becoming even more ‘target rich’ as it ages. For instance, both Clearlake Capital and TA Associates announced as many deals in Q1 2017 as each of the firms would typically print in an entire year. Additionally, both Vista Equity Partners and Thoma Bravo averaged almost two transactions per month in Q1, if we include deals done by their portfolio companies as well.
From Brenon at 451, and with some charts too:
That chart is in millions, i.e., 260m in 2016; the write-up on Quartz is a little wonky in that respect.
From IDC: “Annually, shipments of traditional PCs slipped to 260 million units, down 5.7% from 2015.”
Based on the S-1 filings from the business, a $3.7B price implies a 17.3x enterprise value/trailing twelve month revenue multiple, which is 41% higher than the next nearest acquisition, Salesforce/Demandware. There’s no comparable pricing event in the M&A market in the last 10 years.
The Borg’s plucked the company mere days before it was expected to float on the stock market, an event expected to raise around US$1.4bn for a portion of the company.
While AppDynamics could point to over 2,000 customers and nine-figure revenues, it also had rather a lot of red ink to deal with. That’s Cisco’s problem now, as it will make AppDynamics a software business unit in its internet of things and applications business.
If Congress enacted such a deal, of course, only a fraction of the $2.6 trillion would reach shareholders. It’s important to note that much of the UFE is not actually in cash; it’s invested in overseas plants or provides working capital for foreign subsidiaries. At press time, specifics of a plan hadn’t emerged, and figuring out which assets will ultimately get taxed, and at what rate, will be thorny. But based on Trump’s earlier proposal and on past holidays, investing pros estimate that about 40% of the UFE, or around $1 trillion, will come back to the U.S.—and that companies would net at least $850 billion after taxes.
Tech and health care companies would get most of that.
I think most people believe that cash would be used in stock buybacks and dividend to raise share prices and give cash to investors. Trump would probably want it for creating new jobs, and it could be used for domestic acquisitions.
Lawrence Hecht has some brief commentary on Gartner buying CEB for $2.6bn – Lawrence takes out the $700m in debt from the actual deal value of $3.3bn. I don’t really know CEB too well.
All seethe official press release.
Here’s some share price performance, snipping out the time around the acquisition announcement (it goes up, of course):
For the year, Gartner estimated shipments at 269.717 million, down 6.2 per cent year-on-year, with each of the major manufacturers except Dell reporting falling sales.
Gartner says high-end PCs are doing well, but of course, are a smaller market:
There have been innovative form factors, like 2-in-1s and thin and light notebooks, as well as technology improvements, such as longer battery life. This high end of the market has grown fast, led by engaged PC users who put high priority on PCs. However, the market driven by PC enthusiasts is not big enough to drive overall market growth.
There may less volume, but it’d be nice to know how that effects profits in the notoriously slim margin PC business.
Meanwhile, on overall, global IT spend:
Companies are due to splash $3.5tr (£2.87tr) on IT this year, globally, although that is down from its previous projection of three per cent.
See some more commentary of that forecast.
451 Research estimated this week the application container segment reached a robust $762 million in 2016 and is forecast to grow at a 40-percent compound rate over the next four years to $2.7 billion.
And, on usage, from an April/May 2016 survey:
451 Research’s Voice of the Enterprise: Software-Defined Infrastructure Workloads and Key Projects survey conducted in April and May 2016 showed that of the roughly 25% of enterprises we surveyed who use containers, 34% were in broad implementation of production applications and 28% had begun initial implementation of production applications with containers.
I’m somewhat suspicious that there’s $762m in container software and services sales, but who knows, really?
I haven’t read through their entire cloud enabling technologies market sizing yet, from Dec 2016, (basically, private cloud software and services, any things used by *aaS vendors, not the actual public cloud services, which are another market) , which is more than just containers. That market is pegged at $23bn in 2016, going to $39bn in 2020:
More on 451’s blog.
According to one study:
“Headcounts may not rise significantly, but look for IT organizations to spend more on talent, especially managers and developers who can lead the transition to cloud, mobility, and big data solutions,” Computer Economics says in its executive summary.
n=”over 200 executives.”
Lots of charts that show a large percentage of workers leave after a year. Also, as better jobs come about, if wages don’t rise in gig jobs, churn will be even higher:
“It doesn’t look like [gig work] is becoming more lucrative for people,” says Fiona Greig, co-author on the JPMorgan Chase Institute report. “As the labor force strengthens in general, more and more people have better options.”