Is the Independent Software Company a Relic?
110046
Some business software vendors are determined to steer their own ships in a sea of acquisitions.
110265
Open source software companies have gotten a lot of buzz, but most have yet to prove their staying power.
158769
How this once-tiny company hinted it was ready for a turnaround.
24866
The Motley Fool - Open-source software leader Red Hat (Nasdaq: RHAT - News) reports earnings after the bell today, and analysts are expecting a doozy. With on-again-off-again reports that Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL - News) may enter the Linux market, Red Hat's stock has certainly been volatile, but management has been quite sanguine about further competition from the database giant. Is this one huge strategic misstep or savvy thinking? Read on for my thoughts.
216027
Blog: Roy Russo argues that open source vendors are monopolies waiting to happen.  Here's why he's wrong.
492713
What happens to open source in a cloud-based computing world?  Or when the enterprise runs dry?
154775
Since 1993, Siebel dominated the market for customer service software. In recent years, however, it has stumbled. Can it regain its former glory?
23425
A peek at companies that overpromised and underdelivered.
235536
It's a company you've never heard of.
704838
Is Network Appliance the company to beat?
687416
Software giant has clamped down, although experts say there's still room for improvement.
59873
I don't know what Bebo is, I guess it's a social network, they say it's #3 in the USA, #1 in the UK, but they just did something that's pretty likely to work, if it's technically possible. They're cloning Facebook so that their service will run Facebook apps. What this means, if they can pull it off, is that they won't have to fight to get support from developers. That's a big deal. Google could have done this with OpenSocial. Watching the panel assembled by Marc Canter at LeWeb3, I was reminded of every tech conference I've been to for almost 30 years. Some big company sitting in the center, and lots of smaller ones sucking up to them, not daring to say what's obvious, that the big company is only interested in limiting the growth of an upstart (not present on stage of course). That's where the Fear comes in Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. We don't say anything because we're too scared to. Even the outspoken Marc Canter, who's smart and has been around this block many times, doesn't dare say what's obvious.  Now Bebo decides to get in lockstep with Facebook, not Google. Of course! Facebook has the juice. But this is a dangerous place to be if Facebook doesn't want them there, and being a big company, they probably don't. The only value of having clones to FB is that it negates the threat from Google. Sometimes having clones is a good thing, but usually the clones take over the market. Witness MSIE and Netscape, and then Firefox. Compaq et al and IBM. dBASE and Fox. It's possible to depose an installed leader if it's possible to clone them. As a user and developer, I'd like to see FB be open to cloning. If I were a FB shareholder I'm not so sure. One constituency that's sure to like the existence of clones are Facebook developers. Without choice in platform vendors, they have nowhere to go when the sole vendor decides to take over their market. With a viable alternative, unless FB is incredibly aggressive and builds its competitive features so they can run on competitive platforms, at least developers will have a place to run their apps when FB encroaches. Platforms are a game, like Risk, with rules and strategies. Google did not play the game wisely with OpenSocial. I chalk this up to inexperience on the part of the strategists. So far Facebook has been doing what's needed to keep its dominant position. Bebo deciding to clone the Facebook API ratifies that position, it's a gutsy move, but the best one available to them, and to other would-be Facebook competitors. PS: The news is slow to reach Europe. Facebook said yesterday that they support what Bebo is doing. Very enthusiastically. That should be the end of OpenSocial.
377131
Almost everything that can be said has been said about the latest moves by Microsoft to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Linux. Countless pundits and analysts have pointed out that Microsoft threats are toothless. Some have noted that Microsoft has singled out Linux and OpenOffice, the biggest threats to its monopoly on operating systems and office suites. Surely Microsoft could claim that the *BSDs infringe on similar patents if not the same ones. But the *BSDs do not pose as great a threat to the company. Others have pointed out that Microsoft would be insane to pull an SCO and sue its own customers. Still others have noted that IBM and/or OIN could respond to a patent war with a massive retaliation in patent infringement claims. I have no doubt that Microsoft has lifted a lot of GPL code (more likely algorithms) for Windows, which would prevent Microsoft from following through with its threats. To do so would require that Microsoft open its own code to scrutiny. The list goes on, and others have covered the angles very well. There is one perspective I haven't yet seen, at least not the way I propose to deal with it. This perspective follows below.
437426
... is a company you've never heard of.
731665
Applying logic might suggest to us that there&#39;s zero-profit likely to be made in free software. On the surface, the open-source movement appears to defy basic economic principles.
597433
It is low in cost, it delivers enterprise-level functionality, and it spares a company the ordeal of an extensive implementation project. It is hosted software, and many say this once-fledgling software space is now in its prime as more and more companies -- both buyers and sellers -- jump on the bandwagon.
426215
Is a company you've never heard of.