Canonical, creator of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, has taken its share of criticism for not being innovative enough for some in the Linux community. In 2010, however, Canonical's focus on design and packaging will come to be seen as a seriously shrewd strategy as it helps to take Linux to the masses.
The reason? The innovation that pays is changing, and UI matters more and more.
When we think of innovation, we normally think of traditional research and development (R&D), complete with a white-coated scientist or pizza-gobbling engineer.
As Apple, Google, and other highly successful software companies demonstrate, however, today's innovation opportunities may lie more in user interface than traditional R&D. Google's emissary to the start-up world, Don Dodge, hints at this in a discussion of the various email systems he has used:
[O]ver my career, my first email thing was Vax Mail, which was awesome at the time, it was revolutionary. I went from Vax Mail, to Outlook, to Lotus Notes when I was working for Ray Ozzie, then back to Outlook again, and now Gmail. Email is a pretty straightforward application. They have basically the same features, it's all a question of user interface.
Sure, there are differences under the hood between Google's Gmail and Microsoft's Outlook, but the innovation that matters most today may well be the "superficial" e-mail experience that these different systems offer.
Back to Canonical and Ubuntu.
Canonical's founder, Mark Shuttleworth, understands that innovation is shifting from core research to the user experience, as he's opined on his blog. He has set his sights high, not content to replicate the Windows PC or Mac experience, for example, but has instead insisted on surpassing it.
The money for Canonical is in packaging open-source technology, not necessarily in creating the technology in the first place. The Linux world should be grateful, given Red Hat's and Novell's focus on the data center.
Linux benefits when mainstream users buy into it. Or, rather, when they use it without thinking about "it."
No one cares that their TiVo devices runs Linux. It just does. No one cares that the Kindle runs Linux, either. They care about the functionality these devices deliver. That's the way it should be.
Canonical's opportunity is to make Linux so easy that it becomes completely invisible to the end user. And Canonical may well be the best positioned to do this, among its open-source peers.
Neither Red Hat nor Novell employs an executive to focus on consumer products. Canonical does. No other open-source company has had its CEO discard the executive mantle to "focus [his] Canonical energy on product design," as Canonical recently did.
Hence, perhaps no other open-source vendor is better positioned to capitalize on the rising (and changing) Netbook market or other open-source friendly consumer markets.
Red Hat dominates the enterprise Linux market. Let it.
Canonical could well be set to dominate the consumer Linux market, a potentially massive market that demands a single-minded focus on design. It's a big bet, but one that Shuttleworth is committed to making.
Ubuntu has led the Linux community's efforts to improve on form, not simply function, and thereby make the Linux experience as good or better than Mac OS X in terms of usability. Mark Shuttleworth, founder and CEO of Canonical, the company set up to shepherd development and commercialization of Ubuntu, is the heart of that effort.
Mark Shuttleworth, provocateur
(Credit: Matt Asay)From March next year, I'll focus my Canonical energy on product design, partnerships and customers. Those are the areas that I enjoy most and also the areas where I can best shape the impact we have on open source and the technology market.
Is this good or bad for Ubuntu? And what about Canonical?
Canonical is reportedly doing $30 million per year in sales, and is working on some significant projects that may establish it as the de facto Linux distribution for Netbooks, if it isn't already. (Ubuntu is arguably the community choice for personal computers.)
Even so, Linux still has a long way to go to match the user experience of Mac OS X, or even Windows. Shuttleworth has given me a sneak peak of his vision for where Ubuntu can go from a UI perspective.
I was blown away. This is a man who "gets it."
Even so, he and the Ubuntu community still have a ways to go to match Microsoft or Apple in user experience, and certainly in market share. To get there, Ubuntu needs Canonical, and Canonical needs Shuttleworth fixated on improving Ubuntu's user experience.
When I asked what his resignation as CEO means for Ubuntu, and his involvement with it, Shuttleworth responded:
I don't expect to be less visible, just have stronger management for the business units.
As reported by CNET and as reported on Canonical's corporate blog, Jane Silber, currently Canonical's COO, will replace Shuttleworth as CEO. A search for a new COO will commence in the first few months of 2010.
This, I believe, is an opportunity for Canonical to tighten its focus. While Shuttleworth suggests that Silber's appointment "doesn't mark a change of direction," perhaps it should. With over 300 employees and products that span mobile, Netbooks and other personal computers, cloud computing, enterprise servers, and more, Canonical has its fingers in a lot of pots.
It's possible that the operations-minded Silber may channel Ubuntu's ambition into a few products where Ubuntu can dominate.
When I asked her for comment, Silber indicated that the move is more evolutionary than revolutionary:
This move should not be read as a precursor to a paring back in markets or as a dramatic shift in strategy. We continue to be committed to making Ubuntu the best possible platform, and to ensuring that Canonical provides high quality engineering, online and professional services to Ubuntu partners and customers worldwide....
I will still bring an operations discipline to company, but I will assume more responsibility and authority for the overall performance of the company including, I expect, greater participation in executive level sales and business development.
That involvement--i.e., working with customers and hearing them demand focus and discipline--may well prod Silber to instigate the changes she initially has disavowed.
Red Hat is instructive. Though many of us would like to see it broaden its focus, the company remains rooted in the enterprise server and middleware markets. Canonical, in my view, should take a lesson from Red Hat and channel some of its energy into fewer markets, markets where it can thrive.
Regardless of what happens, stay tuned to see how Shuttleworth's design aesthetic, now set to overdrive, can impact the cozy duopolies in "desktop" (Apple and Microsoft), servers (Red Hat and Microsoft), and more. With more time to focus on what customers and partners want, Canonical and Ubuntu may be set to take a more commanding position in the market.
By announcing that it has open-sourced its Launchpad project under the Affero GPL version 3, a year after rumors swirled that it would, has Canonical licensed away one of its best revenue opportunities?
Roughly two years ago, I walked up London's High Road from Seven Sisters Tube Station with Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Canonical and the popular Ubuntu Linux distribution. Mark and I talked about a range of things, but one of the things that particularly caught my attention was Launchpad, a collaboration and hosting platform for open-source projects that makes it easy to track code, ideas, and other things across projects.
Then, as now, Launchpad struck me as a fertile field for Canonical to discover a scalable, winning business model to support Ubuntu development. In fact, I remember a long conversation with open-source guru Larry Augustin about Launchpad. Augustin felt that there was a great business lurking in Launchpad.
I agreed.
While I can see how "opening up Launchpad gives the free-software world the beginnings of an open, programmatic interface to its own infrastructure," as Canonical speculates, I'm struggling to see how it helps Canonical make money. Any chance of directly monetizing Launchpad is effectively gone now.
That, of course, may not be the point. Canonical has been experimenting with other models, including hosted services that may well be augmented by this move.
As RedMonk analyst James Governor suggests, "(It may be) possible to make money as a tools company, without owning the runtime, if you offer hosting for the apps. IDE (integrated development environment) + cloud = dollars." Open source may help to make Launchpad more widely used, which, in turn, better positions it to be a Canonical-sponsored on-ramp to the Canonical-monetized cloud.
Not a bad idea. (Certainly better than the apperi-sponsored Ubuntu application store, as reported by The VAR Guy.)
It does suggest, however, that Canonical may be placing a lot of eggs in the cloud basket, a basket that has yet to prove that it can deliver solid, consistent returns to software companies. It comes with its own baggage, as Jonathan Zittrain writes).
Time will tell if the cloud can feed Canonical's employees. But Shuttleworth isn't the sort of person to do something just because all the "in" kids are open-sourcing these days. Licensing Launchpad under the AGPL version 3 is a calculated move. We just don't know what the calculus will yield quite yet.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
In May, I reported on the rising fortunes of Funambol, Mozilla, and other open-source companies. Signs of "green shoots" notwithstanding, the economy doesn't seem to be getting any better, but open-source companies continue to log impressive growth as open source pervades the enterprise, as Forrester analyst Jeffrey Hammond (@jhammond) recently noted.
Importantly, according to Hammond, while open source starts as a cost-saving exercise, it often morphs into something far more strategic:
[O]rganizations tend to start [with the goal of saving money with open source]. And then what tends to happen is the more that they become comfortable with using open source, and the more that they apply it successfully, the more they start to realize that there are benefits other than cost savings that they can take advantage of. And that's when you start to see them turn from open source opportunists into open source advocates.
Those "advocates" are funding the payrolls of a range of open-source companies. Here are just a few examples of those benefiting from this enterprise shift to open source:
- The VAR Guy (@thevarguy) reports that both xTuple and Sopera are profitable. While he doesn't comment on how much they're doing in sales, profitability is, in itself, a significant achievement. (Alfresco, my company, is also profitable, and I'm sure there are others. Please let me know.)
- Likewise, an open-source authentication and identity management company, announced that it is on track to record 100-percent sales growth in 2009. We'll call that a "pre-announcement."
- MuleSource, an open-source Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) company, reported "another record for the company, with a 140 percent year-over-year increase in quarterly bookings and over 100 percent growth for the year-to-date period."
- MindTouch, not to be outdone, also issued a release highlighting its revenue growth (without giving any gee-whiz statistics but did us the favor of providing a pretty graph). More interesting, however, is MindTouch CEO Aaron Fulkerson's (@roebot) review of the various things the company has done right and wrong in commercializing its open-source collaboration project (Spoiler: favoring an enterprise build over a "community build" via stability and support is a bad idea).
(Credit:
MindTouch)
- Meanwhile, though not financial reports, it's encouraging to see Kuali adoption take off in earnest within higher education. "The colleges involved say they have the potential to achieve millions in savings while gaining more control over technology systems that are essential to the smooth functioning of their institutions." Nice.
- Also, a member of the Perl community looks to Canonical's Ubuntu in search of a solid revenue model for Perl. Interesting read, though I'd probably look to foundations that have proved their financial mettle like Mozilla and Eclipse before I'd emulate Ubuntu, however much I may respect what Canonical is doing with Ubuntu.
Unfortunately, most open-source companies are private so the "earnings" reports are somewhat self-serving and mostly unverifiable. Still, it's good to hear of growth in the midst of a weak economic climate.
Disclosure: I am an adviser to MindTouch and MuleSource. I'll gladly report on other financial successes in the open-source world if you care to send them to me....
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Oracle doesn't want to own Linux. Oracle just wants Linux to be cheap.
That's the insight an analyst shared with me the other day as we discussed why Oracle hasn't made a move to acquire Red Hat (recently, anyway). According to this source, who is familiar with Oracle's Linux plans, Oracle wins eight of 10 deals where the operating system is Linux, and only wins five of 10 where the OS is Windows, a win rate that continues to drop as Microsoft's SQL Server gets better.
Oracle's Enterprise Linux strategy is therefore not so much about neutralizing a threat from Red Hat as it is establishing its own threat against Microsoft, a thought that others have highlighted.
Indeed, Oracle's Wim Coekaerts has declared that if Red Hat Enterprise Linux were free, Oracle would exit the market for Linux entirely.
Red Hat isn't likely to drop its pricing for RHEL anytime soon, at least, not for Oracle, but the reality is that Oracle already has a way to offer a popular, enterprise-quality Linux distribution for free, or close thereto. It's called Ubuntu.
The only thing Ubuntu lacks, as I've written, is the blessing of a major enterprise software vendor. Oracle could grant that blessing. All it would need to do is start offering Ubuntu as part of its certified stacks.
Oracle wouldn't need to pay billions for Red Hat, only to undermine the value of that deal by cutting the price of RHEL. Oracle could pay exactly $0.00 to establish a partnership with Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, and Ubuntu's already significant traction--both in personal computers and in servers--would do the rest.
If Oracle wants to beat Windows, it needs to get Windows-like distribution. Its applications help drive its databases, but if it wants a bottom-up distribution strategy to complement its sales force, it couldn't do better than Ubuntu, the leader in community Linux.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Walk the halls of any open-source conference and you'll see a large percentage of attendees with ironically un-open-source Apple laptops and iPhones. I've commented on the reasons for this before, but a new thought sprung to mind while reading Matthew Thomas' excellent (and old) "Why free software usability tends to suck."
Open-source advocates like good design as much as anyone, but the open-source development process is often not the best way to achieve it.
Thomas now works for Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, which arguably offers the industry's best Linux experience for personal computers. I got a sneak peek at a future Ubuntu release while at dinner with Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth Wednesday night, and it was gorgeous. Mac freak I may be, but the day Canonical releases that version of Ubuntu is the day my devotion to Apple will be severely tested.
Yes, it's that good.
But it's "that good" because there's a company behind it, a company dedicated to making Linux usable for average consumers. As Thomas writes,
Every contributor to the [open-source] project tries to take part in the interface design, regardless of how little they know about the subject. And once you have more than one designer, you get inconsistency, both in vision and in detail. The quality of an interface design is inversely proportional to the number of designers.
This, coupled with the fact that experienced interface designers tend to be rare in open-source projects and, even when present, "they are not heeded as much as they would be in professional projects precisely because they're dedicated designers and don't have patches to implement their suggestions," as Thomas writes, means that many open-source projects are technically brilliant...and abysmal to look at.
In the short term, proprietary products are generally going to win because they can more tightly control inputs and output and, intriguingly, it is likely that the most proprietary products will win. Why? Because in new markets, control is crucial to delivering a complete experience. Clayton Christensen, the Harvard Business School professor and author, notes:
Companies must be integrated across whatever interface drives performance along the dimension that customers value. In an industry's early days, integration typically needs to occur across interfaces that drive raw performance--for example, design and assembly. Once a product's basic performance is more than good enough, competition forces firms to compete on convenience or customization. In these situations, specialist firms emerge and the necessary locus of integration typically shifts to the interface with the customer.
Hence, Apple reigns in smartphones because it's a comparatively new market and Apple can control the complete design of the product. Microsoft and Google, on the other hand, will struggle to compete because they are only delivering software, and depend heavily on the device manufacturer. (It's likely that Apple is also exercising significant influence over AT&T and the other wireless carriers, influence that Apple's competitors likely lack.)
Against this backdrop, I wouldn't expect open source to win in new markets unless a company or other committed organization (e.g., Mozilla with Firefox) is dedicated to making it succeed. But in the long run, it's fair to expect open systems to win. As Mozilla CEO John Lilly articulated to me in response to my post "Is Apple 'open enough' to rule the next decade of mobile?":
In the long term (10 years +), I think that open systems will almost always win, because the systems will be better understood from end to end, there will be more places for individual innovations to happen, more commoditization, and [more need for] the diversity and variety of an open ecosystem.
I agree. The key, however, is learning to tweak open systems in the short term to be competitive, too, and that, I believe, requires a "cathedral+bazaar" approach to open source. It's great, for example, that Red Hat has successfully helped to commoditize the Unix operating system market, but many of us don't want to have to sit around for decades waiting for an industry to tire out, thus ripening for open-source commoditization.
We want to innovate. We want to compete. And we want it now.
For that, you need a little more than open source, it seems, to make products usable. You need control, and control doesn't always jibe well with open-source development. This is one reason that we're seeing the emergence of the Open Core licensing model for open source.
It's why I think we need a lot more such activity if we want open source to dominate new markets, and not merely clean up the scraps of old markets.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Linux has been growing in importance for years in the darkened server closets. In the server world, Linux's cost and performance benefits have trumped its early weaknesses (Ease of use, etc.), making Linux the heir apparent to the Unix throne.
But that's the server, where geeks write software for other geeks. In the consumer world of personal computers and mobile devices, however, Linux hasn't fared particularly well precisely because the developers of Linux differ so markedly from the vast majority of the user population.
Linux developers, in other words, scratch very different "itches" from those plaguing most would-be Linux users.
It seems clear to me that, as Bill Weinberg astutely argues, the way forward for Linux is not in replicating Microsoft's desktop dominance, but rather in forging a new, consumer-friendly mobile Linux experience, one focused on the youth that are growing up mobile.
This "way" is being paved by Intel, Canonical, Novell, and other companies that have significant experience writing software for normal users, and not merely the alpha geeks of Linux. I've spent the past two weeks fiddling with different variants of Linux-based Netbooks, in particular the Linux Foundation's Moblin Beta 2 (Developed by Intel and Novell) and Canonical's Ubuntu 9.04 Remix for Netbooks, and I believe they are onto something.
The first thing that struck me when using Moblin is how it breaks new ground in defining a new personal computer experience, one designed for the narrow (hardware) confines of a Netbook but offering a limitless portal to social networking and a broad Web experience beyond.
This is perhaps why Acer has committed to Moblin in a big way, and why Canonical is joining up with Moblin, as are others.
As for Ubuntu, it's an even tighter user experience (though, to be fair to Moblin, it's still in beta and so many of its rough edges will be smoothed over by general release, I assume). This isn't surprising given Ubuntu's singular focus on usability. It doesn't require any specialized knowledge of Linux though it does give the user too much information on what's happening under the hood. The lay user simply doesn't care. We just want it to work.
The experience hasn't been without its difficulties. My experience with Ubuntu, for example, was plagued by constant nagging to install yet another package to be able to play proprietary codecs. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols suggests that this problem is going away, but it can't leave fast enough. It's asking way too much to expect consumers to have to work in order to watch a YouTube video.
We are users, after all, not developers.
Slowly but surely, however, vendors are getting the Linux experience "right" for Netbooks and other mobile devices. I've been leaving my Intel-loaned Acer Aspire One Netbook around where my kids, ages four through 12, will open it up and experiment. Each one has quickly managed to find the games in Moblin and Ubuntu, and my older children were quickly browsing the Web and even typing up school reports. In minutes. With no coaching.
To me, this suggests the path forward for Linux is in new, as yet underdeveloped markets like mobile, and for an as yet under-monopolized audience: youth. My kids have grown up with Macs, but they're hardly grown up yet. Their experience with computers has been as much about mobile phones as laptops.
They are the most mobile-inclined generation the world has yet seen, making them an ideal target for new Linux-based mobile devices. As the Bible notes in Proverbs 22:6:
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Children's conceptions of what a computer must look like and feel like have yet to calcify into a Windows mold. They are the audience to win for those vendors interested in dominating the next decade of personal computing.
Old dogs strain to learn new tricks, making the Microsoft-conceived desktop a poor target for Linux vendors. The market is mobile. The market is children.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
In open source or in product development generally, one of the biggest mistakes is to take on a deeply entrenched incumbent on its own turf. Almost inevitably, if you play someone else's game, even if you're a little cheaper/faster/better, you're going to lose. Inertia favors the incumbent, and there's a whole lot of inertia involved in switching vendors.
For this reason, I agree wholeheartedly with Bill Weinberg's suggestion that Linux's opportunity in Netbooks is to focus on the mobile side of the market, rather than bringing a traditional, personal computer bent to the market.
Weinberg writes:
...(O)ne strategic error made by purveyors of Linux Netbooks was to covet the volumes of the global mobile telephony market while following the business models and channels of the legacy notebook marketplace. Linux fans--.orgs, Linux ISVs, and device OEMS--unfortunately approached the Netbook opportunity as a downward extension of the desktop and portable PC business, with volumes of 297M units in 2008 (IDC).
Instead, the Linux ecosystem needs to envision Netbooks (and MIDs and tablets) as building on the worldwide mobile handset business, with its 1.28B annual unit shipments (Gartner) the most lucrative slice of which, smartphones, constitutes 14 percent (ABI) with 20 percent annual growth rates.
Microsoft owns the traditional personal computer market, and probably will forever. But don't lose hope: the best strategies going forward are disruptive, in the Clayton Christensen sense. Microsoft is weak in mobile. This is where Linux proponents should focus their "desktop" strategies.
Apple is gaining on Microsoft in personal computers as much because of its iPhone revolution as its beautiful laptops. If Linux wants to win in Netbooks, and it can, it must do so by undermining Microsoft, not by confronting its desktop dominance directly. Netbooks must be more "Net" than "book," just as mobile phones are more about "mobile" than "phone."
If this is true, Google's Android, which is targeting smartphones first and Netbooks second, may have the upper hand on Intel's Moblin, which aims at Netbooks first, and is largely designed as a Windows replacement.
Malcolm Gladwell recently reminded the world that David beats Goliath with a sling, not a sword. Linux-based Netbooks, playing David to Microsoft's Goliath, should approach the market with a mobile bias, rather than with a personal computer bias.
"Hit 'em where they ain't," said Willie Keeler, which is as true in hitting baseballs as it is in competing with Microsoft.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Microsoft has achieved something of a Pyrrhic victory against Linux-based Netbooks: it now claims 96 percent of the Netbook market, but its earnings continue to be battered by the lower revenues and profits that come with the low-end Netbook phenomenon.
Even as Microsoft "wins" in Netbooks, it loses, as ZDNet's Larry Dignan writes. Microsoft expects "the overall spending environment to remain difficult," but it may not yet appreciate just how much worse it can get.
After all, Canonical, which develops Ubuntu, the world's leading consumer-focused, Linux-based desktop operating system, on Monday released a Netbook-optimized Ubuntu distribution, as IDG reports.
Better battery life. A nicer visual experience. An operating system tightly tuned for applications like e-mail, Web browsing, and office productivity. All for a price that is dramatically less than Microsoft Windows...even after Microsoft discounts.
Microsoft's love-hate affair with Netbooks is about to get worse. Competition does that to a company.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Revolutions don't always roil and boil toward a noisy, violent fracas. Sometimes they don't even ripple the surface.
Such is the Ubuntu Netbook revolution, which makes waves in the Linux community--and really nowhere else. Not publicly, at least.
I was fortunate to spend two hours on Tuesday night with Chris Kenyon, head of Canonical's Ubuntu business for original-equipment manufacturing, or OEM. Kenyon, in addition to being a fellow Arsenal fanatic, is also Ubuntu's point man for its quiet, but nonetheless dramatic, Netbook revolution.
Kenyon, who appeared a placid, affable chap when we first met outside Arsenal stadium to witness a shattering of Hull City's FA Cup hopes, eventually let his competitive side out during the match, cheering the team and jeering the referee. Brilliant. It was then that I got a taste for what Canonical's competitors, and particularly Microsoft, might be in for when competing with Ubuntu.
In the Netbook market, Ubuntu is the clear winner, with Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and the other major hardware OEMs shipping Ubuntu-based Netbooks. But it's not yet clear what "winner" means. Microsoft, after all, still apparently claims 90 percent of all Netbooks shipped with Windows.
Therein, however, lies the seed of Ubuntu's revolution. Ten percent market share for Linux is pretty incredible. We rightly cheer Apple for its steady onslaught of Microsoft in the personal-computing market, and that's as Apple struggles toward 10 percent market share. Linux is already there in Netbooks, and Ubuntu claims the bulk of those installations.
There are indications that this could accelerate. I won't comment on the royalties Canonical currently earns on its Netbooks, except to suggest that its competitive price point must be extraordinarily expensive...to Microsoft. Manufacturers continue to ship Windows XP and pay Microsoft virtually nothing for the privilege due to discounts, rebates, and other incentives. With Ubuntu exerting downward pricing pressure, Microsoft doesn't stand to gain much in the growing Netbook market.
Let's say Microsoft earns $8 per copy of Windows XP shipped, which might actually be high, at least with the larger OEMs. At that point, the price differential between shipping Ubuntu or Windows XP is slim. But once Microsoft eventually turns off the XP spigot and requires OEMs to ship Windows 7, will Microsoft be able to command a hefty premium on its brand alone?
I doubt it. Canonical has permanently reset the Netbook operating system price point in its favor, at a level where it can compete vigorously while Microsoft must compete reluctantly. Microsoft, in short, is now playing by Ubuntu's terms.
Now let's compound the problem for Microsoft. Taiwanese original-design manufacturers are actively deploying Ubuntu for their OEMs (HP, etc.). They are now gaining experience and expertise in testing and quality assurance for Ubuntu. The mechanics of shipping Linux, in other words, are beginning to be well-understood. This, coupled with consumers' growing comfort with Linux in the Netbook form factor, make it hard to justify the inertia of staying with Microsoft just because it's Microsoft.
Netbooks are disruptive, in part, because they define productivity in terms of the Web, not Microsoft Office. The more users want to spend time in a browser, or instant messaging, or e-mail, the less Microsoft Windows is required. The less Windows is a requirement, the less that OEMs are going to be willing to pay for Windows licenses. Microsoft suffers (indeed, it may already be suffering), OEMs gain (because they earn better margins on their Netbooks), and customers gain (all the functionality they need at an attractive price).
And, of course, Canonical gains. There's a revolution going on. It's quiet, but it's happening.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.
