Which software vendors are the most relevant?
My post on Tuesday suggesting that Oracle, IBM, Cisco Systems, and Microsoft are the last remaining big (software) ecosystem vendors caused a stir. "But what about EMC, Hewlett-Packard, SAP, Adobe Systems, Symantec, and...X?" came the flustered responses.
HP's public-relations firm even took the time to send me this plug for HP's software business:
IT management software is critical for enterprises to keep up with the continuous pace of technology change and growing business requirements. As the leading IT management software vendor (according to Gartner, Forrester, and IDC), HP's software solutions helps customers manage IT like a supply chain that is aligned to the needs of the business, and makes sure they spend money on all the right things that will deliver the most value to the business.
Let's assume that's true. It still doesn't answer the underlying premise of my original post: identifying the most relevant, broad-based software vendors in the market, the ones with hefty ambitions and product portfolios to complement them.
HP has a strong IT management portfolio, as well as some content management software, among other software assets. But it doesn't come close to approximating the breadth and depth of what I deem the Big Four ecosystem players. Nor does EMC or Symantec.
Having $1 billion in software sales doesn't make you a Big Four, disruptive-software vendor. Vision and ambition also factor in.
With this in mind, the big software vendors that are dramatically changing the face of software include Oracle, IBM, Cisco, and Microsoft. Other software vendors may be relevant in their markets (who could discount SAP in the enterprise resource-planning market, even despite its earnings disappointment?), but they aren't changing the face of the software landscape.
Except, perhaps, Red Hat, which today lacks in the size, depth, and breadth categories but arguably makes up for these in the ambition department. Or, on that score, perhaps Google and Salesforce.com should make their way onto the list?
However you assemble the list, it's clear that it grows smaller by the day. Within a year, I think that we'll see SAP in the hands of one of the Big Four (Microsoft, perhaps?), and we may even see Red Hat factoring into an ecosystem vendor's product strategy, rather than crafting a go-it-alone open-source story.
Which vendors are most relevant to you? If you disagree with my list, please let me know why. Who should be on the list that isn't, and who should be off?
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
On the Mac Apple are still a force with their Logic/Final Cut software and iLife/Aperture/iWorks are getting better with each release.
Adobe is photoshop & after effects and have even made steps recently to pull in FCP projects for more or less finishing. Not dogging Premiere as it is a great editing platform. It's just it appears to be losing do to a lot of external factors that apple can exert more control over.
That said, video production is its own micro ecosystem.
Google is fairly relevant, but their software and services(other than search, which is in decline,in terms of quality) is substandard and only really exists to feed its advertising department, which is what Google really is. It is not software company. It is an ad company that produces spyware.
The most relevant software projects are usually not run by corporations, since little real innovation comes from there.
I've seen this statement from all Apple fanboys, but please, where is your proof? An operating system is more than it's desktop and while the desktop has some characteristics of the Apple desktop nobody would ever confuse the two. Likewise, nobody would ever confuse Mac OS with Windows OS as the underlying structure is fundamentally different.
As long as Apple has the mindset of controlling everything Apple, they will always be second string.
Every useful feature in Vista/7 comes directly from Apple or Linux.
What do you think Office 2007 is? An attempt to copy the great GUI design of Apple, of course MS failed and their tabbed tool bar is a mess that leads to a huge stack of popups.
Does the Zune ring a bell?
MS follows other companies as well. The point is that MS does nothing innovative, they just follow behind and copy hoping they can out market those that they copy. More often then not they fail.
It is the leader in Architecture with AutoCad and its multiple variations. Also they are the big gorilla in the 3d world owning Maya, 3d Studio Max, SoftImage, Mudbox, etc.
For visual effects, animation and game studios they are their main source for commercial products, and Maya for features and max for games are the industry standard.
Yes CISCO is very good at building their eco system around enterprise software by other vendors. Does that make them one of the big software vendors ... hmmm, in my opinion NO.
Salesforce.com - may be not yet, unless their force.com grows into more than what it is toady.
Dark horse is Google - what is under their hood is very hard to predict. However if they combined their power with Open Source they could easily become real competitor. Yes certainly Yahoo could do the same, if they put a good strategy together.
Let`s come back to this May 2010. I will put my cents, that this will not happen..
I am not working for SAP or "big four"..
Btw, do you remember still Big 5? Those consultant companies. What`s up now with BIG ones?
JJ
May I suggest that the software suppliers with "the heftiest ambitions and product portfolios" are not vendors at all. The open source community has the heftiest ambitions: free OSes and applications for all, free in cost and unfettered; i.e., those with the skills and inclination can modifiy the source code to improve the product. Those that are not so skilled nor inclined still benefit from the plethora of OSes and applications available at no cost other than time to download and install.
Well, definitely, is Cisco.
If you asked an averaged enterprise IT administrator what Cisco have in software, most people I know have no idea. It at least shall be ranked after Adobe, Symantec, Novel, HP, Apple and so.
Having ambition is not the only factor to make a "Big Four". If we qualify only "ambition", even Nokia can make it with their Ovi Store. Does Cisco have any well-known software output? I read several times from your articles, even checked their announcement, but I still cannot remember any of them.
- by i_made_this May 4, 2009 8:46 AM PDT
- I agree with your picks. They've consistently produced disruptive technologies which have changed the face of computing (mostly for the better). I'm also forced to throw Adobe and Google into the mix. Adobe is an old player that have ramped up through aggressive acquisitions and their product line is extremely well supported in the markets (whether we "like"their products or not isn't really the issue). Google - I sense - makes their own case for inclusion: in less than a decade, they have already forcefully and effectively disrupted numerous software markets including search and advertising - they are rightfully feared and admired by their competitors and other interested parties and Google has proven its prevalence with admirable style.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)