Comments on: Which software vendors are the most relevant?

The 'Big Four' are such because of ambition and breadth of product portfolio, not simply because they sell a lot of software licenses.

[aMUSICsite]

Well Adobe Systems = bloatware but unfortunately no one has replaced them in the DTP/Video/Web design/Image software markets. Most of the alternatives don't even come close, but the day they do Adobe will be in trouble.

On the Mac Apple are still a force with their Logic/Final Cut software and iLife/Aperture/iWorks are getting better with each release.

[He_And_Him_Studios]

There is FXHome to compete with Premiere.

[outlaw26r]

working in the video industry, Final cut pro is quickly becoming an industry standard. I'm a young one so was in high school when the G5 pros were pretty much given away to schools. Suddenly we were all learning FCP and MAC. I think the lower costs for hardware & upgrades (versus previous industry leader Avid) and total tech support made it an easy choice for production shops to justify giving it a chance. Now it seems that every other show and some major movies are being made with FCP. It was a long term plan but I still am amazed at looking at the strategic implementation of the whole thing. I personally think this trend will continue to expand as Apple continues to adopt RED codecs and maintaining their MAC PRO and macbookpro lines to keep up with the needs of the industry.

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.

[quiet_john]

Since the primary factor in competitive advantage is people, perhaps the list should consider the broadest and deepest offerings in the talent management arena. Both Oracle and SAP claim to have "complete" human capital solutions, but they are either missing vital components or the components are very weak.

[pentest]

Sales and profits do not have anything to do with relevance. Apple is more relevant than MS is, since all MS does is follow Apple, and a few OSS projects. Followers are never relevant. Oracles does its thing, but outside its small area of expertise it has little power. The acquisition of Sun will do little to change that. Cisco is simply not a software company. Unlike Apple, which oddly gets tagged with the hardware company label, Cisco actually designs hardware. Apple is an OEM. IBM is far more relevant than it was 10 years ago. It has come back strong but will never be the giant it once was, which is a good thing.

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.

[MythicalMe]

"since all MS does is follow Apple"

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.

[pentest]

I don't own anything from Apple, nice try on the label.

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.

[mrwater]

If you're using an ecosystem analogy, why obsess about the large predators at the top of the food chain? Most of the planet's biomass is - help me here - bacteria, algae, insects? The top predators have a system-wide effect as well, but I think the real action is happening in the billion applications downloaded for the iPhone.

[irisfailsafe]

What about Autodesk?
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.

[t8]

Google's Cloud will eventually replace the need for a complete stack. That is how I see it.

[nzicecool]

If you consider CISCO as one of the major software vendors then I have to agree with HP's comments. However I believe neither of them are major software vendors. HP is good in hardware and now with EDS under them, they will grow their business with integration and professional services.

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.

[JJouni]

Within a year, I think that we'll see SAP in the hands of one of the Big Four (Microsoft, perhaps?)

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

[gcs363]

"...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."

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.

[imacat_tw]

"..., and who should be off?"

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.

[i_made_this]

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.