To move ahead, big software companies are reaching back to a familiar strategy: offering customers a soup-to-nuts "stack" of software products.
It's an old approach revised for new competition. The idea is to increase sales by offering everything from an operating system to database software and business applications. IBM has for years followed that model, selling everything from hardware to software and services to put all of the pieces together. More recently Microsoft has sought to offer one-stop shopping for software buyers, as have Oracle and SAP.
It's a switch from just a few years ago, when the software industry's "best-of-breed" notion was all the rage. Back then, companies were advised to assemble an "all-star" lineup of products from category leaders, picking and choosing the best products based on features, no matter which company wrote the software.
But shifting economics, industry consolidation and dwindling profits have changed that. Now, big software companies, hoping to keep a greater share of software profits, are building and marketing comprehensive product stacks.
Just this week, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
told the Financial Times that he would "like to have a complete stack." Oracle makes billions of dollars selling databases and business applications. In recent years, the company has bought up many other companies, including rivals like PeopleSoft and Siebel Systems.
"We're missing an operating system. You could argue that it makes a lot of sense for us to look at distributing and supporting Linux," Ellison told the newspaper.
Red Hat's acquisition of JBoss last week added an open-source wrinkle to an ongoing competition among companies to build all-encompassing product lineups. The company now offers a broader range of big-system software.
So why the newfound love for the stack sell? By offering a broad product set, software companies can maximize revenue from existing customers and maintain control over product development. Customers get "one throat to choke" for product support and better integration--long the bane of big companies attempting to assemble their IT departments from a hodgepodge of components.
The strategy makes perfect sense--for the software companies. "This is all about control," said Forrester Research analyst John Rymer. "Oracle will sell you an all-you-can-eat license...then capture the maintenance revenue--which is almost pure profit--and then you got access to the customer for up-selling and all the growth potential."
Following a multibillion-dollar buying spree, Oracle has assembled a wide range of applications to complement its giant database business and growing middleware line.
Microsoft, IBM and SAP have similar stack strategies. Microsoft covers the broadest ground in terms of products, while IBM and SAP, like Oracle, have some holes.
How software makers stack up
Business Apps
Middleware
Database
Manage- ment
Operating System
Oracle
Fusion Apps
Fusion Middleware
Oracle 10g
Enterprise Manager
Microsoft
Dynamics
Windows Server System
SQL Server
Systems Center
Windows
IBM
WebSphere
DB2
Tivoli
Unix, mainframe, others
SAP
MySAP suite
NetWeaver
Hewlett-Packard
OpenView
HP-UX
Sun Microsytems
Java Enterprise System
PostgreSQL (support)
Solaris
BEA Systems
WebLogic
Red Hat
JBoss
Red Hat Linux
Novell
ZenWorks
NetWare, SUSE Linux
Meanwhile, hosted software providers are pursuing a similar strategy tuned for the online world. But don't use the word "stack," said Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff. "The concept of a stack is outdated. Unless of course you work for a stack company," Benioff wrote in an e-mail to CNET News.com.
Salesforce.com is looking to drive revenue from third-party products that run on its AppExchange "platform" for building and running hosted applications, according to company executives.
Watch out for the lock-in However, buying into the stack approach can be a mixed blessing for customers.
On the one hand, customers end up "locked in" to a specific vendor, depending on what products they sell, analysts said. Oracle, for example, doesn't support databases other than its own and Microsoft's products can't be swapped out for a competitor's offering.
"A significant reason for this trend is customer desire to minimize integration, upgrade, and maintenance issues among the different layers of the software stack. (Customers) also want to deal with fewer providers to ensure better pricing and accountability," Merrill Lynch analyst Kash Rangan wrote in a recent report.
On the other hand, industry consolidation and standardization have led to products from large "super platform" providers that are as good as "best of breed" products from more specialized companies, said Burton Group analyst Peter O'Kelly.
"We're getting into this battle of attrition as all (the vendors) try to move to super platforms," O'Kelly said. "It's not just more products at a discount. Now you need demonstrable synergies between the products."
The article talks about the large enterprise IT vendors' focus on "stacks" as if it's a recent rediscovery: but the truth is that "best of breed" strategies haven't been popular since the mid 1990s. That's practically ancient history in the world of IT. SAP, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, BEA et al have been playing the stack game since way back. All that changes is the labels on the boxes.
What's interesting to me, is for how long the tired and entrenched stack plays of these vendors are going to hold up in a world where enterprise customers increasingly look to the power of the network as the driver of value and innovation.
Yessir, in tomorrow's world value will come from leverage of software service networks, not software product stacks.
You can't not pick one - and when you pick one, you are basing a lot of that selection on the guy at the top. Ellison, McNealy, or Ballmer? <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blog.tallsails.com/2006/04/18/who-are-you-gonna-bet-on.aspx" target="_newWindow">http://blog.tallsails.com/2006/04/18/who-are-you-gonna-bet-on.aspx</a>
These diagrams you have started incorporating with your stories are lame and, as far as I can tell, pointless. What are we supposed to get from them? Certainly not any spatial relations. A geek's dream perhaps but a reader's nightmare. Kind of reminds me of PowerPoint, also useless, except for those who can't read.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
What's interesting to me, is for how long the tired and entrenched stack plays of these vendors are going to hold up in a world where enterprise customers increasingly look to the power of the network as the driver of value and innovation.
Yessir, in tomorrow's world value will come from leverage of software service networks, not software product stacks.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blog.tallsails.com/2006/04/18/who-are-you-gonna-bet-on.aspx" target="_newWindow">http://blog.tallsails.com/2006/04/18/who-are-you-gonna-bet-on.aspx</a>
Because of that mistake, I have no confidence in the diagram.
You need to validate that diagram.