The Monash Report » Companies and products

OpenOffice vs. Microsoft Word for WordPress blogging — a 65:1 ratio in cruft

Curt Monash — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:09:53 +0000

I prepare most of my blog posts in OpenOffice. Most of the rest I write directly online in WordPress. I almost never use Microsoft Word.

The reason, simply put, is cruft.

When I copy a post from OpenOffice to WordPress, I invariably get a line at the top that looks like

I delete that, which according to OpenOffice stats amounts to exactly 100 characters; I fiddle with the bullet points a bit; I add a title, categories, and a MORE separator; and I’m basically good to go.

By way of contrast, in a recent post I copied a sentence from a press release I’d recieved across Google Mail in .DOC format, forgetting to stage it into OpenOffice first. The cruft I needed to delete consisted of 6489 characters, namely:

ＭＳ明朝“; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:modern; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;} @font-face {font-family:”\@MS Mincho”; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:modern; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”MS Mincho”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:JA;} h2 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”MS Mincho”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:JA; font-weight:normal;} h3 {mso-style-next:Normal; margin-top:12.0pt; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:3.0pt; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; page-break-after:avoid; mso-outline-level:3; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:13.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”MS Mincho”; mso-fareast-language:JA; font-weight:bold;} p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”MS Mincho”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:JA;} p.MsoHeader, li.MsoHeader, div.MsoHeader {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; tab-stops:center 3.0in right 6.0in; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p.MsoFooter, li.MsoFooter, div.MsoFooter {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; tab-stops:center 3.0in right 6.0in; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”MS Mincho”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:JA;} span.MsoCommentReference {mso-ansi-font-size:8.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:8.0pt;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#606420; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} p.CommentSubject, li.CommentSubject, div.CommentSubject {mso-style-name:”Comment Subject”; mso-style-parent:”Comment Text”; mso-style-next:”Comment Text”; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:”MS Mincho”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:JA; font-weight:bold;} p.BalloonText, li.BalloonText, div.BalloonText {mso-style-name:”Balloon Text”; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; mso-fareast-font-family:”MS Mincho”; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-language:JA;} span.stylearial10ptblack {mso-style-name:stylearial10ptblack;} span.body1 {mso-style-name:body1; mso-ansi-font-size:7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-size:7.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family:Verdana; mso-hansi-font-family:Verdana;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} /* List Definitions */ @list l0 {mso-list-id:-2; mso-list-type:simple; mso-list-template-ids:1315765622;} @list l0:level1 {mso-level-start-at:0; mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:*; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:0in; text-indent:0in;} @list l1 {mso-list-id:508636615; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:775071060 1270362110 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;} @list l1:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.25in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:.25in; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Symbol; color:windowtext; mso-ansi-font-weight:normal; mso-ansi-font-style:normal;} @list l2 {mso-list-id:809203047; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:1745241986 1270362110 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;} @list l2:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.25in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:.25in; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Symbol; color:windowtext; mso-ansi-font-weight:normal; mso-ansi-font-style:normal;} @list l3 {mso-list-id:1376927774; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:323012810 -557689488 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;} @list l3:level1 {mso-level-number-format:bullet; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in; mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Symbol; color:windowtext;} @list l0:level1 lfo1 {mso-level-numbering:continue; mso-level-text:; mso-level-tab-stop:none; mso-level-number-position:left; mso-level-legacy:yes; mso-level-legacy-indent:.25in; mso-level-legacy-space:0in; margin-left:0in; text-indent:0in; font-family:Symbol;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} –>

That’s a whole other level of annoying.

Updating my standards and disclosures

Curt Monash — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:19:42 +0000

In early 2006, I wrote a pair of posts in which I discussed my general standards for analytic credibility, and disclosed some of my own relationships and biases. I have nothing to add to the generalities, but maybe it’s time to update some specifics.

The title of “my biggest customer” has no clear winner these days. Most of the contenders are small DBMS vendors such as Netezza, DATAllegro, and EnterpriseDB. Generally, I’m closer to small companies these days than to big ones.
That wasn’t always the case. For example, In other years my biggest customers have been Oracle (several times), SAP, Computer Associates, Microsoft (I think — if not so, then close to it), and AOL.
I’ve had a falling-out with SAP, who flat-out cheated me in some business dealings. Multiple execs from the VP level on up seem to have been OK with that. If you think that SAP is more ethical than, say, Oracle or Microsoft, I strongly beg to differ.
Every white paper and webcast I do is “sponsored”; i.e., money changes hands. (There may be occasional exceptions to that rule in the future, but it’s usually the case.) Sponsorship is clearly disclosed.
I cannot commit to promptly or completely disclosing who my consulting clients are. Sometimes they want to be served in confidence. However, I always have disclosed — and in the future always will disclose — any kind of relationship in which I am paid to promote companies in any way.
I do spot consulting for both public-equity and private-equity/venture capital investors. In other years I’ve also had a small number of retainer relationships with public-equity investors, but there don’t happen to be any at the moment.

Microsoft also seems to be selling SaaS directly

Curt Monash — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:06:43 +0000

For a while, I’ve been arguing that SaaS is naturally a direct-sales business, even when sold to small organizations. If people are willing to have their business processes handled over a telecommunication network, they’re probably willing to buy services that way too. Indeed, the very first computer services firm ever was probably Automatic Data Processing. They sort of did SaaS, and they most definitely did direct sales.

What inspires me to bring this up now is the press around Microsoft Sharepoint. Apparently, there’s long been a SaaS version of Sharepoint for big firms, and now Microsoft is rolling it out for everybody. Now, I haven’t read the press releases, which weren’t sent to me by anybody at Waggener-Edstrom and are not easy to find on Microsoft’s web site. But the reporting doesn’t seem to mention partners, except in the negative. I.e., this seems like yet another significant direct-sales SaaS business.

If you follow this logic through, it suggests that a large part of the SaaS market will wind going to large companies with global reach — whether or not the rumors are true that Salesforce.com is currently being shopped around.

Early thoughts on outsourcing to Google Mail

Curt Monash — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:02:25 +0000

Google doesn’t just offer free email of the form address@gmail.com. You can also outsource your own domain to them (free if you accept incoming ads, $50/year/mailbox if you don’t). I’ve chosen to do this, because:

I need a mail host that can stand up under the kind of mailbomb/DDOS attacks that shut me down twice in the past year.
Similarly, I want to diversify my email addresses among two providers, rather than leaving them all with my general web hosting company.
David Ferris first wrote up Google Mail outsourcing, with a favorable view, last July. And some of his criticisms (e.g., lack of IMAP support) have already been rectified.
What’s more — as I remarked last night, David and his associate Richi Jennings have been voting with their feet, and moving their own email to Google. That’s an impressive endorsement. Ferris Research is a serious rival to Gartner as an analyst firm covering email, and Richi — who evidently LOVES Gmail — has also carved out a non-trivial identity as an expert in his own right.
Free sounds good, compared with the alternatives.

Now that I’ve gone ahead with the move to Google Mail, here are some scattered thoughts:

Some terminology: Technically, Google Mail is part of the Google Apps service. And the terms “Google Mail” and “Gmail” are pretty interchangeable (you even have two choices of server name when setting up POP3 access).
Google’s UI to get started can be a bit confusing. But googling on Google Apps will get you to the right place, namely this link.
Particularly confusing is dealing with the MX records. My domain registrar didn’t seem to offer a way to redirect them at all. The cpanel interface for redirecting MX at my hosting company wasn’t very good; Google asks for about 7 entries of declining priority, but cpanel only makes it easy to enter 1. (I wound up asking my hosting company’s support to make sure all the entries were listed that should be.)
If there’s a way to sort messages by subject or sender in Gmail online, I haven’t found it. That’s a major oversight if it can’t be done, or a minor one if it’s merely too hard to figure out how to do it.
Setting up POP3 access has some steps that aren’t present in, say, setting up POP3 via a typical hosting company. You need to go into “Settings” and explicitly enable POP3 access. You also need to explicitly enable SSL in your mail client (on Eudora, the default setting did NOT work). Basically, you need to open this page or something similar, and actually look at the steps for your client. Chances are one or two will be non-obvious.

That’s about it for now. In particular, I haven’t done anything yet with Google Mail’s search capabilities. More on that down the road, perhaps.

Oracle is mixing its paradigms

Curt Monash — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:47:18 +0000

In the past, I’ve drawn a clear distinction between an IBM/Oracle data-centric view of applications and SAP’s long-standing process-centric view. And I pooh-poohed the appearance that IBM was fuzzing things up a bit.

But as it self-identifies ever more as an application vendor, Oracle has also claimed to be more process-centric. And given the size of Oracle’s applications commitment, in this case I think the change, while not absolute, is at least in part pretty real.

I repeat — SaaS is not necessarily an indirect-channels business

Curt Monash — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:48:52 +0000

From Salesforce.com’s latest 10-K:

We market our service to businesses on a subscription basis, primarily through our direct sales efforts and also indirectly through partners.

Looking back, I should have quoted that in support when I wrote:

By the way, I think the assumption SAP needs to sell ByDemand via indirect channels is an erroneous one. (Dennis Howlett seems to be at least partway to recognizing this. He also reports that SAP realizes that this is truly a sales issue.) Hence my stress on SAP’s internal sales management issues.

For 40+ years, application-oriented services have been sold in large part by direct sales forces. That goes back to the other payroll processors, and to time-sharing in general. Why would it change now?

Some quick thoughts on SAP acquiring Business Objects

Curt Monash — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:23:11 +0000

1. SAP needed outside talent again. In March I wrote that Shai Agassi’s departure wasn’t as a big a deal as it seemed, because guys like Dennis Moore were still there. Well, by now Dennis Moore is NOT still there, and rumor had more of the good personnel acquisitions leaving as well. And unfortunately, my personal experience of some of those remaining is that they’re ethically unfit for their roles (and that’s putting it kindly).

2. The NetWeaver strategy has been failing. Does anybody care about NetWeaver any more? The whole thing includes some great ideas, but implementation has been lacking.

3. The Business Objects guys are proven successes at integrating disparate BI products suites. The Crystal Reports acquisition proved that.

Before writing more, I should check the extremely one-sided consulting contract I had with SAP, specifically for the expiration date of the NDA. How one-sided? Well, I naively agreed to a clause that I couldn’t sue them under the contract, expecting their concern about their reputation to keep them in line. Since then, they’ve cheated me out of considerable amounts of money that they owed. Arggh. Live and learn.

SAP ByDemand could work a lot better than critics think

Curt Monash — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:29:16 +0000

As I explained in another post, it’s credible that SAP is very serious about its new ByDemand SaaS (Software as a Service) offering. While I haven’t been briefed on the product (er, service), I’m guessing ByDemand is pretty good, or soon will be. I have three major reasons for this opinion.

SAP sure has a lot of resources to bring to bear – and as previously noted, I think the company is dead serious about this initiative.
On the back end, the business-service granularity SAP has been implementing is well-suited to deal with the unique challenges of SaaS, both the very real (e.g., short upgrade cycles) and the largely imaginary (e.g., multi-tenancy).
SAP recently hired Dan Rosenberg away from Oracle to head its UI efforts, and Release 1 of a Dan Rosenberg user interface is likely to be very good. I know Dennis Howlett has a contrary view, and he’s actually seen the product. Even so, I’m optimistic about SAP’s claims to have designed the UI with an open mind, for maximum ease and simplicity, and validated by many rounds of testing.

As for sales and marketing – that’s a solvable problem. Indeed, SaaS and high-end packaged software can be synergistic businesses. True, a ByDemand salesman will need to earn much lower compensation than a high-end software sales team leader. But that’s a management challenge companies like SAP already know how to meet. Inside salespeople, product specialists, and so on can already tend to be compensated a lot less than the classic account-manager types are.

By the way, I think the assumption SAP needs to sell ByDemand via indirect channels is an erroneous one. (Dennis Howlett seems to be at least partway to recognizing this. He also reports that SAP realizes that this is truly a sales issue.) Hence my stress on SAP’s internal sales management issues.

All this assumes, of course, that SAP’s ethics and organization aren’t as screwed up as I sometimes fear.

Keep getting great research about enterprise applications, analytics and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!

Technorati Tags: SAP, ByDemand, SaaS, software as a service, Peter Zencke, Dan Rosenberg

The unprofitability of the SaaS business is an illusion caused by growth

Curt Monash — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:26:42 +0000

There’s a fallacy going around to the general effect:

Salesforce.com is the biggest SaaS company. Salesforce.com is making next to no profit. Therefore, SaaS is currently not a profitable business.

But that’s nonsense. Here’s why.

If you look at Salesforce.com’s second quarter 10K, 6-month revenues were $339 million, up from $223 million the year before. Marketing and sales costs were $174 million, slightly over 50% of revenue. Profits were negligible. The company says the churn rate is negligible, so that 50% of revenue was spent increasing sales by 50%.

Now let’s suppose that the SaaS (Software as a Service) industry becomes more mature. 1% would no longer be a realistic churn rate. Let’s suppose it instead goes to 10%+, based on both true replacements and client disappearances. Let’s suppose the revenue growth rate settles down to somewhere in the teens. Bam. To a first approximation we can whack marketing and sales by a factor of 2, and take pretax margins well over 20%.

Of course, things aren’t really that simple. It’s also necessary to market and sell for customer retention. And true marketing cost (as opposed to sales) isn’t closely tied to the number of opportunities you have. But on the other hand, as you grow there are all kinds of economies of scale too. So to a second approximation, 25 – 40% pretax margins don’t seem unrealistic.

So how profitable can a recurring-revenue computer services company be? Two examples come to mind quickly – Automatic Data Processing and Paychex. ADP’s main business and Paychex’s whole business is services in the area of payroll processing and human resources. Paychex reported 39% pretax margins on its latest 10K, while ADP’s figure was in the 25% range. (Incidentally, it seems that ADP is a partner for ByDemand.)

ADP and Paychex actually tend to get much less revenue per client than, say, SAP’s ByDemand “please don’t call it ERP” system would, yet they manage to generate substantial levels of profitability. So even if we didn’t have the hard evidence from Salesforce.com cited above, it would be a good bet that nicely profitable business models exist for SaaS offerings sold to smaller clients.

Keep getting great research about enterprise applications, analytics and related technologies. Get a FREE subscription by RSS/Atom or e-mail!

Technorati Tags: SaaS, Software as a Service, SAP, ByDemand, Paychex, Automatic Data Processing, Salesforce.com

Software Auf Probe

Curt Monash — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:45:22 +0000

We all know insulting wordplay such as “Windoze,” deserved or otherwise. (Personally, I prefer the more subtle “Intel giveth and Microsoft taketh away.”) I just learned one in German, however, that I’m guessing is less familiar to English-speaking readers. “Software auf Probe” translates, roughly, as “Software in test.” Any resemblances to long SAP adoption cycles are purely intentional.