FTD.de - Medien+Internet - Nachrichten - Google bringt neues Konkurrenz-Produkt zu Microsoft heraus
Google verschärft die Konkurrenz mit Microsoft: der Suchmaschinenbetreiber erweitert seine Internet-basierten Office-Anwendungen "Google Apps" um ein neues Werkzeug zur Erstellung von Webseiten. Microsoft will sich nicht abschlagen lassen und zieht mit.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Emerce - Technologie nieuws: Google neemt Microsoft Sharepoint onder vuur
Emerce - Technologie nieuws: Google neemt Microsoft Sharepoint onder vuur
Google lanceert een dienst waarmee medewerkers van bedrijven online omgevingen kunnen maken om locatie-onafhankelijk met elkaar samen te werken. Daarmee neemt het Microsoft Sharepoint op de korrel. Het Nederlandse YesHello.com haakt in op de groeiende behoefte onder bedrijven om diensten online uit te besteden.
Google lanceert een dienst waarmee medewerkers van bedrijven online omgevingen kunnen maken om locatie-onafhankelijk met elkaar samen te werken. Daarmee neemt het Microsoft Sharepoint op de korrel. Het Nederlandse YesHello.com haakt in op de groeiende behoefte onder bedrijven om diensten online uit te besteden.
Microsoft Matches Google With SaaS for E-Mail/SharePoint
Microsoft Matches Google With SaaS for E-Mail/SharePoint
Responding to the threat from Google, and sensing a significant business opportunity, Microsoft has announced substantial plans for an Exchange and SharePoint software-as-a-service model.
Responding to the threat from Google, and sensing a significant business opportunity, Microsoft has announced substantial plans for an Exchange and SharePoint software-as-a-service model.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The truth is in there – but will you be able to find it?
Reprinted with permission by Media Revenue Services Limited.
© THE FINANCIAL TIMES LIMITED 2007 Not to be reproduced without authorisation.
DIGITAL BUSINESS OPINION
PERSONAL VIEW
The truth is in there – but will you be able to find it?
The data mountain doubles each year, but to what end if it cannot be understood? Mike Lynch seeks answers
The shift from processing a simplified world ordered for a computer to comprehending the rich unstructured life that human beings are used to – with letters and e-mails and video – is now unstoppable.
Until now, computers ruled the roost. Humans had to use data in the rows and columns that computers dictated. As humans, we have been trained to underspecify and processes have been dumbed down, which is not reflective of our natural behaviour.
But the tide has turned and computers have to understand data in human form, the way we use and process information: phone calls, e-mail, instant messaging, text messages and so on.
All of this unstructured data, which currently represents more than 80 per cent of information held within organisations, is about shades of grey as opposed to the black and white of computer-speak.
We are being overwhelmed by data – every year the amount in the world approximately doubles – but information technology is not making it any easier to get to the meaning of that data.
If the first wave of computing successfully brought intelligence to structured data, the second wave of computing will bring meaning to all data, whatever format it comes in.
A concept called meaningbased computing will allow businesses to understand the concept and context of what people are doing, whether on a website, in a Word document, a phone call or an e-mail.
According to research by Deloitte, 20bn gigabytes of new digital data will be created this year. The impact on the workforce is remarkable. Buyers can shop the entire world without leaving their desk, sellers have access to markets that were once beyond reach and the amount of information collected about customers,
competitors and markets is unprecedented.
Yet being unable to access and derive meaning from this data in a timely and efficient manner can prove costly to businesses.
In business, information can be the key to survival and competitive success.
The company that gets its hands on that vital piece of information for a crucial decision first is the one with the competitive edge. But the volume of information
means they rarely find what they are looking for – assuming they know what it is that they are trying to find in the first place.
When it comes to understanding e-mails and other forms of unstructured data, technology is needed to weed out the most pertinent information, based on contextually linking ideas and concepts, as opposed to just keywords.
For example, fraudsters rarely
tag their e-mails “fraud” and a
single keyword search for “fraud”
will not necessarily uncover all
relevant information.
However, a tool that analyses
data to uncover fraudulent
activity would recognise inconsistencies
in financial data, uncover
e-mails that have been started as
a draft and completed by another
user to avoid traditional search
methods and connect the contents
of a voicemail with a credit
card transaction and a follow-up
e-mail.
For a company such as Arup,
a global firm of designers and
business consultants, relevant
content is of crucial importance.
Employees have highly specific
and specialised areas of interest,
from structural engineering to
planning consultancy, that extend
far beyond the definitions
that could be explained by simple
keywords.
Arup aims to link people and
information “in context”, in realtime,
using concepts identified
from explicit profiling of natural
language to provide what we call
“implicit querying”.
Rather than stopping work,
going to a search engine and creating
a query, employees simply
ask to see content similar to what
they are reading, be it an e-mail,
Word document or web page,
and automatically have related
information delivered to their
desktop.
Another good example is BAE
Systems. The company was typical
of many large multi-national
businesses, struggling with the
vast amount of internal information.
However, when it discovered
that more than 80 per cent of
networked employees were wasting
30 minutes a day retrieving
information, while 60 per cent
were spending an hour or more
duplicating the work of others,
BAE Systems set out to identify
and measure the link between the
individual, user productivity and
information technology.
It discovered that engineers
were working in different parts of
the country on precisely the same
problem – a wing construction
issue. One group found a solution
and established best practice,
which was transferred to another
plant by a network based on
meaning-based computing, with
multi-million pound savings.
Meaning-based computing signals
the dawn of the next phase of
interaction between humans and
computers and paves the way for
computers to go one step further
and automatically deliver relevant
information to us without
us having to ask or search for it
– or without us even knowing
what we are looking for in the
case of criminal investigations or
compliance.
This automatic processing
of data will ultimately drive
efficiency, productivity and profitability,
and will mean that we can
continue to extract knowledge
rather than drown in the sea of
ever-increasing information.
The IT industry is currently
undergoing a revolution larger
than any it has ever seen. This
revolution is not about architectures
or processors but is a
fundamental shift in the form of
information itself.
Computers will fit to our world,
not us to theirs.
▪ Dr Mike Lynch is chief executive of
Autonomy
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 24 2007
© THE FINANCIAL TIMES LIMITED 2007 Not to be reproduced without authorisation.
DIGITAL BUSINESS OPINION
PERSONAL VIEW
The truth is in there – but will you be able to find it?
The data mountain doubles each year, but to what end if it cannot be understood? Mike Lynch seeks answers
The shift from processing a simplified world ordered for a computer to comprehending the rich unstructured life that human beings are used to – with letters and e-mails and video – is now unstoppable.
Until now, computers ruled the roost. Humans had to use data in the rows and columns that computers dictated. As humans, we have been trained to underspecify and processes have been dumbed down, which is not reflective of our natural behaviour.
But the tide has turned and computers have to understand data in human form, the way we use and process information: phone calls, e-mail, instant messaging, text messages and so on.
All of this unstructured data, which currently represents more than 80 per cent of information held within organisations, is about shades of grey as opposed to the black and white of computer-speak.
We are being overwhelmed by data – every year the amount in the world approximately doubles – but information technology is not making it any easier to get to the meaning of that data.
If the first wave of computing successfully brought intelligence to structured data, the second wave of computing will bring meaning to all data, whatever format it comes in.
A concept called meaningbased computing will allow businesses to understand the concept and context of what people are doing, whether on a website, in a Word document, a phone call or an e-mail.
According to research by Deloitte, 20bn gigabytes of new digital data will be created this year. The impact on the workforce is remarkable. Buyers can shop the entire world without leaving their desk, sellers have access to markets that were once beyond reach and the amount of information collected about customers,
competitors and markets is unprecedented.
Yet being unable to access and derive meaning from this data in a timely and efficient manner can prove costly to businesses.
In business, information can be the key to survival and competitive success.
The company that gets its hands on that vital piece of information for a crucial decision first is the one with the competitive edge. But the volume of information
means they rarely find what they are looking for – assuming they know what it is that they are trying to find in the first place.
When it comes to understanding e-mails and other forms of unstructured data, technology is needed to weed out the most pertinent information, based on contextually linking ideas and concepts, as opposed to just keywords.
For example, fraudsters rarely
tag their e-mails “fraud” and a
single keyword search for “fraud”
will not necessarily uncover all
relevant information.
However, a tool that analyses
data to uncover fraudulent
activity would recognise inconsistencies
in financial data, uncover
e-mails that have been started as
a draft and completed by another
user to avoid traditional search
methods and connect the contents
of a voicemail with a credit
card transaction and a follow-up
e-mail.
For a company such as Arup,
a global firm of designers and
business consultants, relevant
content is of crucial importance.
Employees have highly specific
and specialised areas of interest,
from structural engineering to
planning consultancy, that extend
far beyond the definitions
that could be explained by simple
keywords.
Arup aims to link people and
information “in context”, in realtime,
using concepts identified
from explicit profiling of natural
language to provide what we call
“implicit querying”.
Rather than stopping work,
going to a search engine and creating
a query, employees simply
ask to see content similar to what
they are reading, be it an e-mail,
Word document or web page,
and automatically have related
information delivered to their
desktop.
Another good example is BAE
Systems. The company was typical
of many large multi-national
businesses, struggling with the
vast amount of internal information.
However, when it discovered
that more than 80 per cent of
networked employees were wasting
30 minutes a day retrieving
information, while 60 per cent
were spending an hour or more
duplicating the work of others,
BAE Systems set out to identify
and measure the link between the
individual, user productivity and
information technology.
It discovered that engineers
were working in different parts of
the country on precisely the same
problem – a wing construction
issue. One group found a solution
and established best practice,
which was transferred to another
plant by a network based on
meaning-based computing, with
multi-million pound savings.
Meaning-based computing signals
the dawn of the next phase of
interaction between humans and
computers and paves the way for
computers to go one step further
and automatically deliver relevant
information to us without
us having to ask or search for it
– or without us even knowing
what we are looking for in the
case of criminal investigations or
compliance.
This automatic processing
of data will ultimately drive
efficiency, productivity and profitability,
and will mean that we can
continue to extract knowledge
rather than drown in the sea of
ever-increasing information.
The IT industry is currently
undergoing a revolution larger
than any it has ever seen. This
revolution is not about architectures
or processors but is a
fundamental shift in the form of
information itself.
Computers will fit to our world,
not us to theirs.
▪ Dr Mike Lynch is chief executive of
Autonomy
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 24 2007
CoreMedia - Enterprise 2.0 Report (free download): German companies are experimenting successfully with Web 2.0 technologies, but are not yet maximizing efficiency
CoreMedia - Enterprise 2.0 Report (free download): German companies are experimenting successfully with Web 2.0 technologies, but are not yet maximizing efficiency
Enterprise 2.0 Report (free download): German companies are experimenting successfully with Web 2.0 technologies, but are not yet maximizing efficiency
Hamburg, November 06, 2007 – CoreMedia and Berlecon research present their new report on Enterprise 2.0 in Germany which concentrates on the use of Social Software for knowledge-intensive companies (Enterprise 2.0). The report reveals a profound lack of efficient communication and information despite a fast-growing need. Without a cross-company integration of new Web 2.0 technologies (approx. 95 %) businesses cannot tap the full potential of Enterprise 2.0.
Go to CoreMedia’s blog to read the conclusions drawn from the study by Nicole Dufft, Director Berlecon Research. Let us know what you think! If you would like to take part in the discussion, you can log in using your Facebook account or by using an OpenID (e.g. from AOL, Wordpress or another provider of OpenIDs).
Enterprise 2.0 Report (free download): German companies are experimenting successfully with Web 2.0 technologies, but are not yet maximizing efficiency
Hamburg, November 06, 2007 – CoreMedia and Berlecon research present their new report on Enterprise 2.0 in Germany which concentrates on the use of Social Software for knowledge-intensive companies (Enterprise 2.0). The report reveals a profound lack of efficient communication and information despite a fast-growing need. Without a cross-company integration of new Web 2.0 technologies (approx. 95 %) businesses cannot tap the full potential of Enterprise 2.0.
Go to CoreMedia’s blog to read the conclusions drawn from the study by Nicole Dufft, Director Berlecon Research. Let us know what you think! If you would like to take part in the discussion, you can log in using your Facebook account or by using an OpenID (e.g. from AOL, Wordpress or another provider of OpenIDs).
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Xparo entwickelt mit contentXXL CMS neues Extranet für Mercedes Benz Österreich
Xparo entwickelt mit contentXXL CMS neues Extranet für Mercedes Benz Österreich
Die wichtigste Ressource im Direktverkauf ist, neben der Ware selbst, die möglichst detaillierte Kenntnis über das Produkt. Um auch alle Verkaufs- und Servicestellen in Österreich mit eben solchen Informationen versorgen zu können, hat Mercedes Benz Österreich mit dem Business Content Management System contentXXL alle angeschlossenen Händler und Werkstätten mit einem umfangreichen Extranet versorgt. Umgesetzt wurde das Projekt von der Xparo GmbH aus Nürnberg.
Die wichtigste Ressource im Direktverkauf ist, neben der Ware selbst, die möglichst detaillierte Kenntnis über das Produkt. Um auch alle Verkaufs- und Servicestellen in Österreich mit eben solchen Informationen versorgen zu können, hat Mercedes Benz Österreich mit dem Business Content Management System contentXXL alle angeschlossenen Händler und Werkstätten mit einem umfangreichen Extranet versorgt. Umgesetzt wurde das Projekt von der Xparo GmbH aus Nürnberg.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CeBIT 2008: contentXXL präsentiert CMS Release 3.5 mit Web 2.0-Funktionen und SharePoint Integration
CeBIT 2008: contentXXL präsentiert CMS Release 3.5 mit Web 2.0-Funktionen und SharePoint Integration
Die contentXXL International GmbH präsentiert auf der CeBIT 2008 (04.- 09.03.2008) in Halle 4, Stand A26, Platz 40 die neue Version des Microsoft .NET basierten Content Management Systems (CMS) contentXXL. Im Mittelpunkt des Release 3.5 steht das neue »Web 2.0 Premiummodul«, das verschiedene Web 2.0 Funktionen zusammenfasst. Dieses beinhaltet eine Kommentar- und Bewertungsfunktion sowie kategoriebasierte Tag Clouds (zu Deutsch: Schlagwortwolken). Des Weiteren packt contentXXL International eine neue Rechtschreibeprüfung für über 30 Sprachen mit einem zentralen, per Web erweiterbaren Unternehmenswörterbuch (Dictionary) in das neue Release.
Abgerundet wird die neue Version 3.5 durch ein neues Modul, das den kostenlosen Microsoft Search Server 2008 Express nahtlos in contentXXL integriert. Der Microsoft Search Server 2008 ist eine Lösung für die unternehmensweite Suche, die Microsoft auf der CeBIT 2008 erstmals vorstellen wird. Ebenfalls unterstützt contentXXL bereits das neue Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5.
Die contentXXL International GmbH präsentiert auf der CeBIT 2008 (04.- 09.03.2008) in Halle 4, Stand A26, Platz 40 die neue Version des Microsoft .NET basierten Content Management Systems (CMS) contentXXL. Im Mittelpunkt des Release 3.5 steht das neue »Web 2.0 Premiummodul«, das verschiedene Web 2.0 Funktionen zusammenfasst. Dieses beinhaltet eine Kommentar- und Bewertungsfunktion sowie kategoriebasierte Tag Clouds (zu Deutsch: Schlagwortwolken). Des Weiteren packt contentXXL International eine neue Rechtschreibeprüfung für über 30 Sprachen mit einem zentralen, per Web erweiterbaren Unternehmenswörterbuch (Dictionary) in das neue Release.
Abgerundet wird die neue Version 3.5 durch ein neues Modul, das den kostenlosen Microsoft Search Server 2008 Express nahtlos in contentXXL integriert. Der Microsoft Search Server 2008 ist eine Lösung für die unternehmensweite Suche, die Microsoft auf der CeBIT 2008 erstmals vorstellen wird. Ebenfalls unterstützt contentXXL bereits das neue Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
FT.com / In depth - Microsoft warns Yahoo on $42bn offer
FT.com / In depth - Microsoft warns Yahoo on $42bn offer
Microsoft warns Yahoo on $42bn offer
By Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: February 11 2008 14:28 | Last updated: February 11 2008 23:44
Microsoft described Yahoo’s rejection on Monday of its unsolicited offer as “unfortunate”.
The software company warned that it was prepared to bypass the internet company’s board to complete a transaction currently valued at $41.8bn. Microsoft was responding to a Yahoo statement that the software group’s February 1 proposal “substantially undervalues” the internet company.
Analysts had speculated that the Yahoo board was holding out for a higher offer than the $31 per share originally proposed. But, sensing that Yahoo was in a weak position, Microsoft said its offer was “full and fair” and gave no indication that it would raise the price.
Microsoft shares had slipped 1.2 per cent to close at $28.21 as Wall Street anticipated a higher offer. They gained 0.25 per cent in after-hours trade following the group’s firm line. Microsoft’s statement said: “Based on conversations with stakeholders of both companies, we are confident that moving forward promptly to consummate a transaction is in the best interests of both parties.”
The software group has been sounding out Yahoo’s largest shareholders, principally Capital Research & Management, which holds an 11 per cent stake and is also an investor in Microsoft. The company’s next step could be to make an exchange offer for Yahoo shares to stockholders, turning its approach hostile. It could also launch a proxy contest to try to unseat the board. “Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realise the value inherent in our proposal,” its statement warned.
Analysts feel Yahoo investors would settle for a higher offer from Microsoft.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Microsoft warns Yahoo on $42bn offer
By Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters in San Francisco
Published: February 11 2008 14:28 | Last updated: February 11 2008 23:44
Microsoft described Yahoo’s rejection on Monday of its unsolicited offer as “unfortunate”.
The software company warned that it was prepared to bypass the internet company’s board to complete a transaction currently valued at $41.8bn. Microsoft was responding to a Yahoo statement that the software group’s February 1 proposal “substantially undervalues” the internet company.
Analysts had speculated that the Yahoo board was holding out for a higher offer than the $31 per share originally proposed. But, sensing that Yahoo was in a weak position, Microsoft said its offer was “full and fair” and gave no indication that it would raise the price.
Microsoft shares had slipped 1.2 per cent to close at $28.21 as Wall Street anticipated a higher offer. They gained 0.25 per cent in after-hours trade following the group’s firm line. Microsoft’s statement said: “Based on conversations with stakeholders of both companies, we are confident that moving forward promptly to consummate a transaction is in the best interests of both parties.”
The software group has been sounding out Yahoo’s largest shareholders, principally Capital Research & Management, which holds an 11 per cent stake and is also an investor in Microsoft. The company’s next step could be to make an exchange offer for Yahoo shares to stockholders, turning its approach hostile. It could also launch a proxy contest to try to unseat the board. “Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realise the value inherent in our proposal,” its statement warned.
Analysts feel Yahoo investors would settle for a higher offer from Microsoft.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Saturday, February 09, 2008
FT.com / In depth - Yahoo poised to reject Microsoft bid
FT.com / In depth - Yahoo poised to reject Microsoft bid
Yahoo poised to reject Microsoft bid
By Chris Nuttall in San Francisco
Published: February 9 2008 20:29 | Last updated: February 9 2008 20:29
Yahoo intends to reject Microsoft’s unsolicited bid for the internet company, according to a person close to the situation.
Yahoo’s board held its first formal meeting on Friday to discuss the February 1 offer, which is currently valued at $41.5bn. It has decided the $31 a share on the table massively undervalues the company, this person said.
The Silicon Valley company is expected to send a letter to Microsoft on Monday detailing its position, including the concern that any takeover could be overturned by regulators.
It is understood Yahoo would be unlikely to give serious consideration to an offer of less than $40 a share. Shares in Yahoo closed on Friday at $29.20.
Yahoo’s rejection of the bid could set the scene for a protracted struggle for the company. Microsoft could launch a proxy contest and seek to replace Yahoo’s board at its annual meeting in June.
But Yahoo’s move could also give it time to come up with alternatives that might satisfy shareholders disappointed with its poor financial performance. It is understood to be considering handing over its search advertising to Google, a move that would generate considerable revenues and cost savings. Another option would be to sell off its holdings in China and Japan to generate a special dividend.
So far there has been no indication of any ”white knight” coming to Yahoo’s rescue, with News Corp and NBC among those ruling out a possible counter-bid.
Yahoo is being advised by Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. Moelis & Company, a Los Angeles-based mergers and acquisitions boutique, has also joined the team.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Yahoo poised to reject Microsoft bid
By Chris Nuttall in San Francisco
Published: February 9 2008 20:29 | Last updated: February 9 2008 20:29
Yahoo intends to reject Microsoft’s unsolicited bid for the internet company, according to a person close to the situation.
Yahoo’s board held its first formal meeting on Friday to discuss the February 1 offer, which is currently valued at $41.5bn. It has decided the $31 a share on the table massively undervalues the company, this person said.
The Silicon Valley company is expected to send a letter to Microsoft on Monday detailing its position, including the concern that any takeover could be overturned by regulators.
It is understood Yahoo would be unlikely to give serious consideration to an offer of less than $40 a share. Shares in Yahoo closed on Friday at $29.20.
Yahoo’s rejection of the bid could set the scene for a protracted struggle for the company. Microsoft could launch a proxy contest and seek to replace Yahoo’s board at its annual meeting in June.
But Yahoo’s move could also give it time to come up with alternatives that might satisfy shareholders disappointed with its poor financial performance. It is understood to be considering handing over its search advertising to Google, a move that would generate considerable revenues and cost savings. Another option would be to sell off its holdings in China and Japan to generate a special dividend.
So far there has been no indication of any ”white knight” coming to Yahoo’s rescue, with News Corp and NBC among those ruling out a possible counter-bid.
Yahoo is being advised by Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. Moelis & Company, a Los Angeles-based mergers and acquisitions boutique, has also joined the team.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Semantische Suchmaschine auf der CeBIT
Semantische Suchmaschine auf der CeBIT
Im entscheidenden Moment die richtige Information parat zu haben, dafuer durchforstet ConWeaver die Datenbanken des Unternehmens. Die am Fraunhofer IGD entwickelte Software sucht nach mehr als nur dem eingegebenen Begriff und unterstuetzt die Anwender dabei, bessere Suchergebnisse zu erzielen. Vom 4. bis 9. Maerz ist die intelligente Suchtechnologie ConWeaver auf der CeBIT in Hannover zu sehen.
In der heutigen Wissensgesellschaft sind Informationen ein Schluessel zum Erfolg. Der Berg an zur Verfuegung stehenden Daten waechst stetig. Nutzer stehen zunehmend vor der Herausforderung, die benoetigte Information schnell und im richtigen Moment zu finden. Mitarbeiter kostet es taeglich viel Zeit, Daten aus Kunden-, Lieferanten- und Expertendatenbanken herauszufiltern. Fuer das Unternehmen entstehen so unnoetig hohe Kosten.
Das Fraunhofer-Institut fuer Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD entwickelte mit ConWeaver eine semantische Suchmaschine, die bei Suchanfragen effizientere Ergebnisse liefert. Die Software durchforstet parallel saemtliche Datenbanken, Server und das gesamte Intranet. Sie sucht nach dem eingegebenen Begriff, verwandten Terminologien und dessen Uebersetzungen. Die Technologie erzeugt anschliessend automatisch ein semantisches Wissensnetz aus verschiedenen Unternehmensdaten.
ConWeaver verfuegt ueber mehr als 200 Analysemodule. Diese passt das Programm mit Hilfe sogenannter Analyseworkflows spezifisch auf die Kundendaten an. Die so entstehenden Wissensnetze und damit die semantischen Suchfunktionen stimmt die Software mit den jeweiligen Anforderungen der Kunden ab. Ein so erstelltes firmenspezifisches Wissensnetz nutzt und pflegt ConWeaver als semantischen Suchindex fuer alle angeschlossenen Datenquellen.
"Im Gegensatz zu herkoemmlichen Suchmaschinen kann ConWeaver sowohl unstrukturierte als auch strukturierte Informationsquellen effizient durchsuchen", erlaeutert Projektleiter Dr. Thomas Kamps. "Auf seine Anfrage erhaelt der Nutzer keine ungeordnete Ergebnisliste, sondern eine vollstaendige, aggregierte und strukturierte Antwort."
Aus dem erfolgreichen Projekt hat Dr. Kamps mittlerweile die ConWeaver GmbH gegruendet. Unter dem Titel "Semantische Suche" ist die marktreife Technologie ConWeaver vom 4. bis 9. Maerz 2008 auf der CeBIT in Hannover vor. Dieses und weitere interessante Exponate sind am Gemeinschaftsstand der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft in Halle 9, Stand B36 zu sehen. Die Halle ist taeglich von 9.00 bis 18.00 Uhr geoeffnet.
07.02.2008, Dr. Thomas Kamps, Fraunhofer-Institut fuer Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD
Im entscheidenden Moment die richtige Information parat zu haben, dafuer durchforstet ConWeaver die Datenbanken des Unternehmens. Die am Fraunhofer IGD entwickelte Software sucht nach mehr als nur dem eingegebenen Begriff und unterstuetzt die Anwender dabei, bessere Suchergebnisse zu erzielen. Vom 4. bis 9. Maerz ist die intelligente Suchtechnologie ConWeaver auf der CeBIT in Hannover zu sehen.
In der heutigen Wissensgesellschaft sind Informationen ein Schluessel zum Erfolg. Der Berg an zur Verfuegung stehenden Daten waechst stetig. Nutzer stehen zunehmend vor der Herausforderung, die benoetigte Information schnell und im richtigen Moment zu finden. Mitarbeiter kostet es taeglich viel Zeit, Daten aus Kunden-, Lieferanten- und Expertendatenbanken herauszufiltern. Fuer das Unternehmen entstehen so unnoetig hohe Kosten.
Das Fraunhofer-Institut fuer Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD entwickelte mit ConWeaver eine semantische Suchmaschine, die bei Suchanfragen effizientere Ergebnisse liefert. Die Software durchforstet parallel saemtliche Datenbanken, Server und das gesamte Intranet. Sie sucht nach dem eingegebenen Begriff, verwandten Terminologien und dessen Uebersetzungen. Die Technologie erzeugt anschliessend automatisch ein semantisches Wissensnetz aus verschiedenen Unternehmensdaten.
ConWeaver verfuegt ueber mehr als 200 Analysemodule. Diese passt das Programm mit Hilfe sogenannter Analyseworkflows spezifisch auf die Kundendaten an. Die so entstehenden Wissensnetze und damit die semantischen Suchfunktionen stimmt die Software mit den jeweiligen Anforderungen der Kunden ab. Ein so erstelltes firmenspezifisches Wissensnetz nutzt und pflegt ConWeaver als semantischen Suchindex fuer alle angeschlossenen Datenquellen.
"Im Gegensatz zu herkoemmlichen Suchmaschinen kann ConWeaver sowohl unstrukturierte als auch strukturierte Informationsquellen effizient durchsuchen", erlaeutert Projektleiter Dr. Thomas Kamps. "Auf seine Anfrage erhaelt der Nutzer keine ungeordnete Ergebnisliste, sondern eine vollstaendige, aggregierte und strukturierte Antwort."
Aus dem erfolgreichen Projekt hat Dr. Kamps mittlerweile die ConWeaver GmbH gegruendet. Unter dem Titel "Semantische Suche" ist die marktreife Technologie ConWeaver vom 4. bis 9. Maerz 2008 auf der CeBIT in Hannover vor. Dieses und weitere interessante Exponate sind am Gemeinschaftsstand der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft in Halle 9, Stand B36 zu sehen. Die Halle ist taeglich von 9.00 bis 18.00 Uhr geoeffnet.
07.02.2008, Dr. Thomas Kamps, Fraunhofer-Institut fuer Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD
Microsoft v Google | When clouds collide | Economist.com
Microsoft v Google | When clouds collide | Economist.com
THE collision of two clouds is a gentle affair—except, that is, in the digital skies of the technology industry. But such a virtual collision is the best image to keep in mind when trying to understand why Microsoft, the world's largest software company, has bid a whopping $44.6 billion for Yahoo!, an ailing online giant. As computing moves online, the sources of power and money will increasingly be enormous “computing clouds”, as the cognoscenti call them, hosted on the internet. The Yahoo! deal is mainly about inflating Microsoft's cloud so that it can at last match that of its most dangerous rival, Google.
To be sure, the merger, which would be the internet industry's biggest since the ill-fated union of AOL and Time Warner in 2000, is far from a done deal. As The Economist went to press, Yahoo! had yet to reply formally to the offer, other than to say that it was considering it. Indeed, its management, which has spurned previous overtures from Microsoft, is said to have been looking into alternatives to the takeover, including selling off some units and even considering an alliance with Google. A rival bid is possible, but so far no one appears inclined to enter into a bidding war with deep-pocketed Microsoft; its offer values Yahoo! at $31 a share, a 62% premium over its closing price before Microsoft's bid was made public. And then there is the inevitable antitrust review, which promises to be lengthy, particularly in Europe.
If Microsoft does manage to swallow Yahoo!, it risks a severe bout of post-merger indigestion, as happened with AOL and Time Warner. (This week Time Warner's new boss, Jeff Bewkes, said he planned to spin off AOL's shrinking internet-access business.) Microsoft will have to combine or eliminate overlapping products and services. There will be cultural problems to overcome, too. Yahoo! is an online-media company that prides itself on its fun-loving ethos and has built its business on open-source technology, whereas Microsoft attracts hard-charging geeks and makes its money from proprietary software. So combining the two firms' technology infrastructures to make further savings will also be tricky.
Since Microsoft must know all this, the fact that it still wants to buy Yahoo! is nothing less than an admission that it needs help to catch up with Google. The latter is best known for its search engine, but it was also the first company to build a huge computing cloud—a nexus of hardware, software, data and people which provides online services. In Google's vast data centres, the computing equivalents of power stations, hundreds of thousands of machines are cleverly linked to act as one. Google collects vast amounts of data from its users and from the web. And it has hired an army of bright engineers to devise new services that make use of these resources.
Most importantly, Google has figured out a way to make money from its cloud. By giving away its services, the firm creates plenty of space for targeted advertising, mostly in the form of small text-boxes related to users' search queries. These are auctioned, and buyers pay only if users click on their advertisements. Google has thus created a virtuous cycle. As the largest search engine, Google attracts more advertisers and can serve up more relevant advertisements. This in turn attracts more users and advertisers, and so on.
In recent years Microsoft has tried to create a comparable cloud of its own. It is investing heavily in infrastructure and has built data centres around the world. It is also trying hard to catch up with Google's services, notably internet search. It recently strengthened its position in display advertising, a subset of the online-ad market that is smaller than search-based advertising, but is expected to grow quickly. In May Microsoft bought aQuantive, an online-ad agency, after Google agreed to buy DoubleClick, a leader in display.
Yet it has little to show for its efforts. In search, for instance, Microsoft's worldwide market share in December 2007 was 2.9%, according to comScore, a market-research firm, compared with 62.4% for Google (and 12.8% for Yahoo!). Microsoft's online business has yet to turn a profit. Yet what worries the firm's management most is that Google is pulling ahead in online advertising and may soon corner this crucial market, particularly once its acquisition of DoubleClick is completed. Despite fierce lobbying by Microsoft, American regulators have approved the deal, and their European counterparts are expected to follow suit soon.
Ironically, Microsoft argues that Google will benefit from the same advantage that has long made it almost impossible for any other firm to compete with its own Windows operating system, and which played an important role in successful antitrust cases against the software giant. Since so much software is written to run on Windows, it is difficult for competing operating systems to enter the market. Similarly, if too many publishers and advertisers adopt Google's online-advertising platform, rivals will not be able “to mount a credible competitive challenge”, as an internal Microsoft document puts it.
Having failed to keep DoubleClick out of Google's clutches, Microsoft now hopes that Yahoo! will keep it from being left in the dust. If it succeeds, the takeover would expand Microsoft's cloud, though not to the size of Google's. The combined firm's websites would attract over 290m unique visitors per month in America—slightly more than Google, according to Nielsen Online, another market-research firm. Yet Microsoft-Yahoo! would have a market share of only 18% in search advertising and 30% in display, according to Oppenheimer, an investment bank.
Still, the takeover would give Microsoft greater clout in other areas. One is web-based e-mail, where the merged entity would have 80% of the American market. It would be equally dominant in instant messaging. Since Yahoo! also offers many other services, such as Flickr, a photo-sharing site, Microsoft would control the world's biggest directory of registered internet users—a valuable asset as it develops new cloud-based services.
Nonetheless, the transaction could be good news for Google, at least in the short term. Google will most certainly try to lure away Yahoo!'s best staff. The integration effort will distract Microsoft's management and take time. Google has already launched a lobbying campaign to block the merger, arguing that it could undermine innovation on the internet—though neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! has done anything terribly innovative online lately. Indeed, the more Google complains about threats to innovation, instead of just getting on with doing it, the more it sounds like Microsoft used to.
THE collision of two clouds is a gentle affair—except, that is, in the digital skies of the technology industry. But such a virtual collision is the best image to keep in mind when trying to understand why Microsoft, the world's largest software company, has bid a whopping $44.6 billion for Yahoo!, an ailing online giant. As computing moves online, the sources of power and money will increasingly be enormous “computing clouds”, as the cognoscenti call them, hosted on the internet. The Yahoo! deal is mainly about inflating Microsoft's cloud so that it can at last match that of its most dangerous rival, Google.
To be sure, the merger, which would be the internet industry's biggest since the ill-fated union of AOL and Time Warner in 2000, is far from a done deal. As The Economist went to press, Yahoo! had yet to reply formally to the offer, other than to say that it was considering it. Indeed, its management, which has spurned previous overtures from Microsoft, is said to have been looking into alternatives to the takeover, including selling off some units and even considering an alliance with Google. A rival bid is possible, but so far no one appears inclined to enter into a bidding war with deep-pocketed Microsoft; its offer values Yahoo! at $31 a share, a 62% premium over its closing price before Microsoft's bid was made public. And then there is the inevitable antitrust review, which promises to be lengthy, particularly in Europe.
If Microsoft does manage to swallow Yahoo!, it risks a severe bout of post-merger indigestion, as happened with AOL and Time Warner. (This week Time Warner's new boss, Jeff Bewkes, said he planned to spin off AOL's shrinking internet-access business.) Microsoft will have to combine or eliminate overlapping products and services. There will be cultural problems to overcome, too. Yahoo! is an online-media company that prides itself on its fun-loving ethos and has built its business on open-source technology, whereas Microsoft attracts hard-charging geeks and makes its money from proprietary software. So combining the two firms' technology infrastructures to make further savings will also be tricky.
Since Microsoft must know all this, the fact that it still wants to buy Yahoo! is nothing less than an admission that it needs help to catch up with Google. The latter is best known for its search engine, but it was also the first company to build a huge computing cloud—a nexus of hardware, software, data and people which provides online services. In Google's vast data centres, the computing equivalents of power stations, hundreds of thousands of machines are cleverly linked to act as one. Google collects vast amounts of data from its users and from the web. And it has hired an army of bright engineers to devise new services that make use of these resources.
Most importantly, Google has figured out a way to make money from its cloud. By giving away its services, the firm creates plenty of space for targeted advertising, mostly in the form of small text-boxes related to users' search queries. These are auctioned, and buyers pay only if users click on their advertisements. Google has thus created a virtuous cycle. As the largest search engine, Google attracts more advertisers and can serve up more relevant advertisements. This in turn attracts more users and advertisers, and so on.
In recent years Microsoft has tried to create a comparable cloud of its own. It is investing heavily in infrastructure and has built data centres around the world. It is also trying hard to catch up with Google's services, notably internet search. It recently strengthened its position in display advertising, a subset of the online-ad market that is smaller than search-based advertising, but is expected to grow quickly. In May Microsoft bought aQuantive, an online-ad agency, after Google agreed to buy DoubleClick, a leader in display.
Yet it has little to show for its efforts. In search, for instance, Microsoft's worldwide market share in December 2007 was 2.9%, according to comScore, a market-research firm, compared with 62.4% for Google (and 12.8% for Yahoo!). Microsoft's online business has yet to turn a profit. Yet what worries the firm's management most is that Google is pulling ahead in online advertising and may soon corner this crucial market, particularly once its acquisition of DoubleClick is completed. Despite fierce lobbying by Microsoft, American regulators have approved the deal, and their European counterparts are expected to follow suit soon.
Ironically, Microsoft argues that Google will benefit from the same advantage that has long made it almost impossible for any other firm to compete with its own Windows operating system, and which played an important role in successful antitrust cases against the software giant. Since so much software is written to run on Windows, it is difficult for competing operating systems to enter the market. Similarly, if too many publishers and advertisers adopt Google's online-advertising platform, rivals will not be able “to mount a credible competitive challenge”, as an internal Microsoft document puts it.
Having failed to keep DoubleClick out of Google's clutches, Microsoft now hopes that Yahoo! will keep it from being left in the dust. If it succeeds, the takeover would expand Microsoft's cloud, though not to the size of Google's. The combined firm's websites would attract over 290m unique visitors per month in America—slightly more than Google, according to Nielsen Online, another market-research firm. Yet Microsoft-Yahoo! would have a market share of only 18% in search advertising and 30% in display, according to Oppenheimer, an investment bank.
Still, the takeover would give Microsoft greater clout in other areas. One is web-based e-mail, where the merged entity would have 80% of the American market. It would be equally dominant in instant messaging. Since Yahoo! also offers many other services, such as Flickr, a photo-sharing site, Microsoft would control the world's biggest directory of registered internet users—a valuable asset as it develops new cloud-based services.
Nonetheless, the transaction could be good news for Google, at least in the short term. Google will most certainly try to lure away Yahoo!'s best staff. The integration effort will distract Microsoft's management and take time. Google has already launched a lobbying campaign to block the merger, arguing that it could undermine innovation on the internet—though neither Microsoft nor Yahoo! has done anything terribly innovative online lately. Indeed, the more Google complains about threats to innovation, instead of just getting on with doing it, the more it sounds like Microsoft used to.
Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google | Giants in combat | Economist.com
Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google | Giants in combat | Economist.com
THIS was the week that seemed to confirm the new balance of power in the technology industry. Computing is moving online, away from the desktop—and away from Microsoft, the desktop-software leviathan, to Google, master of online search. Microsoft's determination not to lose the struggle became clear when it bid $44.6 billion in cash and shares for Yahoo!, an ailing internet giant (see article). If the deal goes ahead, it will reshape the technology industry and clear the way for a straight fight between Microsoft and Google for dominance in the internet era. But whether Microsoft's bid succeeds or fails, it changes how all three firms are perceived.
Yahoo!'s status as the also-ran that seemed poised to inherit the internet, but failed to keep up with the changing technological times, is cemented. Microsoft, which has never made an acquisition on anything like this scale, has in effect conceded that it cannot compete with Google on its own; its bid highlights its own weakness almost as much as Yahoo!'s. Meanwhile, Google's objections to the proposed deal on antitrust grounds—even though the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! would still trail far behind it in both internet search and advertising—show that the firm has failed to grasp that it, not Microsoft, is now regarded as the industry's Goliath.
Microsoft is the larger company by market capitalisation, of course, being worth some $270 billion, compared with Google's $160 billion or so. But the software market in which Microsoft mainly operates offers far weaker growth prospects than the intertwined search-and-advertising market dominated by Google. The search giant's pre-eminence in these fields is not related to a proprietary technological lock-in (internet users can easily switch between search engines); its market share falls far short of the 90% that Microsoft boasts in desktop operating-systems and office-productivity software; and it is not a convicted monopolist. So to call Google the new Microsoft is, in many ways, unfair. But it is undeniably the company that other technology firms and media giants are now most scared of—including Microsoft itself. Google's growing market share in search, and hence its clout in online advertising, make it look unstoppable.
Searching for scale
What particularly worries Microsoft is the prospect that software will increasingly be delivered as an internet-based service, supported by advertising. Google already offers a few such services, and is venturing onto Microsoft's patch. Microsoft's counter-attack has failed to make headway. Despite repeated relaunches, its search engine has a worldwide market share of 2.9%, against Google's 62.4%. Microsoft's share of online advertising is equally puny. Hence its bid for Yahoo!, the number two in search and advertising.
The two talked about a merger or partnership in 2006 and 2007, but at the time Yahoo! still hoped that Panama, a new system for placing advertisements next to the results of internet searches, would enable it to catch Google. Panama has failed to live up to expectations, however, and Yahoo!'s latest results caused its share price to fall to a four-year low on January 30th. Microsoft duly pounced. Unless a rival bid emerges, which is unlikely, or Yahoo! tries to save itself from the beast of Redmond by outsourcing its search-and-advertising operations to Google, Microsoft seems likely to get its prize.
Just how anti-competitive would a Microsoft-Yahoo! merger be? It is true that the combined firm would dominate the markets for instant messaging and web-based e-mail, but neither is lucrative. In the markets that really matter—search and advertising—the Microsoft-Yahoo! combination would still trail far behind Google, which is hoping to extend its reach in advertising even further by buying DoubleClick. The danger remains that Microsoft will somehow exploit its desktop monopoly to push Google aside. But how, exactly? Microsoft is being closely monitored by regulators, and if there were any way for it to use its desktop monopoly against Google it would surely have done so by now. Buying Yahoo! does not help it in that respect—and the deal may well backfire anyway. Microsoft has never done a merger of this size, and the two companies have very different cultures: there could be an exodus of engineers to other firms, including Google.
From a regulator's point of view, there are two decisions to make. The immediate one—whether to let a Microsoft-Yahoo! tie-up go ahead—is simple enough: creating a more convincing counterweight to Google can only be good for competition. (By contrast, a tie-up between Google and Yahoo! would constitute a worrying concentration of power.) If Microsoft tries any of its old tricks, it should be punished. As for the longer-term question—what to do about Google?—the answer is essentially the same. Like Microsoft, Google has enormous power in its market, so regulatory vigilance is necessary. But so far nobody, despite much grumbling, has shown that Google is abusing that power. So leave Google alone too, and prepare for an epic battle between the two tech titans.
THIS was the week that seemed to confirm the new balance of power in the technology industry. Computing is moving online, away from the desktop—and away from Microsoft, the desktop-software leviathan, to Google, master of online search. Microsoft's determination not to lose the struggle became clear when it bid $44.6 billion in cash and shares for Yahoo!, an ailing internet giant (see article). If the deal goes ahead, it will reshape the technology industry and clear the way for a straight fight between Microsoft and Google for dominance in the internet era. But whether Microsoft's bid succeeds or fails, it changes how all three firms are perceived.
Yahoo!'s status as the also-ran that seemed poised to inherit the internet, but failed to keep up with the changing technological times, is cemented. Microsoft, which has never made an acquisition on anything like this scale, has in effect conceded that it cannot compete with Google on its own; its bid highlights its own weakness almost as much as Yahoo!'s. Meanwhile, Google's objections to the proposed deal on antitrust grounds—even though the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! would still trail far behind it in both internet search and advertising—show that the firm has failed to grasp that it, not Microsoft, is now regarded as the industry's Goliath.
Microsoft is the larger company by market capitalisation, of course, being worth some $270 billion, compared with Google's $160 billion or so. But the software market in which Microsoft mainly operates offers far weaker growth prospects than the intertwined search-and-advertising market dominated by Google. The search giant's pre-eminence in these fields is not related to a proprietary technological lock-in (internet users can easily switch between search engines); its market share falls far short of the 90% that Microsoft boasts in desktop operating-systems and office-productivity software; and it is not a convicted monopolist. So to call Google the new Microsoft is, in many ways, unfair. But it is undeniably the company that other technology firms and media giants are now most scared of—including Microsoft itself. Google's growing market share in search, and hence its clout in online advertising, make it look unstoppable.
Searching for scale
What particularly worries Microsoft is the prospect that software will increasingly be delivered as an internet-based service, supported by advertising. Google already offers a few such services, and is venturing onto Microsoft's patch. Microsoft's counter-attack has failed to make headway. Despite repeated relaunches, its search engine has a worldwide market share of 2.9%, against Google's 62.4%. Microsoft's share of online advertising is equally puny. Hence its bid for Yahoo!, the number two in search and advertising.
The two talked about a merger or partnership in 2006 and 2007, but at the time Yahoo! still hoped that Panama, a new system for placing advertisements next to the results of internet searches, would enable it to catch Google. Panama has failed to live up to expectations, however, and Yahoo!'s latest results caused its share price to fall to a four-year low on January 30th. Microsoft duly pounced. Unless a rival bid emerges, which is unlikely, or Yahoo! tries to save itself from the beast of Redmond by outsourcing its search-and-advertising operations to Google, Microsoft seems likely to get its prize.
Just how anti-competitive would a Microsoft-Yahoo! merger be? It is true that the combined firm would dominate the markets for instant messaging and web-based e-mail, but neither is lucrative. In the markets that really matter—search and advertising—the Microsoft-Yahoo! combination would still trail far behind Google, which is hoping to extend its reach in advertising even further by buying DoubleClick. The danger remains that Microsoft will somehow exploit its desktop monopoly to push Google aside. But how, exactly? Microsoft is being closely monitored by regulators, and if there were any way for it to use its desktop monopoly against Google it would surely have done so by now. Buying Yahoo! does not help it in that respect—and the deal may well backfire anyway. Microsoft has never done a merger of this size, and the two companies have very different cultures: there could be an exodus of engineers to other firms, including Google.
From a regulator's point of view, there are two decisions to make. The immediate one—whether to let a Microsoft-Yahoo! tie-up go ahead—is simple enough: creating a more convincing counterweight to Google can only be good for competition. (By contrast, a tie-up between Google and Yahoo! would constitute a worrying concentration of power.) If Microsoft tries any of its old tricks, it should be punished. As for the longer-term question—what to do about Google?—the answer is essentially the same. Like Microsoft, Google has enormous power in its market, so regulatory vigilance is necessary. But so far nobody, despite much grumbling, has shown that Google is abusing that power. So leave Google alone too, and prepare for an epic battle between the two tech titans.
Monday, February 04, 2008
FT.com / Companies / UK - Autonomy up on subprime business lift
FT.com / Companies / UK - Autonomy up on subprime business lift
Autonomy up on subprime business lift
By Maija Palmer in London
Published: January 29 2008 23:55 | Last updated: January 29 2008 23:55
Shares in Autonomy rose 7 per cent after the search software company reported a 62 per cent rise in annual profits and said most of the world’s leading banks were considering using its software to prepare for lawsuits related to the US subprime mortgage crisis.
The Cambridge-based company held firm its forecast for 10-20 per cent growth in 2008 in spite of fears of a global slowdown.
Mike Lynch, chief executive, said: “We have not seen any effects of slowdown yet and even if there is a downturn, we feel comfortable with our estimates.
“We have very little exposure to consumer markets and the financial sector, and 90 per cent of our business is driven by regulatory requirements.”
He said that any slowdownwas likely to be offset by benefits from the subprime crisis, which is creating a new market for Autonomy’s software.
Autonomy’s technology allows companies to sift through unstructuredinformation such as e-mails, Word documents and even telephone call recordings, helping companies prepare for court cases.
Earlier this year, Autonomy signed a $70m (£35m) deal – by far its biggest contract to date – with Citigroup as the bank wrote off more than $18bn in subprime-related losses and braced itself for potential investor lawsuits.
Mr Lynch said: “Every other major bank – barring one or two exceptions – has the same problem and most of the top-name banks are in the process of doing something with us.
“A lot of organisations are having to spend money quickly.”
Revenues for the year to the end of December rose 37 per cent to $343.5m while pre-tax profits rose to $91.4m from $56.3m the previous year, beating analysts’ estimates. Earnings per share rose from 8 cents to 11 cents.
Revenues were boosted by the acquisition of Zantaz, but Autonomy also registered 20 per cent revenue growth for its core IDOL software as it signed deals with companies such as China Mobile, AT&T and Morgan Stanley and organisations such as the US airforce, Nasa and Nato.
Shares in the company, which have gained nearly 57 per cent over the past year, rose 61p to 906p.
FT Comment
● Barbershops and funeral parlours are generally seen as recession-proof businesses, and to this list we could consider adding Autonomy – which is as close to recession-resistant as it gets in the technology sector. Businesses have to be able to find documents amid their ever-increasing mountains of electronic data – this is not discretionary spending – and if they get sued, they have to find them even quicker. Market concerns have taken a little shine off the shares in the past month and left them looking attractive at about 30 times this year’s earnings estimates.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Autonomy up on subprime business lift
By Maija Palmer in London
Published: January 29 2008 23:55 | Last updated: January 29 2008 23:55
Shares in Autonomy rose 7 per cent after the search software company reported a 62 per cent rise in annual profits and said most of the world’s leading banks were considering using its software to prepare for lawsuits related to the US subprime mortgage crisis.
The Cambridge-based company held firm its forecast for 10-20 per cent growth in 2008 in spite of fears of a global slowdown.
Mike Lynch, chief executive, said: “We have not seen any effects of slowdown yet and even if there is a downturn, we feel comfortable with our estimates.
“We have very little exposure to consumer markets and the financial sector, and 90 per cent of our business is driven by regulatory requirements.”
He said that any slowdownwas likely to be offset by benefits from the subprime crisis, which is creating a new market for Autonomy’s software.
Autonomy’s technology allows companies to sift through unstructuredinformation such as e-mails, Word documents and even telephone call recordings, helping companies prepare for court cases.
Earlier this year, Autonomy signed a $70m (£35m) deal – by far its biggest contract to date – with Citigroup as the bank wrote off more than $18bn in subprime-related losses and braced itself for potential investor lawsuits.
Mr Lynch said: “Every other major bank – barring one or two exceptions – has the same problem and most of the top-name banks are in the process of doing something with us.
“A lot of organisations are having to spend money quickly.”
Revenues for the year to the end of December rose 37 per cent to $343.5m while pre-tax profits rose to $91.4m from $56.3m the previous year, beating analysts’ estimates. Earnings per share rose from 8 cents to 11 cents.
Revenues were boosted by the acquisition of Zantaz, but Autonomy also registered 20 per cent revenue growth for its core IDOL software as it signed deals with companies such as China Mobile, AT&T and Morgan Stanley and organisations such as the US airforce, Nasa and Nato.
Shares in the company, which have gained nearly 57 per cent over the past year, rose 61p to 906p.
FT Comment
● Barbershops and funeral parlours are generally seen as recession-proof businesses, and to this list we could consider adding Autonomy – which is as close to recession-resistant as it gets in the technology sector. Businesses have to be able to find documents amid their ever-increasing mountains of electronic data – this is not discretionary spending – and if they get sued, they have to find them even quicker. Market concerns have taken a little shine off the shares in the past month and left them looking attractive at about 30 times this year’s earnings estimates.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
FT.com / In depth - Google weighs in against Microsoft
FT.com / In depth - Google weighs in against Microsoft
Google weighs in against Microsoft
By Richard Waters in San Francisco and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in London
Published: February 3 2008 19:54 | Last updated: February 4 2008 03:17
Google raised a red flag over Microsoft’s unsolicited takeover offer for Yahoo, on Sunday arguing it could open the way for the software developer to extend its PC monopoly to the internet.
The intervention is the latest example of the growing enmity between the two companies and echoes Microsoft’s denunciation of Google’s proposed acquisition of online advertising company DoubleClick.
While Microsoft claimed that deal could give Google inordinate power to control online advertisements as they become the lifeblood of many internet companies, Google believes Microsoft would be in a position to influence the evolution of the web itself.
However, Brad Smith, general counsel of Microsoft, said: “Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the internet.”
Microsoft has not ruled out launching a proxy fight for control of Yahoo by 13 March, the last date it can nominate its own directors to the company’s board ahead of this year’s shareholders’ meeting.
Separately, an alliance with Google is being seen inside Yahoo as one of the main options as the company tries to fight off Microsoft’s unsolicited approach, according to one person familiar with its thinking.
Yahoo rejected the idea of a tie-up with Google last year but has now put it back at the top of its list of options, along with finding ways to realise more of the value from its stakes in Japanese and Chinese joint ventures, according to this person.
The possibility of an alliance between the two internet groups adds to the intrigue surrounding the tussle between Google and Microsoft, and could raise questions about Google’s motivations in publicly attacking Microsoft now.
In a posting on Google’s company blog, David Drummond, its top lawyer, said: “While the internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies – and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.”
He went on to question whether a Yahoo acquisition would allow Microsoft, “despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offences, to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the internet”.
Google swung the spotlight on to the “overwhelming” share of the web e-mail and instant messaging markets that Microsoft and Yahoo account for, plus the fact that they own two of the busiest web portals.
“Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors’ e-mail, IM, and web-based services?” Mr Drummond asked.
Meanwhile, a Google-Yahoo alliance, something discussed but not pursued last year, would enable Google to halt Microsoft’s latest bid to boost its standing on the web.
The idea was receiving serious consideration again this weekend as Yahoo looked at a wider range of options, according to a person close to the company.
Microsoft’s cash-and-stock offer for Yahoo was worth $43bn at the end of last week.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Google weighs in against Microsoft
By Richard Waters in San Francisco and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in London
Published: February 3 2008 19:54 | Last updated: February 4 2008 03:17
Google raised a red flag over Microsoft’s unsolicited takeover offer for Yahoo, on Sunday arguing it could open the way for the software developer to extend its PC monopoly to the internet.
The intervention is the latest example of the growing enmity between the two companies and echoes Microsoft’s denunciation of Google’s proposed acquisition of online advertising company DoubleClick.
While Microsoft claimed that deal could give Google inordinate power to control online advertisements as they become the lifeblood of many internet companies, Google believes Microsoft would be in a position to influence the evolution of the web itself.
However, Brad Smith, general counsel of Microsoft, said: “Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the internet.”
Microsoft has not ruled out launching a proxy fight for control of Yahoo by 13 March, the last date it can nominate its own directors to the company’s board ahead of this year’s shareholders’ meeting.
Separately, an alliance with Google is being seen inside Yahoo as one of the main options as the company tries to fight off Microsoft’s unsolicited approach, according to one person familiar with its thinking.
Yahoo rejected the idea of a tie-up with Google last year but has now put it back at the top of its list of options, along with finding ways to realise more of the value from its stakes in Japanese and Chinese joint ventures, according to this person.
The possibility of an alliance between the two internet groups adds to the intrigue surrounding the tussle between Google and Microsoft, and could raise questions about Google’s motivations in publicly attacking Microsoft now.
In a posting on Google’s company blog, David Drummond, its top lawyer, said: “While the internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies – and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets.”
He went on to question whether a Yahoo acquisition would allow Microsoft, “despite its legacy of serious legal and regulatory offences, to extend unfair practices from browsers and operating systems to the internet”.
Google swung the spotlight on to the “overwhelming” share of the web e-mail and instant messaging markets that Microsoft and Yahoo account for, plus the fact that they own two of the busiest web portals.
“Could a combination of the two take advantage of a PC software monopoly to unfairly limit the ability of consumers to freely access competitors’ e-mail, IM, and web-based services?” Mr Drummond asked.
Meanwhile, a Google-Yahoo alliance, something discussed but not pursued last year, would enable Google to halt Microsoft’s latest bid to boost its standing on the web.
The idea was receiving serious consideration again this weekend as Yahoo looked at a wider range of options, according to a person close to the company.
Microsoft’s cash-and-stock offer for Yahoo was worth $43bn at the end of last week.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Friday, February 01, 2008
Ready to Rumble: Microsoft-Yahoo! vs. Google | AMR Research
Ready to Rumble: Microsoft-Yahoo! vs. Google | AMR Research
The last minutes of January were barely off the clock when Microsoft made a $44.6B cash-and-stock bid for Yahoo!. Microsoft is offering $31 per share, a 62% premium over Yahoo!’s closing stock price January 31. If I were Yahoo! co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang, having recently stepped back into the lead role only to deal with executive departures, disappointing results, and layoffs, I’d be ecstatic that Steve Ballmer has taken Mick Jagger’s offer and has come to “my emotional rescue.”
When I saw the news flash on a television as I entered the gym, I had three reactions:
First, it’s a lot of money for a company that continues to fall far behind Google in revenue, market share, market valuation, profitability, and mindshare. The offer is nearly seven times last year’s revenue.
Second, can Microsoft recoup its investment? I use My Yahoo! every day … for free. When I talked about this with one of the investment gurus who belongs to my gym he said, “If Yahoo! provided the same services for just a penny per subscriber per year, they would lose 50% of their base immediately.” While I’m not sure that’s true, his point is that we’ve come to expect Yahoo! and Google functionality will be free. The cost is offset by the paid ads that no one admits to clicking on.
Third, can Microsoft retain the key Yahoo! developers and sales stars? There is so much venture money in Silicon Valley chasing proven talent that it may be hard for Yahoo! employees to accept Microsoft’s planned retention packages in lieu of the opportunity to join the next Google. How ironic is that?
On the flip side, if Microsoft really wants to slow or stop Google in its march across the enterprise, did it have any other choice? As I was trying to finish writing, Jonathan Yarmis and Jim Shepherd came to my office arguing passionately that this deal makes sense for Microsoft. To make sure his points were heard, Jonathan teamed with Chris Fletcher and Jim Murphy on a companion piece.
Zimbra as hidden jewel for Microsoft Live?
When I think of Yahoo!, I think of my portal. In considering the Microsoft-Yahoo! combo, I initially overlooked Zimbra. Yahoo! bought the collaboration software vendor last September for $350M. I first wrote about Zimbra, last April, saying:
“When I first saw it, my reaction was that this is what SAP and Microsoft are trying to do with Duet. The Zimbra Collaboration Suite is designed to allow PC users to add or build new capabilities on top of their preferred desktop standard (like Microsoft Outlook or any of its competitors). The company provides a wide range of Zimbra-developed and third-party “zimlets” that allow users to access Google maps, VoIP services, data sources (such as Wikipedia and catalogs), enterprise applications, and third-party services such as travel.”
Zimbra’s software would be ideal for extending—some would argue saving—the Microsoft Live initiative. It certainly sets up an interesting play against Google Apps. Does Microsoft Zimbra escape the scrutiny of the U.S. Department of Justice?
Meanwhile, Google shares get walloped
Ironically, Google employees with options at ridiculously high strike prices may be looking for the next Google, too. Shares of GOOG were getting spanked at opening February 1. By 11:30 a.m., the stock was trading at $513.01, down $51.29 or more than 9%. This is a far cry from the peak of $747.24 reached last November. At the current price, Google still enjoys a market cap that tops $160B. That’s more than $100B higher than SAP ($57.58B) and $56B higher than Oracle.
While some of the sell-off might be because of the threat of Microsoft emerging as a stronger competitor, the market has reacted negatively to Google’s recent earnings report. The company said that 4Q07 profits and paid clicks had grown slower than the previous three quarters. A fierce debate has ensued over whether Google will be helped or hurt by the long-predicted U.S. recession.
What do you think?
Is Steve Ballmer making a smart bet, or could he have waited six months and bought Yahoo! at a fraction of today’s price? If the deal goes through, will Microsoft be able to keep Zimbra or will it be seen as having too much power on the desktop? Is Google’s recent slower growth rate in profits and paid clicks a sign of saturation or just part of the ebb and flow of its dynamic business model? As always, I welcome your feedback and ideas—brichardson@amrresearch.com.
The last minutes of January were barely off the clock when Microsoft made a $44.6B cash-and-stock bid for Yahoo!. Microsoft is offering $31 per share, a 62% premium over Yahoo!’s closing stock price January 31. If I were Yahoo! co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang, having recently stepped back into the lead role only to deal with executive departures, disappointing results, and layoffs, I’d be ecstatic that Steve Ballmer has taken Mick Jagger’s offer and has come to “my emotional rescue.”
When I saw the news flash on a television as I entered the gym, I had three reactions:
First, it’s a lot of money for a company that continues to fall far behind Google in revenue, market share, market valuation, profitability, and mindshare. The offer is nearly seven times last year’s revenue.
Second, can Microsoft recoup its investment? I use My Yahoo! every day … for free. When I talked about this with one of the investment gurus who belongs to my gym he said, “If Yahoo! provided the same services for just a penny per subscriber per year, they would lose 50% of their base immediately.” While I’m not sure that’s true, his point is that we’ve come to expect Yahoo! and Google functionality will be free. The cost is offset by the paid ads that no one admits to clicking on.
Third, can Microsoft retain the key Yahoo! developers and sales stars? There is so much venture money in Silicon Valley chasing proven talent that it may be hard for Yahoo! employees to accept Microsoft’s planned retention packages in lieu of the opportunity to join the next Google. How ironic is that?
On the flip side, if Microsoft really wants to slow or stop Google in its march across the enterprise, did it have any other choice? As I was trying to finish writing, Jonathan Yarmis and Jim Shepherd came to my office arguing passionately that this deal makes sense for Microsoft. To make sure his points were heard, Jonathan teamed with Chris Fletcher and Jim Murphy on a companion piece.
Zimbra as hidden jewel for Microsoft Live?
When I think of Yahoo!, I think of my portal. In considering the Microsoft-Yahoo! combo, I initially overlooked Zimbra. Yahoo! bought the collaboration software vendor last September for $350M. I first wrote about Zimbra, last April, saying:
“When I first saw it, my reaction was that this is what SAP and Microsoft are trying to do with Duet. The Zimbra Collaboration Suite is designed to allow PC users to add or build new capabilities on top of their preferred desktop standard (like Microsoft Outlook or any of its competitors). The company provides a wide range of Zimbra-developed and third-party “zimlets” that allow users to access Google maps, VoIP services, data sources (such as Wikipedia and catalogs), enterprise applications, and third-party services such as travel.”
Zimbra’s software would be ideal for extending—some would argue saving—the Microsoft Live initiative. It certainly sets up an interesting play against Google Apps. Does Microsoft Zimbra escape the scrutiny of the U.S. Department of Justice?
Meanwhile, Google shares get walloped
Ironically, Google employees with options at ridiculously high strike prices may be looking for the next Google, too. Shares of GOOG were getting spanked at opening February 1. By 11:30 a.m., the stock was trading at $513.01, down $51.29 or more than 9%. This is a far cry from the peak of $747.24 reached last November. At the current price, Google still enjoys a market cap that tops $160B. That’s more than $100B higher than SAP ($57.58B) and $56B higher than Oracle.
While some of the sell-off might be because of the threat of Microsoft emerging as a stronger competitor, the market has reacted negatively to Google’s recent earnings report. The company said that 4Q07 profits and paid clicks had grown slower than the previous three quarters. A fierce debate has ensued over whether Google will be helped or hurt by the long-predicted U.S. recession.
What do you think?
Is Steve Ballmer making a smart bet, or could he have waited six months and bought Yahoo! at a fraction of today’s price? If the deal goes through, will Microsoft be able to keep Zimbra or will it be seen as having too much power on the desktop? Is Google’s recent slower growth rate in profits and paid clicks a sign of saturation or just part of the ebb and flow of its dynamic business model? As always, I welcome your feedback and ideas—brichardson@amrresearch.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)