lustratus REPAMA

Posts Tagged ‘tibco’

Steve and I had an interesting and refreshingly different call this morning with GigaSpaces.

They had reached out to us to make sure we knew all about them so that they could be fully represented in each of the categories in our cloud computing market landscape / segmentation / taxonomy where they have a solution.

And after the call I can see that instead of just being in

• Cloud Software / Compute

They also have a valid claim to

• Cloud Software / Data

and may be even

• Cloud Software / Cloud Management ( /Application Services Management )

This raised a bit of a dilemma for me. I certainly want to represent vendors and providers accurately in the segmentation model but I want to avoid vendors appearing in lots of different segments just because they believe that some esoteric feature or other qualifies them.

Instead I want the segmentation model to reflect where the vendor/provider specifically and actively addresses a market need with a specific capability and value proposition. So if I hear from a vendor/provider “yes we can do that too”, I’m reluctant to simply add them to a segment. After all the motivation behind producing the segmentation model was to remove some of the confusion present in the Cloud Computing not to perpetuate it.

So I think we’ll need to reflect on what we heard this morning from GigaSpaces and think how best to represent those vendors in our market segmentation document that have a single product with broad capabilities. Having said that I think there is enough about the XAP proposition that means I will be adding it to at least one more segment of the market landscape.

Anyway, the refreshing part of the call was that GigaSpaces’ marketing seems to focus on what they can do for organisations rather than simply placing the “Cloud Computing” term before, after and in the middle of their product name everywhere it appears. In fact you have to go digging on their web site to find references to the cloud-enablement features of their product line. I’m not sure whether they have taken this approach consciously or if it is that they’re not sure how best to position their offering in the cloud market. The risk I guess is that as they are not positioned specifically as a cloud computing vendor, they may not be placed on clients’ long lists. But it certainly differentiates them and different is usually good unless you’re selling 8-fingered gloves.

These calls with vendors are useful for many reasons but mainly to test some of my assumptions. As with many of the products and companies I have looked at in compiling the segmentation model, I had “assumed” that I knew what the product was and what it did. It turns out there are many more strings to XAP’s bow than I had at first realised. I knew GigaSpaces as a purveyor of extremely scalable application servers but that, it turns out, is only half the picture.

One interesting feature of GigaSpaces’ XAP product is its application services management layer (my term not theirs – they use application management services!). This layer understands service level commitments for the infrastructure as well as the applications that are deployed to it. It’s common practice for the infrastructure to “understand” the service level that is expected from the infrastructure itself – usually measured in CPU percentages, data volumes or some such. However it’s not so common for the infrastructure to understand the commitment that the application developer has made about the service level that the application will deliver. These application layer service levels are usually described in some business metric and to then have the infrastructure react to automatically provision more infrastructure to meet the business’ requirements to ensure that application SLA commitments are met is a certainly an interesting claim. One that we will dig into a little further over time. GigaSpaces’ Jim Liddle explains a little more here – whist also picking a fight with TIBCO over whether its claim that “self-aware elasticity” is something unique to Silver.

Interestingly, it appears that with a number of GigaSpaces recent Cloud Computing customer wins (they claim to have 75+ “cloud” customers) they have in fact used this application management services layer to control and manage Amazon’s EC2 infrastructure. This ability to manage application services outside of its own compute infrastructure goes some way to answering my rhetorical question of whether any vendors were focussed on providing a pure play layer for application services management. It appears that there are.

So I’ll make some changes to the segmentation model in light of our conversation this morning and I’ll also keep an eye on how GigaSpaces’ cloud proposition develops – specifically following their Platform as a Service partnership with ServePath’s Go-Grid announced earlier today.

Danny Goodall

So Steve and I had a briefing call with Kaavo yesterday who have some interesting technology. And it set me thinking about whether there is a market for pure play application services management in the cloud.

Kaavo automates the job of application configuration and management in the cloud. The product – imod, is rules and workflow-based and manages the life-cycle of application provisioning, including deploying and configuring the software components or services required to create the environment in which applications execute.

I hope I’m not dumbing it down too much to say that I think of it as a data centre automation tool that understands how to manage virtual IaaS instead of physical infrastructure. Kaavo’s CEO and founder Jamal Mazhar would I’m sure also point out that Kaavo takes a top-down, application-centric approach when compared to other solutions in the space. The IaaS deployment environments that they currently support include Amazon, Rackspace and GoGrid amongst others with support for the Eucalytpus project coming soon.

The product naturally fits into at least two of the categories of the market landscape / taxonomy / market segmentation model that I’ve developed. They certainly appear in

• Infrastructure Services/Services

But I could also make a case for them in

• Cloud Software / Cloud Management

and even

• Cloud Software / Cloud Management / Application Services Management

But whilst the business model of Kaavo remains service-based (they charge per CPU hour of managed application) then that pretty much excludes them from the last two software-based categories.

As I’ve been looking at the application services management category in some detail, one pattern that I’ve seem amongst vendors such as DataSynapse (TIBCO), Appistry, and 3Tera is that whilst they offer the management services to automate the deployment of applications, they appear to major on deploying those applications and application components to their own infrastructure as opposed to infrastructure provided as a service by a third party.

A number of these vendors have come to Cloud Computing via Grid Computing and as such it makes senses that the virtual infrastructure that they deploy to is their own grid. They would rightly point out that owning the management and the infrastructure leads to many benefits such as tighter control, better monitoring and better support for the scaling the infrastructure up and down to match demand. In fact some of these vendors do appear to provide the option for deploying to third-party infrastructure services such as Amazon’s EC2, so it suggests that this sort of hybrid infrastructure may be being endorsed.

But I guess I’m left wondering two things.

Firstly is there really a separate market for pure-play application services management where the infrastructure is always provided by a third party? Don’t get me wrong I can see the need and I can see the benefit but it looks a little too much like the existing discipline of application services management already present in today’s data centre automation tools. So if these existing tools add the capability to deploy to, monitor and manage virtual infrastructure as a service then they will be well placed to get the business. But then again perhaps adding this capability is not a trivial matter. Hmm. Not sure.

Secondly, assuming that there is a separate market – what is the route to market for this sort of pure-play, services-based ( as opposed to licensed software ) offer? Could it be taken to enterprises directly? Yes, but it would require significant resources. To me, it looks like a more natural proposition for aaS providers to help them manage the massive number of deployed applications that they will be looking after if the predictions for the impact of cloud are accurate.

Either way Kaavo has an interesting approach that I’m sure either Steve or I will revisit as they develop.

Danny Goodall

Just a quick note to say that the updated High Performance Messaging REPAMA Segment Analysis Study has been uploaded to the Lustratus site.  It now contains the reverse-engineered product marketing strategy for TIBCO’s Messaging Appliance P-7500.  Existing customers and Lustratus research subscription holders will already have been contacted with details of free upgrades.

Following on from the blog entry I made when the first version of the report was released I thought I’d show the updated value proposition below.  As I mentioned in a previous blog entry TIBCO’s primary competitive focus is very unusual – it is TIBCO Rendezvous – one of its own products.  The different approach to the market doesn’t stop there as you’ll see from the report extract below.  TIBCO also plough its own furrow by taking a different proposition to the market when compared with most of their competitors.  This one based around green IT and data centre costs (in addition to the obligatory low latency = competitive advantage proposition).

For more information on the REPAMA methodology visit here.

Danny Goodall.

As the saying goes, if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and tastes like a fish then the chances are that it is a fish.  Likewise by any measure the products in the recent REPAMA study into the ESB market segment certainly appear to be ESBs but why then is none of the vendors content with describing their products simply as an “ESB”.

As the REPAMA Marketing Element Distribution (MED) chart below shows, the ESB vendors in the study (Microsoft ESB Guidance 1.0, Oracle Service Bus, Progress Sonic ESB, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus) used the following adjectives, qualifiers, modifiers and euphemisms to describe the offer category of their “ESB”.

• A loosely-coupled messaging environment
• A comprehensive Enterprise Service Bus offering
• Architectural guidance, patterns and practices
• Messaging-based Enterprise Service Bus
• Enterprise-class SOA Enterprise Service Bus
• High performance, scalable SOA integration backbone
• Lightweight Enterprise Service Bus
• Mediation Layer
• Enterprise Service Bus

Words are wonderful things and marketing organisations as experienced as these wouldn’t use words without a reason.  As mentioned previously in this blog entry, when a category becomes as ultra-competitive as the ESB space, vendors will attempt to segment and re-segment the market on their terms and the product category is the first place they start.

As a result, there is a raft of valuable competitive intelligence in this simple list of words above (visualised by wordle.net).  Why is each vendor modifying the product category in this way?  Answer that question and you’ll gain an insight into the particular position within the ESB segment that each vendor is trying to own.

Danny Goodall.

Just a quick note to say that the REPAMA Segment Analysis Study into the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) has been published on the Lustratus.com site.  The ESB is a segment that Lustratus knows well as we’ve carried out strategic marketing work for most of the key protagonists at some point.  That said, there were a number of surprises – chief amongst these was some of the competitive differentiation strategies that we saw as well as the markedly different approach taken by Microsoft.

The study reverse-engineered the go-to-market strategies of the following vendors and products:

• Microsoft ESB Guidance 1.0
• Oracle Service Bus
• Progress Sonic ESB
• TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus

In reaction to client feedback, we’ve published two sets of reports with this particular study   I’ve created a summary report that contains a management summary of the state of vendor marketing strategies in the ESB market segment as well as the results of the full-blown REPAMA Segment Analysis Study.

Danny Goodall

Cannibalization.  You don’t get to see that very often unless something strange has happened.  No, I’m not talking about the act of eating the flesh of the same species.  Instead I’m referring to where a vendor eats into its own sales by promoting one of its products ahead of another in the same market.  It is highly unusual for a vendor to be willing to sacrifice sales of one product line to increase another.  In my experience these things usually happen through some form of mistake or oversight in planning.  However, that doesn’t appear to be the case with TIBCO’s recent announcement of the TIBCO Messaging Appliance.

As we suggested in our report The High-Performance Messaging Arms Race, we thought that the introduction of hardware into this market would have an impact.  And that certainly appears to have been the case.  In light of TIBCO’s new product introduction I’m in the process of updating the REPAMA SAS on High Performance Messaging (where we looked at the marketing strategies of 29West’s LBM, IBM’s LLM and Solace Systems’ Content Router).  As regular readers will recall, one of the key elements of the reverse-engineered positioning statement that we use with the REPAMA methodology, is the UNLIKE section.

UNLIKE (primary competitor or alternative)

This element of the positioning statement is usually used to aim the full power of the vendor’s USP at a specific competitor.  However, in my early findings for the TIBCO, the UNLIKE element for TIBCO’s Messaging Appliance appears to be:

UNLIKE TIBCO Rendezvous

That’s right.  TIBCO sees the Messaging Appliance’s primary alternative as TIBCO Rendezvous.  Which begs the questions; why aim the full power of this new product at an incredibly successful existing product?  Why is TIBCO happy to cannibalize sales of Rendezvous for the benefit of the Messaging Appliance?  It appears that the answer could be three-fold.

1. TIBCO no longer believes in the proposition for Rendezvous (in software).
2. Extreme competition exists from other software vendors that are able to simply replace Rendezvous and perform far better.
3. As referenced here in SDTimes, TIBCO sees the advantages of blurring the CapEx/OpEx boundaries through the love that keeps on giving – the annual lease.

So whilst self-cannibalization of sales is usually the by-product of poor planning, here it appears to be TIBCO’s only choice.  Either way it’s a risky strategy and represents a big opportunity for software vendors that are able to do what Rendezvous does (IBM, 29West, etc.) and is also a pat on the back for Solace Systems – who had more than a little hand in the production of TIBCO’s Messaging Appliance.

Danny Goodall

P.S. Apologies for the image at the top but I usually like to select an image that matches the blog subject.  But having image Google’d “cannibalism”, I just couldn’t use any of the images!

Mean.  It’s a great word isn’t it.  But what does mean, mean?  If you see what I mean.  It’s either hateful, the intended meaning of something or, as I want to use it here – an average.  In this case it’s the “average” marketing strategy for a specific marketing segment.  What would be the value of knowing the “average” marketing strategy for any number of strategic marketing elements for the segment in which you compete?

i.e. on average for your market segment who is the ideal target customer organisation? On average what job roles do your competitors target? On average which vertical markets are favoured? On average who does your competition see as their primary competition? etc.

The above Marketing Element Distribution(TM) charts are taken from a recent Lustratus REPAMA(TM) Segment Analysis Study into High Performance Messaging.  The study compared the marketing strategy of IBM’s WebSphere MQ Low Latency Messaging (LLM), 29West’s Latency Busters Messaging (LBM) and Solace Systems’ Content Router.  Whilst the study contains full details for each of these vendor’s strategies, the calculated “Market Mean” reflects the mean value of each of the marketing elements across those 3 vendors.

Lustratus produces this intelligence as part of the Lustratus REPAMA Segment Analysis Study and we obviously plot the positions of each of the vendors in addition to the mean, but this is relatively simple exercise to conduct for yourselves.  The question is what do you do once you know the mean?  Do you look to be outside of the mean?  The religion of “differentiate or die” suggests you probably do.  But the idea that what “most” of your competitors are doing must be right, suggests that you might want to simply track them.  Look at the Vertical Market Segmentation chart above and ask yourself whether you want to aim outside of Financial Services?  Well it might be an uncontested space, but at the same time their might be a lot of tumbleweed.

The answer of course is that whilst you can compute an “average” marketing strategy, the right strategy for your organisations depends on many factors.  Aiming at the average vertical market and at the average ideal customer might be valid strategies because it suggests that is where the rest of the segment feels there is opportunity.  But if you attack these prospects with “average” messaging and “average” differentiation it will be death by a thousand ho-hum cuts.

Either way, knowing what your competitors are doing is a good place to start.

Danny Goodall

So, as I mentioned in my previous blog that Lustratus has been looking at companies in the High Performance Messaging (middleware) space recently.  A couple of ex-colleagues from Sonic (Dave Clare and Annalisa Sarasini) have both found themselves in this space, with Solace Systems and 29West respectively.  My colleague Steve Craggs is looking to produce a paper on the space so we arranged a couple of briefings.

Steve and I have both served our message oriented apprenticeship.  Steve ran IBM’s MQSeries division for many years and I was part of the team at Sonic Software that brought SonicMQ to market and then launched the ESB category. So we both understand the manic vendor space race for continually lowering latency in message delivery.  For years the delays in message transmission to reception have been falling mainly as factor of incremental improvement in software techniques, network improvements and ever increasing hardware processing speeds.

However now, Solace Systems together with other vendors such as Tervela and Celoxica are using dedicated hardware platforms to handle message delivery.  They promise dramatic increases in the number of messages per second that can be handled and an equally dramatic reduction in message delivery latency.

Comparing Solace Systems’ and 29West marketing approaches is an interesting exercise.  For organisations that appear to address the same basic pains, they take a very different approach to marketing their respective offerings.

Solace System’s proposition, it appears,is aimed at financial institutions, information providers and communication services providers.  Their dedicated hardware solutions for message and content routing appear to have a broad appeal outside of the obvious market of financial services.  Contrast this to 29West and you see a company that has a razor sharp understanding of it’s target market and target prospect – financial institutions who see the opportunity created by reducing the delay in exchanging market data and trading information between computer systems.

So 29West is focused on it’s target market but does it risk being an 8 fingered glove company?  How big is the market opportunity provided by this very narrow niche?  The good news for 29West is that the market for low-latency, high performance middleware within financial services is quite a broad narrow niche – if you see what I mean.  But it does mean that 29West’s growth is certainly limited by their incredible focus.

A greater concern for 29West is that, perhaps in recognition of fact that their market opportunity is limited, they appear to be taking off those 8 fingered gloves and are attempting to reach outside of financial services and into the realm of generic application to application messaging.  The issue will then become one of differentiation from the many long standing products that already exist in that space who are now seeing messaging as an enable to SOA with all the additional expected capabilities that that might imply.  Achieving this is not an easy, inexpensive or quick thing to do.  Still, the company is run by good people (ex-Talarian/ex-TIBCO) so we’ll watch with interest.

So Solace Systems comes off best in the marketing strategy comparison then?  Well – maybe.  They do suffer from another early market trait – that of evangelism over proof.  It appears that they’re doing a lot of evangelism about the way that they enable exciting new ways for organisations to manage content in their network.  And whilst this evangelism in itself is not a sin (I’ve done it myself countless times and it’s an essential part of the early market marketing mix), they don’t appear to supply many references to back up their claims.

They do describe their very interesting relationship with TIBCO, who have bundled/white-labelled Solace’s technology to help the ancient Rendezvous limp through another couple of years of maintenance revenue. But other than that I can see little evidence of the claims they make.

As I said above, Steve is going to take a little look at the technological and product strategies of the two companies in an upcoming paper so we’ll track them from here on in and see what develops.

Danny Goodall