Yesterday I shared my first prediction regarding the future of collaboration. Here’s my second prediction:
Prediction #2:
It is not about “on-premise” versus “on-demand”, it will be all about the User Experience
In the technology industry we tend to focus a lot on the underlying computing model and how best to deliver functionality and value. That makes sense, because it’s core to what we do. But as an industry need to move beyond this conversation. Ultimately User Experience is what matters.
We need to provide an experience that’s consistent and seamless, with easy access to the services you care about, regardless of your location or device.
To enable this seamless experience, applications must be hosted and delivered through a combination of on-premise and on-demand networks working together. Bottom line, there will always be a combination of different types of applications – some that are local and others that are in the cloud.
There are a few factors driving this:
First, a multi-generational work force demands multiple modes of collaboration. The Millennial generation – those born after 1980 – has a natural affinity for real time, synchronous social communication, enabled by tools such as chat, SMS, new forms of video, and interactive decision-support systems. While others will still prefer asynchronous modes such as email.
Second, individual preference for collaboration tools will vary. For instance, my boss John Chambers uses video blogs as his preferred collaboration tool. I, on the other hand, use blogs, micro-blogging and social networks quite extensively. We need to architecturally combine video, voice and data on a unified platform –– and allow for the personalization of collaboration tools.
Third, mobility will be a major factor – going forward the “where” in collaboration will become less relevant. What if we can access applications from any where on any device? In the palm of your hand or a 50” screen – with the same HD experience. And while you might think that “the cloud” can actually address a lot of this on its own, there will always be a need for the security, reliability, scalability, and control of the on-prem enterprise network.
So a key focus for technology innovation is to enable an organization’s on-prem network to seamlessly interoperate with the Cloud. And going forward, collaboration will be about technology adapting to people’s needs rather than the other way around.
No question the Internet makes it easier to unearth information, but it’s still a work in progress when it comes to finding the relationships between data squirreled away in one corner of the Web and online facts and figures elsewhere.
That’s where Semantic Web works its magic. The emerging technology makes it possible to tag, describe, and provide context for countless bits of online information. For instance, Semantic Web tools can help search engines distinguish between various meanings of a word, such as “mercury”—be it the chemical, the planet, the Roman god, or the Ford Motor vehicle.
Proponents say Semantic Web tools hold great potential for changing how companies correlate information scattered across disparate databases and software programs. Eli Lilly, Citigroup, and Kodak are among the companies dipping a toe in Semantic Web waters. To see how, read on.
The mission of Semantic Universe is to raise awareness and explain the usage of semantic technologies in business and consumer settings. Projects by Semantic Universe include the annual Semantic Technology Conference and the Semantic Universe Network.Semantic Universe Network is a joint venture of Wilshire Conferences and Semantic Arts and Cerebra
Metadata? Thesauri? Taxonomies? Topic Maps!
Making sense of it all
About OASIS
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
Standards
Ontopia has a comprehensive suite of topic map solutions, both software products and consultancy and training services.
WHAT IS HAKIA?
hakia is a general purpose "semantic" search engine, dedicated to quality search experience. To achieve this goal, our team aspires to establish a new standard of focus, clarity and credibility in Web search.
Imagining the Internet: A History and Forecast is a multi-section resource containing thousands of pages. It exposes future possibilities while simultaneously providing a peek back at the past.
"Software Maintenance Fees May Not Be Invulnerable To Change
After All
Posted by Andrew Bartels on June 29, 2010
Blog post info and actions
4 Recommendations
Print
Email
1 comment
Blog post body
TECH DYNAMICS: Last Friday, June 25th, the US House and Senate reached
agreement on a financial reform bill, which is likely to pass and be signed into
law.* At first glance, this legislation has nothing to do with the IT industry
directly. But buried in this bill is a provision regarding debit card fees,
which could serve as a model for how end users of software could bring about a
change in something that is very important to the economics of the software
industry — software maintenance fees.
Now, software maintenance fees have been one of the givens in the software
industry in perpetual license deals. Typically set at 18% to 22% of initial
license fees, they are fixed in stone. An enterprise software buyer can try to
negotiate a discount on a license fee; a really smart one can negotiate a deal
where the maintenance fee rate is applied against the discounted license fee,
not against the list license fee. But software vendors rarely discount
maintenance fees.
Why? Established software vendors depend heavily on maintenance fees for the
bulk of their revenue. Almost half (49%) of SAP’s revenues and Oracle’s
applications revenues in 2009 came from maintenance fees. Oracle’s middleware
business earned 55% of its calendar 2009 revenues from maintenance fees.
And yet maintenance fees are one of the biggest sources of complaint from
enterprise software buyers. Every so often this dissatisfaction breaks into the
open. SAP faced massive client unrest when it raised maintenance fees for most
customers during 2009. SAP tapped the biggest vein of resentment about
maintenance fees: fees on old software. Old software is the crux of the problem
with maintenance fees: It tends to be stable and therefore requires little
sup