Thursday, May 29, 2008

Fast Troubles Linger

I've written a fair bit about Fast Search and Transfer on this blog (e.g., The Blood-Letting Begins, Fast to Restate 2006, Fast Search Train Wreck: Who's Accountable?, Microsoft Bids $1.2B for Fast) and I've done so for a number of reasons:
  • Competition. While MarkLogic is not a search engine we did end up competing with Fast at several major media (i.e. publishing) accounts, so they had my attention.
  • Seen this before. Fast reminded me of MicroStrategy, against whom we successfully competed at Business Objects, but whose tactics caused me more than a bit of angst over the years. (One might argue this comparison was prescient.)
  • Speaking out. I felt that despite the presence of evidence (e.g., financial analyst reports from a Scandinavian bank that did some pretty convincing analysis) that things were awry that everyone (i.e., industry analysts, customers) seemed to turn a willing blind eye first to the indicators of the problems and then to the problems themselves -- either dismissing them entirely or as characterizing them as simple "accounting issues."
  • Knew the right way. Also, from my near-decade's worth of experience at Business Objects, I had a strong sense for what I felt was the "right way" to run a European software company. Basically, play by the same rules as everyone else -- dual list on the NASDAQ and report financials under GAAP.
Anyway, with the Microsoft acquisition, I figured the story was done. While I was always amazed at the valuation -- particularly for a company in the midst of an accounting scandal -- the problems were well publicized and I figured Microsoft had to have looked into every angle.

A recent story in Portfolio, entitled Fast Troubles for Microsoft, suggests this was perhaps not the case. Excerpt:

Even as it agreed in January to plunk down $1.23 billion to buy a promising but problematic search company in Norway, Microsoft knew that the company had some accounting matters to address.

Now, it appears, the acquired company, Fast Search & Transfer, may have some criminal matters to work out: Suspicions about the Norwegian search-engine company's revenue reporting are now in the hands of the Oslo police.

Norway's financial supervisory authority, Kredittilsynet, said its review of Fast Search's previously disclosed accounting problems not only appeared to have violated accounting standards, they may have broken the law too.

[...]

In its haste to grab Fast Search, however, Microsoft looked past the company's problems: They include, but aren't limited to, accounting irregularities that began to appear as Microsoft began to look over its books.

In the second quarter of 2007, Fast Search reported an operating loss of $38 million on revenue of only $35 million—a full $20 million below forecasts. The loss widened in the following quarter, leading the Norwegian stock exchange to delist Fast Search on December 12.

That same day, Fast Search said it would review its accounting for all of 2006 and 2007. The latest unaudited results show revenue growth of 7 percent for last year, which is far below Goldman's forecast.

Still, Microsoft pursued the acquisition, completing the deal on April 28.

Kredittilsynet, the supervisory agency, was equally determined. It referred Fast Search to investigators at Økokrim, the Norwegian National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime.

Økokrim last week concurred that the nature of the irregularities and the amount by which Fast Search apparently inflated its accounts were serious matters warranting prosecution. But the agency said it was too busy to open a criminal investigation.

Rather than let the matter rest, the market supervisor turned it over to the Oslo police for investigation. Aftenposten, a Norwegian newspaper, characterized Kredittilsynet's decision to involve the police as an unprecedented step in that country.


Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Coverage of CMO Club Panel Session

Go here to check out coverage of the recent panel session I did in New York City at the CMO Club summit. Overall, I enjoyed participating on the panel and want to thank both Pete from the CMO Club for inviting me and the other panelists for the fun debate.

(From left to right, me; Jarvis Cromwell, CMO of StormExchange; and Barry Herstein CMO of PayPal.)

The panel was about career management for CMOs and I was there to provide the "from CMO to CEO" angle. Not surprisingly with a bunch of marketing people, I had trouble getting a word in edgewise. :-)

Here are some of the points that I made which are covered in the blog post:
  • Marketing is struggling for relevance. Product and sales groups are very powerful. Marketing gets relegated to a communications role.
  • Present yourself as a business person, not a marketing person. Be with a successful company. People will ask you why you stayed so long with a losing company.
  • Your job is to make sales easier. Don't be in the way. Surprisingly it's very hard to get that alignment.
Overall, I'd make a few additional points of advice to my fellow marketers (while I've been a CEO for 4 years I nevertheless still consider myself a marketing guy and probably always will):
  • Talk less, listen more. We marketers are a chatty bunch and need to be self-aware.
  • Align to the business. Make this a never-ending quest. See point 1 for help in doing it.
  • Remember that for the sales VP and the CEO, it really is all about the numbers. It's easy to preach about long-term investments, brand-values, and other lofty things. Do so once in a while as it's your role, but do so with care. Choose your battles.
  • Market for your sales force, not for other marketers. Marketing is a self-congratulatory discipline. Lots of campaigns that win awards don't move the sales needle an inch.
I have one story from the panel that I think contains a rather pointed lesson. It goes like this:

Audience member: I have a question -- how many people in this room, panelists included, have ever carried a bag in sales (i.e., had a sales job and sales quota)?

About 10% of the hands go up. Mine is not one of them. But I think the woman's begging a great question: can you, and how can you -- if you've never walked a mile in their shoes -- support sales? It's a great topic. I'm ready to riff on it. (My favorite riff is about the poor salesperson who joins marketing or sales operations thinking sales will continue to see him/her as "us" when unbeknownst to them, in the eyes of their former quota-carrying colleagues, they transition from "us" to "them" approximately 10 nanoseconds after renouncing their quota.)

I'm ready to go, thinking this is going to be great.

Moderator: OK, now let's talk about "the brand called me" in managing your career.

Me: Wait a minute. You, in the audience, where were you headed with that sales question?

Audience member: I was thinking about how we can support sales if we've never done sales, and that maybe people would be interested in discussing that?

[Sound of crickets chirping]

Moderator: OK, now let's talk about "the brand call me"

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big believer in the whole "brand called me" thing and agree that people should treat themselves as marketable products (from a resume perspective) and establish clear positioning and differentiation. That's all great.

But isn't there something wrong when a bunch of marketing people would rather talk about the "brand called me" than sales? Isn't that part of the problem?

My closing comments on the panel were as follows:
  • For career success as a marketer first realize that as CMO you inherently have a dual role: head marketer and e-staff contributor.
  • Build a very strong team that you can basically leave alone to run marketing
  • Then put your effort into the e-staff contributor role to help you both develop as a business person and contribute to your company's success.
  • And finally, I want to know why only me and the woman dressed in black want to talk about sales. (She's my bet for the next CEO in the crowd.)

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Angel Investing Experiences and Lessons

Like many others, I tried my hand at angel investing a bit during the dot-com boom. I made two investments: one in a UK company called Linkguard, the other in a French company called Instranet. Except for when I filed my taxes last year (when I needed to figure out how to write-off Linkguard ), I don't think about them much.

While Linkguard is long gone, Instranet is still in business, doing well after a recapitalization and strategic repositioning, and I suspect will be sold one day. But as an early common stock investor I won't see anything if they sell. My first lesson in angel investing was a first-hand look at a wash-out financing. Concretely, imagine owning 5K or 10K shares of something and then getting a letter saying the company is issuing 10B shares for a small fraction of cent each. Then imagine what happens to your percent ownership. Poof. (Unless I wanted to re-up, which I believe was offered, but for which I had little appetite at the time.)

These pleasant memories were revived by a recent editorial by Rich Karlgaard, publisher of Forbes, entitled Born-Again Value Investor (scroll down, it's the second part of a two-part article that lacks its own URL.) In it, Rich -- who I worked with a bit at Business Objects and who still says "Hi" on the odd chance encounter in Andronico's -- describes his experience with MobShop, a now-defunct demand aggregation company that cost Rich $50K and Marc Andreessen and Mayfield a whole lot more.

MobShop seemingly cured Rich of his desire to be a dilettante venture capitalist, much as Linkguard and Instranet cured me of mine. While it's less thrilling than being an angel, being a venture fund limited partner is a much better bet, while the best bet of all is actually being a VC -- where you're not only diversified across companies through funds, but also diversified across funds, and get healthy annual management fees to boot. But I wander.

Rich recommends an author he calls the new Benjamin Graham (see my post on "the new" positioning), Vitaliy Katsenelson, and his book Active Value Investing: Making Money in Range-Bound Markets. I've not read the book (and it doesn't sound to Graham-y) but instead added it to my Amazon wishlist until I can clear the 3 linear feet of books I've already got in my active to-read pile.

Anyway, in saving the best for last, the most interesting lesson I learned from my angel experience was from Linkguard. The concept was simple: 404 errors / broken links were a big problem in the early Internet and it was somewaht dangerous when you linked to another site because if they switched their CMS, or otherwise re-designed their site, then all your inbound links to them would break. The argument went: you wouldn't want typos in your corporate brochure, so why would you want broken links on your corporate website.

So why not create and charge for a service that would remember where the old links pointed and determine where they should be re-mapped when things changed. Think about this: in the year 2001 or so, the guys at Linkguard had a linkmap of the entire Internet and were using it to repair broken brochureware.

Think about that. That's like being in California in 1849 with mining equipment and using it to dig for quartz. Why? Because Linkguard had the raw materials to become Google; they just didn't know what to do with them. Their pragmatic -- perhaps pedestrian -- view was to go fix broken links whereas, as we all now know, the Google view was to use their linkmap to perform reference analysis as a new means of determining search relevancy. The same enabling tools; a very different outcome.

So the huge lesson for startups here is to ask: are you best leveraging what you have? Is your vision myopic? Are you digging for gold or quartz?

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Oxford Islamic Studies Online: A Perfect 10

Check out this flattering review of the MarkLogic-based, Oxford Islamic Studies Online offering from Oxford University Press. With 3000 entries, 1000 biographies, 138 images, 233 "chaptered works" and ~160 primary sources, Islamic Studies Online is a great example of what I call "silo busting" in publishing.

What do I mean? Most publishers have silo-ed organizations and silo-ed products. Oxford is cutting across these silos of content to create new online information products. And the beauty of this approach is that once you put the basic infrastructure place, you don't create just one product, you create many.

For example, Islamic Studies Online is a sister product to Oxford's African-American Studies Online; I'm sure that content about people such as Malcom X is sourced from multiple Oxford works and then the same content is delivered to both the Islamic and the African American Studies products. That's content repurposing in action.

You can see a demo of the product, here. And here are a few excerpts from the Islamic Studies Online review in Library Journal:
The main page functions as both a search interface and a study center. The title of the file is clearly and boldly identified at screen top, with a simple search box to the right and an action bar below it that includes links to Search, Browse, Qur'anic Studies, Timelines, Learning Resources, a Qur'an Verse Lookup system, and a date converter between Western and Islamic dates.

[...]

The Browse feature is a great way to discover the scope of the content here but a rotten way to get a review done: after an hour and a half of browsing through the Chaptered Works and Primary Sources, I was staggered by the depth and breadth of information available but hadn't written a word about it!

[...]

HOW GOOD IS IT? Content: 10. Design: 10. Navigability: 10. Usability: 10. It's solid, and, yes, it's a 10.

Friday, May 16, 2008

About Those Gen Yers

Just a quick note to highlight an excellent post on the ReadWriteWeb, entitled Why Generation Y Is Going To Change The Web, including a particularly good riff on marketing:
Marketing Has To Change: Because Gen Y is media savvy and conscious of being marketed to, brands that succeed in the future will be those that open a dialog with their customers, admit their mistakes, and essentially become more transparent (save one notable exception, apparently). Companies' web sites that want to attract GenY'ers will become more like today's Web 2.0 sites. Social networking will be just a feature. Blogs will be standard ways for companies to reach their customers. Customer service won't just be a phone call away, it will be available via non-traditional means, too. Today, savvy companies might be using Twitter, but that could change at any time if Gen Y moves on. Companies will have to keep up with Gen Y and not get too comfortable using any one format. (Oh, and you can stop calling everything "viral" - that's lame.)

XML Named Top Ten Technology You Never Think About

While it may seem a dubious distinction, I'm happy that XML has been named one of the Ten Most Important Technologies You Never Think About according to this story in PC World.

Excerpt:
You've probably heard of XML, but what is it? Where is it?

Though you may never have encountered it directly, XML is everywhere. Now in its 10th year, it has become virtually the lingua franca of data exchange.

XML stands for "extensible markup language" -- extensible because developers can add to it to suit the needs of particular applications. But what makes it really valuable is the fact that it's a language, much like HTML. Unlike some data formats, XML files aren't just streams of incomprehensible numbers. XML is designed to be read by humans as well as machines. A developer who "speaks XML" can look at a document written in an unfamiliar XML dialect and still understand what it's trying to say.

This powerful combination of features makes XML incredibly useful for all kinds of applications. But perhaps its biggest coup was Microsoft's decision to switch to XML-based file formats for Office 2007. As it turns out, you actually may have XML documents sitting on your desktop right now, without realizing it.

The other nine are:
  • Unicode
  • Digital signal processing
  • Managed code
  • Transistors
  • Non-volatile RAM
  • Lithium-ion batteries
  • VOIP
  • Graphics acceleration
  • High-speed net access

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Sorry, I Don't Get Xobni

To show my open-mindedness I just un-installed Xobni for the *second* time, indicating that I've twice tried the email add-on in the past few months and twice decided that its value-add is not worth the performance hit.

Yes, it's cute. It adds a nice little pane to Outlook on the right that keeps in sync with the email I'm reading and lets me see things like:
  • A histogram that shows messages by time of day
  • A ranking in my most messages exchanged list
  • A list of documents we've exchanged
  • A list of conversation threads we've had
  • The "social network" of the sender -- i.e., a list of people they frequently communicate with that strikes me as touching on privacy issues.
In fact, the most fun I had with Xobni on this go-round was in letting it send rankings to my frequent email recipients a la "Hi, did you know that I've recently sent you 1,579 emails and you rank #3 on my list!" (To which I got the reply: "I feel sorry for numbers 2 and 1.")

It's all nice and cute, but it slows down my already-lumbering machine, and I don't find the cuteness a reasonable ROI on the performance penalty.

The company apparently recently walked away from a Microsoft acquisition offer, rumored in the $20M range. 54% of Techcrunch readers survey think the company should have sold, the other 46% thought they'd be worth more a year from now.

As they say in French, on verra.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Speaking at CMO Club Summit Next Week in NYC

Just a quick post to announce that I'll be speaking next week at the CMO Club Summit Event in New York City on 5/21/08 at 11:00 AM on a panel entitled CMOs Live Longer: Career Management Panel Discussion.

My role on the panel is to talk about the transition from CMO from CEO. Questions include:
  • What must one do to prepare to get the CEO job?
  • What must you do to prepare to do the CEO job?
  • How does marketing look from the CEO seat (from an ex-marketer)?
  • How do personal branding issues come into play?
It should be fun. Hope to see you there.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Musings of an In-Touch Old-School Information Sciences Person

Sometimes in Silicon Valley we can breathe too much of our own vapors and forget that smart people in other industries have been tackling what we consider "new" problems for a long time and, in the process, forget to learn from them.

The part at which we're inherently good is bringing new eyes, a fresh approach, and disruptive business models. The part at which we're inherently bad at is listening to and learning from those "who don't get it" and who tread before us.

One of the things I like about running Mark Logic is that many of our customers live at the intersection of old-media publishing and new-media web 2.0. This creates an exciting opportunity to help bring web 2.0 thinking to the classical publishing business, as well as a great opportunity to study disruptors and innovation strategies a la The Innovator's Dilemma.

It also gets me some exposure to librarians and the disciplines of library and information science, and things like abstracting and indexing. It turns out that long before Google decided to organize the world's information that librarians had been doing it for over 2000 years. I've sometimes quipped that "angry librarians" were a target market for Mark Logic and that prior to joining Mark Logic I thought that MLS was a disease, not a degree.

In this post, I wanted to call attention to a series of monthly articles written by someone who I consider an in-touch old-school information sciences professional: Jill O'Neil, director of planning and communications at NFAIS. In particular, I wanted to call attention to her series of monthly missives called Enotes, available either by being an NFAIS member or through this listserver, which offers subscription services and appears open to the public.

I like the Enotes series for a number of reasons:
  • They're always well written, well researched, and with links to great sources.
  • You can tell that Jill uses the tools she discusses.
  • She unites the perspective of an old-school library scientist with a in-touch web 2.0 user; I find her unique in so doing.
For example, consider the opening hook in this month's Enotes:
In late March of this year, Anna Kushnir, a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard, blogged her total exasperation with PubMed as a search tool, calling it "embarrassingly, frustratingly, painfully bad." The final paragraph of the blog entry asked, "Why is PubMed so behind the times…When is it going to get better?"

Almost immediately there was a flurry of comments on the blog from prominent medical librarians, suggesting how she might go about getting PubMed to spew back the content she sought. Anna's response to all of the proffered assistance was less than enthusiastic. "I don't think I should have to be -- or enlist the services of -- a medical librarian in order to do a simple search on a literature search engine. PubMed should be an *intuitive* search engine such as Google, or others.
I don't know about you, but that hook makes me want to read the rest of the article.

I've wanted to blog about various topics raised in the Enotes series many times, but -- and here's my one gripe -- they're seemingly not accessible via an URL. I receive them as e-mails and until I found the previously mentioned listserver and archive, I couldn't find them at any URL on the web. Ergo, I couldn't really blog about them.

Well, the good news is that I found a way to find Enotes on the web and subscribe to the NFAIS list if you so choose. The bad news is (1) that the listserver mangles the formatting, and (2) you have to dig through general NFAIS traffic to find them.

So, if you have the motivation, check out Enotes. And Jill -- please make them accessible via an URL!
  • Jill's blog is here
  • Jill's delicious bookmarks are here
  • Jill's Google Reader RSS feed is here

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Moritz Says Watch Out for Hot Air and Arrogance

Check out this article in the San Jose Mercury news, entitled Watching Their Words: In A Soft Economy Venture Firms Trying To Avoid Hot Air and Arrogance.

Excerpt:

"There's a lot of hot air and arrogance in the business that we all would be better off without," Sequoia Capital's Mike Moritz declared before about 700 colleagues. He wanted to banish "useless pontificating in front of entrepreneurs working harder than we are."

"At Kleiner, we're trying to watch our language," said John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. VCs who constantly speak of "deals" and "projects," Doerr and Moritz agreed, reveal their self-interest and slight the labor and "dreams" of the entrepreneurs.

I love the "useless pontification" soundbite. In running Mark Logic, a Sequoia-backed company, I've met Moritz several times. In my estimation, he's one of the VCs least guilty of pontification in Silicon Valley. In my experience, his style is listen a lot and then make a few insightful comments, much like the old EF Hutton commercial: when EF Hutton talks, people listen. But I get his point; your typical VC can pontificate with the best of them, and probably shouldn't.

Not to quibble with one my shareholders, but on the "working harder" issue, from my perception the guys at our investors (Sequoia and Lehman Brothers) work very hard. Particularly for people who have already been, shall we say "quite," financially successful, I'm often amazed by their work ethic. For your "average" VC, I think there is a certain lifestyle play, but I think the article does a good job at explaining the mentality at the top:
"Both these guys, they love the game. It's not about making a lot of money. They love the game. That's a competitive edge. They're still hungry."
The article also touches on what I believe is a fairly strong increasing-returns factor in venture capital. Basically, once you get a reputation for being good, you see more business plans, entrepreneurs prefer your money figuring you will provide better advice and connections, and therefore the top VCs see more deals and price them more competitively (i.e., at lower valuations) than lesser firms. Here's the article's take on the same issue:
"I think the model's broken unless you've got a brand. And that brand is based on merit," Pennell said. "If it looks like they've got the Midas touch, all the best entrepreneurs are going to go to them. Then they do have the Midas touch."

Carr, Carbon, Europe, and Virtual Worlds

The past few weeks have been interesting from a carbon perspective. Here's why:
  • I bought an Air France ticket from Manchester to Paris and immediately after confirming the purchase the Air France website tried to up-sell me my carbon offset (for about $27, if I recall correctly). I've yet to see this in the US.
  • I attended an Alliance of CEOs meeting where I met an entrepreneur who said "the carbon thing's really big in Europe," that Europeans were willing pay roughly 3-5x what Americans will for a given offset, and mused that perhaps there was an arbitrage play therein.
  • I took the Heathrow Express from London and participated in a ten-minute interview with a market researcher (I always like to participate so I can see both sides of market research). One of the questions: "to what extent do you consider the environment impact of your transportation choice to Heathrow?"
  • A Mark Logic staffer told me that he had made a host of changes (including selling his car and buying only local produce) to reduce his carbon footprint. He then used a carbon footprint calculator and determined that he had indeed done quite well. He then included all his air travel and went from something like the 20th percentile to the 90th in terms of carbon generation.
  • I read this article by old friend David Tebbutt in the (English) publication Information World Review entitled, Is Internet Activity Destroying the Planet? Among other interesting points Tebbutt had this tidbit: "What about an avatar in Second Life? A few years ago, Nicholas Carr calculated that one avatar had the same carbon footprint as the average Brazilian." Wow.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Vertical Search Presentation from the EPublishing Innovation Form

I had the pleasure of attending and speaking at the EPublishing Innovation Forum in London this week, chaired by David Worlock, chief research fellow, at Outsell, Inc.

I participated in two sessions, the closing panel with Hugo Drayton of Phorm (a controversial behavioral ad network that collects data at the ISP level), Vin Crosbie of Digital Deliverance (a management consultancy to the media industry, particularly newspapers), and Leonard Brody of NowPublic (a citizen journalism news website fueled by crowdsourcing).

My primary participation, however, was in a session entitled Risks and Opportunities in Vertical Search, where I spoke with Iain Fletcher from Convera, a company that has wholly, boldly, and some might argue, insanely (given that they sold off 93% of their revenue stream), repositioned itself as a vertical search platform provider. (As I always say, I give Convera an A+ for commitment, if not a similar grade for strategy. The concept is interesting, by the way, but the question is can it support a viable ongoing business?)

My main messages were:
  • The risk in vertical search is kidding yourself into thinking that you can make money with a site that's nothing more than you can throw together in a half-day using Google Custom Search Engine.
  • The opportunity is in adding value. I focused a lot on audience intimacy and value because that's where I believe publishers can build safe, profitable, sustainable markets in the face of horizontal forces such as Google.
  • I said that I disliked the term "vertical search" because I think it sets too low a bar. To most people, I think vertical search means a domain-specific crawl and returning results list of links to documents. That's not enough.
  • I echoed the thoughts of Andrew Richardson from Wolters Kluwer Health who spoke the day prior and, among other things, argued that contextual design is an appropriate methodology for building online information services.
  • I briefly argued in favor an XML platform approach to delivering such products and services. (Because you can put all your content in one place and then XQuery to quick build products which should be viewed as experiments -- fail early and often.)
In summary, my vertical search talk said: don't think about vertical search; think instead about content applications. Don't build search sites that are low in value-add. Build applications that help users accomplish tasks.

Here, courtesy of Slideshare, are my presentation slides.



Thursday, May 01, 2008

EMC Debuts 17-Syllable XML "Competitor"

I think EMC may have set a record with the name of its recently announced, embeddable edition of what was once called x-Hive/DB. The new name: EMC Documentum XML Store OEM Edition. If I'm counting correctly, that's 17 syllables.

EDXSOE, if you'll pardon the acronym, blows by my previous favorite ridiculously long product name, CA/Kiplinger's Simply Money, which weighed in at a mere 9. MarkLogic Server, by the way, comes in at a phonetically frugal 5.

Note: if you're looking at EMC Documentum XML Store OEM Edition, then you should probably be looking at MarkLogic Server as well. We, too, have an OEM program, and we think there are many advantages to embedding MarkLogic Server in an application, and many^2 advantages to embedding the combination of MarkLogic Server (for XML delivery) and Microsoft SharePoint (for CMS) in OEMed applications.

While I'm on the subject of EMC, Documentum, and x-Hive, let me take a moment to comment on the interchange between myself and Pie, author of the Word of Pie blog, regarding the nature of competition between MarkLogic and EMC/Documentum.

It started with this post where Pie said that, based on a EMC training he'd attended, that MarkLogic was [clearly] the enemy [of x-Hive].

I responded with this rather hastily written post, trying to argue four things: (1) numerous customers want to use the products together and I intend to let them, (2) I believe our ambitions for (and the reality of) MarkLogic Server are greater than those of a simple XML store, (3) I believe, in not so many words, that SharePoint is going to eat Documentum alive, particularly when it comes to basic content services (BCS) and (somewhat implicitly) that there's more value-add in XML content delivery than in BCS and (totally implicitly) that if I were a customer, I'd spend my money where it differentiated and not where it didn't,and (4) (rather implicitly) that it takes two to tango and while Documentum is free to declare MarkLogic an enemy, it only becomes a war when we declare them one back, and we are not so doing.

Pie responded with this post, expressing a bit of healthy skepticism and clarifying the issue of where the competition occurs. Here are my comments on that:


  • Indeed my main point was that MarkLogic Server complements the Documentum Content Server (DCS) and I believe the DCS business is at least 50x bigger than the x-Hive business. So Mark Logic complements 98% of Documentum's business and competes with 2% of it. Hence my non-desire to declare EMC/Documentum an enemy.
  • Indeed, I do view MarkLogic Server and x-Hive/DB -- i.e., EMC Documentum XML Store (11 syllables) -- as same-category competitors. But I believe they're both XML content servers only in the same sense that Oracle and Microsoft Access are both relational databases.
  • Pie points out, in different words, that EMC's claims sound like the Irving Berlin number Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better. I don't doubt that they do. But I'm not talking about their claims. I'm talking about my perception of reality.
Now my last statement could easily provoke an unwinnable pissing match where the x-Hive folks tell of secret evaluation X, or private benchmark Y, and we respond with information about major government agency or publisher Z. But I won't go there. Why? Because I think such arguments:


  • Are not credible. Do you really believe you're going to get an accurate picture from such a story?
  • Lack integrity. If these tests are private, then why are you telling me about them ... and wait a minute .... which of my private information are you going to tell others?
  • Are not relevant. Using someone else's benchmark to buy software is like kissing your date's sister to determine romantic capability. And, by extension, using a second-hand account of someone else's benchmark is like asking your brother to kiss your date's sister for the same purpose.
Were I a customer, what would I do? Three cases come to mind:


  • Were I committed Documentum customer, I'd evaluate both MarkLogic Server and EDXS.

  • Were I not, I'd evaluate the combination of Alfresco + MarkLogic, SharePoint + MarkLogic, and Documentum + MarkLogic. (OK, I'd probably look at Document + EDXS, too.)

  • Were I a publisher, I'd look at RSuite/CMS from Really Strategies, a MarkLogic-based, fully native XML CMS built by publishers for publishers.
Why? Because core CMS functionality is commoditizing and I believe that most of the value in these sorts of content applications comes from the XML content server, not the CMS. Ergo, I would look to invest my money in things that differentiated and to "go commodity" on the things that don't.


Norm Walsh Joins Mark Logic

There's been some buzz in the blogosphere about the recent news that Norm Walsh, a key driver of DocBook and author of DocBook: The Definitive Guide, has decided to join Mark Logic.

Norm announced the news on his blog, norman.walsh.name, in this post entitled simply, Mark Logic. Excerpt:
Mark Logic is doing exactly what interests me: XML markup of mixed content. At the end of the day, I think that's where all the really interesting data is to be found: I'm a document guy. Typed object graphs and relational tables are a fine way to store data, but data doesn't have any meaning until it's put into context, and we put information into context by documenting it: by writing mixed content and surrounding it with markup.
The first post I saw on the news was by M. David Peterson on the O'Reilly XML Blog, entitled Norm Walsh Leaves Sun, Just Like That, POOF. Excerpt:
I’m wondering how in the hell some obscure “XQuery Content” company stole Norm Walsh away from Sun. [...] Anyone care to provide some insight? Is Mark Logic really *that* good?
I'm still waiting for my comments on the post to be approved by the author (and given it's been more than a day, I'm not sure they will). I obviously had a bone to pick with "obscure," and felt that "focused" would be a better description.

Peter O'Kelly of Burton Group also picked up on story in his blog here.

Finally, the XML Daily NewsLink had this to say (though it appears you'll have to wait a week or so for the email to appear in their archive):
Norm Walsh, editor of the OASIS DocBook specification (also: member of the W3C Technical Architecture Group (TAG), and co-winner of the 2005 IDEAlliance XML Cup Award with Michael Kay) glosses Mark Logic as "Makers of an exceptional XQuery engine and XML content platform. "
We're happy to have Norm on board. I'm sure he's going to make a big impact in working with our Information and Media customers.

Thank you to everyone who had positive things to say about either Mark Logic (the company) or MarkLogic (the product) in the various blogs and comments. We work very hard here to build a high-quality product and a high-quality team, and it gives me great pride to see both recognized as such.