Posts by Jayson berger 5 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Jul 2008
Tandberg shareholders might want to chat with a few Yahoo shareholdouts and see how quickly a fortune can dwindle. Continuing to 'go it alone' is a road to failure in the long term. Videoconferencing equipment is getting much less expensive and Cisco will gut margins if it decides to own the market.
If Tandberg decides to go it alone, I'd expect Cisco to buy Lifesize and then gut Tandberg in every deal available over the next 24 months.
A very good question to ask during this "realignment" of distribution is why is Novell in disty at all?
They do not offer any products in a retail box or physical media, it is all download based via Novell's Customer Center portal.
It's the same question I've asked them many times, what value add does distribution have to the model. Little to none I'm afraid. Other than someone to confirm part numbers before placement, distribution has very little offer Novell. And because the bulk of Novell's business is via license contracts such as the MLA which are often fufilled directly by Novell, there is very little incremental revenue available to the disty partner.
Novell has attempted to push these larger contracts into distribution, but with the piddling 1% profit margin obtained on the MLA contract, it is actually cheaper for the partner to push the deal direct to Novell than to place the order at distribution and fund the costs for 30-60-90 while waiting on payment.
Disty is not providing high value add in these cases and is simply a relic of the old physical media requirements which is costing Novell and it's partners margin and profitability these days.
Why the focus on such low end products.
Certainly you could have thrown in a couple of models from URC or RTI in the mix to see how the others compared. It's hard to run a review without at least having a benchmark to set the standard. And any review with more than one Harmony is obviously a hobbyist view not worthy of the Reg.
There are MUCH better products out there, how about giving them a look?
You make the budget, they help you spend it.
That's the whole point of the budget, it's what you are prepared to spend to advertise. It's not greed, it's what every profit driven enterprise wants to do, spend the client's budget. It's up to both of them to make sure it's spent wisely.
Google looks at unspent budget as lost revenue, advertisers look at unspent budget as loss of potential exposure/transactions.
I don't agree with automatic opt-in, but it hasn't been proven that's even happening now.
I can see a clear benefit in using the feature, if you don't want to spend the time to manage adwords, or don't know how, it's a great way to increase your impressions without increasing your BUDGET (It could increase your spend, but it's limited to the budget you set).
Google's rank system should limit the matches to impressions which matter most, so they get paid for those ads and they increase the value and market for relivent ads.
That's the part of Auto-match that's not being discussed. If they can get more people competing for ads via Auto-match, then they can expect the price of the ads to increase due to competition.
If done well, then advertisers get more exposure to potential clients with less effort to find them, and Google gets more revenue per ad and get's the maximize the spend per client. Done poorly, they will see advertisers reduce their budgets AND their spend which will really be a blow to the bottom line. Given the results of that kind of failure, I'd expect they will get it right and most folks will profit.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
