Non-Linear Growth

A glimpse around the next corner; mind the curves.

Areas I’m most likely to invest in during 2010

I have always been fairly thematic in my investment approach. For me, the process starts with identifying big markets that are either 1) emerging (and will therefore be created over the next several years) or 2) undergoing some structural shift that will enable new entrants to grab market share from incumbents. I have seen Companies succeed in both types of markets and so I don’t have a preference for either approach. In 2010, there are a several big themes that I’m tracking which are likely to influence my investment selection during the year.

Everything is a service

For several years I’ve been spouting off about the notion that “everything is turning into a service”. I outlined some detailed thoughts on this trend in a post titled “The future is in services” last June. As I look several years out, I see several big value chains threatened by this trend, creating opportunities for upstarts. For example, I think there will continue to be pockets of attractive investments in SaaS. But where I see big opportunity is in cloud based services and platforms that enable the cloud to become a true utility to the enterprise, small business and even consumers. Transforming computing from a product into a service is a non-trivial shift that will take many years, but the march is on and the direction of the trend is undeniable. Computing, storage, etc. will all primarily be purchased as a service in the not too distant future.

Platforms

For me, 2010 will be the year of the platform. The notion of open platforms that enable third-party developers to innovate on top of the platform by consuming API is alluring to me. I’ve already put my money where my mouth is on this one as several of my investments have ”platform” as a core component of their product and go-to-market strategy. Communications is an areas that has largely been untouched by the platform trend. It seems to me that the time is ripe for the network to begin opening up. I’ve written about this in the past on my firm’s blog; you can find that post here. The post is a bit dated, but I think you will get the point. Location services is another area where I think there are platform plays emerging.

Payments

I have an inkling that innovation is finally coming to payments. There have been some big exits in recent months, including BillMeLater and Revolution Money. Neither is particularly reflective of the type of innovation I think is coming in payment, but both show the size/scale of businesses that can be built given the massive size of the payments sector. With PayPal opening up its platform to third-party developers, there is going to be a rash of new payment application development in the coming years. As an investor in IP Commerce, I have a special perch from which to watch this trend. I’m staggered by the diversity of payment applications being developed on top of the IP Commerce platform. Several have already caught my eye as potential new investments and I believe more will do the same in 2010. I’m also tracking some big last cash markets, which I think are finally opening up to electronic payment providers.

Mobile

Mobile is an area I have tracked closely for several years now. And while some would argue that the market has disappointed, I would counter that we are still in only the early innings of a very long game. I continue to believe firmly in the mobile web, or the web optimized for the display needs and the unique capabilities/properties of mobile phones. I’m less enthusiastic about applications being developed for the iPhone/Android/RIM and other operating systems; or at least less enthusiastic about investing in companies that create those apps. There is just too much OS fragmentation for application developers to manage effectively and it is difficult to make any particular app stand out in the crowd.. As 4G networks begin to roll out, more bandwidth may obviate the need for a downloadable app. In some ways, apps remind me of PointCast; remember that? I’ll continue to track this trend closely, but as it stands, my money is on the web, not the apps in the long-run. Regardless, I’m more interested in the infrastructure and plumbing in mobile than the consumer-facing application side. The fact is that the mobile use case is fundamentally different from the web and it enables usage paradigms that are not relevant on the tethered web. As a result, the capabilities of the plumbing for mobile need to cater to what is unique about the mobile experience, creating an opportunity for new players to stake out a dominant and differentiated position.

I’m likely to make two new investments in 2010. I am more likely to prioritize my review of investments that synch with the themes outlined in this post. I’m also more likely to make investments in these areas than other areas I’m not tracking as closely. Having said that, I think it is critical to marry a thematic (and therefore planful) approach to identifying great investments with an opportunistic approach. So I don’t rule out making investments in other areas in 2010. I know there will be several entrepreneurs with whom I interact who light a spark causing me to dig deep into areas not outlined in this post. Frankly, I look forward to having that spark lit; it is a great part of the process of discovery that the VC business requires.

Filed under: Cloud, Investment Selection, Payments, Platforms, Themes, Venture Capital, Wireless, , , , , , ,

SaaS and Software: A distinction with a difference

Anyone who knows me reasonably well knows that I tend to be a structured (albeit non-linear) thinker and that I have a penchant for semantics. Words have meaning and are not to be trifled with. Words with different meanings should not be used interchangeably; they have different meanings for a reason.

So when I got a call from a “adviser” to a growth stage business today promoting a “software company in the human capital management space” , I near about turned it down on the spot. You see “software” doesn’t fit in my investment thesis; “SaaS” does. You can imagine me saying:

I’m sorry, I don’t invest in software companies. I don’t like product company economics, including software license economics. I do however invest in SaaS. You see, I like recurring revenue businesses that have a long-term relationship with their customer. I like to sell something once and get paid many times over that long customer relationship. I like businesses with economies of scale, where the “next customer” has a higher contribution margin than all prior customers. I want to invest in businesses that have operating leverage and can be built into meaningful stand-alone businesses.

Thank goodness I’ve learned that all too many people use the terms software and SaaS interchangeably. So I asked the adviser.

How does the company deliver its solution, through software or SaaS?

His response:

SaaS.

Now we’re talking!

Old handles die hard

The adviser who called me isn’t the only person who’s made this mistake with me. Heck, one of my current investments, IP Commerce, once pitched me that they were a “software company”.  I had to turn them around on that notion; “no, you are an on-demand service”. More recently, I had the a conversation with a cloud-services executive who made the same error; “no, you do not deliver a product, you deliver a service”.

I don’t begrudge anyone whose has used the words interchangeably. It is understandable in some ways; it is hard to let go of the past, and software is clearly the past when it comes to SaaS. People are clearly finding it difficult to shed the product-orientation of software for the services-orientation of SaaS. But let go we must! Why?

More than semantics

There are huge distinctions between software and SaaS. This isn’t just semantics. My Partner Doug Holladay would call this a ”distinction with a difference”. Which is to say that software and SaaS are two fundamentally different business models with fundamentally different:

  • underlying economics
  • key success factors
  • operating skill sets
  • capital formation needs

The point is that the differences between software and SaaS are more important than what they have in common. About the only thing that SaaS and software have to do with each other is that SaaS service-delivery infrastructure is software-based. But can you think of an on-demand services business; telecom, CRM, payments, cloud, securities trading, etc, etc. where that is not the case? I can’t (at least not one where I’d invest); its all software on the back-end. You don’t hear telecom companies proclaiming that they are “software based telecom”.

Yes, SaaS and software compete for market share in the vertical markets in which they overlap; which is just about every vertical market. And that is where the distinction really matters. Selling yourself as software when you deliver via SaaS is like pitching a netbook as a mainframe. It is a step backward. In most application verticals, SaaS has such overwhelming advantages against software from just about any perspective you can imagine (customer, operator, or investor), that any SaaS operator who utters the words “we’re a software” company is seriously degrading the value proposition of their solution.

 So don’t do it. Be proud of the merits of on-demand operating model you’ve chosen. Sell against software; not side by side with it. You have a distinction with a difference!

Filed under: SaaS, Themes

The future is in services

Last week, I attended GigaOm’s Structure ’09 Conference: Put Cloud Computing to Work. It was worthwhile to attend and I intend to return next year. It was exciting to see how the services business model is being rapidly adopted by the technology-delivery value-chain.

In a talk titled The Cloud in Context, Russ Daniels, VP and CTO of Cloud Services Strategy at HP put it most succinctly, describing HP’s vision as:

“Everything is a Service”.

Full video of Daniels’ talk here. While the “everything is a service” mantra is almost certainly overreaching, it drives home an undeniable point; the action is in services. To make it fully, I think you have to start with the view from the customer’s perspective. What the customer wants is functionality that helps them achieve a business objective delivered at a total cost of ownership that is less than the value they can extract from the functionality. Issues of security and control aside for a moment, the customer is mercenary about this and will adopt the delivery method that gives them the functionality they want with the best ROI. Said another way, customers are becoming delivery-model agnostic.

It is no wonder then that the operating model through which value is delivered to customers (whether enterprise, smb or consumer) is turning away from products and toward services. It is well documented that in many cases, the services model has an ROI advantage over the product model. At a macro level, I tend to frame the transformation technology markets are undergoing as one where products are turning into services.

Products turning into services

Consider the transformation taking place in each of the following areas:

Value Proposition Product Delivery Model Services Delivery Model
Application level functionality Shrink-wrapped Software Software as a Service
Data storage Hardware Storage as a Service
Computing power/Processing Web Servers Computing as a Service

In each case, the value proposition – once delivered to the customer in the form of a one-time sale/license product – can now be accessed by the customer through a CapEx light service. Customers are dropping the CapEx and OpEx associated with managing IT infrastructure for pure OpEx in the form of services.

An Investors View

While technology plays a key role in enabling the trend toward services, the trend itself is not fundamentally about technology. Rather, the opportunity offered by the cloud is a more efficient operating model; the service operating model. This creates a new layer to the technology value chain; the services layer. Any time a new layer is added to a value chain, new investment opportunities are created and pre-existing layers of the value chain are at risk. From a venture investor’s point of view, this forces a rethinking of investment approaches.

An ecosystem play

The new investment opportunities in the cloud go way beyond the traditional IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS layers of the stack, although there are opportunities within each of those categories. Each of these layers will require its own support ecosystem to achieve its full potential. These are often referred to as enablers. Enablers are interesting investment opportunities, because they enable the investor to play the momentum of a category. For example, an investment in a SaaS enabler that provides billing, operating support and other capabilities to SaaS developers is a play on the success of SaaS as a category as opposed to any one SaaS operator. If the category you “enable” fails, like the mobile virtual network operator category, your enabler will fail, like the mobile virtual network enablers failed. But if the category you are enabling is successful, the rising tide is likely to lift your boat too, so long as you have a valuable service.

Existing value chain is threatened

The emergence of the service layer is facilitated by massive improvements in networking, computing, storage and software, including virtualization. What is ironic is that the emergence of the services layer threatens the very same product vendors that have facilitated its development. In the product oriented technology value chain, product vendors (software, storage, computing) sold to end users; enterprises, small businesses and consumers. In a services oriented value chain, these same product vendors sell to the service providers (IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS). For an investor there are two implications. The first is that those product companies just lost access to the end customer, replaced by the relationship between the service provider and the customer. The second implication is less obvious, but more threatening. The services business is a business of economies of scale. It requires a significant up-front investment in service delivery infrastructure, but has very low margin costs for each new customer added. The result is that sub-scale service operators can’t compete; and the big get bigger. This tends to restult in a concentrated service provider market, consolidating buying power, which squeezes margins of  the suppliers to the service providers. Those of us who have roots in the services sectors understand this phenomenon quite well. We have a saying at Meritage about the communications equipment space that I’ve grown fond of; “there are too many vendors and not enough customers”. This is one of the many reasons we don’t invest in communications equipment, but we love the communications services landscape.

The point is, if I were a product company focused on selling software, storage, or computing, I’d be frightened right now because my sales model is going to change dramatically over the coming ten years and not in my favor. The “On the Shoulders of Giants” panel at Structure really drove this message home. The panel, moderated by Jonathan Heiliger of Facebook, included ops leaders from Microsoft, MySpace, Google, Yahoo! And LinkedIn. These guys push their vendors hard. Heck, Google designs its own hardware and considers it a competitive advantage. Product vendors can expect more of the same treatment with the emergence of big cloud services operators like Amazon, Salesforce.com and others.

It is no wonder then that every major product vendor, from SAP to EMC is stuck in a seemingly bipolar tug of war between their legacy product businesses and their emerging attempts to run services platforms. Unfortunately, the key success factors for running a product-oriented company don’t translate well into a services environment.

Implications for Venture Capital

Participants in the technology supply chain aren’t the only ones struggling with the implications of the cloud’s emergence. The venture community is as well. It turns out that investing in services businesses demands a different skillset and philosophy than investing in product companies.

Because most services businesses go to market with a recurring revenue business model, the economics of the business are much harder to evaluate and the profitability is back-end loaded. In a prior post, I wrote about The economics of on-demand services, which includes an evaluation of unit factors like ARPU, churn, service delivery costs, etc. This is sufficiently more complicated than the economics of hardware; sell a unit, collect the revenue and lock in your gross margin on the sale.

The net result is that services businesses can be quite capital intensive, even if the market responds well to the service. It is more capital efficient than was the case when you had to build your own network to deliver a service (think cable), but still more capital intensive than product investing. As a result, investing in services is not for the faint of heart. Early indicators of success that are so prevalent in the product world are harder to come identify, except with an expert eye. It takes a tremendous amount of patience and in some cases stubborn conviction to be successful in services investing.

The opportunity for investors in the cloud is real, but only for those with an appropriate long-term company building philosophy and a level of comfort with the services business model.

Filed under: Cloud, Conferences, Themes, Venture Capital, , , , , , ,

My Twitter Feed

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.