apr 19

Pricing is at the heart of every business, and pricing decisions are far more complicated than merely covering expenses. In the price of a good there are connotations of quality, the volume sold and even the perception of the brand. But when it come to digital goods — where the cost of goods sold is measured in AWS instances and engineers — setting prices can become almost pure strategy.

Bill Gurley, a general partner with Benchmark Capital, takes a look at this strategy when it comes to setting what he calls the rake, or commission, between a platform owner and those using the platform. Examples of the rake include Apple’s 30 percent fee on apps in its App store as well as the service fees associated with oDesk or OpenTable.

Gurley’s article, which is well worth a read, explores the relationship between the rake and the spread of the platform through a series of anecdotes. I just wish he had some documented research; not because I think his conclusions are wrong, but because I think we’d learn even more about how the cost of doing business on a platform affects volume in more subtle ways.

For example, Gurley makes much of the benefits of having a low rake, which encourages developers/end users/merchants to use the platform and also prevents a newcomer from coming in and undercutting you on price. What he doesn’t dig into is how the benefits of scale in the digital world mean that undercutting people on price is a race to the bottom. This is one reason people are concerned that no one but Google can compete with Amazon Web Services when it comes to cloud computing, despite Microsoft saying it will match AWS pricing on its own Azure cloud.

Here’s Gurley’s take on competition and the set rake:

If your objective is to build a winner-take-all marketplace over a very long term, you want to build a platform that has the least amount of friction (both product and pricing). High rakes are a form of friction precisely because your rake becomes part of the landed price for the consumer. If you charge an excessive rake, the pricing of items in your marketplace are now unnaturally high (relative to anything outside your marketplace). In order for your platform to be the “definitive” place to transact, you want industry leading pricing – which is impossible if your rake is the de facto cause of excessive pricing. High rakes also create a natural impetus for suppliers to look elsewhere, which endangers sustainability.

And here he is discussing a favorite business model for digital platforms — a low rake with a mechanism for people who want to spend more to do so in exchange for better placement or the opportunity to get favorable placement on the platform:

You start with a low rake to get broad-based supplier adoption, and you add in a market-driven pricing dynamic that allows those suppliers who want more volume or exposure to pay more on an opt-in basis. This way no one leaves the network due to excessive fees, yet you end up with a higher average rake over time due to the competitive dynamic. And when prices go up due to bidding and competition, the suppliers blame their competition not the platform (part of the genius of the Google AdWords business model). This also allows you to extract more dollars from those suppliers who desire to spend more to promote themselves (without raising the tax on those that don’t).

The article is worth reading, and I hope that some MBA professor takes it into his head to start some rigorous research on the best commission structures across digital verticals, or perhaps the biggest factors that should influence your rake rates. Because while generally low is good, if one could manage to be an area where high or medium works — at least for a while — then why not start there and see what happens?

Or better yet, invest in tools that allow for dynamic pricing based on the user’s need or demographics. That’s something more easily done online and is utterly neglected in Gurley’s article. In a digital world, the cost of goods is lower, so the risk of playing with pricing is lower as well. I think we’re going to see a lot more of it.


Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

    


Tagged with:
giu 17

Box CEO Aaron Levie

A few months ago, Bill Gurley wrote a post about Benchmark’s investment in Dropbox, and why Dropbox’s cloud-based file synchronization is a major disruptor. Many disagreed, quoting Steve Jobs’ assertion that file sync is a feature, not a product. As a feature, the assumption was that it would be folded into the architecture of the bigger players, once they came to market with a comparable offering.

Enter the giants.

The bigger players have arrived. Microsoft recently gave SkyDrive a major overhaul, and Google brought out its long-awaited Drive. Apple had already launched the iCloud product. It’s no accident that three of the world’s most powerful technology companies have entered this market in tandem. It speaks to the importance of cloud storage, and means that the theoretical discussion about what might happen will quickly give way to the reality of what does happen.

ScaleVP is an early investor in Box, the leader in cloud-based enterprise file sharing. No surprise then that I agree with Bill Gurley, but I would frame the discussion more broadly. File synchronization and file sharing are both “just” features, but they are features of an emerging architecture for PCs, tablets, and smartphones, one where files are stored in the cloud, accessible across all devices and cached locally as needed.

This is a shift from the device computing architecture that has persisted since the Apple I, through the entire PC era and into the early years of smartphones. That this shift has now been endorsed and embraced by the three companies who collectively set the direction of the technology industry is huge validation. It means that this change is going to happen.

For startups like Box and Dropbox, this is a big deal. The typical risk early on in the life of a startup is, “will this change even happen?” That risk is behind us. Now, the issue is whether they ultimately become features, products or companies?

Feature, product and company

Drew Houston, Dropbox - GigaOM RoadMap 2011

Drew Houston CEO of Dropbox

I believe that the answer for the startups in this space is all three: they will become a feature, product and company. To get any traction in software today you have to start with a feature — an atomic unit of delight. You have to solve one problem superbly. From that point of view, being labeled a feature is actually a compliment, as it means you have made something drop dead simple to adopt.

Dropbox made it really easy for an individual user to sync files across multiple devices. Box made it incredibly simple for businesses to share files and collaborate in a structured manner. You can call these mere features, but they were features that people really wanted, and they were valuable enough to motivate tens of millions of users to change behavior and move their files to the cloud.

A startup with that traction has earned the right to parlay. Now, it can build a product around that feature. Dropbox and Box are doing that right now. The products they are building are next-generation file systems for the cloud, Dropbox coming from consumer roots, and Box from an enterprise perspective with a focus on collaboration. A file system is not a feature, it is a big deal product, and successful file systems have built successful multi-billion dollar companies in the past, such as Microsoft, Novell and Network Appliance.

The file system descriptor is not perfect, because traditional file systems have tended to be invisible to users, bundled in a device OS or a network OS. These new products thrive on visibility because ease-of-use and real application level functionality have been the drivers of mass adoption, but the technology that powers consumer sync or enterprise collaboration is ultimately based on managing the storage of, and access to, files in the cloud. So calling it a next generation cloud-based file system is a good enough description for now.

Competing with giants

Google, Microsoft and Apple won’t just roll over and die. They will compete hard, using tight technical integration with their existing products and financial bundling to drive adoption. If this is just another feature war, this strategy will work.

If it is an architecture shift, and the opportunity is indeed for an independent cloud-based file system, the old guard’s strategy, with the inevitable “installed base” driven trade-offs, will fail. The trade-offs will cripple the functionality of the offerings in a market where the best product will be the one that is file type agnostic and takes advantage of what a cloud based architecture can offer.

Two giant markets: Consumer and enterprise

Put your stuff in the cloud instead.

I have been talking about this as one market, but it is really two. And it will have two winners. A consumer file system based around sync is very different from an enterprise file system based around sharing. Some of the comments around “sync is a feature” are driven by people’s familiarity with the needs of end users, and lack of familiarity about what enterprise IT needs.

Consumers require platform integration to Facebook, Twitter and other consumer apps and even products (TV, Xbox) while enterprises require platform level integrations to directory systems, security systems and legacy applications. Both are hard problems and both require a platform play with huge scale. But they are very different.

In the next ten years, consumers and businesses will move much of their file storage to the cloud and in the process create multi-billion-dollar software markets for cloud-based file systems. Everyone has files. As a result, the cloud-based file system opportunity is a big prize, possibly the biggest prize in cloud computing.

For the business market alone, at an estimated $50 per user per year, with 200 million knowledge workers worldwide. This is a $10 billion annual market. My gut is that it will be won by those companies that solve the problem holistically, rather than simply bundle it in as a feature. The features are already becoming products, and these products will give rise to some pretty important companies in one of the most meaningful markets of this technology era.

Rory O’Driscoll (@roryodriscoll) is a managing director with Scale Venture Partners, where he invests in mobile, Internet, and enterprise software companies. He is a board member and investor in Box. You can find more from Rory via his blog.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.


Tagged with:
feb 27

After Dropbox made it easier to move digital photos from smartphones to the cloud on Friday, the debate as to whether Dropbox itself is the next big disruptor or just a feature to be acquired or co-opted flared anew. The debate boils down to whether the web needs a neutral storage service that works pretty well with all the major technology platforms or if ease of use and synching is paramount.

By all accounts, Dropbox provides a slick way to upload and store digital paraphernalia in the cloud. From there, users can access their stuff from any device and sync files across devices. The service has been hugely popular: As of four months ago, Dropbox claimed more than 45 million users. But the success of the five-year-old company has bred imitators and competitors, including the biggest companies in tech.

The new private camera upload feature will let users take their photos as always but then easily move them from smartphone, tablet, camera or SD card to their cloud data trove using Wi-Fi or their cellular data plans. Dropbox uploads the photos and videos in their original size and full resolution to the user’s camera upload location. The feature is available now for Android phones with Windows, Mac and iOS support to come, Dropbox said.

Hardware makers hedge with Dropbox

This is one example of how Dropbox is trying to stay ahead of the curve and make itself an indispensable tool for connected consumers. In that, it has some formidable partners. Just this weekend at the Mobile World Congress, HTC said buyers of its new HTC One phones will get 25 gigabytes of Dropbox storage free for two years. Handset makers like HTC see Dropbox alliances as a way to combat Apple’s iCloud initiative.

Dropbox’s popularity has certainly been noted. Companies from Microsoft to Apple and (probably) Google are trying to mimic its capabilities. “Everyone wants to be Dropbox,” Andres Rodriguez, the CEO of storage specialist Nasuni, told me recently. Steve Jobs, the late CEO of Apple, reportedly wanted to buy the company. When that didn’t work out, Jobs called Dropbox “a feature, not a company”  and launched iCloud.

That “feature versus company” meme has dogged Dropbox ever since and cropped up again this weekend when PandoDaily’s Farhad Manjoo weighed in on Jobs’ side of the debate:

Dropbox is a great little file-syncing app, and founder Drew Houston and crew are already making some nice money out of it. But is it a $40 billion company? I doubt it. And when I hear folks like Benchmark’s Bill Gurley suggesting that it might be, and calling Dropbox “a major disruption,” I wonder if they’ve simply been blinded by the thrill of using an obviously well-crafted utility.

Dropbox is slick, and it supports nearly all the relevant clients. But in Manjoo’s experience, that support is uneven. Dropbox is often flummoxed by OS- and application-level problems, he wrote.

But any neutral party without access to Apple’s native hardware hooks will be somewhat stymied. Plus, that only takes into account some of Dropbox’s value, argues Posterous co-founder and venture capitalist Garry Tan. On his blog, Tan writes that the tech giants (Google, Apple, Microsoft) that make their own OSes and applications have no incentive to make them sync well with others.

What are the odds of Apple getting their sync client right for PC’s? Just about zero, considering what they’ve done in the past with MobileMe sync.

Same goes for Microsoft writing sync software for the Apple platform. Arguably Google is in the best shape to provide a seamless multiplatform experience . . . well, except for iOS! The odds of a viable multi-platform option emerging from one of these big three seem slim to me.

Those who forget history . . .

The cautionary tale for Dropbox is that the best technology doesn’t always win. (I would insert the Betamax vs. VHS argument here, but no one remembers it anymore.) Should Microsoft, Apple or Google offer at least reasonably good cross-platform file storage and sync capabilities, Dropbox will be in trouble. Working in Dropbox’s favor is that CEO Drew Houston appears acutely aware of history.

According to this Forbes magazine account, when Apple announced iCloud, Houston shot off a memo to employees, reaffirming the company’s status as one of the fastest-growing companies in the world. Then he listed several other once-fast-growing companies: MySpace, Netscape, Palm and Yahoo.

Photo courtesy of Dropbox

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.


Tagged with:
gen 07

So looks like Yahoo is going to undertake a board overhaul. Good. What took them so long? The Wall Street Journal says that activist investor Dan Loeb has been asking for the heads of chairman Roy Bostock and board members Arthur Kern, Vyomesh Josh and Sue James. He reportedly wants co-founder Jerry Yang out as well.

Damn straight — get them (the board) out of there. The Journal reports that Yahoo has hired executive recruitment firm Heidrick & Struggles to help find new board members. Here is my unsolicited advice — from a post I wrote in September 2011.

Here are the kind of people I am thinking Yang should be calling — Paul Maritz of VMWare, Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, Verizon CEO Chairman Ivan Seidenberg and Paul Jacobs of Qualcomm. They can bring insights into cloud, social and mobile landscapes. To get a better grip on Silicon Valley and early stage innovation, Bill Gurley of Benchmark Capital and Reid Hoffman of Greylock Capital are two names that come to mind.

Mickey Drexler of J.Crew or American Express CEO Ken Chenauth and Ford CEO Alan Mullaly. They would bring vital insight into retail, money and transportation in the era of “connectedness.” And to top it off, Yang should get former News Corp. president Peter Chernin, who started his own entertainment company, to sign on as the chairman of the board.

Okay, perhaps I am being too optimistic about Sandberg, who likely will have her hands full with Facebook this year.. But this a good short list to start with, especially if new CEO Scott Thompson wants to make innovation his focus.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.


Tagged with:
 

Pages Menu 

Tags 

 

Archivi 

 

Categories 

Meta

preload preload preload