September 21, 2007 | Posted By : Liam Eagle at 4:49 PM PERMALINK | Blog Comments (0)

SWsoft's Doug Johnson Answers some H-Sphere Questions

I was talking to a friend this week about SWsoft’s recent move to buy up a few of the competing automation products in Ensim Pro, H-Sphere and Sphera, and he pointed me to an interesting note in SWsoft’s FAQ regarding H-Shere:

During the course of the transition, existing H-Sphere prices posted at http://www.psoft.net/price_list.html will be changed.

- H-Sphere prices will become consistent with HSPcomplete

- SiteStudio prices will become consistent with Sitebuilder

- CP+ prices will become consistent with HSPcomplete

- Support prices will become consistent with SWsoft support pricing

It seems at least a few people are wondering why and how SWsoft intends to change prices for H-Sphere products, and to what extent the company intends to continue its support for H-Sphere.

I happened to have SWsoft’s senior product manager Doug Johnson on the phone yesterday, so I raised the question with him. He said it was important to SWsoft that it not make any big changes to the business models of hosts using H-Sphere and any pricing changes would have more to do with normalizing support costs, eliminating excess SKUs and other similar fine-tuning type adjustments.

“We’re not going to do any widespread pricing changes. What it means is if there are things that are inconsistent about the pricing models, we’re going to make them consistent. So, for example, if support is priced one way on one product and a different way on a different product, we’re going to try to do some rationalization there. If licenses come in a package of five on one product and a package of 10 on another, we’re going to try to eliminate some SKUs and things along those lines.

“In the short term we’re going to maintain two separate pricing lists so we don’t interfere with anybody’s existing business. And then I’m getting a lot of questions from forums and things along those lines about what’s going to happen five years from now, and I certainly can’t predict that. So we’ll just have to see how that goes.”

SWsoft has, a few times, pointed to Confixx as an example of how the company treats acquired technology with existing customers. The company bought Confixx in 2003, and has continued to support (and develop) the product since then, even issuing several new updated versions.

It sounds like H-Sphere users are quite safe. At the very least, they have a few years before they’ll need to consider migrating to another product.

Print | Send | del.icio.us | Linking Blogs

June 22, 2007 | Posted By : Liam Eagle at 5:27 PM PERMALINK | Blog Comments (7)

WeBuyHostingCompanies.com Appears to be Brokering Sales

Not entirely sure about this one.

I saw a press release from a company called WeBuyHostingCompanies.com, a newly launched organization designed to help small Web hosting providers unhappy with the extent of their success in the business to sell their companies.

The press release points out:

According to ResultsAbout, a quality online content provider that is a division of About, Inc., there are more than 170 million Web hosts on the Internet. SearchEngineWatch.com, a Web source for search engine marketing, estimates that there are six billion Web sites on the Worldwide Web. If those sites were divided equally among every host, each hosting company would be home to only 35 sites. Obviously, that equality doesn't extend to all, explaining why so many small hosting companies can't make a go of things.

The site is the project of an individual who is not named, either in the announcement or on the site (but who is referred to as “he” at one point). The service’s operator, apparently the operator of a hosting provider himself has “contacts aplenty,” which amount to a list of willing buyers waiting to make offers on small, ailing hosting companies.

Apparently, the site has cash reserves of its own that enable it to turn around a sale in the space of a week.

All in all, not an earth shattering idea. But it’s by no means a bad idea.

Funny. This was the paragraph where I was going to start pointing out things that had me doubting the legitimacy of the service (the strange single-page Web site, the general lack of contact info). But between the last paragraph and this one, I spoke on the phone with Ralph Smith at Fat Jack Hosting, the company responsible for WeBuyHostingCompanies.com. Now I’m a little more up to speed.

Fat Jack is looking to incorporate some of the smaller hosting companies that never took off into its own business. Not exactly the broker I was envisioning.

The site launched unofficially last week, and officially today. Smith says the offers are already coming in, and the company has completed one acquisition so far. The largest host offered so far was one with 100 customers.

I suppose if you’re interested in getting out of the hosting business, this might be worth looking at. I’m going to follow up with Ralph in a week or two and see how this project is going.

Print | Send | del.icio.us | Linking Blogs

April 17, 2007 | Posted By : Liam Eagle at 7:09 PM PERMALINK | Blog Comments (0)

Are Antitrust Concerns About Google and DoubleClick Real?

Following Google's announcement Friday that it had acquired Internet ad serving giant DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, companies such as Microsoft and AT&T quickly began to voice their concerns about the potential antitrust concerns, urging regulators to examine and possibly prevent the merger.

In an interview from Web 2.0 Expo, recapped on Wired News this week, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt expressed tongue-somewhat-in-cheek surprise to hear that both Microsoft and AT&T were making antitrust accusations, since both companies have faced their share of similar accusations.

Both Microsoft and AT&T have made their position regarding the antitrust concerns clear in the last few days:

Microsoft's contends that the combined resources of Google and DoubleClick (the two largest distributors of advertising online) would create a set of advertising resources large enough to reduce competition in the business. What's more, Google's gathering of information regarding the preferences of users of its network and DoubleClick's use of cookies to monitor user behavior would enable the company to "observe and capture consumer information on an unprecedented scale" (according to the New York Times report).

Not true, says Google.

AT&T's antitrust warning went a little differently. The telco says its own interest in distributing services like digitally delivered IPTV television content could be affected. Because those services are largely ad-supported, Google is in a position to "pick the winners" in that business.

Not true, again, says Google. And granted, Google's answer at this stage doesn't really have to amount to much more than "there is not an antitrust concern." I think we can safely assume that Google gave the antitrust possibilities at least a cursory glance while it was writing out the $3.1 billion check.

Google has said that its service, and DoubleClick's, are part of a very large Internet advertising business in which they face plenty of competition, and that moving from their products to those of competitors is not difficult.

Of course, there's a certain implicit understanding that the antitrust stance is "plan b" for Microsoft, a company that operates a competing pay-per-click ad network and was, as recently as two weeks ago, in talks to acquire DoubleClick (plan a).

It is not yet known if either of the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission, which share responsibility for regulating antitrust concerns, will investigate the deal. The question would revolve around how difficult it would be for new entrants to compete in the market.

Since it is inconceivable that the FTC and Justice Department are unaware of the multi-billion dollar merger announced several days ago, the question of whether an investigation actually takes place may offer some insight to just how valid the antitrust claims are.

TAGS: google, doubleclick, antitrust

Print | Send | del.icio.us | Linking Blogs