Category: Interactive New Media
It was a wonderful frenzy of speculation and doubt when a simple leak on Twitter caused an entire industry to go up in arms about an acquisition that should/could/would never happen, here is why:
1. Google does not need Brightcove
2. Google has enough exposure to entice Broadcasters and Media companies to use their “platform” to distribute video media online on their own, without just buying a company for their client roster
3. Google has enough resources to create their own CMS within their eco-system such that it wouldn’t make sense to buy something that is built on antiquated operating layers
4. Brightcove is not even in the same league as The Google – if I was Google I would go directly to a Tremor buy out and skip the middle man… just a thought.
Tremor
5. It would only make sense if Google were looking for a vehicle to unleash their own brand of a triple play offering, i.e. True marketing power will come from an entity that “owns” an individuals behaviors from ISP, Mobile and STB (Set Top Box or Cable TV, etc.) – I would add GPS but it is yet to be seen how deeply GPS usage will be opted in to for tracking on mobile devices. It is apparent that the use of NetBooks and Smart Phones could take down the need for what we accept as our “in vehicle navigation”; However, I predict this will change and devices such as TomTom will be made obsolete by devices that are more mobile and able to multitask.
*Google has pieces of the requisite triple/quadruple play in their ecosystem – take Google voice/phone, google maps, youtube, insight (all their tracking and metrics) – so what is missing? The STB, so it could make sense if there were a means by which one could inject live targeted ads into Video Broadcasts across STB’s with a micro-behavioral focus, but I don’t think that Google BUYING a CMS like Brightcove would be useful.
Sources tell me that there will be a new release of the Brightcove CMS that will include better turn-key metrics, a more resilient transcoding system and HD players, but I am not clear on if this is a total rebuild for a product that was originally developed to live in flat layers prior to cloud computing and db sharding… approaches to architecture that Google has excelled in from the get go! The fact of the matter is, Google is in the perfect place to build the better CMS.
I use YouTube and despite a few limitations on video length and some traffic issues at various times of day (to be expected) – it works!
Last of all, we saw what happened when Yahoo! bought Maven Networks, there are many reasons why a company such as Yahoo! would have been better off hiring some developers and building their own CMS with a brilliant Architect at the helm, rather than make yet another half-assed acquisition of a product that barely served it’s purpose.
Between Maven and Brightcove CMS’ there is barely a difference in the backend – and I have seen both – personally monitored and tested – due diligence – and found them to be built on core technologies that are suspiciously similar and that yielded the same issues, weaknesses and overall clumsiness…
IMHO: Google should not and would not BUY a CMS when they can build their own. End of story.
Of course this was all rumor-mill to begin with, what this says to me though, Brightcove players (pun intended) are tired of working so hard to bubblegum and paper clip their product and want out. Who else would start such a rumor, Google? HA! I think not…
Look, when Maven “players” were ready to move on, they were the first ones to whisper about who will acquire them. Alas, I speak not out of ignorance but real, life experience.
What do you think?
Joy and sorrow...
The concept of the blended rate when it comes to out-sourcing I.T. development is a sorely misunderstood subject. Business leaders need to go in new directions in order to remain relevant in their industry; However, there is a good deal of question surrounding the blended rate and many still have not decided if it is a good thing or a bad thing for their business style, here’s my take…
First, what is a blended rate? It is was it sounds like it is, rates in a blender – a blended rate is derived by averaging higher cost HR with lower cost. How is this a good thing? The idea is, you will get better rates for Senior “Subject Matter Experts” (SME’s that charge back between $150 – $350 per hour) when you average that high rate against the cost of an entry level admin or against lower cost resources such as Quality Assurance testers (which could mean anyone, like my Mom is my best QA resource I have got!), one can get a better rate on average. 
When I estimate a project, based on previous experience and special knowledge of time outlay and task resourcing, I can safely guesstimate how long a project will take using my CoS vs. Level of Effort scale mentioned in a previous post.
Sure, blended rates are a good thing – but what ultimately happens is, I.T. companies under-bid and drive prices down across the industry – this creates an unnatural rift in what resources actually cost versus what is being charged and then, these companies have to cut back or go out of business – especially if they can not sustain momentum with a continuous stream of overlapping projects. Perhaps many businesses currently in financial ruin are in that state from this cut-throat under bidding and there for are not able to charge-back to clients what they need to to cover costs.
There are numerous advantages to fixed price development projects. The obvious advantage is that the business owner understands the cost before the project is approved. To provide an accurate fixed price, the business owner and development partner must have a complete understanding of the project including specifications, testing requirements, delivery dates, etc…
The fear on the part of the potential client is that as the project rolls out that lower cost resources will be utilized for high level tasks that would in turn wind up costing the I.T. source less and turn a profit ; This does happen, however when YOU the client engage with a professional entity, such as what my company offers, you wind up getting more time of the high end resources because we are very dedicated to seeing clients achieve success AND find it is often easier to look into issues concerns of our clients directly without bogging down progress with a lot of over zealous processes.
Key Concept: Hand Off Rates
The primary advantage is, if you go with a company that offers a blended rate that also employs the resources full time, in-house or virtually =, you will have 100% availability of all resources within the company and benefit from what I call hand off rates – meaning, if you call in a bug or change request, you wouldn’t be charged for every resource to work at the same time on one task – first the Project Manager would log the change request (which could take 10 minutes) and then the request is handed off to say, a Solution Architect who spends 20 minutes analyzing the request. Solution Architect hands off a development task to a developer and then the developer executes the task. All in all, perhaps 5 hours of actual human resource time, but you will not be paying for 3 people for 15 hours – you would pay a “blended rate” of “5 hours” total time.
Fixed price development forces an amount of clarity prior to the start of the project that often isn’t achieved until a testing phase. Features and options can be priced separately allowing the business owner the opportunity to adjust requirements (based on costs and/or time frames) prior to the start of the project. A three phased approach is best for delivering fixed price development projects. The business owner knows the cost prior to the start of each phase.
- The First Phase – Discovery
- The Second Phase – The Creation of a Detailed Project Plan
- The Third Phase – The Execution of the Detailed Project Plan
We will get into the depth and breath of this three phase approach in the next post!
What do you think? Comment now!
The first installment of this series discussed where your effort falls on the scale between Class of Service vs. Level of Effort.
In this installment we discuss where NOT to make cuts and why! I started writing this series in response to the sheer repetition of the questions I am being asked from clients new and old, who are suddenly stricken with a desire or notion of branching off into some kind of amorphous new media, interactive project:
- How much will it cost? read this entry »