Random Thoughts

Interesting rumblings already around IBM and XIV. I'm getting a lot of calls from old EMC sales guys asking about them, which means old EMC sales guy Jim Sullivan is going through his yearbook. I worry that unless IBM realizes that they have to aim that play at the net new data world, or the "cloud" housed data of the Internet Computing Era (thank you, came up with that all by myself) then they run the risk of a huge letdown. Going back after competitive strongholds from the previous eras – the Transactional Computing and Distributed Computing eras, is foolish for several reasons. First, presuming the product works perfectly (large presumption), nothing is going to unseat the incumbent in a mature market. EMC will continue to dominate the storage end of core transactional-based infrastructure, IBM and HDS will continue to fight the good fight and make darn good livings doing so. That play is over. There continues to be turmoil in the distributed computing world – at least when it comes to block storage – so I have no issue with attacking that space – especially in lieu of what EqualLogic was able to pull off. The big and most obvious play, however, is in the new world order of digitalia. 90% of all corporate data is file-based already, and it will become 98% within 5-7 years. The file data today (which exists mostly in the distributed world) is changing – more files and bigger files. In the Internet computing era these files are not created only by employees doing PowerPoint – they are created at every far reaching part of the universe by all our customers, users, partners, and everyone else. That content is the opportunity.

In the next 3 years there will be 500% more overall data zooming around our worlds – and I just mean data that touches the corporate world one way or another. That sure seems like a better market to attack than a well defended one growing at microscopically small rates comparatively. Sure, the dollar spend remains (and will remain) huge in the core, but the folks who really play in the new era are the ones who will win – and this market is completely wide open.

Media companies were a small niche a few years ago. Now every company is becoming a media company from a content store perspective. That sure seems to bode well for lesser known folks from that world – like Omneon or Isilon, or bulk persistent store guys like Copan, which leads to "how the hell do I ever find anything" issues which is good for the Kazeons of the world. The only ones who this wave isn't good for are the traditionalists who refuse to change. Even EMC has to see the realities of the scale-out world – look at VMware. Infrastructure fluidity, automation and commoditization have to happen.

I may even get to stop yelling at people to stop doing full backups every week on non-changing data (which is 80 %+) just because that's how they used to do it. They won't have a choice. You can't back up 5X your current data the way you do (or don't) today.

The "cloud" gets more and more interesting – which means the service provider play is getting more and more valuable. Half the digital content created is going to be in the cloud sooner or later, and probably sooner.

Speaking of EMC, they caused a Web 2.0 firestorm with new Mozy pricing. Somebody told somebody else something and all hell broke loose. There are a zillion posts so I'm not going to link to them, as all you have to do is type Mozy and you'll find them. Here's what I know, I just can't figure out why it's bad;

1. EMC currently sells "Mozy Pro" for $3.95 per machine/month (client or server) and $.50 per GB/month.
2. I knew they were going to create a new offering (not sure when) splitting up Client and Server.
3. Pro client will stay the same.
4. Pro Server will now be $6.95/mo. For the license and $1.75/GB/month for capacity. That's why folks freaked out.

Things to note in your frenzy;

1. Far as I can tell you can still call your server a client if you want and do things the same way. What won't work is that they closed the door on backing up a share via a client.
2. They grandfathered existing customers, so they won't see any change. For how long, I'm not sure.
3. None of this matters.

The poor minister in Indiana who runs 1 server (no clients that I can tell) with 500GB will absolutely have to pay more, if he weren't grandfathered. If he doesn't back up network shares, he can use the Pro Client and nothing would change anyway. If he does back up shares, he's out of luck.

Having said that, if I do the math I still am not getting the issue. My goofy little company has 2 servers and 30 clients. Everyone charges by usable capacity backed up, so lets say each server has 200GB and each client has 15GB.

That means my monthly cost would be 2 x $6.95 plus $1.75 x 400GB = $713.90 for the servers and $3.95 x 30 plus $.50 x 450GB = $462. Total cost is $1176/month

If I do the math on Symantec's offering based just on total GBs at $4.30GB (which is wrong, but that's the one off price I can find) that puts them at $3655/month. If they cut the cost in half, it's still $1827/month. (Someone from Symantec should chime in here with real numbers).

If I do the math with Connected and consider everything a client (I was having trouble figuring out the LiveVault server cost while doing this so I'll just use the client pricing) then I would have 32 machines and 850GB. It seems the cost is $12.50/machine/month plus $1.46GB – which = $1641/month. (By all means lets have a Connected person give me some better math!)

That still makes Mozy cheaper far as I can tell. If you have a higher client to server ratio the delta gets bigger, though I suppose the inverse would also be true – but I didn't use higher server prices for Symantec or Iron Mountain.

Speaking of Iron Mountain, congratulations to my pal Bob Brennan, former chief of Connected, for being named CEO of the Mountain. Richard Reese is stepping aside in June thus creating equilibrium in the world, as Richard is one of those really tall people and Bob is not.

I'm on my way to Amsterdam for a few days where my theories seem far more appreciated for some reason, and "right on" is an acceptable response. Come on by and see me if you are in the neighborhood – I'll be at IS-IT's Vision and Focus event. Look for me through the smoke……

Business Strategy: It’s all Relative

Sometimes it's literally relative. My mother is on her way from North Carolina about to move into an assisted living facility a mile from me. Her biggest concern is whether she can keep her door open into the hallway, as she's terrified of being alone, but won't exit the room either. My mother was a pit bull when I was a kid. Now she's not even 65 but 50 years of non-stop smoking and a few massive coronaries later she looks 90. I have a 16 year old that may result in the death of one of us, and 3 other kids that require unending attention. Now I have mom. It's the changes you can't predict that can end up derailing a perfectly good plan.

I listen to short-term tactical and long-term business strategies for a living. Like anything in life, if you see something enough, you can start to spot the problems or the brilliance in fairly short order. Creating a brilliant strategy is hard. Creating one that survives curveballs is art. I've heard some of the best overall strategic plans you can imagine – from companies who aren't around anymore. The key, it seems, is to never be so steadfast in your planning that you can't get out of your own way when things invariably change.

So how do the successful companies become successful without the benefit of a crisp, thousand page MBA strategic doctrine? Is it luck? Yes. Is it timing? Yes. Is it in the ability to adapt? Absolutely. But the one thing that I learned a hundred years ago from a nice man by the name of Roger Marino about the key to success in business was having "a mediocre plan executed violently". That pretty much sums it up. You can have the best plan on the planet but if you don't have the people to pull it off, it's just an academic exercise. Without clear, simple objectives that everyone in the building can rally around, the odds are that failure is inevitable. This is true on a battlefield and true in business. A simple, adaptable plan with the right people pointed in the right direction with the right motivation is the critical common factor of success. Focus on what's important, and run away from the things that aren't.

Case in point, I'm writing this from the basement of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. 4 years ago I finished treatment for Hodgkin's disease (the good Hodgkin's, for you Larry David fans). Today I appear for my semi-annual nuclear PET scan to make sure the evil cells are still at bay. I'd rather be in my staff meeting, really, but this probably has more profound ramifications. Life is loaded with curveballs, so to think business would be any different seems a tad naïve.

I spent some time last week running away from my kids and spending some time with a few clients, discussing a myriad of plans based on a myriad of factors. Here are some of the highlights;

Riverbed CEO Jerry Kennelly is impossible not to like. He rides the bus to and from work. You just have to love a supremely wealthy success story that rides the bus to work. The company has executed just about as well as can be done. Their growth has been meteoric and their prospects even better. They have fended off Cisco and smaller folks, and are about as dominantly positioned as anyone can be. Their numbers and ratio's are to die for. So what should Riverbed be worried about? You might think the global recession would be a concern, but it isn't. People who make existing infrastructure investments work 50 times better are better off in a recession, as crazy as that seems. When cost matters, the guy who provides the value that is easiest to see gets the money. When cost doesn't matter, the market leader gets the money. Jerry has both right now. Wall St. should be a concern, but not for business reasons. People have a tendency to try to run their business for Wall St. analysts instead of customers once they go public, and that's about as big a mistake as you can make. Wall St. is a distraction, not an asset. Use them when it's advantageous public relations wise, but never build a strategic plan with them mind. I think Jerry's issue is around teaching the world that the stuff they make – WAN plumbing acceleration (which means LAN is around the corner) is not only a killer way to increase the value of your existing investments but a mandatory element if you want to play in the wacky world of Web 2.0 – where everything is a big, fat file and everyone who needs to create it, store it, or access it is a zillion miles away. This is an important area that eventually will get Riverbed snatched up, and then maybe Jerry can upgrade to the Trolley Cars.

There are a bunch of other folks who have been wildly successful creating and executing in a new market, that are now working on the next stage of life. Data Domain has continued to execute well and now needs to foster more consumption. I like that they are willing to look into the mirror and ask themselves hard questions. It's easy to question yourself when you are failing; it's really hard to do so when the Brinks truck is unloading piles of cash into your lobby. The recently public darlings of industry are now on an even faster treadmill, and this time it's under a microscope. Compellent, Isilon, 3PAR, CommVault, and Netezza have taken the plunge – and it hasn't made their lives any easier overall. They are all adapting to their own new realities, and need to do so without losing focus on the changing environment around them. At this point, they all continue to execute, but they all face hurdles that will challenge each more and more.

I saw some smaller guys with some really interesting strategic thoughts. ExaGrid is run by the numbers. Bill Andrews is a data nut (and, he's short, which I admire for some reason). The man knows his business. Getting that business to accelerate fast enough to take control of a market or sub-market is the challenge. In the right market opportunity, they win. In the wrong one, they lose. If he can keep the (rapidly growing – which is a whole different challenge) team focused on right plays and find a leverage model to put them into more deals, they have a legit shot to riches, but it's a fine line. Step out of bounds and there are a lot of big sharks ready to eat you. Move too far downstream and you don't have the reach or distribution to succeed. Bill's key, like almost any business, is to know where you belong and violently attack that space.

On an even smaller note, I spent some time with Gaal Naor, CEO of StorWize. Formerly a classic Israeli technology startup, Gaal recognized that to make a serious bid for stardom, the company needed to build its sales, marketing, support, and executive operations in the U.S. and moved his family and team to Silicon Valley. I'd rather be in Tuscany, personally, but I don't make the rules. The company spent the last several years perfecting their technology – inline compression for primary disk systems. With all the de-duplication efforts going on in the data protection area, these guys went right at the toughest slice of the market first – the database. The database is the Holy Grail of data management applications, as it tends to cost a ton itself, sits at the heart of the most visible business applications, and is surrounded by the most expensive infrastructure a company has to buy. Gaal tells me that he can prove 90% capacity reduction and performance GAINS for an Oracle environment. Our Lab guys are going to figure out if my friend has been breathing 101 exhaust shortly, but imagine how popular this could become if even close to true. Think of the disruptive potential for everything from backup/archiving to all of a sudden being able to tell the VP of Infrastructure that you won't be needing any more high-end arrays for a while – or ever. Assuming it all pans out, the challenge is not the technology – the challenge is the ability to demonstrate how seamless, easy, and non-disruptive it can be – because no one is going to add risk or complexity to that critical environment. It appears that StorWize has a marketing challenge – which is much more difficult than an engineering challenge (with all due respect to my math centric friends). History is littered with brilliant technology that died on the vine because the company focused on the technology instead of on the market requirements and an executable strategy to conquer it. Case in point, until a short time ago, the company name was StorWiz. Apparently GigaDump was already taken (line flagrantly stolen from Mike Beaudet). You get my point. Like it or not, you have to think like an idiot American to sell to an idiot American. Anything with "Wiz" in it is going to be mocked by idiot Americans – myself included.

Finally, in a much different strategy exercise, the folks at Kazeon are faced with even more interesting possibilities. Kazeon builds enterprise search functionality. They, and the rest of the planet, call it all sorts of different things, but when you summarize it they provide an organization – or sub-organization – the ability to find relevance in the sea of unstructured data. The good news for Kazeon and others is that people are finally figuring out that search (and preferably relevant search) is THE killer application. The bad news is there aren't enough people who have figured that out yet. Kazeon has been taking the low hanging fruit, which today is all about litigation support and e-discovery, but needs the market to broaden its appetite. In a way, they are very similar to VMware in that both need to enable consumption in order to move to the next level. Server virtualization is even hotter than search in the world, and clearly the revenue numbers back that up on the vendor side, but both need those who see the value to be able to accelerate adoption. Think of the way that Google changed the way to monetize their software service, aka search. They did it with eyeballs. The users' value realized is the search service. Google could have tried to sell us all their search software, but it knew that would be a barrier to consumption. If the way that business is currently conducted is not conducive to mass consumption – either because of the way companies buy or what budget something has to come out of – then maybe it's time to think about a different go to market strategy.

A big strategy is cool, but it's the little details that can kill you. Four years ago I didn't have a hair on me. I looked like a short, fat, Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man. Who would have thought that eyelashes would be so important? Not me. Turns out eyelashes aren't just to look pretty – they actually keep stuff out of your eyes. I didn't pay attention to them while I had them, but they caused huge problems being able to see or keep things out of my eyeballs when they were gone. A little thing like that which is taken for granted or ignored can throw the whole strategy off kilter in no time.

I checked out fine, by the way. Thanks for asking.

Harry You, Pi, and EMC

Interesting moves this week by the Hoptown heroes (sorry, been on school vacation with the little ones). I don't know Harry You (which invokes Abbot and Costello scenes every time I think about it; You? Who? What? Huh?), but read the book on him. EVP, Office of the Chairman, reporting to Mr. T.

"You will focus on helping accelerate EMC's key growth and efficiency initiatives leveraging his deep background in IT services, finance and investment banking."

With some desperately needed grown-up time, I can come up with all sorts of meaning to that line.

1. You is going to hang out under Joe and learn the whole business, potentially setting himself up as an heir apparent.
2. You is going to hang out under Joe and learn the whole business, focusing mostly on VMware, and eventually take that over.
3. You is going to figure out how to spin out VMware entirely, and take EMC private.
4. You is going to end up as COO, and become one of many as possible heirs.
5. You is going to end up as CFO (and possibly COO), and Dave Goulden becomes heir apparent.
6. You is hanging out with Joe to shake up the existing brain trust, and Joe isn't telling anyone what, why, or when just yet.

I can pretty much guarantee 6. I also think 1-3 are entirely possible (unless I meet Mr. You and find him a drooling buffoon, but that's unlikely). Of course, I could be reading much too much into all of this, but it beats arguing over Chuck E. Cheese versus McDonalds.

This morning EMC announced they acquired Pi, who I don't know either, but find a few things interesting. First, the Pi founder, Paul Maritz, was made the head of EMC's "Cloud Infrastructure and Services Division" – which is a way cool name if nothing else. That puts him on top of Mozy and some other interesting things soon to be coming out that have pretty big ramifications, so I have to assume that this guy is a player (the odds of Joe T. bringing in multiple drooling buffoons at the very same time can't be that good, unless he has completely lost his mind but in that case I would have expected a release that read more like "EMC acquires Honey Bucket, Inc., Seattle's largest porta-potty player. Frank Stink to head new 'Things that look like Porta-Potty's' Division, which includes Symmetrix, Cellera, and Centerra lines.").

Second, is that Pi was a startup based on personal information management – which means either Tucci really wanted Maritz and didn't care if he was working at a car wash, or he really wanted into the PIM space. Being both a search fanatic and a conspiracy theorist, I could spend hours on this one.

Trip Report – Wine Country

My odyssey this week is a good one – a trip out to California thinly guised as work and a family visit to friends, wrapped around a bunch of Winery tours – culminating in my own personal Mecca – a pilgrimage to Silver Oak. I'm getting Goosebumps just thinking about it.

Our quest began at our 8AM flight from Logan on United. Sure, I'm a mega super travelling status guy, so of course I pull rank and actually get two sets of two seats together for a change, so complete strangers don't have to entertain my 4 or 6 year olds for six hours. I actually have to explain this to someone. I got the window, Michael the middle. His game boy, DVD player, backpack full of food because they won't give you any – or even let you buy any usually as they tend to pack 15 "snack boxes" for 800 people on the six hour flight – nestled smartly among my book, computer, glasses, IPOD, neck thing, etc. Within four minutes we have crap everywhere, and at least three things are rolling down the aisle under our seats. It's not an issue though, as there are at least 8 inches of airspace between my face and the back of the woman with greasy hair in front of me – until she settles back for the long ride and effectively sits in my lap. Michael, ever patient boy of 6, loaded with extra ADHD, proceeds to squirm endlessly for all 6 hours. I have no idea what battles my wife is having with Lily, 4, and her six foot long legs.

Halfway through the modern equivalent of a post plague steerage journey aboard a transatlantic ship crossing in 1835, the announcement came: "If there is a doctor on board, please ring your flight attendant call button". 9000 flights and I've never heard that before. Do you know what happens when people ring that button? I do. While the person seeking medical attention is somewhere writhing in pain, the flight attendant asked the medical person for some ID. Better yet, she asks each of the 3 medical doctors and 1 EMT for ID's, before dispatching the first medical person to the scene of the emergency. I was somewhat surprised they didn't ask the patient to sign a waiver prior to treating him for the massive coronary he was having. It was ridiculous. My advice – don't require medical attention on a plane. You could have C. Everett Koop sitting next to you and you'd die of annoyance before you were treated.

I was able to reaffirm two important things on day two of the trip. First, I continue to be simply awful at golf. Second, and perhaps most importantly, I was able to establish that my previous In-and-out Burger experience was no fluke. It was just as spectacular this time as last.

We enjoyed a great double secret tour of the Wente Vineyard that night, due to my very large friend being the marketing mucky muck for the 49ers. I enjoyed the Nth degree cabernet a ton, and drank Darioush during a magnificent dinner. The vineyard is 8 minutes from my pals' house, which is also 4 minutes from In-and-Out Burger. I may move in.

Today, we are off to Napa, where over the next several days I shall proceed to pickle myself in the name of good taste at Silverado, Coppola, Sterling, Silver Oak and Opus I think. Then I'm going to work, I swear.

Searching For Intelligent Life

Last month Microsoft bought enterprise search vendor Fast, and now is about to end up with Yahoo. What's interesting besides the $45 billion dollars, that will probably end up at $50ish, is that this isn't the right business ultimately.

Search is the core of everything IT moving forward, and arguably has been the key forever, we just didn't know it. Today the fight is over eyeballs and the money is in advertising, and advertising based on someone trying to find something is completely logical. Eyeballs are always nice, but eyeballs alone won't hold the value that Google commands forever, and thus chasing them makes limited sense to me.

Instead, folks should realize that the search economy, that most have missed, is ultimately predicated upon not just pushing the equivalent of web billboards to a possible or probable audience of interest, but the combination of much greater understanding of the searcher's intent and who/where the searcher is.

The real value will come when someone gives me the result I actually want, instead of every possible result. The only way that will happen is when they know about me – know what I like or hate, what I do, where I am, etc. I'm going to be too paranoid to let that happen, but my kids won't.

When Google enters the cell phone industry it won't be because they like the billions Verizon makes –at least not just because of that. It will be because they are going to dominate the entire market for the next generation of users – my kids. They are going to give away what is today paid for. They will give my kids a cell phone, that they won't use, opting instead to have a text machine with advertisements. They will know when my kid walks by a Starbucks and then will push a coupon to her suggesting a super double mega spazaccino with frothy Bolivian goat milk, and she will go spend the 9 bucks on it. They will even know she did it, which will tell them even more about her. They will be marketing to an individual – and that is what is interesting about search. Sure, they might destroy the normal cell phone market as we know it along the way, but I think that's secondary.

Search needs to combine individual structured elements with unstructured query capabilities in order to really be helpful to that individual. That means for all the privacy you don't know that Google has stolen already, it will get worse. That's why I'll freak out, and why my kids will end up unknowingly telling whoever asks every private thought, feeling, and action they ever do. It's kind of scary, but it already is happening.

Kids are smart, they embrace technology without fear. Kids are dumb; they don't have a clue that their electronic communications are evidence to be used against them. When we were kids we made a plan by actually talking to each other. If no one overheard our devious plans, it was as if they didn't happen. My kids post their devious plans on the Internet, in their cell phones (I mean texting devices), in photographs, and on their computers. They think the delete key keeps them protected. My daughter doesn't even know you need to (or even can) empty the recycle bin. She gets caught at everything, then acts amazed the way a 4 years old does when their mother uses the eyes in the back of her head to catch them touching something they shouldn't be.

The point is that it isn't about doing what is right for the benefit of all; it is about doing what is probably wrong for the benefit of money. The value of search combined with the fuzzy line of ethical knowledge is killer – and that's why it will happen. The next generation of big money spenders is the perfect place to start, due to the no fear/dumb as a box of rocks combination. In any case, being truly effective (and thus being able to charge really fantastic amounts of money to advertisers) is predicated on far deeper individual knowledge.

Since the play is so obvious (to me anyway) that someone will eventually write a legitimate privacy regulation or two, and force opt-in actions, but it won't matter, because the kids will say yes as long as they can send pictures and text until their fingers bleed. That's why Microsoft has to make a real play in this area if they want to remain relevant long term. If the government took 20 years to worry about Microsoft's antitrust monopolistic tactics (none of which I blame them for – hell, we're all jealous) because they won the operating system war and thus have an unfair advantage selling applications, how will they go about protecting us when the king of search is giving away all their services? Can you have a monopoly if everything is free and opted in by the users? That's an interesting question – since clearly the answer is yes, but how does one break up free? You don't, and that's why this game being played out in front of us has the greatest ramifications on the world of business and human behavior ever. The global economy is based on selling stuff to people. The more you know about the individual, the more you can target or exploit that individual. When you crack that code, billions of dollars are meaningless as we move deep into trillions. Moving that way by having people willingly tell us about themselves and allow us to observe their behavior appears to be the way to bypass anybody ever being able to do anything about it (legally) – except for the next competitor. By then, however, it may be too late. Big brother will have everything he needs.

John Battelle wrote a great book on early search wars (The Search) and blogs at battellemedia.com. He doesn't get into the conspiracy theory but it's a great history and certainly made me think. More to come on this, as I believe the combination of individual understanding and search logic can be a huge benefit – like actually giving me what I want instead of pages of crap – but only within the rules of human decency. It is this combination that really fascinates me in terms of how commercial communities of practice could derive huge value in terms of elevated education and intelligence, and what that might mean.

Fate Schmate…..

I'm officially a bitter, miserable, old man now. Kind of like a Gartner guy. Congrats to the giants and their real fans, they deserved to win. All the bandwagon fans who booed and left the stadium early during all the regular season games, and those who sold their final game tickets to New England fans for $300 should be shot.

Just goes to prove that taking anything for granted is never a good idea.

On a positive note, I did discover In-and-Out Burger, which very well may be the greatest place in the history of food.

Appreciating Greatness

Sometimes it's fleeting and sometimes it lasts, but no matter – greatness is pretty rare. Those of you with real jobs see it less often, as work and myopic focus often cause you to not be able to see the forest through the trees.

Greatness is not a guarantee of future performance, however. In 1957 DEC was founded. It boomed mightily for decades. In the early 90's revenues were $14 billion. They were great – they did all the things the great ones do, except one. They forgot how they became great, and instead became defiant about the changes occurring in the world around them. At the time of their death, they still held onto the rapidly shrinking super-mini market top spot. They thought PC's were dumb. They thought the processor was the thing – but they didn't think about usage. They had confused the world with one who cared about technology, instead of people who wanted to use technology for some higher purpose. At their demise they were number 1 in super-mini's, had sold what would become key IP networking technologies, had by far the best search technology on the planet – much better than anything that existed for many years after – and killed a 40 year old company in no time.

They didn't care about search. They only used it as a PR generation thing to show off their processor. Search was an application, and applications were far less complex than chips. At one time, they had a project called Gatekeeper that was the world's largest catalog of indexed web pages. Know what they did with it? They used it to show off Alpha. All they had to do was look around at what was happening, but they closed the blinds and told each other how nice they looked in their new Taurus'.

The Niner's were the greatest sports team in the NFL for a decade, because they applied current environmental change conditions (the rules, and the ability to distribute decision making) to the same old game, and kicked everyone's butt. Then they ignored the fact that environmental changes occurred again (everyone else applied the same theories, and the era of parity – or a standard salary cap) and became a victim of the things they once took advantage of, but their run was great.

So, just because IBM is old and rich, don't think it can't go away. That goes for everyone. As soon as you really believe your own bull, and begin feeling like success is a right versus a privilege, your days are numbered. When you start trying to keep the outside world from changing to maintain your status quo, it's time to go. Even so, you should learn to appreciate the magic when it's happening. It's rare stuff.

I appreciate what EMC has done, what Cisco has done, what Google has done, what NetApp has done, and what other kings have done. I'm also waiting to see who is the next class of former kings to become as irrelevant as the Edsel. I hope it's one of the Airlines. I despise the old school airlines. There are plenty of airline like examples of companies or people who were once the absolute pinnacle of their game, who refused to change with the world around them. They will either die or become marginalized to the brink of oblivion, sort of like the guy who played Luke Skywalker or perhaps the modern venture capitalist. Bruce Jenner had the same ridiculous haircut for 50 years, but even he changed eventually. (Of course, now he went a bit too far, his face could be used as an ice pick). If something sucks really badly, eventually even the lemmings will abandon it, or someone will come up with a better way and the lemmings will migrate. Jet Blue sucks way less than traditional carriers, but the entire airline experience before and after the actual airplane continues to suck worse every day. Entrepreneurs have forever despised snot-nosed VC's with the operating experience of a beagle puppy telling them how to run their companies, typically screwing it up, and then making off with 90% of the loot if it works while the people who actually made the thing successful end up with a celebratory beer or two.

Faulty companies and even entire industries that propagate garbage simply because they can, will be revolutionized eventually. Sometimes it seems like forever, but it always happens sooner or later. We suffer through the pain because we are lemmings – and we are lazy. Things we did once because it was a step forward we still do the same way because as we get older, we get complacent. It's easier to deal with the devil we know. Do you really think our kids are going to tolerate the same annoyances we do? It's not going to happen. I don't care if it's IT or cell phones or airplanes or hair loss or VC's, it's all going to change. As we were cool with Pong, our kids play interactive video on a global level. How much time does my 13 year old think about VOIP? Never. It came with the X-Box. Do you think "can you hear me now" is going to be anything but a nostalgia ad in a few years? I can't keep a call on the Mass Pike for 20 minutes, but one can go from one end of China to another without a hiccup.

I'm particularly fascinated with how the venture capital community has not been dismantled. In the day, VC's were not only vital, they were smart. They didn't spend their time jumping on whatever bandwagon just rode by, bidding against themselves. They made a big pile of money by backing the right people and companies, and then helping them to avoid the pitfalls of inexperience. Since banks were not a legitimate alternative, the venture community was necessary – and by and large, good. Good spawns imitation, and imitation spawns crap. The entire industry is set for revolution. If VC money is dumb now, and the play essentially a crap shoot, then when are we going to start applying modern principals to the way that game is played? The rest of the financial world has adapted to the modern era – E-Trade doesn't even have a building, but they write mortgages, have cash machines, trade stocks, and sell insurance. The dinosaurs either followed suit, merged to form protective girth, or bellied up. Do the VC's really believe that the blue blazer and Harvard MBA will remain all they need to guarantee riches? How far away can we be from online discount venture? Already smart Entrepreneurs who've made a hit are starting their own VC firms – not like the ones of 10 years ago where they just wanted to capitalize at the same level their VC's did – but are creating operating firms. Who would you want backing your venture, Jonathan Buttwood IV or Tom Mendoza? (He's not a VC yet, that I know of, I'm just making a point).

The good news is upheaval is inevitable. In the new world order of Tech 3.0, everyone is one degree removed from everyone else. It is only a matter of time before social networking meets money – a place where community intelligence and everyman investments can fund the next great idea, and provide global guidance by leveraging the collective intelligence of the stakeholders. Remind me to invent that, as a matter of fact. Why couldn't it happen? Because J. Buttwood Sr., Jr., III, and IV don't want it too? That's good enough for me.

I especially like the little guys getting big, and then becoming kings and taking arrows. Like the Patriots. They sucked forever (I suffered through many an embarrassing season in what had to be the single most pathetic stadium in the history of man. Circus Maximus had more modern amenities.) Now they have taken the environmental changes that have occurred in the same old game, and have done things that simply couldn't be done. Everyone loved them as they went from rags to riches. Everyone hates them now that they have dominated an industry at its peak – one designed to prevent such domination. They are too good, too good looking, and too smart for most people to like any longer. When you hit the top, folks try to rip you down.

Watching the Pats is watching true greatness right now. Perhaps unprecedented greatness. Perhaps the greatest greatness of all time! I shall be there, and I shall appreciate the spectacle I'm lucky enough to be witnessing. Even better, I've back-doored my way into the fold via my 4-year old, Lily, who is best friends with gigantic pro-bowler Vince Wilfork's 4-year old Destiny. I think there is a good chance that Giselle is going to try to hit on me at the victory party (yes, I'm being presumptuous, but it's fate, baby. I rented the house 4 months ago. Destiny isn't just Vince's kid; it's something you really can't ignore.)

Perhaps the best reason to appreciate the Pats is that while it is inevitable that eventually they will become just another team, during their amazing run you don't see the ignorance or stupidity that tends to engulf other successful entities and people. They remain humble. They never say anything bad about anyone else, and they don't ever take anyone or anything for granted. They have a brilliant owner and perhaps a more brilliant leader. They never deviate from the mission at hand. You can listen to a Bill Bellichick press conference and if you didn't just witness the 57-3 drubbing with your own eyes, you would swear they lost the game. They don't presume they will win because they have previously won. They adapt to the changes in their world, and while the game remains the same, no one has been able to imitate them successfully. It will happen in time, but until then, sit back and marvel. I'm willing to bet you a buck that you will not see anything like this in sports again in my lifetime. Is Google the next one to watch? Perhaps.

Go Pats