At $183 billion, Apple is the world’s most valuable brand, a title it claimed last year as well, though at that time the brand was worth $153.3 billion. In the ensuing year, it has grown another 19 percent. IBM ranked second with $116 billion in value. Google, which ranked second last year, this year swapped places with IBM, after its brand value slipped 3 percent year over year. With a $76.7 billion brand, Microsoft claimed fifth place, ranking below McDonalds — the only non-tech company in the top five.

The biggest year-over-year gain also went to a tech company: Facebook, which rose from No. 35 in 2011 to No. 19 in 2012. A meteoric rise, and one that spiked the company’s brand value 74 percent to $33.2 billion.

Nokia, which ranked 81st in brand value in Millward Brown’s 2011 study after a 28 percent year-over-year decline in value, fell even further in 2012. So far, in fact, that it seems to have fallen right off the chart. Not a surprise, really, given the company’s current situation. But worth noting just the same; as recently as 2008, Nokia was the world’s ninth most valuable brand.

How serious? Does $2.2 billion and 15 percent EBIT profits sound serious to you? It does to me, and also to Deutsche Bank analyst Chris Whitmore.

Having slogged through Oracle’s 72-page document dump with a better eye for detail than mine, Whitmore noticed a line in a January 2010 email from Dave Donatelli, now head of HP’s Enterprise Group (specifically Exhibit 17, for those who want to scroll through and find it) saying that HP’s Business Criticial Server business combined with its Technology Services business, which includes the support and services associated with the Integrity line of servers that uses the Intel-made Itanium chip, was at that time larger on a revenue basis than HP’s personal computer business.

The same document, he says, showed that at the time, HP’s “owned operating profit” for the combined hardware, software and services tied to the business of selling and supporting Itanium servers was about $2.2 billion. All in, HP derives — or at least at that time derived — about 15 percent of its profits on an EBIT basis from Itanium and related businesses.

No wonder, then, that HP considered Oracle’s March 2011 decision to stop creating software that runs on the Itanium chip so earth-shattering that it hauled the software giant into court last June. That case is expected to head to trial any day now.

The disclosure is the clearest sign yet of how much HP stands to lose if its Business Critical Server business can’t recover. It has always been known to be a highly profitable business; exactly how profitable was a closely guarded HP secret. But sales of Business Critical hardware have been on the decline. In 2009, sales of BCS hardware were $2.6 billion. In 2011, they had fallen by 19 percent to $2.1 billion. And in the quarter ended Jan. 31, sales were $405 million, down 27 percent from the same period in 2011.

The uncertainty about Itanium’s future is one of the many reasons that Whitmore has been particularly bearish on HP’s turnaround prospects: “Given the growing uncertainty around the long-term viability of Itanium, we expect customer defections to continue, if not accelerate in future periods,” he wrote in a research note to clients, issued yesterday.

However, much as HP lawyers would like to argue that Oracle’s motivation is to help bolster long-flagging sales of its new Sun Microsystems hardware unit, Whitmore argues that the main benefactor is IBM: “While Oracle is responsible for shining a bright light on Itanium’s precarious future, it is probably doing IBM the biggest favor. … We expect IBM to be the greatest beneficiary of Itanium defections and view Power [IBM's server chip] as the market consolidator and eventual standard in the UNIX/RISC server market over the medium to longer term.”

And even if HP prevails in its suit, Whitmore isn’t seeing much benefit: “Regardless of the outcome of this particular suit, we expect HP-UX customers to continue fleeing what is increasingly looking like a dead platform — creating a major headwind for HP’s medium-term earnings.” Ouch.

But after a major company-wide restructuring and the divestiture of several non-core businesses, CEO John Chambers (pictured here at D5) is finding that turning the massive Cisco ship around — something he seemed to have started two quarters ago, and which continued last quarter, isn’t coming easy.

There’s the global economy to worry about. All that messy complicated news coming out of Europe about sovereign debt and cuts in government spending around the world has a way of eating into technology budgets both at Cisco’s government customers and at its large enterprise customers.

Cisco’s guidance for the quarter ending in July was especially worrisome for investors, who promptly sent Cisco’s share price plummeting by more than 8 percent in after-hours trading. Cisco called for revenue to grow between 2 percent and 5 percent, which works out to sales in the range of $11.4 billion to $11.8 billion, well off the consensus forecast of $12 billion.

Guidance on earnings was equally disappointing. At 44 cents to 46 cents a share, the midpoint lags the consensus by two cents.

So what’s going on? I asked Chambers about it in a phone interview with AllThingD held after the conclusion of Cisco’s conference call with analysts.

AllThingsD: John, the markets clearly don’t like very much what they saw today. So, from a high level, what happened — good, bad and indifferent — with this quarter?

Chambers: The first thing from a high level is that we’re executing pretty well on our vision and strategy, and we did exactly what we said we would do. We guided for growth of 5 percent to 7 percent for the year and for the first nine months we’re at 7.5 percent [revenue]. We said profits faster than revenues, and we’re at 9.5 percent. Earnings per share increasing 13 percent year over year for the first nine months and gross margins down just 1 percent primarily on product mix. We’re winning versus our key competitors and winning at a pretty fast rate. When you’re number one or two in most product categories, holding your own in switching and making it very challenging for the Huawei’s of the world, the Junipers and Hewlett-Packards … Juniper and HP we’re pulling away from and we’ll see if we can maintain it. Huawei, for the first time we’re getting much better and competing against them and understanding their weaknesses. And if you look where we are in terms of the bigger picture, we’re in the right markets. We’re in the mobility market. We’re in video. We’re in the cloud market. We’re in the social networking segment. We’re pulling them all together, and our customers are buying the architecture in a pretty good amount. Even in service providers, where most people thought they would never move toward having preferred vendors, we’re seeing something close to that at some service providers and at many of them they are starting to think about going all-Cisco.

So on things we can control and influence I think we’re in pretty good shape. In terms of the market, I’d like to add another couple of points [of growth] in service providers, another couple of points from commercial customers. The public sector is at 3 percent. I’d take that for the year, but we think it’s going to be flat, give or take a couple points.

The issue is the enterprise. And there the problem is not that they don’t have the money or that they don’t understand that it’s important to get productivity. It’s that they’re uncertain. When they are uncertain, that’s because of economic issues primarily because of Europe. And uncertainty on government policy. Then you see people deciding not to invest. And that affects not only capital spending but jobs.

So I think the market understood what we’re saying and I think most people would give us credit for being a very good indicator of what the point in time change is. But this is not necessarily a given for what is going to happen in the second half of the year. I’m just trying to be as transparent as I know how.

The July quarter is usually your seasonally strongest. Given that your guidance was relatively weak compared to the consensus, what are we to make of the quarter coming up? Is it a secular weakness or mostly the economy? Are your competitors just taking it on the chin worse that you are?

Let’s look at Juniper. It’s down 6 percent a year and routing down 9 percent. Huawei is growing 11 percent a year, but its service provider segment is growing only 3 percent. HP’s networking business is back to the levels in their switching business to what they were when HP first bought 3Com. There’s an explosion in the data center business, it’s to the point that companies who have been there a long time like IBM or HP, we’re growing 67 percent and their servers are flat or slightly down. So the results speak for themselves in terms of what we’re doing right in some areas. But we’re learning to tie things together in a way that saves customers money, saves them time to market and allows them to achieve their business goals quicker. That is the game we’re playing for. The major thing we’re after is getting the enterprises spending again. Customers — almost uniformly — are saying that my business is okay, not great, they expect it will go up gradually, and that they’re probably going to spend more in the second half of the year than they did in the first. But immediately as a follow-up to that, they all say that’s true only if they’re not surprised by something from the economy. That’s the kind of uncertainty we’re seeing, and in talking with my peers in the industry who are in similar markets, they can finish my sentences. The question is whether it’s temporary or is it a blip? We just don’t know yet.

So given the restructuring we’ve been talking about for the last year or so, is Cisco the right size? Your overall headcount is down more than 8,000 from a year ago, but it’s up by more than 1,300 since the last quarter. Are you at the right size or are there more changes coming?

Out of the 1,353 people we added, the vast majority were either advanced services or engineers. We needed more engineers. The additions were around either building products or converting services. In terms of our organization structure, we re-did Cisco. We’ve learned from what we did well in the past, and you wouldn’t see the turnaround as quickly as we did if the structure weren’t so strong. But we needed to restructure how our customers buy, and how we build products. We needed to be nimbler and simpler in how we get decisions done. And that is a journey. In the past we tended to get a market transition, good or bad, and take off on a good one or address a bad one, and we would end up gaining market share almost always coming out of these. We’ll see if we do it again this time. But we weren’t constantly reinventing ourselves to avoid hitting the next wall or the next inflection point. That is what we’re trying to do. This is a continuous journey. While we were four or five inches around the waist, I think there’s still more work to be done in our middle levels. I think you’ll see us address that in the next year or two. Does that mean we’re going to adjust the market given that the market may have slowed? I’m not sure it has yet, we’ll know in a couple of quarters which way it’s going. The answer is, not in a major way. It’s too early to say which way this market is going. We’re not going to over-react or under-react.

You just made a major acquisition with NDS, about $5 billion. You still have a lot of cash on the balance sheet. What’s your stance on acquisitions?

Ongoing at Cisco we will do innovation through internal development, including internal start-ups, through strategic partnership, and acquisitions and intergrating all of the above. NDS is one of multiple moves that we will make, not just in the video space for us, but it was also a major cloud play for us and a major social media move if we do this right. It plays right into the sweet spot of our service providers and content providers. Our ideal target has not changed: 100 engineers with a product that is just about to come to market, where our customers say that if they were owned by Cisco they’d buy a lot of it. The $5 billion price is higher than what we’ve traditionally paid, but it’s on the order of Stratacom and Tandberg, for which we paid about $3 billion each. But our ideal target is smaller, and you’ll see us continue to be selectively active in the market.

You’re said to be heavily focused on gross margins. One point that came up on UCS: You say it’s growing like crazy, off a low base, but one of the analysts pointed out this week that it has the overall effect of bringing down the gross margin a bit. How are you addressing that?

That’s true on specifics. UCS by itself, even with a premium versus our peers, is going to be below our gross margin of 65 percent. So, by definition, as you add more of those it has a major effect on gross margin. When you combine UCS with our Nexus 2000 and 5000 switches the blended version gets the margin higher, though still not as high as the overall gross margin. Our challenge on gross margin, and the reason why we’re going to focus aggressively on each gross margin area this year, is that it’s more of a product mix issue than it is an issue of pressure on gross margins on any specific product. In terms of the base for UCS, it’s getting close to a $2.5 billion run rate and probably closer to $3 billion by now. So the base is getting larger, and in North America our market share is close to 20 percent and globally our best guess is 14 percent as best as we can tell. So that’s pretty good execution.

At this point, as he did last time we talked, Chambers asked me what song I’d pick to musically illustrate Cisco’s quarter, sticking with a tradition started a few quarters back and continued last quarter. I told him I wanted it to be a surprise, but that I think he’d like it.

This quarter, I dedicate to Cisco Ringo Starr’s “It Don’t Come Easy.” The hard work of transformation done, Cisco is finding that, despite being leaner and meaner, it has still got some way to go and finds itself in a tough market. In the video below, Ringo performs with fellow Beatle George Harrison at the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh. As everyone at Cisco knows, nothing worth having comes easy.

I’ve written my own critiques of Google. But the big G is more on par with Microsoft, IBM and other perennial brands than with Myspace. Google may have its ups and downs, but it’s not going anywhere.

Here’s why:

Google is a utility, not a toy

Google isn’t just a fun toy. It has become a utility for the vast majority of Internet users. It’s a major driver of commerce for businesses. And it collects and redistributes data in a way that no other tool or site has been able to replicate.

Myspace wasn’t a utility. It was a place where teenagers gathered to trade messages. Bing and Yahoo? They never approached the market share — or the effectiveness — needed to become as important.

Google has become a tool we constantly use. It’s integrated into web browsers and phones, and now it’s testing the waters of wearable computing. It powers the flow of content around the Internet. And it isn’t going anywhere.

Social isn’t a “new way of thinking”

Jackson says that Google’s failure to move into social media (we can debate that) is a major weakness, because social media and the structures it creates are replacing search:

Why has Amazon done so little in social? And Google? Even as they pour billions into the problem, their primary business model which made them successful in the first place seems to override their expansion into some new way of thinking.
There are a few problems with this statement:

• Social isn’t replacing search. It can’t, any more than a walnut can replace a bicycle. Social and search are completely different: Social media generates content and relationships. Search engines help us sift through content and relationships. There’s very little overlap.
• Social media isn’t new. It has been around since AOL, CompuServe and Prodigy. Truthfully, it’s been around since humans could communicate. It’s not disruptive. The ways innovators apply it is disruptive. But that application doesn’t threaten Google.
• Google is desperately clawing at social media because the publicly traded company needs revenue growth, and because it wants to tap social media as another portion of its search algorithm.

Social really does not pose a threat to Google. If Facebook were to introduce a first-rate search engine, that might reduce Google’s market share. But even that wouldn’t drive it out of existence.

People

Even with its post-IPO brain drain, Google has an unparalleled ability to attract and retain top-rate engineers. Google is a unique engineer’s paradise, if you like the environment there. Between its culture and the mountain of cash upon which it sits, Google can have first or second pick of the best talent in the industry.

Until it becomes a truly entrenched, mature corporation with all of the baggage that brings, no one can really touch Google’s talent pool.

What could destroy Google

There is one potential Google-killer out there: Legal action.

Google’s moving into dangerous territory and could end up getting carved up through government action:

• It dominates search, and isn’t afraid to use that dominance to acquire some competitors, crush others and generally move the industry as it sees fit.
• It has access to mountains of analytics data across different online channels, and can potentially use that data in ways that should give regulators hives.
• Its promotion of Google+ seems awfully similar to Microsoft’s promotion of Internet Explorer 2001-2005. It has locked out other social networks when it controls more than 85 percent of the search world. That alone might force antitrust action.

The federal government could, if forced, order Google to break up into separate units around search, social, applications and email. Or it could force the company to completely abandon some initiatives. That would be nearly unprecedented. But then again, so is Google.

Ian Lurie is CEO of Portent Inc., an Internet marketing agency that he founded in 1995. He co-published Web Marketing All-In-One for Dummies and wrote the sections on SEO, blogging, social media and web analytics. He also wrote Conversation Marketing: Internet Marketing Strategies.

Created by: Paralegal.net

International Business Machines Corp. disclosed it will replace its Oracle/Siebel customer relationship management software with products made by SugarCRM, an eight-year-old San Francisco company backed by Draper Fisher Jurvetson and two other venture funds.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

In spite of intense criticism against its patent infringement lawsuit in March, Yahoo filed additional claims against Facebook today.

“Today Yahoo! filed additional claims against Facebook in U.S. District Court in San Jose related to two additional patents on which Facebook infringes. Today’s filing underscores the breadth of Facebook’s violation of Yahoo!’s intellectual property,” said a Yahoo spokesperson in a statement. “As we have stated previously, Yahoo!’s technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. We intend to vigorously protect these technologies for our customers and shareholders.”

Facebook had filed its own counterclaims against the Internet portal over various social networking patents and also has recently spent hundreds of millions of dollars for patents and licenses from both IBM and Microsoft to bolster its portfolio.

In its filing, Yahoo’s legal aces got all hot and bothered that Facebook did this, especially the part about handing over piles of dough to others (and not Yahoo).

“However, on information and belief, Facebook lacks a good faith basis for most, if not all, of its counterclaims, particularly those patents that it purchased from others,” read the filing. “All eight of these patents were purchased by Facebook in the past five months, and several of these patents were purchased (independent of any separate technology acquisition or merger) after Yahoo! filed its complaint in this action. On information and belief, many, if not all, of these patents were acquired by Facebook for purposes of retaliation against Yahoo! in this case.”

Uh, duh! (Also, not to be picky, but Yahoo also bought a lot of the patents they are asserting way back when from its acquisition of Overture and did not invent all these innovations, either.)

I am awaiting a response from Facebook, which will probably be along the lines of: Byte me.

[UPDATE: I was right -- here's the comment:

"We remain puzzled by Yahoo's erratic actions. We disagree with these latest claims and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously."

(Erratic, by the way, means desperate and pathetic in Facebook-speak.)]

Here is the latest filing:

Yahoo Reply to Counterclaims 4-27

Asa Mathat | AllThingsD.com

What was your favorite TV show as a kid?
I didn’t watch much TV, I preferred reading fiction. So much so that my parents would yell at me for bringing my books everywhere (even to St. Louis Cardinals football games, much to my father’s dismay).

What qualities do you like in a person?
Curiosity, cleverness and confidence.

What qualities do you dislike?
Lack of those three.

Name one thing you will regret never having done (if you never do it).
Sail around the world.

What’s the single most important issue in the world today?
The increasing gap between poverty and wealth.

What would you be doing if you were not in your current job?
Walking around India with my sketchbook.

What is your greatest achievement to date?
Building a company of people who love their work.

iPhone, Android or BlackBerry?
I had the first RIM device, an email pager, the RIM 850. I was on Blackberry until the iPhone arrived.

If you could meet any historical or fictional person, who would it be?
Abraham Lincoln and Virginia Woolf.

What site/app do you check first when you wake up?
Twitter.

What was the last thing you fixed?
I don’t believe anything is ever truly “fixed”; I’d rather be in a constant state of editing.

What was your first computer?
A 1984 Macintosh and IBM PCjr.

What was your biggest mistake?
Too many to name! I’ve learned from most of them.

Do you have a dog or cat or other pet?
No.

What’s your favorite mode of transportation?
Walking.

What was the last book you read?
“Born to Run.”

Name your favorite guilty pleasure.
Cheez-Its.

What do you drive/ride?
The public bus (SF Muni).

Who was your biggest influence growing up?
My Aunt Sandy. She’s extremely clever, confident, grounded, and a great storyteller.

Describe an ideal day.
Waking up early, going for a run, working with a small team on the details of a big idea, dinner with friends and coworkers followed by a late walk home to sleep.

Although intellectual property law exists to encourage innovation and invention, patents have become the one legal way private companies can exercise a monopoly over the market. Oversized patent portfolios and prolonged patent lawsuits translate into less consumer choice and higher prices. Effectively, patents become the end in and of themselves, and no longer a means for supporting innovation.

These lawsuits have caused real concern at the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, where the patent wars have raised the prospect of anti-competitive activities. The DOJ is charged with viewing the market as a whole. For that reason, the Department of Justice has invoked a little-known form of consumer protection in ensuring the Patent Wars don’t put new technologies out of the consumer’s reach.

It has been well publicized that the battles between tech powerhouses like Google, Apple and Microsoft go far beyond the features of their latest devices. As many of these companies continue to focus large amounts of time and treasure in the courtroom, there is a concern that innovation will take a backseat to genuine competition on tech. Since Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility last year, things have especially heated up among the three major players — a situation that can only worsen with Microsoft’s acquisition of AOL’s patent portfolio, which is a symptom of a patent “arms race.”

No longer obtained to protect a new technology or a particular state of art, patents are now used in the smartphone arena to block other players from entrance into the arena, or to stop one company from achieving a dominant position.

A patent-centric strategy works extremely well in the software industry because sets of international standards allow our mass communications devices to work together seamlessly. If a company obtains a patent governing one of these standards, or for technology that is widely relied upon (even if not directed to a specific standard), that company can put a chokehold on the market.

Specifically, rival companies have attempted to block Google’s Android operating system and handsets, which Google licenses to other companies for free, while Apple and Samsung have been engaged in a number of lawsuits over handset technology. One such lawsuit resulted in a suspension of iPad and iPhone sales in Germany.

In fact, when so many patents protect vital, standardized technologies with such broad language, lawsuits are certain to follow. And a glut of patent lawsuits can mean licensing deals, which in turn mean higher prices as the costs of production come to include those licensing deals. In a worst case scenario, a licensing deal can’t be reached and the technology is unavailable to the consumer.

And while the lawsuits have played out largely amid corporate attorneys and IP specialists, the consumer isn’t without an advocate as the patent wars rage. As leverage to avoid antitrust lawsuits, the Department of Justice has emphasized a little-known tool to regulate the cost of patent licenses. It can exert pressure to require that crucial patents be licensed under a set of terms known as FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms.

These terms set strict guidelines regarding the costs of licensing and prevent companies holding vital patents from setting exorbitant, unfair prices. For example, the DOJ recently pressured a consortium led by Apple to commit to FRAND licensing when it bought various Nortel and Novell patents. The government tacitly hinted that it would block the acquisition if the consortium didn’t agree to FRAND terms. If the DOJ hadn’t stepped in, the consortium would have been able to exert enormous leverage on the consumer electronics market.

Google is being required to maintain FRAND terms with the patents that it received upon purchasing Motorola Mobility. Google also bought patents from IBM under those terms.

In fact, companies holding patents which are considered to be crucial to a particular standard may be required to license those patents by the relevant governing standards body under FRAND terms.

Some companies do choose to license their patents widely, even without explicit FRAND requirements. Microsoft, for example, has chosen to license its patents widely, having reached licensing agreements with makers of more than 70 percent of the Android-based smartphones sold in the U.S. On the other hand, Steve Jobs famously threatened to do whatever was necessary to force Google to significantly change Android to remove features that Jobs felt were proprietary to Apple, refusing to even consider payment from Google to license Apple’s patents.

It’s likely the smartphone war will end in a variety of licensing agreements and cross-licensing agreements. Whether those agreements result in competitive prices for the consumer depends on how effectively the DOJ wields its “FRAND” sword.

D’vorah Graeser, Ph.D., is the founder and CEO of Graeser Associates International (GAI), an international intellectual property firm specializing in the preparation, filing and prosecution of medical device, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, bioinformatics and software patents. Dr. Graeser is a U.S. Patent Agent and is not an attorney at law; none of the above should be construed as legal advice.

The quarterly dividend increase, to 85 cents a share from 75 cents, marks the 17th year in a row that IBM has increased its payout. It will cost the company roughly $117.4 million more per quarter and gives IBM a dividend yield of 1.7 percent, based on current stock prices.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

But there’s no denying the attraction of services like Amazon Web Services or Joyent or Rackspace, where you can spin up and configure a new virtual machine within minutes of figuring out that you need it. So, many companies seek to approximate the experience they would get from a public cloud provider on their own internal infrastructure.

It turns out that a start-up I had never heard of before this week is the most widely deployed platform for running these “private clouds,” and it’s not a bad business. Eucalyptus Systems essentially enables the same functionality on your own servers that you would expect from a cloud provider.

Eucalyptus said today that it has raised a $30 million Series C round of venture capital funding led by Institutional Venture Partners. Steve Harrick, general partner at IVP, will join the Eucalyptus board. Existing investors, including Benchmark Capital, BV Capital and New Enterprise Associates, are also in on the round. The funding brings Eucalyptus’ total capital raised to north of $50 million.

The company has an impressive roster of customers: Sony, Intercontinental Hotels, Raytheon, and the athletic-apparel group Puma. There are also several government customers, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, NASA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense.

In March, Eucalyptus signed a deal with Amazon to allow customers of both to migrate their workloads between the private and public environments. The point here is to give companies the flexibility they need to run their computing workloads in a mixed environment, or move them back and forth as needed. They could also operate them in tandem.

Key to this is a provision of the deal with Amazon that gives Eucalyptus access to Amazon’s APIs. What that means is that you can run processes on your own servers that are fully compatible with Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (S3), or its Elastic Compute cloud, known as EC2. “We’ve removed all the hurdles that might have been in the way of moving workloads,” Eucalyptus CEO Marten Mickos told me. The company has similar deals in place with Wipro Infotech in India and CETC32 in China.

The company also raised its full-year earnings projection.

IBM has consistently moved to higher-margin businesses and away from crowded fields where price competition can be steep. IBM last week agreed to acquire Varicent Software Inc., which provides software that analyzes compensation and sales performance, for an undisclosed amount.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The results could be even better. In a note to clients issued Monday, Chris Whitmore, an analyst with Deutsche Bank Securities, said that while he expects sales to be in line with the consensus, IBM could report earnings that are as much as 10 cents above the consensus. One reason he expects a beat is the services business: Past deals should start paying off, Whitmore says.

You can’t go very far with IBM before you hear the word “analytics.” IBM has this thing about making different bits of the world smarter. Commerce is one thing; cities are another.

Then there’s the planet itself: IBM says it wants to generate $20 billion from new initiatives by 2015, and one of those is making things smarter using its analytics technologies. There’s money to be made in taking data that has previously been ignored, finding patterns in it, then gaining helpful insights. Other companies are getting analytics religion, too: Hewlett-Packard spent $12 billion last year to acquire Autonomy, which specializes in analytics software. Meanwhile, Splunk is coming public in an IPO slated for later this year.

I had the chance to talk about all this recently with Mike Rhodin, the senior vice president of IBM’s Software Solutions Group, during a visit to IBM’s headquarters in Armonk, N.Y.

AllThingsD: Mike, we hear a great deal about how important the analytics business is to IBM, to the point that we rarely hear from IBM these days when you don’t talk about analytics. Yet I think people are still getting their heads around what it means. Walk me through how IBM sees this.

Rhodin: The observation we’ve made, and you have to be careful with observations, is that analytics is something that’s becoming embedded in everything else. It used to be a thing. Analytics was initially business intelligence and dashboards, and when you say the word, that’s what many people still think of. They think of a dashboard with statistics and pie charts that kind of show you what’s going on. We think of it different. It’s that plus real-time analytics, statistical models — it’s starting to look at analytics in real time versus the past. The idea is that you instrument your processes and capture the data as it’s occurring, using statistical models to predict potential problems. So you’re going from reporting on past events to predicting future events. It’s that combination that we find very interesting.

What’s a good example?

We’ve done a TV ad on this, so you’ve probably heard of it. But it’s Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto. [Also featured in IBM's Centennial film.] We instrumented their data flows, and then we built analytics triggers to look through their data. We’re finding anomalies 24 hours before the doctors and nurses do, simply by instrumenting the physical world, pulling data together, using analytics to gain insight and then using that insight to hopefully get to a better outcome. And that pattern of instrumentation through insight is a repeating pattern of everything we call Smarter Planet.

How did IBM come to see this as so strategically important?

The whole story behind how we put this organization together was driven around an observation we made in 2006 about how the world was going to change. And that we had seen enough examples of this to know that this was real, and it represented a fundamental shift. Some people thought Smarter Planet was simply a marketing campaign, but it’s not. So if you think about Smarter Planet in simple terms, it comes out of the digitization of the physical world, the instrumentation of physical processes that’s going to generate huge amounts of new data, which is going to drive issues around storage, and what to do with all the data, how to analyze it. That pushes you toward real-time analytics and streaming technologies, because with real time, you don’t have to save the data — you want to look for anomalies as they occur. It’s the combination of multiple things happening at once that give you that trigger. So that pattern you see repeating itself throughout the physical world: Smart transportation systems, water systems, intelligent smart-grid systems, health-care systems like the one I described, these are example of real change that are going to occur in parts of the world around us that have been less benefited by information technology in the past. It’s the next big wave of IT spending.

And yet it’s not all about the physical world — you can apply the same patterns to the digital world, too, right? I’ve seen a lot of analytics-related news coming out of IBM that looks at data gathered in the digital realm.

Sure. You’ve seen us do things like sentiment analysis, tracking people’s opinions on the social networks about the Grammy Awards and the Super Bowl. Those are just examples of the same pattern of instrumenting, pulling data together and then looking for patterns. We’re doing a ton around retail. Two years ago, I was at my house in Vermont, and I looked at the paper that morning, and saw a story saying that, according to IBM, luxury goods sales were up. And I wondered who at IBM would have put out that press release. And then, a few minutes later, it was my own group. That was after the acquisitions of Coremetrics and Unica. Coremetrics had previously put out these regular reports, and so they became an IBM report. As we went into Black Friday and Cyber Monday last year, we had enhanced it so that we not only knew what was being bought, but what device people were using to buy it. So we could track purchases on the iPad versus Android versus Blackberry. And we actually published the statistics on that.

What did Unica bring to the table?

The level of information we’re gaining on instrumenting data sets is pretty dramatic. But it’s not just finding out what people are buying — you can also figure out what people are not buying. So you start to see trends in commerce that can tell you how you’re doing against your competitors. So one thing we can do is help companies figure out why things aren’t selling on their Web sites, so they can think through new tactics and offers they might create to get people buying again. The Unica acquisition comes in as a real-time automation of marketing. You feed real-time information into a marketing management program that automates the marketing of those things. And recently we closed in the acquisition of DemandTec, which can automate the pricing of those offers. So you can see how we’re stringing together a group of things we collectively call Smarter Commerce.

So if, for example, Best Buy and Amazon are going to have a fight over who has the best price on a TV, they can just automate it.

Yeah, they can automate it and just watch it go. It is a very interesting set of dynamics that’s unfolding around us. Commerce was one of those areas that we thought was ripe for transformation. We had some of our own internal technologies with our own e-commerce engine, WebSphere Commerce. But that was really about traditional order-capture e-commerce. Then we started thinking about commerce in a very broad sense. There are a lot of processes that exist between companies that do business with one another, and then helping those companies do business with their customers. So we put together a big process map that showed what products we had that addressed those processes, and where we didn’t have them, we had white boxes. Then we identified companies that did, and started to buy them. And over time, we’ve filled in that map.

Have you filled in the map entirely, or are you going to be buying more companies?

We’ve publicly said we’re going to spend $20 billion on acquisitions between now and 2015, and we haven’t finished yet. [Since this conversation, IBM has announced plans to acquire Varicent, a compensation and sales performance analytics company.] We’re always looking for good companies, and it’s part of our business model, and we have a stated intention to buy more.

iStockphoto | A-Digit

You’re not that special. Turns out you might fall into a category of digital consumers just like yourself.

IBM’s new Digital Consumer report, which surveyed 3,800 adult consumers in China, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the U.S., showed a large increase in usage of digital devices and content services over the past few years, with 78 percent of consumers calling themselves digital device adopters this past year. It also identified four distinct personalities when it comes to digital consumption:

Efficiency Expert: This is the digital consumer who uses digital devices and services to simplify things. They use the fewest devices but still access the Internet via mobile phones, send emails rather than letters, use Facebook to communicate with people, watch video on demand at home and shop online. However, some surveyed still prefer in-store shopping to online.

Content King: There’s a reason why it’s “king” and not “queen.” This category is composed mostly of males, but represents just 9 percent of the global sample. According to Saul Berman, global strategy consulting leader of IBM’s Business Services division, these digital consumers are the gamers, the newshounds, the movie buffs. “They prefer everything to be connected to their console or TV, often watch TV shows online, they regularly download their media and play games with people online,” Berman said.

Social Butterfly: Some 15 percent of consumers surveyed reported that they frequently maintain and update social-networking sites. This group has a strong female skew, with a high frequency of digital consumption. They might own fewer devices, but they maintain more social-networking profiles, they visit these sites several times a day, they’re “tagging” others on sites, and they’re often viewing what friends are posting.

Connected Maestro: This group is indicative of where the future is headed, Berman believes. About 35 percent of those surveyed take a more advanced approach to media consumption by using mobile devices and smartphone applications to access games, music and video, or to check news, weather and sports. They use instant messaging. They own the greatest variety of digital devices, and they combine some of the behavior of a Content King and a Social Butterfly. This group also has a slightly male skew and, as Berman said, “the majority of this group say they now read digital books over printed ones.”

Interestingly, the study notes that age is no longer the most distinct segmentation when it comes to putting digital consumers into boxes. A full 82 percent of digital adopters are now between the ages of 10 and 64. “Contrary to popular belief, not all early adopters are college age; in actual fact 65 percent are aged between 55-64,” the study notes.

“Making tech simple for that audience is a key factor,” Berman said, “and they’ve seen the benefit in potential by watching people who were the initial early adopters.”

That still doesn’t necessarily mean you’re off the hook in terms of setting up printers and fixing the Internet when you’re visiting home for the holidays.

Readers: Which category do you fall into?

(Image: iStockphoto | A-Digit)

We all know how that turned out. Dell first conquered the PC market, and the ultracompetitive environment it created drove several companies out of the market: IBM sold its PC business to Lenovo; Gateway sold itself to Acer; Hewlett-Packard acquired Compaq. Other lesser players are all but forgotten.

It’s as if Dell was a victim of the hyperefficient world it created. HP is now the world’s biggest PC maker, followed by China’s Lenovo, with Dell in third place on a global basis, as of last quarter.

PCs — consumer and business PCs — still amount to about half of Dell’s business. But there’s another way to look at Dell, and that’s from the point of view of its enterprise business. I learned this in a recent conversation with Steve Felice, Dell’s chief commercial officer. I also learned that the consumer PC business, for which Dell is still widely known in the U.S., amounts to about one-fifth of its business, while its enterprise lines of business, including commercial PCs, amount to 50 percent.

It’s all part of the long-term transformation that has been underway at Dell for a few years now. The company recently did three acquisitions in as many days, the most significant of which was for Wyse Technology.

That caught my attention. But first I wanted Felice’s reaction to the findings of a J.P. Morgan survey of 100 CIOs, saying that the release of Microsoft’s Windows 8 wouldn’t be much of a catalyst for PC buying at large companies.

(We had a pretty good talk, so, arbitrarily, I left in an eighth question from our exchange.)

AllThingsD: Steve, there’s a survey out from J.P. Morgan recently that says that CIOs from large companies don’t see Windows 8 as the sort of thing that would get them buying PCs again. That, to me, could be interpreted as bad news for Dell. Is it?

Felice: I don’t think so. Operating system changes have never been a catalyst, at least not in the corporate world. Consumers and small businesses take off with it right away. Corporations have rollout schedules, and they stick to them. Some of them are just starting to deploy Windows 7. They do their three-year roll-out schedules, and when it’s time they’ll go to Windows 8. About 55 percent of our business are the larger mid-sized and up public companies. The other 45 percent are small businesses and consumer. We’ll see some buying within that 45 percent. On the others, they will go on their normal schedule.

On the enterprise side, I was just with a bunch of CIOs here, and there are some very common themes about why I think they are going to spend some money. And it’s really to continue a transformation of their own infrastructure, to take advantage of virtualization and cloud computing and bigger pipes to transport information. There is a pretty common theme that there is more opportunity to get more out of assets. There is more optimism around moving away from legacy architectures and into open systems. The whole concept of being more “open to open” is there. We view that as good, because we’re the pure play when it comes to moving to open architectures.

What are the CIOs you talk to worried about these days?

Security. It’s easily in the top three concerns. We think we added to our portfolio two of the best assets out there. One is intended to tell you how to figure out what’s going on in their world. That’s what SecureWorks, a company we acquired recently, does. It analyzes your infrastructure and tells you where your threats are coming from and how to prevent them. And then we just announced the acquisition of SonicWall. They built a nice unified threat-management platform. From my viewpoint, it helps enable the movement to open. Some people are afraid to leave the proprietary world because they think it’s more secure.

Where are you on mobile? I read that you just killed a smartphone model. Where is Dell going on the mobile front?

I would characterize the last couple of years as us experimenting with what form factors and operating environments will work. The good thing is that we’ve never overextended ourselves in mobile, yet we’ve launched a lot of products, and we’ve learned a lot from them. We’ve launched tablets — 5-inch, 7-inch, 10-inch. We’ve launched them in emerging markets first, we’ve launched them in developed markets first. We’ve launched smartphones around the world. So we have an active smartphone that we just launched in China, and one in Japan. We just end-of-lifed one in the U.S., which is what I think you’re referring to. We have a road map of other products that are coming up. We are predominantly a commercial-oriented business that has some consumer business, but the lines are blurring.

What we’ve learned is to look at the consumer from the commercial side, not the other way around. Some companies who have done well in mobility are all about consumers and entertainment. And looking at the consumer as an individual, without any regard to how they might interact on the professional side of their life. Executives of any company I talk to say these devices are driving them crazy. They don’t know what’s happening to their information, how they get it back, nor how to interact with the other devices that people are bringing into the workplace. Or how to support them and control them. No one is dealing with that. So, generally, you’re going to see Dell think more broadly about the mobile ecosystem. When you next see devices from Dell, you’ll see us thinking more about the security of them, the end-to-end aspects of managing them, from the data center to the end user.

And yet what I’m hearing from a lot of companies is that they’re just adopting iPads, mainly because the bosses have them and love them. This is how Apple is penetrating the enterprise. How is Dell going to compete with that?

It’s unique, no question. And so it’s got some infatuation aspects to it. But then I talk to these customers, and because there isn’t a lot of alternatives, what they’re tolerating is pretty interesting. They say they have one of those products. Then the problems start coming out. First, the office applications don’t work very well, and they have trouble reading PowerPoint decks. And then they can’t wirelessly print easily, and some days they’re not able to get on the network at the office. And I look at that and say, they’re tolerating a lot because they like the form factor. Our conclusion is that there need to be some alternatives.

We’ve got the Dell XPS 13 Ultrabook, and we take it around and show it to customers, and invariably the decision-maker wants one. And then he says that if he had this, he never would have bothered with the tablet. So we took a consumer-oriented product and put pro support on it, and showed that to CIOs and said that if their executive team used it, they’d get the same support as they would on their Latitude product. So when it breaks, someone will come to the office and fix it, and you don’t have to go stand in line at the Apple store. Then we put image management on it. If you want a corporate image that has to be managed, we’ll do that. Institutions want thin and light devices, but they also want the options to secure and support them. The other thing that is happening, with ARM, you’ll get even more form factors.

Well, let’s talk about the PC, then. People keep talking about the decline of the PC. The research houses keep predicting market declines, and sometimes they materialize and sometimes they don’t. But even so, the numbers — at least globally — are flat to slightly up. Yet when you drill down to different regions, you see very different stories, with different countries growing like crazy. How does Dell see this right now?

This is a weighted math problem. The lowest growth rates are in the developed world, which will remain more of a replacement cycle world. The U.S. is like that because PC penetration is very high. Then you go to India and China, where it’s very low. What’s happening is that the emerging markets, where combined, they will be bigger than the developed world. And they are still growing rapidly, so the math is going to reverse itself. You’ll still see low-single-digit growth rates in the developed world, but healthy growth rates in emerging markets — but the emerging markets will be bigger. We still see double-digit growth in China. Look at Indonesia, there’s 300 million people just starting to buy PCs. As these countries industrialize and get more mature, they just need basic computing.

And how do those markets develop?

It comes back to the first thing I talked about. These countries don’t have the legacy baggage. They’ll grow, they’ll industrialize, they’ll need more infrastructure. And what will they buy? They’ll buy standard servers, storage, and open systems. This is happening in China, and its why we’re No. 1 in servers there.

Do you think people still associate Dell with the PC and don’t give it enough credit for its greater focus on the enterprise?

I’d have to say yes. Some of that is our own doing. We have this very large direct model, and we have a tendency to talk to customers one on one. So we tend not to do a lot of brand advertising. So our consumer advertising is more visible. If you ask people randomly what portion of our business is consumer, they’d say it’s more than half, but in fact it’s only about 20 percent. And if you ask people what portion of our business is servers and storage, they don’t know, but it’s more than 50 percent.

If you combine consumer and commercial PCs, how much is that?

About half is PC, and that’s global. But I think with all the acquisitions we’ve done, and a lot more customer testimonials we’re doing, the perception is changing. We’ve done some targeted testing of campaigns where we say, ‘Do you know that Dell does this?’ The perception of Dell as an enterprise provider skyrocketed. Brazil is an interesting case, because we entered the server and storage market there before the PC market. That’s because the only way to really be successful in Brazil with PCs is to have your own manufacturing there, because of the stiff tariffs. So in Brazil, Dell is thought of as an enterprise company. You’ll see more of a commitment this year to do more brand-oriented advertising around the enterprise.

Varicent makes software that’s intended to automatically collect and analyze sales data not only from a company’s finance and sales operations, but also from its human resources and IT departments. The point — and if this doesn’t describe an IBM-like view of the world I don’t know what does — is to gain efficiencies, discover unknown trends and, as always, boost sales.

In more practical terms, it means, according to a note from Brian Marshall at ISI out this morning, that Varicent’s software makes it easier for companies to “optimize compensation, streamline territory assignments, manage quotas, analyze sales activities and prepare for audits.”

Founded in 2003, it had raised $35 million in venture capital from FTV Capital, RBC Venture Partners and Edgestone Capital. It has 180 customers including Hertz, Manpower, Office Depot and Starwood.

Marshall goes on to argue that IBM is the company best positioned to capitalize on the expected $10 billion business in analytics. Varicent would be its sixth recent deal in the space: Others include Algorithmics, Clarity Systems, OpenPages, Cognos and SPSS.

And while terms haven’t been disclosed, IBM, Marshall says, has indicated that the return on its software acquisitions has been better than it has been in several years. It also looks like Big Blue’s dealmaking it on a serious upswing: After spending about $6 billion on acquisitions in 2010 it cut back to only $2 billion in 2011. Marshall argues that IBM is going to be busy buying companies: “We expect continued activity this year and see IBM as among the best in large-cap technology at building high-value capabilities through acquisition.”

IBM shares fell by $1.09, or about a half percentage point, to $204.23 by 10 am ET. The shares are up almost 12 percent this year, and earlier this month hit a lifetime high of $210.69.

Obviously, that’s not the part that surprises me. But here is the bit that did: When you add up all those expenses over a server’s lifetime, labor costs amount to about 70 percent of the total, according to IBM. If you had asked me, I would have guessed the cost of power would outweigh the cost of ongoing labor. Silly me.

I talked with IBM’s Steve Mills about this earlier this week. He’s Big Blue’s senior vice president and group executive for Software and Systems. It’s not uncommon, he says, for a company to take weeks or even a month between a server’s arrival and its deployment.

IBM today announced a hardware system it calls PureSystems that can cut that deployment time to hours and reduce the lifetime labor cost associated with the server by about one-third.

Basically what IBM is doing here is bringing to bear its expertise in services. Having done so well running IT services for a few thousand different companies, it has learned a thing or two about efficiency.

And it makes perfect sense when you consider that much of IBM’s $107 billion in revenue is derived from its services business. Now it’s taking some of that learning and applying it to its hardware and software business, which accounts for about 40 percent of sales.

The key feature, Mills told me, is something called the Flex Systems Manager, which is some IBM-made software that automates a lot of the set-up and maintenance work that traditionally has to be done more or less manually by one or a team of IT managers. “The purpose of the code is to do discovery. … Can I locate every piece of hardware in the frame? What are the rules for configuring it? Can I locate all the software I need and what are the rules for configuring that?” Mills told me.

All that data has been gathered into a single screen that makes the relevant information available at a glance. Mills says the system can be up and running within four hours of arriving at a company’s loading dock. That’s a bold claim.

It’s all based around patterns that IBM has seen over and over again for different types of deployments and configuration options. See them often enough and you can develop software scripts that take a great deal of the manual labor out of the process.

Sometimes companies have their own unique or wonky business processes that even someone as experienced as IBM hasn’t seen before. If that’s the case, a company can craft its own pattern and translate that into software that can automate a process that’s unique to its business or internal rules.

IBM has also teamed up with 125 independent software vendors or ISVs to develop their own patterns that clients can quickly download in order to get up and running. (IBM put out a video on that, which I’ve taken the liberty of embedding below.)

It’s also pretty diverse from a computing standpoint. IBM being IBM, the system has different hardware options, including processors from Intel or its own Power line of chips. There are also three OS options: Windows, Linux and AIX, IBM’s proprietary flavor of Unix. There’s also a wide choice of virtual machine managers: VMWare, KVM, Microsoft’s HyperV and IBM’s own PowerVM.

In the end, the point is to allow a company’s employees to spend more time working on their key lines of business and less time making the computers run properly, which is at its most basic level the IT shop’s highest mission.

It’s not so much about any shifts in sentiment or intention for spending among large companies, it’s just that the dollar is currently strong against other currencies, so U.S.-domiciled companies are in a weaker position when selling to customers in other countries. When accounting for that discrepancy, Gartner says it expects overall growth in spending of 2.5 percent, but on a constant currency basis, the digits would be transposed for a healthier 5.2 percent.

Spending by governments will likely contract, thanks in no small part to the austerity measures being put in place in the euro zone.

The highest rate of growth will be in the telecommunications equipment sector, which will grow by nearly 7 percent, Gartner says. A lot of that is thanks to mobile going to mobile, but also to speeding up networks. See the rest of the segments and their expected rates of growth in the table I screengrabbed from the press release, below:

Earlier this week, Gartner singled out IT spending in emerging economies, which it said will amount to an impressive trillion and change by itself. And last week we got a glance at the sentiment from 100 CIOs at large enterprises, courtesy of J.P. Morgan, indicating that growth is likely to tick upward this year. Up is good.

IBM has agreed to buy a 20 percent stake in Batista’s SIX Automacao, a company that specializes in providing technology services to sectors including oil and gas, mining, naval construction, naval ports and others, said EBX, Mr. Batista’s holding company. The partnership will allow SIX to move into the industrial technology solutions market, and establish joint research and development capabilities for EBX Group companies, it said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Well, today we heard from another bank, and its opinions about Intel’s Romley chip and what it means for data center spending couldn’t be more different. Chris Whitmore, an analyst with Deutsche Bank Market Research, published a note to clients today, arguing that Romley will indeed spur a new round of spending in corporate data centers, and that it will have an equally strong secondary effect on the fortunes of enterprise storage companies, specifically EMC and NetApp.

One of the things that Romley will encourage, Whitmore writes, is a growth in the density of virtual machines running in each server. (Remember that, more often than not, a physical server is virtualized or subdivided into many virtual servers, allowing each machine to act like several machines.) More virtual machines allows you to consolidate your physical machines and add more in the same footprint if you want, which in turn means more computing work getting done overall. Whitmore estimates that, in general, data centers will boost their workloads by 20 to 25 percent by the end of next year.

Roughly 26 percent of Romley chip purchases will be used in these virtualized environments, Whitmore estimates. And that tends to spur demand for storage to support the virtual machines. In fact, the growth of terabytes worth of storage products shipped mirrors closely the unit growth of servers. (See the graphic, below, which I screen-grabbed from the report; click to see it bigger.) In short, it’s good news for NetApp and EMC. Whitmore says both are taking share from other vendors, including IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Dell, with sales growing at north of 20 percent a year — a growth rate that’s higher than that of the overall market, which grew 14 percent last year. He rates shares of both EMC and NetApp a “buy,” with price targets of $35 and $60, respectively.

Great news for EMC and NetApp, but what does it mean for Intel? Whitmore says to expect a mixed bag. Companies wanting to boost their use of virtual machines will be buyers. Companies that aren’t into virtualization so much, maybe not. “We believe our estimate of x86 servers shipped into virtual environments growing from 21 percent in 2011 to 26 percent in 2013 could prove conservative,” Whitmore writes. “As a result, although we expect Romley to have a relatively muted impact on overall server unit demand, we do expect it to drive another leg of virtual machine growth.”

Just look at the scorecard: First, Watson schools humanity at the TV game show “Jeopardy.” Granted, that was a publicity stunt, but a fun and interesting one, about which at least one really smart person decided to write a book. (See my coverage of Watson’s three-day campaign of human domination on “Jeopardy” from last year: Day one | Day two | Day three.)

And what does it do for an encore? It plays “Jeopardy” with a U.S. senator and, well, you know, sorta lets him win. Then it gets a real job, working for health-insurance giant WellPoint.

So, if hearing from Watson is beginning to feel a little like that annual Christmas card from the annoying family whose kids are a little too highly accomplished, you can add this to the pile: Watson is now a doctor, too. Well, he’s been to medical school, at least, and even has a specialty: Oncology. And now he has a job at a very high-profile cancer-treatment center: New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Attentive AllThingsD readers will remember January’s extensive Seven Questions session with Manoj Saxena about going to medical school. And while Watson isn’t really a doctor — more like an extremely well-read physician’s assistant — it sure is interesting to learn what it can do: Watson can consult both the very latest medical literature and look back through the history of previous cancer cases to help doctors figure out the best way to treat a particular cancer.

We’re still pretty far away from computers actually making medical decisions. Watson isn’t that good, so there will always be a human doctor as a backstop to its suggestions of possible treatment options. But as you’ll hear Dr. Larry Norton say in the IBM video below, computers like Watson are helping us shift away from an era in which doctors make decisions based on their own experience and opinions, to one where they can readily consult the evidence and determine with a firm “yes” or “no” if something is likely to work. No one likes to think about cancer, but if you or someone you care about gets it, it’s an encouraging thought.

And yes, while IBM keeps banging the publicity drum for Watson, it looks like the machine is going to be doing its part for IBM’s bottom line, too. Big Blue has a target of $16 billion in revenue derived from its data-analytics business by 2015. Bloomberg News quotes Ed Maguire, an analyst with CLSA in New York, as estimating that Watson could bring in about $2.5 billion in sales and contribute as much as 52 cents in per-share earnings by that time. Yeah, I’m kinda jealous of Watson, too.

It’s something that IBM does a lot of, and does well, and it’s something that Hewlett-Packard is starting to talk about with increasing regularity, especially in the wake of its acquisition last year of Autonomy, while outfits like Splunk and open source efforts like Hadoop make it easier to do the crunching. And there are lots of start-ups working at finding ways to bring new levels of analysis to stale old business data that used to sit collecting virtual dust, unloved and unused on hard drives.

Generally speaking, the businesses that use analytics are, by definition, pretty big. They have large retail footprints, or big supply chains or something else about their business that makes them big. Being big is, intuition tells us, sort of a prerequisite to yielding the large volumes of data that just beg to be analyzed. You had to buy hardware and software and hire a lot of really smart people to get the job done.

Intuition can be wrong. In the age of cloud computing, where companies don’t bother to buy their own servers but rather rent space on servers from cloud outfits like Amazon Web services or IBM or Rackspace, why couldn’t you do the same thing with analytics? It turns out you can.

A Seattle-based company called Medio does precisely this, and today it launched something called the InGenius Suite. It’s essentially a big data analytics engine that’s designed to do exactly what big companies all want when they call Big Blue or HP or someone else: Show them where they can make more money. And? It all runs in the cloud.

Think you’re missing an opportunity to make incremental sales, but don’t have the data to prove it? Medio is aimed at industries like retail, finance and entertainment, and it brings the same kind of predictive analytics to bear that the big companies get. It’s also been around for a while: Medio has been selling its predictive analytics technology for years in two prior generations, but this is the first time it has been available in a cloud-based offering.

Its speciality is in the mobile space, and its platform supports 10,000 different devices, sees more than 105 million unique users in 220 geographies and captures 550 million events every day. The analytics have turned out 15 billion different personal recommendations.

“Our mission in life is to help companies to understand what their consumers are doing, to engage them better, and to help them make more money as appropriate,” says Rob Lilleness, Medio’s CEO. Customers range from Rovio, the Finnish outfit behind the addictive Angry Birds mobile game franchise, to mobile carriers like T-Mobile and Verizon.

The company is backed by investments from Accel Partners, Trilogy Equity Partners, Frazier Technology Ventures and Mohr Davidow Ventures, with total capital raised of about $30 million.

Lilleness said Medio has been at it for seven years. One of its co-founders is Brian Lent, who’s also chairman and CTO. He founded an outfit called Junglee that Amazon bought some years back. When Amazon tells you after buying something that you might also like something else, that’s the Junglee technology at work. Amazon boosted the percentage of sales coming from recommendations from 3 percent to 30 percent since acquiring Junglee, so the effect of having an analytics engine that can help you make recommendations isn’t exactly trivial.

Medio’s InGenius Suite is built around getting the same kind of understanding that big companies do, but in a manner that’s within reach to smaller companies. “We want to democratize the ability for companies to get up and running easily with big data,” Lilleness told me. “We can service the big companies, and we have for many years. But whether you’re a large company or a smaller, the key thing you have to know about big data is that data itself is the oil of the 21st century. Those who don’t understand it and what they need to do with it risk being left behind.”

And the highlight of that letter was an update on Big Blue’s progress toward meeting its growth targets for the year 2015. IBM has long promised to add $20 in per-share earnings and $20 billion in incremental revenue growth by that year. The crux of Rometty’s letter: “We’re on it.”

“The next decade holds enormous promise for IBM, most importantly because of what it holds for business and society at large. We are uniquely positioned to deliver the benefits of a vast new natural resource — a gusher of data from both man-made and natural systems that can now be tapped to help businesses and institutions succeed in an increasingly complex and dynamic global economy.”

So how will it get there? By doing more of what it’s been doing the last several years. In broad brushstrokes, that means pursuing lines of business that have a lot of value — and which carry a higher margin — and focusing less on hardware. Generally speaking, that has meant a big shift into services that bear a long-term revenue stream with them.

But it also means a shift to software. One key piece of the strategy has IBM generating about half of its segment profits from software by 2015. As of 2011, it was already at 44 percent.

It also means going global in a big way and reaching into smaller markets that are breaking out. About 22 percent of IBM’s revenue came from these so-called “growth markets” in 2011, and the plan is to push that to 30 percent by 2015. And it’s not coming from the BRIC countries you always hear about (Brazil, Russia, India, China) but others in Africa and Asia: Some 60 percent of revenue from growth countries comes from non-BRIC countries.

There’s a lot more of these interesting facts from IBM’s annual report in an infographic here.

Alliance@IBM/CWA Local 1701, an IBM employee advocacy group, reports that upward of 800 1,000 workers have been let go this week, with more to follow.

Most of the job cuts appear to be within the U.S., with a high concentration in IBM’s Global Technology Services outsourcing unit.

Alliance@IBM national director Lee Conrad puts the current tally of layoffs at 1,148, and says it’s offshoring that’s driving the reductions. “Those jobs are moving offshore, which seems to be the trend at IBM,” Conrad told AllThingsD. “This is a further abandonment of the U.S. workforce. When IBM talks about rebalancing, what they really mean is moving jobs from the States to overseas.”

IBM did not respond to a request for comment.