Elsevier is a world-leading scientific publishing company and offers over 2,500 unique journals and more than unique 33,000 book titles (Elsevier, 2015). These offerings are unique and therefore differentiate them from the competition. Additionally, Elsevier offers web-based, digital solutions, such as ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Reaxys. These unique services enable researchers, students and other individuals to better consult the content made available by Elsevier (and other publishers). These solutions are just an example of all the Internet features Elsevier tries to implement into their business fundamentals. Currently, Elsevier’s business is shifting from scientific publisher towards a professional information solutions provider. Elsevier’s CEO Ron Mobed is encouraging the business to ‘Lead the way’ (Mobed, 2014). From this corporate vision, we can infer that Elsevier is striving to implement new technologies in order to disrupt the publishing industry.
To generate revenue, Elsevier mainly sells access to scientific journals to its customers. The value proposition Elsevier offers is that they consult the institution how to generate revenue with their services. The demonstration of this value proposition is done on a yearly basis by Sales directly to the institution. However, these business-to-business negotiations are transforming due to emerging technologies, which for example result in the increase of consumer informedness (Li et al., 2014).
To control this transformation (e.g. consumer informedness) and provide other complications regarding technology development, we propose an online application driven by cloud computing. It is an online platform where the institution can login, create and adjust similar metrics as currently shown by Sales. This innovation will further expand the current concept of Elsevier’s value to the institutions, but will introduce risk since institutions are not required to contact Elsevier anymore for these metrics. The same focus will remain, where not only the value of their investment in Elsevier is presented, but also how Elsevier’s services contribute the institution‘s revenue through an increased institutional competitiveness and collaboration among researchers. Competitiveness will help the institution to gain a better market position and earn more out of four sources: block funding, project funding, commercial monetization, and tuition and endowment. Collaboration among researcher will improve the quality of their research, which will lead to better publications and will result in more value for the institution. In conclusion, the online application will lead to more captured value for Elsevier and lead to more value and revenue for the institution.
Elsevier, 2015. At a Glance. [Online] Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/about/at-a-glance [Accessed 7 October 2015].
Li, T. et al., 2014. Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy. Information Systems Research, 25(2), pp.345–63.
Mobed, R., 2014. Elsevier’s vision. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Internal employee presentation.
On the 12th of October, Dell Inc. announced that it acquired network storage giant EMC Corp. for approximately $67 billion, making it the largest tech merger of all time (and the second-largest overall). That same morning, before the merger was actually made official, I came across an interesting article on this topic called: “Dell. EMC. HP. Cisco. These tech giants are the walking dead” (the first episode of the 6th season of AMC’s television show The Walking Dead premiered the same day).
In this article, it is argued that the aforementioned tech giants are, in fact, dead. And here’s why. For decades, these large companies ruled the market of enterprise computing. When one needed to store lots of data, EMC was your main option. It offered the machines and complementing software to the company, in return for a considerable amount of money. However, as EMC was the only distributor of the software, when the amount of storage needed to be expanded, more money was paid to EMC. The same goes for the other companies. In need the need of servers? Dell, HP and IBM were the ones to go to. Networking gear? Bought form Cisco. The provider of database software? Supplied by Oracle.
In the current environment, however, this is all changing. New players have arisen in the market. Players like Amazon, Google and Facebook, who have changed the existing establishment. The biggest change: the Cloud. These internet businesses became so large, that eventually they realized they could not sustain with hardware and software of the established vendors. The sheer quantity made it too expensive and
they were unable to scale on the assets. Therefore, they simply designed their own hardware and software. This made it less expensive and faster. But most importantly, they did not keep the technology to themselves. They have published it to the world, as open source designs, while at the same time offering their own infrastructure to third parties.
This has caused new vendors to emerge, selling the hardware and software solutions the internet giants came up with. Additionally, more and more companies store their data in the cloud – on the infrastructure of the same tech giants.
Then, why don’t the Dells and IBMs of this world do the same and offer cloud storage? They have in fact, but they can’t stretch it too far. Otherwise, they will cannibalize their existing business. Due to this innovator’s dilemma, these companies are – as the author of the previously mentioned article states – “fucked by the cloud”. By using Amazon’s cloud to store data and run software, you simply don’t need the hardware and software from Dell and HP anymore.
So, what should be the right strategy for these companies in trouble? Dell and EMC have chosen to merge, but analysts do not expect this merger to radically reshape the technology market. It might strengthen their position against direct competitors like HP and IBM, but due to the increasing pressure of cloud-storage, it just seems like a bigger fish in an ever shrinking pond.
Bas van Baar (358545sb)
On 9 September, Tim Cook (CEO Apple) says: ‘the future of television is Apps‘ (Apple, 2015). Not everyone will agree, but it is almost certain that this industry is on the brink of a huge transformation. The only challenge left for television is the input problem, where people primarily pay for traditional, linear, pay-television services and besides that own a secondary device (e.g. DVD player, Apple TV) for additional content (Yarow, 2015). However, it is unclear if or when the ‘secondary’ service can be a substitute for the conservative primary services. Some predictions state that these new devices (e.g. Apple TV) could turn the television into a dumb piece of glass (Yarow, 2015), since many companies are making a bet that the largest screen in our homes is going to become an operating system like the ones that power our computers and phones (Hempel, 2011).
Many things have changed since devices are connected to the Internet. Millions of independent developers have got the chance to create great applications for multiple devices. The television is next and many start-ups will look for opportunities to offer video experience via applications on products such as the Apple TV (Yarow, 2015). Besides that big companies are forced to adjust their content as well. For example, Jeff Bewkes (CEO of Time Warner) spoke about the company’s plan to move its vast catalogue of movies and TV shows onto the Web (Lyon, 2011). Besides that, products like the Apple TV provide opportunities for all kinds of businesses (e.g. Netflix, HBO) to broadcast their content in a new way on the biggest screen in the house.
To convince the consumer, the only way to win it digital is to keep it simple (Lyon, 2011). Then if the new platform works, the prediction is that the traditional, linear, pay-television services will become secondary, because people will start to wonder why they are wasting money on this conservative service (Yarow, 2015). To make this transformation from traditional television to the Internet happen, some things need to be taken into consideration. Especially content expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation and habit have significant effects on behavioral intention on (mobile) television (Wong et al., 2014). Additionally, Wong et al. (2014) claims that gender and other demographics tend to have a moderating effect on this television behavior. The question remains if online television is better in serving the needs of users than the traditional television service. And will suppliers be able to adapt new technologies to capture value? Research implies that this adaption is needed. For example, the viewer engagement actually is greater when social media is involved (Pynta et al., 2014), and new social possibilities come along with Internet on television.
From the supplier side, the web has the power to make media distribution cheaper and more efficient (Hempel, 2011). On the other hand, the current business model heavily relies on the revenue they earn from licensing. In each country there are able to capture value since it is legally possible to capture value in each geographic region. The web is breaking this business model. Ad rates are much lower on the Internet. Networks cannot collect their fees. Cable companies fear losing our business. Someone has to pay for all that bandwidth we are using to stream our shows (Hempel, 2011). This means that the suppliers must look for new opportunities to generate their revenue. The Internet on television not only brings opportunities, but also big challenges for the current participants, if they want to stay alive.
Vincent Laduc (417658vl)
Apple, 2015. Apple Special Events. [Online] Available at: http://www.apple.com/apple-events/ [Accessed 1 October 2015].
Hempel, J., 2011. What the hell is going on with TV?. [Online] Available at: http://fortune.com/2011/01/03/what-the-hell-is-going-on-with-tv/ [Accessed 1 October 2015].
Lyon, D.W., 2011. JEFF BEWKES AND THE APPLE TRAP. B-School Connection.
Pynta, P. et al., 2014. The power of social television: Can social media build viewer engagement? A new approach to brain imaging of viewer immersion. Journal of Advertising Research, pp.71-80.
Wong, C.H., Tan, G.W.H., Loke, S.P. & Ooi, K.B., 2014. Mobile TV: A new form of entertainment? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 5 August. pp.1050-67.
Yarow, J., 2015. The new Apple TV will blow up the TV industry. [Online] Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-new-apple-tv-is-going-to-blow-up-the-tv-industry-2015-9?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 1 October 2015].
With recent scandals around Apple’s iCloud services being hacked, the question arises: Are cloud services truly safe enough to store personal or even business-related data? And even if they are safe from outside attacks, what stops the provider to take advantage of the data stored on their servers? Tresorit, a Hungary-based startup company claims to have the safest solution yet, powered by user-side encryption processes.
So how is it different from any other mainstream cloud service out there?
While using the same level of safety as Dropbox regarding storage and transfer of files (AES-256 bit encryption, SSL/TLS transfer), Tresorit claims that the prime issue regarding the safety of data in the cloud is actually not it being hacked by outside parties, but the inefficiency of barriers that would stop the provider peeping into data uploaded into their cloud. This breach would be made possible by the encryption process used by most big companies, namely server-side encryption which practically means that the encryption key is to be found somewhere at the provider’s side. Of course, this could be quite easily mitigated by the user, through encrypting the uploaded files themselves. But as cloud storage is mainly used for collaboration, it would be quite a hassle.
Thus Tresorit has introduced an integrated system for encrypting files on the user’s computer, enabling them to effectively control who can decrypt and access the content. As both encryption and decryption are done on the client’s side, the company claims that not even they can see the content of uploaded files. Further key selling points of Tresorit are that one can practically share any folder on the computer (as opposed to the single folder of Dropbox), and also set unique permitted access levels to shared files and folders.
The creators of Tresorit are quite confident in the safety of their product. Actually so much, that they offer USD 50,000 for anyone who can hack into their system. Their confidence seems well-based, as for the 468 days the challenge has been open, none of 900 hackers (including MIT and Stanford) has managed to take the prize.
So what do You think? Do you generally trust the safety of the cloud? Or would you feel safer using a solution like Tresorit?
Many of you already know what online back up or cloud storage is, but have you already heard of software clouds? Well, it’s online accessibility alright, but for software applications instead of documents or media. Nowadays, big companies require software applications to run their everyday business. All these applications require a lot of IT resources and continuous maintaining. With cloud computing, companies are able to outsource all these tasks, saving loads of money. Instead of installing business applications on their own hardware, companies are able to utilize these from a remote network. So they don’t possess these softwares.
One company that has been successful in this industry is Salesforce. Here is a short video that explains how cloud computing works:
We had a discussion about Dropbox and the potential of it’s business. Unlike cloud storage, companies aren’t that familiar with the business model of Salesforce yet. However I still think there is a growing market for this technology like the online storage. Especially with the falling costs of online storage and the need of accessibility at any time. We now have cloud storage and cloud softwares. What will be next thing up in the “cloud”? What are your thoughts?