THE TECHNOLOGY MONTHLY
Volume 2, Number 1
February 26, 2007
In this issue:
The key criteria for judging software in the Web 2.0, SOA world
Two emerging platforms: WordPress and Zimbra
Update on the data and information management space
The Web 20 status and a check on other Web 2.0 adoption metrics
Panning for Software
How does one separate the gold from the muck in
the software space given the mania surrounding Web
2.0 and service-oriented architecture (SOA)? These
terms come with such baggage that it makes it hard to
see through to the underlying software. Web 2.0 is so
broad it brings in business models, content types, im-
plementation methods, usage patterns and even touches
on emotional and social attributes. It’s no wonder the
term, so overloaded, defies precise articulation and can
no longer be called a definition. Most practitioners rely
on the old standby of, “We know it when we see it.”
SOA may be a better place to start. However SOA
has also been extended in many directions, mostly to
suit the needs of corporate computing, so that it too has
become impossibly heavy. Multiple standards groups
and technology vendors have increased the complexity
of SOA to include security, process definition and or-
chestration, monitoring and event management, applica-
tion frameworks and so on. The shear mass and level of
specification has grown beyond the realm of most po-
tential implementers.
An analogy we imagine is that Web 2.0 and SOA are
bills voted into law by congress and then burdened with
hundreds of additional riders tacked by a broad range of
special interests, blunting and obscuring the original
intent. We’re looking for the equivalent of a funda-
mental bill of rights for software without extraneous
additions.
It’s altogether fitting and proper that we should take
the time to do this. It simplifies the discussion and halts
the creeping spread of our definitions to encompass
things that are well beyond basic principles.
The myriad aspects of future software can be dis-
tilled down to five fundamental principles:
BOSTON|NEW YORK|PARIS
www.research2zero.com
1. Bind and be bound – Any software function must
be able to bind to whatever interfaces and data are made
available to it. Similarly whatever functions and data are
available must be easily identified and bound to external
agents. Note that these bindings are arbitrary rather than
a priori.
2. Call and be called – Rigid, hierarchical control
structures are anathema to a web of distributed content
and users. Control must be taken when required and
promptly surrendered when requested.
3. Transparency – The functions available as well as
their detailed mechanisms of action and interfaces must
be clearly defined and easily understood in a matter that
can be trusted. It’s about more than open source.
4. Context awareness – Taking maximum advantage
of context creates dramatic improvements in power and
usability. The apparent unwillingness of most developers
to just exploit what is already possible today has resulted
in painfully slow advances.
5. Sub-second response time – Even in a world of
rapidly expanding bandwidth we will continue to struggle
to meet demands for low latency. Response time is di-
rectly tied to major increases in usage. This has implica-
tions for architecture and service delivery.
So that’s it. No less. No more. In fact taken together
the first three might be grouped into what could be called
ultimate extensibility. The last two might be thought of
as the end-user experience test.
What about everything else? There are still plenty of
important aspects to Web 2.0 and SOA ranging from
new business models to social computing. However they
can get in the way when we are aiming at software fu-
tures. Many of these are just emergent properties, use
cases or implementation styles rather than fundamental
characteristics.
 Turning back to our five properties we now delve
into each one in greater detail.
Binding: Everyone understands the most basic
property of binding in that some variable such as <inter-
est rate> is bound to an actual number to be used in a
computation. The bindings in the past have been fairly
direct in mapping program variables to data. The mind
needs to stretch just a little bit to grasp that the new
binding involves elements outside of an individual pro-
gram, and that the binding is not just to data but also to
other programs and functions. Data elements, software
functions and computing resources are scattered around
and come together dynamically as needed to perform a
task.
The application programming interface (API) is the
mechanism that provides the binding flexibility needed
in most situations. It’s important that the definition of
the API be granular enough and bidirectional to suffice
for any arbitrary use case.
The Internet is expanding to include just about every
electronic device, including mundane objects such as
your stereo, phone, running shoes, picture frame and so
on. Often the interfaces may be described but unnatu-
rally limited by the developer. For example an IP phone
has a keypad and a speaker that should be usable in any
way, not just for entering numbers or playing audio. If
we want to bind to the 5 on the keypad and make it
display the current status of our traffic variable, it
should be simple to do. The point here is data and
function bindings can be arbitrary.
It’s this property which gives rise to the whole mash-
up craze whereby users can do things such as link to-
gether data from say, Google Maps, Flickr Photos and
Craigslist apartments to show a local map of available
apartments with neighborhood photos. Thanks to the
surfacing of APIs and the use of tags these applications
became far more powerful than for a single or small
group of use cases. These first mash-ups, while limited,
clearly get the point across and have created quite a bit
of enthusiasm. Yahoo Pipes is yet another step in this
direction.
Calling: It seems that the desire for hierarchy and
control can be as difficult to eradicate in software as it is
in people. Most modern software allows some level of
integration and interoperability but assumes a mas-
ter/slave relationship. Even casual users have experi-
enced a version of this from software programs that
© February 26, 2007 
easily import from other programs but can’t export. The
problems with unidirectional design are self-evident.
Calling is closely related to binding because binding
has to do with functions and data whereas calling man-
ages control and sequencing. If we were real purists we
could probably rely just on binding but the control issue
is too much of an obstacle not to deal with it separately.
Calendars are a common example of what goes wrong
with calling techniques. By and large every calendar is
designed to be the master and have control. They have
improved on the ability to import and export basic data
but think for some reason that users will enter events
directly in that particular UI vs. another, or that they will
want to schedule meetings or contact people only in their
own database. Because of this, calendar creators have
spent much of the last 20 years rewriting the code for
“enter a meeting” rather than actually creating some
sorely needed new functionality. Zimbra is perhaps a
notable exception (see below).
Transparency: This is probably the murkiest and
most challenging element of our definition. No doubt
some will feel the requirements for real transparency are
unobtainable. However even incremental improvements
confer substantial benefits and advantages. At a high
level users need to quickly understand what functions are
provided, what interfaces are available and how the func-
tions are implemented and results obtained. And all that
is just to get started.
Beyond an initial implementation users become de-
pendent, so any changes can cause ripple effects. People
are already experiencing this phenomenon as Google and
others evolve their interface support and deliver new
releases. These issues are slowing down innovation be-
cause most are still choosing to build from the ground up
rather than build upon existing functionality. Larry Page
of PERL fame has issued a warning that too many devel-
opers are focused on creating their own products rather
than improving those already out there.
Open source is a major industry trend that does help
in this area. It’s hard to come up with a more transparent
way for software than making source code available to all.
But code is not always the easiest source of functional
insight for the non-hardcore programmer, especially for
complex programs. Furthermore complexity and license
terms prevent it from being a universal solution, espe-
cially for business.
Page ‐ 2
 Lastly there remain myriad legal and business issues
surrounding terms of use that are likely to cloud this
area even further. The insistence on technology such as
digital rights management (DRM) when rights surround-
ing music have always been extremely murky – often
split between artists, studios, and songwriters and then
again by geography – seems absurd. Thanks to Apple
and Google progress is being made in this area, but
there is still a long way to go.
Stable standards such as HTML, PHP and many oth-
ers are helping to make functionality and mechanisms of
action very easy to understand. Even the simple “view
source” ability common in most tools and browsers
today has given a major boost to the practice of trans-
parent systems.
Context: Alan Kay highlighted the woeful lack of
innovation in this area by noting that most computers
are still using the same general-purpose interface that his
team designed forty years ago! This despite the fact that
it has been demonstrated that productivity skyrockets
when users are given an interface more specific to their
task.
We too are amazed at the lack of sophistication here.
After all, our ever-more powerful and connected com-
puters know everything about our history and standard
actions. Even within the context of a general UI, why
aren’t normal actions anticipated to the point of offering
us more one-button options to complete an action?
This will be very important in the mobile computing
space. In a comic example, one large carrier launched a
video feature for users that required eight clicks with a
rather high latency to play a video clip. Not surprisingly,
users turned their noses up at the option. If you receive
an email from a friend (address book, frequent emails)
and it includes a video clip why not present a button to
simply play it? Why not even pre-fetch it while I am
reading the email?
Contextual awareness is likely to be a topic for some
time to come. Today, even small steps can lead to big
results. YouTube videos offer the ever-so-simple play
symbol under the user’s mouse button. It’s so easy to
click, most do. It might be trivial but we are just at the
early stages of seeing things like this at work.
Sub-second: We expect to hear some groans of,
“That’s so IBM mainframe,” from our regular readers.
It’s true that timesharing was the catalyst for this area
© February 26, 2007 
receiving some careful scientific study, but we think eve-
ryone would agree that the results are valid whether a
user is sharing one machine with thousands or having
thousands of machines serving them. Most assume that
thanks to Moore’s Law and the bandwidth explosion
users will never have response time issues. Think again.
It turns out that the addition of computing resources
can make the problem even harder to solve. If from
France I request a piece of content created in China, we
generally have a cached version somewhere closer to
home. A simple timestamp tells us if the cache is cur-
rent. However when you scale up the number of users
and sources dramatically so goes the number of cache
locations. Figuring out how to serve the right content
can take more computing time than just going back to
the original source without clever algorithms.
The AJAX programming style went mainstream very
rapidly because it struck right at the heart of this issue.
Thanks to AJAX it was possible to deliver Web-based
interaction without requiring the send/receive loop that
was once part of mainframe computing and still domi-
nates the Web.
Average user response time serves as a gate on the
speed of adoption. It’s a real, often overlooked aspect of
commercial adoption analysis. The Google founders are
relentless at measuring the initial results response for
their search. They know that having good results back in
less than one second is better than great results back in
three seconds.
On second thought, Google really is one giant time-
sharing mainframe so our regular readers are right after
all.
These five key characteristics define what some call
Web 2.0 software. Notice we don’t have to explicitly
include implementation details, business models, content
types or user roles in our definition.
ÇÇÇ
Page ‐ 3
Emerging Platforms
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo aren’t the only impor-
tant players in the ongoing Web 2.0 platform war. Be-
low the surface there is a layer of activity by a number of
providers delivering specific functions and expanding
rapidly in the market. Both Zimbra and WordPress are
emerging as potent contenders for large numbers of
users at the expense of the Big Three.
WordPress: It’s becoming commonly recognized
that what started out as blogging software is rapidly
evolving into a full suite of functions and online ser-
vices. We migrated to WordPress ourselves a few
months ago and were surprised by the broad array of
features in its new release. Even more importantly, the
community that has grown up around this open source
project has allowed capabilities to mushroom far beyond
what the core developers could have delivered.
Thanks to a modular architecture for the presenta-
tion layer (themes) and the internal functions (plug-ins),
extensions are easily delivered and installed by end-
users. (They have recently added widgets, which fall
somewhere in the middle of presentation and functions
but we’re not sure how much we believe in the widget
approach in general.) WordPress relies on standards
such as CSS in the presentation layer, which means
users can easily grasp and customize the look and feel to
suit their needs. Elsewhere, WordPress adheres closely
to appropriate standards and has foundations on com-
mon denominator technologies such as HTML, PHP
and MySQL.
It’s hard to do justice to the velocity of the Word-
Press advances except to say that they make Google
seem like a very slow software company by comparison.
Recently the company has decided to embark on a more
regular release schedule of every three to four months.
The company invites users to submit and vote on ideas
for features to be included in subsequent releases. As of
this writing there were 422 ideas submitted and more
than 24,000 votes on which should get the highest prior-
ity. This effectively expands the development direction
beyond code submitters to general user community and
enhances the transparency of the platform.
Spam is a scourge on everything these days, blogs in-
cluded. The company has developed a tool called
Akismet, which is a very good spam filter. Thus far we
would say it is more effective than the filter used by
Google for GMail. Akismet is critical as well. More
© February 26, 2007 
than 90% of blog comments are spam and would quickly
choke off and eliminate the commenting feature if not
stopped effectively.
The 2.0 series release of WordPress garnered 1.8M
downloads compared to the 207,981 downloads of the
1.5 release on May 9, 2005. It’s clear from these and
other statistics that the growth of WordPress has taken
off and is likely to maintain a fast pace. Automattic, the
company behind WordPress, boasts just 11 staff as of
this writing and received a minor amount of funding
from a few venture capital types.
WordPress, both the software and the company
hosted solution, is available for free. The company does
make some money via its antispam technology, services
and consulting. Support is offered at $2,500 to $5,000
per company contact similar to other open source ap-
proaches from companies such as MySQL.
The other major blogging platform providers are Six
Apart (TypePad) and Google (Blogger). Six Apart has
been aggressive but growing a bit more in a MySpace sort
of direction, which is less interesting to us. Since Blogger
was acquired by Google its pace of innovation has been
slow. Google seems far more focused on Docs &
Spreadsheets as a platform play.
Zimbra: Turning more directly to the corporate
space, there is finally some meaningful innovation around
enterprise messaging and collaboration. Microsoft and
IBM Lotus have enjoyed a duopoly here with little or no
competition for some time. Zimbra is a next-generation
platform that exploits new technologies in a product built
from the ground up to understand context and integrate
diverse functions in an intuitive fashion. With a recent
user count of 6M the company has certainly reached a
critical mass.
At first the application looks very much like just an-
other open source implementation of a standard product
(Microsoft Outlook), but that’s where the similarity ends.
What’s different about Zimbra?
To date Zimbra is the best example of an application
that makes use of context that we have seen to date.
Users can get information and take actions from any-
where rather than navigate to and from various task
screens and applications. As with many ideas the value is
in the quality of the implementation. For example, email
content is parsed and recognized so that a hover or click
produces logical in-place results. It’s worth watching the
Page ‐ 4
flash demo available from the company website to ap-
preciate.
Of course we have seen good collaboration suites
come and go over the years with little adoption. Zimbra
has been smart enough to recognize that they are a new-
comer and support full integration with Microsoft Out-
look, Blackberry and other popular email clients. The
administrative back-end has received the same level of
attention in design and ease-of-use to help overcome
enterprise inertia. The software is also designed for
service providers who offer Zimbra collaboration as a
hosted (SaaS) solution.
Enterprises can easily extend and integrate [Zimbra
directly into their workflow with build in tools for creat-
ing “Zimlets.” We may not be fans of the name
(sounds too much like Gimlet or the ill-fated Zaplet to
us) but the implementation and pre-defined Zimlets are
powerful and intuitive examples of a fully-extensible
collaboration suite. A few examples:
For those not wanting a pure open source solution
there is a supported version of the product priced at $20-
30 per user per year. There are also many providers of
the software as a hosted solution where the prices range
broadly but get as low as $50-75/user per year; fairly
similar pricing to Google’s version of office.
Recently Zimbra crossed the six million user mark,
clearly putting it on the map of enterprise readiness. The
company has substantial venture capital backing from
large investors including Accel, Benchmark and Red-
point.
WordPress and Zimbra are strong examples of next-
generation software and infrastructure for modern web-
based computing. They may not be making headlines
yet, but their current size and trajectory implies that they
will.
ÇÇÇ

1. Integration with VoIP solutions from Cisco,

Asterisk and Skype. Especially for companies con-
sidering Asterisk, Zimbra greatly enhances the usabil-
ity for the end-user.

2. Links with Salesforce.com to allow automatic

updating of CRM information directly from the col-
laboration windows. This helps eliminate the mental
overload of having to enter data twice.

3. Hooks into travel applications for booking,

tracking and mapping plans. We’ve been amazed
that it has taken so long to begin integrating travel
functions and information with schedules and con-
tacts given that it is a fairly high percentage of busi-
ness related activities. Finally a user can drag an
event invitation and drop it on an icon to initiate a
travel search and populate the calendar with those
travel arrangements automatically!

The real power for enterprises will come from creat-

ing their own extensions to address their basic business
processes and integrate them right into the collaboration
flow for their end-users. White collar productivity is
notoriously hard to measure but a full implementation
of Zimbra with some customization would offer a
meaningful 10%+ increase in efficiency and effective-
ness.

Page ‐ 5
© February 26, 2007 
 
Web 20 Update and Other Barometers out, the group could easily add another 10-20% from
these levels for the year.
During the past year the Web 20 has traveled a
winding road basically to get back to where it started. 2007 2008 2008
Company EV/S P/E PEG
Akamai 15.3x 35x 0.92
Equinix 7.2x 13x 0.46
WebEx 3.3x 19x 0.92
Intuit 3.7x 19x 1.46
BEA 2.6x 17x 1.00
Google 9.4x 27x 0.55
Apple 2.4x 22x 0.90
F5 4.7x 29x 0.89
Salesforce 6.6x 63x 1.33
Adobe 6.9x 23x 1.17
Amazon 1.2x 38x 1.88
Yahoo 6.9x 39x 1.93
NAVTEQ 4.3x 23x 1.17
Red Hat 8.1x 31x 1.00
Figure 1 – Web 20 TTM Performance QUALCOMM 6.4x 18x 0.85
eBay 5.8x 22x 0.90
Also buried in the flattish 12-month performance Broadcom 3.8x 31x 1.46
was a large divergence within the group shown in Table Websense 3.0x 18x 0.94
1. Rackable 0.7x 13x 0.31
SanDisk 1.8x 14x 0.50
YoY YoY Group Total 4.6x 26x 1.02
Company Price Δ Rev Δ Table 2 – Web 20 Valuation Ratios
Akamai 157% 51%
Equinix 79% 30% A full table of metrics for the Web 20 and a dynamic
WebEx 53% 23%
Intuit 20% 19%
version of our Web 20 chart available as a Google Wid-
BEA 19% 11% get can be found at the Web site.
Google 16% 73%
Apple 14% 38% Skype
F5 11% 40%
Salesforce 7% 60% This month Skype downloads crossed the half-billion
Adobe -2% 31% mark. Our usage data for Skype shows continuing adop-
Amazon -16% 26% tion. Given the variation around both time of day and
Yahoo -18% 23% holidays it is clearly being driven by business use.
NAVTEQ -21% 17%
Red Hat -21% 32% Skype Peak/Avg. Concurrent Users (Aug '06 - Jan '0

QUALCOMM -21% 33% 9.5

eBay -25% 31%

Broadcom -30% 37% 8.5
Peak CCUs
Peak CCUs Trend

Websense -34% 20% Avg. CCUs

Avg. CCUs Trend
Rackable -36% 67%
Concurrent Users/Millions

7.5

SanDisk -40% 41%

Group Total 5.5% 35% 6.5

Table 1 – Web 20 YoY Changes 5.5

Average estimates for 2007 results suggest revenue 4.5

growth of about 26% for the group. We are starting
the year about 15% higher in terms of price. When we 3.5

roll our numbers forward to begin to use EV/Revenue

A

Se

Ja
ug

ov

ec
ct

n-
p-

-0

-0
-0
-0

07
0

multiples on 2007 estimates and P/E on 2008 the

6
6

6
6
6

Figure 2 – Skype Usage

valuations improve substantially. If estimates prove
Page ‐ 6
© February 26, 2007 
 
 There’s clearly a minor divergence between average
and peak Skype users. This suggests an increasing pro-
portion of users who login for a specific reason rather
than those who stay online all day inviting calls.
Job Listings
We’ve started to take some snapshots of job listing
data to begin to build a useful time series. Just for fun
here are some of the numbers for the current month.
(All are from the Simply Hired job search engine,
which had 4,747,436 listings at the time.)
Jobs by OS (153,892)
Linux
22%
Solaris
10%
Windows
68%
and applications for using information; and 2) Volumes
of data and information continue to grow at an acceler-
ating rate.
Along with the increase in volumes and types of data
gathered, the cycle times available for processing and
decision making get shorter; substantially compounding
the problem. Every few years this reaches a sort of
threshold, prompting the active consideration and adop-
tion of new applications and approaches.
Investors are likely to revisit this area thanks to the
coming spin-off of Teradata from NCR, creating a new
standalone company with more than $1.5B in revenues.
After the spin-off NCR will be more of a pure play on
retail POS technology with over $4.5B in revenue. NCR
stock has been on a tear to a projected fair value of
$47/share based on an estimate of the value of Teradata
and NCR as separate businesses. The table below sug-
gests that post spin-off NCR may still have some upside.
If it can execute its way to an average EV/R multiple
the stock could be worth 2x current prices.

Figure 3 – Operating Systems EV Rev OI EV/R R/Emp

Diebold $3.5B $2.9B $153M 1.2x $199K
Windows still occupies the lion’s share of hiring activity VeriFone $3.5B $581M $108M 6.0x $254K
but we will see how this develops during 2007.
Micros $2.3B $679M $91M 3.4x $179K
TOTAL $9.2B $4.2B $352M 2.2x $203K
Jobs by Language (125,125)
EMC $31B $11B $1.2B 2.8x $415K
AJAX
NCR $8.5B $6.1B $473M 1.4x $216K
Perl
5%
C# 17%
20% PHP
6% Table 3 – POS and Data Company Figures
Ruby
1%

Teradata may be better off outside of NCR, but it’s

hard to imagine that the company will be able to stay
independent. Outside of financial ratios, the firms that
Java
51% own the data have a special status. Teradata has a mar-
ket position that is just too tempting strategically for
Figure 4 – Languages firms from Microsoft to HP to EMC.

Each month we will be expanding this section with
more data as we collect more and add new external
sources.
ÇÇÇ
Update: Information Management
Corporate interest in information and data man-
agement technologies is very high. This is likely to re-
main true for some time for two very basic reasons: 1)
There seem to always be new high-return opportunities
© February 26, 2007 
Exploring the vast data resources has long been the
purview of large established players such as Oracle,
Business Objects, Cognos and others. A frequent ques-
tion these days is whether these existing solutions are
passé and whether new offerings from small companies
such as Greenplum, Endeca, DATAllegro, RiverGlass,
SeeWhy, Dabble DB, Kaskad and StreamBase reflect the
future direction of data mining and business intelligence.
It’s certainly true that new approaches to processing
real-time data coming from the Web or other sources
are garnering more market share. This could be evi-
Page ‐ 7
dence that information management is entering a new
phase where customers are seeing distinct application
areas differently. It could be the case that we will see
sustained differences in how customers approach stra-
tegic vs. operational BI. This could mean that small
areas today could grow to challenge the data and in-
formation management Death Stars of Oracle, EMC
and IBM.
pany gets there is not only half the fun but also perhaps
two-thirds the final valuation! We expect many of the
existing emerging players in this space to do well and
others to emerge over the course of 2007 thanks to in-
creasing awareness of the potential.

Some of these new approaches will catch on, and

the large players will acquire or replicate their way to THE TECHNOLOGY MONTHLY
offering similar capabilities. Between now and then, Kris Tuttle, Editor
however, the market is offering opportunity to grow Pete Bishop, Analyst
Charlotte Borde, Copy Editor
into critical mass ($25-50M revenues) and even reach
potential public market revenue levels of $100M+. It’s The Technology Monthly is published by
too soon to tell if it will be possible for any company to Research 2.0 12 times a year by Blue Cat-
erpillar LLC, 1313 Washington Street,
propel itself into the multi-hundred-million-dollar level Boston MA 02118. USA Telephone:
of sustainability. For every success (Business Objects, 617.381.4762.
Informatica, MicroStrategy) there is a failure (Pervasive,
Individual subscriptions by the month or
Versant, Persistence) or one that was absorbed (Infor- year are $32 and $256 respectively. Some
mix, Brio, Crystal) by an existing player. free content is available via email and our
blog. Please visit us online at
www.research2zero.com.
The overall landscape of public players in the data
space paints an alluring picture as even companies that It is a violation of federal copyright law to
reproduce or distribute any part of this
institutions might consider also-rans (Sybase, Progress, publication to anyone by any means with-
Hyperion) trade at substantial market values. out permission (often readily provided.)
Sponsorships come with internal redistri-
bution rights and in some cases the right
2007E Enterprise 2007 to distribute externally to customers and
Company Revenue Value EV/Rev prospects is available. Copyright 2007,
Blue Caterpillar LLC. All rights reserved.
Oracle 17.6B 87.4B 5.0x
EMC 12.7B 30.9B 2.4x
Sybase 1.0B 2.2B 2.2x
Progress 471M 931M 2.0x
Bus. Objects 1.4B 3.1B 2.2x
Cognos 972M 3.2B 3.4x
MicroStrategy 313M 1.5B 4.1x Coming in future issues…
Informatica 374M 910M 2.4x
Actuate 137M 255M 1.9x Gödel would be short
SPSS 290M 492M 1.7x Proof of Moore’s Law for Energy
Hyperion 890M 2.0B 2.2x
Fair Isaac 864M 2.5B 2.9x
More emerging platforms
Open Text 584M 1.4B 2.4x What happened to .NET?
Applix 67M 148M 2.2x Virtualization tornado?
Group Total 37.7B 137B 3.6x Update: Enterprise IT
More Web 2.0 adoption metrics
Table 4 – Data and Information Company Values Individual company reports
In conclusion the data and information space offers
real opportunity for new players. Other areas such as
virtualization are hot but don’t offer the freedom of
entry and differentiation that is needed to create major
new value. There is clearly still some art to be had in
that getting to $300M in revenues can result in a market
valuation ranging from $500M to $1.5B. How a com-
Page ‐ 8
© February 26, 2007