brightfly.com

Login

Log in to start commenting, connect with colleagues,
and get our latest Research.
It's free, it's easy, and there
are no lengthy forms to fill
out. Besides, we are a bunch of
security people too, so don't worry.

We won't share your
information with anyone.

Subscribe





Home
Technology Complexity and Market Adoption
Posted by Brandon Dunlap   
Thursday, 20 November 2008

The Information Security Arms Race and Its Impact on Operational Models

As security products enter the market, they move through a series of phases along their adoption curve. At various points in this lifecycle we have noted that opportunities present themselves to both the buyers and the sellers of these technologies. New businesses and business models begin to emerge as companies take advantage of these opportunities and begin exploiting the trends to their advantage.

In this article, we will explore each of the stages in this lifecycle and highlight the areas where we have seen the most activity around particular opportunities. As with all of our research, we will bolster our commentary with examples and sub-references which will follow in future articles.

 

Complexity Curve

 

Introduction

New security products entering the market often take a significant amount of time before they move to widespread adoption. This is partly due to the education that is needed of the market, both in terms of understanding the threat the product is designed to counteract, but also to understand the technology itself. Many of the more complicated products on the market today (SIM, SEM, DLP, etc.) have taken years to educate the market and drive an understanding of the threats (either external or internal) that their products are crafted to address.

This educational process also extends into the care and feeding of the product itself. As we saw with early versions of SIM technology, a small army of database experts were needed to keep the early generation of products from buckling under the loads many organizations were putting on them. Obviously, this increased labor burden puts enormous pressure on the ROI for the solution as a whole, which could explain the high rate of “bleeding edge” technologies that never gain sales traction outside of highly specialized markets.

Adoption

As the products mature, they tend toward simplification, at least in the beginning. They improve their installation mechanics, add “out-of-the-box” benefits to show immediate (or at least quicker) ROI, they may also make user interface (UI) enhancements to ease usability.

It is during this stage that most companies are at their most responsive in terms of listening to customers and incorporating feature requests and usability enhancements into the product development stream. This is partly driven by expansion into other markets; some vertical and some horizontal, where the vendor’s education message has not yet reached (or may never fully reach).

The vendor experiences increased adoption rates outside of their core market, largely due to the improvements made in their early beachhead accounts and the feedback that they have brought back into the product development cycle.

It is during this phase in a product’s lifecycle that it starts the slide toward commodity status. This is driven just as much by the decrease in complexity as it is by the sophistication of the market; two goals that the vendor was striving for earlier in the lifecycle, but which now threaten their business.

Commodity

As the product shifts to broadly accepted commodity status, the vendor comes under increased pricing pressures. They tend to support this trend however, through sales tactics such as deep discounting, bundling with newer products, longer term contracts (to achieve lock-in), and other maneuvers that continue or even accelerate the move to commodity status.

In many cases, the market as a whole starts to lose its luster, much as we have seen with the traditional anti-virus market in the past couple of years (and which we will return to later in this article). In an effort to combat shrinking margins, you will often see new versions of the product come out that are targeted specifically at the least sophisticated markets that the vendor can manage. These markets are typically present in smaller enterprises who also feel the pain of increased labor pressures which (hopefully) the vendor has driven out of the product before tackling this market.

It is along this part of the curve, the grey area between broad adoption and commodity status, where we find the first hints of new opportunities emerging. One interesting business model we have seen

develop in this phase is that of “enhanced open source”, whereby a vendor will build a product around an existing open source technology and help flatten the often steep learning curve of these technologies. This can be done within the community around the product, often by its founder, such as in the case of Marty Roesch and Sourcefire being built around his open source IDS Snort. Similarly, we find an open source project gets ‘adopted” by a fledgling company, as was the case with Renaud Deraison and Nessus, his open source vulnerability scanner, getting picked up and incorporated into Tenable’s product suite.

The other model, and one that is frequently at odds with the open source community, is when a company builds technology and services around an open source project without directly contributing to the project. This creates even more conflict (and confusion) in the market when the project founder, or their new corporate custodian, begins to enter the market themselves. Perhaps the most famous of cases was when Ron Gula, Tenable’s founder and CTO, moved to close source the Nessus engine and extract license fees for signature updates from the companies leveraging the technology in their own offerings.

Rebound

Rebounding, if it occurs at all, is usually through the acquisition and integration of complimentary technologies that prop up the original offering’s flagging license revenue. For example, Symantec purchasing Sygate, then bolting it onto their anti-virus platform and rebranding the whole affair as “endpoint protection”.

Concluding Remarks

At each phase in a product's complexity, there are opportunities. As we begin to present examples of products we are all familiar with, we will be pointing out where the opportunities lie and how best for all parties (buyers, resellers and vendors) to take advantage of them.

Recommend this article...

Comment | Add as favorites (0) | Link to this | Views: 39 | Read more...

Last Updated ( Thursday, 20 November 2008 )
 
Big 4 Settlements
Posted by Brandon Dunlap   
Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Riffing off of a tweet from Francine McKenna (@retheauditors ) some time last month, we decided to pull together as much of the publically available settlement info on the Big 4 for the past 5 or so years that we could find. With the financial crisis still top of mind for many folks, we thought it might be interesting to see what (if any) settlements are driving out of the whole mess and thought that some background info will help set the context.

You can find the data in our Field Notes & Research section, under Observations, or just click here. As always, we look forward to comments from the community about any items we may have missed or corrections in our reporting.

Recommend this article...

Comment | Add as favorites (0) | Link to this | Views: 38 | Read more...

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 19 November 2008 )
 
IFRS: The New Cash Cow
Posted by Mark Adams   
Monday, 17 November 2008

Last Friday the SEC released its new roadmap for migrating U.S. companies from U.S. GAAP (Genreally Accepted Accounting Principles) to IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards).  According to the article:

"...all publicly traded U.S. companies would be required to use IFRS within six years. However, at least 110 companies could use the international rules as early as next year, depending on their size and their industry. The SEC predicts that those companies would each incur about $32 million in additional costs in the 10-Ks they file in 2010."

For everyone else, the SEC estimates that U.S. companies will spend between 0.125 percent and 0.13 percent of their revenue on making the transition to international financial reporting standards from U.S. GAAP in the first year of filing.  This is just more evidence that the new revenue stream the accounting firms have been waiting for is here. Some of my former Big 4 colleagues (including a partner) have come out and told me as much.  The big difference though between SOX and IFRS is that once companies have made the transition, that's it.  In other words, unlike SOX, IFRS has an end date.

It should also be noted that this timeline could change once Barack Obama takes office in January.  SEC chairman Christopher Cox is a Republican, and he has indicated he will resign early next year. Comments to the roadmap are due in mid-February, so we'll have to wait and see what the final version will look like.

Recommend this article...

Comment | Add as favorites (0) | Link to this | Views: 56 | Read more...

Last Updated ( Monday, 17 November 2008 )
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 4 of 41

Tweets


Search

Upcoming Events

There are no upcoming events currently scheduled.
View Full Calendar

Latest Comments

Palo Alto Networks Hits the AT...
I agree with you that they pla...
14/11/08 13:22 More...
By Jon Robinson

Wolves in the Henhouse
Looking forward to your articles
JJ- We look forward to host...
03/11/08 16:53 More...
By Brandon Dunlap

Wolves in the Henhouse
Unfortunate Fallout From Real World Audi
First of all, I appreciate tha...
03/11/08 16:25 More...
By J.J. Thompson

Del.icio.us Links

© 2008 brightfly.com