I have worked for large and small as well as start
Post# of 32990
(Total Views: 582)
Posted On: 08/08/2019 2:34:28 PM
I have worked for large and small as well as start-ups in the tech industry in my very long career (I'm 60 so I've been in the field a lot of years). I worked for IBM in the 80's and 90's and saw how it wasn't as nimble as smaller companies, and slow to adopt new technologies and very bogged down by bureacracy . That was the good old days when IBM was still on top, it has changed a lot since then and is trying to reinvent itself, but in my opinion even more bogged down by bureacracy and not being able to find a good direction for the company.
IBM and Raytheon (a company i worked for 10 years) did acquire a lot of small companies to gain advantage in areas. IBM usually didn't succeed with their acquisitions and ended up destroying the companies they acquired. Raytheon on the other hand was a lot more successful in incorporating the small companies' technologies into their mainline business.
I worked for one start-up which was very innovative, but the workload and hours were insane and after I left before being burnt out after 2 years, the company folded about a year later.
Anyway, VERB strikes me as having all the right ingredients to succeed, and they've identified a good market with most importantly, recurring revenue, which is the best thing you can ask for. It seems to be very nimble at rebranding things like the product name and even the direction of which vertical to focus on, as their acquisition of Sound Concepts proved.
Anyway, indeed giants like IBM and Raytheon (the two I'm most familiar with) did indeed innovate and hold patents on many innovative technologies, but on the other hand they were less quick to adopt them in new products unlike smaller companies. Again, buracracy played a huge part. IBM recently acquired Red Hat to try and gain footing in the cloud services world, and the jury is still out on how that will work, with Amazon and Google very much in the lead there.
IBM and Raytheon (a company i worked for 10 years) did acquire a lot of small companies to gain advantage in areas. IBM usually didn't succeed with their acquisitions and ended up destroying the companies they acquired. Raytheon on the other hand was a lot more successful in incorporating the small companies' technologies into their mainline business.
I worked for one start-up which was very innovative, but the workload and hours were insane and after I left before being burnt out after 2 years, the company folded about a year later.
Anyway, VERB strikes me as having all the right ingredients to succeed, and they've identified a good market with most importantly, recurring revenue, which is the best thing you can ask for. It seems to be very nimble at rebranding things like the product name and even the direction of which vertical to focus on, as their acquisition of Sound Concepts proved.
Anyway, indeed giants like IBM and Raytheon (the two I'm most familiar with) did indeed innovate and hold patents on many innovative technologies, but on the other hand they were less quick to adopt them in new products unlike smaller companies. Again, buracracy played a huge part. IBM recently acquired Red Hat to try and gain footing in the cloud services world, and the jury is still out on how that will work, with Amazon and Google very much in the lead there.
(14)
(0)