Enterprise Procurement with GCP Marketplace Spend Smart, Procure Fast, and Help Your Development Team Succeed
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
HW&Co. Landscape Industry Reader Template
TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA, & TELECOM QUARTERLY SOFTWARE SECTOR REVIEW │ 3Q 2016 www.harriswilliams.com Investment banking services are provided by Harris Williams LLC, a registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA and SIPC, and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Harris Williams & Co. is a trade name under which Harris Williams LLC and Harris Williams & Co. Ltd conduct business. TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA, & TELECOM QUARTERLY SOFTWARE SECTOR REVIEW │ 3Q 2016 HARRIS WILLIAMS & CO. OVERVIEW HARRIS WILLIAMS & CO. (HW&CO.) GLOBAL ADVISORY PLATFORM CONTENTS . DEAL SPOTLIGHT . M&A TRANSACTIONS – 2Q 2016 KEY FACTS . SOFTWARE M&A ACTIVITY . 25 year history with over 120 . SOFTWARE SECTOR OVERVIEWS closed transactions in the . SOFTWARE PRIVATE PLACEMENTS last 24 months OVERVIEW . SOFTWARE PUBLIC COMPARABLES . Approximately 250 OVERVIEW professionals across seven . TECHNOLOGY IPO OVERVIEW offices in the U.S. and . DEBT MARKET OVERVIEW Europe . APPENDIX: PUBLIC COMPARABLES DETAIL . Strategic relationships in India and China HW&Co. Office TMT CONTACTS Network Office UNITED STATES . 10 industry groups Jeff Bistrong Managing Director HW&CO. TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA & TELECOM (TMT) GROUP FOCUS AREAS [email protected] Sam Hendler SOFTWARE / SAAS INTERNET & DIGITAL MEDIA Managing Director [email protected] . Enterprise Software . IT and Tech-enabled . AdTech and Marketing . Digital Media and Content Services Solutions Mike Wilkins . Data and Analytics . eCommerce Managing Director . Infrastructure and . Data Center and . Consumer Internet . Mobile [email protected] Managed Services Security Software EUROPE Thierry Monjauze TMT VERTICAL FOCUS AREAS Managing Director [email protected] . Education . Fintech . Manufacturing . Public Sector and Non-Profit . Energy, Power, and . Healthcare IT . Professional Services . Supply Chain, Transportation, TO SUBSCRIBE PLEASE EMAIL: Infrastructure and Logistics *[email protected] SELECT RECENT HW&CO. -
Cloud Computing Industry Primer Market Research Research and Education
August 17, 2020 UW Finance Association Cloud Computing Industry Primer Market Research Research and Education Cloud Computing Industry Primer All amounts in $US unless otherwise stated. Author(s): What is Cloud Computing? Rohit Dabke, Kevin Hsieh and Ethan McTavish According to the National Institution of Standards and Research Analysts Technology (NIST), Cloud Computing is defined as a model for Editor(s): enabling network access to a shared pool of configurable John Derraugh and Brent Huang computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned. In more Co-VPs of Research and Education layman terms, Cloud Computing is the delivery of different computing resources on demand via the Internet. These computing resources include network, servers, storage, applications, and other services which users can ‘rent’ from the service provider at a cost, without having to worry about maintaining the infrastructure. As long as an electronic device has access to the web, it has access to the service provided. In the long run, people and businesses can save on cost and increase productivity, efficiency, and security. • Exhibit 1: See below the advantages and features of cloud computing. In general, cloud computing can be broken down into three major categories of service models: Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS). Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) IaaS involves the cloud service provider supplying on-demand infrastructure components such as networking, servers, and storage. The customer will be responsible for establishing its own platform and applications but can rely on the provider to maintain the background infrastructure. August 17, 2020 1 UW Finance Association Cloud Computing Industry Primer Major IaaS providers include Microsoft (Microsoft Azure), Amazon (Amazon Web Service), IBM (IBM Cloud), Alibaba Cloud, and Alphabet (Google Cloud). -
Mergers in the Digital Economy
2020/01 DP Axel Gautier and Joe Lamesch Mergers in the digital economy CORE Voie du Roman Pays 34, L1.03.01 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Tel (32 10) 47 43 04 Email: [email protected] https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ lidam/core/discussion-papers.html Mergers in the Digital Economy∗ Axel Gautier y& Joe Lamesch z January 13, 2020 Abstract Over the period 2015-2017, the five giant technologically leading firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft (GAFAM) acquired 175 companies, from small start-ups to billion dollar deals. By investigating this intense M&A, this paper ambitions a better understanding of the Big Five's strategies. To do so, we identify 6 different user groups gravitating around these multi-sided companies along with each company's most important market segments. We then track their mergers and acquisitions and match them with the segments. This exercise shows that these five firms use M&A activity mostly to strengthen their core market segments but rarely to expand their activities into new ones. Furthermore, most of the acquired products are shut down post acquisition, which suggests that GAFAM mainly acquire firm’s assets (functionality, technology, talent or IP) to integrate them in their ecosystem rather than the products and users themselves. For these tech giants, therefore, acquisition appears to be a substitute for in-house R&D. Finally, from our check for possible "killer acquisitions", it appears that just a single one in our sample could potentially be qualified as such. Keywords: Mergers, GAFAM, platform, digital markets, competition policy, killer acquisition JEL Codes: D43, K21, L40, L86, G34 ∗The authors would like to thank M. -
Cost Optimization in Cloud Computing
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Aaltodoc Publication Archive Aalto University School of Science Master's Programme in ICT Innovation Andrea Nodari Cost Optimization in Cloud Computing Master's Thesis Espoo, June 22, 2015 Supervisor: Professor Jukka K. Nurminen, Aalto University Advisor: Christian Fr¨uhwirth, M.Sc. Aalto University ABSTRACT OF MASTER'S THESIS School of Science Degree Programme in Computer Science and Engineering Master's Programme in ICT Innovation Author: Andrea Nodari Title: Cost Optimization in Cloud Computing Number of Pages: 84 Date: June 22, 2015 Language: English Professorship: Data Communication Code: T-110 Software Supervisor: Professor Jukka K. Nurminen, Aalto University Advisor: Christian Fr¨uhwirth, M.Sc. In recent years, cloud computing has increased in popularity from both industry and academic perspectives. One of the key features of the success of cloud computing is the low initial capital expenditure needed compared to the cost of planning and purchasing physical machines. However, owners of large and complex cloud infrastructures may incur high operating costs. In order to reduce operating costs and allow elasticity, cloud providers offer two types of computing resources: on-demand instances and reserved instances. On-demand instances are paid only when utilized and they are useful to satisfy a fluctuating demand. Conversely, reserved instances are paid for a certain time period and are independent of usage. Since reserved instances require more commitment from users, they are cheaper than on-demand instances. However, in order to be cost-effective compared to on- demand instances, they have to be extensively utilized. -
The Public Cloud
How SUSE® Is Helping You Rock The Public Cloud James Mason Robert Schweikert Technical Architect, Public Cloud Public Cloud Architect [email protected] [email protected] Topics • A very quick and brief Public Cloud intro • SLES On Demand • Bring Your Own Subscription (BYOS) • Containers • Managing Your Deployments 2 What is the Public Cloud The Public Cloud • A Public Cloud makes Cloud resources available over a network that is open to anyone • Everyone uses the cloud already ‒ Gmail, G+, Facebook, FourSquare, Netflix,.... ‒ All are cloud service based • We will focus on IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) 4 IaaS • A server or a data center in the cloud ‒ User has systems administrator responsibility ‒ Treat the running server (instance) just as you would treat a physical server ‒ Update for security, bug fixes ‒ Set up and configure applications • Removes the hardware handling responsibility ‒ HW failures are the providers problem ‒ Adding capacity, the providers problem ‒ Network wiring, the providers problem 5 The Public Cloud • A collection of services ‒ DB, Data Analysis, Storage, others • Availability of massive resources around the world ‒ Or local for smaller Cloud Service Providers (CSP) 6 SUSE Public Cloud Partners 7 SUSE Linux Enterprise On Demand On Demand images • Fire up and use ready ‒ Repositories configured at boot • Maintained and published by SUSE ‒ Some images will be published by Orbitera in “Marketplace” • Managed lifecycle ‒ Images get deprecated when replacement image is released ‒ Removed after 6 months • Images updated -
Cesifo Working Paper No. 8056
8056 2020 January 2020 Mergers in the Digital Economy Axel Gautier, Joe Lamesch Impressum: CESifo Working Papers ISSN 2364-1428 (electronic version) Publisher and distributor: Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research - CESifo GmbH The international platform of Ludwigs-Maximilians University’s Center for Economic Studies and the ifo Institute Poschingerstr. 5, 81679 Munich, Germany Telephone +49 (0)89 2180-2740, Telefax +49 (0)89 2180-17845, email [email protected] Editor: Clemens Fuest www.cesifo-group.org/wp An electronic version of the paper may be downloaded · from the SSRN website: www.SSRN.com · from the RePEc website: www.RePEc.org · from the CESifo website: www.CESifo-group.org/wp CESifo Working Paper No. 8056 Mergers in the Digital Economy Abstract Over the period 2015-2017, the five giant technologically leading firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft (GAFAM) acquired 175 companies, from small start-ups to billion dollar deals. By investigating this intense M&A, this paper ambitions a better understanding of the Big Five’s strategies. To do so, we identify 6 different user groups gravitating around these multi-sided companies along with each company’s most important market segments. We then track their mergers and acquisitions and match them with the segments. This exercise shows that these five firms use M&A activity mostly to strengthen their core market segments but rarely to expand their activities into new ones. Furthermore, most of the acquired products are shut down post acquisition, which suggests that GAFAM mainly acquire firm’s assets (functionality, technology, talent or IP) to integrate them in their ecosystem rather than the products and users themselves. -
(SOC) 3 Report on the Google Cloud Platform System Relevant To
System and Organization Controls (SOC) 3 Report on the Google Cloud Platform System Relevant to Security, Availability, and Confidentiality For the Period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019 Google LLC 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA, 94043 650 253-0000 main Google.com Management’s Report of its Assertion on the Effectiveness of Its Controls Over the Google Cloud Platform System Based on the Trust Services Criteria for Security, Availability, and Confidentiality We, as management of, Google LLC (“Google” or “the Company”) are responsible for: · Identifying the Google Cloud Platform System (System) and describing the boundaries of the System, which are presented in Attachment A · Identifying our principal service commitments and system requirements · Identifying the risks that would threaten the achievement of its principal service commitments and system requirements that are the objectives of our system, which are presented in Attachment B · Identifying, designing, implementing, operating, and monitoring effective controls over the System to mitigate risks that threaten the achievement of the principal service commitments and system requirement · Selecting the trust services categories that are the basis of our assertion We assert that the controls over the system were effective throughout the period 1 May 2018 to 30 April 2019, to provide reasonable assurance that the principal service commitments and system requirements were achieved based on the criteria relevant to security, availability, and confidentiality set forth in the AICPA’s -
Median Ltm Ebitda Multiples – Saas & Cloud 130
SAAS & CLOUD M&A AND VALUATION UPDATE Q3 2017 BOSTON CHICAGO LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK ORANGE COUNTY PHILADELPHIA SAN DIEGO SILICON VALLEY TAMPA CONTENTS Section Page Introduction ▪ Research Coverage: SaaS & Cloud 3 ▪ Key Takeaways 4-5 M&A Activity & Multiples ▪ M&A Dollar Volume 7 ▪ M&A Transaction Volume 8-10 ▪ LTM Revenue Multiples 11-12 ▪ Revenue Multiples by Segment 13 ▪ Highest Revenue Multiple Transaction for LTM 14 ▪ Notable M&A Transactions 15 ▪ Most Active Buyers 16-17 Public Company Valuation & Operating Metrics ▪ SaaS & Cloud 130 Public Company Universe 19-20 ▪ Recent IPOs 21-32 ▪ Stock Price Performance 33 ▪ LTM Revenue, EBITDA & P/E Multiples 34-36 ▪ Revenue, EBITDA & EPS Growth 37-39 ▪ Margin Analysis 40-41 ▪ Best / Worst Performers 42-43 Notable Transaction Profiles 44-53 Public Company Trading & Operating Metrics 54-61 Technology & Telecom Team 62 1 INTRODUCTION RESEARCH COVERAGE: SAAS & CLOUD Capstone’s Technology & Telecom Group focuses its research efforts on the follow market segments: ENTERPRISE SAAS & MOBILE & WIRELESS CONSUMER INTERNET CLOUD • Analytics / Business Intelligence • Cloud & IT Infrastructure • Cloud Computing / Storage • Communication & Collaboration • Content Creation & Management • CRM & Customer Services • ERP, Supply Chain & Commerce CONSUMER IT & E-COMMERCE • Finance & Administration TELECOM HARDWARE • Human Resources • Marketing & Advertising • Software Conglomerates • Vertical Markets 3 KEY TAKEAWAYS – M&A ACTIVITY & MULTIPLES LTM M&A dollar volume decreased significantly to $60.9B -
Google Cloud Platform Special Interest Group
Google Cloud Platform Special Interest Group PRESENTED BY: Internet2 GCP Service Validation Team © 2018 Internet2 Optional Table of Contents slide PRESENTATION TITLE (remember to remove this tip before presenting) TABLE OF CONTENTS • Topic 1 • Topic 2 • Topic 3 I 2 I Internet2 GCP Service Validation (Leads) Team • Michigan State (Chair) • Justin Booth and Brendan Guenther • Indiana University • Bob Flynn • WUSTL • John Bailey • University of Washington • Erik Lundberg • Boston University • Gerard Shockley • University of Chicago • Oren Sreebny • Staff: Emma Fish (Google), Sara Jeanes (Internet2) + 75 other members of the team across six Validation Team I 3 I NET+ Service Validation Components ● Functional Assessment ● Business ● Review features and ● Legal: customized agreement functionality using NET+ community ● Tune service for research and contract templates education community ● Business model ● Technical Integration ● Define pricing and value ● Network proposition ● Identity ● Deployment ● Security and Compliance ● Documentation ● Security assessment: CAIQ ● Use cases ● FERPA, HIPAA ● Support model I 4 I Pre-Validation Offering - Overview • Now Available • Open to Internet2 Members • Includes Data Egress Discount • Standard GCP Terms - BAA and FERPA language available • First phase onboarding, reporting, and chargeback framework with Carahsoft • Support for NSF BIGDATA credits via approved reseller • 300Gb/s of Internet2 Cloud Exchange (formerly TR-CPS) peering internet2.edu/gcp or [email protected] I 5 I Pre-Validation -
Merger Policy in Digital Markets: an Ex Post Assessment 3 Study Is to Undertake a Less Common Form of Ex Post Assessment
Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 00(00), 1–46 doi: 10.1093/joclec/nhaa020 MERGER POLICY IN DIGITAL MARKETS: AN EX Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcle/advance-article/doi/10.1093/joclec/nhaa020/5874037 by guest on 18 December 2020 POST ASSESSMENT† Elena Argentesi,∗Paolo Buccirossi,†Emilio Calvano,‡ Tomaso Duso,§,∗ & Alessia Marrazzo,¶ & Salvatore Nava† ABSTRACT This paper presents a broad retrospective evaluation of mergers and merger decisions in markets dominated by multisided digital platforms. First, we doc- ument almost 300 acquisitions carried out by three major tech companies— Amazon, Facebook, and Google—between 2008 and 2018. We cluster target companies on their area of economic activity providing suggestive evidence on the strategies behind these mergers. Second, we discuss the features of digital markets that create new challenges for competition policy. By using relevant case studies as illustrative examples, we discuss theories of harm that have been used or, alternatively, could have been formulated by authorities in these cases. Finally, we retrospectively examine two important merger cases, Facebook/Instagram and Google/Waze, providing a systematic assessment of the theories of harm considered by the UK competition authorities as well as evidence on the evolution of the market after the transactions were approved. We discuss whether the competition authority performed complete and careful analyses to foresee the competitive consequences of the investigated mergers and whether a more effective merger control regime can be achieved within the current legal framework. JEL codes: L4; K21 ∗ Department of Economics, University of Bologna † Lear, Rome ‡ Department of Economics, University of Bologna, Toulouse School of Economics and CEPR, London § Deutsches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), Department of Economics, Tech- nical University (TU) Berlin, CEPR, London and CESifo, Munich ¶ Lear, Rome and Department of Economics, University of Bologna ∗ Corresponding author. -
D7.1 Demonstrators Sites Preparation Report V1
DELIVERABLE D7.1 – Demonstrators Sites Preparation Report This document is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 766994. It is the property of the PROPHESY consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the PROPHESY Project Coordination Committee. D7.1 – Demonstrators Sites Preparation Report Final – v1.0, 30/06/2018 Project Acronym: PROPHESY Grant Agreement number: 766994 (H2020-IND-CE-2016-17/H2020-FOF-2017) Project Full Title: Platform for rapid deployment of self-configuring and optimized predictive maintenance services Project Coordinator: INTRASOFT International SA DELIVERABLE D7.1 – Demonstrators Sites Preparation Report Dissemination level CO – Confidential Type of Document (R) Report Contractual date of delivery M9, 06/30/2018 Deliverable Leader MMS Status - version, date Draft WP / Task responsible WP7.1 Keywords: Demonstrator, Preparation, JLR, PHI Dissemination level: CO Page 2 D7.1 – Demonstrators Sites Preparation Report Final – v1.0, 30/06/2018 Executive Summary This report specifies the preparation report for two complex demonstrators and is related to the Deliverable 2.4 in M8. While the Deliverable 2.4 is more related to the WHAT and WHY, this document is more related the HOW is involved in the two complex demonstrators, which prepare the execution of the PROPHESY solutions at two different locations and industries: • Jaguar Land Rover, Wolverhampton, UK, representing Automotive Industry • Philips, Drachten, Netherlands, representing Health care This deliverable concludes the ongoing work and results of Task 7.1, which will ensure the proper planning of the complex demonstrators, including the readiness of the factories and pilot sites where the solutions will be deployed and operated. -
Mergers in the Digital Economy
3136 REPRINT Axel Gautier, Lamesch Joé Mergers in the Digital Economy Information Economics and Policy CORE Voie du Roman Pays 34, L1.03.01 B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Tel (32 10) 47 43 04 Email:[email protected] https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ lidam/core/reprints.html Mergers in the Digital Economy∗ Axel Gautier y& Joe Lamesch z June 2, 2020 Abstract Over the period 2015-2017, the five giant technologically leading firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft (GAFAM) acquired 175 companies, from small startups to billion dollar deals. In this paper, we provide detailed information and statistics on the merger activity of the GAFAM and on the characteristics of the firms they acquire. One of the most intriguing features of these acquisitions is that, in the majority of cases, the product of the target is discontinued under its original brand name post acquisition and this is especially true for the youngest firms. There are three reasons to discontinue a product post acquisition: the product is not as successful as expected, the acquisition was not motivated by the product itself but by the target's assets or R&D effort, or by the elimination of a potential competitive threat. While our data does not enable us to screen between these explanations, the present analysis shows that most of the startups are killed in their infancy. This important phenomenon calls for tighter intervention by competition authorities in merger cases involving big techs. Keywords: Mergers, GAFAM, platform, digital markets, competition policy, killer acquisition JEL Codes: D43, K21, L40, L86, G34 ∗The authors would like to thank P.