CloudBees and Stax - Why?

There are going to be many companies in the Platform as a Service space. In spite of (now two in the past two months) acquisitions, it will take us a long time to get bigger than VMWare, Salesforce and Red Hat. But what we can do is be the innovation leader in PaaS.

There are two ways we will become the innovation leader:
1. Really smart people.
2. Get stuff done.

Spike and Garrett are the leads that join us from Stax. They saw the vision of PaaS back in 2007, and have been building a great, rock solid platform the past three years. Their deep background in middleware and data service layers enabled them to see the opportunity and pitfalls and challenges. And while they have a few arrows in their backs from the early leadership they have shown, they are even smarter from the experience. They join a "rock star" team that includes KK, Michael, Vivek, Ryan, Adrian, Caleb, Fabian and others who are all just very bright.

So we probably have the highest concentration of top talent that I have seen. The cool thing is they all get stuff done. They are all known for being able to get software out the door in a way that users find simple to use, secure and reliable.

The amount of complementary technology between the Stax and CloudBees PaaS is staggering. Stax brings the experience of having a PaaS that that thousands of applications have been deployed on with high transaction volume (over 5,000 transactions per minute in one of the iPhone apps that runs there). The CloudBees PaaS has been running under the DEV@cloud Beta program since August. We have over 300 beta users who have logged over 300,000 build minutes. We have had customers dynamically scale over 50 build agents on demand.

Quite simply, the combined PaaS will have more features, more coverage, more scalability, mo reliability, and more security than any other PaaS in the marketplace today.

Really Smart People + Getting Stuff Done = Innovation the market can use.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ringside Winding Down

A year ago, a group of us met in a pizza parlor to discuss how we could bring the social web to every website and business. In January, we launched Ringside Networks with seed funding from Matrix Partners, one of the best VC firms in the country. By the end of March we released into open source an initial beta of our Social Application Server – a very ambitious project. We got some very positive reviews on our approach, our implementation and the need in the marketplace for every website to become social. We were ready for our Series A round of funding, and in late May we received a number of term sheet offers from the very best VC firms. As we were about to finalize our funding, one of the biggest non-evil Internet companies asked if we would have interest in being acquired instead. After a lot of thought and debate, we decided that the larger company would enable us to get our technology to market sooner and with more impact. The story sounds almost too good to be true. And it w...
Read more

Capitalism vs. the Three Legged Stool

Image
Wikipedia defines: " Capitalism  is an  economic system  in which trade, industry and the  means of production  are controlled by private owners with the goal of making  profits  in a  market economy ." This definition has always bothered me. I prefer a different model where there is equal recognition of the three primary drivers behind the success of a company: Owners Employees Customers I like to think of it as a three legged stool, where each leg is as important as the other.  One gets too large or small and the stool tips over. The free market is supposed to take care of Employees and Customers.  Employees because the Owners will create so many jobs that due to supply and demand, employees will receive competitive pay.  Customers because if the owners are not building the right thing, then they can go elsewhere. As someone who has helped to build about 10 startup companies now, I have seen the power in mak...
Read more

Galbraith Revisited

Image
To follow up on my post from a while ago, Galbraith sited 5 key reasons for the 1929 crash and following depression: 1. The bad distribution of income. 2. The bad corporate structure. 3. The bad banking structure. 4. The dubious state of the foreign balance. 5. The poor state of economic intelligence. To compare this to today: 1. Bad income distribution. 1929 - Top 5% received about 33% of all personal income. 1929 - Top 1% held 44% of all wealth. 2000 - Top 1% received about 20% of all personal income. 2004 - Top 1% held 34% of all wealth. Here is a picture of the real income gains between 1979 and 2005 by percentage. It is clear that the top income groups are gaining ground faster than lower income groups - creating an income distribution that approaches 1929. 2. Bad corporate structure. In the 1929 era there had been a large rise in a "vast structure of holding companies and investment trusts... In particular the dividends from the operating companies paid the interest on t...
Read more