Showing results 1 to 20 of 29

dotConnect for Salesforce

dotConnect for Salesforce is an ADO.NET provider for accessing data of the cloud CRM and cloud database...

July 19, 2013 By Devart

dotConnect for Salesforce SSIS

dotConnect for Salesforce SSIS (includes only SSIS DataFlow components) is an ADO.NET provider for accessing data of the

May 30, 2013 By Devart

Salesforce raises $1 billion, builds cash hoard

Salesforce said it will use the proceeds for "general corporate purposes, including funding possible acquisitions of, or investments in, complementary businesses, services or technologies, working capital and capital expenditures."

March 11, 2013

Cloud vendors: Who's cloud washing?

Amazon Web Services and its EC2 will remain dominant. Salesforce also leads as the rest of the field plays catch up to some degree.

October 26, 2012 is a leader in pay-as-you-go enterprise cloud computing. It specializes in CRM software products for sales and customer services - and produces products for building and running business apps. Salesforce has recently developed a social networking product called Chatter for its business apps.

October 7, 2010 by

Salesforce rolling out a beefier Service Cloud

Salesforce on Wednesday will announce an upgrade to the Service Cloud offering it unveiled back in January, incorporating enhancements to its social networking tools and announcing plans for the rollout of a Knowledge-as-a-Service offering and crowd-sourcing Answers product.The company boasts that it has been growing at a time when many other companies are downsizing and they attribute it to the demand for cloud services that allow business customers to do more with less.

September 8, 2009 by

Run by Wall Street? A Cause or a Company?

In light of the Yahoo! - Microsoft fiasco, fellow bloggers Larry Dignan and Vinnie Mirchandani havebeen asking the question whether there is too much emphasis on just onestakeholder - the shareholder. After all, shouldn't a technologycompany (or any company for that matter) be equally focused on thevalue for customers, partners and employees.I believe that the real problem is not that of prioritization of stakeholders but a more fundamental issue: Does your company stand for something?Larry and Vinnie discussed the following in a recent conversation: Technology companies cater to Wall Street interests too much often at the expense of good strategy. Isn’t what a company does for customers and developers more important than shareholder interests? What’s wrong with being a mid-size technology company if customers and employees are happy and the products–software, hardware, services–fit a need? There’s nothing wrong with it, but Wall Street would lead folks to believe that any company that isn’t acquired by Oracle isn’t worth existing. And why are we listening to Wall Street at all given that analysts, investment bankers and other financial wonks can’t even manage their own businesses (subslime, credit swaps, write-offs galore)?Evenas I do agree that the recent focus on shareholder's (short-term)returns is probably misplaced, the real problem is elsewhere.What Does The Company Stand For?Theproblem with Yahoo! is not just its mediocre financial performancecompared to its more successful cousin in Mountain View - Google, butthat Yahoo! does not seem to stand for anything and rarely arouses anypassion amongst customers, employees or partners. Its a listlessorganization that seems to be going through the motions - see this excellent post by Jeff Nolan.Marc Andreesen recently wrote up an article praising dual-class structureto help management teams prevent hostile takeovers. I believe this isthe wrong remedy - its a cure for a disease that should be prevented inthe first place: A lack of clear vision around what a company is tryingto achieve.A company (and its management team) deserve to beindependent as long as they inspire confidence among investors,employees, parters and customers that the company has a vision that itaspires to that the stakeholders can commit to.After all, whatdoes Yahoo! stand for? A hodge podge of websites relating toentertainment, communication, search etc with no grand vision ofchanging our (digital) lives. There are hundreds of smaller companiesthat are not under any duress to be acquired because their managementteams inspire confidence around a vision.Here is a list ofcompanies that I don't know what they stand for, and hence will nothave shareholders clamoring to keep them independent if the rightopportunity came along: BEA (Sold) Yahoo! Tibco WebMethods (Sold) IAC (Bought/Sold/Consolidated/Unbundled)Contrast this with list with: (Changing the enterprise software world; See my disclaimer) Google (Organizing World's Information) Amazon (Changed Retail, Now Web Services) COST (Concur, Omniture, Salesforce and Taleo - the SaaS horsemen, per Phil Wainewright)Thesame holds true beyond technology businesses - if your company does notstand for something bigger than management's entrenched interests andegos, its not very likely to inspire shareholders to forgo a 50%overnight return. There is a storyof two labourers working at a construction site, breaking stones. Apasser-by asked one labourer what he was doing. “Breaking stones”, wasthe bored reply. A few yards down the road the traveller came acrossthe other labourer. This worker was different; there was a spring inhis steps and a tune on his lips. So the passer-by asked, “What are youdoing?” “Oh, I am helping Christopher Wren to build the greatestcathedral in the world.” The vision of the great architect, SirChristopher Wren, of building a cathedral that was to be the pride ofEngland, gave meaning to the labourer’s work.So, the questionis: Do your stakeholders see your company as a stone-breaking ventureor as a company that's building a Cathedral?

May 16, 2008 by

The best of ZDNet, delivered

You have been successfully signed up. To sign up for more newsletters or to manage your account, visit the Newsletter Subscription Center.
Subscription failed.

Top Stories