cool logo.

Is the UI too noisy? Will we all spend our life in the 'stream'?

thx to @eliad

Yet another example why a name IS important for the brand.

Why underdogs should take more chances Matt May 27

22 comments Latest by Wim

In an email exchange with Malcolm Gladwell, ESPN’s Bill Simmons wonders why NBA teams rarely, if ever, take chances — specifically: Why don’t more underdogs try full court pressing opponents? The conversation then extends to the NFL too.

Gladwell’s response:

Is there any other industry in the world (well, outside of Detroit) so terrified of innovation? I went to see a Lakers-Warriors game earlier this season, and it was abundantly clear after five minutes that the Warriors’ chances of winning were, oh, no better than 10 percent. Why wouldn’t you have a special squad of trained pressers come in for five minutes a half and press Kobe and Fisher? Worst-case scenario is that you exhaust Kobe, and make him a bit more vulnerable down the stretch. Best case is that you rattle the Lakers and force a half-dozen extra turnovers that turn out to be crucial. And if you lose, so what? You were going to lose anyway…

I feel the same way about the attitude of professional football teams toward the no-huddle offense. Right now, great teams (such as the Colts and Patriots) use the no-huddle selectively, as a way to maximize their dominance. But why don’t bad teams use it? If you were the Lions, why not run the no-huddle this season? Why not put together a lighter, better-conditioned offensive line and a radically simplified playbook and see what happens? It’s not as if you are risking a Super Bowl if it backfires. Your offensive line is lousy anyway, so there’s no harm in tearing it down, and your fans aren’t going to turn on you if you get killed while you work out the kinks. Last I checked, your fans have already turned on you. On the plus side, maybe the no-huddle exhausts the other team’s defense so much you slow down their pass rush in the second half. And maybe giving your quarterback a bit more autonomy helps develop his knowledge of the game, and his leadership skills.

The consistent failure of underdogs in professional sports to even try something new suggests, to me, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the incentive structure of the leagues.

Obvious parallels to the business world here too. (“No one ever got fired for buying IBM” anyone?) Sometimes the riskiest thing to do is not take any risks. If you’re outmatched by the competition, isn’t it silly not to take a chance? If you’re an underdog in your niche, the Warriors or the Lions of your industry, playing it safe and imitating the established players will probably doom you to failure.

One or two-person businesses that think they need to follow “common sense” advice that’s worked for the big guys are missing the point. When you’re small and risking less, you don’t need a business plan. You don’t need a board of directors. You don’t need to study the techniques of Fortune 500 CEOs. You don’t need to know Six Sigma ideas. The strategy that’s right for heavyweights has nothing to do with how welterweights should fight.

Related pieces on underdogs who use innovation to compete: “How David Beats Goliath” is Gladwell’s piece in the New Yorker about the topic. Michael Lewis wrote about the unorthodox success of Texas Tech’s football team in “Coach Leach Goes Deep, Very Deep” [NY Times]. When Texas Tech reached the No. 2 ranking in college football last year, Lewis followed up with a piece that discussed how Leach knew he had to be different to have a chance.

To appreciate what he’s done you have to appreciate how hard it is to get players—he gets third or fourth bite of apple down there. He’s working with everyone else’s rejects. Generally, he’s doing so much more with so much less.

Lewis also covered similar ground in Moneyball, which analyzed the Oakland A’s success despite its limited payroll.

Very interesting read.

"Just Do It" attitude.

AdventNet Inc is now ZOHO Corporation

May 27 2009 06:08:10 AM Posted By : Raju Vegesna

Comments (0)

Back in 1996, we started AdventNet (Zoho's parent company) with a focus on Network Management. In the past 13 years, the company has grown significantly serving multiple markets and employing about 1000 people globally.

Today, we are announcing the name change for our parent company from AdventNet Inc to ZOHO Corporation. This name change represents the evolution of the company. Zoho Corp will have three divisions, each focusing on different market segments.

• Zoho.com - The division focused on Online Business, Productivity & Collaboration Applications
• ManageEngine - The division focused on Enterprise IT Management and
• WebNMS - The division focused on the needs of OEMs.

In fact, these three brands/divisions represent three different phases of the company. In 1996, we started serving the needs of OEMs; We evolved by offering installable products for Enterprise IT Management. We currently serve over 40K customers under our ManageEngine brand. We then evolved from products to SaaS, with Zoho to serve a bigger and broader market. As we bootstrapped our way from platforms to end products to Online Apps, the focus has always been on building a strong business by serving the customers well. Thanks to the continued support of our customers, we continue to remain private & continuously profitable for the past 13 years with no external funding.

Zoho Corp (formerly AdventNet Inc) will continue to operate with its headquarters in Pleasanton, CA with offices in Austin and New Jersey. Zoho Corp also has offices in India, Japan, China and UK.

While the AdventNet name will be retired, we will continue to operate under the same guiding and customer-honoring principles that brought the company to prominence. We'd like to thank you all for your continued support over the years and we hope you'll let us serve you in years to come.