Here is a partnership opportunity that just opened at Sampa....
Do you want to be a key developer behind an up and coming Seattle-based Web 2.0 startup that has a unique angle on the latest Internet fire hose of user generated content? Join Sampa as a Sr. Engineer. The ideal person will be an energetic, risk seeking, experienced developer that has a proven track record of building great software experience. You will be responsible for designing, implementing, testing and releasing key elements of the Sampa architecture, including high performance/scalability/availability server side .NET systems, cross-browser AJAX and UI components and more, using a broad range of technologies. You should have deep experience with .NET, C# and networking. Knowledge of DHTML, JavaScript and SQL is a plus. You'll be a member of an energetic and passionate team trying to change the way everyday people express themselves on the web. We are looking for a team player who is driven to make a difference and willing to take the risk to earn the rewards that come with it. Send your resume to jobs@sampa.com and see if *you* can make a *real* difference to millions of users.
This is a funny coincidence (since I'm not a visionary), but it goes like this...
Last week, I was having lunch with Dottie Hall, a Sr. Marketing executive with many years on the software space. At one point she asked me which software companies would I consider to be successful. No doubt in my mind: Adobe.
Adobe has been a consistent software company, and that alone puts it ahead of the pack. Can you call Microsoft, Oracle or SAP consistent? Hardly. Software development has inconsistent cycles, inconsistent quality levels, inconsistent user experience, but not Adobe. It delivers all its line of products on a regular basis, each one building on the previous experience and extending it, at the same time maintaining a reasonable quality level.
Then, Dottie asked me what could Adobe do to jeopardize its position.
I reasoned: When software companies collapse, fail or become irrelevant is usually because of misguided directions from management. Usually big shifts in direction, either because of research risk (too complex) or execution risk (too different).
So, for me, the obvious answer to how could Adobe jeopardize their position was to become a service company, as in "software as a service" or "hosted services".
Do I think they will be dead in 5 years? Not really, but they are moving into uncharted territory for them. Even if they are the smartest people on the planet the risks are tremendous, from cannibalization of their product line to bottomless bugdet pits to make the service work.
Subscribe to this Site
and see if *you* can make a *real* difference to millions of users. 
January, 2008