They Forgot to Ask, Why? And Went Right to, How?
It seems as if these DCA technologies are more intent on HOW! They are all trying to collect data and manage print equipment better. But unfortunately, these DCA technologies are forgetting the essential component of innovation. Why is their product so valuable? I will add - for how long?
Recently I heard someone define DCA as end-user customers,
Don’t Care At all. That definition sums up my thinking.
My concern is that dealers are funding these DCA IoT platforms, which seem to be construction projects for HP. And we all know how much HP loves data! So how will DCA technologies Amplify HPs Data grab?
OK, I get it. These DCA software companies are now calling themselves IoT companies. But unfortunately, they seem to struggle to define precisely what IoT means to helping print dealers transition.
All the arguments they have for dealers to use their DCA instead of the one they have. Are based on How - Theirs is better for the dealer because of this or that. My argument - is. This or that is not important enough for any dealer to replace a tool which every day becomes less important.
So, if the goal of these investment groups is to take a DCA tool built to manage print and create a new tool capable of replacing one of the many RMM tools or asset management tools of which many are funded with hundreds of millions of dollars, I think they all better start asking WHY?
Here’s my thinking:
12-year-old DCA companies being gobbled up by investment firms or distributors, as we saw with EKM earlier this year, seem to be on a mission to help HP, the most overreaching OEM in the channel, have software that will help control all the supplies going into HP devices.
Both EKM and MPS Monitor brag about their relationships with HP. My question is, what would their actual revenues be without HP?
Dealers should demand more information regarding these DCA companies before they jump onto platforms. As I said in the videos, if MPS Monitor or EKM were successful players before they were gobbled up, I believe they would have bragged about it.
Oh, and bragging about the growth of adding devices to the platform is irrelevant if there was insufficient profit. Or if all the increase was from HP. I am not sure dealers are too excited about helping HP grow in having control of the marketplace’s printers or the supplies that go into them.
In Closing: For those interested, I reached out to Nicola De Blasi of MPS Monitor; as he requested in the comments of Wednesday’s episode, he has since declined to talk.
Hopefully, dealers demand the answers and ask more questions before they switch based on this or that feature to manage print. Remember, dreams are not innovation.
Ray Stasieczko
Leave a comment
Comments will be approved before showing up.
Also in Ray's Hot Topics
The End Of The Day With Ray! Let's Discuss FUJIFILM, The Xerox Relationship, The Spin Off & More
As Fujifilm announces the spinning off of Business Innovation will the decisions regarding Fujifilm attempting to replace Xerox their largest distribution to end-users prove to be a case of arrogance over common sense? In this episode I share some number realities as a comparison in the industrial print space and business printing. I still see RICOH/ETRIA as the best scenario for absorbing Fujifilm Business Innovation. As Printing United Begins Next Week, I wanted to look at the the industrial print numbers regarding Konica Minolta, Brother, Ricoh, and KODAK also cause a question, what is the industrial print business revenues at Fujifilm? Interesting times take boldness and action. I believe Fujifilm OVER-estimated their abilities to circumvent the Xerox end user distribution as over the last few years it sure seemed a very slow and clumsy attempt . Spinning Off Business Innovation Is The Right Decision. Now it is just a matter of how they do it.
ray stasieczko
Author