With each new milestone in technological evolution we've seen a company emerge as the clear leader. In the current landscape, we observe this happening in several key parts of the marketplace including networking, search and operating systems.

Cloud computing is a new disruptive force that makes us ask the question whether we'll see the future of the cloud dominated by a single company. In this multi-part series, we'll take a look at a handful companies and envision what the world might look like, if, in fact, they win it all. We'll also analyze what it will take for a new company to rise up and claim the leadership role in this chapter of computing.

Sponsor

Dominance Happens: A Bit of Recent History

There has been a love/hate relationship with companies that dominate markets. On one hand, it's us consumers that make it happen. But when they become giants we cheer as governement regulators and competitors knock them down.

Microsoft has faced this issue perhaps more than any company in the past few decades. When the browser battles were in full swing in the late 1990s, Microsoft was taken to court by the Department of Justice for antitrust violations.

In this note released in 2000 - Technology, Market Changes, and Antitrust Enforcement -Microsoft evaluated the idea of whether it was consistent with public welfare for a company to "win" a technology market, and what it means to have a network effect in technology.

Microsoft makes the point that no technology company will hold a dominant position for long if it doesn't innovate and expand the market definition. Additionally, if a company doesn't find the right balance of trust and pricing between its customers new technologies will find a way into the market and cause customers to defect.

Point: A Dominant Vendor Will Emerge in the Cloud

Taking these factors into consideration, we believe there are several points that can support the argument that a dominant player in cloud computing in the future. Due to the nature of market forces a single vendor will emerge as the clear leader in offering cloud solutions.

• First mover advantage: We're already seeing amazing things happen at first-movers like Amazon that are defining product and pricing. This gives them an advantage in fueling further growth and by learning and iterating the solutions in the market. Being first in an infrastructure-driven business will help them reach scale that others just can not reach easily - and potentially price it where others can't match.
• Vendor lock: Once you get started with an infrastructure provider it becomes interwoven into business operations. By the current nature of the cloud (e.g. little standards, a lot of innovation) being first with leading solutions adds more momentum to the first-mover that wins strategic customers.
• Strategic synergies: When we look at the combination of cloud computing and collaboration, we see a natural fit in services that meet more needs and take more market share. It may just work out that bundling works also in the cloud and creates the network effect that Microsoft is famous for. Cisco is also partnering across the landscape, with a focus on preparing the network for the cloud. By making it easier to manage your cloud with Cisco gear, it will provide IT leaders a reason to expand their relationships today, and stay tomorrow.
• Acquisitions and Partnerships: Companies that buy their way into the market will be a big factor in putting momentum behind their offerings. Companies to watch: VMware, Cisco, Oracle. These companies are already showing that the race is on to win the cloud through aggregation of capabilities. Cisco has a blog dedicated to Cloud Computing, Oracle is going on tour sharing its ambitions for the cloud

Counterpoint: A Dominant Company Will Not Emerge in the Cloud

Perhaps no single organization will have the ability to create a dominant foundation in cloud computing. Instead, we'll see many types of solutions as equal peers in the market.

In a way, this runs against the grain of existing technology landscape and our history with successful innovations. Maybe that is why we love the idea of the cloud itself?

• It's too big to own: One big reason to doubt a single dominant force in the cloud is that it feels like owning the Internet. Even Cisco with its strengths can't make such a claim. Perhaps the cloud is the perfect market, where the barriers of entry are low enough that continual evolution will occur.
• It's a movement, not a layer: Another argument against the cloud having a dominant player is its fuzzy definition. There are many parts and pieces to it, and it's not clear today what it would mean to "win" the cloud computing market.
• Portability will keep vendors in check: If customers demand solutions where they can move from vendor to vendor freely, it will impact the landscape. Companies with cloud solutions in the marketplace could be required by these customers to remove barriers to moving data and services between different entities. Additionally, standards and best practices may emerge that allow companies and individuals to move freely between providers. In this world, it will become a fluid market that prevents vendor lock and promotes pricing and trust as brand differentiators.

A Glimpse at Potential Futures

We've compiled a list of companies worth reviewing as candidates as possible dominant players in cloud computing. We'll be looking at their brand and the available assets that could be leveraged to achieve this position. Finally, we'll take a fresh look at what it might feel like if they succeed and shape the brave new world of cloud computing.

The list of candidates we're analyzing includes: Google, Microsoft, Apple, VMware, IBM, HP, Cisco, Amazon, Salesforce, Facebook, and our favorite, Insert new startup to our list by adding a comment below.

Please let us know what you hopes and fears are with the cloud computing marketplace. Any companies we should we add to our list (or remove)? What's your take: Is there one company today that is best positioned to win the cloud?

Photo credit: reddodo & savingfutures

Verizon said Tuesday that its two Droid cellphones sold well in the fourth quarter and that it feels confident about its network as it rolls out more smart phones and other data-intensive devices.

On a conference call with analysts, John Killian, Verizon's finance chief, called the Droid extremely well-received and said that both the Motorola Droid, the HTC Droid Eris and the BlackBerry Storm 2, all of which were introduced during the quarter, were strong sellers.

The telecommunications provider declined to say whether its advertising, which pokes at AT&T's network, made inroads on the rival carrier's subscriber base. Mr. Killian said that porting from other carriers improved overall and that the company was pleased with its performance.

Verizon didn't give any hints as to whether it expects to carry Apple's iPhone something it has indicated interest in even as Droid ads occasionally teased the device's image.

But following a question by Oppenheimer's Tim Horan, who said, The iPhone and high-end smart phones have been taking down networks all over the place and impacting margins how do you avoid that from happening to you? Verizon's chief executive, Ivan Seidenberg, said the company is confident in its infrastructure.

To the extent that usage picks up, I think our guys have done a very good job in making sure that we stay in front of that issue, Mr. Seidenberg said. And I know most investors are worried about that. But over the course of the last 10 years, this is what we pride ourselves on doing. So I'm comfortable that we are in good shape on this.

AOL, rather than fixating on building business and staying relevant post Time-Warner, is suing search and display platform provider Advertise.com for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Furthermore, the company is also partly responsible for the near-done sale of the domain name Ad.com for a reported $1.4 million falling through, leading to the seller of the domain name subsequently suing the buying party, says DomainNameWire.

But first lawsuits first.

Advertise.com, which was purchased by ABCsearch.com earlier this year and rebranded as such a few months ago, is a variation on AOL-owned Advertising.com, the beleaguered Internet company claims. In legalese, that translates as follows:

Advertise.com recently commenced use of the virtually identical and confusingly similar designation Advertise.com and design in connection with the same and complimentary services as those offered by Plaintiffs under their federally-registered Advertising.com name and marks and their Ad.com name and marks.

Update: looks like Advertise.com sued AOL first (August 17, 2009)

A search of the USPTO database shows that AOL does in fact have three registered trademarks for Advertising.com, but all are design trademarks, which means they stand little chance of exercising trademark rights over something as generic as the domain name advertise.com. Granted, the logo looks vaguely similar, but virtually identical and confusing' it ain't.

Note that AOL doesn't even effectively market Advertising.com as a business unit anymore - although it may soon recommence doing just that - and redirects the domain name to its Platform-A website instead (AOL rebranded it to the name of this whole-owned subsidiary in April last year and now prefers AOL Advertising as the overarching denominator).

So why would anyone confuse Advertise.com for an AOL property? It just doesn't make any sense to try and claim ownership over any domain name with a variation on the word advertising' in it. What's next? Ads.com? Advertisement.com? In the court documents, embedded below, AOL even boasts the fact that Advertise.com has only about 25,000 unique visitors per month, so what's really at stake here?

The second case is even more bizarre: although often used in its communication, Ad.com is apparently not a trademark owned by AOL, although the company has filed an application for it in the past. But that domain name is actually owned by a Marcos Guillen, who recently sold it to Directi and Skenzo for $1.4 million. Well, almost sold it, because the deal fell through after all, according to industry watchers due to the fact that the mark has not yet acquired distinctiveness for any of the applicants - including AOL - following a recent examination. Guillen has now filed a lawsuit against Directi and Skenzo for backing out of its auction purchase of Ad.com, seeking $1.4 million, prejudgment interest, and/or damages according to proof.

Aol

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

NEW YORK A New York finance company that lent celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz $24 million has filed a lawsuit charging that she reneged on the deal.

Manhattan-based Art Capital Group says Leibovitz borrowed the money last year because she was in dire financial straits due to unpaid bills, mortgage payments and tax liens.

The breach of contract lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Manhattan state Supreme Court, says that in return Leibovitz granted Art Capital the right to sell all of her photographs, plus her homes in Manhattan and upstate New York.

The lawsuit says Leibovitz and her associates are now trying to ignore their obligations.

A spokesman for Leibovitz denies the allegations.

Matthew Hiltzik says the suit is part of Art Capital's "continued harassment."

WASHINGTON A North Carolina man and six others have been charged with conspiring to support terrorism by training and traveling overseas to participate in "violent jihad."

Daniel Boyd and half-dozen of his alleged recruits in the Raleigh, N.C. area were charged with providing material support to terrorism.

The Justice Department in Washington said Boyd, who is a U.S. citizen, trained in Afghanistan and fought there between 1989 and 1992 before returning to the United States.

Boyd and the other defendants were scheduled to appear in federal court in Raleigh.

A newly unsealed indictment charged that Boyd, also known as 'Saifullah,' encouraged others to engage in jihad.

Boyd allegedly traveled to Israel in 2007 with several of the defendants, hoping to engage in "violent jihad," according to the indictment. The attempt was unsuccessful, though, and the men returned home, officials said.

Boyd was also accused of trying to raise money last year to fund others' travel overseas to fight.

One of the men, Hysen Sharifi, allegedly went to Kosovo to engage in violent jihad, according to the indictment, but it's unclear if he did any actual fighting.

Several of the defendants, including Boyd, were also charged with practicing military tactics on a private property in Caswell, County, N.C. in June and July of this year.

NEW YORK (AP) -- A former New York City police sergeant shot in the back by a fellow officer during a drug bust has settled a lawsuit against the city for $3.25 million.

Retired NYPD sergeant Dexter Brown was shot in the 1998 incident and sued the city and police department. It was revealed recently in court papers that the shooter, Det. Luis Lopez, was assisting in the arrest at a Brooklyn crack house. The city Law Department says the shooting was accidental and did not admit wrongdoing.

Brown walks with a cane and suffers chronic pain from damage caused by the shooting. The 45-year-old is retired on disability and cannot work. Brown says he feels vindicated his story came out. The settlement was reached Monday, as the trial was to begin.

FREEPORT, N.Y. Most drivers who don't like their car either trade it in or sell it. Police on New York's Long Island said a teenager set his BMW on fire "simply because he hated the car." Nassau County police didn't offer additional details on the alleged motive.

Police say a surveillance camera recorded the 18-year-old torching the 1992 BMW on July 10. At the time, it was parked about 2 1/2 feet feet from his apartment building.

The defendant was awaiting a court appearance Friday in First District Court in Hempstead. The charges include arson and reckless endangerment.