a16z.com Open in urlscan Pro
141.193.213.21  Public Scan

Form analysis
3 forms found in the DOM

GET /

<form role="search" method="get" action="/">
  <button for="search">
    <span class="sr-only">search</span>
  </button>
  <input type="search" id="search" placeholder="Search" name="s" aria-label="search" autocomplete="false">
</form>

<form class="input-addon mktoForm mktoHasWidth mktoLayoutLeft" data-formid="1565" data-forminstance="subscribe-footer" target="_blank" id="" data-thankyou-message="#vlp-signup-ty-01" data-thankyou-container="#vlp-signup-form-01"
  novalidate="novalidate" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); width: 211px;">
  <style type="text/css">
    .mktoForm .mktoButtonWrap.mktoSimple .mktoButton {
      color: #fff;
      border: 1px solid #75ae4c;
      padding: 0.4em 1em;
      font-size: 1em;
      background-color: #99c47c;
      background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, from(#99c47c), to(#75ae4c));
      background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #99c47c, #75ae4c);
      background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #99c47c, #75ae4c);
      background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom, #99c47c, #75ae4c);
    }

    .mktoForm .mktoButtonWrap.mktoSimple .mktoButton:hover {
      border: 1px solid #447f19;
    }

    .mktoForm .mktoButtonWrap.mktoSimple .mktoButton:focus {
      outline: none;
      border: 1px solid #447f19;
    }

    .mktoForm .mktoButtonWrap.mktoSimple .mktoButton:active {
      background-color: #75ae4c;
      background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, from(#75ae4c), to(#99c47c));
      background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #75ae4c, #99c47c);
      background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #75ae4c, #99c47c);
      background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom, #75ae4c, #99c47c);
    }
  </style>
  <div class="mktoFormRow">
    <div class="mktoFieldDescriptor mktoFormCol" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">
      <div class="mktoOffset" style="width: 10px;"></div>
      <div class="mktoFieldWrap mktoRequiredField"><label for="Email_16741541686220.4363826093400991" id="LblEmail" class="mktoLabel mktoHasWidth" style="width: 100px;">
          <div class="mktoAsterix">*</div>
        </label>
        <div class="mktoGutter mktoHasWidth" style="width: 10px;"></div><input id="Email_16741541686220.4363826093400991" name="Email" placeholder="Email Address*" maxlength="255" aria-labelledby="LblEmail InstructEmail" type="email"
          class="mktoField mktoEmailField mktoHasWidth mktoRequired" aria-required="true" style="width: 430px;"><span id="InstructEmail" tabindex="-1" class="mktoInstruction"></span>
        <div class="mktoClear"></div>
      </div>
      <div class="mktoClear"></div>
    </div>
    <div class="mktoClear"></div>
  </div>
  <div class="mktoFormRow"><input type="hidden" name="subscribetoEnterpriseNewsletter" class="mktoField mktoFieldDescriptor mktoFormCol" value="yes" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">
    <div class="mktoClear"></div>
  </div>
  <div class="mktoButtonRow"><span class="mktoButtonWrap mktoSimple" style="margin-left: 120px;"><button type="submit" class="mktoButton" aria-label="Submit email and proceed to the next step"><img alt="" id="subscribeBtn-0"
          src="/wp-content/themes/a16z-2015/client/images/arrow-right.svg" class="subscribe-input__btn"></button></span></div><input type="hidden" name="formid" class="mktoField mktoFieldDescriptor" value="1565"><input type="hidden" name="munchkinId"
    class="mktoField mktoFieldDescriptor" value="382-JZB-798">
</form>

<form class="input-addon mktoForm mktoHasWidth mktoLayoutLeft" data-formid="1565" data-forminstance="subscribe-footer" target="_blank" data-thankyou-message="#vlp-signup-ty-01" data-thankyou-container="#vlp-signup-form-01" novalidate="novalidate"
  style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); visibility: hidden; position: absolute; top: -500px; left: -1000px; width: 1600px;"></form>

Text Content

Skip to content
It's time to build
Nav Opener
 * Portfolio
 * Team
 * Focus Areas
    * American Dynamism
    * Bio + Health
    * Cultural Leadership Fund
    * Consumer
    * Crypto
    * Enterprise
    * Fintech
    * Games
    * Growth
    * Talent x Opportunity

 * Content
   Topics
    * Bio + Health
    * Consumer
    * Creator Economy
    * Marketplaces
    * Gaming & Social
    * Fintech
    * Enterprise & SaaS
    * Security & Privacy
    * Cryptocurrencies & Blockchains
   
   Type
    * Articles
    * Video
    * Podcasts
    * Newsletters

 * About
 * Jobs
 * Newsletters

search
Close


THE COST OF CLOUD, A TRILLION DOLLAR PARADOX

by Sarah Wang and Martin Casado
 * cloud computing
 * enterprise & SaaS
 * networking
 * growth (late stage venture)
 * metrics
 * cloud infrastructure
 * trends 2021

 * Facebook
 * LinkedIn
 * Twitter

There is no doubt that the cloud is one of the most significant platform shifts
in the history of computing. Not only has cloud already impacted hundreds of
billions of dollars of IT spend, it’s still in early innings and growing rapidly
on a base of over $100B of annual public cloud spend. This shift is driven by an
incredibly powerful value proposition — infrastructure available immediately, at
exactly the scale needed by the business — driving efficiencies both in
operations and economics. The cloud also helps cultivate innovation as company
resources are freed up to focus on new products and growth.

source: Synergy Research Group

However, as industry experience with the cloud matures — and we see a more
complete picture of cloud lifecycle on a company’s economics — it’s becoming
evident that while cloud clearly delivers on its promise early on in a company’s
journey, the pressure it puts on margins can start to outweigh the benefits, as
a company scales and growth slows. Because this shift happens later in a
company’s life, it is difficult to reverse as it’s a result of years of
development focused on new features, and not infrastructure optimization. Hence
a rewrite or the significant restructuring needed to dramatically improve
efficiency can take years, and is often considered a non-starter.

Now, there is a growing awareness of the long-term cost implications of cloud.
As the cost of cloud starts to contribute significantly to the total cost of
revenue (COR) or cost of goods sold (COGS), some companies have taken the
dramatic step of “repatriating” the majority of workloads (as in the example of
Dropbox) or in other cases adopting a hybrid approach (as with CrowdStrike and
Zscaler). Those who have done this have reported significant cost savings: In
2017, Dropbox detailed in its S-1 a whopping $75M in cumulative savings over the
two years prior to IPO due to their infrastructure optimization overhaul, the
majority of which entailed repatriating workloads from public cloud.

Yet most companies find it hard to justify moving workloads off the cloud given
the sheer magnitude of such efforts, and quite frankly the dominant, somewhat
singular, industry narrative that “cloud is great”. (It is, but we need to
consider the broader impact, too.) Because when evaluated relative to the scale
of potentially lost market capitalization — which we present in this post — the
calculus changes. As growth (often) slows with scale, near term efficiency
becomes an increasingly key determinant of value in public markets. The excess
cost of cloud weighs heavily on market cap by driving lower profit margins.

The point of this post isn’t to argue for repatriation, though; that’s an
incredibly complex decision with broad implications that vary company by
company. Rather, we take an initial step in understanding just how much market
cap is being suppressed by the cloud, so we can help inform the decision-making
framework on managing infrastructure as companies scale.

To frame the discussion: We estimate the recaptured savings in the extreme case
of full repatriation, and use public data to pencil out the impact on share
price. We show (using relatively conservative assumptions!) that across 50 of
the top public software companies currently utilizing cloud infrastructure, an
estimated $100B of market value is being lost among them due to cloud impact on
margins — relative to running the infrastructure themselves. And while we focus
on software companies in our analysis, the impact of the cloud is by no means
limited to software. Extending this analysis to the broader universe of scale
public companies that stands to benefit from related savings, we estimate that
the total impact is potentially greater than $500B.

Our analysis highlights how much value can be gained through cloud optimization
— whether through system design and implementation, re-architecture, third-party
cloud efficiency solutions, or moving workloads to special purpose hardware.
This is a very counterintuitive assumption in the industry given prevailing
narratives around cloud vs. on-prem. However, it’s clear that when you factor in
the impact to market cap in addition to near term savings, scaling companies can
justify nearly any level of work that will help keep cloud costs low.


UNIT ECONOMICS OF CLOUD REPATRIATION: THE CASE OF DROPBOX, AND BEYOND

To dimensionalize the cost of cloud, and understand the magnitude of potential
savings from optimization, let’s start with a more extreme case of large scale
cloud repatriation: Dropbox. When the company embarked on its infrastructure
optimization initiative in 2016, they saved nearly $75M over two years by
shifting the majority of their workloads from public cloud to “lower cost,
custom-built infrastructure in co-location facilities” directly leased and
operated by Dropbox. Dropbox gross margins increased from 33% to 67%  from 2015
to 2017, which they noted was “primarily due to our Infrastructure Optimization
and an… increase in our revenue during the period.”

source: Dropbox S-1 filed February 2018

But that’s just Dropbox. So to help generalize the potential savings from cloud
repatriation to a broader set of companies, Thomas Dullien, former Google
engineer and co-founder of cloud computing optimization company Optimyze,
estimates that repatriating $100M of annual public cloud spend can translate to
roughly less than half that amount in all-in annual total cost of ownership
(TCO) — from server racks, real estate, and cooling to network and engineering
costs.

The exact savings obviously varies company, but several experts we spoke to
converged on this “formula”: Repatriation results in one-third to one-half the
cost of running equivalent workloads in the cloud. Furthermore, a director of
engineering at a large consumer internet company found that public cloud list
prices can be 10 to 12x the cost of running one’s own data centers. Discounts
driven by use-commitments and volume are common in the industry, and can bring
this multiple down to single digits, since cloud compute typically drops by
~30-50% with committed use. But AWS still operates at a roughly 30% blended
operating margin net of these discounts and an aggressive R&D budget — implying
that potential company savings due to repatriation are larger. The performance
lift from managing one’s own hardware may drive even further gains.

Across all our conversations with diverse practitioners, the pattern has been
remarkably consistent: If you’re operating at scale, the cost of cloud can at
least double your infrastructure bill.


THE TRUE COST OF CLOUD

When you consider the sheer magnitude of cloud spend as a percentage of the
total cost of revenue (COR), 50% savings from cloud repatriation is particularly
meaningful. Based on benchmarking public software companies (those that disclose
their committed cloud infrastructure spend), we found that contractually
committed spend averaged 50% of COR.

Actual spend as a percentage of COR is typically even higher than committed
spend: A billion dollar private software company told us that their public cloud
spend amounted to 81% of COR, and that “cloud spend ranging from 75 to 80% of
cost of revenue was common among software companies”. Dullien observed (from his
time at both industry leader Google and now Optimyze) that companies are often
conservative when sizing cloud commit size, due to fears of being overcommitted
on spend, so they commit to only their baseline loads. So, as a rule of thumb,
committed spend is often typically ~20% lower than actual spend… elasticity cuts
both ways. Some companies we spoke with reported that they exceeded their
committed cloud spend forecast by at least 2X.

If we extrapolate these benchmarks across the broader universe of software
companies that utilize some public cloud for infrastructure, our
back-of-the-envelope estimate is that the cloud bill reaches $8B in aggregate
for 50 of the top publicly traded software companies (that reveal some degree of
cloud spend in their annual filings). While some of these companies take a
hybrid approach — public cloud and on-premise (which means cloud spend may be a
lower percentage of COR relative to our benchmarks) — our analysis balances
this, by assuming that committed spend equals actual spend across the board.
Drawing from our conversations with experts, we assume that cloud repatriation
drives a 50% reduction in cloud spend, resulting in total savings of $4B in
recovered profit. For the broader universe of scale public software and consumer
internet companies utilizing cloud infrastructure, this number is likely much
higher.

source: company S-1 and 10K filings; a16z analysis

While $4B of estimated net savings is staggering on its own, this number becomes
even more eye-opening when translated to unlocked market capitalization. Since
all companies are conceptually valued as the present value of their future cash
flows, realizing these aggregate annual net savings results in market
capitalization creation well over that $4B.

How much more? One rough proxy is to look at how the public markets value
additional gross profit dollars: High-growth software companies that are still
burning cash are often valued on gross profit multiples, which reflects
assumptions about the company’s long term growth and profitable margin
structure. (Commonly referenced revenue multiples also reflect a company’s long
term profit margin, which is why they tend to increase for higher gross margin
businesses even on a growth rate-adjusted basis). Both capitalization multiples,
however, serve as a heuristic for estimating the market discounting of a
company’s future cash flows.

Among the set of 50 public software companies we analyzed, the average total
enterprise value to 2021E gross profit multiple (based on CapIQ at time of
publishing) is 24-25X. In other words: For every dollar of gross profit saved,
market caps rise on average 24-25X the net cost savings from cloud repatriation.
(Assumes savings are expressed net of depreciation costs incurred from
incremental CapEx if relevant).

This means an additional $4B of gross profit can be estimated to yield an
additional $100B of market capitalization among these 50 companies alone.
Moreover, since using a gross profit multiple (vs. a free cash flow multiple)
assumes that incremental gross profit dollars are also associated with certain
incremental operating expenditures, this approach may underestimate the impact
to market capitalization from the $4B of annual net savings.

For a given company, the impact may be even higher depending on its specific
valuation. To illustrate this phenomenon [please note this is not investment
advice, see full disclosures below and at https://a16z.com/disclosures/], take
the example of infrastructure monitoring as a service company Datadog. The
company traded at close to 40X 2021 estimated gross profit at time of
publishing, and disclosed an aggregate $225M 3-year commitment to AWS in their
S-1. If we annualize committed spend to $75M of annual AWS costs — and assume
50% or $37.5M of this may be recovered via cloud repatriation — this translates
to roughly $1.5B of market capitalization for the company on committed spend
reductions alone!

While back-of-the-envelope analyses like these are never perfect, the
directional findings are clear: market capitalizations of scale public software
companies are weighed down by cloud costs, and by hundreds of billions of
dollars. If we expand to the broader universe of enterprise software and
consumer internet companies, this number is likely over $500B — assuming 50% of
overall cloud spend is consumed by scale technology companies that stand to
benefit from cloud repatriation.

For business leaders, industry analysts, and builders, it’s simply too expensive
to ignore the impact on market cap when making both long-term and even near-term
infrastructure decisions.

source: CapIQ as of May 2021; note: charts herein are for informational purposes
only and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision


THE PARADOX OF CLOUD

Where do we go from here? On one hand, it is a major decision to start moving
workloads off of the cloud. For those who have not planned in advance, the
necessary rewriting seems SO impractical as to be impossible; any such
undertaking requires a strong infrastructure team that may not be in place. And
all of this requires building expertise beyond one’s core, which is not only
distracting, but can itself detract from growth. Even at scale, the cloud
retains many of its benefits — such as on-demand capacity, and hordes of
existing services to support new projects and new geographies.

But on the other hand, we have the phenomenon we’ve outlined in this post, where
the cost of cloud “takes over” at some point, locking up hundreds of billions of
market cap that are now stuck in this paradox: You’re crazy if you don’t start
in the cloud; you’re crazy if you stay on it.

So what can companies do to free themselves from this paradox? As mentioned,
we’re not making a case for repatriation one way or the other; rather, we’re
pointing out that infrastructure spend should be a first-class metric. What do
we mean by this? That companies need to optimize early, often, and, sometimes,
also outside the cloud. When you’re building a company at scale, there’s little
room for religious dogma.

While there’s much more to say on the mindset shifts and best practices here —
especially as the full picture has only more recently emerged — here are a few
considerations that may help companies grapple with the ballooning cost of
cloud.

Cloud spend as a KPI. Part of making infrastructure a first-class metric is
making sure it is a key performance indicator for the business. Take for example
Spotify’s Cost Insights, a homegrown tool that tracks cloud spend. By tracking
cloud spend, the company enables engineers, and not just finance teams, to take
ownership of cloud spend. Ben Schaechter, formerly at Digital Ocean, now
co-founder and CEO of Vantage, observed that not only have they been seeing
companies across the industry look at cloud cost metrics alongside core
performance and reliability metrics earlier in the lifecycle of their business,
but also that “Developers who have been burned by surprise cloud bills are
becoming more savvy and expect more rigor with their team’s approach to cloud
spend.”

Incentivize the right behaviors. Empowering engineers with data from first-class
KPIs for infrastructure takes care of awareness, but doesn’t take care of
incentives to change the way things are done. A prominent industry CTO told us
that at one of his companies, they put in short-term incentives like those used
in sales (SPIFFs), so that any engineer who saved a certain amount of cloud
spend by optimizing or shutting down workloads received a spot bonus (which
still had a high company ROI since the savings were recurring). He added that
this approach — basically, “tie the pain directly to the folks who can fix the
problem” — actually cost them less, because it paid off 10% of the entire
organization, and brought down overall spend by $3M in just six months. Notably,
the company CFO was key to endorsing this non-traditional model.

Optimization, optimization, optimization. When evaluating the value of any
business, one of the most important factors is the cost of goods sold or COGS —
and for every dollar that a business makes, how many dollars does it cost to
deliver? Customer data platform company Segment recently shared how they reduced
infrastructure costs by 30% (while simultaneously increasing traffic volume by
25% over the same period) through incremental optimization of their
infrastructure decisions. There are a number of third-party optimization tools
that can provide quick gains to existing systems, ranging anywhere from 10-40%
in our experience observing this space.

Think about repatriation up front. Just because the cloud paradox exists — where
cloud is cheaper and better early on and more costly later in a company’s
evolution — exists, doesn’t mean a company has to passively accept it without
planning for it. Make sure your system architects are aware of the potential for
repatriation early on, because by the time cloud costs start to catch up to or
even outpace revenue growth, it’s too late. Even modest or more modular
architectural investment early on — including architecting to be able to move
workloads to the optimal location and not get locked in — reduces the work
needed to repatriate workloads in the future. The popularity of Kubernetes and
the containerization of software, which makes workloads more portable, was in
part a reaction to companies not wanting to be locked into a specific cloud.

Incrementally repatriate. There’s also no reason that repatriation (if that’s
indeed the right move for your business), can’t be done incrementally, and in a
hybrid fashion. We need more nuance here beyond either/or discussions: for
example, repatriation likely only makes sense for a subset of the most
resource-intensive workloads. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing! In fact, of
the many companies we spoke with, even the most aggressive
take-back-their-workloads ones still retained 10 to 30% or more in the cloud.

While these recommendations are focused on SaaS companies, there are also other
things one can do; for instance, if you’re an infrastructure vendor, you may
want to consider options for passing through costs — like using the customer’s
cloud credits — so that the cost stays off your books. The entire ecosystem
needs to be thinking about the cost of cloud.

*     *     *

How the industry got here is easy to understand: The cloud is the perfect
platform to optimize for innovation, agility, and growth. And in an industry
fueled by private capital, margins are often a secondary concern. That’s why new
projects tend to start in the cloud, as companies prioritize velocity of feature
development over efficiency.

But now, we know. The long term implications have been less well understood —
which is ironic given that over 60% of companies cite cost savings as the very
reason to move to the cloud in the first place! For a new startup or a new
project, the cloud is the obvious choice. And it is certainly worth paying even
a moderate “flexibility tax” for the nimbleness the cloud provides.

The problem is, for large companies — including startups as they reach scale —
that tax equates to hundreds of billions of dollars of equity value in many
cases… and is levied well after the companies have already, deeply committed
themselves to the cloud (and are often too entrenched to extricate themselves).
Interestingly, one of the most commonly cited reasons to move the cloud early on
— a large up-front capital outlay (CapEx) — is no longer required for
repatriation. Over the last few years, alternatives to public cloud
infrastructures have evolved significantly and can be built, deployed, and
managed entirely via operating expenses (OpEx) instead of capital expenditures.

Note too that as large as some of the numbers we shared here seem, we were
actually conservative in our assumptions. Actual spend is often higher than
committed, and we didn’t account for overages-based elastic pricing. The actual
drag on industry-wide market caps is likely far higher than penciled.

Will the 30% margins currently enjoyed by cloud providers eventually winnow
through competition and change the magnitude of the problem? Unlikely, given
that the majority of cloud spend is currently directed toward an oligopoly of
three companies. And here’s a bit of dramatic irony: Part of the reason Amazon,
Google, and Microsoft — representing a combined ~5 trillion dollar market cap —
are all buffeted from the competition, is that they have high profit margins
driven in part by running their own infrastructure, enabling ever greater
reinvestment into product and talent while buoying their own share prices.

And so, with hundreds of billions of dollars in the balance, this paradox will
likely resolve one way or the other: either the public clouds will start to give
up margin, or, they’ll start to give up workloads. Whatever the scenario,
perhaps the largest opportunity in infrastructure right now is sitting somewhere
between cloud hardware and the unoptimized code running on it.

Acknowledgements: We’d like to thank everyone who spoke with us for this article
(including those named above), sharing their insights from the frontlines. 

Companies selected denoted some degree of public cloud infrastructure
utilization in 10Ks

 

The views expressed here are those of the individual AH Capital Management,
L.L.C. (“a16z”) personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its
affiliates. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from
third-party sources, including from portfolio companies of funds managed by
a16z. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, a16z has not
independently verified such information and makes no representations about the
enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given
situation. In addition, this content may include third-party advertisements;
a16z has not reviewed such advertisements and does not endorse any advertising
content contained therein.

This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be
relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult
your own advisers as to those matters. References to any securities or digital
assets are for illustrative purposes only, and do not constitute an investment
recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Furthermore,
this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or
prospective investors, and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when
making a decision to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An offering to invest
in an a16z fund will be made only by the private placement memorandum,
subscription agreement, and other relevant documentation of any such fund and
should be read in their entirety.) Any investments or portfolio companies
mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments
in vehicles managed by a16z, and there can be no assurance that the investments
will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have
similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed
by Andreessen Horowitz (excluding investments for which the issuer has not
provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly as well as unannounced
investments in publicly traded digital assets) is available at
https://a16z.com/investments/.

Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and
should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance
is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date
indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or
opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and
may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see
https://a16z.com/disclosures for additional important information.

May 27, 2021

RELATED STORIES

 * A16Z PODCAST: GROSS MARGINS, EARLY TO LATE: WHAT THEY DO (AND DON’T) TELL YOU
   
   by Martin Casado, Sarah Wang, David George, and Amelia Salyers

 * IS THERE AN ENTERPRISE MARGIN CRISIS?
   
   by Martin Casado

 * MAKING SENSE OF DELL + EMC + VMWARE
   
   by Jamie McGurk, Steve McDermid, Vishal Amin, and Irvin Chan

 * A16Z PODCAST: REINING IN COMPLEXITY — DATA SCIENCE & FUTURE OF AI/ML
   BUSINESSES
   
   by Peter Wang and Martin Casado

RELATED STORIES

 * A16Z PODCAST: GROSS MARGINS, EARLY TO LATE: WHAT THEY DO (AND DON’T) TELL YOU
   
   by Martin Casado, Sarah Wang, David George, and Amelia Salyers

 * IS THERE AN ENTERPRISE MARGIN CRISIS?
   
   by Martin Casado

 * MAKING SENSE OF DELL + EMC + VMWARE
   
   by Jamie McGurk, Steve McDermid, Vishal Amin, and Irvin Chan


THE ENTERPRISE IS CHANGING

Sign up for our enterprise newsletter to get the a16z take on the trends
reshaping B2B and enterprise tech.

*








THANKS FOR SIGNING UP.

Check your inbox for a welcome note.

Software is eating the world
© 2023 Andreessen Horowitz
Software is eating the world
 * Twitter
 * Simplecast

 * Contact
 * Jobs
 * Briefings
 * Terms of Use & Privacy
 * Disclosures
 * Conduct
 * Who We Are