4
Jun

Successfully Promoting Apps to Enterprise Business Requires More Than An Appeal to Mobile Users

2 Color Design Hi-Res From the recent financial results of leading software vendors — Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and more — it should be apparent enterprise computing remains the most lucrative software market in mid 2015. So early stage tech businesses (ISVs) need to conceptualize, architect, and build solutions on a foundation including a clear understanding of what enterprise computing is all about if a revenue plan includes marketing to enterprise business.

Unfortunately, ISVs with CRM apps written for iOS who expect business consumers to buy simply because they use iPhones are not likely to succeed. Sure these apps will work fine — to an extent — for SMBs, but not for enterprise computing. A scalable architecture is absolutely required for this market segment. After all, enterprise computing includes PCs, Mainframes, and mobile devices (including tablets as well as smartphones). So it makes sense to either include a PC version of your solution, which will work seamlessly along side your client for the iPhone and iPad. If you do not have the PC solution, then you must have the hooks in place to allow users to plug your solution into one built on a scalable architecture addressing this market requirement.

All of the above may seem rudimentary to readers, but I was recently approached by an early stage business with a CRM built for iPhones, only. When I asked about clients for PCs, etc, my questions went into the void and my email exchange abruptly terminated. So early stage ISVs often combine a promising solution for a solution businesses may really need, with a very limited and inadequate understanding of just how users will actually consume the solution.

Of course, building your solution for an enterprise computing market doesn’t stop when you have successfully equipped your solution with a scalable architecture. You will have to also use a method of authenticating users. So here, too, you should choose the method most familiar to the market — in all likelihood something built to communicate with Microsoft’s Active Directory.

The list of critical architectural requirements does not stop with the above couple of examples. There are more, in fact too many to discuss, completely, in this post even in no more than broad terms.

If you have a solution you think is promising for enterprise computing, but are not familiar with the requirements posed by this market, you need to add someone to your management team who can fill this gap. Our temporary VP of marketing plan can execute on this role until you identify a right candidate for the spot. Please contact us to learn more.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

28
Feb

Microsoft takes three steps worth some thought by anyone following this mature ISV

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthIn late February, 2015, Microsoft announced 3 changes in components of its business worth some thought by anyone with an interest in this mature ISV.

On February 20, 2015 Dan Kedmey wrote about Microsoft’s acquision of Acompli for the Time online magazine. He noted “Acompli is the best example of Microsoft’s new playbook: In a matter of weeks, Microsoft took Acompli’s popular email app and rebranded it as Outlook for iOS and Android, to rave reviews from the tech press.” (readers can view Kedmey’s complete article, titled This Is Microsoft’s New Plan to Invade Your Smartphone (http://time NULL.com/3716303/microsoft-acquisitions/) on the Time magazine web site). But this method of consuming acquisitions and spitting them back out as simply new examples of Microsoft branded products, contrasts with another famous acquisition, namely the Skype purchase. The Skype service has retained its own independent brand despite being a wholly owned component of the Microsoft revenue model. So why the change with Acompli? Further, does it make sense to try (I would argue for yet another time in a long string of unsuccessful attempts) to extend a well known enterprise computing brand name — the Outlook email client — into solidly, at best, BYOD territory? Acompli had a great app following among mobile computing consumers, many of which could likely care less about the email client they use at work.

Then there is the question of the “about face” Microsoft recently took on what looked to be a welcome change of direction towards “the norm” (meaning Chrome and Firefox) in web browser world. As Nathan Ingraham wrote on little more than a month ago on the Verge web site, in an article titled Microsoft officially announces Project Spartan, its new web browser for Windows 10 (http://www NULL.theverge NULL.com/2015/1/21/7863331/microsoft-project-spartan-new-web-browser), Redmond looked like it was going to change the web browser of choice for Windows 10 from Internet Explorer (IE) to something new and promising — the Spartan Browser. As any die hard IE user knows, the quirks and, perhaps, nonsensical differentiations built into Microsoft’s flagship web page browser, make little sense anymore. Market share is eroding day by day. So a change in a popular direction seemed to make a lot of sense.

But then on February 26, 2015, Microsoft back tracked. As Kurt Mackie wrote for the RedmondMag blog in an article titled Microsoft Blinks on Using Open Source Engine for Spartan Browser (http://redmondmag NULL.com/articles/2015/02/26/open-source-and-spartan-browser NULL.aspx), one of the reasons given for the decision amounted to “‘we felt it was important to counter movement towards a monoculture on the Web.'” (please click the link just provided to read Mackie’s complete article). But could “monoculture” be a good think? Even for Microsoft?

Finally, there are a couple of realities about the present IE 11 browser on Windows 7 and the same browser on Windows 8.1 worth some consideration. In keeping with the point Microsoft just made about “monoculture”, and its determination to “counter” movement towards it, the feature sets of these two browsers are, in my opinion, radically dissimilar from Chrome and/or Firefox. These differences, once again in my opinion, are, perhaps, not for the best. Perhaps more worrisome is how my first thoughts about these features take me back to my original opinion about Windows 8 and touch computing on desktop machines in the first place — a big big stretch I did not care to make.

I kind of like the new Microsoft. The Microsoft looking to partner with everybody else. The one not trying so hard to stand out from the crowd. What about you?

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

3
Feb

People buy iOS devices for more than their impact as status symbols

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthMuch has been written about the journey Apple’s promotional efforts for iOS devices have taken from functional feature presentations to depictions of a luxurious life style. “Luxury tech” may be Apple’s market message of the moment, but let us not forget the rationale for consumers buying these devices in the first place — for many people they simply work better.

We recently purchased an iPad 2. Our reasons for purchasing this tablet amounted to a need to fill in some functionality not available with either of our other tablets:

  1. a Microsoft Surface 2 RT
  2. and a Samsung Galaxy Note 2.1 10.1 running Android JellyBean

We continue to be impressed with the performance of the iPad2. Three features of mobile computing on a tablet device:

  1. Battery life
  2. Display
  3. and, finally, a high quality tablet experience without recourse to an external keyboard

meet our requirements. We routinely experience two day operation between charges. The display, while bright, is not shiny (unfortunately this is the case with our Surface 2 tablet). The virtual keyboard works very well, in particular the text highlighting feature works great.

So why all the talk about “luxury tech”? Perhaps the driver for this new promotional theme is an effort to convince consumers already outfitted with an iPad to purchase a new one. Repeat-buy customers are rarely motivated to purchase new product based on the compelling features driving the initial purchase. There has to be something new. Better yet, there should be a feature consumers always consider “new”. There is no better example of this category of feature than device as status symbol.

But the bad news is the indication this strategy reveals of market saturation. There are simply no more new consumers to whom Apple can look to further increase device sales volume. The only recourse is to cannibalize its current customer base. By opting for the “luxury tech” moniker, Apple, I would argue, has achieved a graceful method of achieving its objective.

In contrast, manufacturers on the lower end of the product spectrum (I include Samsung in this group), out of necessity need to implement comparatively more risky methods of motivating consumers to step up and buy new product. For these unfortunate companies, the only option is to abandon any effort to support their customers when something like Google’s decision to walk away from supporting Android Jelly Bean and earlier versions of the Android O/S arise. Nobody likes to hear a vendor tell them to take a hike when a product with some financial heft to it is no longer usable. But for Samsung, et al, this is the only recourse. Ugh.

The result of all of these efforts is the present hierarchy of mobile device manufacturers, with Apple at the top. Because the iPad 2 is actually a market-leading product, it is unfortunate to see “luxury tech” as the primary product promotional theme. But one can understand why this is the case, given the extent to which the available market for these products has already reached saturation levels.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

13
Jan

Rounding off some of Google’s edges makes a pretty picture, but little more

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthKatie Benner, a writer published on the Bloomberg View web site, presented a hypothesis about Google on January 13, 2015. She questions whether some of Google’s recent features, what I would call its edges, are familiar because they are characteristic of another very large tech company – Microsoft. But has she actually rounded these edges to render an otherwise sloppy picture into something somewhat more appealing?

The title of Benner’s article is Google is the New Microsoft. Uh-Oh (http://www NULL.bloombergview NULL.com/articles/2015-01-12/google-is-the-new-microsoft-and-that-should-freak-it-out).

The sticking points, for me, in her characterization of Google as a maturing tech business “print[ing] money” are some otherwise simple mistakes Google has made, which are NOT the kind of mistakes worth anyone’s sympathy. Unfortunately Benner doesn’t talk to these points.

What she does opine about is her portrait of “innovation” (an otherwise meaningless abstraction if there ever was one) as an elusive quality of product development existing somewhere beyond the grasp of “hugely profitable compan[ies]”, like Microsoft.

What is missing from the piece is Benner’s definition of “innovation”. Is it safe to say she does not consider Google Glass to be “innovation?” What about the driverless car? Or, finally, what about inexpensive DNA profiling? As anyone following Google is aware, each of the above products have emerged from the “Googleplex” (the last is offered by a company headed up by Sergey Brin’s wife, 23andme).

So, to follow the point further, if the above products are not examples of innovation, would it be safe to assume Benner is talking to a definition of the term perhaps closer to what Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, presented last year, when he positioned his business as an enterprise focused on delivering solutions to enhance personal productivity? In an earlier post to this blog I wrote on this point, with reference to an article Irving Wladawsky-Berger wrote last year for the Wall Street Journal’s CIO Blog on the concept (readers need only review The Science of Innovation (http://blog NULL.irvingwb NULL.com/blog/2014/12/the-mit-innovation-initiative NULL.html) to get a glimpse of how Wladawsky-Berger understands “innovation”).

To wrap up this exposition, then why doesn’t Benner include Microsoft along with Apple in her ranks of large businesses capable of “innovating core products”. Unfortunately I can not answer these points as, in my opinion, Benner’s article rounds off these hard edges. I would have preferred to see them nailed together into a tight frame for Google’s mistakes, which I regret, are perhaps a lot more pedestrian and far removed from any notion of “innovation”.

The biggest of these, and the most recent as far as my gaining cognizance of its existence, is Google’s architecture for its Android IP business. Deciding not to update some comparatively recent versions of this O/S is a wrong decision not likely to win Google many friends from the OEM community, nor from end consumers. Certainly the decision to abandon these versions was correctable, and a rather simple thing to fix without a lot of buzz about “innovation”.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

12
Jan

Another reason why the Android segment of BYOD is problematic for enterprise IT organizations

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthThe Wall Street Journal published an article on what appears to be a decision made by Google not to support so-called older browsers (Jelly Bean 4.3 and earlier) for Android smartphones. But Android Jelly Bean 4.3 appeared as recently as June, 2013 (less than 2 years ago). So it may be safe to assume enterprise IT organizations are about to experience another big headache as they struggle to support BYOD policies permitting personnel to bring Android smartphones (and I would add tablets) into the enterprise. Some of these devices will certainly appear current (merely half way through a typical 3 year use cycle). But permitting them for use inside corporate firewalls might be a big problem.

This article is written by Danny Yadron. The article was published on Monday, January 12, 2015 and is titled Google Isn’t Fixing Some Old Android Bugs (http://blogs NULL.wsj NULL.com/digits/2015/01/12/google-not-fixing-some-old-android-bugs/?mod=WSJ_TechWSJD_NeedToKnow).

It is also likely consumers wouldn’t have a problem with Google’s decision, if the devices in question were truly older, meaning the first Android smartphone which appeared on the market in 2008, and its siblings. If the set of devices was merely limited to smartphones from 2008 to, say, 2010 (a full 5 years back), then Yadron’s reference to what he contends is the same posture Microsoft adopted with regards to its Windows XP Operating System, when it decided to stop supporting the product for production computing, would make sense.

But, in my opinion, Yadron’s statement is not tenable. “The security blind spot illustrates the challenges companies face as they try to move customers onto newer products and focus security resources on patching more-current software. Microsoft . . . applied the same reasoning when it stopped supporting Windows XP, first released in 2001, in April [2014].”

When we make reference to the Windows XP operating system, we are talking about software on the market for almost fourteen years. Sure the structure of the two announcements may be the same, but to equate a decision about products purchased as recently as 18 months ago to a decision about products purchased almost 156 months ago (nearly 10 times older) doesn’t make sense.

There is really very little similarity between the stances of these two big ISVs. Enterprise IT organizations are not likely to be fooled into thinking the two statements are the same. When they face an inevitable decision about whether to prohibit the use of mobile computing devices powered by Android Jelly Bean 4.3, on-premises, or not, they are not likely to enjoy their position as an unfortunate “bad guy”/spoiler for their community of computing users. Nevertheless, the best of them will likely have to prohibit these devices (which some personnel may still be paying off) if they are to preserve the comparative security of their internal corporate networks.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

6
Jan

Promotional content for tablets running on Intel processors still comes up short

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthIntel® announced the availability of a set of 17 new CORE microprocessors at the CES 2015 (http://newsroom NULL.intel NULL.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2015/01/05/the-5th-generation-intel-core-family-of-processors-arrive-to-transform-computing-experiences-cherry-trail-shipping) event this week. The specs on these CPUs are impressive. Perhaps Intel OEMs can accompany the debut of these new chips with substantially more effective marketing communications than has been the case in the past.

Readers may wonder about the gap. Just how has the editorial branding of tablets, smartphones and even laptops, notebooks and 2-in-1 small form factor mobile computing devices powered by Intel missed the mark? Where Intel’s technology has been used to power mobile computing devices running a Microsoft operating system, the promotional content presented to consumers, in my opinion, has been calibrated too tightly to speak to the needs of the low end of the market. This rigidity may be a reason for comparatively low sales volume for these devices. Windows tablets are something different from desktop PCs. Then again, they are also something very different from Android tablets

There are 2 big reasons why any consumer should seriously consider purchasing a tablet running Microsoft Windows 8.1 vs a comparably priced tablet from, for example, Samsung, running Google’s Android O/S:

  • There will certainly be an update path on the O/S, which is likely not going to be the case for the tablet produced by Samsung
  • The computing experience will be consistent with any desktop computer running Microsoft Windows 8.1. This cannot be said of the Samsung device. I own a Samsung Galaxy Note 2.1 10.1, which is less than 2 years old, but is, nevertheless, entirely obsolete. The device does not support a web browser useful for highlighting and copying text, ets. The $700, approx, paid for the Samsung product amounts to a throwaway

But the marketing communications hasn’t spoken to these points. Instead, the typical marketing communications campaign for a tablet powered by Intel, running Windows, is built around an effort to highlight features directly competitive with Android and iOS powered tablets. This is a big oversight and one which should be corrected as soon as possible, if this new line of CORE processors is to perform better for the OEMs making the investment required to build them.

After all, no one likes losing money, so if consumers are better informed before they proceed down a dead end as they will should they opt to purchase an Android tablet as I did, OEMs can rest assured their change in editorial direction will benefit everybody.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

24
Nov

Consumers should not be expected to deliver repeat buying opportunities for mobile operating systems in process

Android may be the leader in the mobile operating system popularity contest, but it shouldn’t take rooting a tablet or smart phone to migrate from JellyBean to KitKat or, most recently, Lollipop. Nevertheless, the only process this writer can find to upgrade a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2.1 from Android 4.1.2, JellyBean to KitKat is to root the device.

Perhaps it would help readers to better understand the point by mentioning why an upgrade makes sense for this Samsung device. The multi-tasking capabilities available with JellyBean pale in comparison with the advances Android has made and included with KitKat. Why should consumers have to pay for improvements to features already available in an older version of an operating system?

Apple, in contrast, consistently offers a free-of-charge upgrade to the latest version of their iOS operating system. Not all of these upgrades go smoothly, but, if nothing else, Apple iPhone and iPad customers are relieved of the necessity of simply “repeat buying” a tablet or a smart phone they already own, for what amounts to no more than an enhancement to features already offered to them.

If one follows the reasoning here it should be plausible to attribute some of the pace of deceleration in consumer appetite for smart phones and tablets to a pervasive dissatisfaction with “half baked” feature sets. Samsung, to cite merely one Android OEM, has recently reported on this deceleration, and received a lot of investor punishment as the result. But as long as consumers have no option but to engage in a complex procedure to decouple a piece of hardware from its original operating system, it’s very likely consumer dissatisfaction will continue to mount and sales will continue to plummet.

This is regrettable. In fact, the multi-tasking improvement in Android KitKat is substantial and likely to be well received by even average consumers of these devices. In turn, should these upgrades be made available without additional charge to existing customers, sales should pick up. Android OEMs will realize the financial benefit. Enterprise customers, with a clear need for multi-tasking will be more likely to purchase the hardware, rounding off the benefit for the whole Android ecosystem.

The message for early stage ISVs is to think long and hard about the upgrade path consumers will have to traverse as new features are rolled into existing, core, products. In this writer’s opinion, “Ready, Fire, Aim” cannot be used as an excuse to justify raising consumers costs when limitations with advertised features are merely corrected.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved

18
Nov

Continuing a Comparison of Cortana and OK Google for queries likely to be popular with mobile users

Getting driving directions is likely to be a very common need for mobile computing. I used Cortana and OK Google to put together driving directions with very different results. I picked a location forty miles from my home and simply asked each personal assistant to provide me with driving directions.

The response I received from Cortana was less than satisfactory for two reasons: 1) Cortana cut me off in mid query on two of my three attempts. Pauses appeared to be interpreted, incorrectly, as end-of-voice-query field delimiters. So the audible responses I received on both of these unsatisfactory results were wrong. The response to my third attempt to present the destination was even worse. Instead of receiving an audible reply, I was presented with a results page from Bing with a list of results, all of which were relevant to the location I was after, but, if I had been driving, would have been entirely useless. 2) When Cortana correctly understood my question, the app started the “Bing Here” mapping application, with its own voice response component. This is not necessarily a problem, but for the otherwise computer limited user (my wife is a good example of this type of person), the kind of seamlessly integrated response I received from “OK Google” to the same query would have been preferred.

It’s worth adding a bit to the above critique. There are likely to be a good set of voice commands sure to prompt Cortana to reply with an audible answer. I was not able to find them. When I attempted to start my direction query with “Navigate to” as per a command I found on the list at Cortana Commands List – Microsoft Voice Commands – Video (http://windowsuser NULL.org/cortana-commands-list-microsoft-voice-commands-video/), the reply I received was erroneous “navigate to 57th Street in Manhattan, between 6th and 7th Avenues” was intrepreted as “navigate 257th St. between sixth and 7th ave in Manhattan”. The results were served as a list of links, and, once again, Cortana wasn’t helping.

In contrast, “OK Google” correctly fielded a request phrased as “get directions to West 57th Street, Manhattan, NY” and replied, correctly, with an audible answer. What’s more, “OK Google” “spoke for” the Google Maps app in precisely the kind of seamless handshake needed for computer challenged users, as I mentioned above. As I will explore in the next post to this blog, the question of how best to serve up a seamless response to this type of query, and what a successful effort has to say about the usefulness of search across the set of apps someone happens be be using, is, in my opinion a big one.

Bottom line: I was better able to find a list of useful voice commands to produce the kind of audible reply I required for “OK Google” than was the case for Cortana. One would hope Microsoft will move to correct this issue and close the gap, at least as regards the list of commands one needs to use to elicit a desired audible response from Cortana.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved

29
Apr

Microsoft Enters the Next Stage of Its Mobile First Cloud First Strategy

During Microsoft’s Q3 2014 Earnings Conference Call, Mr. Satya Nadella, CEO, signaled an important transition for the business: from “reinvention” to execution of its “Mobile First/Cloud First” Strategy. This signal can be found in Mr. Nadella’s response to a question posed by Mr. Keith Weiss of Morgan Stanley.

Mr. Weiss asked if Mr. Nadella is ” . . . reviewing the businesses? And should we expect any big changes in the strategy of Microsoft?” (this quote is excerpted from a transcript of Microsoft’s Q3 2014 Earning’s Conference Call (http://seekingalpha NULL.com/article/2164653-microsofts-ceo-discusses-f3q-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript). Readers can review the entire transcript on the Seeking Alpha web site).

Mr. Nadella responded to this question by emphasizing ” . . . this mobile-first, cloud-first thing is a pretty deep thing for us.” (ibid). The signal of transition sends an important message to anyone following Microsoft®: the strategy has been vetted, accepted, and is now being implemented across the organization.

One can argue the performance of the business, for the quarter, as it’s represented in the report is evidence of the transition. For revenue to grow by 8%, year-over-year, is a significant, positive achievement. Microsoft no longer appears as a “software REIT”, resting comfortably in its niche. Rather, the company has assumed some of the qualities of a high growth story. In comparison to Google, which, one can argue best typifies this type of “new” business, the growth trajectory of Microsoft’s revenue performance came within 33% of the former’s own year-over-year performance for the same calendar quarter.

But the story gets better. Office 365, which is Microsoft’s cloud, SaaS, offer grew over 100%. Mr. Nadella and Ms. Amy Wood, CFO publicized an annual run rate of $2.5 Billion for this product, 28% better than the year-over-year performance of Google’s “Other Business” segment, which was reported as producing $1.8 Billion for the same time period.

Perhaps readers will want to recalibrate their notion of Microsoft’s likely performance over coming quarters as the result of gaining an understanding of what the signal means for Mr. Nadella and the rest of the Management team.

Disclaimer: I’m long Microsoft

Ira Michael Blonder (https://plus NULL.google NULL.com/108970003169613491972/posts?tab=XX?rel=author)

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved

 

29
Jun

Google’s Map API is Stuck in a Commodity Driven Market

We were surprised to read about some recent changes to features and pricing for Google’s Map API. In a post authored by Molly McHugh on the Digital Trends blog, Google Maps strikes against new competition with API price cuts (http://www NULL.digitaltrends NULL.com/web/google-maps-strikes-against-new-competition-with-api-price-cuts/) we learned that, despite a recent round of feature improvements, including “better 3D, more immersive Street View technology, and other incremental improvements” Google Map API product marketing opted to reduce the street price of its product by a whopping 87%, from $4.00 to $ .50 per 1,000 map loads.

For a company as large as Google to display this level of product marketing ineptitude is discouraging and, certainly, not the type of event that inspires our confidence in the company. Rather, this type of mistake leads us to more skepticism about the long term strength of the present market leader of the search engine advertising market. As we have written elsewhere in this blog, the most respected expert on competitive positioning for commodity markets is Michael Porter and has been for quite sometime. Michael Porter’s “5 Forces” (http://hbr NULL.org/2008/01/the-five-competitive-forces-that-shape-strategy/ar/1) are based on several important assumptions that Joan Magretta has summarized in her book “Understanding Michael Porter”, Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.

It is not difficult to see the problems inherent to Google’s product marketing strategy for its Map API when you note Magretta’s point that “The real point of competition is earning profits, not taking business away from your rivals. Business competition is about the struggle for profits, the tug-of-war over who gets to capture the value that an industry creates.” (Magretta, “Understanding Michael Porter, p61). We have to ask “How much profit remains when prices are slashed by 87% and developers are hired and tasked to create a rich new feature set?”

We hope that Google has taken the steps to lower production costs for this software product to an absolute minimum, else where is the justification for such a steep reduction in cost to the consumer? We also hope that Google has carefully carved out a specific niche for the features that they have added to their product. But with mass market promotion of the new feature set, we question the strength of Google’s position vs. other market competitors. All told, the marketing communications that we reviewed on this product raises more questions than it answers, many of which are less than flattering about Google.

If you are considering modifications for current products in highly competitive enterprise IT markets and would like to avail of more of an understanding of industry leading product marketing techniques, please let us know. Telephone Ira Michael “Mike” Blonder at +1 631-673-2929 to further a discussion. You may also email Mike at imblonder@imbenterprises.com.

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2012 All Rights Reserved