3 ms·

Essentially the issue is that the reporters had access to Bloomberg's internal analytics/crm system. Pretty much every single sophisticated SaaS company in the

by ig1 13y ago

Essentially the issue is that the reporters had access to Bloomberg's internal analytics/crm system. Pretty much every single sophisticated SaaS company in the world collects this data (login frequency, etc.) - it's invaluable for sales, support, debugging, product management, etc. hence it also makes sense that the information is widely available within the firm. There's obviously an ethical issue in that Bloomberg's reporters shouldn't have had access to that data, but it's worth noting that the information is similar to what everyone else in the SaaS space is collecting.

lmg643 13y ago
I'm not sure how many SaaS companies are at the intersection of as many critical business flows as Bloomberg is. And then, amongst those that are, how many of them are tied to full blown news operations. While I think the green dot/red dot controversy is overblown, the paranoia is driven by the ubiquitous aspect of the terminals combined with the massive number of workflows that are centralized on Bloomberg terminals. Here's a sampling: * Proprietary email and IM systems integral to interactions with customers and counterparties * Trading systems in virtually every asset class. TOMS, the fixed income system, is the defacto standard for bonds. * One of the top financial news gathering organizations * Best-in-class financial data and analytics So when you think of what someone could do with access to the system, it almost boggles the mind. Ability to know who is looking at what. Who is saying what to whom. And in certain asset classes, the best possible data on who is buying what. A rogue support person, for example, could do incredible damage to the company. Hopefully they have good mechanisms to control that - the fact that we haven't heard about it thus far is a good sign. Given the overlap of workflows available on the terminals, plus the relatively low-cost of extra features once you're already paying for the terminal, makes me view Bloomberg as an anti-trust case waiting to happen. I wonder if they think so too - and to feed more paranoia, I've wondered whether that explains why Mayor Bloomberg is in politics. (Either that and/or to promote BGOV - growth in the government sector as wall street retrenches).
- ig1 13y ago
  Bloomberg's main competitors are Thompson Reuters and News Corporation, both of whom are substantially larger in revenues and market cap than Bloomberg (although you could argue News Corps financial arm is smaller). So it seems unlikely they'd be considered for an anti-trust case.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Thompson Reuters financial revenues are comparable to Bloomberg's (I think Bloomberg might be slightly ahead of them); Thompson Reuters also operates in a bunch of businesses Bloomberg doesn't.
- jvictor118 13y ago
  I am in a similar space as BBG (fintech) and this type of stuff doesn't fly in our biz. Things are way too sensitive, and people are way too concerned with privacy for "typical" SaaS initiatives to be okay with them.

by ig1 13y ago

lmg643 13y ago

I'm not sure how many SaaS companies are at the intersection of as many critical business flows as Bloomberg is. And then, amongst those that are, how many of them are tied to full blown news operations. While I think the green dot/red dot controversy is overblown, the paranoia is driven by the ubiquitous aspect of the terminals combined with the massive number of workflows that are centralized on Bloomberg terminals. Here's a sampling: * Proprietary email and IM systems integral to interactions with customers and counterparties * Trading systems in virtually every asset class. TOMS, the fixed income system, is the defacto standard for bonds. * One of the top financial news gathering organizations * Best-in-class financial data and analytics So when you think of what someone could do with access to the system, it almost boggles the mind. Ability to know who is looking at what. Who is saying what to whom. And in certain asset classes, the best possible data on who is buying what. A rogue support person, for example, could do incredible damage to the company. Hopefully they have good mechanisms to control that - the fact that we haven't heard about it thus far is a good sign. Given the overlap of workflows available on the terminals, plus the relatively low-cost of extra features once you're already paying for the terminal, makes me view Bloomberg as an anti-trust case waiting to happen. I wonder if they think so too - and to feed more paranoia, I've wondered whether that explains why Mayor Bloomberg is in politics. (Either that and/or to promote BGOV - growth in the government sector as wall street retrenches).

ig1 13y ago
Bloomberg's main competitors are Thompson Reuters and News Corporation, both of whom are substantially larger in revenues and market cap than Bloomberg (although you could argue News Corps financial arm is smaller). So it seems unlikely they'd be considered for an anti-trust case.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Thompson Reuters financial revenues are comparable to Bloomberg's (I think Bloomberg might be slightly ahead of them); Thompson Reuters also operates in a bunch of businesses Bloomberg doesn't.
jvictor118 13y ago
I am in a similar space as BBG (fintech) and this type of stuff doesn't fly in our biz. Things are way too sensitive, and people are way too concerned with privacy for "typical" SaaS initiatives to be okay with them.