Snowflake has raised $3.5bn in a record software listing. Now what? Snowflake
Snowflake stands out, for now CATCHING SNOWFLAKES is fun. It has become lucrative, too. Investors scrambled for shares in Snowflake, a maker of database programs, as it went public on the New York Stock Exchange on September 16th. The eight-year-old firm more than doubled its valuation the first day of trading, from $33bn to over $70bn, making its initial public offering the largest ever for a software firm. Even Warren Buffett, abandoning his customary tech-shyness, got in on the action. The legendary investor’s conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway, put $735m into the firm, through a separate private placement and by purchasing shares from a former chief executive—a stake that is now worth $1.56bn.
The excitement shines a light on an obscure corner of information technology: software for managing corporate data. This database market already generates $55bn a year in sales (see chart). It is expected to expand rapidly as data become, if not the new oil, then at least an input for most companies. And it is changing in intriguing ways—not all of them good for Snowflake.
A database used to be best understood as a digital steam engine. Before electricity came along, a factory’s machines sat near a single power source. Similarly, corporate applications—programs that keep track of a firm’s finances or its supply chain, say—were built around databases housing all of a firm’s important information. Hard disks were pricey and had limited capacity so the best way to store it was in lean “relational” databases. Max Schireson, who used to run MongoDB, a database-maker, and now works for Battery Ventures, an investment firm, likens these to “a parking garage where, to save space, you put all the seats in one place, the tyres in another and so on”. The industry became dominated by a few firms, with Oracle leading the pack.
过去，对数据库最好的理解方法就是把它看作数字蒸汽机。在电力出现之前，工厂的所有机器都要靠近这唯一的动力源安放。同样，从前公司的应用程序（例如记录公司财务或其供应链的程序）也都是围绕包含公司所有重要信息的数据库构建的。硬盘价格高且容量有限，因此存储信息最好的方式是把它们放在精简的“关系”数据库中。马克思·希雷森（Max Schireson）曾经执掌数据库公司MongoDB，目前在投资公司Battery Ventures工作，他将这些数据库比作“这么一种停车场：为节省空间，把所有的车座放一起，轮胎放一起，各种东西都这样分门别类地放”。这个行业逐渐由少数公司主导，甲骨文是领头羊。
As storage got cheaper and data volumes exploded, though, startups erecting new kinds of digital car park proliferated. Many focus not on tracking specific transactions but on analysing all manner of data to glean relevant knowledge about a business, such as where certain products sell best. These more cluttered “data warehouses”, as they are known, were pioneered in the late 1970s by a firm called Teradata. Their latest iterations are “data lakes”, which take in all sorts of unstructured information, including text and pictures.
Snowflake has gone a step further. It was one of the first firms to lift database systems from companies’ in-house data centres and into the computing clouds, the biggest of which are operated by Amazon, Google and Microsoft, a trio of tech giants. Snowflake’s customers can add capacity as needed—and pay depending on their use rather than a fixed price for a software licence, as was typical for relational databases. Better yet, its “multi-cloud” service works across the three big computing clouds, so customers need not get locked into any one of them. Recently Snowflake has also added features that let customers share and sell data, setting itself up as a data exchange of sorts.
This has convinced many that Snowflake could be the next Oracle. The firm is certainly on a roll. Although it has yet to make money, its losses, of $171m in the six months to July, have declined as revenue has more than doubled year on year, to $242m. On current trends sales could reach nearly $1bn in the next 12 months. 这让许多人相信Snowflake可能会成为下一个甲骨文。这家公司眼下确实势头强劲。尽管尚未盈利，但亏损在减少：截至7月的六个月里，它总计亏损1.71亿美元。收入同比增长超过一倍，达到2.42亿美元。按照目前的趋势，未来12个月的销售额可能会达到近10亿美元。
Despite these promising numbers, and the market’s blessing, Snowflake has its work cut out. The company’s uniqueness will not last much longer, says Donald Feinberg of Gartner, a research firm. Rival firms, in particular the big cloud providers, have been beefing up competing products and have even dabbled with the multi-cloud. A few startups are already offering cheaper and more flexible “open source” alternatives such as ClickHouse, a particularly zippy data-management system sold by a startup called Altinity.
Other challengers are building more specialised digital repositories. Data generated by websites, for instance, are often stored on “document-oriented” databases that, in the garage analogy, keep cars intact rather than strip them for parts. MongoDB is the market leader in this segment. Confluent, another startup, is big in “streaming” databases that garner information from sources like sensors. These are more akin to a motorway service station: data are quickly checked to see if action is needed.
Much as today’s assembly lines are driven by dispersed electric motors rather than a single steam engine, then, corporate IT systems will increasingly rely on sundry specialised databases, predicts Zane Chrane of Bernstein, a broker. That—and the fact that data will increasingly be analysed in real time, rather than saved in a conventional database—will limit the power and profits of any single supplier. So Snowflake is unlikely ever to become as dominant as Oracle. Snowflakes fly high in a flurry. They also melt.