@BigStrawbs70 thanks, i find any informative comment in this area useful, it is one of the big calls. AI and enterprise s/w

Is enterprise software more complex than automous vehicles and solution's from Meta, Google, etc?

Anyhow, enough me on this topic, I think I am boring folks now lol.

The problem with enterprise software is more often the enterprise, not the software. I've worked with a lot of big enterprises - and the big issue with enterprise systems isn't always the build of the software, but figuring out what it actually needs to do. Forcing an enterprise to conform to a piece of software, built by people who understand their industry, often helps them (despite them thinking the software is limiting them).

Meta and Google have people have people with years of experience building software so can understand how to best use the AI tools to assist them. Enterprises outside of software don't - I think AI tools will just give them a lot of rope to hang themselves if they try (which you know a lot will).

But your point, to which I firmly agree, smaller teams will be able to produce more code, much faster. Good developers, product owners and designers will be way more effective and be able to build more complex and niche products more easily. The software industry will broaden and specialise - but you'l still need people to be asking the right questions.

To use you example - give me all the robots and materials to make a car - I'll be able to make a car, but it'll be fugly and unreliable.

Hi @BigStrawbs70

Data is owned by the mining company not the OEM, that said many of these software providers have complete access to the same data and the big guys in town work very hard to protect their access to data and prevent access from any non licenced means. Basically the OEMs want to licence everything......

Due to licencing, compliance, regulations and safety always placed first i doubt any software solutions built from AI tools will replace these providers - It would take a lot of work for a solution built from an AI start up tool to gain the trust required for its use...

I feel it is also worth pointing out there is a difference between writing code and creating software. That is, writing code is a but one part of creating software - there is also:

• Problem identification/requirements analysis (what do you actually need the software to do?)
• Infrastructure design/tech stack selection (what sort of DB do you use? Are you building on AWS, Azure or GCP?)
• Security
• Solution design (e.g what modules do you create? how do they integrate? What is the exact scope of each module?)
• UX design (How the user will know how to use, or interact, with the software)
• Product management (What do you build first? how do you know it s completed enough to start using? how do you handle changes and user training?)
• Testing/QA

So even if AI becomes the perfect developer, you'll still need people to tell it what to do, when to do it and to confirm it does what you want it. Of course AI does also assist in all parts of the list above - but I think we are still far away from being able to tackle all of it.

Now I'm somewhat bias, as I work in the software industry as a non-developer and therefore assume I am irreplaceable by AI!! (only partially joking here).

I guess what you are suggesting is someone could just get a license of Adobe photoshop, give it to an AI bot to play with and say write me the software that does the same as this? Hmm, I don't think that is likely to work, given the complexity of the software. However, the use of AI tools to generate/alter images does mean the need for photoshop is less - however I don't think it replaces it in all use cases.

Salesforce will be interesting, my gut says they should be easier to replace - The cost of replacing it would not be zero, but will be significantly cheaper in the near future.

@Wakem That's a great pic visual analysis, which I hadn't seen before. It helps us see the potential for alternative bidders.

It challenges mythought that $RUL would be a good target for Hexagon, because while it builds out their suite into enterprise, supply chain and asset management, there are probably too many product overlaps.

Sandvik and Weir are possiblities, although also significant overlaps. (I think Sandvik was on my original list, but Weir wasn't, and should have been given their acquisition of Micromine earlier this year.)

And then of course, there's Bentley. They are serial acquirers, although they are paying down debt from prior acquisitions. However, a A$1.2bn bite at $RUL is of a comparable scale to prior acquistions they've made.

The other thing the image shows is that Caterpillar are differentiating themselves in this acquisition from the other plant manufacturers (Komatsu and Hitachi).

Imdex is one the small companies managers are getting excited about and lycapodium.

The commentary that went along with the image is also quite accurate @mikebrisy

Marina Baslina

Marina Baslina

• Following

Following

Get recognized and trusted in mining | Innovation Marketing Strategist | Rocks 'n' Futures Founder | The go-to resource for mining tech and METS discovery

Get recognized and trusted in mining | Innovation Marketing Strategist | Rocks 'n' Futures Founder | The go-to resource for mining tech and METS discovery

5d •

5 days ago • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn

Mining software leaders are forming an oligopoly.

*Good luck getting mining procurement to approve anything new*

A handful of giants are quietly buying up every significant player to create end-to-end "super-suites.

This is a classic power grab, designed to create impenetrable moats and lock customers into a single ecosystem.

It’s an ancient strategy: acquire every critical piece of the value chain, from geology and planning to fleet management, and then sell the whole bundle as the only "safe" choice for big mining houses.

You can see it happening everywhere. Even the equipment manufacturers are getting in on it. Caterpillar has a non-binding proposal to acquire RPMGlobal, which would give it a native planning and scheduling capability.

This leaves very few major players standing on their own. Maptek is pretty much the only large, truly independent suite left.

The marketing pitch for these giants is about convenience and integration. They sell the idea of "one vendor, one bill, full coverage". But the real drivers are far more self-serving. Once a mine is running on a single integrated platform, the cost and complexity of switching become astronomical. They're selling the removal of choice because big enterprises prefer fewer vendors and are averse to risk.

The new narrative to justify this is that data is king. By owning every application, they can collect massive datasets to power a superior "AI flywheel," making their suite smarter and harder to displace.

In this new reality, the strategic playbook is completely different depending on your size.

The consolidated giants need to sell safety and scale. Their game is to convince the C-suite that choosing their integrated suite is the safe career move. They leverage their large balance sheets and comprehensive stacks to de-risk the procurement process.

If you’re one of the last big independents, you can’t compete on breadth, so you must win on depth and focus. This is where you have to become a category creator, not just another vendor in a crowded field. Your marketing has to shift from "we sell a simulation tool" to "we own a simulation for mining".

For startups and niche players, the strategy is to find the cracks that the giants are too big and slow to focus on. If the incumbents sell breadth, you must sell unparalleled depth in a specific vertical. While the giants buy attention with massive marketing budgets, startups have to manufacture it by building a cult-like following. Your marketing must be about signaling your unique IP and niche dominance to potential acquirers.

What we're witnessing is the predictable maturation of a market.

Power is concentrating, and choice is diminishing. The giants win by removing risk, the independents win by framing focus as power, and the startups win by turning their irrelevance into an identity worth acquiring.

It's a fascinating chess game, but one that will likely lead to less competition and slower innovation for the end customer

@Wakem I agree! This very much sums up my view of the world as to what's going on. And that's why being acquired was always an important footnote in the $RUL thesis.

That the first offer came within months of the sale of the services division is only a further indicator of this.