Showing posts with label Googlenet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Googlenet. Show all posts

26/07/2007

Response: By 2010, will Windows 'Seven' (or any desktop OS) really matter?

The following is a discussion between myself and a friend in response to David Berlind's article: By 2010, will Windows 'Seven' (or any desktop OS) really matter?

Assumption: Internet OS implies: Internet, Intranet, and Extranet
"People that are engrossed in technology tend to overestimate the timeliness of the impact that new technology brings to the market. For example, fewer than 40% of the developed world who owns PCs have broadband internet right now and even if they have it they probably don't have it outside of their work or their home - obviously that would have to change dramatically if the world is going to become that dependent on the internet to make their PCs useful. Windows could prove to be the most important OS in a long time because potentially it could become the first OS that makes more use of internet services to improve productivity. People want to be able to use their computers online and offline, on the road and in the office, with and without rich editing capability and many people like the privacy of their own PC - maintaining their own private documents, desktop and settings. I don't really know you have to think that with 6 billion people in the world and only 1 billion on PCs with less than 40% in internet access and even fewer on mobile solutions that the world would have to advance fairly fast in the next two and a half years for Windows to not matter anymore..."
Overestimated timeliness: this is something that started 3 years ago and is here today. Look at the clients Google Premier Apps / SalesForce has built up already. And don't underestimate the headaches involved in managing a hardware infrastructure / licensing agreements in the non-techy enterprise. Enterprise is entrenched in their current technology, but as this tech becomes obsolete, companies will start realizing the cost savings of moving to 100% online. Especially when they can translate reduced licence costs into a competitive advantage against their competition. Basic Economics will play a role in these decisions.

Broadband PC users / Internet Service OS: How is productivity going to get better by introducing Internet Services at the OS level? The only thing I can see is grid computing / shared computing resources (OS Cloud for more processing power for R&D / Science). Internet Services become useful at the Application level. Internet Applications already consume Internet Services and have for 3+ years. If that is the goal for 2010 then MS would be about 6 years behind the rest of the world (10 years before mass adoption). Who knows, possibly Microsoft can't divulge half the info about that anyway.

Online / Offline: One can already build online / offline web applications.

Productivity: I have seen nothing recent from Microsoft that makes me more productive. Everything I've seen / heard about (Office 2007 / Vista) actually decreases productivity because of the learning curve. They totally ditched super users in favour of making it easier for beginners - and that's just stupid in a mature market where loyalty is a two way street. This learning curve is pushing people into the internet application space (Google Premier Apps / Salesforce / Zoho /...). Just keep in mind this P word's biggest limitation is human nature - and technology can't do much about that.

Portability: In the era of the Internet as an OS I don't need to sit at the same desk, office or even be on the same network to be productive nor to collaborate. All I need is access to the internet and I have everything I need. Google doesn't even have assigned seats in their office - they just have floors with computers. They spend their money on other things like hot tubs, sports and 20% time - that leads to employee retention. I bet the cost of each Google employee is about 1/2 the cost of each MS employee should MS actually have to pay licenses for software and infrastructure they consume.

Saturation: People who want PC's / broadband already have it (at least the people that matter EX// not Coboconk). As people better understand WHERE and WHAT they WANT to do on their PC's they will realize they don't need to spend $500 on an OS when everything they do is in a browser (exception: image & video editors, gaming and game programming). The internet is mature and is evolving into the OS that Microsoft predicted when they won the Internet Explorer anti trust case earlier this decade. I'm purchasing a Fedora laptop with the equivalent power as my current laptop for $150 USD brand new. Would cost $650 with Vista. I don't know if Vista is really worth the cost of 4 internet only Linux boxes.

T-1 Adoption: Windows 7 will be adopted in 2015 no earlier. It may be released in 2010 but even after a year you'll only have early adopters and people that were forced to have it because they bought new PC's (as is the case with Vista). Because the enterprise is the only customer that will see value in Windows, they will adopt Vista no earlier than when Windows 7 is released. Hence Windows 7 will actually be 10 years behind when adoption rates are significant, and if history repeats, will only come with another HUGE learning curve that organizations don't want to pay for in productivity losses.

Collaboration: Is the buzz word in the age of internet applications. Our consulting firm could win more bids if we didn't try to push Sharepoint (have still not seen a decent implementation of that beast). Sharepoint is required to link all the MS parts together. It costs $30K to brand and deploy in an organization plus volume licensing of the parts. All of this functionality is included in the $50 per year per user Google Premier Apps package without the need to manage hardware. In an economic era of big boxes vs. bootstrapped startups how can any org compete with costs like that?

Privacy: Is legislation not technology. Is enforceable in a court of law. Any company seeking to house user data will be subject to privacy regulation. In that their systems will be more secure than a basic Windows OS installation or else their business will be shut down by the courts (or repairs will be made and distributed to everyone immediately rather than VIA service updates). I can customize my Social Web OS EX// Facebook to look like I want it to with the privacy that I want. I can specify who to share documents with in my Google Collaboration suite. The company cannot share my data without a court order, and because of this enforceability - their systems are less subject to intrusion than even my own PC. If my home PC was hacked I could do nothing, if my web data account was hacked tI could sue.

Mobile: Is the fastest growing segment of the internet and will drive the Internet as an OS theory. Regardless of what the numbers are today, mobile devices will increasingly consume internet data sources. The single largest factor prohibiting mobile internet usage is platform. These limitations push developers further into the internet space. The iPhone's Safari browser is a key differentiator that other companies are trying to copy and will lead the charge in this arena. AJAX is here to stay, even on mobile phones!

Conclusion:

Unfortunately I don't think that this has anything to do with the rate of technology progression. I say this because it started drizzling about 3 years ago, started to pour in the last 18 months, and we now sit in a very mature Internet Application Space. YouTube is mature, iTunes is mature, Ring Tones are mature, Office Productivity is mature, and VOIP and Social Networking are nearly mature (also adoption rates are much faster for web apps over desktop apps). It's not about reinventing the wheel here - it's about making the wheel easier to produce, use and maintain - all the while keeping it the same. It's about developing a rubber that works as well on ice as it does on asphalt as it does on concrete. It's about giving the driver the same feel of control over his vehicle in every type of driving condition such that they can focus on what is really important: getting to where they are going.

Having said this I do recognize that this is a huge mindset shift for people at the CTO level and directly below, and in this you could turn several of these arguments against me. But as the CFO's start tightening the purse strings as the US goes into recession, technologies largest opponent becomes cost. And in time's like that the Board of Directors are more inclined to listen to the CFO over the CTO, especially when companies like Google are setting up aggressive corporate sales teams who's job it is to make people appreciate just how much cheaper their product really is.

It's nice to think that technology is the savoir of business, but it's actually the other way around. Without a business need, there never would have been a technology developed to fit the hole. It's important to recognize that business dictates this change, not technology companies. It just becomes a bit insulting when status quo is a superior route of action than action it 'self.

P.S., Gaming, Video Editing, Image Editing, and general media consumption are outside the scope of this posting. Should Microsoft decide to include media services in the base Windows 7 install they will face another anti-trust case. It's tough being Microsoft right now - but I'm rooting for them. At least they have Virtual Earth, Silverlight and control over the best darn CLR on the market. Their future is still bright, I just question if they will see continue to see ROI's similar to previous Windows releases after the Vista generation.

Over and Out

09/05/2007

Google blasted by media execs

Looks like the Googlenet is hard at work pissing more people off:

"The Googles of the world, they are the Custer of the modern world. We are the Sioux nation," Time Warner Inc. Chief Executive Richard Parsons said, referring to the Civil War American general George Custer who was defeated by Native Americans in a battle dubbed "Custer's Last Stand" [...] "They will lose this war if they go to war," Parsons added, "The notion that the new kids on the block have taken over is a false notion."

Read entire article.

Over and Out

16/04/2007

So long internet, t’was nice knowing you. Welcome to the Googlenet!

This is a full on rant and I’m not going to cite any sources and I’m not going to back anything up with fact. So hold on for the ride.

My grandfather lay in his hospital bed wanting to tell me one last thing before he passed away from Cancer nearly a decade ago. His final words have resonated in my mind ever since.

He opened his mouth slowly and whispered the words: “History repeats itself”.

At the time I wasn’t totally sure what those words meant. It’s taken nearly a decade to truly appreciate the words. He didn’t mean history literally repeats itself. He meant that the patterns in the world continue to repeat themselves. As a die hard Toronto Maple Leafs fan, history literally repeats itself. We missed the playoffs and we’ll continue miss the cup finals for quite a few more years.

But as a fan of the current internet, and as someone who uses it for work and personal reasons – and envisions it as a sort of public utility – not an advertising utility - the rumored acquisition of Double Click on Friday by none other than Google sets off a tone, and a shriek. History is again repeating itself. And all we can do is sit back for the ride.

But this time it is repeating itself in a far more abraisive way. Will the quality of the internet be consolidated against advertising network revenues in the same manner as Television? Will the specialty channels come at a cost out of our pocket, or will the broadcaster be syndicating the content into one of their big networks?

I’m not about to even speculate about the proportion of the internet that is Ad supported. Most news sites are ad powered, most social networks are ad powered, most help sites are ad powered and etc. etc. etc and even if they are not they have an advertising component. We’re seeing advertising in video games, we’re seeing video games built as advertisements.

Most internet evangelists are not stupid. They realize this. The promote this. They want you to promote this – they make you think it’s better this way – and hence you probably did it that way. Shame, shame, shame – You Just bought into “the Google as an Internet Monopoly theory”.

The implication of Google purchasing Double Click Inc. is that it will create a 85% monopoly on internet advertising. Hence, it may do certain things (AT&T or Microsoft Anti-Trust cases) that do not work in the best interest of consumers. Simply put, Adam Smith’s invisible hand doesn’t work in these markets.

I cannot be more opposed to this idea for quite a few reasons:

Firstly, Google would be able to use their dominant advertising position to channel click throughs (advertising clicks), in a strategic fashion (place ads on appropriate web sites), to point / promote Google properties in which they have high growth targets for that year (EX// Google Reader in 2007). In this manner Google can basically enter any web based market, ensure they have the highest visibility in that market, push real traffic back to their site, and grow inconsequentially huge leaving nothing for the little or even medium sized guys to eat.

Secondly, If I am a web site owner who sells a product (or site) but uses Google’s advertising platform for visibility (as with the 85% rate I have no other reasonable option for advertising). Google may see: me, my target audience, the advertising click through rates, and through that - understand with precision, the nature (vertical) of my site and hence that of my customers (or their interests). They will be able to archive this information then cross reference and aggregate it to understand industry trends in an unparalleled fashion. I see this as being entirely unfair. If one company can house, analyze, and take action on this information then this information must be public for everyone. The competitive advantage is simply too unjust. Sure advertising powers most popular media – but the internet was invented as a place for publishers and authors to share information for free – we cannot forget that.

Thirdly, and I understand what I’m saying isn’t so simple, Google should not be allowed to participate in any other internet spaces other than advertising. Simply put, with their industry metrics – automatically aggregated by vertical - they may see certain trends that we can’t before they even become trends – they will be able to take action in a proactive competitive manner against these trends, and stimy any type of innovation from the little guy.

Finally, (but believe me I’m not even close to finished with this one I’m just tired of ranting), Google has cash. They have a lot of cash. They have so much cash that spending $3.1 billion on DoubleClick isn’t a big deal (but is a super “strong fit” … he he .. sorry had to get that one in). They made this cash off their own advertising platform (I really have to wonder about the skills of the owners of DoubleClick for selling such a valuable property to Google). They will continue to make more and more in revenue as the years go on – especially as the 5% of current advertising dollars being spent on the internet increases. And there is only so long a company can invest in their core before they look for something else to drop their pants for. Believe me, those things are going to be the things that we currently consume at the expense of advertisers: Television, Magazines, Newspapers, and etc.

I can’t wait for the first installment of Hockey Night in Canada, to be delivered over HDNet, where every advertisement on every channel is brought to my by the Google Advertising Kingdom.

So long internet, t’was nice knowing you. Welcome to the Googlenet!

Over and Out