Would you pay to read this?
By Carmi Levy, Betanews Everyone's got an opinion surrounding Engadget's decision to temporarily deactivate user comments because of its editors said things had gotten "mean, ugly, pointless, and frankly threatening in some situations." While I find the reaction to Engadget's decision engaging and often amusing (Betanews reader comments, in particular, often make for fun late night reading) I'm a little surprised at the near-universal lack of understanding of how the Internet works in 2010.I have three fundamental thoughts on Internet publishing that may help put the Engadget brouhaha in perspective:Web sites need comments, period. Engagement between publishers and readers is a prime creative lifeblood of the publishing industry. Writers and editors can't do what they do unless they directly understand who's reading them and what they're thinking. Comments are a critical element of this feedback loop, and a site without them rather misses the point. Trolls happen. It's a given that not everyone likes to play by the rules. Large groups of people, whether they're taking in a baseball game or reading a tech site, cover a wide range of capabilities and motivations. Happily, the most readers choose to be positive contributors to the process, while only a small minority either lack the ability or the will to play nice. The comments section reflects the reality of the human condition, and it won't ever change. Readers can choose to not read, while publishers can choose to ban the trolls. Or, as Engadget decided to do this week, take their ball and go home. This Internet thing costs money. The rise of the Web over the last 15 years or so has conditioned us into believing that all of this is and should forever be free. The current argument over Engadget's decision to suspend commenting has shed light on the realities of publishing on the Web. As much as we all like to get something for nothing, it takes resources -- money, people, and time -- to launch and run a server, populate it with content, and find ways to convert it into a self-sustaining business. Since readers don't pay the shot, advertisers do. But they'll only pay if there's an audience. Bigger audiences are, of course, better, but numbers are only part of the equation. Quality counts, too, and a site overrun with trolls doesn't just consume the resources of whoever's publishing it. Advertisers balk at paying money to connect with readers who are too focused on flinging the online equivalent of bat guano at each other to ever consider going out and buying what these companies are offering.With these basic truths in mind, it's clear that Engadget's publishers felt the need to stop the flow of nastiness for a bit while they figured out their next move. We can slice them a new one if we wish, but Engadget's goal is not to make friends with the largest number of commenters. Rather, its entire reason for existence is to sell a particular audience to a particular set of advertisers. And if those advertisers don't feel that either the numbers or the demographic criteria fit their respective business needs, they'll pull their support.Which brings us to the iPad launch, which delighted the folks who pay the bills because it meant they were delivering their message to a larger-than-usual audience. Apple's announcement gave online publishers a unique opportunity to enjoy higher-than-usual advertising revenues as a direct result of this audience. When big stuff happens in the tech world, people go online to learn about it and decide whether or not it makes sense for their needs. Traffic spikes as newbies and old-timers alike hit the Web looking for information, insight, and guidance. Everything else -- like run-of-the-mill news stories in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti -- gets shunted off to the side as sites do their best to meet demand. And drive it even further.Is it fair that a touchscreen device trumps the very real drama unfolding in a certain Caribbean nation? No. But no one ever said publishing had to be fair.Write what's hot, or don't get paidWhich largely explains the all-iPad-all-the-time philosophy that Engadget had followed in the days leading up to Apple's much anticipated announcement. Criticism in the comments notwithstanding, the site was merely reflecting what its readers were asking for -- if not directly, then certainly through their online readership patterns. The site capitalized on a golden opportunity to increase readership and the closely-linked, all-important advertising revenues. Likewise writers, some of whom are paid on a traffic-based formula, focused their efforts on the topic that would return the greatest number of page views.Speaking for myself, the simple truth is, I typically get lots more page views when I write about Apple than when I write about, say, how social media is helping Haiti's recovery. To wit: My column last week about the iPad prompted 82 comments, as of the time of this writing. My Haiti piece? One. Based on this outcome, where do you think I'm going to focus my efforts in future to maximize reader response and, consequently, advertising value and revenue for my employer? Do you think I'm interested in writing stuff that no one reads? Do you think we'll be able to support a business that doesn't optimize its output for the largest, most desirable audience possible?As I go through the ongoing process of coming up with topics that I think readers want to read, and that I think advertisers will appreciate, I focus on stuff that's hot and, yes, conversation-generating. If techies are discussing it around the water cooler, I want to write about it. I suppose if I wrote for a site whose readers paid for the privilege, I'd be able to back off the max-the-audience-please-the-advertiser mantra. But until the Web shifts to that model -- and the announcement by The New York Times that it will return to charging for access in 2011 signals a possible change in direction for the industry -- we'll continue to see wall-to-wall coverage of the most in-demand topics.Because for now, advertisers call the shots. Not readers. And Engadget's decision to kill commenting for now is solid proof that Engadget listened to those who pay the bills before it pulled the plug.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...The iPod touch: Still a category of one
Monday, February 1, 2010
By Carmi Levy, Betanews Of all the short-form conclusions about the iPad, the one that seems to stand out from the crowd is, "iPod touch on steroids."I'll buy that, since I also concluded much the same thing in a conversation with at least one reporter following the iPad's introduction. At first glance, it extends the same old iPhone-based operating system over a larger form factor that manages to both delight (still-unique industrial design and support for the largest online app inventory anywhere) and annoy (no memory card support, no USB, and supported by only one, less-than-beloved carrier) all at the same time.On second glance, it makes me wonder why Applephiles and, more critically, consumers, continue to give the iPod touch short shrift.The real star of the showIf anything, the so-called "iPhone without a phone" (and camera, and GPS, and so on) is the dark horse in Apple's mobile strategy, a carrier-free alternative for folks who either hate AT&T, really like their current carrier, or think the sun rises and sets over their existing mobile phone or smartphone. Whatever drives someone to choose a phoneless iPhone, the industry's failure to deliver anything to counter this class of device is little short of staggering. Apple would like to thank its competitors for giving it yet another free ride.By the numbers, the touch is dwarfed by its iPhone big brother. Apple's shipped over 42 million iPhones compared to only 20 million iPod touch devices. Beyond the numbers, however, Apple has succeeded in reaching an audience that might otherwise not buy into its admittedly our-way-or-no-way smartphone mentality. For potential Apple fans who, for example, balk at the price of the company's laptops or simply want to see what all the fuss is about, a sub-$200 pocketable device gives them at least a taste of the cult-like experience without the sticker shock.Apple's gateway drugThe connection between the touch and its MacBook and MacBook Pro laptop cousins isn't as ridiculous as it sounds at first blush. While a mobile device that can be bought almost on impulse obviously doesn't compete against a full-on laptop, the psychology of Apple's pricing structure makes it easier for budget-starved consumers to buy into the Apple universe. The iPod touch, then, is something of a gateway drug for the wannabe. This kind of thinking worked for Apple once before, when it introduced the iPod Shuffle as an entry-level alternative for folks who coveted the then-flagship hard drive-based iPod but didn't fancy its then-over-$400 price tag.Of course, the world has moved on since the first Shuffle hit the market, and basic music players have morphed into full-featured devices. Yet over two years after the first-generation iPod touch hit retail shelves, it remains a category of one. Sure, Dell showed an Android-based slate-like device at CES that looks suspiciously like a phoneless touch clone. And a previously unheard of outfit called Giinii showed something called the Movit Mini at last year's CES before promptly disappearing back into the obscurity from which it came. But while competitors large and small continue to spin their wheels in bringing non-carrier offshoots of existing handsets to market, Apple cleans up with 20 million (and counting) sales to consumers who otherwise weren't looking for a phone.History repeats itselfThe iPad benefits from this two-stage strategy. Its 3G and Wi-Fi-only models repeat the iPhone/iPod touch product hierarchy, albeit without the messy split branding. Am I the only one shrugging my shoulders wondering why other platforms haven't gotten the message just yet? Even though touch sales numbers total less than half of the iPhone, a non-3G alternative grows the user base and increases growth potential for the combined application ecosystem.Apple's App Store doesn't care if you've got an iPhone or an iPod touch. Developers, on the other hand, like the near-50% boost in audience size thanks to the presence of the Wi-Fi-only device in the lineup, an incentive that makes some of the other indignities -- like a sometimes-questionable app approval process, and a revenue split that trails competing platforms -- somewhat easier to swallow.Pay once, reap twiceFor its part, Apple's iPod touch customers represent a major return on its original investment in the platform. By extending what it spent on iPhone research and development to an ostensibly identical product, the company built a template for mobile handset development that should have become an industry standard. No one else got the message, though, because while Apple repeats the process with the iPad, Google remains stuck firmly in neutral in getting 3G-less Android out the door. Other mobile vendors may as well be in a different universe.I realize I'm probably out of step focusing on the now-dowdy-looking touch when everyone else has eyes only for the iPad. Indeed, when Stephen Colbert substituted Apple's new big baby for the traditional envelope for his presentation stint on last night's Grammy Awards, he merely reinforced our willingness to have the pop culture agenda hijacked, repeatedly, by one company...along with our naivete in simply going along for the marketing-magic ride. It isn't about the best device for the job anymore. Instead, it's about the one that garners the most buzz. Right now.Practically speaking, then, Mr. Colbert would have been far better off with a touch, because his efforts to get his daughter's approval as he waved the 10-inch device around the stage only underscored why these things aren't the answer for everybody. Of course, that wouldn't have been anywhere near as headline-worthy. Because the iPad costs a lot more than a touch. And when you're looking for new-to-the-fold customers with a bit of extra cash in their wallets, a $200 price of entry remains a far more compelling driver of long-term subscriber growth than a device that starts at $499.Sometimes, though, the solutions that make the most sense for most folks may not be the newer, sexier ones that garner higher transaction prices (and profits) for their makers. Which is why I'll be buying a touch real soon, before Apple figures it out and discontinues the line altogether in favor of the iPad.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...Let’s stop the iPad whining: It’s not about the hardware
Thursday, January 28, 2010
By Carmi Levy, Betanews It's almost embarrassing...Correct that, it's big time embarrassing, for me to read some of the public's response to yesterday's announcement of the Apple iPad.Yes, we know that the name is thematically close to a certain feminine hygiene product. No, we don't need to read the obvious over and over in the comments section of every tech and mainstream Web site, blog, Facebook page, Twitter stream, and (gee, thanks, Brian Williams) nightly newscast. We get it. It may have been funny when we were in the second grade, but now that we're all supposedly adults, it strikes me as needlessly juvenile.The world already thinks that geeks live in their mothers' basements and emerge into the real world only when their carefully managed stashes of snack cakes and Mountain Dew run low. This isn't going to help erase the stereotypes anytime soon.Missing the pointThe fact that so much of the harsh criticism seems to focus on the name suggests not everyone fully understands why Apple is unique among manufacturers in its ability to grab and keep our attention. It isn't, and never was, about the hardware.While Apple is exceptionally adept at leveraging the latest principles of industrial design to create products that elegantly fit into our day-to-day lives, its experience with the iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad reinforce its belief that great hardware can only get you so far. Eventually, someone else will introduce a competing device that looks better, has a more compelling feature set, massages those features together more effectively, does so at a more affordable price point, and makes anything that came before it look like yesterday's news. If you're banking on the sexiness of the device itself (which pretty much describes most hardware-focused vendors these days) you're missing the big picture.So let's stop whining about what wasn't included in iPad v1.0, shall we? Because things like memory card slots and a USB jack can easily be added to v2.0 or 3.0. Apple never gives away the store with the first release of a product: You'd think we would have all learned from the iPhone experience, which was introduced with glaring hardware gaps (lack of 3G, anyone?) that have since been largely addressed. Indeed, three years since it was first announced, complaints about the iPhone's hardware capabilities are almost inaudible. The App Store gets all the bouquets and brickbats these days, as it should. Because the device is little more than a channel to bigger and more lucrative things for Apple and its carrier/developer partners.So if it isn't the hardware, then what is it? From where I sit, the glue that keeps it all together once the newness of the physical device has worn off is the surrounding ecosystem. The iBooks Store now that now joins the iTunes and App Store ecosystems promises to do for book publishers what iTunes did for the music industry. Apple's masterstroke lies in how it extended an already successful platform, giving itself a natural head start that one can imagine has already sent Google's Android team scraping the cupboards for a very different type of tablet.It's all potential for publishingIs Apple's new offering fully baked yet? For book publishers, not even close. So far Apple's got deals with only book five companies, and availability of both the device and the software/content distribution landscape that surrounds it will be US-only for now.But the potential is there for all of us to recognize once we stop trading moronic jokes about the name.Also still firmly in the potential pile is the iPad's capability to transform the newspaper and magazine industries. I was impressed with the brief demo delivered by The New York Times because it showed, however fleetingly, the possibilities inherent in transitioning a traditional paper into tablet form. It isn't enough to dump the paper-based version into an electronic device, and yesterday's demo reinforced that the Times and Apple get that. From what little we saw from the Gray Lady this week, there's at least some value-add there, and I look forward to trying it out on my kitchen table sometime soon.Despite the promise, the business model that would, indeed should, surround it was nowhere to be seen yesterday. There was no mention of other publications, no sign of this becoming an open platform that'll be made easily available to other publishers, no mention of a subscription model that would make it a no-brainer for readers to finally make the switch from paper to screen. And please don't tell me you read it for free on the Web...we all know that experience is ridiculously lame.I'll forgive the omissions because Apple needs to leave a little in reserve to allow for future growth. What matters here is that Apple will in all likelihood become the first vendor to successfully sell tablets in a market sector where other vendors have gone to die for the past 15 years. And while the juveniles among us mock its name, it becomes increasingly apparent that there has been a need for in-between, tablet-like devices like this all along, but no one's figured out the secret sauce that will get mainstream consumers to buy in.Because laptops suckIf we're being brutally frank, laptops and desktops are great at getting work done but lousy tools for exploring content. We've held on to our paper-based subscriptions and physical books for as long as we have because the tech revolution has failed to offer us a compelling alternative. While everyone else has been trying to sell modified laptops or tweaked smartphones to fill in this middle ground of sorts, the iPad finally gets close enough to the usability mark -- with the obvious exception of balancing the thing on your lap for an entire two-hour movie -- to get the tablet party started in earnest.The iPad won't replace netbooks, laptops, or any other device in our personal and business inventory, so I won't waste anyone's time drawing comparisons. Because it's a net new category, it'll be a tougher sell to post-recessionary consumers wary of adding yet another costly doodad to their lives. But once we look past the childish jokes about its name, we'll be able to focus on how Apple's growing ecosystem could potentially change the way we acquire and consume all forms of content. That, more than any slick piece of hardware, is the big story here.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...Twitter couldn’t save Brangelina
Monday, January 25, 2010
By Carmi Levy, Betanews I'm not one to follow the lives of celebrities. I don't watch TMZ, and the very sound of Entertainment Tonight's Mary Hart's voice is enough to make me nauseous. I turn my head as I walk past the supermarket tabloids in the checkout aisle because I could care less who Jennifer Aniston is dating this week or that Elvis was spotted in a rural Kentucky laundromat. I've got better things to do with my life than wonder how many more kids Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt want to adopt or when she plans on getting another tattoo.For all my celeb-fatigue, though, I found it interesting this past weekend when I first learned about the Brangelina supercouple's separation not from television, radio, or a newspaper, but from my Twitter feed. After I sarcastically retweeted the supposed news, I heard from a number of friends that they, too, had gotten the news from online sources.Things are tough all over. And tougher here.While the recession ravaged businesses in all sectors, it's been particularly brutal if you work in conventional media. Long in decline because of the industry's general inability (or unwillingness; I'm still trying to figure out which one is more true) to adapt to the growing influence of online tools on how we learn about the world around us, so-called traditional media outlets have especially taken it on the chin during the recession. That's because the advertisers who drive their major source of revenue have reined in their own marketing budgets. Well, the lucky ones have. The unlucky ones no longer exist.So instead of reading the newspaper, we custom-build our RSS feeds and hoover them wherever we happen to be -- desktop, laptop, mobile device, game console, whatever. We're no longer stuck waiting for our favorite television shows to be delivered via conventional broadcast. Instead, we watch them online. Radio was bypassed years ago when we began using iTunes to program our own playlists instead of relying on some anonymous program director to do the same thing.In every case, the Internet has turned us into masters of our respective media domains. While conventional media routes control of the message through relatively few gatekeepers who shape the message for the masses, new media hands that control over to us. Katie Couric is no more the sole source of breaking news from Haiti than Mary Hart is the only place we can learn about Brangelina.Social media vs. Mary HartConventional media's monopoly over the flow of information and advertising dollars is crumbling. Or, to put it in headline form for Mary Hart's teleprompter: The entire industry is cooked. If television, which used to be a license to print money, no longer has the sure-fire ability to suck in millions of viewers and connect them with advertisers willing to pay for that connection, Mary Hart and Katie Couric won't be the only televisionistas headed for the unemployment line.Those Web 2.0 -- or, dare I say, Web 3.0 -- tools that readers of sites like Betanews have been using to Tweet and Facebook each other for the past couple of years have evolved into de facto communication platforms in their own right. While my tech-Luddite in-laws may laugh at the thought, it is indeed possible to cut off all conventional television, radio, and newspapers and get all your news from new/social media sources.Next week, a group of journalists will do exactly that, living in a farmhouse in the French countryside and using only social media tools to cover their respective beats. No conventional media allowed. The project, "Behind Closed Doors on the Net," runs from February 1 through 5, and should reinforce social media's transition from neat way to keep in touch into a powerful, real-time information medium. I'm sure when all is said and done, sipping from the media spigot through exclusively new media channels won't pose any obstacles to news gathering. And if social media tools are good enough for professional journalists, they'll be good enough for regular consumers, too.A case of unfortunate timingIf only it were that simple, then every conventional media outlet on the planet would have long ago adopted the tools of new media and we'd still be relying on publishers and broadcasters for real-time news. But things rarely transition smoothly in any industry, especially those too resistant to change for their own good. Even if Twitter's a better real-time means of learning the size, shape, and theme of Angelina's newest tattoo, it's a scary business model (for now, at least) because advertisers haven't bought in just yet. So while the new tools are home to growing legions of engaged, motivated audience members, they're not anywhere near capable of replacing the money lost by advertisers no longer content to pay premium rates for conventional media audiences who no longer exist because they're all Facebooking and Twittering.Welcome to today's Social Media Catch-22.Like most of the rest of the world, I have no idea how Brangelina's split will play out, and I don't much care either way. But that's not the point. While the subject of a celebrity breakup is shallow to the extreme, I nevertheless find it fascinating to watch through the lens of social media. How we learn about everything around us -- from relief workers tweeting from the front lines in Haiti to politicians blogging from the seat of power to journalists updating their Facebook pages from the anchor's desk -- is evolving almost as fast as the tools themselves. And unless Mary Hart learns to tweet for real, the scoops and the advertisers that come with them will become fewer and further between for her and others like her.Fruity pebblesThe emergence this week of a new offering from Apple -- which could, depending on who you listen to, be a tablet, a slate, or a Star Trek tricorder-like device -- adds yet another wrench. If the form factor, content payment-and-delivery model and carrier/publisher partnerships pan out as the universe says they must, conventional media will end the week either saluting Apple as its savior, or blaming it for the industry's eventual demise.Picture of Brad Jolie morphed with Angelina Pitt, or vice versa, comes from MorphThing.com.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...Google’s deal with the devil: Declaring war in China while competitors wimp out
Thursday, January 21, 2010
By Carmi Levy, Betanews I was just old enough to remember, and appreciate the significance of, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. The iconic image of a dissident standing defiantly in front of a column of People's Liberation Army tanks is as powerful today as it was when we first saw it.Back then, activists fighting for greater freedom used surreptitiously acquired fax machines to get the word out to the rest of the world. It was an early sign that technology held the potential to undercut control-freak-government efforts to stifle free speech. Now that the Internet has taken over as the platform of choice for Chinese freedom-lovers and freedom-crushers alike, the battleground has shifted irrevocably, and the autocratic Chinese government hardly has enough political officers to keep its spy game machinery in balance.That doesn't mean it isn't trying, however.It all begins to unravelFour years after it launched its google.cn search service in China, Google now finds itself staring down the gun barrel of that proverbial tank. At the time (and ever since, if we're picking nits) the company was derided for censoring search results in accordance with limitations imposed by the Chinese government. Google justified its decision then by saying this is the price foreign firms must pay if they wish to do business in China.That all changed earlier this month. On January 12, just after discovering an unprecedented cyber attack on its services and users, the company published the following on its blog:We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results.Fair enough, and from where I sit, it was a Hobson's Choice that the "Do No Evil" company has balanced quite nicely these past four years. Google made a deal with the devil with its eyes focused intently on a bigger picture that envisioned delivering greater access to class-leading Internet Web services for Chinese citizens. It held its nose for the entire time, confident its move would eventually spark greater freedoms in a country where the government's definition of the word differs from that used elsewhere.We won't directly accuse the government, but…After revealing that its systems had been hacked and it would enter into discussions with the Chinese government (and possibly exit the Chinese market entirely if things weren't resolved to the company's satisfaction), Google didn't specifically accuse the Chinese government of backing the attacks. But it's fairly clear to anyone reading between the lines that Google believes the Chinese government was trying to take its censorship deal with Google to places never envisioned four years ago.Simply put, no one outside the Chinese government has access to the scaled resources necessary to mount attacks of the magnitude uncovered by Google. Never mind the fact that the Chinese government stands virtually alone in having a motive to spy on human rights activists and their sympathizers in the first place.The fact that Google is willing to walk away from the largest, fastest growing Internet market on earth -- it grew from 10 million users a decade ago to 340 million today -- just before it starts generating world-beating revenue, speaks volumes about how its corporate ethics have evolved since google.cn went live in 2006. Although Google plays second fiddle in Chinese search (31% market share to Baidu's 60%) it remains well ahead of Yahoo and Microsoft and stands positioned to cash in on its strong-second position as this market matures. It's all potential from where Google sits, so its threat to take its ball and go home should send a message to competing tech firms that deals with devils ultimately have limits.Not everyone gets the message, however. Microsoft, which in December referred to China as "the most important strategic market," shows no signs of growing a spine. CEO Steve Ballmer told CNBC, "We've been quite clear that we are going to operate in China, (and) we're going to abide by the law." I guess "abide by the law" makes it sound palatable, even if "the law" is little more than an autocratic edict designed to suppress the actions of freedom-seeking Chinese citizens.At least Microsoft has company in the "Do Some Evil" camp. Yahoo, an organization that apparently never met a Communist regime it didn't like, happily filtered its search results before hooking up with Alibaba in 2005. After buying 39% of the Alibaba partnership, Yahoo made headlines later that year when it delivered material from Shi Tao, a journalist, to the Chinese regime. Mr. Tao was subsequently convicted and is now serving 10 years in prison.I'm sure leaders of both companies are sitting on pins and needles as they wait for the outcome of Google's negotiations with Chinese authorities. I'm certain they'd be beside themselves with glee if the company that's kicked their Web services tail in virtually every international market decides to abandon this one. I'm certain their PR minders will find ways to soft pedal their cozy relationship with the Chinese government in light of the Google hacking.Principle over profitsWhile the end result remains a great unknown, the fact that a profit-seeking American company would put its most promising growth market on the line over a fundamental issue of freedom and security, and be willing to duke it out with the world's most powerful Communist government, should be an eye-opener for any Western firm thinking of doing business in a country where freedom remains something of a four-letter word. Compromises made in the interest of maintaining a guiding presence in the market mean little if the government ultimately chooses to bulldoze its way to confidential data after a few years have passed.Even if you have no business in China, ask yourself which company you'd trust with your data: the one with a spine, or the one that gives Communist officials anything they're looking for? In the end, what happens in the Far East may very well dictate what happens here, and who deserves to prevail as Web- and cloud-based services continue to creep into the mainstream.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...The narrowing divide between the rest of the world and Haiti
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
By Carmi Levy, Betanews Betanews urges its readers everywhere to contribute to the effort to restore vital services to Haiti, by contributing to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund today.I'm of two minds as I watch the heart-wrenching disaster unfold in Haiti. On the one hand, technology has been pressed into service in innovative ways to connect victims with their faraway families, to marshal resources from aid-providing nations and organizations, and to make it easier for you and me to help out by texting contributions from our mobile phones. Rescuers are Twittering, albeit haltingly, from the front lines, while Facebook pages are serving as virtual bulletin boards -- all signs that social media continues to come of age as a force for good in a less-than-fair world.As heartening as it is to see technology used for such crucial benefit, however, the utter collapse of the nation's physical and technological infrastructure -- already tenuous before the earth shook -- has laid bare the limitations of our modern tools of communication. While this country of 9 million was already in dire straits long before the earthquake virtually flattened its capital city last week, this latest disaster has pushed the nearly failed state even closer to the brink. Bandwidth and access are either gone completely, or so constrained that they may as well be offline. Power, water, landline phones, and cellular services -- essentially anything that requires an overhead wire, underground piping, or a tower -- are down until further notice.Granted, rescuers and victims alike are so focused on survival that often the last thing they'll be thinking about is finding a mobile phone so they can update their Facebook page. But the dearth of connectivity in the quake's aftermath only serves to make a sad situation that much sadder.Chaos can visit us, tooMore ominously for those of us helpfully thumb-texting our contributions from our smartphones, the crisis in Haiti has reinforced just how close the rest of us are to similarly dire straits. Despite our First World, technologically advanced way of life, were we stripped of our basic infrastructure, we too would easily devolve into anarchy inside of three days.On the surface, it seems laughable to draw any sort of parallel between a sophisticated, vibrant, self-sustaining society like ours and that of an island nation that's been unable to pull itself up by its bootstraps for much of the last century. As gangs of looters -- likely boosted by at least some of the escapees from the collapsed prison just outside of town -- began to roam the streets of Port-au-Prince about three days after the quake hit, it reinforced just how close to anarchy most large cities can be even on a normal day. It's why aid agencies counsel even those of us in supposedly urbanized regions to always have a 72-hour supply of essentials on hand. The thinking goes, if basic services go dark, it'll take at least that long for rescue and aid workers to deliver anything approaching meaningful levels of help. And until then, we're on our own.So as we sit glued to our screens, watching the numbers grow and the situation darken, we may want to remind ourselves that the same thing can happen to us. If the so-called "Big One" ever strikes San Francisco or Los Angeles, there's no guarantee that these cities wouldn't find themselves grappling with many of the same overwhelming hardships currently facing Port-au-Prince. Desperation, after all, doesn't have its own nationality, language, or culture; and construction standards and national will notwithstanding, a shattered American city is just as likely to slide into the abyss as any other before outsiders can reach in and save it from itself.Time for some hard, personal questionsAs much as we find ourselves feeling compassion for Haiti, we need to look at our own needs as well and ask ourselves the same hard questions that often get asked only when disaster strikes: Namely, if some sudden and catastrophic event destroyed all water, power, and connectivity services, what would we do to keep ourselves and our families safe? How would we continue to function as individuals, as communities, and as a society at-large, if the physical and technological infrastructure that underpins our supposedly advanced economy is irrevocably shattered? Even if our connections are simply knocked out of commission for a few days or weeks, would we have what it takes to keep going?I'm probably too much of an optimist for my own good, but I believe that buried deeply within every tragedy is at least a sliver of hope. If Haiti's pain is to have some kind of benefit -- to itself and to others -- then it will be a realization that we cannot continue to presume that the services that maintain everyday life will be there tomorrow. And if they aren't, we need to know what we need to do, both personally and professionally, to keep ourselves functional and relevant. Assuming they'll be there, or that some higher power will swoop in to save the day if they're not, is hopelessly naïve.Enter the dusty DRPCompanies have been working on disaster recovery plans for time immemorial, confident that these often binder-sized documents and related tools and processes are all they need to stay in the game if chunks of the company get taken out. Whether the source is Mother Nature, a band of terrorists, or a disgruntled soon-to-be-ex-employee intent on bringing the company down with him, IT departments with a clue have devoted significant resources toward building, testing and updating these plans, then hoping they're never needed.Watching Haiti descend below its already-tragic baseline should provide the ideal catalyst for companies of any size and in any sector to dust off the DRP and ask if they're doing enough to protect their interests in case the worst happens. Haiti's experience should challenge companies to question whether the growing cloud-based movement is a good or a bad thing in the event of total urban meltdown. It should open the eyes of all IT and business types to the reality that such a meltdown "can't happen here." It can and it will.And whatever form it takes, when the time comes, organizations that fail to draw parallels between their own reality and the awful images being broadcast from the disaster zone may yet find themselves on television for all the wrong reasons.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.Betanews urges its readers everywhere to contribute to the effort to restore vital services to Haiti, by contributing to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund today. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...Now, the great Facebook security giveaway…literally
Thursday, January 14, 2010
By Carmi Levy, Betanews Facebook wants to be your new security maven.Go ahead. Have a good laugh. I certainly did, after I first learned about Facebook's plan to partner with security provider McAfee to boost end-user security on the often-attacked social media platform.Under the terms of the deal, Facebook's 350 million (and growing) users will get a free six-month subscription to McAfee's Internet Security Suite, after which they'll be eligible for ongoing discounts. The partnership also means McAfee is now Facebook's exclusive consumer security software provider for the next year -- something which will doubtless come in handy whenever a Facebook user's account gets hacked. If this all-too-common event happens to you, you'll be locked out of Facebook entirely until a McAfee tool scans your computer and declares it free of malware.Is it too catty to say this is too little, too late? Is it also less-than-kind to say Facebook's attempts to boost end-user security would be better focused on finalizing (and sticking with) a privacy policy that doesn't confuse and anger the majority of folks who take the time to learn about it?When behaviors trump solutionsIs it similarly mean-spirited of me when I conclude this will have as much impact on end-user security as "Don't Drink and Drive" messages have had on the average drunk driver. We can implement all the DUI laws we want, after all, and we can install breathalysers on anything that moves, but we'll still be cleaning up alcohol-fuelled wrecks and putting up roadside memorials to their victims.No technology in the world will save people from themselves, and that truth is the one thing Facebook doesn't seem to get.That doesn't mean that Facebook won't try to toss more technology at the malware issue. The geek's solution to a problem, after all, is to always buy another box or install another layer of code. Yet the reality that Facebook currently faces is infinitely too complex for a mere tool, rooted much more in who we are and what we do rather than what we buy. It should be obvious to just about everyone (except somehow, perhaps by virtue of its size, Facebook) that end users refuse to self-educate on best practices for online security. But there's a deeper cause here that may be a little harder for Facebook to swallow because to do so might require the company to admit it's (gasp!) deficient in some way -- that it simply isn't structured to meet the security challenge head-on.Privacy = security (T | F)Those deficiencies have played out in stark relief in recent months. After a Canadian public policy group complained about Facebook's porous-as-Swiss-cheese privacy policies, the country's privacy commissioner, Colin McKay, launched an investigation. Officials from McKay's office met with Facebook's leaders, hovering over the shoulders of the company's developers as they supposedly improved their privacy infrastructure. After several months of this, late last year, Facebook rolled out its new global policy.Declaring this new policy a dud is all too easy, like kicking your younger brother after you've already immobilized him with the big pillow from the sofa. Instead of making it simpler for users to manage the list of individuals and companies and faceless entities that have access to their personal information, Facebook made it simpler for users to realize that everything was open by default. Accounts that had been shut tight became free-flowing spigots of data, some of it confidential. Users suddenly found their formerly "private" data being broadcast to any stranger with the wherewithal to look at their profile page -- or worse, to people who weren't even registered Facebook users. (Or people who weren't even people.) Walls around the world lit up with complaints from users desperately trying to reset their settings before their parents found out about their new tattoos or secret girl/boyfriends.So what does Facebook's privacy competency have to do with its effectiveness in ensuring a secure environment for its users? Everything, because privacy is little more than a personal application of security. And unfortunately Facebook's track record in privacy isn't stellar. Even with the prodding of a major government agency, Facebook hasn't been able to make privacy work, either to its advantage or that of its users. Yet we're now supposed to trust that the company's newfound friendship with McAfee will make it easy for users to trust that it can keep the baddies at bay.Um, not so much. First we're fooling ourselves if we think some fancy new Web-integrated security tools will magically fix things. To borrow Sarah Palin's metaphor, it's like putting lipstick on a pig -- and in this case, the pig has a little leakage problem on the other end. From badly designed third-party applications that compromise the security of unaware users to poorly designed administrative interfaces that intimidate even advanced users, the Facebook platform itself is a nightmare of security. Couple that with an organizational culture that has raised inciting mass-scale privacy revolts to a high art, and you have the basis for a perfect storm of security nastiness.Towards an insecure futureOver the next few weeks, countless Facebook users will gain access to these new features. Emboldened by their newfound security, they'll doubtless continue to click on hinky come-ons and sign away their first-borns' confidential data in exchange for Farmville credits, Mafia Wars weapons, and a lifetime supply of astrology predictions.Facebook would like us to believe that its deal with McAfee protects us from the countless stranger/malcontents who want to attack us from the outside. The company fails to realize -- or maybe it does and simply won't admit it -- that the real threat comes from the legions of end users who simply won't take the time to learn even the basics of online security.More ominously, Facebook fails to realize -- or admit -- that its own inadequate organizational structure and technology architecture will continue to put those same legions of ignorant users at risk long after they install their new toys from McAfee and dive into another round of Farmville. It's that false sense of security that scares me most, and provides the first glimpse of the ingredients for an eventual flattening out of the Facebook growth curve.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...Nexus One: More than a phone, less than a game-changer
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
By Carmi Levy, Betanews Call me hopeful that Google's announcement of Nexus One Tuesday helps it positively influence the evolution of an open, innovative wireless market. Call me similarly hopeful that Google's move into hardware -- a bold decision that builds on its earlier success facilitating the creation of the Android mobile operating system and orchestrating the Open Handset Alliance's go-to-market plans -- will drive the success of the next truly competitive smartphone platform.But as hopeful as I am, I'm not yet convinced that one phone can ever deliver all the goods. Nexus One is hardly the earth-shattering, apocalyptic shot that will catapult the smartphone market into next week.While I give Google credit for managing to recreate a small fraction of the kind of gadget mania that's driven Apple fandom for much of that company's history, I feel compelled to be the guy that rains a little on everyone's parade. Yes, there's a bulging list of super-cool features -- for instance, speech input that actually works (and in virtually every major app, no less), a multi-colored trackball for customized alerts, dual-microphone noise cancellation for hands-free operation light years removed from the speaking-in-an-oil-drum experience of most current devices, and a slick interface that suddenly makes competing Android-powered devices look lame. Yet with all that, the Nexus One is hardly the "superphone" that Google claims it to be.It's not about the deviceEven if Nexus One lived up to the hype and proved itself the greatest phone in the universe, that should not be enough for Google to paste "Mission: Accomplished" on its flight deck. Gadget worship may fill the comment sections of tech sites and blogs alike, but it isn't what drives the industry. The significance of Nexus One's announcement has nothing to do with the device itself and everything to do with Google's desire -- nay, need -- to control the mobile Web services experience as thoroughly and efficiently as it controls the desktop Web services experience.Google is what it is today because it figured out how to monetize common online activities like search, e-mail, and productivity better than anyone else. It generates more money per unit of online end-user activity than any other Web-focused organization (Yahoo, you there?) a reality that gives it an ever growing pile of cash that allows it to invest in whatever next-generation initiatives it wants.Still, while Google wishes it could ride the Web-on-a-conventional-PC gravy train forever, the real world has other plans. That's because desktop and laptop PCs are yesterday's news, with growth curves flatter than a Nebraska corn field. Mobile platforms represent today's and tomorrow's explosive growth markets. Either Google converts its ability to connect advertisers with users of its services to a mobile paradigm, or it joins Microsoft and IBM in the shadowy category of companies that were once all-conquering, but retreated from their mythical status when the world changed and they failed to stay ahead of the curve.The Android operating system was created under the auspices of the Open Handset Alliance, a Google-led 47-member consortium of hardware vendors, carriers and vendors. Android was supposed to keep Google ahead of that curve. Designed from the start to be open in the same vein as Linux, Google's goal for Android was to reduce costs to consumers, foster innovation, and accelerate the growth rate of mobile devices by driving them into markets unsustainable using conventional closed models followed by Research In Motion and Apple.In that respect, Google has already succeeded. Since the first admittedly lukewarm HTC G1 appeared in the fall of 2008, the new OS has gained impressive momentum on a broad range of devices, and is now ideally positioned as a viable #3 to RIM and Apple. Google has kept the good times rolling with continued updates to the OS and focused investment in a development ecosystem. The result? Application availability that just powered through 20,000 titles (small compared to Apple's 100,000+, but still a respectable showing for a new player), and a fast-growing market share that research outfit Canalys pegged at 3.5% by the end of Q3 2009.But in bringing its own phone to market, Google risks ticking off its alliance partners -- especially the mobile handset vendors like Motorola, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, and LG, all of whom signed on to the project hoping Google would remain a benevolent partner and not a ruthless competitor. If anyone's looking for evidence that Google intends to play hardball, look no further than its choice of OS for the new device. For now, Android version 2.1 is available only on the Nexus One. How many bets Google continues to favor its own devices from here on out? How many bets that Google doesn't much care if it alienates a partner or two (or three) along the way in its pursuit of mobile OS and services dominance? How many bets its hardware "partners" already have dartboards mounted in their respective boardrooms?When Google eventually faltersWith all this in mind, it's clear that while Nexus One is not the "superphone," it is more than just a phone. It's Google's bet on its future. If history is any guide, it'll turn out to be a bad bet, and Google's attempt to stay dominant for more than one computing era will fail as surely as Microsoft's attempt to navigate beyond desktop productivity and network software was. Scoff now, but when we look back 10 or 15 years from now, the leaderboard will be as radically changed as the tools and processes that will define tomorrow's business and consumer technology landscape.Google won't disappear, of course. But the King of the Technological World mantle will have been passed because the core competencies that ensure an organization's eminence during one period of technological evolution (think mainframe, desktop, network, Internet, Web 2.0, mobile) almost never ensure eminence during subsequent periods. Like career criminals who swear they'll fly straight, we can cross our fingers and hope against hope that this time it'll be different. But ultimately, we know this is how things have to play out.The Nexus One is already being lauded as the great phone it is. But is it in and of itself a game changer? Hardly. The game is only getting underway, and like the competitors around it, Google has many moves yet to make.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
Continue reading...Hype this! Apple’s marketing puppet show continues
Thursday, December 31, 2009
By Carmi Levy, Betanews We segue into 2010 with rumors swirling around the biggest mega product announcement since the iPhone. If Apple's mythical tablet device -- the "iSlate," if insiders and analysts are to be believed -- is in fact announced sometime in January, Apple fans will once again dance in the streets before lining up in the middle of the night, wallets in hand, ready to buy into the latest must-have doodad from Cupertino.Not that I'm one to make resolutions. They are, after all, pointless promises that are inevitably broken before the last bit of confetti has been swept out of the gutters in Times Square. But if I ever had to make one, it would be to ban the Apple hype machine permanently from our midst. The noise from all this speculation is hurting my head, and I just want it to stop.Because we're all talked outPlease don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm a big fan of Apple. I've got two Macs in the house, three iPods of various generations, and an iPod touch on the way. I like to spend time in Apple stores because, even if I'm not buying anything that day, they have a feel-good vibe that few other retailers can match. I'm even debating putting an Apple sticker on my car because it'll make my kids happy. But after spending much of the past year with a sore neck from conflicting reports about Apple's supposed tablet device, I'm pretty tired of having every conversation dominated by something that's never even been officially acknowledged by this officially secretive company.Which, I realize, is entirely Apple's goal. Without saying a word, Apple has managed to yet again get the faithful to whip themselves into a frenzy over what might be. The company has reaped billions of dollars worth of publicity without buying so much as one television spot or magazine ad. It isn't baseless, of course: You have to have a compelling product to engage consumers. People don't get excited about the run-of-the-mill, and it takes a lot of special sauce to create a seemingly never-ending string of aspirational products. Apple has it, whatever "it" is, and no other company of its generation has managed to connect with everyday consumers on quite the same level.So it's clear the company's done its homework and has succeeded in exorcising the demons that almost destroyed it in the 1990s. Thanks largely to the stewardship of Steve Jobs, Apple has rewritten the design and marketing rules, and rightfully deserves to have consumers want its products. But to what extent? Should they abandon their families and camp out on strip mall sidewalks for days on end to be the first ones on their block to bring home Apple's newest baby? Should people fearful for their jobs pile on even more credit card debt just so they can upgrade their dowdy old phone for an iPhone, complete with a fat (and expensive) monthly voice and data plan? Should all conversations revolve around future products whose potential feature sets swing wildly by the day?The tablet ain't no netbookWhile a certain amount of speculation is healthy for any industry, I believe there's a tipping point beyond which it becomes more than a little silly. We spend so much time discussing the minutiae of what this mystery thing may or may not do that we forget the big picture of why we use technology in the first place.As I wonder about the tablet, I can't help but think about netbooks. These diminutive, inexpensive devices were the hardware story of the year as budget-crushed consumers looked for ways to remain productive without cutting into that week's grocery order. There was no runup of publicity surrounding netbooks. No lineups around the block. No frenzied speculation about feature sets.The netbook is the anti-tablet, then, a known device with known capabilities that consumers instantly get. The tablet? Not so much. Not that Apple should ever feel the need to make its own netbook, mind you. The company will never play in the low-margin end of the market. It doesn't need to play the price game to compete, and the tablet will continue that premium strategy. But when the hype machine kicks into overdrive, too many consumers end up buying not because they need it, but because they feel they'll be missing out if they don't buy in now. It's as shallow as the pet rock was, a purchase rationale that revolves around being part of the crowd and not around actually meeting a particular life need.“We spend so much time discussing the minutiae of what this mystery thing may or may not do that we forget the big picture of why we use technology in the first place.”-Carmi LevyWhich is why I'm so troubled by this latest chapter in extreme Apple fanboyism. The tablet may yet be the solution to a number of critical challenges facing a range of industries. It could be the platform that saves the newspaper and magazine industry. It could be the e-book reader solution that does for book publishing what the iPod did for the music industry. It could rewrite the future of any company, in virtually any industry, with the courage to strike a deal with Mr. Jobs. But until we actually see the device and know what it's capable of, we just don't know.Which makes every breathless report a senseless exercise in crystal ball-gazing.Perchance to dreamMaybe the ongoing recession has made us more willing to dream about what may be, to adopt a childlike desire to buy stuff that makes us feel good about ourselves. Maybe tough times make it easier to sell something based more on fiction than on fact. Maybe we all need a little escape, and the hype-in-overdrive may indeed give us precisely that opportunity. But at some point, we need to get back to reality. And when I pull my wallet out of my pocket in 2010, it'll be to buy something that directly addresses a known issue in my personal and/or professional life, and I won't be lining up in the middle of the night for the privilege of being among the first to have it. As Apple's herd moves mainstream, I'm quickly losing my desire to buy into its mindless mania.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Continue reading...Broken Berry: RIM runs out of free passes
Monday, December 28, 2009
By Carmi Levy, Betanews Like the other over-50% of smartphone-owning people in North America, I'm quite the fan of my BlackBerry. Even in an era when newer kids on the block -- namely Apple's iPhone and Google's Android -- garner more accolades and headlines for having slicker interfaces and cooler (and more) apps, the BlackBerry platform remains the safe, reliable choice that's good enough for most consumers and businesses. Despite analyst predictions that the BlackBerry will someday be reeled in by the upstarts, Research In Motion continues to grow and dominate the market it practically defined a decade ago.We may want to revisit the "reliable" bit, though. After a week from hell marked by two highly publicized continent-wide outages, BlackBerry users are asking themselves whether this is the new normal, and why BlackBerry devices seem especially vulnerable to this kind of mass outage when competing platforms like iPhone and Android are not.Centralization or distribution?At issue is RIM's philosophy of routing messages through a centralized Network Operations Center (NOC). This architecture applies to BlackBerry Internet Service subscribers (corporate traffic routes through each company's own BlackBerry Enterprise Server), and allows RIM greater control over encryption and security than more distributed solutions.This degree of centralization comes with a downside, however: Lose the NOC and you lose everything.While the Internet was originally designed as a distributed network of networks that could keep functioning even if entire chunks were blown away by a global thermonuclear exchange, RIM's philosophy is more like the conventional data centers of old, where monolithic machines behind impermeable walls managed all traffic and processing. In doing so, they allowed companies to have maximum control of all consolidated resources because they could manage virtually everything from a single pane of glass. It was simple. As long as everything worked.As it built a solution that allowed it to deliver a level of end-to-end encryption that its competitors could only dream of, RIM evolved its NOCs to scale to global proportions. With 36 million subscribers and climbing, its network of NOCs -- each one allocated to a broad geographic region -- scaled to meet this growing demand. When the first mass outages became front-page news in 2007, however, the BlackBerry's Achilles Heel became all too apparent. As the problem persists almost three years later, it's fair to ask if a little more -- or, perhaps, a lot more -- redundancy is called for.The increasing irrelevance of securityThe thing is, the average person walking into a carrier's retail outlet doesn't much care whether one device, platform, or service is an order of magnitude more secure than another. For all our discussion about keeping ourselves safe when we go online, about bulletproof online banking and about keeping the latest malware away from our machines, we still haven't adapted our day-to-day behaviors to reflect this new high-security reality. We still don't think It Can Happen to Us -- we still click "Go Here" links that friends send us via e-mail and Facebook, and we still update our banking on surreptitiously grabbed (because they're free) Wi-Fi connections at the local coffee shop.We do so because we believe that security, in general, is fundamentally good enough. Whatever devices, applications, and services we choose to use, and however we decide to make use of them, the risk of something really horrid happening to us -- at least from our vantage point -- remains tolerably low. So despite the fact that BlackBerry has always been the one with the differentially robust security architecture, the alarming truth for RIM is that most mainstream consumers don't give platform security a huge amount of thought before they invest in it.This is who I root forI live not too far from RIM's Waterloo, Ontario, Canada headquarters and the company casts a broad shadow throughout the region. Since RIM is ultimately my hometown team, I'll admit to sitting by the sidelines and wishing the company could lick this issue and stop future outages from happening. But despite its robust growth to-date, I fear it's only a matter of time before users get fed up with these unannounced service interruptions and start seriously considering alternatives. Will they dump their BlackBerry devices en masse in the months to come? Hardly. But will they start to entertain alternatives for the day when their contract runs out and it's time to consider a replacement? Absolutely. It's a slowly evolving process that RIM wants to stop, cold, now.Like Microsoft before it, RIM's image as the inviolable alternative for its existing customers will end sooner if it can't put these high-profile failures behind it. In the absence of a permanent solution, the loyalty of existing customers will loosen just enough to give competitors room to weasel in, while the impression of potential customers will be muddied by the potential for future failures...and the memory of recent ones.There's no rule that says a given platform will remain dominant forever. Just as Microsoft is grappling with a new reality, where longstanding customers of its packaged Office productivity suite are ever-so-slowly starting to look at less expensive or online alternatives, RIM now finds itself catering to customers whose long-held allegiance to its platform is beginning to weaken in the face of more robust competition and a fast-evolving market demand that cares less about security than it does about ease of use and application availability. Headlines like this don't help matters.As we lean more heavily on our mobile devices to manage our day-to-day workflow, having our connectivity simply removed for hours at a stretch, with nary a word from the vendor, itself becomes a security risk. When you're away from the office, your mobile device is your lifeline. As much as RIM wants customers to believe that encryption and centralized vendor control are the keys to an effective and safe mobile experience, customers beg to differ. Customers simply want it to work, and if the back-end technologies and processes aren't enough to keep widespread outages from happening, they'll happily go elsewhere to keep themselves connected and in business.It's a radically different view of security than the one that RIM first laid out years ago, but one the company needs to both internalize and apply if it hopes to avoid flatlining in the year ahead. The proverbial clock is ticking.Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business. Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009
Continue reading...Featured News 
One of the aspects of Microsoft that should come as no surprise is that the company plans ahead not just next year’s product launches, but decades in advance, in terms of the evolution of its technology. Not limited to its own software, this strategy is an integral part of how the company is tackling problems faced by education systems world... (read more)
Firefox 4.0, the next major release of Mozilla’s open source browser, will bring to the table a major overhaul of its graphical user interface, one that would put the UI in line the Windows 7 Ribbon/Fluent style. Mozilla has already made public details on the revamping of the Firefox User interface for version 4.0, and various concepts and sketches ha... (read more)
With Valentine's Day just around the corner, Microsoft is helping Windows 7 customers celebrate love right on their desktops. In this regard, the Redmond company has made available for download a new desktop theme designed to integrate seamlessly into the desktop of their Windows 7-power computers. The Lacy Hearts is, as the software giant has put i... (read more)
The latest development milestone of Office 2010 has made it into the wild, even though Microsoft never intended to have the general public get their hands on the release. Earlier this week, the Redmond company revealed that the next iteration of the Office System reached a key milestone in the evolution to RTM, namely the Rel... (read more)
Friday, February 5, 2010
0 Comments