Web Services

...Larry Ellison weighs in, on the WSJ over here:

Ellison spoke for a few minutes about Oracle and his vision for the company before opening the floor to questions. The first one: What is Oracle doing about cloud computing? Ellison smirked and then went off one what might be the funniest ten minutes in analyst-meeting history.

Here’s a slightly-edited excerpt:

“The interesting thing about cloud computing is that we’ve redefined cloud computing to include everything that we already do. I can’t think of anything that isn’t cloud computing with all of these announcements. The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women’s fashion. Maybe I’m an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It’s complete gibberish. It’s insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?

“We’ll make cloud computing announcements. I’m not going to fight this thing. But I don’t understand what we would do differently in the light of cloud computing other than change the wording of some of our ads. That’s my view.”

Couldn't have said it better........this is a classic example of semantic stretch, a term being pushed so far it ceases to have any meaning. The interesting thing is how far its gone so fast, the Wikipedia entry still tries to differentiate between Cloud, Grid, PaaS (a venerable 7 months old now) etc but the term today seems to cover any service you can think of over the net.

Update - Microsoft's Craig Mundie interviewed on MIT Review takes the industry line....but calls it a Composite Platform.

Saw this on Huffington Post via Tim O'Reilly, about how datafeeds will allow light to penetrate into dark places:

It seems to me that we also need more regulation, but we certainly need to make sure whatever is imposed is also as technologically sophisticated as the financial transactions it's meant to monitor!

One Internet innovation, automated data feeds, might simultaneously meet the smart regulation requirement, improve banks' internal operating efficiency, and even win back public trust as well. Obama has specifically called for data feeds from government agencies as part of his transparency strategy to rebuild public confidence in government, especially as a result of the bailout crisis.

Sound marvellous at frst reading - but then, you think a bit - OK, I can hear you lining up with The Big Objection - but hang on......

Technological limits used to mean that any kind of data had to be laboriously culled and aggregated before being submitted to regulators. Now, innovations such as XML tags and data syndication in formats such as RSS (as a Huffington subscriber, you get the Post via an RSS feed) or KML (used for Google map mashups) make it simple for companies to automatically combine the data and release it, whether internally or to regulators -- and even to the public.

The District of Columbia, long plagued by corruption, began a transparency initiative under former Mayor Anthony Williams. It shifted into high gear under Mayor Adrian Fenty, and CTO Vivek Kundra. They now publish, on a real-time basis, more than 260 different data streams of statistics as varied as violent crime, building starts, and even requests to fill potholes. All of those statistics are available for anyone to analyze and interpret, and current uses range from tracking development around the new Nationals Park to showing crime reports on a Google Map.

And even better....

If the same system was applied to banking, critical statistics could flow automatically to federal regulators, while also being available to the banks' own staff -- many of whom have never had real-time data access in the past. Combined with innovative web-based tools to turn obscure data into easy-to-understand visualizations, for the first time the workforce, as well as regulators, would have the kind of real-time information that's essential in today's global economy, whether to regulate businesses or to run them.

OK, its time for the Big Objection - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Undoubtedly using the most modern tech to get data from systems is a Good Idea, but that doesn't guarantee its accuracy in and of itself. Who shall ensure that what goes into the feeds is accurate? The minute this data becomes valuable, it will be gamed. As anyone who has implemented a new system will verify, accuracy comes from cleaning up databases, putting in workflows that cannot be subverted, and ensuring management oversight (or other forms of effective oversight). Except in these cases its harder, as management (the ones wot got us into all this) oversight needs to be replaced by independent 3rd party oversight.

Two stories in one day that have huge entertainment value. Ted Dziuba over at El Reg has a pop at the spamfulls of copy that was written about Google Chrome. Its pithy, but very funny because it contains more than a hint of truth:

Every time the media fires off its gravy so violently, it highlights how little some of the supposed "experts" actually know about computers. Case in point: People saying that Google Chrome is an operating system designed to compete head-to-head with Microsoft Windows.

I understand the argument that as web applications proliferate, the desktop operating system becomes less important, and emphasis is placed on the browser. That's all well and good, but let's be realistic here. It's a fucking web browser. It runs JavaScript a bit faster than other web browsers. That doesn't add up to a Windows killer.

Thats pretty much our view, though we expressed it in more moderate tones . Ted then taking a pop at the Tech Journos who, given an inch, stretch it for miles:

When journalists jump on a story like this, they will publish just about anything, no matter how poorly thought out. Let's take, for example, Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider. He says:

[Google is] building the equivalent to Windows in the cloud-computing world.

Too bad the SEC can't ban this guy from the tech industry for life.

People are calling Chrome a cloud operating system because it is a "platform for running web apps". It renders HTML and interprets Javascript, you know, like every fucking browser made since 1995. It's also got Google Gears built in. Great. I'll alert Tim Berners-Lee.

This bullshit is a common theme when talking about Chrome. Those who realize that Chrome is not a full fledged operating system but still want to get in on the page-view party are calling Chrome the cloud operating system. Get it, because it's like clouds. All nature and shit. Don't you want to read that story?

Well, at least Blodget sort of understands what it takes to run a web browser. I can't say the same for Michael Arrington, who runs the Special Olympics of tech media, TechCrunch. Arrington fancies himself a kingpin of Web 2.0, but when he starts saying shit like this, it's hard for him to keep the respect of people, who, you know, understand how computers work:

Chrome is nothing less than a full on desktop operating system that will compete head on with Windows.

Expect to see millions of web devices, even desktop web devices, in the coming years that completely strip out the Windows layer and use the browser as the only operating system the user needs.

Thats excommunication for life then, Ted (To be fair, I think Mr Arrington & Mr Dziuba are cast from the same "print and damn the torpedos" mould, which makes them both such good reads). Anyway, for a grand finale, talking about the desperate need for the Tech Chatterati to cast a Google v Microsoft storyline:

Google releasing a browser is so damned close to the ideal situation, but there's not quite enough to declare that Chrome will replace Windows. None the less, this does not stop the technically incompetent from spinning it as such. Maybe they were just feeling nostalgic about Microsoft pummeling the shit out of Netscape?

Anyway, not even Sergey Brin could stop the premature eGoogulation. At a press conference, Brin said:

I would not call Chrome the operating system of Web apps...

Dammit, Sergey. You're ruining my story!

Now, this will no doubt ruffle many feathers, but it needed saying - a browser is not (yet, anyway) an operating system, even if many respected tech journos declare it so. To call it so just reflects muddy thinking at best (no doubt while searching for a story angle). However, to underplay the strategic positioning of Chrome in the Googleverse as "just another browser" is also incorrect, as it has clearly been built as part of a complementary value chain system, as Nick Carr explains. In addition, it enriches the amount of data the Google has on your digital footprint, which also does not hurt strategically - nor for Ad serving.

So, decided to actually play with Chrome to form a view, to say that this is all a tad hyped would be a dramatic understatement - it reminds me of Microsoft in its heyday when new wotsits were greeted with messianic fervour by the faithful*.

Anyway, downloaded it all, fired it up, read the book, watched the movie, and - guess what - its a browser!

Yes, its one of those things that drives me around the web. It seems to do most everything my other 2 browsers do (Firefox and IE) at about the same speed and with vague differences in layout - kinda like driving a different car, you take a bit of time to work out where everything is. It may have a wankel rotary engine rather than a straight-8 under the bonnet (though Jof is impressed, so it must be good), and a few new thingies that the others will copy asap, but it certainly didn't feel like I'd stepped from Ford to Ferrari ( or vice versa ).

This is not the story.

No, there are two other stories here. The first story is the reaction of the blogosphere - You can read it all on Techmeme, but to save time I have designed a little 2x2 matrix to define it:



Let no one accuse us of not doing serious analysis.....

The second I alluded to in my last post, which was of course independent and analytical - ie the strategic implications of Google moving into the browser game, and is really the big story here.

I've read quite a few other blogs since I wrote that yesterday morning - many have poured more detail on it (and some have even been a bit flippant in getting the point across) but I think strategically what I wrote stands as the main issues for any user. In fact, reading the TOS I reckon my one hypothesis, of Chrome being reluctant to stop Ads is strengthened:

17.1 Some of the Services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the Services, queries made through the Services or other information.

17.2 The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the Services are subject to change without specific notice to you.

17.3 In consideration for Google granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Google may place such advertising on the Services.

And that is the essential reason why I won't use Chrome so long as there are Ad free alternatives available - I do not believe that 17.3 is a fair exchange and you know that underlying that is data collection and mining of all on-browser behaviour.

(Update - for you doubters, here's the ToS:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services.

ie you have copyright, but we have perpetual and irrevocable rights. Now Google may claim thats not what they mean and all their intentions are good, but I've been around this block more than once - in any legal dispute, it will mean exactly what is says - and the other browsers don't have it. These guys have been working on this for 2 years, it ain't an accident - so, as with Facebook which does the same thing, handle with care )

Oh - as I'm writing, news comes in that it turns out Chrome just happens to let hackers into Microsoft Windows (the Evil Competitors') system. That featu.....bug'll be fixed in a hurry then

*Or is it just easier to see all the flock in the online aggregated world?

An afterthought - it is a very nice browser, and kudos to the team - I suspect if they were ex Googlers they'd be canonified - but as I note above, the browser per se is not the big story here, its the "why is Google doing this".

In its quest to own the whole internet*, Google releases its own browser, Chrome. To add more to the plethora of comment on the Browsermania would be a waste - just go here for more reading than is healthy....

What you will hear less of is the "why".

Google, like every major player before it, has worked out that the browser is the pivotal link between user and applications. Control that and a whole host of information about the user becomes visible, and a whole host of your services can be locked in (and competitors locked out). If you are keen on the Cloud, it helps if you have a little bit of it on every client.

Hence Microsof'ts attempt to control the browser in Web 1.0 by fair means or foul, hence the anti trust interest and so on.

Question is why now, they could have done this before. Our hypothesis is that its only now that its becoming clear that Google generation search is tailing off as a market, and if Ads and Clouds are the way to go the last thing you want is other pesky people:

(i) Putting functions on browsers to obfuscate sending their details to the Googledome and (horrors) blocking the Ads

(ii) Controlling the web portal into your Cloud (hey, you, get off of my Cloud)

And it puts a great big Googletank on the Microlawns - bonus!

Prediction - you will be bribed with all sorts of Googlecandy if you use the Google browser, the others will all cry "foul", and we will be back in the Anti Trust courts again.

Plus ca Change

(Now to be fair, others believe this is more an attempt by Google to stimulate the browser market into building next generation browsers, rather than dominate it. This may be so, but the benefits of domination are so huge that it is - in our view - unlikely that Google hasn't considered this option)

*Is Google the Henry Ford of this communication revolution?

When I first looked at Google Knol, I felt a pay-the-writer-via-Ad-clicks was the wrong game theory / biz model for an information service. At the time I reckoned the following would happen with the system as it currently is:

- people will write about topics that are highly trafficked regardless of cultural value
- they will write content that aims to drive traffic - ie it will be sensationalist, not factual
- because anyone can put up a soapbox, it will be far harder to discern fact from fiction, opinion from reality.
- voting and other feedback will be largely irrelevant as people vote for what they like, not what is correct or valuable

Add to this is another one which in hindsight is obvious - given that the money comes from traffic driven advertising, why bother to keep content current and accurate at all, in fact why bother with your own content when you can just lift it from Wikipedia and make money yourself?

As the Technologiser blog notes when they looked at the copied, pasted and non-current data on Knol article they surveyed:

Much of the power of Wikipedia, of course, comes from its collaborative nature. And within moments of news breaking such as McCain picking Palin, you can be sure that someone will add it to the appropriate Wikipedia entries*. When someone makes a mistake in a Wikipedia piece–and it happens all the time–there’s a good chance someone else will come along and fix it.

Knol is fundamentally different: It’s designed to hold entries written by individuals. “[No] one else can edit your knol (unless you permit it) or mandate how you write about a topic,” states the Knol entry about Knol. Which means that information that’s inaccurate or stale may stay so forever–you gotta think that if the person who added the Knol on Sarah Palin hasn’t gone back to update it by now, there’s a strong chance that he’s lost interest.

The article goes on to catalogue a series of poor performance practices on Knol, showing examples of all we mention above plus wholesale lifting of (out of date) Wikipedia articles. Tom Lehrer would be proud

Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -
Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.

Not only that, but the rating mechanism for one of the articles (surprise surprise) had 5 stars. No idea of how many votes, of course.

This system must have just about the worst set of "game" rules to deliver useful content that one could imagine devising, in fact its sort of hard to imagine how one could consciously design better rules to design cr*p content. The thing is, Googel is full of very smart people so you either have to believe that (i) it really is meant to be this way, (ii) they are not as smart as we imagined, or (iii) - and my fron-runner - is that internal politics drove all sorts of compromises from various internal power holders, as Wenka Booij noted in discussing KPN's web redesign (see our previous post about that here)

So how to fix it?

The thing about Wikipedia is reward for writing (in karma) is positively linked to content quality, and reward is at least neutral in terms of topic chosen. Knol however rewards with ads based on hit volume (assuming a % of hits = a % of clicks), and volume is driven by "pop" content value and volume, not quality. Rewarding people based on "user rating" would just lead to gaming of the system, so thats a non-starter.

The only way to make it work is to treat it the same as all other webpages (there are suspicions that Google favours it in searches) and Google also use it's considerable "spam analysis" arsenal to at least warn writers when they are spam-blogging that they will be removed. And then do it. That gives a carrot and a stick to at least write quality material. Getting people to write on less popular items is still an issue, maybe a declining % rate of payout as traffic rises will reward more obscure topics?

How to make them keep their stuff current is another matter - maybe a "last updated" signal on the page or something like that?). Maybe make writers authenticate themselves via having an "about me page" so that they cannot hide behind clearly anonymised names like "Jean Jacques Frapsauce"

*Or before even - see here.

A few weeks ago we noted that this cycle of Cloud Computing aka Grid aka.....(etc) was probably going to be kindly put to bed after a host of high profile woes, and wondered what it:

will be resurrected as next time. Our money is on a biological analogy.

El Reg has stepped up to the breach and noted that there will of course be a Grab for Green (props to RedCatCo and Jof Arnold for link):

The next time around, it will be pitched as a "green" technology. Why ruin the environment with your data center? You can run a social media website and still love the earth.

Energy-efficient computers powered by sunshine. This will be an instant hit. There will be greenhouse gas output dashboards with neat little Ajax widgets. You'll have calculators to figure out how much to pay for carbon offsets each month. Don't believe me? Follow the money. "Green" technology is the most efficient, modern way to capitalize on liberal guilt. You also get to pass it off as altruism. Combine that with a web development community that runs on self-satisfaction and you've got a recipe for profit. Best of all, you can squeeze money out of an investor for this by making him feel ashamed to be a person of means.

What started as a noble cause has finally finished its devolution into a racket.

No matter what the name, you, the developer, will still be dealing reliability and accountability. Using someone else's infrastructure for your application will forever be a business risk, but it sounds so much less so with a cuddly name. Your CTO will fall for the next cycle pretty easily. The compunction he feels for his latest data center build-out will outweigh the downsides of an external dependency.

Al Gore even said so.

Dang, we should have seen that one coming. Patrick's Law* makes this the most likely correct scenario. It's not true of course - massively concentrated datacentres are as ungreen as you can get, but it is definitely a wonderful straw to clutch on to.

*Patrick's Law states that, for most human endeavours where greed, fear or power is involved, the most cynical explanation is usually the correct one

(Update - any worries I had that I was overly skeptical about the head-in-the clouds set is dispelled by the comments over here on Crunchbase)

Another harsh reality-lesson for Cloud Cultists is the spat about the Ning ecosystem evicting a popular widget maker, causing widgetocalypse of many a Ningsite. The issue, from a user viewpoint, was the peremptory nature with which it was done - no warning was given at all.

Quite why is still somewhat unclear, Techrunch reports on the latest shenanigans, but the lesson - again! - is this: To rely on The Cloud as a user, in its current "Wild West" state of lack of structure, cowboy companies, no-fee-no-service mode is nut....inadvisable.

There endeth the Lesson.....

Worst news of the year so far is that Pandora, the internet music station that uses deep analytics rather than social networking methods (as Last.fm or blip,fm does) to serve music you like may have to close due to high tariffing - says the Washington Post:

Last year, an obscure federal panel ordered a doubling of the per-song performance royalty that Web radio stations pay to performers and record companies.

Traditional radio, by contrast, pays no such fee. Satellite radio pays a fee but at a less onerous rate, at least by some measures.

As for Pandora, its royalty fees this year will amount to 70 percent of its projected revenue of $25 million, Westergren said, a level that could doom it and other Web radio outfits.

Its a real pity if this happens, Pandora's Music Genome analytic system gives - in my experience anyway - far better results than social media based services ( to the extent that I believe this is the next step after social media for many web services ).

An afterthought - I was following the discussion on Slashdot, and its clear that Pandora and its ilk will live - its far too good to lose - it will just go to the P2P freenet if this practice continues, thus hurting the Industry even more in the medium term. If ever there is a case study of a short sighted tactic to shoot yourself in the foot strategically, this is it.

Amazing Catalogue of Errors from Rafe Needle 'em on the clouds on Cloud Computing's horizon (hat tip Grauniad for link). Flattering hugely by copying nearly all of it:

Here's the timeline of offline:

Amazon S3 (Also: Google App Engine)
When: February 15 (Amazon); June 17 (Google)

What happened: These massive infrastructure services, Amazon's S3 especially, underpin many Web 2.0 companies. When they go down, big sites go down. When the sites go down, they lose money.

Corporate coping behavior: Amazon CTO Werner Vogels banished to the lecture circuit to explain why S3 is still more reliable than any servers you could run yourself.

The damage: Companies forced to re-consider their reliance on "cloud computing."

Twitter
When: April, May, June. July too? Who cares?

What happened: Twitter began to get unreliable. It's up, then it's down. Repeat.

Corporate coping behavior: During the bad spells, Twitter turns off key features of the service -- like access from Twitter helper apps, or the "replies" tab on the site -- to decrease the load. Twitter also buys the search engine Summize, which adds a new level of utility to the service.

The damage: Twitter was becoming part of the social fabric of the technology community. When it began to get flakey, marquee users abandoned the service and fled to rivals like Friendfeed. The problems appear to have been resolved, but the damage may never be repaired.

Amazon
When: June 17

What happened: Amazon went offline for a big part of the U.S. workday. Millions of users had to go back to work.

Corporate coping behavior: Mad scramble to fix. What did you expect?

The damage: Estimated at $16,000 a minute. But long-term damage to the company is negligible (unlike the S3 outage).

Google Docs
When: July 8

What happened: Online productivity apps went offline, stranding users' files in the cloud.

Corporate coping behavior: Apology. Google has offline support (Google Gears) for an increasing number of its online apps. Which is fine, if you remember to set it up before the next outage.

The damage: Credibility. Online apps are being pitched by companies like Google as credible replacements to traditional apps like Microsoft Office. Outages like this shake users' already tenuous faith in the reliability of services that hold their most important data files.

MobileMe
When: July 10

What happened: Apple launched its 3G iPhone with a new data sync service to replace .Mac. Sadly, it didn't work. For many users, key services like e-mail wouldn't update.

Corporate coping behavior: Jobs berates his staff in public; Apple gives subscribers 30 days of free service.

The damage: Poor uptake of the service, many disgruntled users, negative halo effect on the iPhone.

Scrabble
When:July 29

What happened: After finally getting off the stick and suing the much-loved Scrabulous off of Facebook, Hasbro releases its own online Scrabble app on the social platform. It crashes.

Corporate coping behavior: Scrabble owner Hasbro claims that hackers killed the service. No surprise: As Caroline McCarthy reported, "if you just look at the Scrabble application wall, it's pretty clear that there are a few people who are angry enough at Hasbro and EA to want to sabotage the game."

The damage: What's a seven-letter word for "global acrostic withdrawl?"

Gmail (Also: Hotmail)
When: August 12 (Gmail); February 26 (Hotmail)

What happened: OMG, Gmail is down. And unlike with client-based e-mail (Outlook), when your Web mail is offline, you can't even read the old stuff sitting in your inbox.

Corporate coping behavior: Google apologies, knows users will be back.

The damage: In the recent Gmail outage, upset users flocked to Twitter to complain. Miraculously, Twitter stayed up, despite a crushing load of hundreds of tweets a second from disgruntled Gmail users.

Netflix
When: August 14 and March 24.

What happened: Undisclosed troubles fell all 55 Netflix shipping centers. Twice. Users don't get their discs.

Corporate coping behavior: Netflix plans to refund fees to affected users, and reminds them they can watch streaming Netflix on their PC or Roku box. Although the company refuses to use the word "fallback" to describe this benefit.

The damage: Netflix customers have to watch old DVDs, live TV, Tivo, Unbox, Hulu... Wait a minute, do we really need Netflix?

And as Rafe points out, its only August.

This resurrects its head every few years, its the old Mainframe / Centralisation argument. Last time it was kindly put down it was called Grid Computing (Oh No It Wasn't) - wonder what it will be resurrected as next time. Our money is on a biological analogy.

(To be fair, it will eventually occur, but it ain't near being a utility yet - but hype springs eternal......)