Skip to main content

Home/ Open Web/ Group items tagged Investing

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Andreessen Horowitz & the Meteor investment - 0 views

a16z.com

VC venture-capital Andreessen-Horowitz

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jul 12 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 25 Jul 12
     
    Web site for Andreessen Horowitz VC. List of blogs for general partners. The reason for linking into a16z is the $11.2 Million they invested in Meteor! Meteor is awesome. My guess is that Meteor will provide a very effective Cloud platform to replace or extend the Windows Client/Server business productivity platform. Many VC watchers are wondering if a16z can recover the investment? Say what? IMHO this is for all the marbles. Platform is everything, and Cloud Computing is certain to replace Client/Server over time. Meteor just move that time frame from a future uncertainty to NOW. The Windows Productivity Platform has dominated Client/Server computing since the introduction of Windows 4 WorkGroups (v3.11) in 1992. Key technologies that followed or were included in v3.11 were DDE, OLE, MAPI, ODBC, ActiveX, and Visual Basic scripting - to name but a few. Meteor is an open source platform that hits these technologies directly with an approach that truly improves the complicated development of all Cloud based Web Apps - including the sacred Microsoft Cow herd of client/server business productivity apps. Meteor nails OLE and ODBC like nothing i've ever seen before. Very dramatic stuff. Maybe they are nailing shut the Redmond coffin in the process - making that $11.2 Mill a drop in the bucket considering the opportunity Meteor has cracked open. The iron grip Microsoft has on business productivity is so tight and so far reaching that one could easily say that Windows is the client in Client/Server. But it took years to build that empire. With this investment, Meteor could do it in months. Compound documents are the fuel in Windows business productivity and office automation systems. Tear apart a compound document, and you'll find embedded logic for OLE and ODBC. Sure, it's brittle, costly to develop, costly to maintain, and a bear to distribute. Tear apart a Meteor productivity service and you'll find the same kind of OLE-ODBC-Script
Gary Edwards

Ricoh Spends US$ 300m to Shift Focus to Managed Document Services - 0 views

www.cmswire.com/...d-document-services-009905.php

cloud-computing sursen Document-Management-System Ricoh

shared by Gary Edwards on 26 Jan 11 - No Cached
  • Ricoh said the US$ 300 million would be invested in its managed document services infrastructure with a revenue target of US$ 3.3 billion by 2013.
  • Ricoh believes the shift is so profound that it is investing this amount of money in re-aligning its business.
  • Ricoh has identified shifts in the document management market that are focused on better enterprise returns based on more efficient document management.
  • Gary Edwards on 26 Jan 11
     
    Last September, Xerox launched a very expensive campaign to rebrand itself as a document management heavyweight. This week, Xerox's MFP rival, Ricoh (news, site), has just announced that it will be investing US$ 300 million over three years to "aggressively" accelerate its shift into the managed document services or outsourced document management space. Using its core hardware and software technologies, the shift will see Ricoh focusing not just on the provision of hardware and software, but offering entire document management services from capture to printing. At a press briefing held in New York, London and Tokyo earlier this week that underlined the global nature of the business shift, Ricoh said the US$ 300 million would be invested in its managed document services infrastructure with a revenue target of US$ 3.3 billion by 2013. Document Management Market Shift So, what is all this about? It seems simple enough - Ricoh has identified shifts in the document management market that are focused on better enterprise returns based on more efficient document management. No surprise there. However, what is surprising, is that Ricoh believes the shift is so profound that it is investing this amount of money in re-aligning its business.
Gary Edwards

A founder-friendly term sheet - Sam Altman - 1 views

blog.samaltman.com/a-founder-friendly-term-sheet

Sam-Altman Investing VC

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Jun 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Jun 13
     
    Must read for every entrepreneur!  When your product and service can command these kind of terms, for sure your company is worth investing in. "A founder-friendly term sheet When I invest (outside of YC) I make offers with the following term sheet.  I've tried to make the terms reflect what I wanted when I was a founder.  A few people have asked me if I'd share it, so here it is.  I think it's pretty founder-friendly. If you believe the upside risk theory, then it makes sense to offer compelling terms and forgo some downside protection to get the best companies to want to work with you. What's most important is what's not in it: *No option pool.  Taking the option pool out of the pre-money valuation (ie, diluting only founders and not investors for future hires) is just a way to artificially manipulate valuation.  New hires benefit everyone and should dilute everyone. *The company doesn't have to pay any of my legal fees.  Requiring the company to pay investors' legal fees always struck me as particularly egregious-the company can probably make better use of the money than investors can, so I'll pay my own legal fees for the round (in a simple deal with no back and forth they always end up super low anyway). *No expiration.  I got burned once by an exploding offer and haven't forgotten it; the founders can take as much time as they want to think about it.  In practice, people usually decide pretty quickly. *No confidentiality.  Founder/investor relationships are long and important.  The founders should talk to whomever they want, and if they want to tell people what I offered them, I don't really care.  Investors certainly tell each other what they offer companies. (Once we shake hands on a deal, of course, I expect the founders to honor it.) *No participating preferred, non-standard liquidation preference, etc.  There is a 1x liquidation preference, but I'm willing to forgo even that and buy common shares (and sometimes
Gary Edwards

XML Production Workflows? Start with the Web and XHTML - 1 views

quod.lib.umich.edu/...n-workflows-start-with-the-web

OpenWeb XML XHTML-CSS HTML5-CSS3-JavaScript IDML

shared by Gary Edwards on 01 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • Challenges: Some Ugly Truths The challenges of building—and living with—an XML workflow are clear enough. The return on investment is a long-term proposition. Regardless of the benefits XML may provide, the starting reality is that it represents a very different way of doing things than the one we are familiar with. The Word Processing and Desktop Publishing paradigm, based on the promise of onscreen, WYSIWYG layout, is so dominant as to be practically inescapable. It has proven really hard to get from here to there, no matter how attractive XML might be on paper. A considerable amount of organizational effort and labour must be expended up front in order to realize the benefits. This is why XML is often referred to as an “investment”: you sink a bunch of time and money up front, and realize the benefits—greater flexibility, multiple output options, searching and indexing, and general futureproofing—later, over the long haul. It is not a short-term return proposition. And, of course, the returns you are able to realize from your XML investment are commensurate with what you put in up front: fine-grained, semantically rich tagging is going to give you more potential for searchability and recombination than a looser, more general-purpose approach, but it sure costs more. For instance, the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) is the grand example of pouring enormous amounts of energy into the up-front tagging, with a very open-ended set of possibilities down the line. TEI helpfully defines a level to which most of us do not have to aspire.[5] But understanding this on a theoretical level is only part of the challenge. There are many practical issues that must be addressed. Software and labour are two of the most critical. How do you get the content into XML in the first place? Unfortunately, despite two decades of people doing SGML and XML, this remains an ugly question.
  • Practical Challenges In 2009, there is still no truly likeable—let alone standard—editing and authoring software for XML. For many (myself included), the high-water mark here was Adobe’s FrameMaker, substantially developed by the late 1990s. With no substantial market for it, it is relegated today mostly to the tech writing industry, unavailable for the Mac, and just far enough afield from the kinds of tools we use today that its adoption represents a significant hurdle. And FrameMaker was the best of the breed; most of the other software in decent circulation are programmers’ tools—the sort of things that, as Michael Tamblyn pointed out, encourage editors to drink at their desks. The labour question represents a stumbling block as well. The skill-sets and mind-sets that effective XML editors need have limited overlap with those needed by literary and more traditional production editors. The need to think of documents as machine-readable databases is not something that comes naturally to folks steeped in literary culture. In combination with the sheer time and effort that rich tagging requires, many publishers simply outsource the tagging to India, drawing a division of labour that spans oceans, to put it mildly. Once you have XML content, then what do you do with it? How do you produce books from it? Presumably, you need to be able to produce print output as well as digital formats. But while the latter are new enough to be generally XML-friendly (e-book formats being largely XML based, for instance), there aren’t any straightforward, standard ways of moving XML content into the kind of print production environments we are used to seeing. This isn’t to say that there aren’t ways of getting print—even very high-quality print—output from XML, just that most of them involve replacing your prepress staff with Java programmers.
  • Why does this have to be so hard? It’s not that XML is new, or immature, or untested. Remember that the basics have been around, and in production, since the early 1980s at least. But we have to take account of a substantial and long-running cultural disconnect between traditional editorial and production processes (the ones most of us know intimately) and the ways computing people have approached things. Interestingly, this cultural divide looked rather different in the 1970s, when publishers were looking at how to move to digital typesetting. Back then, printers and software developers could speak the same language. But that was before the ascendancy of the Desktop Publishing paradigm, which computerized the publishing industry while at the same time isolating it culturally. Those of us who learned how to do things the Quark way or the Adobe way had little in common with people who programmed databases or document-management systems. Desktop publishing technology isolated us in a smooth, self-contained universe of toolbars, grid lines, and laser proofs. So, now that the reasons to get with this program, XML, loom large, how can we bridge this long-standing divide?
  • ...44 more annotations...
  • Using the Web as a Production Platform The answer, I think, is right in front of you. The bridge is the Web, a technology and platform that is fundamentally based on XML, and which many publishers are by now comfortably familiar with. Perhaps not entirely comfortably, but at least most publishers are already working with the Web; they already either know or have on staff people who understand it and can work with it. The foundation of our argument is this: rather than looking at jumping to XML in its full, industrial complexity, which seems to be what the O'Reilly-backed StartWithXML initiative[6] is suggesting, publishers instead leverage existing tools and technologies—starting with the Web—as a means of getting XML workflows in place. This means making small investments and working with known tools rather than spending tens of thousands of dollars on XML software and rarefied consultants. It means re-thinking how the existing pieces of the production toolchain fit together; re-thinking the existing roles of software components already in use. It means, fundamentally, taking the Web seriously as a content platform, rather than thinking of it as something you need to get content out to, somehow. If nothing else, the Web represents an opportunity to think about editorial and production from outside the shrink-wrapped Desktop Publishing paradigm.
  • Is the Web made of Real XML? At this point some predictable objections can be heard: wait a moment, the Web isn’t really made out of XML; the HTML that makes up most of the Web is at best the bastard child of SGML, and it is far too flaky/unstructured/underpowered to be taken seriously. We counter by arguing that although HTML on the Web exists in a staggering array of different incarnations, and that the majority of it is indeed an unstructured mess, this does not undermine the general principle that basic, ubiquitous Web technologies can make a solid platform for content management, editorial process, and production workflow.
  • With the advent of a published XML standard in the late 1990s came the W3C’s adoption of XHTML: the realization of the Web’s native content markup as a proper XML document type. Today, its acceptance is almost ubiquitous, even while the majority of actual content out there may not be strictly conforming. The more important point is that most contemporary Web software, from browsers to authoring tools to content management systems (from blogs to enterprise systems), are capable of working with clean, valid XHTML. Or, to put the argument the other way around, clean, valid XHTML content plays absolutely seamlessly with everything else on the Web.[7]
  • The objection which follows, then, will be that even if we grant that XHTML is a real XML document type, that it is underpowered for “serious” content because it is almost entirely presentation (formatting) oriented; it lacks any semantic depth. In XHTML, a paragraph is a paragraph is a paragraph, as opposed to a section or an epigraph or a summary.
  • n contrast, more “serious” XML document types like DocBook[8] or DITA-derived schemas[9] are capable of making semantic distinctions about content chunks at a fine level of granularity and with a high degree of specificity.
  • So there is an argument for recalling the 80:20 rule here. If XHTML can provide 80% of the value with just 20% of the investment, then what exactly is the business case for spending the other 80% to achieve that last 20% of value? We suspect the ratio is actually quite a bit steeper than 80:20 for most publishers.
  • Furthermore, just to get technical for a moment, XHTML is extensible in a fairly straightforward way, through the common “class” attribute on each element. Web developers have long leveraged this kind of extensibility in the elaboration of “microformats” for semantic-web applications.[10] There is no reason why publishers shouldn’t think to use XHTML’s simple extensibility in a similar way for their own ends.
  • XHTML, on the other hand, is supported by a vast array of quotidian software, starting with the ubiquitous Web browser. For this very reason, XHTML is in fact employed as a component part of several more specialized document types (ONIX and ePub among them).
  • Why re-invent a general-purpose prose representation when XHTML already does the job?
  • It is worth pausing for a moment to consider the role of XHTML in the ePub standard for ebook content. An ePub file is, anatomically, a simply disguised zip archive. Inside the zip archive are a few standard component parts: there are specialized files that declare metadata about the book, and about the format of the book. And then there is the book’s content, represented in XHTML. An ePub book is a Web page in a wrapper.
  • To sum up the general argument: the Web as it already exists presents incredible value to publishers, as a platform for doing XML content management with existing (and often free) tools, and without having to go blindly into the unknown. At this point, we can offer a few design guidelines: prefer existing and/or ubiquitous tools over specialized ones wherever possible; prefer free software over proprietary systems where possible; prefer simple tools controlled and coordinated by human beings over fully automated (and therefore complex) systems; play to our strengths: use Web software for storing and managing content, use layout software for layout, and keep editors and production people in charge of their own domains.
  • Putting the Pieces Together: A Prototype
  • At the SFU Master of Publishing Program, we have been chipping away at this general line of thinking for a few years. Over that time, Web content management systems have been getting more and more sophisticated, all the while getting more streamlined and easier to use. (NB: if you have a blog, you have a Web content management system.) The Web is beginning to be recognized as a writing and editing environment used by millions of people. And the ways in which content is represented, stored, and exchanged online have become increasingly robust and standardized.
  • The missing piece of the puzzle has been print production: how can we move content from its malleable, fluid form on line into the kind of high-quality print production environments we’ve come to expect after two decades of Desktop Publishing?
  • Anyone who has tried to print Web content knows that the existing methods leave much to be desired (hyphenation and justification, for starters). In the absence of decent tools for this, most publishers quite naturally think of producing the print content first, and then think about how to get material onto the Web for various purposes. So we tend to export from Word, or from Adobe, as something of an afterthought.
  • While this sort of works, it isn’t elegant, and it completely ignores the considerable advantages of Web-based content management.
  • Content managed online is stored in one central location, accessible simultaneously to everyone in your firm, available anywhere you have an Internet connection, and usually exists in a much more fluid format than Word files. If only we could manage the editorial flow online, and then go to print formats at the end, instead of the other way around. At SFU, we made several attempts to make this work by way of the supposed “XML import” capabilities of various Desktop Publishing tools, without much success.[12]
  • In the winter of 2009, Adobe solved this part of the problem for us with the introduction of its Creative Suite 4. What CS4 offers is the option of a complete XML representation of an InDesign document: what Adobe calls IDML (InDesign Markup Language).
  • The IDML file format is—like ePub—a simply disguised zip archive that, when unpacked, reveals a cluster of XML files that represent all the different facets of an InDesign document: layout spreads, master pages, defined styles, colours, and of course, the content.
  • IDML is a well thought-out XML standard that achieves two very different goals simultaneously: it preserves all of the information that InDesign needs to do what it does; and it is broken up in a way that makes it possible for mere mortals (or at least our Master of Publishing students) to work with it.
  • What this represented to us in concrete terms was the ability to take Web-based content and move it into InDesign in a straightforward way, thus bridging Web and print production environments using existing tools and skillsets, with a little added help from free software.
  • We would take clean XHTML content, transform it to IDML-marked content, and merge that with nicely designed templates in InDesign.
  • The result is an almost push-button publication workflow, which results in a nice, familiar InDesign document that fits straight into the way publishers actually do production.
  • Tracing the steps To begin with, we worked backwards, moving the book content back to clean XHTML.
  • The simplest method for this conversion—and if you want to create Web content, this is an excellent route—was to use Adobe’s “Export to Digital Editions” option, which creates an ePub file.
  • Recall that ePub is just XHTML in a wrapper, so within the ePub file was a relatively clean XHTML document. It was somewhat cleaner (that is, the XHTML tagging was simpler and less cluttered) than InDesign’s other Web-oriented exports, possibly because Digital Editions is a well understood target, compared with somebody’s website.
  • In order to achieve our target of clean XHTML, we needed to do some editing; the XHTML produced by InDesign’s “Digital Editions” export was presentation-oriented. For instance, bulleted list items were tagged as paragraphs, with a class attribute identifying them as list items. Using the search-and-replace function, we converted such structures to proper XHTML list and list-item elements. Our guiding principle was to make the XHTML as straightforward as possible, not dependent on any particular software to interpret it.
  • We broke the book’s content into individual chapter files; each chapter could then carry its own basic metadata, and the pages conveniently fit our Web content management system (which is actually just a wiki). We assembled a dynamically generated table of contents for the 12 chapters, and created a cover page. Essentially, the book was entirely Web-based at this point.
  • When the book chapters are viewed online, they are formatted via a CSS2 stylesheet that defines a main column for content as well as dedicating screen real estate for navigational elements. We then created a second template to render the content for exporting; this was essentially a bare-bones version of the book with no navigation and minimal styling. Pages (or even the entire book) can be exported (via the “Save As...” function in a Web browser) for use in either print production or ebook conversion. At this point, we required no skills beyond those of any decent Web designer.
  • Integrating with CS4 for Print Adobe’s IDML language defines elements specific to InDesign; there is nothing in the language that looks remotely like XHTML. So a mechanical transformation step is needed to convert the XHTML content into something InDesign can use. This is not as hard as it might seem.
  • Both XHTML and IDML are composed of straightforward, well-documented structures, and so transformation from one to the other is, as they say, “trivial.” We chose to use XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transforms) to do the work. XSLT is part of the overall XML specification, and thus is very well supported in a wide variety of tools. Our prototype used a scripting engine called xsltproc, a nearly ubiquitous piece of software that we found already installed as part of Mac OS X (contemporary Linux distributions also have this as a standard tool), though any XSLT processor would work.
  • In other words, we don’t need to buy InCopy, because we just replaced it with the Web. Our wiki is now plugged directly into our InDesign layout. It even automatically updates the InDesign document when the content changes. Credit is due at this point to Adobe: this integration is possible because of the open file format in the Creative Suite 4.
  • We wrote an XSLT transformation script[18] that converted the XHTML content from the Web into an InCopy ICML file. The script itself is less than 500 lines long, and was written and debugged over a period of about a week by amateurs (again, the people named at the start of this article). The script runs in a couple of seconds, and the resulting .icml file can then be “placed” directly into an InDesign template. The ICML file references an InDesign stylesheet, so the template file can be set up with a house-styled layout, master pages, and stylesheet definitions for paragraphs and character ranges.
  • Rather than a public-facing website, our system relies on the Web as a content management platform—of course a public face could easily be added.
  • It should be noted that the Book Publishing 1 proof-of-concept was artificially complex; we began with a book laid out in InDesign and ended up with a look-alike book laid out in InDesign. But next time—for instance, when we publish Book Publishing 2—we can begin the process with the content on the Web, and keep it there throughout the editorial process. The book’s content could potentially be written and edited entirely online, as Web content, and then automatically poured into an InDesign template at proof time. “Just in time,” as they say. This represents an entirely new way of thinking of book production. With a Web-first orientation, it makes little sense to think of the book as “in print” or “out of print”—the book is simply available, in the first place online; in the second place in derivative digital formats; and third, but really not much more difficult, in print-ready format, via the usual InDesign CS print production system publishers are already familiar with.
  • Creating Ebook Files Creating electronic versions from XHTML source is vastly simpler than trying to generate these out of the existing print process. The ePub version is extremely easy to generate; so is online marketing copy or excerpts for the Web, since the content begins life Web-native.
  • Since an ePub file is essentially XHTML content in a special wrapper, all that is required is that we properly “wrap” our XHTML content. Ideally, the content in an ePub file is broken into chapters (as ours was) and a table of contents file is generated in order to allow easy navigation within an ebook reader. We used Julian Smart’s free tool eCub[19] to simply and automatically generate the ePub wrapper and the table of contents. The only custom development we did was to create a CSS stylesheet for the ebook so that headings and paragraph indents looked the way we wanted. Starting with XHTML content, creating ePub is almost too easy.
  • today, we are able to put the process together using nothing but standard, relatively ubiquitous Web tools: the Web itself as an editing and content management environment, standard Web scripting tools for the conversion process, and the well-documented IDML file format to integrate the layout tool.
  • Our project demonstrates that Web technologies are indeed good enough to use in an XML-oriented workflow; more specialized and expensive options are not necessarily required. For massive-scale enterprise publishing, this approach may not offer enough flexibility, and the challenge of adding and extracting extra semantic richness may prove more trouble than it's worth.
  • But for smaller firms who are looking at the straightforward benefits of XML-based processes—single source publishing, online content and workflow management, open and accessible archive formats, greater online discoverability—here is a way forward.
  • The result is very simple and easy to use. Our demonstration requires that a production editor run the XSLT transformation script manually, but there is no reason why this couldn’t be built directly into the Web content management system so that exporting the content to print ran the transformation automatically. The resulting file would then be “placed” in InDesign and proofed.
  • The final piece of our puzzle, the ability to integrate print production, was made possible by Adobe's release of InDesign with an open XML file format. Since the Web's XHTML is also XML, is can be easily and confidently transformed to the InDesign format.
  • Such a workflow—beginning with the Web and exporting to print—is surely more in line with the way we will do business in the 21st century, where the Web is the default platform for reaching audiences, developing content, and putting the pieces together. It is time, we suggest, for publishers to re-orient their operations and start with the Web.
  • Using the Web as a Production Platform
  • Gary Edwards on 01 Nov 13
     
    I was looking for an answer to a problem Marbux had presented, and found this interesting article.  The issue was that of the upcoming conversion of the Note Case Pro (NCP) layout engine to the WebKit layout engine, and what to do about the NCP document format. My initial reaction was to encode the legacy NCP document format in XML, and run an XSLT to a universal pivot format like TEI-XML.  From there, the TEI-XML community would provide all the XSLT transformation routines for conversion to ODF, OOXML, XHTML, ePUB and HTML/CSS. Researching the problems one might encounter with this approach, I found this article.  Fascinating stuff. My take away is that TEI-XML would not be as effective a "universal pivot point" as XHTML.  Or perhaps, if NCP really wants to get aggressive; IDML - InDesign Markup Language. As an after thought, i was thinking that an alternative title to this article might have been, "Working with Web as the Center of Everything".
Gary Edwards

FeedHenry Secures $9M Funding Led By Intel Capital To Feed Boom in Mobile Enterprise | ... - 0 views

techcrunch.com/...feed-boom-in-mobile-enterprise

FeedHenry Mobile-Application-Platform Integrated-Cloud BaaS

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 May 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 02 May 13
     
    FeedHenry provides a cloud Mobile Application Platform that simplifies the development, integration, deployment and management of secure mobile apps for business. This mobile platform-as-a-service (PaaS) allows apps to be developed in HTML5, JavaScript, and CSS and deployed to multiple mobile devices from a single code base. The node.js backend service offers a complete range of APIs designed to simplify and secure the connectivity of mobile apps to backend and third party systems. The platform can be deployed to private, public or hybrid clouds. FeedHenry's PaaS offers developers speed of development, instant scalability, device and cloud independence, and the ability to easily integrate to backend information. ................................ If, say, a company uses both Sharepoint and Salesforce inside a mobile app, to get that data into one app they need multiple levels of API integration. Because of the enormous boom in mobile and tablet apps, so-called 'back-end as a service' (BaaS) platforms like FeedHenry - which solve these problems - are hugely expanding. Thus, today FeedHenry has secured $9M (€7M) in a funding round led by Intel Capital, alongside a "seven figure" investment from existing investor Kernel Capital. Other existing investors VMware Inc., Enterprise Ireland and private investors also participated and were joined by new investment from ACT Venture Capital. The funds will be used on an international roll out. FeedHenry's mobile application platform - built between Ireland and the U.S. - helps businesses build mobile apps that integrate securely to their business through the cloud. This is a competitive market that includes StackMob, Usergrid, Appcelerator, Sencha.io, Applicasa ,Parse, CloudMine , CloudyRec , iKnode, yorAPI, Buddy and ScottyApp.
Gary Edwards

Office Productivity Software Is No Closer To Becoming A Commodity | Forrester Blogs - 0 views

blogs.forrester.com/...closer_to_becoming_a_commodity

Office-Productivity Cloud-Computing Cloud-Productivity-Platform Cloud-Compound-Document HTML5

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Oct 13 - No Cached
  • We just published a report on the state of adoption of Office 2013 And Productivity Suite Alternatives based on a survey of 155 Forrester clients with responsibility for those investments. The sample does not fully represent the market, but lets us draw comparisons to the results of our previous survey in 2011. Some key takeaways from the data:   One in five firms uses email in the cloud. Another quarter plans to move at some point. More are using Office 365 (14%) than Google Apps (9%).  Just 22% of respondents are on Office 2013. Another 36% have plans to be on it. Office 2013's uptake will be slower than Office 2010 because fewer firms plan to combine the rollout of Office 2013 with Windows 8 as they combined Office 2010 with Windows 7. Alternatives to Microsoft Office show little traction. In 2011, 13% of respondents supported open source alternatives to Office. This year the number is just 5%. Google Docs has slightly higher adoption and is in use at 13% of companies. 
  • Microsoft continues to have a stranglehold on office productivity in the enterprise: Just 6% of companies in our survey give all or some employees an alternative instead of the installed version of Microsoft Office. Most surprising of all, multi-platform support is NOT a priority. Apps on iOS and Android devices were important to 16% of respondents, and support for non-Windows PCs was important to only 11%. For now, most technology decision-makers seem satisfied with leaving employees to self-provision office productivity apps on their smartphones and tablets if they really want them. 
  • Do you think we're getting closer to replacing Microsoft Office in the workplace?
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Oct 13
     
    "We (Forrester) just published a report on the state of adoption of Office 2013 And Productivity Suite Alternatives based on a survey of 155 Forrester clients with responsibility for those investments. The sample does not fully represent the market, but lets us draw comparisons to the results of our previous survey in 2011. Some key takeaways from the data:   One in five firms uses email in the cloud. Another quarter plans to move at some point. More are using Office 365 (14%) than Google Apps (9%).  Just 22% of respondents are on Office 2013. Another 36% have plans to be on it. Office 2013's uptake will be slower than Office 2010 because fewer firms plan to combine the rollout of Office 2013 with Windows 8 as they combined Office 2010 with Windows 7. Alternatives to Microsoft Office show little traction. In 2011, 13% of respondents supported open source alternatives to Office. This year the number is just 5%. Google Docs has slightly higher adoption and is in use at 13% of companies. "
Gary Edwards

CPU Wars - Intel to Play Fab for an ARM Chipmaker: Understanding What the Altera Deal M... - 0 views

www.dailytech.com/...article33659.htm

OpenWeb WinTel Intel-ARM x86-ARM CPU-GPU

shared by Gary Edwards on 04 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • Intel wants x86 to conquer all computing spaces -- including mobile -- and is trying to leverage its process lead to make that happen.  However, it's been slowed by a lack of inclusion of 4G cellular modems on-die and difficulties adapting to the mobile market's low component prices.  ARM, meanwhile, wants a piece of the PC and server markets, but has received a lukewarm response from consumers due to software compatibility concerns. The disappointing sales of (x86) tablet products using Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) Windows 8 and the flop of Windows RT (ARM) product in general somewhat unexpectedly had the net result of being a driver to maintain the status quo, allowing neither company to gain much ground.  For Intel, its partnership with Microsoft (the historic "Wintel" combo) has damaged its mobile efforts, as Windows 8 flopped in the tablet market.  Likewise ARM's efforts to score PC market share were stifled by the flop of Windows RT, which led to OEMs killing off ARM-based laptops and convertibles.
  • Both companies seem to have learned their lesson and are migrating away from Windows towards other platforms -- in ARM's case Chromebooks, and in Intel's case Android tablets/smartphones. But suffice it to say, ARM Holdings and Intel are still very much bitter enemies from a sales perspective.
  • III. Profit vs. Risk -- Understanding the Modern CPU Food Chain
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • Whether it's tablets or PCs, the processor is still one of the most expensive components onboard.  Aside from the discrete GPU -- if a device has one -- the CPU has the greatest earning potential for a large company like Intel because the CPU is the most complex component. Other components like the power supply or memory tend to either be lower margin or have more competitors.  The display, memory, and storage components are all sensitive to process, but see profit split between different parties (e.g. the company who makes the DRAM chips and the company who sells the stick of DRAM) and are primarily dependent on process technology. CPUs and GPUs remain the toughest product to make, as it's not enough to simply have the best process, you must also have the best architecture and the best optimization of that architecture for the space you're competing in. There's essentially five points of potential profit on the processor food chain: [CPU] Fabrication [CPU] Architecture design [CPU] Optimization OEM OS platform Of these, the fabrication/OS point is the most profitable (but is dependent on the number of OEM adopters).  The second most profitable niche is optimization (which again is dependent on OEM adopter market share), followed by OEM markups.  In terms of expense, fabrication and operating system designs requires the greatest capital investment and the highest risk.
  • In terms of difficulty/risk, the fabrication and operating system are the most difficult/risky points.  Hence in terms of combined risk, cost, and profitability the ranking of which points are "best" is arguably: Optimization Architecture design OS platfrom OEM Fabrication ...with the fabrication point being last largely because it's so high risk. In other words, the last thing Intel wants is to settle into a niche of playing fabs for everybody else's product, as that's an unsound approach.  If you can't keep up in terms of chip design, you typically spin off your fabs and opt for a different architecture direction -- just look at Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s (AMD) spinoff of GlobalFoundries and upcoming ARM product to see that.
  • IV. Top Firms' Role on That Food Chain
  • Apple has seen unbelievable profits due to this fundamental premise.  It controls the two most desirable points on the food chain -- OS and optimization -- while sharing some profit with its architecture designer (ARM Holdings) and a bit with the fabricator (Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930)).  By choosing to play operating system maker, too, it adds to its profits, but also its risk.  Note that nearly every other first-party exclusive smartphone platform has failed or is about to fail (i.e. BlackBerry, Ltd. (TSE:BB) and the now-dead Palm).
  • Intel controls points 1, 2, and 5, currently, on the food chain.  Compared to Apple, Intel's points of control offer less risk, but also slightly less profitability. Its architecture control may be at risk, but even so, it's currently the top in its most risky/expensive point of control (fabrication), where as Apple's most risky/expensive point of control (OS development) is much less of a clear leader (as Android has surpassed Apple in market share).  Hence Apple might be a better short-term investment, but Intel certainly appears a better long-term investment.
  • Samsung is another top company in terms of market dominance and profit.  It occupies points 1, 3, 4, and 5 -- sometimes.  Sometimes Samsung's devices use third-party optimization firms like Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) and NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA), which hurts profitability by removing one of the most profitable roles.  But Samsung makes up for this by being one of the largest and most successful third party manufacturers.
  • Microsoft enjoys a lot of profit due to its OS dominance, as does Google Inc. (GOOG); but both companies are limited in controlling only one point which they monetize in different ways (Microsoft by direct sales; Google by giving away OS product for free in return for web services market share and by proxy search advertising revenue).
  • Qualcomm and NVIDIA are also quite profitable operating solely as optimizers, as is ARM Holdings who serves as architecture maker to Qualcomm, NVIDIA, Apple, and Samsung.
  • V. Four Scenarios in the x86 vs. ARM Competition
  • Scenario one is that x86 proves dominant in the mobile space, assuming a comparable process.
  • A second scenario is that x86 and ARM are roughly tied, assuming a comparable process.
  • A third scenario is that x86 is inferior to ARM at a comparable process, but comparable or superior to ARM when the x86 chip is built using a superior process.  From the benchmarks I've seen to date, I personally believe this is most likely.
  • A fourth scenario is that x86 is so drastically inferior to ARM architecturally that a process lead by Intel can't make up for it.
  • This is perhaps the most interesting scenario, in the sense of thinking of how Intel would react, if not overly likely.  If Intel were faced with this scenario, I believe Intel would simply bite the bullet and start making ARM chips, leveraging its process lead to become the dominant ARM chipmaker.  To make up for the revenue it lost, paying licensing fees to ARM Holdings, it could focus its efforts in the OS space (it's Tizen Linux OS project with Samsung hints at that).  Or it could look to make up for lost revenue by expanding its production of other basic process-sensitive components (e.g. DRAM).  I think this would be Intel's best and most likely option in this scenario.
  • VI. Why Intel is Unlikely to Play Fab For ARM Chipmakers (Even if ARM is Better)
  • From Intel's point of view, there is an entrenched, but declining market for x86 chips because of Windows, and Intel will continue to support Atom chips (which will be required to run Windows 8 tablets), but growth on desktops will come from 64 bit desktop/server class non-Windows ARM devices - Chromebooks, Android laptops, possibly Apple's desktop products as well given they are going 64 bit ARM for their future iPhones. Even Windows has been trying to transition (unsuccessfully) to ARM. Again, the Windows server market is tied to x86, but Linux and FreeBSD servers will run on ARM as well, and ARM will take a chunk out of the server market when a decent 64bit ARM server chip is available as a result.
  • Gary Edwards on 04 Nov 13
     
    Excellent article explaining the CPU war for the future of computing, as Intel and ARM square off.  Intel's x86 architecture dominates the era of client/server computing, with their famed WinTel alliance monopolizing desktop, notebook and server implementations.  But Microsoft was a no show with the merging mobile computing market, and now ARM is in position transition from their mobile dominance to challenge the desktop -notebook - server markets.   WinTel lost their shot at the mobile computing market, and now their legacy platforms are in play.  Good article!!! Well worth the read time  ................
Paul Merrell

WikiLeaks - Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment Chapter - 0 views

wikileaks.org/...press.html

TTP-Investment-Chapter Wilileaks globalization corporatization

shared by Paul Merrell on 27 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Paul Merrell on 27 Mar 15
     
    The previously leaked chapter on copyrights makes clear that the TPP would be a disaster for a knowledge society. This chapter makes clear that only corprorations may compel arbitration; there is no corresponding right for human beings to do so. 
Gary Edwards

Nebula Builds a Cloud Computer for the Masses - Businessweek - 0 views

www.businessweek.com/...-cloud-computer-for-the-masses

Cloud-Computing Cloud-Productivity-Platform Chris-Kemp OpenStack

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Apr 13
     
    Fascinating story about Chris Kemp of OpenStack fame, and his recent effort to commoditize Cloud Computing hardware/software systems - Nebula excerpt: "Though it doesn't look like much, (about the size of a four-inch-tall pizza box) Nebula One is the product of dozens of engineers working for two years in secrecyin Mountain View, Calif. It has attracted the attention of some of Silicon Valley's top investors. The three billionaires who made the first investment in Google-Andy Bechtolsheim, David Cheriton, and Ram Shriram-joined forces again to back Nebula One, betting that its technology will invite a dramatic shift in corporate computing that outflanks the titans of the industry. "This is an example of where traditional technology companies have failed the market," says Bechtolsheim, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems (ORCL) and famed hardware engineer. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Comcast Ventures, and Highland Capital Partners have also backed Kemp's startup, itself called Nebula, which has raised more than $30 million. The origins of Nebula One go back to Kemp's days at NASA, which he joined in 2006 as director of strategic business development. In 2007, he became a chief information officer, making him, at 29, the youngest senior executive in the U.S. government. In 2010, he became NASA's chief technology officer. Kemp spent much his time at NASA developing more efficient data centers for the agency's various computing efforts. He and a team of engineers built the early parts of what is now known as OpenStack, software that makes it possible to control an entire data center as one computer. To see if other companies could take the idea further, Kemp made the software open source. Big players such as AT&T (T), Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Rackspace Hosting (RAX) have since incorporated OpenStack into the cloud computing services they sell customers. Kemp had an additional idea: He wanted to use OpenStack as a way to give every company its
Gary Edwards

35 top free WordPress themes for designers | Web design | Creative Bloq - 0 views

www.creativebloq.com/...free-wordpress-themes-712429

responsive wordpress-themes

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 May 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 27 May 13
     
    "Free themes are a great way to get a blog or website off the ground. You might want to start writing about a topic but don't want to invest the money in a custom site design on top of hosting and a domain. And once your site is up and running, there's nothing to stop you dissecting them, building on top of them and learning from them. In this article we've selected some of the very best WordPress themes for you to use in your projects. Each is not only free to use and open to the public but also offers something special and unique. For all our WordPress articles, click here"
Navin Goel

Manage your car rental business with fast and efficient car rental software - 0 views

www.marketpressrelease.com/ental-software-1355721568.html

car rental software

shared by Navin Goel on 17 Dec 12 - No Cached
  • Navin Goel on 17 Dec 12
     
    The new age business requires you to manage your finances and resources effectively in order to maximize your returns on investment. The car rental software is the best solution when you are looking to manage vehicle fleet efficiently.
Gary Edwards

Citi: Disruptive Innovation - Business Insider - 0 views

www.businessinsider.com/i-disruptive-innovation-2013-5

citi-research-report disruptive-technologies future-technologies

shared by Gary Edwards on 01 May 13 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 01 May 13
     
    "In a massive new research report, analysts at investment bank Citi take a close look at 10 technologies they say will disrupt the way we do business.  They've dipped into practically every sector you can think of: energy, entertainment, IT, manufacturing, and transportation among them. Some of these technologies have been with us for awhile, but are poised to get better or cheaper. Others have only recently surfaced, but will be ubiquitous in a matter of years. This is what they say the future is going to look like."  (Slide Deck of Disruptive Technologies with Titles listed below) .... 3-D Printing .... e-Cigarettes .... Genomics and Personalized Medicine .... Mobile Payments (idiots didn't include Dwolla - the most disruptive technology in this sector .... Energy Exploration Technology .... Oil to Gas Switching  (Compressed Natural Gas - CNG - for Vehicles) .... Streaming Entertainment .... The SaaS Opportunity - Software as a Service (Check out the Graph! Projected to be an $18 Billion market led by Google Apps, Microsoft 365 and Amazon Web Services (?) .... Software Defined Networking -SDN-  a projected $3.7 Billion market .... Solar Photovoltaics  -Semiconductor generated electrical current within solar panels  
Gary Edwards

Rich Karlgaard: The Future Is More Than Facebook - WSJ.com - 0 views

online.wsj.com/...4371504577406142515388550.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 May 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 17 May 12
     
    Very interesting article from WSJ on the eve of the FaceBook IPO.  Karlgaard claims that in Silicon Valley, social networking is last years story.  The innovators have moved on to really important stuff, "big stuff", like transportation, energy, electricity, food production, water delivery, health care and education. Killer quote: In Silicon Valley, investing in social-media companies is already passé. Last year, as private investors were bidding up Facebook's valuation to $100 billion, the veteran Silicon Valley investor Roger McNamee said "the next 500 social-media companies will lose money." He's broadly right. The time to make big returns in Facebook and in social media has passed.......... Karlsgard argues that the future belongs to the algorythm engineers, and the magic they make.  He sights the incredibly rapid development of the Google Car, concluding that "This rate of progress is normal in the algorithmic world, but it is new in the physical world."  Silicon Valley is where the great algorithms engineers put their genius to the test.  It's still where money meets magic, and algorithms get to whip saw reality. first up: Manufacturing and Energy. excerpts: Social media is already passé in Silicon Valley. America's innovation engine is now focused on transportation, energy and manufacturing. In March 1986, Microsoft ended its first day as a public company with a market capitalization of $780 million. Its value grew more than 700 times that over the next 13 years and made Bill Gates, in 1999, the richest man ever with a net worth of $101 billion. When Facebook goes public this Friday its market cap could easily hit $100 billion, bringing founder Mark Zuckerberg's net worth to more than $18 billion. That's about 50 times what Mr. Gates was worth after Microsoft's IPO. Facebook's big payday should be cause for celebration in a liberal democracy. Instead it has provoked two kinds of anxiety. Both imply America's best days are over.
Gary Edwards

Government Market Drags Microsoft Deeper into the Cloud - 0 views

www.readwriteweb.com/...soft-deeper-into-the-cloud.php

Cloud-Productivity-Platform Microsoft Great-Transition desktop-productivity

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Jun 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Jun 12
     
    Nice article from Scott M. Fulton describing Microsoft's iron fisted lock on government desktop productivity systems and the great transition to a Cloud Productivity Platform.  Keep in mind that in 2005, Massachusetts tried to do the same thing with their SOA effort.  Then Governor Romney put over $1 M into a beta test that produced the now infamous 300 page report written by Sam Hiser.  The details of this test resulted in the even more infamous da Vinci ODF plug-in for Microsoft Office desktops.   The lessons of Massachusetts are simple enough; it's not the formats or office suite applications.  It's the business process!  Conversion of documents not only breaks the document.  It also breaks the embedded "business process". The mystery here is that Microsoft owns the client side of client/server computing.  Compound documents, loaded with intertwined OLE, ODBC, ActiveX, and other embedded protocols and interface dependencies connecting data sources with work flow, are the fuel of these client/server business productivity systems.  Break a compound document and you break the business process.   Even though Massachusetts workers were wonderfully enthusiastic and supportive of an SOA based infrastructure that would include Linux servers and desktops as well as OSS productivity applications, at the end of the day it's all about getting the work done.  Breaking the business process turned out to be a show stopper. Cloud Computing changes all that.  The reason is that the Cloud is rapidly replacing client/server as the target architecture for new productivity developments; including data centers and transaction processing systems.  There are many reasons for the great transition, but IMHO the most important is that the Web combines communications with content, data, and collaborative computing.   Anyone who ever worked with the Microsoft desktop productivity environment knows that the desktop sucks as a communication device.  There was
Gary Edwards

Ticked off: How stock market decimalization killed IPOs and ruined our economy ~ I, Cri... - 0 views

www.cringely.com/...ed-ipos-and-ruined-our-economy

Productivity Wealth-Creation Jobs IPO's

shared by Gary Edwards on 13 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 13 Sep 12
     
    Really interesting blog from Robert X.  Wealth through productivity vs wealth through accumulation and the important but seriously declining role of IPO's. excerpt: "Big business grows by economies of scale, economies of scale are gained by increasing efficiency, and increased efficiency in big business always - always - means creating more economic output with fewer people. More economic output is good, but fewer people is bad if you need 100,000 new jobs per month just to provide for normal U.S. population growth. This is the ultimate irony of policies that declare companies too big to fail when in fact they are more properly too big to survive. Our policy obsession with helping big business no matter which party is in power has been a major factor in our own economic demise because it doesn't create jobs. Our leaders and would-be leaders are really good at talking about the value of small and medium size businesses in America but really terrible about actually doing much to help. Now here comes the important part: if small businesses, young businesses, new businesses create jobs, then Initial Public Offerings create wealth. Wealth creation is just as important as job creation in our economy but too many experts get it wrong when they think wealth creation and wealth preservation are the same things, because they aren't." ................. The fundamental error of trickle-down (Supply Side) economics is that it is dependent on rich people spending money which they structurally can't do fast enough to matter, and philosophically won't do because their role in the food chain is about growth through accumulation, not through new production. ..............................................
  • Paul Merrell on 17 Sep 12
     
    I'm less than convinced that IPOs create wealth, in terms of the aggregate wealth of the nation. Most of the "wealth" created by IPOs goes to the previous owner's of the business, plus whatever speculators can maneuver to acquire through capital gains. But waving the "IPO wand" does not magically boost productivity, business outputs, or business profitability. So if "wealth" is created, it is faux wealth. I think Cringely ventures too far from what the real argument is about: levels of government taxation and creating jobs. Supply Side economics is in reality an argument against taxing the wealthy. But Cringely doesn't even touch on the taxation issue. I also do not agree with his "Steve Jobs created 50,000 new jobs" schtick because he does not take into account how many jobs were destroyed in the process. But modern information technology has unquestionably destroyed more jobs than it has created; the technology never would have succeeded had it not boosted individual productivity to a point that massive numbers of employees could be laid off. For example, remember the days when you could call a business and have a human being answer the phone and direct your call to the right person? That lady doesn't have that job anymore because of voice menu/mail technology. IT is all about doing more with fewer people. In the context of jobs and taxation levels, the fundamental error of Supply Side Economics is not the distinction between wealth accumulation and wealth creation. The real fundamental error is globalism, government policies that create enormous incentives to invest capital outside the U.S. Supply Side Economics simply blinks past that enormously inconvenient reality. To illustrate, let's try remodeling trickle-down economics in a way that has a prayer of producing more and better-paying jobs in the U.S. (Over-simplification warning.) -- The U.S. withdraws from all trade agreements standing in the way and repeals all laws inconsistent with the goal of
Gary Edwards

Mobile banking pioneer mFoundry nabs $18M from MasterCard, Intel Capital and others - 1 views

feedproxy.google.com/...l6Z9pekjcEc

PayPal Credit-Card-Payment-Industry Dwolla Web-Money Internet-money Internet-Transcaction-Payments

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Dec 11
     
    Good stuff. The Internet-payment sector is really heating up: Square, PayPal, mFoundry and my favorite - DWOLLA. The credit-card-payment-industry is still in control, but you can see from the heavy investments they are making in Web based systems, that the mobility phenomenon has them concerned. Dwolla is my favorite because of the innovative way they connect direct to the bank accounts of users, cutting the transaction and reconciliation cost from credit card standard 2.75% o a FLAT $0.25 cents!!!! Outstanding. Could prove very disruptive.
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Dec 11
     
    Simple, formerly known as "BankSimple" recently won an award as one of the 20 best stratups of 2011. Backed by Visa, Simple aggregates end user bank accounts, proving a single interface. Promises to get rid of bank fees entirely, and become a NEW Mobile Bank. Not sure this can be doen with Visa sitting in the drivers seat.
Gary Edwards

This 28-Year-Old's Startup Is Moving $350 Million And Wants To Completely Kill Credit C... - 0 views

articles.businessinsider.com/...t-card-interchange-fees-paypal

Dwolla Banksters Credit-Card-Payment-Industry

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Nov 11 - No Cached
  • really strategic investors, which is what we did. One of our investors is a financial institution; one is a financial services company. 
  • Our investors do credit and debit processing for banks.  So when you get a credit card from your bank, it's being issued by companies like them.  Our investors are also distributing our product to financial institutions.  So we've been building a payment network, and we can do it legally because of who our investors are.
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Nov 11
     
    Page one of this extrordinary Business Insider interview of Ben Milne, founder of Dwolla.  Lots of highlights on this 3 page article.  An absolute must read.  Dwolla is using the Web and mobile Web connectivity to truly disrupt the massive Credit Card transaction and payment industry.  Built on top of the legacy Bank ACH payment and reconciliation system used by all Banks. This is awe-sum!  A recent economic study claimed that 40% of all transactions is "interest payment".  For Governments, it's 50%.  The Banksters are getting their vig at every turn, with Credit Cards accounting for much of the productivity-sales formula of invest, build, service, and sell.
Gary Edwards

How To Win The Cloud Wars - Forbes - 0 views

www.forbes.com/...how-to-win-the-cloud-wars

Cloud-Computing

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Sep 12
     
    Byron Deeter is right, but perhaps he's holding back on his reasoning.  Silicon Valley is all about platform, and platform plays only come about once every ten to twenty years.  They come like great waves of change, not replacing the previous waves as much as taking away and running with the future.   Cloud Computing is the fourth great wave.  It will replace the PC and Network Computing waves as the future.  It is the target of all developers and entrepreneurs.   The four great waves are mainframe, workstation, pc and networked pc, and the Internet.  Cloud Computing takes the Internet to such a high level of functionality that it will now replace the pc-netwroking wave.  It's going to be enormous.  Especially as enterprises move their business productivity and data / content apps from the desktop/workgroup to the Cloud.  Enormous. The key was the perfect storm of 2008, where mobility (iPhone) converged with the standardization of tagged PDF, which converged with the Cloud Computing application and data model, which all happened at the time of the great financial collapse.   The financial collapase of 2008 caused a tectonic shift in productivity.  Survival meant doing more with less.  Particularly less labor since cost of labor was and continues to be a great uncertainty.  But that's also the definition of productivity and automation.  To survive, companies were compelled to reduce labor and invest in software/hardware systems based productivity.  The great leap to a new platform had it's fuel; survival. Social applications and services are just the simplest manifestation of productivity through managed connectivity in the Cloud.  Wait until this new breed of productivity reaches business apps!  The platform wars have begun, and it's for all the marbles. One last thought.  The Internet was always going to win as the next computing platform wave.  It's the first time communications have been combined and integrated into content, and vast dat
Paul Merrell

FCC's Wheeler Promises Net Neutrality Action 'Shortly' | Adweek - 0 views

www.adweek.com/...-net-neutrality-shortly-155347

net-neutrality FCC petition

shared by Paul Merrell on 31 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • Paul Merrell on 31 Jan 14
     
    Over a million signed the petition. Wow! But note that the battle is not over. The FCC could reimplement net neutrality now if it reclassified broadband internet as a telecommunications service. That the FCC has not already set this in motion raises danger flags. All it takes is for a few contracts to be signed to give the ISPs 5th Amendment taking clause claims for damages against the government for reimplementing net neutrality the right way, A "reasonable investment-backed expectation" is the relevant 5th Amendment trigger. 
Gary Edwards

Eucalyptus open-sources the cloud (Q&A) | The Open Road - CNET News - 0 views

news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10415578-16.html

matt-asay eucalyptus cloud-computing open-source OSS openweb web-app-platform

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Dec 09 - Cached
  • The ideal customer is one with an IT organization that is tasked with supporting a heterogeneous set of user groups (each with its own technology needs, business logic, policies, etc.) using infrastructure that it must maintain across different phases of the technology lifecycle. There are two prevalent usage models that we observe regularly. The first is as a development and testing platform for applications that, ultimately, will be deployed in a public cloud. It is often easier, faster, and cheaper to use locally sited resources to develop and debug an application (particularly one that is designed to operate at scale) prior to its operational deployment in an externally hosted environment. The virtualization of machines makes cross-platform configuration easier to achieve and Eucalyptus' API compatibility makes the transition between on-premise resources and the public clouds simple. The second model is as an operational hybrid. It is possible to run the same image simultaneously both on-premise using Eucalyptus and in a public cloud thereby providing a way to augment local resources with those rented from a provider without modification to the application. For whom is this relevant technology today? Who are your customers? Wolski: We are seeing tremendous interest in several verticals. Banking/finance, big pharma, manufacturing, gaming, and the service provider market have been the early adopters to deploy and experiment with the Eucalyptus technology.
  • Eucalyptus is designed to be able to compose multiple technology platforms into a single "universal" cloud platform that exposes a common API, but that can at the same time support separate APIs for the individual technologies. Moreover, it is possible to export some of the specific and unique features of each technology through the common API as "quality-of-service" attributes.
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Dec 09
     
    Eucalyptus, an open-source platform that implements "infrastructure as a service" (IaaS) style cloud computing, aims to take open source front and center in the cloud-computing craze. The project, founded by academics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is now a Benchmark-funded company with an ambitious goal: become the universal cloud platform that everyone from Amazon to Microsoft to Red Hat to VMware ties into. [Eucalyptus] is architected to be compatible with such a wide variety of commonly installed data center technologies, [and hence] provides an easy and low-risk way of building private (i.e. on-premise or internal) clouds...Thus data center operators choosing Eucalyptus are assured of compatibility with the emerging application development and operational cloud ecosystem while attaining the security and IT investment amortization levels they desire without the "fear" of being locked into a single public cloud platform.
1 - 20 of 50 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page