Clouds Over Cloud Computing? Raining On The Hype Parade

Clouds Over Cloud Computing? Raining On The Hype Parade

What's In A Name? What's In A Function? What's In The Hype?

By Imran Anwar

A recent blog entry on Internet Evolution by Mary Jander, titled "Clouds May Finally Be Forming for IT" recently caught my attention. Mary wrote about how companies have started looking at cloud computing as an infrastructure platform for their business.

That got me thinking about the very concept of cloud computing - as it is being foisted upon the industry and business. Don't get me wrong. I believe in the Internet and its power since before it became a commercial entity in the United States. It was for this reason that I elected to pioneer and be founder of Internet e-mail in Pakistan nearly 2 decades ago.

I also do not wish to sound like one of those "everything that can be invented has been invented" naysayers. However, even as the technology lover and evangelist, sometimes I see the industry shooting itself in the foot by simply renaming, repackaging, re-hyping concepts every few years.

Obviously, technology has been moving forward at a rapid pace every decade. Back in the day, a green screen operator's "cloud" was somewhere in the big air-conditioned room far away, housing the mainframe. 10 years later the concept of client/server moved the cloud into a less discrete location and made it a little more granular.

Then came the not so successful network computing concept which fell victim to its own hype. Next we have the Internet now being leveraged productively in some creative ways, but again causing marketing driven hype to set it up for potential disappointments and failures.

It is partly for this reason, the lack of clear revolutionary changes in enterprise computing, that we face a problem. We have entire industry initiatives and business plans being built around terms that nobody even fully agrees on the definition of.

Cloud Computing, Web 2.0, the Semantic Web, etc. are just some of the examples of how we, as an industry, are adrift. We are again latching on to buzzwords, hype, self-sustaining waves of "if we talk enough about it, it will happen" -- hoping someone, somewhere, will create a solution which sells enough in the marketplace to validate the original buzzword.

In the past some companies, like Microsoft, would derail perfectly good technologies possibly competing with their products by using FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Many good companies, products and technologies fell victim to that. However, despite the best efforts of monopolies of their time, whether in computer hardware, operating systems or telecom, smart, nimble and aggressive competitors did create new products, categories and entire industries.

That is why it is so ironic to me that thousands of companies and professionals are trying to create a new Cloud Computing industry --- without overcoming the FUD factor inherent in the marketplace!

Instead of removing uncertainty about what cloud computing means, what advantages it offers, what risks it carries and how those risks can be overcome, the players who want to lead in this industry are actually putting their faith in uncertainty!

They are relying on poorly defined concepts, media driven hype and evangelist driven buzzwords. They are hoping to be able to come up with something that sticks while no one knows what it all means.

That approach may work in the 3M Post-It sticky notes laboratory. But that is not how an entire industry, Information Technology and the Internet, based on a reality AND an image of clarity, consistency and communication standards can operate or succeed.

This is not the way to overcome the FUD that validly exists in the minds of technology and business managers in the enterprise. Add to that the recent outages, consistent problems and massive hacks that have hit everyone from Microsoft to Google, from Twitter to Facebook, and you can see why selling Cloud Computing as the answer, or even ready for prime time conversion of businesses, is both disingenuous and dangerous.

How many CIOs would be willing to completely bet their careers, and the security, and business continuity, of their organizations entirely on something as nebulous, literally, as cloud computing? I would not. As a CIO in a recent engagement, I started moving my client organization in that direction, for specific, clearly defined, non-mission-critical, business and technology functions. But, the most important, sensitive and mission-critical elements I ensured keeping in-house, in a proven, reliable and secure infrastructure

It is time for us, as an industry and professionals, to get out from under the umbrella of excuses that are often self-contradictory. When asked to define cloud computing we say things like "This is still an evolving platform". When asked to sell the concept to clients, we make it sound like it is as reliable as what clients need and expect, knowing that it is not.

Let us let the rain of facts, client needs, technology realities and user expectations wash away the layers of hype that are coating our vision. Then let us build clear definitions, clear messages, clear value propositions that will sell far better than the hype.

Only with such clarity can we expect the sun to shine on a bright future for Cloud Computing. What do you think?

Technorati Tags:
Imran, Imran Anwar, technology, computing, cloud, CIO, Internet, Microsoft, Google

Pssst, Want To Make Money Monetizing Social Networking Instead Of Time-Wasting Social NOT Working?

FaceBook, MySpace, linkedin, and so many other social networking sites offer great ways to connect with people - and lose touch with reality (and the total time spent on a computer). That is even before location-aware GPS and RFID devices, married to addictive platforms like FaceBook, Twitter and MySpaceTime.net (more on that later) make social networking mean even more being social and not working even during working hours.

It is so ironic that just about 16 years I wrote an article contradicting people's then assertion that computers and the Internet were going to make us all anti-social.

Having started what was considered the first online matrimonial sites, at http://imran.com, I dared to disagree.

I felt that though we may spend more time on our computers, the Internet would actually help us find that one in a million connection from places around the world we could never have gone or known or met that person.

Little did I realize how social networking would grow. Lesson learnt, something that you consider merely a social observation, or the earliest makings of a trend, must be pursued zealously even as the trend changes shapes and directions from market forces. If you are riding, even shaping, it along the way, your opportunities to start something huge are....well, huge.

Of course, as is my forte, I have a knack for starting new things. But, in the past I also had a "rebel without a cause" habit of not sticking around in such businesses long enough to become a millionaire off them. So, my advice is to never lose your idealism - as that is what will help you achieve the impossible. But, temper that idealism with pragmatism.

Wanting something to be a commercial success does not necessarily mean you "sold out" your dream. Take an alternate view. If you work hard and make Project X a huge money-making success, even if you have to sell the company to investors or venture capitalists, you did not sell out.

All you did was leverage Project X to give you the freedom to freely experiment and play with your many other some-crazy some-great ideas without being worried about getting funding for them. That can take you from being a "serial entrepreneur" to a "parallel serial entrepreneur", capable of trying multiple new ideas and businesses and achieving success far beyond what Project X alone would have given you.

In my own case, idealism was a strength, but it was also definitely a huge liability. Usually, I sat back and a few years later watched someone else do the same thing, with funding instead of personal funds, and grow rich/er. I saw the same thing as online dating grow into a huge business with the likes of match.com and others many years after I had launched the first matrimonials database.

When I started Internet email for my native country of Pakistan, I also became "co-owner and co-founder" of the .PK top level domain with my friend and neighbor, the technical genius Ashar Nisar, who went on to establish PKNIC to manage the ccTLD.

Besides getting a kick out of being called "father of the Internet" (at least in Pakistan), I even gave many people free email addresses on imran.pk (the country's first email provider and ISP) to promote email. But, never could I have imagined that sticking around giving something for free I could later have sold it to a giant corporation as hotmail.com did a few years later. Oh, well. Live and learn.

Today, FREE is a valid business model. If you grow a business large enough, no matter how much money it is losing, as long as you have enough users, someone will buy you out for millions of Dollars.

When I started writing an online journal and political opinions (Occasionally Obnoxious, Obviously Outspoken Opinions) at http://imran.com in 1995-96, little did I know that I could have built some sort of "blogging" empire on that.

Once again, despite having an MBA and thinking of myself as a savvy entrepreneur, I missed the boat. So, look around you - some of the very ordinary problems you are solving daily without thinking twice may hold within them huge business opportunities. First, recognize them. Then, go for them with everything you've got.

In 1995 I became a heavy GPS user in boating and later in aviation as a pilot. In 1998-2000 I became CEO of EverTrac, among the first out the gate selling RFID and GPS based solutions. Alas, as usual, like Panasonic's slogan, I was just slightly ahead of my time.

Fortunately, EverTrac and my team survived the dot-com bust, but only because we were gobbled by a Fortune 50 level company - which did nothing with what they bought. Lesson learnt. It's important to survive, but if you sell out to a big company, try not to feel heartache when they don't make any use of the technology.

But, this current new momentum of GPS based devices we are seeing will prove I was on the right…. umm.. EverTrac?

Hopefully, this time, with my current projects, covering GPS, social networking and mobile-monetization - I'll actually make some "real" money if I can sell something to a Google or Yahoo or, some even smarter business!

If that does not happen, I guess the pattern (or call it the Corporate Culture of an Entrepreneur) here is that I love to start new things, just before their time, that others make billions off later. But, so what? The sheer joy of starting something new, taking something from an idea that everyone says is dumb, or will never work, and making it at least take shape, get launched, and become popular is, in itself, a huge reward.

So, feel free to call me about what I an doing now. Surely I can help you become a Web 2.0 multi-millionaire doing whatever I am too lazy (or not smart enough :-) ) to make money from!

Good luck and God Speed, fellow entrepreneurs.

Can "Atom" Bomb? Imran's Law of Expectations

Sharon Gaudlin's article in ComputerWorld April 3, 2008 begins: "With Intel Corp. betting so heavily on the mobile Internet device market exploding in the next several years, industry analysts are wondering if the fledgling business can live up to the expectations."

Intel has named the technology/chips in question ATOM. So, I guess, the question is, will Atom bomb in the marketplace?

I think some of the comments from analysts like Charles King suggest that might be the case. "For a market now in its infancy to grow that fast in just five to 10 years would be an enormous growth curve - one that may not be realistic, especially with so many people satisfied with today's iPhones and other smart phones, said Charles King, an analyst at Pund-IT Inc. in Hayward, Calif."

I think King's comments are an example of Imran's Law of Expectations: "Any technology can be sufficiently overhyped to be perceived as failing to meet expectations, even if it is commercially successful in the market."

Yes, Intel (and others) will overhype this chip, this technology and this market demand. But the market 5 years from now will be far different from current form factors, so using those as benchmarks is surely a silly way to analyze the potential for this technology. The market may be smaller than Intel's hype, it may be bigger than analysts guesses, but it will be BIG. Big enough to be commercially successful.

Five years ago people using handheld PDAs could not have foreseen millions of iPhones in people's pockets today. As Apple readies its iPhone 2 device for release shortly, with even more functionality, it will be even more likely to hit its target of number of units sold.

I can only imagine what general magic Apple, and its many copy-cat product designers will do when Intel's Atom and others' even more exciting technologies become available to them to design the next generation of cool new products.

(Update: April 23, 2008: As I was writing these lines, Steve Jobs was busy negotiating the purchase of PA Semi, a StrongARM design-based chip-designer firm. It will mean far more incredible machines from Apple. Will it be a blow to intel's Atom? Yes. Will Atom bomb? Probably not, as there will be plenty of Apple-copycats out there needing chips.)

What do you think?

Snooping On Big Brother Snoops So Easy

I am a frequent reader of ComputerWorld for many years. It often offers good news and analysis on technology as well as technology related issues. One of the areas that is of interest to almost everyone with a job that requires using a computer (isn't that everyone these days?) is employers needing to or choosing to monitor on (or spy on?) the PC and net activities of employees. Jaikumar Vijayan has written an interesting article in the April 7, 2008 issue of ComputerWorld, titled "IT 'Big Brothers' trying to keep internal users under control".

One thing most of my readers know quite clearly, is that I am a big proponent of personal liberty, freedom of speech and privacy - citizen rights that the Bush administration has worked hard to destroy for the last eight years. However, on the topic of employers' rights to monitor to employees' use of the computer and network, I fully support employers. A PC is given to employees to do work for the business, not as a personal tool.

Sure, most, if not all of us, have had to use the office computer to login to a bank's web site to pay a credit card bill, or to send a quick email from hotmail or mac.com Mail. However, that is quite clearly not abuse and I know of few employers who would target such use as abuse. (I am sure if the email being sent was sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate, employers could find that objectionable).

But, such one-off "urgent issue" type personal use does not mean an employee has the right to be sitting writing personal emails, trading stocks, watching online videos, visiting porn sites or chatting with buddies during the hours he or she is being paid to do work.

That means more and more companies are using automated and semi-automated tools and policies to monitor use of their IT resources. ComputerWorld's article (currently available at this link) makes some great points and talks about some products. It starts off by speaking about a technology manager named Tom Scocca at some big company that he did not want identified.

But even before reading the complete article I had to laugh at the silliness of stating "Scocca, (who) asked that his employer not be named."

Don't these "Big Brother" snoops know that anyone with a PC can be snooping on them as easily. Suppose one of the people mentioned in this story was really protecting something seriously important. It is laughable to think that a person seriously targeting him or his company can not reverse snoop on him.

Tom Scocca is most likely the same person who can easily be found on the Internet as being the Senior Security Manager at Applied Materials. Since it can established that this person worked at Cisco, and may have attended Santa Clara University.

We can easily see the company proudly tell us that: Applied Materials, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells semiconductor fabrication equipment worldwide. It operates in four segments: Silicon, Fab Solutions, Display, and Adjacent Technologies. The Silicon segment provides a range of manufacturing equipment used to fabricate semiconductor chips or integrated circuits.

Even without us feeling like being in a Mission Impossible type movie, an attacker could even speculate or analyze what Tom's attitudes or exposure to technology or even technology philosophy is by doing further research on his past job and even the courses he may have taken in the past. I think the biggest problem is that our IT managers today may be so focused on targeting small fish, they may not even know they are in the bite-path of hungry data sharks themselves.

Food for thought.

Is Indian Outsourcing Industry Losing Out To Other Sources?

Someone posted an interesting question on LinkedIn, that I have also seen being asked in other places, whether India was not the top outsourcing destination and why?

From discussions I have had with various people, and my own observations, I think that, yes, India's value as an outsourced services provider has increased in volume but is now less of a cost advantage to client companies. Quality has suffered, and many American companies in particular have pulled back from Indian operations.

While it will take some time for India to fall off its perch as the main focus of IT and even other professional services outsourcing, IT is beginning to show some changes.

Several factors are at play. In the past Pakistan, etc. could not really come close to what Indian companies could offer in a scalable manner. Such countries are getting better, though India still has far more momentum.

A major problem, besides India's poor infrastructure, is the fact that GOOD Indian engineers can now command salaries not a small but a significant fraction of salaries for similar positions in the USA.

Additionally, the quality of resources being churned out, almost mass-produced, by the professional/educational system there is not at par with what Indians have previously built a great reputation on. So some clients are starting to see significant declines in quality and significant increases in the amount of hand-holding or reiterations needed to get things right.

That still does not mean it is a slam dunk for Pakistan, Bangla Desh, etc. to steal India's thunder. India still offers far greater stability than, say, Pakistan can - so a US businessman is not going to worry too much about being beheaded during a trip to India.

So, yes, India is vulnerable to good competition on cost with good quality work. But, it is not on the way out.

Certainly many Pakistani and other countries' companies are leveraging that. But, I do not see Pakistan's built-in tendency to self-destruct any great opportunity going away anytime soon. Having been born in Pakistan, I have been an entrepreneur in Pakistan in the 80s. I know how tough it was then - even before suicide bombings became a problem. Now, suicide bombings targeting Pakistanis are a DAILY occurrence. I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a Pakistani company to convince Americans or any foreign clients to visit and freely move about the country.

I surely respect those that are trying to do it in the even worse situation of law and order they face. Their job is not going to be easy to even catch up to India, much less get ahead. But, time, effort and rising Indian costs can give them a better foot in the door than ever in the past.

In the meantime, Indians being far more strategic and better business-minded thinkers, are doing a great job not just moving up the "food chain" in services they provide, but are also leveraging global capital markets to turn the tables and buy American and European companies.

I do not see Pakistan's biggest business, industry and media tycoons thinking or being far sighted beyond the lengths of their own noses.

What do you think?

The Last Mile, The Shortest Delay - Will The Internet Slowdown?

According to a recent article by Shamus McGillicuddy, News Writer at SearchSMB.com, titled 'Internet not growing fast enough, researchers say, "according to new research, demand for Internet usage will start to outpace the capacity of the Internet's access points. This potential crunch could spell trouble for CIOs."

I am flabbergasted by the conclusions drawn by this team of researchers that the writer is reporting about.

They seem to be unfamiliar with the rapid pace of change in technology in general, and in Internet related innovation in particular, when making their semi-dire predictions.

Yes, there is a huge growth in Internet traffic. And, yes, some slowdowns can happen. But, the last mile to the home or business is, most often, NOT the bottleneck. As a matter of fact, I have 1.5 Mbps DSL in NY and 6 Mbps DSL in Miami, and some web sites can respond equally slowly regardless of where I access them from.

"Slowdown" is NOT a generic problem that afflicts the entire Internet, as the 'research' would suggest. The problem can be specific to certain sites, domains, news events of the day, and, much like the highways analogy the news article referred to, it is nearly impossible to build broadband pipes that people and applications will not find ways to clog.

What is needed is intelligent research on where the clogging is likely to be, rather than generic predictions, based on weak logic and an apparent disdain for the reality of the rapid pace of technology innovation.

In summary, the last mile is NOT the problem, and even 6 Mbps DSL lines can find some web sites as slow as 768 Kbps lines. 'Slowdown' is NOT a generic problem across the entire Internet, but is, and will be, a more and more site/domain specific issue. The rapid pace of technology innovation with more reasonable pricing mechanisms will ensure the Internet remains an efficient and effective platform.

Judge sentences porn spammers to 5+ years

Finally a judge shows some wisdom and throws the book at porn spammers who sent sexual images with open images for any adult or child to see. Hope they are treated as porn queens in the prisons they are sent to. Say Hello To Bubba, boys! After they spend some "hard time" here, they ought to be shipped off to Saudi Arabia, even better, Afghanistan, for further hospitality.

read more | digg story

Stolen content from Bill Gates' new "visionary" book

Here is a stolen list of content points from (the so-called v:$:onary) Bill Gates' upcoming new book.....

- Internet will be huge one day
- People will be able to communicate easily using it one day
- Security will become important one day, maybe
- Online music will be a revolutionary new market one day
- Lots of cell phones will be used one day
- Lots of PDA and cameras will come in cell phones one day
- Open Source is a fad going away any day
- iPod is a temporary thing, (we will copy it any day)
- iTunes is a fad (our version is too buggy to release yet)
- Windows XXXP will only require 3 major patches before it runs
- Blue screen will be replaced by Red, to softly tell people they'e bloody fools to buy the new OS
- Longhorn is beginning to feel like one, Bill REALLY needs it to get out sooooooon!

:-)

How iPod will become MyPod - Response to Forbes magazine

How iPod will become MyPod: And, Why Forbes Is Wrong About The Future Sales Of iPods

By Imran Anwar

The media, and consumers, are excited beyond belief at the incredible performance of Apple Computer in the last few years. It's recent release of a Mac MINI and an iPod (mini) Shuffle has generated even more buzz. It sold close to 5 MILLION of the existing iPods in just the last quarter. Even previous naysayer journalists have begun to sing praises of the iPod and Apple.

Forbes generally has great analysis. Their Mr. Hesseldahl usually writes logically and sensibly on technology issues. His recent piece (When iPod Sales Run Out Of Steam - Forbes 1/14/05) on iPod sales sounds similarly logically written. But, unfortunately, the logic is so flawed I had to laugh. Except, I am a satisfied Apple iPod user, MacUser and currently also hold a few hundred shares in Apple - so I had to respond to it.

Using the logic of his article, Microsoft should have gone out of business a few years ago, as well as IBM. After all, PCs and clones reached a much higher penetration of the market than iPod enjoys at present. Yet, more personal computers are sold today than ever before. People's needs increase. They upgrade. CPUs become more powerful. Applications require more resources and new hardware is needed.

Eventually, as machines become more affordable, people buy more PCs.

Similarly, with Apple's new $499 Mac Minis I can bet millions more of these and Windows PCs will sell even where people already have PCs

In My Humble Opinion, Apple iPods can conceivably sell in much higher numbers than personal computers, for various reasons.

A personal computer has the word "personal" in its name but often a whole family can share a SINGLE personal computer, especially because MacOS, Windows, etc. also allow separate user accounts to run on the same machine.

The iPod on the other hand is a TRULY Personal device. You take it with you. You keep your music on it. Your spouse or brother has their own iPod even if you both share the same computer. So, conceivably, a family with 2 parents and four kids that shares one PC (which could be in the range of $500-$3000) can easily also own six iPods.

If this family has a Mercedes or BMW or one of the newer models coming out with iPod support built-in, I could also imagine there being an iPod just for the car.

Sounds far-fetched? Think about it. We have cassette and CD players at home and in the car. For more than 5 years I have had a car with an integrated Motorola cell phone.

Now I have more than one cell phone. And, I am not even including the cellular numberless cell phone that is built into the car for the security and tele-aid system.

Over time, I just got used to leaving the Motorola cell phone in the car. Calls to it are automatically forwarded to my "handheld" cell phone when I am not driving. So, having a "car-iPod" in addition to the family's various iPods is not unthinkable.

This past Christmas, I bought a 40GB iPod for a friend who had done me a favor. I had considered taking his wife and him to dinner and a Broadway show. Instead, I spent approximately the same money on getting him the iPod. Whether he uses it (on his boat, car, motorcycle, hotrod, or just tooling around his family business where he is first to arrive and last to leave) or gives it to his wife or son or grandchildren, the iPod was the perfect gift. And, it will last a lot longer than that dinner I would have taken him to.

In the meantime, we got two more iPods, for my siblings, and I am now in the market for a replacement. My 30GB iPod is close to full and I also want the iPod Photo version. The 80GB version of that should be here soon, and as soon as it does, I hope to get one.

With the launch of the $99 iPod Shuffle, I can actually get these for my sister and her husband, who both like music but are not listening to it all the time to justify getting them the high-end units. At $99, at their birthdays, I would have no problems getting one each for the kids in the family.

So, as far as I am concerned, even if Apple does not add video to iPod (I have no interest in that at present), I can see MUSIC-ONLY driven sales continuing to rise. Add the explosion of podcasting, and more audio-books, and one can see how even "serious" people can happily tote iPods on the subway or on the plane, on their walk to the beach or walking in the mall.

If, as I have been begging for years, Apple re-releases a PIM (personal information maanger) or PDA, built either into the cell phone they are launching with Motorola or into the iPod (I already carry my contacts, calendars, and some documents on the iPod) with or without Bluetooth - you can see the implications of the iPod becoming even more a MyPod.

What do YOU think?