Oh.. this is a good idea. CA not being an cloud provider provider can actually do this without all the askance looks that IBM or AMZ or etc would set off. CA is the only bigtechco in the cloud space I’ve seen that has been really really good at maintaining focus on their core value prop, which conveniently happens to apply very well to every part of the cloud conversation.
Even if SMI doesn’t become a de facto standard, the idea will stick. And it will be something both needed and used by brokerages and exchanges for cloudy services in the future (see this, this, and this). What’s great about CA’s approach is that it starts with the idea that these kinds of data and metrics should be public.
It’s a way to give a BU agility while production-level processes grind along. And it’s a way to give something that a BU may only need to exist temporarily a legitimate place to reside. This is something I’ve asked for more than once in the various roles I’ve held in the past.
That’s Fred quoting Dave Winer.
My first thought was, why is twitter reinventing rss. My next thought was: asynchronous messaging.
Asynch messaging with payloads, any to any, subscription based is a very powerful distribution and consumption model for just about everything.. but it could get very interesting when added to the consumability of twitter as a communications medium.
- english is her 4th or 5th language
- she hasn’t had much schooling
- her formative years were in a developing country (suffering bits of strife, early on)
- her first personal exposure to computer use was at grandma age
- our interface metaphors are completely useless to her
So I got to thinking about what it would take to make a ui my grandmother could use.
- no files: just tools/apps which find + organize contents (wtf format those come in)—itunes, picasa, etc model
- no exposure of the filesystem: no folders, no browsing into file structures, etc
- more accurate feedback: tactile or audio feedback accurate to real action being metaphored by the ui must be synched to visual feedback
- larger tolerances for what constitutes item selection + action (fine motor skills, not so much)
- no menus
- less distractions: wallpapers + window-dressing-flashy-bs-visual-effects have to go away
- no more clicking: the whole clicking (left, right, middle, double, triple, blah blah blah) paradigm has to go away
And then came the iPad.. which got me thinking.
There’s exactly 1 thing that matters about the iPad/iPhone/etc: the interface. Nothing else. The rest is product development. The interface is a strategy. No other tech company gets this. At least not at scale.
I’ve been processing a lot about the last two articles I quoted from Hamel’s WSJ blog re how Gore operates..
- Gary Hamel: Lessons from a Middle-Aged Revolutionary at W.L. Gore - Gary Hamel’s Management 2.0 - WSJ
- Gary Hamel: Gore-Tex maker W.L. Gore CEO Terri Kelly’s Management Lessons - Gary Hamel’s Management 2.0 - WSJ
In my admittedly short career (just over 10yrs) so far, every observation I’ve ever made has led me to the conclusion that size is a fundamental competitive disadvantage [though not necessarily a fatal one]. Why? Because to make size manageable, we typically arrive at a series of abstractions in the form of: process, bureaucracy, hierarchy, etc. This creates a large opportunity space for mistakes, disconnection from reality, safety from the negative consequences of decisions, general incompetence, gerrymandering, insularity, etc.
Particularly in the services business.
Over the years I’ve devised different schemes of creating smallness within the services enterprise. The same basic premise is apparent in such varying things as the locavore movement, “think global act local” campaigns, microfinancing, etc. Unfortunately though, I’ve never been able to convince anyone. “It’s a nice idea, but…” is always how the excuses begin.
Gore figured it out and actually built an organization to operate that way. Proof that it works and scales. Now only if I was interested in what they do. Or if I was interested in starting a company vs just operating one.
When will ppl start measuring code performance per watt? Heavy code that inefficiently uses resources can eat up hw + power.
Can that happen before total hardware commoditization and power optimization? Can enterprise software makers producing the largest, heaviest, cruftiest code use that as a selling point?
On tumblr, Jonathan asked: Do you think that should reflect in TCO calculations?
I guess that depends on the actual impact one could conceivably calculate—but if I was an enterprise IT manager, I’d eventually want to figure it out as a lever against all the crap software that gets made for.
If I was a vendor, I’d want to use it as a selling point. But that really depends on understanding the cost of producing resource efficient code, which probably has a point on a curve beyond which greater efficiency costs exponentially more.
A slide from my Cloud Perspectives preso about what different people mean when they use various cloudy terms and why you should really just ignore the term and focus on the concept.
What makes up the cloud depends on your perspective(s): who you are, who you serve, who serves you. Are you a cloud user, cloud provider, cloud hw/sw/etc vendor or some mix of the three?
This is v1.. I’m not wholly convinced of the specifics, but I am convinced of the principle and it’s utter obviousness.