The real threat to Microsoft and Apple

I'm not much of a salesman -- except on the rare occasion that I'm selling something I really believe in.

Twice I've made the big sale. One of those times was when I sold a rural school group on moving from the computer lab model to the computer library model -- @ 1992. Using the ultra-portable no hard-drive Apple Newton laptop.

Mercifully the school group came to their senses the next day and the plan died. A few months later the Newton laptop died too. Few now recall its brief existence.

Fifteen years later that original plan is becoming feasible ...

Charlie's Diary: Commoditizing our future

...Well, the OLPC XO-1 is now out, costs $188 in bulk (a chunk of which is attributable to the dollar collapsing in the meantime), and hasn't exactly taken the world by storm — but succeeded in sticking the proverbial cattle prod up Microsoft and Intel's collective arse. For too long, the software and CPU giants had been treating the PC market as a cash cow, with a natural floor on the price of the product; the XO-1 proved that they were overcharging grossly. Intel's reaction was the Classmate reference design, their own purported rival to the XO-1; the Asus Eee is what you get when a large far eastern OEM thinks 'hang on, can we commoditize this and sell it in bulk?' Microsoft, incidentally, failed to make it onto the Eee bandwagon because they wanted $40 for a Windows XP license — on a machine that starts at $250 for the stripped-down version. Mine runs Linux perfectly well, thank you, and comes with the basic stuff you need to be productive; OpenOffice, Thunderbird for email, Firefox as a web browser, and some other gadgets (like Skype and a webcam).

My first calculator cost about $180 in the early 1970s, required a plug, used wires to form numbers, and was bigger than my MacBook. Within 10 years similar machines were being distributed in cereal boxes.

That was commoditization.

I thought the same thing would happen to the Palm, that within 10 years we'd have similar things in our cereal boxes. After all, there were no moving parts.

That didn't happen, because Palm controlled the software and because the market for personal organizers turned out to be much smaller than I'd imagined.

I think Stross is right that we're again on the cusp of true calculator-style commoditization. The trick has been open source software, ruthless competition on the hardware side, the plummeting price of solid state storage and the development of low power designs that can run off commodity batteries (and outlets).

The DRM marketplace will keep proprietary system vendors alive for a while -- only they will be able to partner with media owners. How long, however, can the DRM market resist such a tide of low cost non-DRM compatible hardware?

On the other front, Google's Android reference mobile phone design has its natural home on millions of 2012 cell phones distributed throughout Africa.

Samsara happens.

This is a bad time for both Microsoft and (to a lesser extent) Apple to be demonstrating severe quality and reliability problems. Quality and cost-of-ownership are the most obvious ways Apple can slow the tide long enough to find a way to surf along (Android uses Apple's WebKit for example). If Apple and Microsoft continue to cede that advantage, they'll be obliterated.

Hmm. Microsoft cratering. The US dollar in free fall. Peak oil showing up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. A $400 billion mortgage market collapse. Should be an interesting decade.

Every human base pair mutated

A memorable comment on the effects of large numbers:

If mutations occur at random over the entire sequence of a species' genome, how can a complex organ such as an eye evolve? How can all the mutations that direct the development of that:

... At more than six billion individuals, the human species is now so large that every single base pair of the three billion in the genome is mutated several times, somewhere in the population, every generation. Some of these mutations are so harmful that they're eliminated before their carriers are even born. But the great majority of mutations are harmless (or at least tolerable), and a very few are actually helpful. These enter the population as exceedingly rare alternative versions of the genes in which they occur....

The response to the question doesn't address the hypothesis that clusters of genes may have higher mutation rates as an adaptive response to a novel ecological niche.

They really love me. The splogbots love me.

I'm reasonably sure I have a fairly small readership.

Ok, miniscule.

So it's interesting to note that I have some fan base. Sort of. Splogbots like me. They've like me since mid-2004.

What's a splog? Spam blogs, or splogs, are computer generated blogs that pull posts from true blogs and use them to generate new blogs with associated adwords. The business model is parasitic (like Dell's, for example); cloned content is harvested to attract readers, and adwords generate revenues. Splogbots use my full content RSS feeds to harvest posts, then they reuse these and others to create faux blogs. Spolsky described this well in 2005.

I'm sure there's a good biological analogy.

I know about this shady readership because one of my bloglines feeds is a subscription to the results of a Google Blog Search [1]. That canned search finds all blog postings that link into Gordon's Notes. So, if a post of mine links to another post of mine, and the first post is incorporated into a splog, then it shows up as a hit on my standing search.

Google tries hard to filter out splogs (spam blogs) but lately there's been a surge in new hits showing up in my search, and they're all splogs. So for the moment they've slipped past Google's radar.

Ironically, this post may show up in a splog somewhere. So if you're reading this and the blog title is not "Gordon's Notes", you might be reading a splog. (Note Brad DeLong tends to quote entire posts, so if the blog is "Grasping Reality" you're in good hands).

So how do I feel about it?

I don't bother with adwords, so it's not like I'm losing revenue to the parasitic splogs. I do partly write to inject memes into the metamind, so I suppose a splog might help with that. On the other hand, Google used to confuse my blogs with splogs, perhaps because my original posts matched those appearing in the splogs (they seem to have fixed that problem).

So I'm ambivalent, but mostly bemused.

So why do they like me so much? I don't know the business, but a colleague of mine once moved to the Dark Side and started writing splogbots. I wonder sometimes if he used my blogs as an early test case ...

[1] http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=link:http://jfaughnan.blogspot.com&ie=utf-8

Update 11/29/07: I may have been seeing a part of a massive 'SEO poisoing' attack on Google. I think the links are going away now.

Tom Friedman joins David Brooks

Obsidian Wings says it well: "Tom Friedman Has Gone Insane"

Friedman has been pompous and pointless for about seven years, with extended digressions into lunacy.

He seemed to have been chastened for a bit, but his "Obama needs Cheney" meme is proof he's passed the point of no return.

Friedman has now joined David Brooks in my "do not read under any circumstances" category. I'll leave it others to read him and provide me with the summaries as needed.

The subprime mortgage story: a problem of the weak

Most everyone is weak sometime. I'm basically tossing a coin when I choose health care benefits.

Ok, so I don't know anyone who isn't tossing a coin when they choose health care benefits. It's just that some of us know we're gambling while other players are more naive. The truth is the guy at the other end of the table wrote the rules -- he knows the game much better than we can.

When it comes to mortgages things are simpler for us. We're not sub-prime (yet), the products we buy are relatively simple and definitely generic -- there are lots of eyes on our side.

In the sub-prime market the game is trickier and the players have fewer resources than we. Those players get fleeced:

Lost in a Flood of Debt - Bob Herbert - New York Times

... There is some truth to the assertion that a lot of buyers signed up for deals they should have known they couldn’t afford. But it won’t do for the fat cats to fall back on empty phrases like “buyer beware.”

The subprime mortgage frenzy was a shameful, highly-charged phenomenon, motivated by greed and played out on a field of rampant exploitation. The victims deserved more protection than they got. As Paul Leonard, director of the California office of the Center for Responsible Lending, told me this week: “You shouldn’t have a marketplace that’s a ‘buyer beware’ marketplace for the most important financial transaction of most people’s lives.”

It’s not too much to ask that when Americans of modest means put their economic futures on the line, we have regulations in place to see that they are not ripped off...

The players get fleeced, the CEO walks, and some investors win, some lose.

So what ought we to do for the players who get taken, what do we do for the weak?

If you're a social Darwinist or neo-Calvinist this is just one more way that the market eliminates the unfit. If you're Libertarian the strong owe no duty to the weak, and you're probably a social Darwinist as well. If you're conservative there's a good chance you're either a religious neo-Calvinist or de facto social Darwinist -- but there's probably a portion that favors some state protection for the weak.

For neo-Liberals like me then the transiently strong definitely owe a duty to the currently weak. The question is not if something ought to be done, but rather what's the most pragmatic course given the reality of politics, the power of the market, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.

Bruce Springsteen. Saying thanks with Magic.

In October of 2004 my wife and I attended Springsteen et al's Vote For Change concert in Saint Paul (Neil Young dropped by.) My hearing hasn't been the same since, but I appreciated the sentiment.

Springsteen worked hard for the Kerry campaign, including writing a very good NYT OpEd.

It didn't work of course, but damn he did try. He didn't have to do any of it.

I thought back then I'd buy an album to say thanks. Unfortunately his next album had some nasty SONY DRM features -- it couldn't be ripped.

The other day I saw his newest album on sale at Starbucks: Magic. He's dumped SONY, this one is a plain old CD. So I got to express my thanks - at full price. I like the music too.

Tonight it's $9 on Amazon - a real bargain. #10 in music sales, so not too bad for an old rocker.

Thanks Bruce.

America 2016: how close are we tracking Fallows predictions?

Two and a half years ago Fallows wrote "Countdown to a Meltdown - A look back from the election of 2016". I came across it tonight; it's been a while since I read it.

It's the story of a nation that went off track in June of 2001:

... Before there was 9/11, however, there was June 7, 2001. For our purposes modern economic history began that day.

On June 7 President George W. Bush celebrated his first big legislative victory. Only two weeks earlier his new administration had suffered a terrible political blow, when a Republican senator left the party and gave Democrats a one-vote majority in the Senate. But the administration was nevertheless able to persuade a dozen Democratic senators to vote its way and authorize a tax cut that would decrease federal tax revenues by some $1.35 trillion between then and 2010.

This was presented at the time as a way to avoid the "problem" of paying down the federal debt too fast. According to the administration's forecasts, the government was on the way to running up $5.6 trillion in surpluses over the coming decade. The entire federal debt accumulated between the nation's founding and 2001 totaled only about $3.2 trillion—and for technical reasons at most $2 trillion of that total could be paid off within the next decade.4 Therefore some $3.6 trillion in "unusable" surplus—or about $12,000 for every American—was likely to pile up in the Treasury. The administration proposed to give slightly less than half of that back through tax cuts, saving the rest for Social Security and other obligations.

Congress agreed, and it was this achievement that the president celebrated at the White House signing ceremony on June 7. "We recognize loud and clear the surplus is not the government's money," Bush said at the time. "The surplus is the people's money, and we ought to trust them with their own money."

If the president or anyone else at that ceremony had had perfect foresight, he would have seen that no surpluses of any sort would materialize, either for the government to hoard or for taxpayers to get back. (A year later the budget would show a deficit of $158 billion; a year after that $378 billion.) By the end of Bush's second term the federal debt, rather than having nearly disappeared, as he expected, had tripled. If those in the crowd had had that kind of foresight, they would have called their brokers the next day to unload all their stock holdings. A few hours after Bush signed the tax-cut bill, the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 11,090, a level it has never reached again...

Well, that last part didn't pan out. The Dow is up and down right now, but we were up to 13,000 at one point. Of course if Fallows could really predict the DJIA he woudn't be writing a blog from Beijing. He also predicts economic calamity when with a 40% rise in the spot price of oil sometime around 2010 -- but we've already been through something close to that.

So he's not psychic. On the other hand the plummeting dollar and $400 billion plus housing market collapse happened roughly as predicted -- though we have yet to implement the massive federal trailer parks for families foreclosed from their homes. There's no discussion of global warming, but peak oil makes a brief show.

I hope I remember to take another look in 2009 ...

Quality crisis: software, hardware, publicly traded companies, food, toys and nations

My intuition has a reasonable, but not perfect, track record.

On the one hand I've been pretty good over the years with social and technological evolution. On the other hand I really don't understand why humanity is still in business forty years after the development of fusion weapons. I'm clearly missing something there.

Grains of salt advised. Anyway ...

My intuition is telling me that we have a 21st century "crisis of quality". I think this is related to some of my favorite themes, such as fraud (see esp. 21st century deception) and reputation management. It's demonstrated in the failures of the publicly traded company, our food and imported quality problems, and, I believe, the reelection of George Bush.

It may have its roots in anonymity, transience, and complexity.

Take my last week in the world of software and hardware for example:

• I spend an hour or so playing with Google's vaunted custom search only to discover their newest feature doesn't work.
  
• a trivially obvious bug in iPhoto 7 (iLife '08) destroys 3 family videos
• I discover you can't fully revert from Microsoft's buggy Office 2007 to their less buggy Office 2003
• I give up on my corporate XP box and rebuild, unable even now to say if the problem was hardware or software - or some interaction of flaws in both.
• I discover an emergent bug with IMAP interactions between multiple simultaneous user sessions of OS X Mail.app and Google's GMail implementation.
  

Yes. That's all in one week -- and I don't use either Vista or OS X 10.5.

That's a bad week.

Apple has a quality problem. Microsoft has a quality problem. Google has a quality problem.

The entire human world has a quality problem.

Except I seem to be the only one who's complaining.

Anyone else notice anything?

The key to successful remote collaboration - from 1970

John Halamka (amazing blog) quotes an email from Paul Gray, Professor Emeritus of Information Science, Claremont Graduate University. The topic is remote collaboration:

Life as a Healthcare CIO: Cool technology of the week:

Being retired, I receive my copies of Computerworld in batches from my office. Hence I only now read your September 15 article on flexible schedules. I was pleased to see that you found the need for initial meetings important in your thinking.

I thought you would like to know that this concept is not a new idea. When we first proposed telecommuting (Telecommuting-Transportation Tradeoffs: Options for Tomorrow, Wiley 1975) we quoted results that we found in the literature on the dispersal of government workers out of central London and central Stockholm in the 1960s. The dispersal was the result of, for example in London, of the concentration of office jobs that wound up depopulating the hinterlands of young people.

Everybody complained that they could not be moved out because they needed continual face to face contact with people in other agencies. Studies were done that found that once there is an initial meeting, which coupled a human face and body language with voice and correspondence, people were able to work in dispersed mode with no loss of effectiveness. However, they did need periodic (typically 6 month) refreshing of the initial contact so that the ties would be maintained.

I've lived with remote collaboration approaches for about seven years. I could definitely write a book, and, even before I read this, it would have said that an initial face-to-face meeting with q 5 month refresh meetings are essential to effective collaboration. I'd further recommend, if one can get away with it, spending the bulk of the in-person time time skiing, bowling, walking, dinner -- whatever activity the participants are able and willing to perform.

The social connection is the key factor in these face-to-face meetings, not the actual work done face-to-face. (Though that can be very effective, one outcome of the face-to-face needs to be a shared understanding of how remote work will proceed effectively.)

There are more things needed for effective collaboration -- like good quality phones. (Corporations can be absurdly stingy about phones while spending a fortune on dysfunctional video conferencing systems.) The social connection, however, is pretty much fundamental.

Even the best remote collaboration doesn't work well for new product development, but if done well with an experienced crew, good methodologies, and attention to the infrastructure it can be a good second best.

Interesting, but equally interesting is that his paper was published in the 70s and the underlying research was performed in the 60s. I used to study the dissemination of knowledge in medical practices; knowledge diffusion is a very rocky process. It will be interesting to see if blogs, wikis and the like will make any difference over the next 10-20 years. I think they might ...

The perils of compensation plans: housing market version

Publicly traded companies have a problem with their shareholders. They approve seemingly absurd executive compensation plans:

Banks Gone Wild - New York Times:

...But if the success turns out to have been an illusion — well, they still get to keep the money. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Not only is this grossly unfair, it encourages bad risk-taking, and sometimes fraud. If an executive can create the appearance of success, even for a couple of years, he will walk away immensely wealthy. Meanwhile, the subsequent revelation that appearances were deceiving is someone else’s problem...

We've known about this problem for over ten years.

The best explanation I've heard is that shareholders think they can get out before the stock craters, so the fundamentals are much less important than the share price.

The shareholders are wrong of course, but we are dealing with barely sentient primates after all.

Do we need to be looking at alternatives to the publicly traded company?

Pet poison follow-up: melamine and cyanuric acid

I've had a standing Google search on melamine for the past few months; I wanted to track developments beyond the lifespan of the original story. Today it served up an article on the mechanisms of the pet poisoning.

Last May there was still some questions about the nature of the toxin. That appears to have been settled - at least for cats:

UC Davis researchers identify toxic chemicals in pet food - Campus News

... Veterinary Toxicologists at UC Davis have discovered the toxicity of the chemicals behind the deaths of approximately 16 pets in the United States this year. The pilot study conducted in April and May of 2007 found that a combination of melamine and cyanuric acid caused cats in their study to experience acute kidney failure.

The two chemicals, found in nearly 60 million packages of recalled pet food in March of 2007, have been added as a source of protein in some brands of pet food, but until recently had not been tested for their toxicity.

"There were no published reports of toxicity studies examining the combined effects of melamine and cyanuric acid in any animal species," said director of the study and associate professor of Veterinary Toxicology Birgit Puschner. "We needed to determine with certainty whether or not melamine or cyanuric acid alone or in combination, could cause renal disease."

Although the University of Iowa conducted a similar study with pigs, UC Davis is the only research institution to find and publish the cause of toxicity in the recalled pet food. Their findings were published in the November issue of the Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation...

The Wikipedia article on the pet food recall already includes the citation. That's fast!

My personal sense is that Americans have mostly forgotten about the problem and have not changed their buying habits.

For example, Eukanuba, who used to make our dog's food, once boasted of their US based supply chain. They are now owned by Iams, who's name is now on our food. They make no such claims.

Clearly consumers have not been demanding any real changes.

It's hard to be a "market of one".

Two dimensional string theory

Promotion has sapped the output of my favorite physics bloggers, so I'm grateful to FMH for my physics fix:

Shadow World: Science News Online, Nov. 17, 2007

....Since 1997, physicists have proposed countless variations on Maldacena's theme, all of which interpret a string as a swarm of particles living in a small number of dimensions. Perhaps the easiest case to visualize is when that number is two. In such a scenario, anything that takes place in your many-dimensional, stringy universe has a sort of shadow representation in terms of particles moving on that universe's 'sphere at infinity.' This esoteric-sounding concept is actually similar to the familiar celestial sphere of the night sky as seen from Earth: It's the two-dimensional surface spanning all possible directions one can point to infinitely far in space...

So this re-representation of string theory has been popular for 10 years -- but I don't recall reading about it.

Annoying.

Sciam did cover this in Nov 2005 ("The Illusion of Gravity"), but I wasn't a subscriber then. (SciAm is the only periodical I subscribe to does not give archival access to current print subscribers. It's their right, but I do hold it against them.)

Wikipedia presents the theory more technically:

Juan Martín Maldacena (born September 10, 1968) is a theoretical physicist born in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Among his many discoveries, the most famous one is the most reliable realization of the holographic principle - namely the AdS/CFT correspondence, the successfully tested conjecture about the equivalence of string theory or supergravity on Anti de Sitter (AdS) space, and a conformal field theory defined on the boundary of the AdS space.

and on AdS/CFT correspondence:

In physics, the AdS/CFT correspondence (anti-de-Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence), sometimes called the Maldacena duality, is the conjectured equivalence between a string theory defined on one space, and a quantum field theory without gravity defined on the conformal boundary of this space, whose dimension is lower by one or more...

Now, as we all know one of the primary challenges of the last 80 or so years of physics has been quantizing gravity. So, as a hobbyist reading this, I'm thinking the mathematical trick is to make the problem more tractable (and perhaps more constrained?) by taking gravity out of the picture. Hence the SciAm title - the "illusion of gravity".

This might be a bit like the old polar vs. cartesian coordinate transformation in Physics 101. Neither is "truer" than the other, but in some problems solutions are much easier. Or maybe the the Maldacena view will turn out to be the "better" model of "reality" (whatever that slippery beast might be).

I'll have to look around for some other popular summaries ...

Ravel on Bolero

Maurice Ravel

I have written only one masterpiece. That is Boléro. Unfortunately, it contains no music.

Guess what phone isn't promoted on the A&T site

Yep. No sign. No sign of the iPhone. It's beginning to look like AT&T's margins are every bit as thin, and Apple's every bit as fat, as rumor suggests.

AT&T is promoting phones where they at least make money on the plans.

I wonder if AT&T will eventually beg Apple to let them out of the contract early ...

Update: At least one commentator sees an iPhone, though it doesn't appear on the screen I get.

The best Trek: Slashdot chooses

Slashdot Polls are generally silly, but this time they asked a question that both matched the readership and was taken seriously.

They asked which Trek was the best. Voyager was not an option.

The rankings as of 61,594 votes (talk about a significant sample size) were:

• Star Trek: 14%
• Next Generation: 46%
• Deep Space 9: 16%
• Enterprise 5%
• Joke responses: 12%

I've never watched Enterprise, but that's the way I'd rank the rest. NG wins by a landslide and DS 9 and the original are roughly equal.

Of course NG was better before Picard was transiently assimilated. The Borg were great theater, but they sucked the oxygen out of the rest of the series.

One of my most memorable episodes, oddly, featured the often annoying "Q". Picard disdains his youthful recklessness, and Q decides to, you know, "teach him". Q causes Picard to live his life more circumspectly, leading Picard to a dead end job in the science division.

Any relationship to my current employment is purely coincidental :-).