More Food for Thought ...

Tom Raftery asks an interesting question: "What if electricity were like the Internet?"

Beyond the normal realm of politics, I'd expect that one of the obstacles to this ideas is transmission loss. However, even today, it is economically feasible to have transmission systems exceed a distance of 4,000 km and with high temperature superconducting materials (such as copper oxide materials or the recently discovered iron based superconductors) this could be almost lossless.

Considering the fluctuation in renewable energy supply and CO2 production being a worldwide issue, I'm surprised that we don't hear more about the ideas of a worldwide energy grid.

According to wikipedia, "the concept of an interconnected global grid linked to renewable resources was first suggested by Buckminster Fuller" in the 1970s.

There are even organisations such as the Global Energy Network Institute (GENI) who apparently have been working on the "viability of the interconnection of electric power networks between nations".

This subject deserves a higher profile.

I wish I had thought of that ...

I recently posted a question about how much much CO2 on average goes into the creation, maintenance and removal of a kilo of human flesh. Being a little bit on the large side, I'm looking for socially responsible ways of removing the additional mass.

Dennis Howlett continues this line of thought by asking how environmentally friendly is WiiFit. Are WiiFit fanatics a net contributor to CO2 emissions?

One Good, One Bad ... Twice.

Let us start with the good. OnSaaS has provided an introduction into the Software as a Service world where it describes a stack of services from the application, to the framework it runs on, to the operating system underneath this. It describes this stacks as SaaS, PaaS (platform) and IaaS (infrastructure). Whilst I dislike the abundance of *aaS terms almost as much as I dislike the growing plethora of *OAs, the division of the the "as a Service" world into a conceptual computing stack is something I'd agree with.

On a side note, IaaS used to be called HaaS back in 2006. I do find that all this term re-invention creates confusion.

What I find unfortunate is their linking (the bad) of the utility computing definition to the term IaaS. Utility computing is a billing and commodity provisioning model whereas "as a service" is simply about delivery methods. Don't confuse the two, they are not the same.

One of the most exciting future developments of the service world is the potential growth of competitive utility computing markets. These markets will be based upon portability between providers and competition in how services are implemented. However, how do you strike the right balance between competition (the difference between services) and yet ensure portability?

As previously explained, over the last year, the optimal way to achieve this is to use a combination of GPLv3 and trademarks. The "SaaS loophole" of GPLv3 allows for competition (an individual service can be modified without releasing the code) whilst preventing the branching of systems into a proprietary product (i.e. any modified code which is provided in a distributed executable must be released). This blend of competition and protection can be enhanced by the use of trademarks to provide compliance information to end users. For example, you can modify the service but you can only use the trademark if you comply to the primitives (which can be tested remotely) and allow for portability (which can be tested remotely).

This perfect storm of competition, protection and portability can be created by using open source software licensed under GPLv3 (or an equivalent) with enforcement of a reputable trademark. If you want to know more about this, then I'd suggest seeking out the counsel of Roberta Cairney. It was my discussion with Roberta which brought out the reasons why the SaaS Loophole was so essential for the SaaS world.

As I said back at OSCON in 2007, GPLv3 is the perfect license for the service world. To close the "SaaS loophole" would reduce the value of the license as it discourages competition and increases the barrier to adoption for no discernible benefit. I said "no discernible" benefit as the idea that you can create portability and compliance by removing the SaaS Loophole is wishful thinking at best. For portability to work, you will need an open sourced standard and the emergence of a compliance authority. GPLv3 is the ideal license for encouraging this to happen.

This view is not universal, as Linux Magazine's doubts¹ over the GPL shows. It positively describes Facebook's CPAL (Common Public Attribution License) as an example of what is wrong with GPL.

The attribution term (section 14) of the CPAL is reasonable (the good), as a "powered by FaceBook Platform" lends for the creation of high order, trademark protected forms such as "FaceBook Partner Platform" or "FaceBook Enterprise Platform". Such trademarks can provide end users with useful information on the service provider.

However, I find it unlikely that FaceBook is even thinking in those terms because the CPAL suffers (the bad) from the same flaw as AGPL. Section 15 in effect removes the equivalent "SaaS loophole" which undermines any possible competition or service improvement as well as increasing barriers to adoption by serious providers.

Section 15 .... You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Code or Modifications as a distribution under section 3.1 and make Source Code available under Section 3.2.

Though the article states that fbOpen is only asking for attribution, it is in effect asking for a lot more. Under the license, any competitive provider would have to return any operational improvements that they might make in the code.

The "SaaS loophole" is an essential part of competition in a service world.²

Additional Notes:

1.The original phrasing included "tirade against", this was incorrect as I have misunderstood the author's intention - please see comments.

2.The original posting included "and Linux Magazine, in my opinion, is just plain wrong on this matter". I have removed this as my opinion was based upon my misunderstanding of the tone of the original article.

Social Media made yummy ....

No nonsense social media explained with ice cream. I just love this.

The service war begins ...

Whilst Google have fired a tentative shot and Bungee Labs might still be working out the best sort of ammo, Facebook has just thrown a small grenade into the platform as a service world.

Rather than a set of agreed APIs that need to be implemented, such as opensocial, Facebook is providing a functioning platform. The move towards open source not only attacks some of the issues around portability but provides the fastest way for other providers to adopt this platform as an emerging standard.

Though this move is bold it is far from perfect. The platform is not complete and the licenses suffer from the same issues as AGPL.

Nevertheless, this move takes us closer to the day that open sourcing the entire platform and trying to forge a competitive marketplace becomes the norm. This is what we should expect as we move from a product to a service based economy.

In the service world, reputation is everything. Unfortunately many companies who have strong reputations today will not make the transition as they will find it difficult to change to a new value network.

The one company which has the most to gain and yet the most to lose from this transition is probably Microsoft. The key to its future success is its once mortal enemy, open source.

If Microsoft fully embraced open source and the service world whilst providing support to the community and potential competitors, then Microsoft would dominate this space. Even Google and Amazon's foray into the service world would be trampled by such a move. Microsoft has the ability to own this space, not through IP but through reputation and trademarks.

However, as with all things, the first fight is always with yourself.

Whilst the path may be obvious to a few and the company has certainly made moves in that direction, the question is whether the rest of the organisation could ever accept that its greatest success is likely to come from its former foe. Can such a company ever embrace the new value networks? Could such a company ever let go of its most valued products?

It would be irony indeed if Microsoft turned out to be Microsoft's greatest enemy and Open Source its greatest ally.

Time will tell.

I know I don't make predictions but I thought I'd just say, that in my opinion:

"By 2025 either Microsoft will be one of the largest contributors to open source software or it will have become tomorrow's Polaroid / SCO / Commodore / ...".

Bar a desperate attempt to introduce some monstrous lock-in nightmare that spirals us quickly down the route of government intervention, the end of the open source war is starting and a new war is just beginning.

[Addition: I was asked for some clarification on my "prediction". First thing I'd like to note, is that I don't make predictions. In my view, by 2025, the most significant IT market will consist of utility computing services based upon open sourced standards. In my view, Microsoft will have a major position in this service market. Hence, in my view, Microsoft will be one of the largest contributors to open source software by 2025. As far as I am concerned, the likelihood of Microsoft not having a major position in such a market is about the same as it becoming the next Polaroid / SCO / Commodore etc. ]

It weren't me sir, it was him, honest ...

Mike Arrington has launched another tirade against Blaine Cook. If you don't know who Blaine is, he was the former lead architect for Twitter, a messaging service, which according to the article suffered terrible reliability problems whenever Blaine wasn't there.

Whilst the tone of the article is hell bent on making Blaine responsible for his own absence and everything else to boot, it does stop short of adding the death of dinosaurs, global warming and 'Don't pay the Ferryman' by Chris de Burgh.

I have almost a decade of trouble shooting experience from which I have learnt that it is rare for a situation to be just one guy's fault. The most common causes of failure with any new service tend to be either politics or a lack of resources, vision, commitment, investment, hardware, planning, useability, viability, management skill and luck. However, the most common reason given for failure is the guy who isn't there.

By the way blogger seems to be having some issues today. I'd just like to note that Blaine isn't there either.

You have the Grim ...

Today, I received a very kind email regarding my talks on innovation and my ability to predict future trends. Whilst I'm flattered, alas I'm neither a Gypsy Rose nor a Professor Trelawney.

As I've said before, rather than making genuine predictions I just repeat what is already happening with some added vagueness: "That ball you threw into the air, I predict it will land somewhere". Naturally, I don't make the prediction until I've seen the ball descending, just in case.

It looks like I'm not alone with that trick. Gartner's top 10 disruptive technologies for 2008-2012 consists mainly of things that are simple continuations of existing trends with added vagueness. For example, the prediction:

"Within the next five years [2013], information will be presented via new user interfaces such as organic light-emitting displays,digital paper and billboards, holographic and 3D imaging and smart fabric."

is barely worthy of the name because it is already happening today. Many such systems are already in product trials.

However, I did find a genuinely interesting and bold prediction that they have made :-

"By 2010, web mashups, which mix content from publicly available sources, will be the dominant model (80 percent) for the creation of new enterprise applications."

Wizardly hats off to them.

Evolution of the Mobile Phone ...

Brilliant .... thanks to Hex for spotting this.

How much C02 per kilo of human flesh ....

There are many studies which show that livestock is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (from CO2 and Methane to Nitrous Oxide) and that our diet impacts emissions.

According to ABC News, Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that the average "American diet is responsible for an additional ton-and-a-half of greenhouse gas emissions a year from each of us".

I mention this because I'm a little overweight (a bit of a porker is the polite term) and that additional mass I carry is a consequence of unnecessary carbon emissions (i.e. food I didn't need to eat). My additions however are nothing compared to the Greenpeace wearing Kraken I witnessed hauling himself out of a Land Rover in Tonbridge today. I couldn't work out which caused more damage: the SUV, the extraneous mass or a combination of both. Was the t-shirt ironic?

Anyway for reasons of vanity I've decided to do something about my additional mass. Having caused environmental damage gaining it, I'd rather minimise the environmental cost of removing it. Whilst one obvious option is to spend time down the gym, I was wondering whether anyone has done a study of how much additional co2 such pointless exercise causes. I say pointless because there are usually no additional benefits to gym exercise other than the exercise itself.

What I'm looking for is exercise with some form of point, such as an allotment or forestry work or volunteer gardening. However, I'd still be interested to know what each kilo of my additional mass means in unnecessary and unsociable environmental damage caused.

Leadership ....

I'm reading one of those throwaway books on the lessons of successful leadership. It's actually quite a hefty tome, so to throw it away with any force could cause some damage to an innocent bystander. Bizarrely enough, that statement would aptly describe my opinions of the lessons it contains - likely to cause harm to others.

I only have only one lesson on leadership that is worth repeating and it's not even mine.

"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves."

Lao Tzu

Web 2.0 Expo

I've been twittering about this over the last few weeks but just as a reminder the closing date for submission for web 2.0 expo is midnight, Tuesday.

Know yourself ....

Every year I speak at numerous conferences to thousands of people and yet I often suffer from self doubt.

The reason why I suffer so, is because I hate failure and whilst I might have succeeded at many things, I have also failed many times. Each failure is a tiny cut in my memory and every now and then it will flash back and make me wince.

However, I know that I suffer with this mental affliction and I know the root causes of it, which for me is half the fight won. Because of this knowledge, I am able me to look back at those events and understand why I failed.

The ability to deal with and understand failure is important because whenever you try to do something new, the first battle is always with yourself. In life most people are their own greatest obstacles.

Retrospection is an incredibly powerful and yet often under used tool, especially in management. A key element of such analysis is honesty and for this reason it is ineffective in a company setting unless there is a culture which embraces failure. Without such a culture people will hide failure, they will spin it and the truth will often be buried.

Unfortunately, failure is often seen as a bad thing even though failure is the normal result of trying to do something which is genuinely new. Whilst common and well defined activities, such as the phones working when your company moves offices, will only fail due to incompetence, building the world's first of something should be expected to fail despite best efforts.

Excluding managerial incompetence, how well a company embraces and adapts to failure is a sign of how innovative a company is. A willingness to accept failure requires extraordinary strength of character whether in an individual or an organisation. This is sadly lacking in many organisations as they often parade misunderstood concepts of success and openly frown upon the concept of failure. Anecdotally it would appear that the result is almost always the same - the stifling, suffocation and eventual death, first of innovation and then, finally, of the organisation itself.

Embracing failure is an essential ingredient for long term success. In other words :-

"If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to.
If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve."

Lao Tzu