I need network access. Actually I need many networks overlaid. When I’m at work, I need a secure network for business. But I also need open access to the public networks. Perhaps it’s an identity question, my business persona needs a secure business network; my non-work persona needs an open public network — I want both at once. I’d like to be able to switch from one to the other using the same device. My work computers are locked down, so the only way I get to the larger internet is with my iPhone. There’s a slight overlay of networks now, but it’s not enough.
Comments closedCategory: network
I listen to this daily radio show that suddenly appeared on the network. It was unannounced in any general media, but has already developed a national and international following in its short life. Its topics range from technology and product strategy, to the latest gadgets, to politics, comedy, and even some occasional drama. It’s not part of a national syndicated media network, it doesn’t seem to have venture capital backing, and it only accidentally has advertising. Actually it’s not even broadcast over the airwaves— although one can listen to it live. I get it through iTunes and listen on my iPhone, although the other day I listened by clicking on an MP3 file on a web page. It’s compelling radio, I try not to miss a day.
This show has a roundtable format more common to television political commentary shows, or technical conferences. It’s pundit talk, or as they sometimes call it “reckless punditry.” Because the show has no advertisers and isn’t part of any network, it’s an open forum. The guests aren’t compensated, they show up because they want to be part of the conversation about what’s going on right now. A point of reference would be Bill Maher’s HBO talk show, Real Time. Although the differences between Maher’s show and this one are significant, the show is unscripted, improvisational, really more of a jam session. The show’s host often compares the structure of the show to a small jazz ensemble. In this sense, it’s a new form of editorial composition.
Initially the show’s roundtable was composed solely of well-known technology industry figures. The conversation occurs over a conference call with the participants scattered all over the country. They call in from airports, their cars, while on an exercise treadmills, in their home or regular offices, or just out walking around. The show’s format changed profoundly during a particularly chaotic episode. One of the participants in the panel posted the call in number and conference code to Twitter, and uninvited participants started calling in. Imagine watching an episode of Washington Week In Review where interested members of the audience simply joined the panel at will. This potentially destructive moment became the seed of something new. It connected a filtered live social web, via Twitter, to the show’s jazz-based conversation. To extend the metaphor, some unknown out-of-town musicians were sitting in. There’s an etiquette to jamming and sitting in, and it’s up to the band leader to make it all work and blend.
The show was transformed and a new format emerged where some of the regular pundits were joined by members of the audience in a new kind of conversation. There’s a distinction between this and traditional call-in newstalk radio. Let’s go back to the jazz metaphor, when an audience member is called on to solo, they’re expected to jump in and wail. A point of reference here would be Dave Winer’s idea of the “unconference.” In technology conferences, the sum total of knowledge in the audience exceeds that of the panel of speakers. The unconference attempts to surface the knowledge, ideas and opinions of an interested group through a moderator. The composition of the group and the skill of the moderator are determining factors in the quality of the output.
There are a lot of interesting threads generated by the format of this daily radio show. But the starting point for my thoughts was connecting the show’s low-cost mashup production methodology with a phrase used by the musician Robert Fripp. After disbanding King Crimson in 1974, Fripp wanted to create music within “small, mobile, independent, intelligent units.” Working with Brian Eno, Fripp had created a performing and recording technique called Frippertronics that he believed would allow him to do significant work outside of the big rock band / recording industry context. The idea of small, mobile, independent, intelligent units is also linked to the ideas of E.F. Schumacher and his book “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.”
Schumacher also referred to his thinking as “Buddhist Economics.” Here’s a quote that explains what that might mean:
It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilization not in the multiplication of wants but in the purification of human character.
All economic systems are built on fundamental metaphysical ideas about what a person should want and achieve in this life. The concept of Buddhist economics came from studying economies of small villages in Burma in 1955. Schumacher published his essay “Buddhist Economics” in 1966.
This radio program doesn’t have any visible economics which is a constant source of concern for the show’s participants and its audience. While its production costs are low, with no revenue generated, a negative cash flow situation is implied. This is conjecture based on an external view with no inside knowledge. In the culture and economics of Silicon Valley small isn’t beautiful, scalability is beautiful. The venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road don’t fund small. This begs the question: Is there a global, networked, small village Buddhist economics that could support this radio show so that it could continue to thrive? And can something like this show thrive, not in abundance, but in enoughness?
The other question that surfaces is that of sustainability. Is it actually of any importance for this radio show to continue on for years and years? The after-hours jam sessions at Minton’s didn’t go on forever. Those who witnessed Bird, Monk and Pres engaging in late night cutting contests heard the sound of lightning in a bottle. Perhaps it’s enough that this kind of a radio show can emerge when we need it, a kind of “just-in-time” culture.
By the way, the host of this show? He’s the guy who said “links are dead.”
2 CommentsAs someone trapped in the locked down world of enterprise software during the working day, I often think about the nature and rationale for the lock. Generally, people adapt to whatever environment they’re in, and I’ve adapted to the limited, crippled environment in which I have to get work done.
More and more, applications that used to be written in-house are being brought in from the outside, particularly around employee benefits, expense tracking and performance reviews. These are general business functions where outside shops always provide a better software solution than the in-house one. All of these vendor provided solutions are Web-based and are integrated into corporate network identity management systems. In many cases, employee data is stored with the outside vendor. This is a trend that will only accelerate.
One of the locks on the corporate desktop is Microsoft. MS Office rules the roost, it’s the conduit through which all work and communication occurs. A consequence of the lockdown is that change and innovation happens at a very slow rate. In part, this is due to the installed software model of most corporate desktops. Managing tens of thousands of geographically dispersed desktop computers is a highly complex task. Complexity is reduced by simplifying the systems, and eliminating outside influences.
Imagine how much cost and complexity could be reduced if all enterprise applications were delivered via the web. The economics dictate that installed corporate applications must migrate to the web. Or to quote Steve Gillmor from 2005, Office is dead. Some version of this story is at the bottom of the business case for Ray Ozzie’s Office Live. Many have made the case that this software delivery model only makes sense for the SOHO market. Actually it makes even more sense for very large corporations.
So how does this relate to Yahoo? Years of operating in the highly constrained enterprise environment has drawn the boundaries of Microsoft’s imagination. Microsoft needs Yahoo to teach it how to dance to that crazy new music all the kids dig. Once enterprise applications are delivered via the web, the speed of innovation will increase. The surrounding web-based consumer application space is already filled with more powerful tools than the enterprise, particularly in the area of collaboration and knowledge management. Flickr and Delicious are tremendous knowledge management tools. Ray Ozzie sees the change is gonna come, and makes the big move that will help them get ready.
Nicholas Carr’s Big Switch makes the case for the move from the hard drive to the cloud and Matt Ritchtel’s piece in today’s NY Times summarizes. Can Microsoft trade in its lead boots for a new set of led boots? Perhaps Curtis Mayfield and Sam Cooke said it best: People get ready, a change is gonna come.
Comments closedMy two cents on Microsoft’s hostile bid for Yahoo: Microsoft, finding itself in the new world of the social graph, needs to buy some friends. People don’t like Microsoft, they fear and respect it. People don’t buy Microsoft products, they buy products that already contain the OS and Office. People choose Yahoo, they choose delicious and flickr. They like Yahoo Finance. And it’s all supported by advertising.
The question about whether Microsoft could successfully integrate Yahoo is a people question. Is there a strong enough personality within Microsoft to envision an entity that creates a new integrated whole. Clearly it’s not Steve Ballmer, and that means it’s got to be Ray Ozzie. Ozzie is trying to move the key Microsoft revenue streams on to the network with his “Live” initiatives. Yahoo is the advertising framework and user base that could contain and support the new web-based Microsoft Office live.
If Ray Ozzie can make elephants dance, many of are wondering who will call the tune. Microsoft is willing to pay $31 a share, but the cost to Microsoft will be much higher if they decide that Yahoo has to be rebuilt on a Microsoft technical stack. That was their approach with HotMail and it was very expensive. Is this the moment in time where Microsoft embraces a mixed technical operating environment? Yahoo is a big supporter of open standards and open source, the community is justifiably concerned about how Microsoft will affect this. When you integrate YahooMail and HotMail, do you make your decision based on technical stack or the quality of the product? Are the decision makers at Microsoft capable of making a decision based on product quality?
Can a shot-gun wedding result in a happy marriage? When we discuss $1 billion in efficiency as a result of the merger, we’re referring to the brutal process of merging groups, firing people, closing facilities and trying to keep the lights on during the process. The digerati of the Bay area and Redmond will be significantly affected by these changes, and it will ripple into the surrounding economies. There will be a lot of pain for both those who stay and those who leave.
It’s up to Ray Ozzie to provide a new vision of the combined entity that will convince those left standing that it was worth it. For the deal to ultimately be successful, Microsoft will have to be transformed as much or more than Yahoo.
One Comment