Many have asked me how and when the term "Cloud" came in place in Cloud computing? Why didnt we just didn't call it Internet Computing or Univesal Computing etc?
"Cloud" was meant to represent a network of computers outside your knowledge domain. Perhaps its a result of casual drawings by engineers to represent the Internet. I did a bit of search and the closest, convincing thought I found here. Read on. :-)
Any thoughts?
Sunday 4 December 2011
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Thats how things are done around here
I came across this picture (Ref: LolCentre) which shows in a humourous way how organisations get caught by its own culture. It might, of course, be an extreme case scenario, but it surely makes you think!How natural it is, isnt it, for organisations to get caught by the pattern of success it has created? History, perhaps, is full of examples of great companies falling apart due to this very paradigm which it fails to change. We are often told "if aint broken, dont fix it"; ever thought how wrong this is in an organisational cultural context? The norm which has driven us forward could well be the barrier for us to be disruptive and to be sustaining in the longer run. People seldom want to be the one challenging the though for it takes pain and effort; for its beyond ones confort zone to actually challenge this paradigm.
It's of course challenging to conclude between changes that brings in result and those that doesnt. However, organisations and leadership need to be open to disruptive thoughts and ideas which are beyond the norms and embrace it as part of its DNA. IMO, culture is never-ending iterative spiral of learning and evolving and surely there is scope for every organisation to adapt and learn in a continuous manner.
Easier said than done, isnt it? Well, if someone tells me "Thats how things are done around here", my curious mind asks them to "tell me more, how did to arrive at this way of doing things?". In doing so, I get to learn and engage myself in further understanding why my organisation behaves the way it does. I am curious to know, how do you handle this? Thoughts?
Wednesday 2 March 2011
2020 B2B business model: Protecting consumers from being mere products
Noted security expert Schneier in his Dec'10 blog [1] said "We’re not Google’s customers; we’re Google’s product that they sell to their customers". How true this can be? Though Google is striving hard to recoup from their Gmail disappearing act [2], it has come to light how un-protected consumer (or product?) interests are in advertisement-based B2B business models where the primary users are not customers of the company making the money. They are very much products which are "sold" to "real" customers who actually pays for the service. Btw, this is not just about Google; this is about any similar B2B business models and there are plenty of them.
The business model is solid; the consumer protection acts are also fairly in shape. Perhaps the question is about a lack of mechanisms to protect the so called "products"? Well, being a capitalist I don’t like too many barriers in making money. But on the other hand, the "products" we are talking about are the pillar to this successful business model and protecting their interests are essential in sustaining this model. This is, hence, not a mere regulatory issue.
Today, our private data (personal info, location data etc) is more often shared without our knowledge. The decisions are very much in the hands of private companies/individuals which make me wonder how complex it gets as we go towards 2020 with multiple subscriptions, multiple devices, all interconnected and possibly displayed in social networks (e.g. Facebook). Hence, a good dialog between the regulatory bodies, technology companies, academia etc. is essential to stop this complex web turning to a crisis with possible misuse by not-so-ethical-hackers, terrorists and the like.
In short, for the regulators, there is a need to redefine the very definition of consumers and subsequently the consumer acts to safeguard the interest of 2020-consumers (or "products"). For the cloud providers, it’s essential to own up their failures regarding data security, privacy etc. of their so called "products" and proactively take adequate measures in this regard. It’s certainly insufficient to merely be sorry when things go out of hand. May be, the most successful cloud/B2B company of future is the one which provides this differentiation.
What do you think? Can the world survive being just B2B in 2020 ignoring the masses?
Some References:
[1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/security_in_202.html
[2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/gmails-disappearing-act-blame-the-storage-software-update/45445
The business model is solid; the consumer protection acts are also fairly in shape. Perhaps the question is about a lack of mechanisms to protect the so called "products"? Well, being a capitalist I don’t like too many barriers in making money. But on the other hand, the "products" we are talking about are the pillar to this successful business model and protecting their interests are essential in sustaining this model. This is, hence, not a mere regulatory issue.
Today, our private data (personal info, location data etc) is more often shared without our knowledge. The decisions are very much in the hands of private companies/individuals which make me wonder how complex it gets as we go towards 2020 with multiple subscriptions, multiple devices, all interconnected and possibly displayed in social networks (e.g. Facebook). Hence, a good dialog between the regulatory bodies, technology companies, academia etc. is essential to stop this complex web turning to a crisis with possible misuse by not-so-ethical-hackers, terrorists and the like.
In short, for the regulators, there is a need to redefine the very definition of consumers and subsequently the consumer acts to safeguard the interest of 2020-consumers (or "products"). For the cloud providers, it’s essential to own up their failures regarding data security, privacy etc. of their so called "products" and proactively take adequate measures in this regard. It’s certainly insufficient to merely be sorry when things go out of hand. May be, the most successful cloud/B2B company of future is the one which provides this differentiation.
What do you think? Can the world survive being just B2B in 2020 ignoring the masses?
Some References:
[1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/security_in_202.html
[2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/gmails-disappearing-act-blame-the-storage-software-update/45445
Wednesday 16 February 2011
On Nokia-MS partnership: Being a Socialistic Capitalist!!
Am neither a Nokia fan nor a critic; but a mere lover of better consumer devices and a believer of "socialistic capitalism" (I mean, a system with little or no monopoloy of one single company on any genre of gadget/product). Yes, I am an absoutely normal consumer willing to try/buy/enjoy the best gadget available around. Hence, I am bored about the excessive coverage on the Nokia-MS deal, where ever you go... My office coffee dock, my tweeps, my friends and everyone aggressively talk abt it. Yah! probably you are right, I am bothered bcos my collegues, friends, and everyone in Finland are more concerned abt Nokia's strategic shift/alliance than the obviously visible sling holding my right hand together after a small skiing accident. :-)
Let me be a bit more realistic. IMHO, consumers do not buy devices because its a symbian, palm, iOS etc. They buy a Nokia N97, or Samsung Galaxy, a SonyEricsson or an iPhone 4! For e.g. I have android (Among others) in 4 different devices but I prefer one device over others and I just love it! I did think that the model I like was simply the best feeling you could get among those I've tried.
Now, coming to the huge bash against the Nokia-MS strategic alliance. More often than not, among the people/online magazines I follow, its the emotions that speaks and seldom the facts. Facts, often twisted to justify their feelings! And, IMHO it seems Nokia (+MS) has got bad publicity from its own fanclub than by their opponents.
Many (if not all) top gadget/smartphone/mobilephone reviewers have a quarter or two ago praised WP7 much. What MS probably lacked then was a strategic alliance with a vendor and what Nokia wanted badly was better a cost effective R&D and a fast to market OS that could effectively challenge Android/iOS etc. Meego/Symbain not being a choice, I do think this alliance have greater probabability to help/rescue Nokia or better still, an absolutely symbiotic WIN-WIN for both MS and Nokia. So, clearly, both the companies seem to benefit from the tie up. And being a gadget lover and the consumer that I'm, I am thrilled! Whats probably relevant are, first, how fast Nokia brings their first WP7 model and second, how quickly Nokia-MS bring their fellow developers onboard. Again, going by the reviews (warning: i have never tried a WP7 as yet), there is much to look towards the WP7 Market place as well and I am eagerly looking for it!
May the best business model succeed!!! Amen!
Let me be a bit more realistic. IMHO, consumers do not buy devices because its a symbian, palm, iOS etc. They buy a Nokia N97, or Samsung Galaxy, a SonyEricsson or an iPhone 4! For e.g. I have android (Among others) in 4 different devices but I prefer one device over others and I just love it! I did think that the model I like was simply the best feeling you could get among those I've tried.
Now, coming to the huge bash against the Nokia-MS strategic alliance. More often than not, among the people/online magazines I follow, its the emotions that speaks and seldom the facts. Facts, often twisted to justify their feelings! And, IMHO it seems Nokia (+MS) has got bad publicity from its own fanclub than by their opponents.
Many (if not all) top gadget/smartphone/mobilephone reviewers have a quarter or two ago praised WP7 much. What MS probably lacked then was a strategic alliance with a vendor and what Nokia wanted badly was better a cost effective R&D and a fast to market OS that could effectively challenge Android/iOS etc. Meego/Symbain not being a choice, I do think this alliance have greater probabability to help/rescue Nokia or better still, an absolutely symbiotic WIN-WIN for both MS and Nokia. So, clearly, both the companies seem to benefit from the tie up. And being a gadget lover and the consumer that I'm, I am thrilled! Whats probably relevant are, first, how fast Nokia brings their first WP7 model and second, how quickly Nokia-MS bring their fellow developers onboard. Again, going by the reviews (warning: i have never tried a WP7 as yet), there is much to look towards the WP7 Market place as well and I am eagerly looking for it!
May the best business model succeed!!! Amen!
Wednesday 9 February 2011
Commenting on challenging "memo" from Nokia CEO
Late y'day came across this news clip claiming to be an internal memo from Elop, Nokia's new CEO. Thought to make a quick analysis and add some comments on it, too add further to the rumours. :-)
I have been watching the smartphone market for almost a year now and my few cents based on what I have understood:
There are a few factual errors in this like mrkt share etc; is not really a memo but an internal blog (based on comments from the Internet, e.g. Tomi Ahonen's blog comments) which puts certain trends in place than being pixel perfect (typical of a blog); apart from showcasing to its own employees on how Nokia could capitalise better on its strengths and the ecosystem it has built up (Qt-Meego-Ovi).
The blog is surely aggressive and there are pros and cons of putting such a thought; the worst case causing panic reactions from the employees. On the other hand, hardcore Nokians would use this as an opportunity to embrace change and be more competitive to its changes faces and become even more competitive. I do believe that competent people are less averse to changes and is willing to change themselves for the better than average joe's or mediocres.
I believe Nokia's QT-Meego-Ovi strategy is strong and is capable of challenging any ecosystem that is being put in this blog. However, the reality is that Nokia has failed to move ahead of the market and has little choice but to embrace change more aggressively than to be in a state of denial if that means even to dump its old strategies. May be the CEO's effort is merely to equip his troup to be ready for a change. We will know more on Feb 11th. :-)
What do you think?
I have been watching the smartphone market for almost a year now and my few cents based on what I have understood:
There are a few factual errors in this like mrkt share etc; is not really a memo but an internal blog (based on comments from the Internet, e.g. Tomi Ahonen's blog comments) which puts certain trends in place than being pixel perfect (typical of a blog); apart from showcasing to its own employees on how Nokia could capitalise better on its strengths and the ecosystem it has built up (Qt-Meego-Ovi).
The blog is surely aggressive and there are pros and cons of putting such a thought; the worst case causing panic reactions from the employees. On the other hand, hardcore Nokians would use this as an opportunity to embrace change and be more competitive to its changes faces and become even more competitive. I do believe that competent people are less averse to changes and is willing to change themselves for the better than average joe's or mediocres.
I believe Nokia's QT-Meego-Ovi strategy is strong and is capable of challenging any ecosystem that is being put in this blog. However, the reality is that Nokia has failed to move ahead of the market and has little choice but to embrace change more aggressively than to be in a state of denial if that means even to dump its old strategies. May be the CEO's effort is merely to equip his troup to be ready for a change. We will know more on Feb 11th. :-)
What do you think?
Tuesday 25 January 2011
What will drive 3G in a third world market?
I got inspired to put an analysis after reading the recent article on ET on possible factors affecting the growth of 3G in India. According to ET (Ref: http://bit.ly/dMg79X), the major factors are cheap handsets, content/applications/services, affordability, innovation and network rollouts.
Not sure if its just me, i failed to find anything innovative about the findings from ET. :-) The above reasons ET found have been very much what has driven 3G in the western markets or the rest of the world. Cheap handsets sounds the most convincing among them and is probably the only one which were not so detrimental in the deployment of 3G in the western markets, but application rich handsets were. Most mobile market experts would agree with me that most phone releases during this decade would be smartphones; and the increased competition will ensure an attractive pricing too. So, that is certainly relevant.
Content/application/services, IMHO, wouldnt matter much in the initial roll out once the handsets are cheap. The market psyche is to get the best AFFORDABLE handsets possible, irrespective of the content/services it really support. However, a well packaged mobile broadband delivery mode will certainly be a detrimental factor.
Affordability of services, surely is a factor; again nothing specific to a developing economy; Its just business-as-usual.
Similarly, Network rollouts is inevitable as the operators who has spent billions on 3G license would want to recover the cost as early as possible; or at least make a big attempt to do so.
Last, I quite like the analysis on Innovation. I do think that a growth economy like India will see huge development in the innovation space. However, i do think the innovation would happen over-the-top (OTT) and will be over the mobile broadband services over 3G.
So, to summarise, I think the biggest factor that will drive 3G in India or a developing economy will be mobile broadband. What do you think?
Not sure if its just me, i failed to find anything innovative about the findings from ET. :-) The above reasons ET found have been very much what has driven 3G in the western markets or the rest of the world. Cheap handsets sounds the most convincing among them and is probably the only one which were not so detrimental in the deployment of 3G in the western markets, but application rich handsets were. Most mobile market experts would agree with me that most phone releases during this decade would be smartphones; and the increased competition will ensure an attractive pricing too. So, that is certainly relevant.
Content/application/services, IMHO, wouldnt matter much in the initial roll out once the handsets are cheap. The market psyche is to get the best AFFORDABLE handsets possible, irrespective of the content/services it really support. However, a well packaged mobile broadband delivery mode will certainly be a detrimental factor.
Affordability of services, surely is a factor; again nothing specific to a developing economy; Its just business-as-usual.
Similarly, Network rollouts is inevitable as the operators who has spent billions on 3G license would want to recover the cost as early as possible; or at least make a big attempt to do so.
Last, I quite like the analysis on Innovation. I do think that a growth economy like India will see huge development in the innovation space. However, i do think the innovation would happen over-the-top (OTT) and will be over the mobile broadband services over 3G.
So, to summarise, I think the biggest factor that will drive 3G in India or a developing economy will be mobile broadband. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
