Commodification of the desktop operating system complete

OS X in Windows 7 in Chrome OS on Cr-48

So I read a great post the other day about the commodification of the client operating system. I surprisingly agree with the author. I think that's the way we're headed.

In Amazon style, Amazon would like us to get our commodities from Amazon. Several months ago Amazon released Amazon Workspaces.

Amazon WorkSpaces is a fully managed desktop computing service in the cloud. Amazon WorkSpaces allows customers to easily provision cloud-based desktops that allow end-users to access the documents, applications and resources they need with the device of their choice, including laptops, iPad, Kindle Fire, or Android tablets. With a few clicks in the AWS Management Console, customers can provision a high-quality desktop experience for any number of users at a cost that is highly competitive with traditional desktops and half the cost of most virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) solutions. 

Pretty cool really. Cloud-based desktops were really unheard of before Amazon's release of Workspaces. Virtual desktops? Sure and they're terrible. Hosted desktops? Sure, and they're even worse. True cloud-based desktops before Amazon Workspaces? Nope.

With Workspaces a small business could have always up to date, always secure Windows computers at their beckon call. The device being used by the end user can be a system like Chrome OS which you can't really break. Starting Chrome OS up from scratch takes a few minutes at most.

Around the world today millions of hours will be spent messing with operating systems. Large corporations have entire teams dedicated to desktop support. Our idea of the operating system will soon be a distant memory, no more special or important than the black pen that runs out of ink, quickly interchanged with another without a second thought.

Gmail hacked?

This is a cross-post from the Umzuzu.com blog. 

The Attack

It usually starts the same way each time, you get an email from one of your contacts, "Hey, I got this weird email from you?" 

You immediately know you didn't send them anything weird or otherwise. You check your sent items for clues. Sometimes clues are right there, sometimes the bad guys have covered their tracks. What do you do now?

Technically speaking you probably weren't hacked but rather phished. In a phishing attack you become the unwitting accomplice, actually handing over both your username and password. The images below show the attack email and phishing site that's been making the rounds the past few weeks.

OFTEN THE EMAIL WILL COME FROM A "TRUSTED" OR KNOWN CONTACT AS THE ATTACKER LEVERAGES THE CONTACTS SAVED WITHIN THE VICTIM'S ACCOUNT. 

Stranger Danger

I've shown this site to several people and many of them say if the site was from a trusted person, they'd probably hand their credentials over by attempting to "sign-in".

This site is simply a form that might as well say, "give me your username and password so I can phish your account". If there is ever any doubt, never provide credentials. 

This site offers many clues that can help us determine it's part of a phishing attack. (Click here to enlarge). 

The Response

You've confirmed or strongly suspect someone besides yourself is leveraging your Gmail account to send email. What next? 

Change your Gmail password

You can do so here: https://accounts.google.com/b/0/EditPasswd or from your Gmail Settings: 

1. Open Gmail.
2. Click the gear in the top right.
3. Select Settings.
4. Click the Accounts tab at the top.
5. Click Change password in the “Change account settings” section.
6. Type your current password and your new password. We highly recommend you create a unique password - one that you don't use for any other websites. See more password tips below.
7. Click Change password.

There are also several other ways to access your Account's Security settings. 

Review your Security Settings

You can find them here: https://www.google.com/settings/security 

Review, confirm and update your 'Recovery & alerts' information as needed. This is a great opportunity to review these settings in detail to make sure everything is up to date. 

Check your Gmail Filters

The more sophisticated attacks will often configure Gmail Filters to hide evidence of the intrusion, continue to leverage your account for nefarious activities or attempt to regain access. If a Filter does not look familiar, Delete it. 

To edit or delete existing filters

1. Open Gmail.
2. Click the gear in the top right.
3. Select Settings.
4. Click the Filters tab.
5. Find the filter you'd like to change and click edit or delete to remove the filter.
6. If you're editing the filter, enter the updated criteria for the filter in the appropriate fields, and click Continue.
7. Update any actions and click the Update filter button.

Check your Gmail Contacts

It's becoming more common for the attacker to delete the victim's Contacts. We assume this is to keep the victim from warning other potential victims before the phishing emails have a chance of snaring more victims. If your Contacts have been Deleted, leverage Gmail's 'Restore contacts...' feature under the 'More' menu. 

Review additional information

If you've followed the steps above your account should be back within your control. Google does provide additional tools that can be leveraged to review additional information. 

From the Gmail footer, you can find 'Last account activity' Details in the bottom right or by visiting 'Recent activity' here: security.google.com (When accessed from Gmail, this feature also allows you to "Sign out all other sessions", very handy if you forget to sign out somewhere.) 

Last account activity will show us the recent login activity for our account - if you see Germany, China, Russia, etc. but happen to be in the United States you know your account was indeed compromised. It is common to see your mobile device log activity from other areas but they should be within the United States and relatively close to your general location.   

Protecting yourself

Leverage two-factor authentication 

Enable 2-Step Verification, commonly called Two-Factor Authentication. You can start the process here.

As Google explains:

2-Step Verification drastically reduces the chances of having the personal information in your Google Account stolen by someone else. Why? Because bad guys would have to not only get your password and your username, they'd have to get a hold of your phone.

Two-factor authentication would have foiled the phishing attack detailed in this post. Once your computer is authenticated you won't have to use two-factor authentication every time but anytime a new computer tries to access your account, two-factor authentication will be required. This strikes a good balance between convenience and security. Today many modern services offer two-factor authentication, you can learn more about other services offering this feature here. 

Never trust an unknown or unexpected login page

If you're going about your business on the web and are unexpectedly asked to provide credentials, stop. Never login to a page you don't recognize or don't expect. Always review the URL of the site requesting credentials. If anything looks 'phishy' close the window and attempt to access the service as you normally would from a trusted URL like Gmail.com or Drive.Google.com  

Leverage a good password

Keep your password secure. Don't share your password with others. In Gmail leverage Delegate Access rather than shared passwords. Don't have a single password for the whole office. If you ever think your password may have been exposed, be proactive and change it. 

Never use your primary email address and password as a username/password combination for other sites. 

Many services will allow (or require) an email address as a username, while convenient this can also be problematic if you use the same password for that site as the associated username for your email account. For example, Forbes was recently attacked by hackers who gained access to everyone's username. 

THE SECURITY MESSAGE CURRENTLY ON FORBES.COM, FEBRUARY 17TH, 2014. 

If your email address here is your primary email address and you used the same password for that email account and Forbes, you're at a greater risk of having your account compromised. While Forbes states that passwords were encrypted we can't know the strength of the encryption or if it was fully implemented. Bottom line, we don't want our primary account password in more places than it has to be. Increased points of exposure and passwords don't mix. 

New Microsoft Surface

Just finished watching live coverage of Microsoft's Surface event on The Verge. Too soon to know much but my initial thought was: impressive.

If there was any question Google had to buy Motorola, we have our answer. No question. Google absolutely HAS to be in hardware to compete against Apple, Microsoft and Amazon tablets.

Microsoft has laid out an option that is much easier for consumers to understand than anything Google has laid out for tablets to date. (Update 6/27: scratch that and you can actually buy this one too!)

The Internet is impressed as well. Buzz around Microsoft's Surface event is about equal to Apple's WWDC event in which they announced the MacBook Pro with Retina Display, iOS 6 and their mapping solution among other announcements. 

I should clarify that I'm impressed at the effort. I've never touched the device much less actually used it. I'll never use Windows again - that's a life decision I'm very comfortable with and ALOT can go wrong for Microsoft. Apple warrior MG Siegler does a great job of summing up the potential pitfalls Redmond is facing. 

Who loses more with Apple's move away from Google Maps?

It's been well published that Apple has decided to move away from Google Maps. Most of the press has focused on how big of a lose this is for Google. I'd assume Google would enjoy being the primary mapping and navigation service on iOS. But, for the time being, the Googleplex isn't the only loser. iOS users lose too.

Google Maps on iOS has long been a shadow of its true self. Apple, in Apple fashion, controlled the UI and most Google Maps functionality and updates were never implemented. Android users are typically pretty surprised to learn that iPhone users didn't have turn-by-turn navigation until yesterday (or until the iOS 6 update announcements made yesterday are implemented later this year). iOS users had to purchase an app. Garmin's Nav App is $50 for example ... and I think you might even have to purchase the maps themselves.

Yesterday afternoon I saw a Google Street View car zooming around Kansas City. And last night I came across this funny story about Apple trying to kill iOS users. Both reminded me of a fact. Google has the world's best consumer map and navigation apps. Google has also been incorporating more and more of Google Earth into Google Maps.

Google's Street View program launched in 2007 and Android has had turn-by-turn since 2009. Google's been acquiring traffic and mapping firms since 2004. Google's mission statement is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. In short, Google Maps is a service driven from the very heart of the company. Google Maps is one of the most accessible and useful applications in the history of human civilization.

Apple's new mapping service is pretty? Yes, it is. Does it work well. I'd assume it's decent, especially in major urbar ares and it will improve quickly. But Google's mapping service will ALWAYS be better. Google has a massive head start, the service is at the heart of their identity as a company and Google employees seem to genuinely enjoy working on the incredible challenges and scale intrinsic with organizing and making accessible planet earth and human civilization.

Here's a picture of a map from 1534, from the Swiss National Museum in Zurich. Amazing effort considering the resources available. 

We literally can't comprehend how far we've come and how quickly we're improving. Google Maps even has Kansas City's Swope Park Mountain Bike Trail System.

The biggest loser in Apple's move away from Google Maps is the iOS user. Most don't even know how much Google Maps functionality Apple has been keeping from them - although ignorance is bliss. Apple is the world's most valuable company but nobody's perfect. Personally I think Apple is making a long-term decision based on short-term grudges. No question they're taking mapping seriously, viewing the capabilities as a core feature of a mobile device, but is mapping going to be a core competency of Apple? 

I assume there are many iOS users who know Google Maps is the best service available. I also expect Google will get Google Maps back onto iOS with a native app. But would their resources be better spent on improving services available via Android? 

Apple's move definitely got Google's attention. I think the increased competition will compel Google to push Maps forward more aggressively. There are dozens of reasons I personally use Android over iOS and I expect Maps and Navigation will continue to be on that list.


Update 6.14: Gizmodo has an awesome comparison overview of the two services. 
Update 6.18: Wired has an outstanding overview of the situation.
Update 9.26: MG Siegler has a great write up here. I think he's right on ... ultimately it's about control of very valuable data. I've also read Apple is aggressively hiring mapping experts. Apple has more cash than any company in the history of the world. Being the world's second best mapping service isn't too shabby. Eventually iOS and Google users will both benefit from the increased competition. Apple is the only company that can (or eventually will) compete with Google Maps.

Apple's 2012 WWDC Event

The Verge has excellent coverage of today's WWDC event.

June is a great month for geeks. Apple and Google both have their huge developer conferences. You can literally see the future being built right in front of your eyes.

Personally, I wish Apple and Google were still all buddy-buddy but that's just not possible anymore. Apple's release of their own mapping solution highlights this fact. iOS users finally have turn-by-turn. Big day for them! Ultimately it's a good thing. Google Maps needs a real competitor - consumers ultimately benefit from the increased competition.

There's one theme I can't get over. It's how quickly and exponentially Apple is pulling ahead of Microsoft. 5 years ago, Apple's complete dominance over Microsoft was unthinkable. 

Microsoft has fallen so far behind, they literally don't matter.

Windows Phone doesn't matter.
Bing doesn't matter.
Bing Maps definitely doesn't matter.
Internet Explorer doesn't matter.
Word doesn't even matter.

Every empire eventually falls. Microsoft's a rich company still turning in record quarters. Financial results suggest Microsoft's consumer business has largely been overtaken by their enterprise business. Great right? Absolutely, if it wasn't for 3 trends: cloud computing, mobile and consumerization.

Google Plus Your World ... the jury is deliberating

No one (normal) questions social content has an important role to play in today's world. Google's mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible".  

When we search on the web, we're searching from our personal perspective. Search is a personal activity and there's a great deal of information that's important to us in our social networks. Google can't ignore this, regardless if the incumbents want to play nice or not. 

Earlier this week Google released Search, Plus Your World in an effort to make its search engine more social. Reviews have been mixed to say the least. Google's search engine has always been revered as a beautifully simplistic service. Some people think these new social results muck it all up. Maybe they're right. Maybe not. 

Google's innovating. That's a good thing. Period. Will this effort be successful or a failure? We don't know, but you can't know until you try - that's critical. People and companies that try new things are always criticized by others - that's the price of leadership.

Switch to Bing? Absolutely not. Bing is slower and has fewer results. Google's technology is literally years ahead of Microsoft's. Google.com is a better search engine. Technology is only half of the search engine business, you actually have to make money as well. 

Hate the social results? Turn them off. 

Google.com > Search Settings

Then look for "Personal Results" about half way down and turn them off. 

Just like that, 5 seconds maybe, and all is right with the world. 

Regarding Facebook and Twitter. They've been locking their data up tight and creating silos of proprietary data - it's not "on the web" it's on Facebook. Facebook doesn't own the social graph, it's on loan. I don't feel sorry for either one of these firms and it's great to see more competition in the social space. Twitter in particular has been ruthless in how they've treated their ecosystem. Twitter couldn't figure out how to run its own business so they decided to highjack the businesses of others.

"Google needs to be more social." Everyone and their mother has been screaming this for a few years now - well you asked for it and here we go. 

News flash: MG Siegler hates Android

"In time we hate that which we often fear." 

I consider myself a fan of MG Siegler. For those who don't recognize this name, he's a writer for TechCrunch, a venture capitalist and I'm sure he keeps busy in dozens of other ways as well - just like the rest of us. 

Even if you don't recognize his name, if you follow the technology industry, you've likely come across one of his posts. I like him because he speaks his mind - he's honest, authentic. Attributes which are surprisingly hard to find. 

One of the primary focuses of MG's writing is Apple in general and the iPhone specifically. Lately, he has a problem and he wants to share. Post after post after post is about how much he hates Android. Over the past few months, he's probably written more words about Android than Apple. 

A couple of thoughts. 

It's bizarre to hate an operating system. Especially a mobile OS that no one is forcing you to use. OK, you're not a fan of Android. We get it and that's great. It seems odd to keep such a strong focus on something you don't like. 

iOS is an earth-changing OS on earth-changing devices. Apple's 2012 is going to be HUGE! No other company, in any industry, will be more valuable than Apple over the next 5 years. Apple is one of the most important companies in the history of planet Earth. The Industrial Revolution lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and created trillions of dollars in wealth. Today the Information Revolution is just getting started. Apple is leading the way. With such a lofty perch, it just doesn't make sense to continuously focus on negative views of Android. 

Android doesn't have to be bad for iOS to be good. iOS doesn't have to be bad for Android to be good. There's plenty of room for two very successful platforms. They both need the competition to reach their true potential. Android's UI gets better with every update. Would iPhone owners still be running to their PC to fire up and sync that little treasure without Android? Both teams have tons of talent but they need someone to play against. 

Google works with carriers. Apple works with carriers. Each firm makes deals and compromises on their vision. In this case, AT&T and the firm formerly known as AT&T. The communications infrastructure industry in the United States is total crap. Oligopolies suck for consumers. Until this industry itself supports competition, Apple and Google can only do so much. If Verizon is the devil, it's just his right hand. AT&T would be his left. I can understand they don't want to be "dumb pipes" but their only other option is to become "smart pipes". To do that they'd have to value long-term strategic thought over short-term stock prices. 

2012 is going to be a huge year for iOS and a huge year for Android. Google and Apple are both tremendous firms with strong leadership. Value creation isn't a zero-sum game. The mobile Internet is going to float a lot of boats. They'll share exponentially more customers than they take from one another.  

Long story short, Mr. Siegler is going to have to live with Android. How he does is totally up to him. At the end of the day, Android doesn't care what he thinks.  

Disruptive Technology 101

Cloud computing is a great example of a disruptive technology. The term was coined by Clayton Christensen and he developed the idea in both articles and books, The Innovator's Dilemma covers the concepts in great depth.

Disruptive technologies are, just that, to established markets and vendors. Think of MP3 players' impact on the market for CDs. Disruptive technologies put companies like Borders out of business.

Disruptive technologies often have common attributes. For example they are typically first adopted in seemingly insignificant markets and typically at lower costs than the established technologies. I was reminded again today of cloud computing's disruptive attributes.

First, U.S. News and World Report released their list of top 100 universities in the United States.  Google took the opportunity to announce that 61 of these universities are powered by Google Apps for Education. These students are learning new ways to communicate and collaborate.

Second, news about the finalists coming out of TechCrunch Disrupt, which is a conference geared at giving young new companies a platform to flash their stuff. One of the nice things about mail exchange (MX) records, which let people email each other, is that they're public. We can look at the MX records for some of the most exciting new companies around. Everpix, Bitcasa, Pressly - and on and on and on - these companies all leverage Google Apps for messaging. Next time you read about a cool new or young company, enter their url in http://www.mxtoolbox.com/ to see what comes back - chances are excellent you'll see the names of Google's messaging services.

Google Apps has moved well beyond education and new business, with clients like the General Services Administration, but its domination in these two critical sectors is telling.

Google and Motorola Mobility

Big news in the tech industry today with Google announcing they would be acquiring Motorola Mobility (MM), which is a separate company than Motorola Solutions, Inc.

If someone had suggested this move last week, I would have said "maybe but probably not, too many employees and it's a hardware business" although there were some people who saw a lot of potential with the move.

It's difficult to say what will happen to Motorola Mobility's 19,000 employees. Google has stated MM will be run as a stand-alone company but obviously having a new boss means setting new directions. If I were a MM employee working with Android I'd be optimistic. If I was working on older technologies, not so much.

This is obviously a big, bold move by Google. Could it be a "disaster" - no, Google had about $40B in cash when they made this move. Worst case scenario is that it doesn't pay off and MM could be spun back off. They actually got a pretty good deal for MM  - the price of $12.5B includes $3B MM has in the bank so the purchase price was under $10B. Sounds like a lot but Google also paid $1.65B for a technology to share videos. Motorola invented the mobile phone.

As the leading Internet and mobile OS company, I don't think there's much that Google could do at this point in history that would really throw them much off course. They're going to continue on an upward trajectory for the foreseeable future as are others.

I think Google's acquisition can and should pay off handsomely in two primary ways - one is short term, the other long term.

Short term.

Everyone knows the first reason Google agreed to acquire Motorola Mobility. They have 17,000 patents and some of the best in the mobile biz. Most firms cower from Apple's litigation team. Not Motorola, they actually went after Apple first and as the inventor of the first mobile phone, they've got some serious history on their side. For some perspective Microsoft has about 18,000 patents and Apple about 4,000.

The press has also been all over the fact that MSFT extorts payments from Android vendors like HTC. Guess who pays Motorola Mobility royalty fees for every Xbox sold? Karma is a bitch with a great sense of humor.

There's no question, should the acquisition be successful, that Google has "solved" their patent problem. (The system itself remains a disgusting waste of resources.)

Long term.

MM is the market leader in set-top boxes. All those DVR boxes we have on our TV's come from either Motorola or Cisco. You may have noticed something about your set-top box - it kind of sucks. Searching is awful, the hardware is disgusting compared with modern devices, the functionality is meh, Internet integration is typically non-existent (which is amazing considering TV and Internet services are often coming in on the same cable or at least from the same company), and the user interface hasn't really change that much in 10 years. With the acquisition (assuming it goes through) Google has just become the leading provider of set-top boxes? Holy shit, that's huge. Consumers have a lot to gain in this traditionally stagnant space.

Overall.

Google sends another signal with this move. Yes, they are a bunch of geeky engineers more concerned with innovation than patent litigation but they also have $40B in cash, won't be pushed around and everyone trying to can kiss their ass. Some are even speculating Google's pursuit of the Notel patents was a ruse - we'll never know. I tend to agree they would have been happy to win the bid but were aware they might not and were pursuing many possible patent acquisition options simultaneously - when they lost the Nortel bid they decided to go big. But to anyone who thinks the world's leading Internet company and leading mobile OS company is going to give an inch as the opportunities of the mobile Internet are realized you've been put on notice.

Other winners.

Amazon. They've been investing in Android with their marketplace, HTML5 apps and rumored Android powered tablets. Patents issues increased the risk of this investment. Amazon benefits from Android's new patent war chest without having to fork over the dough. Personally I think Amazon has more potential to be a long term mobile player than Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia or HP.

Barnes and Noble's Nook. They've been fighting hard to protect their Android powered devices from litigation by Microsoft. Like Amazon, they should benefit from Android's new patent war chest.

Samsung, HTC, other Google partners. The MM acquisition causes some channel conflict but I'd bet these firms would rather have that conflict to manage than getting their asses sued or extorted left and right by Apple and Microsoft. A stronger Android means a stronger platform for these firms. Samsung is also a leading ChromeOS partner, a Google more invested in mobile computing is a Google more invested in Samsung. A look at the iPhone shows just how much quality and value Samsung components can add to Google phones, tablets and PC's. There's no reason MM does not take more, rather than less, advantage of foreign manufacturing partners now that its business model is a bit more dynamic to say the least.

Biggest losers.

Microsoft. They've been all over Android, basically making a business out of threats. "Pay us on your Android devices or get sued." The king of mobile patents is Motorola Mobility. With this move Google kills this "opportunity" for Microsoft. Microsoft even pays MM a royalty fee for every Xbox sold. Apple and Google will now both have hardware businesses at their disposal. Obviously Google will not match the profit margins of Apple but they don't need to - the firms have extremely different business models. Microsoft has tons of dough, they should just buy Nokia AND Blackberry. Revamp the hardware, optimize for Windows Phone 7 and shove the devices down the throat of every market on earth. It wouldn't be pretty or elegant but that's the only chance they have in mobile. Google just up'd the admission fee to play.

RIM. The phones are awful. The company's business model is obsolete. As everyone else gets stronger or consolidates into a larger player, Blackberry gets weaker. And just when everyone thought RIM couldn't be any more meaningless.

Censorship is not a sustainable strategy...

...it is annoying though.

It all started with the Kansas City Cloud Computing User Group which is under the .org top level domain which would suggest some altruistic attempt to educate our local community about modern computing services delivered via the Internet, commonly referred to as Cloud Computing.

Everyone knows the Internet is one of the most disruptive innovations in human history - in short, its development, massive adoption, and the dozens of attributes that make it, well the Internet, have really screwed up and even destroyed many business models and businesses. Pick up a newspaper lately? Me either.

The Internet of the last 20 years mostly consisted of text and links, maybe a picture or two. Web sites like blogs were able to publish content and distribute it on a global scale at almost no cost. This destroyed the capital intensive and complex business model consisting of massive printing presses and complex supply chain distribution frameworks. This Chart of the Day from SAI shows what the total destruction of a business model looks like.

The last decade has been horrible for the newspaper industry - the very foundation on which the businesses were built no longer exists. The businesses are no longer valuable and many printing presses are likely worth more for their scrap metal than printing a newspaper or magazine.

Fast forward to mid year 2011. Today's Internet is MUCH MORE than text, links and some pictures. Today's Internet is full of applications - from Email, CRM , custom applications, pure infrastructure, highly specialized applications, to applications to pop some pigs!

Modern Internet services already dominate our personal computing experience. We use Google.com to find everything under the sun, Amazon to buy just about anything we want, Facebook to connect with friends and family, Craigslist to sell old washing machines, Gmail for personal email, Linkedin for professional networking, Google Maps to check out a street view or get directions - the list goes on and on and on. We live on the Internet.

Internet services are beginning to dominate our business computing as well. Commerce Bank leverages Workday, Perceptive Software runs Salesforce.com and Google Apps, Kansas City Southern Railroad leverages Salesforce.com, St. Luke's Hospital System leverages Postini, Zarda BBQ runs on Google Apps as does the YMCA of Greater Kansas City. Soon Kansas City will be home to the world's fastest Internet and adoption of modern Internet applications will continue to accelerate.

Who's business model does this screw up? Well, if the Internet is now the platform delivering applications the desktop environment simply becomes a commodity. Generally speaking commodities are very inexpensive compared to other goods and services. If you buy nails at the hardware store, you don't care who manufactured them - they're nails. Contrast this to an iPad and you have two extremes.

Everyone knows the king of the desktop is Microsoft - they're king of the hill that is quickly beginning to look more like a molehill than a mountain. Here's another fun chart from SAI.

Look familiar? When the very foundation of your business model is completely disrupted you're screwed. Every business model eventually becomes obsolete.

Microsoft is an extremely competitive company and they're not going anywhere anytime soon. They're sitting on a mountain of cash and have tons of smart employees. But has Microsoft peaked? Absolutely. As the king of the desktop, Microsoft was intrinsically tied to the same destiny and the chart above clearly shows how their Internet services business is doing.

You can't hide from reality but you can try and shut it up and that brings us back to the Kansas City Cloud Computing User Group (kccloud.org). I was excited when I found out about the group. Cloud Computing has the ability to increase the capabilities of Kansas City businesses of all sizes, our nonprofits and other community organizations and our schools. Cloud Computing offers more function at less cost - this is great for consumers.

However, these facts are horrible for Microsoft where these same high costs drive record revenues and profits. In the "user group" I quickly noticed my ability to submit blog posts, videos and events to the site was "broken" - I submitted a trouble ticket to the site's administrator and was told, even though I was a full member, only information from or about Microsoft could be submitted to the "Kansas City Cloud Computing User Group" which is obviously anything but. To their credit, they didn't delete my previous posts but they were quickly buried under fresh content.

I thought about trying to start a real user's group for Internet services but choose to focus my efforts in other areas (these groups take TONS of work to start, build and maintain) and eventually forgot about the censorship ... until today.

Microsoft's Tony Tai wrote an article on the Why Microsoft blog that was blatantly misleading. I don't post there often because it's intended for a Microsoft audience but sometimes I do speak up when the post is so obviously incorrect - it's called lying in grade school. Tony had stated Gmail does not have filtering while it's been a feature for at least 5 years. I pointed this out, he responded and I was looking forward to providing some additional feedback but rather than having a discussion they've decided it's easier to pretend reality doesn't matter and I'm unable to post.

When information was expensive to publish and distribute this type of marketing could be extremely effective but today it's just annoying. The facts are everywhere.

Ultra high-speed broadband is coming to Kansas City!

Awesome news for Kansas City last week! Being a Kansas City resident and living in Kansas, Google's ultra high-speed broadband announcement was very exciting.

People are asking what's possible with this new infrastructure. I was fortunate enough to speak with executives from Cerner Corporation on the day of the announcement and they immediately thought of imaging. With 1 Gbps Internet speeds you could stream live video and images of CAT Scans, MRI's, X-Rays, video fluoroscopy treatments and much more. It would be awesome to have a local physician sitting in a Kanas City school reviewing these images in realtime with the patient and the students (given the patient's permission of course). I think that would certainly capture the imagination of a student and perhaps light a passion that will last a lifetime. This could also all be done on a web-centric operating system like Chrome OS as 1 Gbps is about the same speed you can pull data from your local hard drive.

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. This broadband project directly furthers that mission. Most people have no idea what Google's mission is or how broadly and literally company leadership takes it.

Let's take one example that seems an "odd" thing for Google to be working on, self-driving cars. We've reached a point when most, not all, of us take Google.com for granted. Younger generations have no idea what a pain it was to find information in a single book much less an entire library. Future generations will also take self-driving cars for granted.

How do self-driving cars fit into Google's mission? The easiest way to understand this is to think of the car from the perspective of an individual who is blind. Even those of us with sight are often blind - blind to that stop sign, traffic signal, traffic jam over the hill, a pedestrian or biker.

A person who is blind does not have access to information. They lack access to information about the location of other cars, of the lanes on the road, of street signs, etc. To a person lacking sight, yellow lines, stop signs and brake lights are not useful. Should Google succeed in its mission, information will be universally accessible - sight will not be required to take a car to your destination.

How close is Google to delivering self-driving cars? Probably closer than we think, this is a very challenging problem to solve with LOTS of variables. Google is good at solving big problems though and 35 million miles are already driven daily using Google Navigation so Google knows how to get there, they just need to keep working on the rest...

...and it looks like they're getting pretty damn good at it already.

Computers!

In 1982 instead of naming a "Person of the Year" Time Inc. named the personal computer "Machine of the Year". In 1985 Microsoft released their first Windows computer with a GUI (Graphical User Interface) and a mouse. More than 25 years later this is still the basic form factor most people think of when they think "computer".  It's time for a new definition.

99% of people still think of a standalone device that sits under their desk or a laptop they carry around in their bag. I still remember sitting in training at Cerner Corporation, the person providing the lecture asked the class, "who knows what a server is?" followed up quickly by "a server is a computer and a computer is a server. That laptop you've got is a server". That's when it clicked for me that these babies didn't mean much as individuals - it was when you put them together that things started getting interesting.

When's the last time you sat down and worked on a computer that wasn't connected to the Internet? Writing emails on a plane doesn't count, that just means you're not being creative enough with your time. Seriously though, do you ever use a computer when it's not connected to the Internet? I don't.

What does this mean? First and foremost it's time to start thinking about the "computer" and more specifically "computers" VERY differently. It is critical we change our thinking because it is required in order to realize the potential at our disposal.

The Internet, how you should be
 thinking of computers.

It's all about the Internet. The Internet is the most disruptive innovation in human history. The Information Revolution, which has only barely started, will make the Industrial Revolution look like a relatively small event. Today you don't have "a computer" you have millions! The idea of a computer we carry around in our mind is little more than a distant memory.

For many people their idea of a computer has become baggage keeping them from realizing the full value available to them. People talk on Facebook about how hard it is to get work email on their phone. They post notes on Twitter about having to go into the office again to access a document. They quickly see who's available to chat on Facebook because they don't have the ability to see presence or chat at work so they emailed the question over instead. We post videos, chat, message and anything we want in our personal lives but still think these things should be difficult at work - they shouldn't be and they're not.

When we think of "computers" as sitting on our desk we're thinking about the past rather than the present or the future. It took 20 years to develop our Windows and Office habits and now we're comfortable in that world. It's time to be uncomfortable. It's time to learn something new. You have millions of computers just waiting for you to realize they're there.

Deep Thoughts... on Chrome OS

I've been testing Google Chrome OS now for about 2 months. Chrome OS is a new Linux-based operating system based on the open source Chromium project. The goal of Chrome OS is to deliver the web to the user as fast and easily as possible. 

Anyone who has spent anytime in technology knows, without question, that a vast majority of people are not "computer people",  never will be and could care less how things work - just as long as they do.

There are many opinions regarding Chrome OS but one fact is clear. Chrome OS is the world's simplest operating system. If you can browse on the Chrome browser, you're already a Chrome OS power user. For a Chrome browser user, any Chrome OS device is ready to go as "their device" in about 10 seconds. Anyone installed a new version of Office lately? How about upgrade a Vista device to Windows 7? How long did that take? An hour? Two, four, five, overnight? That's not even to make it "your device", that's just to make it capable of becoming your device.

In my work with Umzuzu I have access to multiple Chrome OS devices so I get to enjoy the potential enabled by the simplicity of Chrome OS first hand.

Writing this post actually provided a perfect example. I was working on a Chrome OS device from the comfort of my couch. The devices' batteries last for about a day's worth of work so I don't think of plugging them in that often. The particular device I was using prompted me with a low battery warning. "Darn," I thought, "I'm super comfortable and really don't feel like being tethered right now." ... because I would no longer be laying down. Then I noticed the other Chrome OS device within arms reach. Nice! This is a brand new device.

Turn it on, prompted with login, enter Google username and password, done. Not even 10 seconds. What did I get?

• My extensions ... stuff like Pandora, Bit.ly, Blogger, Picnik, Chrome to Phone, Hootsuite, Google Voice, Google Translate
• My bookmarks ... you can use your imagination here.
• My Apps ... Gmail, Google Apps, Salesforce.com, Box.net, Squarespace, Freshbooks, Blogger, Google Voice, Instant Messaging for 2 work accounts and 1 personal account, 5 calendars - work and personal, Picnik, Linkedin, Facebook, Hootsuite ... you know, the Internet. 

I have more and can do more on this brand new Chrome OS device in 10 seconds than most people even realize is possible or exists. What does this mean? This means Windows 7 is bloated. It's a waste of money and more importantly a waste of time, especially at scale. A retail copy of Office can cost almost $300 ... it is possible when Chrome OS devices hit the market some could cost less than Office.

Cloud computing is not a TV commercial. The cloud is the complete commodification of the client operating system. The browser is already the most used and useful application on a computer. The browser serves the Internet, in the Internet we find the Cloud, the Cloud is powered by millions of computers ... we can choose to use the power of 1 computer or we can choose to use the power of thousands of computers.

Larry Page, Google's CEO, is the son of a late computer scientist and computer science professor at Michigan State. Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. The point of Chrome OS is not to enable the potential of 1 computer - it is to enable the potential of thousands of computers. If you think Google is not going to follow through on Chrome OS, you're nuts.

As my friend Leo says, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."  I'll bet Larry Page knows Leo too. 

"Every computer has a browser" ... yes, and every human has a heart but if 70% of everything else is bloat you're hardly running at optimal performance. Chrome OS is fit and it stays fit - starting every time from a clean version, called Verified Boot.

5 years ago we didn't have iPhone, 3 years ago we didn't have Android, 1 year ago we didn't have iPad ... the pace of innovation and change in technology is accelerating. The thought that Apple would one day be worth more than Microsoft once seemed crazy. Today's its worth $100,000,000,000 more. Google will pass Microsoft by the middle of this year and IBM will pass them by the end of the year.

NOWHERE in technology is more stale than the desktop. They range from the rare "sweet Mac" to the more common "oh my god, you work on this everyday? I'd f'ing kill myself. You know computers aren't supposed to work like this, right?" We will see massive changes here in the next 5 years. Chrome OS will catch Windows in the next 5 years. Mac sales will continue to soar at triple digit paces, 300%+ in the enterprise, as well and will play a much more significant role in the Enterprise.

The Internet is the most disruptive innovation in human history. To think it will continue to influence every aspect of society and business and yet our soon to be secondary point of access will keep its form of the pre-Internet era is insane. Today the Web rules.

Microsoft vs. Google on Focus.com

"Google vs Microsoft. Which one is worthy of IT's trust?Google is an information harvesting Giant. Microsoft is the "evil empire". Which one do you trust your technology to?"

...kind of a silly, oversimplified question from Focus.com but it's in my wheelhouse so I let it rip...

You've asked two questions so I'll provide 2 answers. 


1. Both


Both firms are professionally run organizations with thousands of clients and intelligent, caring employees. Microsoft and Google are two of the most important companies our world has seen to date. They'll be in text books (ebooks?) right next to Ford and General Electric. For all the nonsense in the press, both firms continue to post outstanding numbers.


2. Both again, but now it gets more complicated. 


Microsoft is now about 32 years old. They are a mature, healthy on-premises software products company. They continue to compete aggressively across an impressive range of technologies. Microsoft likely competes against as many other technology companies as any firm on earth. Like it or not, the firm is going to fight for every dollar. Microsoft's profits are driven by Windows and Office. This client/server product-based business model created our world's richest man. It will continue to generate billions of dollars in revenues and profits for most of the next decade.  


Google is roughly 13 years old. They are a mature, healthy Internet services company. They also compete aggressively across an impressive range of technologies. The critical difference between the two firms is what lay at the foundation of their business models. One is a software products company, one is an Internet company. I'm not talking about what their marketing says - I'm talking about how they actually make money. So what? Well, the "so what" is the fact that the Internet is the most disruptive innovation in human history - rivaled only by the printing press and the plow. It's difficult to really get a sense of the moment in history we're experiencing first hand. As the leading Internet company, Google doesn't really have to be run all that well and they'll continue to make money hand over fist - that being said, the company is run extremely well and continues to flex its influence across a huge range of industries. 


I'll take my explanation above to a specific one-on-one case that I think you may be referring to in your question: Google Apps vs. BPOS


We'll start with Google. Today we take Google.com for granted but it is an extremely impressive SaaS application. The amount of data Google indexes, organizes and distributes globally on-demand is amazing. Google.com was one of the first globally available SaaS applications and certainly the most successful. In the quest to teach machines to understand content created by man, Google stumbled across AdWords - these two SaaS applications are a seriously powerful team. To enable these SaaS applications to be immediately available to anyone anywhere in the world, Google built a custom software and hardware infrastructure and has continued to invest heavily in this asset ... about $9,000,000,000 over the past 5 years or so. This is important because Google's other Internet services run on the same infrastructure - Google Apps for Business has much more in common with Google.com than it does Exchange Server or SharePoint. This is how Google is able to roll out new features roughly every 2 weeks to millions of users, this is how they're able to provide services at a fraction of the cost of the legacy options, this is how they're able to provide dozens of services as part of Google Apps, and this is how Gmail is able to run at 99.984% uptime. 


Now let's look at Microsoft. You noticed I used BPOS above instead of Office 365, why? Well, because Office 365 hasn't been released yet - it's not available. BPOS runs on the 2007 server products and while client/server itself was designed for a world without the Internet even these 2007 versions were designed for a world without the iPhone, Android, or the iPad. BPOS has nothing in common with Bing and everything in common with Exchange Server. Office 365 is built on the 2010 line of server products which are quickly becoming outdated themselves - the 3 year on-premises upgrade cycle just doesn't fit into the reality of today's technology environment - we move at Internet speed now. BPOS is more expensive than Google Apps and it only includes 4 services vs dozens from Apps. BPOS and Office 365 both require on-premises investments like Communications Server for BPOS and a required upgrade to Lync Server for Office 365. Is BPOS or Office 365 a smarter choice than their on-premises counter parts? Absolutely but that's hardly the measure that should be utilized - it's like comparing your car to your horse instead of the other cars. Just because Microsoft paints a racing stripe on client/server products and boards them for you doesn't turn that horse into a car. 


Google makes money with Internet services, they built a cloud and then decided they could run other SaaS applications on it along with Google.com. Microsoft makes money with client/server software products, they built data centers to host those products and called it a cloud. One's not inherently right or wrong - "cloud" is the new "light". Yes there is light ice cream but I doubt your personal trainer recommends it in any quantity. It's not Microsoft vs Google, it's business built on the Internet vs business built on client/server.