Partnership on AI

Partnership on AI
Uses Responsive Web Design (RWD) so it only “works” on a handset form factor is “mobile first” [scrape-scroll down, which is non-obvious in the officework environment]

Statement of Purpose

<quote>Established to study and formulate best practices on AI technologies, to advance the public’s understanding of AI, and to serve as an open platform for discussion and engagement about AI and its influences on people and society.</quote>

Promoters

Tier 1
  • Amazon
  • Apple
  • DeepMind, of Google
  • Google, of Alphabet (GOOG)
  • Facebook
  • IBM
  • Microsoft
Tier 2
Enumerated
Generalizing, they comprise NGOs, Centers, Centres and industry booster clubs.

Theory

As, tenets, creed, doctrine, belief, theses; enumerated as eight fourteen (Item Six has seven sub-parts)…

Classes
  • Goals to be attained. the <bizpeak>BHAG</bizspeak>.
    as indicated by a directional sense. of the effort-to-be-expended. (EtbE).
  • Values to be held, preferring privileging one value over another.
    as measured in effort-to-be-expended (EtbE).
  • Belief to be held.
Cases
  1. [Goal] The greatest good for the greatest number.
    [EtbE] ensure an outcome, like a guarantee.
  2. [Goal] Educate the seekers of the knowledge..
    [EtbE] a state of being; being bound over to, tasked unto, being committed to.
  3. [Goal] Outreach as dialog and participation.
    [EtbE] a state of being; being bound over to, tasked unto, being committed to.
  4. [Belief] Something about a broad range of stakeholders.
    [EtbE] a state of being, that such belief is so held.
  5. [Goal] Something about representation in the business community.
    [EtbE] something about “engage with” and a participation metric.
  6. [Concern] Privacy of individuals
    [EtbE] work towards.
  7. [Concern] Security of individuals
    [EtbE] work towards.
  8. [Concern] understanding and respect; a.k.a. “to serve and protect”
    [EtbE] strive.
  9. [Goal] Responsibility to [the data controllers].
    [EtbE] work towards.
  10. [Goal] Control these dangerous and powerful [and important and really really cool] technologies.
    [EtbE]: ensure an outcome, similar to a guarantee.
  11. [Goal] Violate no international laws (“conventions”); violate no human rights.
    [EtbE] oppose, wherein such an opinion is so held.
  12. [Goal[ Do no harm.
    [EtbE] promote, wherein such an opinion is so held.
  13. [Goal] Provenance tracing for system supervision.
    [EtbE] a state of being, that the belief is so held.
    <ahem>This is a system architecture requirement; it does not require a belief system or an attestation to any specific belief.</ahem>
  14. [Goal] Cooperation within the Professions so enumerated as: Scientist, Engineer.
    [EtbE]: Strive.

Concerns

Dimensions of concern are metaphorically themed as pillars, evoking an image of a Greek temple, whence knowledge came

  1. Safety
  2. Supervision
    enumerated as Fairness, Transparency, Accountability
  3. HCI (Human-Computer Interface))
  4. Labor (the anti-Luddism)
  5. Society (LE, Policy, Regulation, etc.)
  6. Charity
  7. Other

Mentions

  • Blog cadence as press releases is “about every four months.”
  • They don’t seem to have a position paper [yet].

Previously filled.

 

Payment Request API | W3C

Payment Request API; W3C; 2017-09-21.

  • Adrian Bateman, Microsoft Corporation
  • Zach Koch, Google
  • Roy McElmurry, Facebook
  • Domenic Denicola, Google
  • Marcos Cáceres, Mozilla

Promotions

Reflections on the REST Architectural Style and “Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture” | Fielding, Taylor, Erenkrantz, Gorlick, Whitehead, Khare, Oreizy

Roy T. Fielding, Richard N. Taylor, Justin Erenkrantz, Michael M. Gorlick, E. James Whitehead, Rohit Khare, Peyman Oreizy; Reflections on the REST Architectural Style and “Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture; In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2017); 2017; pages 4-11 (8 pages); landing.

Performed

Reflections on REST; keynote address; performed at the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2017); by one of Roy Fielding, Richard Taylor, Rohit Khare (expect: Rohit Khare); video; 0:47:41; slides (42 slides).

Abstract

Seventeen years after its initial publication at ICSE 2000, the Representational State Transfer (REST) architectural style continues to hold significance as both a guide for understanding how the World Wide Web is designed to work and an example of how principled design, through the application of architectural styles, can impact the development and understanding of large-scale software architecture. However, REST has also become an industry buzzword: frequently abused to suit a particular argument, confused with the general notion of using HTTP, and denigrated for not being more like a programming methodology or implementation framework. In this paper, we chart the history, evolution, and shortcomings of REST, as well as several related architectural styles that it inspired, from the perspective of a chain of doctoral dissertations produced by the University of California’s Institute for Software Research at UC Irvine. These successive theses share a common theme: extending the insights of REST to new domains and, in their own way, exploring the boundary of software engineering as it applies to decentralized software architectures and architectural design. We conclude with discussion of the circumstances, environment, and organizational characteristics that gave rise to this body of work.

Mentions

  • REpresentational State Transfer (REST)
  • Computational REpresentational State Transfer (CREST)
    Computational REST (CREST)
  • Capability Uniform Resource Locator (CURL)
    Capability URL (CURL)
  • COmputAtional State Transfer (COAST)
  • Computing Resource Exchange with Security (COAST)
  • ARRESTED
  • Application Programming Interface (API)
  • Distributed Hash Table (DHT)
  • SIENA (Scalable Internet Event Notification Architectures)
  • XML
  • DHT
  • HTTP
  • REST
  • bit.ly
  • Persistsent Uniform Resource Locator (PURL)
    Persistsent URL (PURL)
  • Notifications
    • e.g. on page transitions
    • HTML ping
    • DOM, onClick, onLoad, onAnything
    • M. Thomson, E. Damaggio, B Raymor. Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push. RFC 8030. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2016.
  • Google Analytics
  • Google Docs
  • Google Sheets
  • AJAX
  • JavaScript
  • HTTP
    • LINK
    • UNLINK
  • Peer-to-Peer (P2P)
  • Decentralized Applications (DAPPs, dApps)
  • Client/Server
  • Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV, WEBDAV)
    • lock-based concurrency control
    • An RPC-based client-server centralized ile system with remote access “over HTTP”
  • Limitations of REST
    • one-shot
    • one-to-one
    • one-way
  • execution engine
  • binding environment
  • COAST
    • Capabilities
      • Services
      • Messaging
      • Interpretation
    • Claims
      • Secure remote code execution (RCE)
      • Live update
      • Novel
      • Monitoring & Traceability
      • Something about refactoring:
        Server abdication, client redelegation, server re-offering (fewer services), client reprogramming of the server.
      • Dynamic Reconfiguration
  • Group Consensus and Simultaneous Agreement (GCSA)
  • WebRTC,
  • Websockets
  • Webhooks
  • HTTP/2
  • Internet of Things (IoT)
  • Content Distrubtion Network (CDN)
  • TrueTime
  • GlobalClock
  • Apache Kafka
  • Amazon Kinesis,
  • Google Cloud Pub/Sub
  • Amazon Lambda,
  • IFTTT
  • ‘assistants’, a natural language conversational product concept, within the buzzy AI business culture. Think: Eliza, that you built in high school.
  • Cassandra
  • NoSQL
  • Federated Learning
  • Merkle Hash Trees (not MHT)
  • Bitcoin
  • <buzz>blockchain</buzz>
  • Git
    • is a decentralized in concept.
    • is not decentrlaized in practice, c.f. GitHub
  • Software-as-a-Service (SaaS)
  • Computational REpresentational State Transfer (CREST)
  • Aura
  • Nikander
  • Trickles
  • network continuations
  • Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP)
    • HTTP/1.1
    • HTTP/2
  • DARPA
  • NSF
  • ISR (Irvine Software Rationalization?)
  • Arcadia

Behavior, Asynchrony, State, Execution (BASE)

Concept

Adapability requires the design-time  actions…

LP1
making the parts that are subject to change identifiable, discrete and manipulable.
LP2
providing mechanisms for controlling interactions between the parts subject to change.
LP3
providing techniques for managing state.

Elaborated

  • Peyman Oreizy, Nenad Medvidovic, Richard N. Taylor. Runtime Software Adaptation: Framework, Approaches, and Styles. In Companion of 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE Companion). 2008. ACM. pages 899–910.
  • Richard N. Taylor, Nenad Medvidovic, Peyman Oreizy. Architectural Styles for Runtime Software Adaptation. In Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and Third European Conference on Software Architecture. IEEE Computer Society, 171–180. 2009.

Exemplars

  • C2
  • CREST
  • MapReduce
  • Pipe-and-Filter
  • Event Notifications
  • “and others.”

Disambiguation

  1. within the transaction formalization of Database Theory
    • Basically Available, Soft state, Eventual consistency (BASE)
      not as used herein.
    • a consistency model wherein everything almost works
      riposte: “eventually we are all dead.”
    • Contra
      • Always Computing In Denial (ACID)
      • Atomicity Consistency Isolation Durability (ACID)
  2. within the Dynamic Software Architectures Theory, page 9.
    • Behavior
    • Asynchrony
    • State
    • Execution
  3. within the ARRESTED Theory, page 10.
    the “mindset” of a node in a distributed network.
    Best-Effort
    Others are making their best effort, as are you.
    Approximate
    There is only approximate knowledge of the state of The Other; your theory of mind is limited & foggy, slacky-latent.
    Self-centered
    Others are self-centered, as are you.
    Efficient
    Make efficient use of the only global resource: communication bandwidth to others; i.e. time is the only finite resource.

Asynchronous, Routed, REpresentational State Transfer with Estimation & Delgation (A+R+REST+E+D, ARRESTED)

  • Polling (and its inverse Asynchrony)
  • Asynchrony (and its inverse Polling)
  • Routing
  • Delegation
  • Estimation

Concept

Theory
REST+P
REST with Polling.
REST+E
REST with Estimation.
A+REST
REST with Asynchrony (callbacks).
R+REST
REST with Routing (packets).
REST+D
REST with Delegation (proxies, gateways).
ARREST
Asynchronous, Routed, REST.
ARREST+E
Asynchronous, Routed, REST, with Estimation.
ARREST+D
Asynchronous, Routed, REST, with Delgation.
ARREST+D
Asynchronous, Routed, REST, with Estimation & Delgation.
ARRESTED
A synonym for slow, yes?
Topology

The metaphor.

Poles
North
Centralized Systems
East
Estimated Systems
South
Decentralized Systems
West
Distributed Systems
Boundaries
now horizon
  • Master-Slave Styles
  • Peer-to-Peer Styles
agency boundary
  • Consensus-Based Styles
  • Consensus-Free Styles

Elaborated

Techniques

  • Bitcoin
  • and other distributed ledger schemes.

Computational REpresentational State Transfer (CREST)

Is just like functional programming.

  • The Poetry
    • mashups of Web culture are “the same as” continuations in programming language theory & culture. c.f. Scheme & SML
    • 300-series redirects are continuations

Principles

CP1
The key abstraction of computation is a resource, named by an URL.
CP2
The representation of a resource is a program, a closure, a continuation, or a binding environment plus metadata to describe the program, closure, continuation, or binding environment.
CP3
All computations are context-free.
CP4
Only a few primitive operations are always available, but additional per-resource operations are also encouraged.
CP5
The presence of intermediaries is promoted.

Concept

  • Ship code+data as a package to evaluate off-box (over there, on their box).
  • Receive code+data as a package to evaluate on-box (here on our box).
  • What could go possibly wrong here? [over there?]

Elaborations

  • Justin R. Erenkrantz. Computational REST: A New Model for Decentralized, Internet-Scale Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2009.
  • Justin R. Erenkrantz, Michael Gorlick, Girish Suryanarayana, Richard N. Taylor. Harmonizing Architectural Dissonance in REST-based Architectures. Technical Report UCI-ISR-06-18. Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine. 2006.
  • Justin R. Erenkrantz, Michael M. Gorlick, Girish Suryanarayana, Richard N. Taylor. From Representations to Computations: The Evolution of Web Architectures. In ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). 2007. pages 255–264.
  • Roy T. Fielding. Maintaining distributed hypertext infostructures: Welcome to MOMspider’s Web. In Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27, 2. 1994. pages 193–204. doi:10.1016/0169-7552(94)90133-3. Series title? Selected Papers of the First World-Wide Web Conference.

Techniques

  • web mashups
  • session management
  • cookies in client/server interactions
    <quote>, and the (misplaced) role of cookies in client/server interactions</quote>
  • time-dependent resources; e.g. weather forecasts.
  • time-series responses; e.g. stock tickers.

<editorial>Why aren’t cookies necessary again? They uniquely number the consumer base. They are used to develop Measurement, Targeting, Retargeting & Profiling which are the explicit and probably only renumerative use case of the (online) media business model. Oh, right, and paywalls. And, um, public televison-type “membership drive” tip jars.</editorial>

References

There are 59 references.

Abstracted

  • Roy T. Fielding, Richard N. Taylor. Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 2000. pages 407–416. IEEE, Limerick, Ireland.

Dissertated

  • Justin R. Erenkrantz. Computational REST: A New Model for Decentralized, Internet-Scale Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2009.
  • Roy T. Fielding. Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, California, USA. 2000.
  • Michael Martin Gorlick. Computational State Transfer: An Architectural Style for Decentralized Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technical Report UCI-ISR-16-3. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2016.
  • David Alan Halls. Applying Mobile Code to Distributed Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 1997.
  • Michael Hicks. Dynamic Software Updating. Ph.D. Dissertation. Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2001.
  • Rohit Khare. Extending the REpresentational State Transfer (REST) Architectural Style for Decentralized Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, California, USA. 2003.
  • Mark Samuel Miller. Robust Composition: Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2006.
  • Peyman Oreizy. Open architecture software: a flexible approach to decentralized software evolution. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
  • Emmet James Whitehead, Jr. An Analysis of the Hypertext Versioning Domain. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2000.

Complete

  1. T. Aura, P. Niklander. Stateless Connections. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information and Communication Security (Lecture Notes In Computer Science), Y. Han, T. Okamoto, S. Qing (editors), Vol. 1334. Springer-Verlag, 1997. pages 87–97.
  2. Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Cailliau, Ari Luotonen, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, Arthur Secret. The World-Wide Web. In Communications of the ACM, 37, 8. 1994-08. pages 76–82. doi:10.1145/179606.179671.
  3. Tim Berners-Lee, Roy T. Fielding, Larry Masinter. Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax. RFC 3986. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2005-01. doi:10.17487/RFC3986.
  4. Tim Berners-Lee, Roy T. Fielding, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen. Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.0. RFC 1945. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 1996-05. doi:10.17487/RFC1945.
  5. Tim Berners-Lee, Jean-Francois Groff. The World Wide Web (a.k.a. WWW). In SIGBIO Newsletter, 12, 3. 1992-09. pages 37–40. doi:10.1145/147126.147133.
  6. Keith Bonawitz, Vladimir Ivanov, Ben Kreuter, Antonio Marcedone, H. Brendan McMahan, Sarvar Patel, Daniel Ramage, Aaron Segal, Karn Seth. Practical Secure Aggregation for Federated Learning on User-Held Data. In Proceedings of the NIPS Workshop on Private Multi-Party Machine Learning. 2016. landing.
  7. Antonio Carzaniga, David S. Rosenblum, Alexander L. Wolf. Design and Evaluation of a Wide-Area Event Notification Service. In ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 19, 3. 2001-08. pages 332–383. paywall.
  8. James C. Corbett, Jeffrey Dean et. al. Spanner: Google’s Globally-distributed Database. In Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI). 2012. pages 251–264. paywall, landing. slides: pptx, event: session.
  9. Chris Dixon. Crypto Tokens: A Breakthrough in Open Network Design. In His Blog, centrally hosted on Medium. 2017-06.
  10. L. Dusseault. HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WEBDAV). RFC 4918. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2007.
  11. Justin R. Erenkrantz. Computational REST: A New Model for Decentralized, Internet-Scale Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2009.
  12. Justin R. Erenkrantz, Michael Gorlick, Girish Suryanarayana, Richard N. Taylor. Harmonizing Architectural Dissonance in REST-based Architectures. Technical Report UCI-ISR-06-18. Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine. 2006.
  13. Justin R. Erenkrantz, Michael M. Gorlick, Girish Suryanarayana, Richard N. Taylor. From Representations to Computations: The Evolution of Web Architectures. In ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE). 2007. pages 255–264.
  14. Roy T. Fielding. Maintaining distributed hypertext infostructures: Welcome to MOMspider’s Web. In Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 27, 2. 1994. pages 193–204. doi:10.1016/0169-7552(94)90133-3. Series title? Selected Papers of the First World-Wide Web Conference.
  15. Roy T. Fielding. Relative Uniform Resource Locators. RFC 1808. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 1995-06. doi:10.17487/RFC1808.
  16. Roy T. Fielding. Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, California, USA. 2000.
  17. Roy T. Fielding, Gail Kaiser. The Apache HTTP Server Project. In IEEE Internet Computing. 1, 4. 1997-07. pages 88–90. doi:10.1109/4236.612229
  18. Roy T. Fielding, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, Jeffrey Mogul, Jim Gettys, Tim Berners-Lee. Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1. RFC 2068. 1997-01. doi:10.17487/RFC2068
  19. Roy T. Fielding, Julian Reschke. Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content. RFC 7231. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2014-06. doi:10.17487/RFC7231.
  20. Roy T. Fielding, Richard N. Taylor. Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 2000. pages 407–416. IEEE, Limerick, Ireland.
  21. Roy T. Fielding, Richard N. Taylor. Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture. In ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 2, 2. 2002-05. pages 115–150.
  22. Roy T. Fielding, E. James Whitehead, Jr., Kenneth M. Anderson, Gregory A. Bolcer, Peyman Oreizy, Richard N. Taylor. Web-Based Development of Complex Information Products. In Communications of the ACM, 41, 8. 1998-08. pages 84–92.
  23. Matias Giorgio, Richard N. Taylor. Accountability Through Architecture for Decentralized Systems: A Preliminary Assessment. Technical Report UCI-ISR-15-2. Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine. 2015.
  24. Cristiano Giuffrida, Anton Kuijsten, Andrew S. Tanenbaum. 2013. Safe and Automatic Live Update for Operating Systems. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS’13). ACM, New York City, New York, USA, 279–292.
  25. Y. Goland, E. Whitehead, A. Faizi, S. Carter, D. Jensen. HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring – WEBDAV. RFC 2518. Internet Engineering Task Force. 1999.
  26. Michael Martin Gorlick. Computational State Transfer: An Architectural Style for Decentralized Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technical Report UCI-ISR-16-3. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2016.
  27. Michael M. Gorlick, Kyle Strasser, Richard N. Taylor. COAST: An Architectural Style for Decentralized On-Demand Tailored Services. In Proceedings of 2012 Joint Working Conference on Software Architecture & 6th European Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA/ECSA). 2012. pages 71–80.
  28. David Alan Halls. Applying Mobile Code to Distributed Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 1997.
  29. Michael Hicks. Dynamic Software Updating. Ph.D. Dissertation. Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2001.
  30. Irvine Research Unit in Software (IRUS). The Workshop on Internet-Scale Technology (TWIST). A series, 1998-2000.
  31. R. Kadia. Issues Encountered in Building a Flexible Software Development Environment: Lessons from the Arcadia Project. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Software Development Environments (SDE). 1992. ACM, New York, NY, USA. pages 169–180. doi:10.1145/142868.143768.
  32. Rohit Khare. Extending the REpresentational State Transfer (REST) Architectural Style for Decentralized Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, California, USA. 2003.
  33. Rohit Khare, Richard N. Taylor. Extending the REpresentational State Transfer Architectural Style for Decentralized Systems. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 2004. IEEE Computer Society, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. pages 428–437.
  34. Avinash Lakshman, Prashant Malik. Cassandra: A Decentralized Structured Storage System. In SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 44, 2. 2010-04. pages 35–40.
  35. David Mazieres. The stellar consensus protocol: A federated model for internet-level consensus. Stellar Development Foundation. 2015.
  36. Mark Samuel Miller. Robust Composition: Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control. Ph.D. Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2006.
  37. Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. 2008.
  38. Peyman Oreizy. Open architecture software: a flexible approach to decentralized software evolution. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
  39. Peyman Oreizy, Michael M. Gorlick, Richard N. Taylor, Dennis Heimbigner, Gregory Johnson, Nenad Medvidovic, Alex Quilici, David Rosenblum. An Architecture-based Approach to Self-Adaptive Software. In IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14, 3. 1999-05 (May-June). pages 54–62.
  40. Peyman Oreizy, Nenad Medvidovic, Richard N. Taylor. Architecture-Based Runtime Software Evolution. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1998. pages 177–186.
  41. Peyman Oreizy, Nenad Medvidovic, Richard N. Taylor. Runtime Software Adaptation: Framework, Approaches, and Styles. In Companion of 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE Companion). 2008. ACM. pages 899–910.
  42. Peyman Oreizy, Richard N. Taylor. 1998. On the role of software architectures in runtime system reconfiguration. In IEE Proceedings-Software, 145, 5. 1998. pages 137–145.
  43. Dewayne E. Perry, Alexander L. Wolf. 1992. Foundations for the Study of Software Architecture. In SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 17, 4. 1992-10. pages 40–52. doi:10.1145/141874.141884.
  44. Sean Rhea, Brighten Godfrey, Brad Karp, John Kubiatowicz, Sylvia Ratnasamy, Scott Shenker, Ion Stoica, Harlan Yu. OpenDHT: A Public DHT Service and Its Uses. In SIGCOMM Computing Communication Review, 35, 4. 2005-08. pages 73–84.
  45. Alan Shieh, Andrew C. Myers, Emin G. Sirer. Trickles: A Stateless Network Stack for Improved Scalability, Resilience, and Flexibility. In Proceedings of Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation,/em> (NSDI), Vol. 2. USENIX Association. 2005. pages 175–188.
  46. Alan Shieh, Andrew C. Myers, Emin Gün Sirer. A Stateless Approach to Connection-Oriented Protocols. In ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 26, 3. 2008-09. pages 8:1–8:50.
  47. James W. Stamos, David K. Gifford. Implementing Remote Evaluation. In IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 16, 7. 1990-07. pages 710–722.
  48. James W. Stamos, David K. Gifford. Remote Evaluation. In ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 12, 4. 1990-10. pages 537–564.
  49. Chengzheng Sun, Xiaohua Jia, Yanchun Zhang, Yun Yang, David Chen. Achieving Convergence, Causality Preservation, and Intention Preservation in Real-time Cooperative Editing Systems. In ACM Transactions on Complicating Human Interactions (HCI), 5, 1. 1998-03. pages 63–108.
  50. Richard N. Taylor, Nenad Medvidovic, et al. A Component- and Message- Based Architectural Style for GUI Software. In Transactions on Software Engineering. 1996-06. pages 390–406.
  51. Richard N. Taylor, Nenad Medvidovic, Eric M. Dashofy. Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons. 2010. ASIN:B012AQ8M42: Kindle: no, paper: $151-$600.
  52. Richard N. Taylor, Nenad Medvidovic, Peyman Oreizy. Architectural Styles for Runtime Software Adaptation. In Proceedings of the Eighth Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and Third European Conference on Software Architecture. IEEE Computer Society, 171–180. 2009.
  53. R.D. Tennant. 1976. The Denotational Semantics of Programming Languages. In Communications of the ACM 19, 8. 1976-08. pages 437–453.
  54. M. Thomson, E. Damaggio, B Raymor. Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push. RFC 8030. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2016.
  55. Emmet James Whitehead, Jr. An Analysis of the Hypertext Versioning Domain. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2000.
  56. Emmet James Whitehead, Jr., Yaron Goland. The WebDAV Property Design. In Software, Practice and Experience 34 2004, 135–161.
  57. Wikipedia. 2017. Representational state transfer,/a>. In Wikipedia. 2017.
  58. Scott Wolchok, J Alex Halderman. Crawling BitTorrent DHTs for Fun and Profit. In Proceedings of the Fourth USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT10). 2010.
  59. Gavin Wood. 2014. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Paper 151. Ethereum Project Yellow Papers 2014.

Previously filled.

Tech is Public Enemy #1. So Now What? | John Battelle

John Battelle; Tech Is Public Enemy #1. So Now What?; In His Blog, white-labeled as NewCo, centrally-hosted on Medium; 2017-09-10.
Teaser: If tech wants to reverse the crushing tide of negative public opinion, it must start creating public good commensurate with its extraction of private profit.

tl;dr → Agree, perhaps. But it’s not clear to what one is agreeing at all. Whereas the lede is buried; that being the promotion of Richard Florida’s book The New Urban Crisis.
and → Unto the hook of the title: For the sin, The Nostrum. To wit:

Nostrum
  • Enumerate.
  • Confess,
  • Repent,
  • Restitute, reparate.
  • Return.

Occasion

John Battelle interviewed Richard Florida towards a book promotion.

Book

Richard Florida The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class—and What We Can Do About It 1st Edition ; Basic Books; 2017-04-11; 336 pages; ASIN:0465079741: Kindle: $18, paper: $12+SHT.

Mentions

  • Where “tech” is Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and maybe Netflix (rly?).
  • And JB foresaw it in a vision of 2017-01; fair. he also “saw” it in 2011-12, had Microsoft in the cohort, and pitched “The Internet Big Five” as a gushing chronicle-of-the-times, only-time-will-tell honorific of boosterist veneration. indeed though, it’s okay to change one’s mind upon further reflection.
  • Richard Florida is granted 191 words at the end to speak as a threat.
    Whereas Richard Florida has a direct line to Congress.
    Unless his demands are met … something will happen
  • Google Apple Facebook Amazon (GAFA),
    Google Amazon Facebook Apple (GAFA)
  • Facebook Amazon Netflix Google (FANG),
    Facebook Apple Netflix Google (FANG)
  • No Wintel.  The PC Revolution is over O.V.E.R.
    • No Microsoft?
    • No Intel?
Definition: the “tech” is an enumeration
  • Apple → fabless. Purveyors of phones & some laptops.
  • Amazon → Retail reseller. Cloud (billed as a service).
  • Facebook → Entertainment. laid against advertising.
  • Google → Fabless, phone designs. Cloud (billed as a service), Advertising marketplaces.  And 25 other hobbies as “Alphabet.”
  • Netflix → Licensed video entertainment. An Amazon cloud customer.
    …can’t really seriously belong in the class of the first four can it?

Epithets

  • Uber — a company that proved a perfect exemplar of tech’s most sociopathic characteristics*.
  • <quote>The bro culture long parodied in popular culture proved to be virulently on display at the world’s most valuable startup — misogyny, tone deaf management, winning at all costs, ignorance of social and political consequence.</quote>
  • Everything Store
  • <quote>rapacious and robotic approach to platform capitalism</quote>
  • Amazon’s purchase of Whole Foods
  • Big Tech
  • fake news
  • Russian information ops
  • <quote>They’re extracting — but giving nothing back.</quote>

Rebuttal

New bogies for new panics, not the old bogies from old panics…

Missing

Anyone that actually makes things out of actual atoms. No one is afraid of companies that fabricate things out of atoms.

  • Industry (even so called “light industry”)
  • Big Defense (denizens of ‘I’ in Military-Industrial Complex)
  • Big Oil
  • Big Food
  • Big Finance, a.k.a. “Wall Street”
  • Big Auto
  • Big Semiconductor
  • Big Telecom
  • Big Blue, a.k.a. IBM
  • Big Mining
  • Big Ads, a.k.a. “Madison Avenue”
  • Big Media, a.k.a. major market television
  • Big Music, a.k.a. “the Record Labels”
  • Big Hollywood, a.k.a. “The Movie Studios”
  • Big Newspaper
  • Big Cable
  • The Diamond Cartel, e.g. de Beers
  • Railroad Trusts
  • Anyone on the Conference Board.
    Remember the “interlocking directorate” research of ‘ago?
  • The QSR, as a self-conscious class.
  • Disney
  • Microsoft
  • Walmart
  • McDonald’s

And

  • No Japanese conglomerates. Remember MITI-managed organized markets?
  • No European national champions. Remember the ’90s?

Referenced

In archaeological order, newer outbursts on top, older opinements below…

Previously

In His Blog

Related

The publishing pile-on exponentially increasing across 2015, 2016, 2017. There are many more than are presented here. Everyone is sayin’ it, doin’ it; walkin’ the walk, talkin’ the talk. Yet presented here in archaeological order, newer outbursts on top, older opinements below…

Previously filled.

The Fate of Online Trust in the Next Decade | Pew Research Center

, ; The Fate of Online Trust in the Next Decade; Pew Research Center; 2017-08-10; 89 pages; landing.

Teaser

Many experts say lack of trust will not be a barrier to increased public reliance on the internet. Those who are hopeful that trust will grow expect technical and regulatory change will combat users’ concerns about security and privacy. Those who have doubts about progress say people are inured to risk, addicted to convenience and will not be offered alternatives to online interaction. Some expect the very nature of trust will change.

Concept

  • Delphi-type survey design
  • N=1,233
  • A pull-quote generation vehicle. To Wit.

Summary

  • 48% → trust will be strengthened
  • 28% → trust will stay the same
  • 24% → trust will be diminished

Scope

Six major themes on the future of trust in online interactions

Theme 1
Trust will strengthen because systems will improve and people will adapt to them and more broadly embrace them

  • Better technology plus regulatory and industry changes will help increase trust
  • The younger generation and people whose lives rely on technology the most are the vanguard of those who most actively use it, and these groups will grow larger
Theme 2
The nature of trust will become more fluid as technology embeds itself into human and organizational relationships

  • Trust will be dependent upon immediate context and applied differently in different circumstances
  • Trust is not binary or evenly distributed; there are different levels of it
Theme 3
Trust will not grow, but technology usage will continue to rise, as a “new normal” sets in

  • “The trust train has left the station”; sacrifices tied to trust are a “side effect of progress”
  • People often become attached to convenience and inured to risk
  • There will be no choice for users but to comply and hope for the best
Theme 4
Some say blockchain could help; some expect its value might be limited

  • Blockchain has potential to improve things
  • There are reasons to think blockchain might not be as disruptive and important as its advocates expect it to be
Theme 5
The less-than-satisfying current situation will not change much in the next decade
Theme 6
Trust will diminish because the internet is not secure, and powerful forces threaten individuals’ rights

  • Corporate and government interests are not motivated to improve trust or protect the public
  • Criminal exploits will diminish trust

Producers

Imagining The Internet (Center)
  • Pew Research Center
  • Elon University

Previously filled.

Surviving on a Diet of Poisoned Fruit: Reducing the National Security Risks of America’s Cyber Dependencies | Danzig (CNAS)

Richard J. Danzig; Surviving on a Diet of Poisoned Fruit Reducing the National Security Risks of America’s Cyber Dependencies; Center for a New American Security; 2014-07; 64 pages; landing.

tl;dr → a metaphor for an ambivalent relationship with the technical platforms upon which all things depend.  Writ large into the relationship with the supply chain that we do not control and is inimical to our interests..

Executive Summary

Digital technologies, commonly referred to as cyber systems, are a security paradox: Even as they grant unprecedented powers, they also make users less secure. Their communicative capabilities enable collaboration and networking, but in so doing they open doors to intrusion. Their concentration of data and manipulative power vastly improves the efficiency and scale of operations, but this concentration in turn exponentially increases the amount that can be stolen or subverted by a successful attack. The complexity of their hardware and software creates great capability, but this complexity spawns vulnerabilities and lowers the visibility of intrusions. Cyber systems’ responsiveness to instruction makes them invaluably flexible; but it also permits small changes in a component’s design or direction to degrade or subvert system behavior. These systems’ empowerment of users to retrieve and manipulate data democratizes capabilities, but this great benefit removes safeguards present in systems that require hierarchies of human approvals. In sum, cyber systems nourish us, but at the same time they weaken and poison us.

The first part of this paper illuminates this intertwining. The second part surveys the evolution of strategies to achieve greater cybersecurity. Disadvantaged by early design choices that paid little attention to security, these strategies provide some needed protection, especially when applied collectively as a coordinated “defense in depth.” But they do not and never can assure comprehensive protection; these strategies are typically costly, and users will commonly choose to buy less security than they could obtain because of the operational, financial or convenience costs of obtaining that security.

Three other factors, discussed in Section V, amplify cyber insecurity. First, the cyber domain is an area of conflict. Cyberspace is adversarial, contested territory. Our adversaries (including criminals, malevolent groups and opposing states) co-evolve with us. The resulting ecosystem is not static or stable. Second, the speed of cyber dissemination and change outpaces our recognition of problems and adoption of individual and societal safeguards to respond to them. Protective actions are likely to continue to lag behind security needs. Third, in cyberspace America confronts greater-than customary limits to U.S. government power because of the global proliferation of cyber capabilities, cyber attackers’ ability to remain outside the United States even while operating within the country’s systems and our likely inability, over the long term, to avoid technological surprise. Two-thirds of a century of technological dominance in national security matters has left the United States intuitively ill-prepared for technology competitions that it probably will not continue to dominate and in which there is a high likelihood of surprise.

What then is to be done? The concluding part of this paper does not attempt to recapitulate or evaluate efforts now extensively debated or in progress. It focuses instead on recommending initiatives that deserve fresh attention from U.S. government decision-makers. These include:

  1. Articulate a national security standard defining what it is imperative to protect in cyberspace. The suggested standard is: “The United States cannot allow the insecurity of our cyber systems to reach a point where weaknesses in those systems would likely render the United States unwilling to make a decision or unable to act on a decision fundamental to our national security.” A more stringent standard may later be in order, but this standard can now secure a consensus, illuminate the minimum that the United States needs to do and therefore provide an anvil against which the nation can hammer out programs and priorities.
  2. Pursue a strategy that self-consciously sacrifices some cyber benefits in order to ensure greater security for key systems on which security depends. Methods for pursuing this strategy include stripping down systems so they do less but have fewer vulnerabilities; integrating humans and other out-of-band (i.e., non-cyber) factors so the nation is not solely dependent on digital systems; integrating diverse and redundant cyber alternatives; and making investments for graceful degradation. Determining the trade-offs between operational loss and security gain through abnegating choices will require and reward the development of a new breed of civilian policymakers, managers and military officers able to understand both domains.
  3. Recognize that some private-sector systems fall within the national security standard. Use persuasion, federal acquisition policies, subsidy and regulation to
  4. apply the abnegating approach to these systems. While doing this, reflect an appreciation of the rapidity of cyber change by focusing on required ends while avoiding specification of means. Refrain from regulating systems that are not critical.
  5. Bolster cyber strategic stability between the United States and other major nation-states by seeking agreement on cyber constraints and confidence-building measures. As an early initiative of this kind, focus on buttressing the fragile norm of not using cyber as a means of physical attack between China, Russia and the United States.
  6. Evaluate degradation in the sought-after certainties of mutually assured destruction (MAD) as a result of uncertainties inherent in cyber foundations for nuclear command, control and attack warning. If we are moving to a regime of mutually unassured destruction (MUD), suggest to China and Russia that we are all becoming less secure. Then pursue agreements that all parties refrain from cyber intrusions into nuclear command, control and warning systems.
  7. Map the adversarial ecosystem of cyberspace in anthropological detail with the aim of increasing our understanding of our adversaries and our own incentives and methods of operation.
  8. Use the model of voluntary reporting of near-miss incidents in aviation to establish a data collection consortium that will illuminate the character and magnitude of cyber attacks against the U.S. private sector. Use this enterprise as well to help develop common terminology and metrics about cybersecurity.
  9. Establish a federally funded research and development center focused on providing an elite cyber workforce for the federal government. Hire that workforce by cyber competition rather than traditional credentials, and promote, train, retain and assign (including to the private sector) that workforce by standards different from those currently used in federal hiring.

Previously filled.

Roundup on Onavo Protect VPN used to inform Facebook UX, M&A | Houseparty contra Bonfire, On This Day contra Timehop

In archaeological order…

tl;dr → Onavo is a VPN. Facebook snoops the traffic on it to grok trends. Trends highlights cause cloned features in Facebook UX or deal flow at Facebook M&A.

  • The Washington Post piece goes broad to illustrate the pattern across a wide range of business lines and a long time span.
  • The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) piece goes deep to focus on travel log: group video chat with Facebook’s attempt to acqui-hire Houseparty prior to the launch of Bonfire in 2017-Q4 (“in the Fall”).

Mentions

  • Onavo
    • Onavo Protect
    • Tel Aviv, Israel
  • Science
    • a startup studio, an incubator, a venture capital shop.
    • Los Angeles.
  • Meerkat
  • Verto Analytics
    • sourced the DAU factoids.
    • Hannu Verkasalo, CEO
  • Sensor Tower.
    • sourced the app popularity factoids
  • Bonfire, Facebook

The Four Dominant Companies

  • Apple
  • Google Alphabet
  • Amazon
  • Facebook

AAAF? AGAF? GAAF?

Concept

The Misdirection

Onavo does not not state its affiliation with Facebook in T&C on stores.
This is positioned as a sort of misdirective cloaking to consumers. It allows Facebook to observe nominally the VPN traffic flowing over “its” wires.

The Subsumption

Facebook competitor apps become tabs in the Facebook UX.

  • Event scheduling
    Cloning: Meetup
  • Fundraising
    Cloning: Kickstarter, GoFundMe
  • Messaging (WattsApp)
    Cloning: SMS
  • Marketplace
    Cloning: Craigslist
  • Meal delivery
    Cloning: Grubhub, Seamless, Caviar, Postmates.
  • Photo memorabilia (On This Day)
    Cloning: Timehop, Dropbox, Google Drive, iPhone camera (on box?)

The Pattern

Amazon

  • Quidsi of Diapers.com
  • Something contra Blue Apron

Facebook

  • Instagram
  • WhatsApp
  • Something contra Snap’s Snapchat.

Google Alphabet

  • Waze for (Google) Maps
  • Something contra Snap’s Snapchat.

Exemplars

Timehop

  • an app
  • cloned by Facebook

Houseparty

  • an app
    • casual small-group chat by video.
    • Like, but different
      • Meerkat
      • (Google) Hangouts
      • “everyone” has a teen-focused group chat.…
    • Cultures (both)
    • The promotion page uses Flash.
      <snide>Are you kidding me?  In 2017?</snide>
    • Something about a kerfluffle with a change in the Terms & Conditions (T&C)
  • Launched
    • 2016-02.
    • as Life on Air Inc.; renamed Houseparty
  • Location
    • San Francisco, CA
    • Some warehouse; around SOMA
  • Founders
    • Ben Rubin,
      • age 29
    • Sima Sistani
      • age 38
    • Itai Danino
      • exists
  • Funders
    • Greylock Partners
      via

      • Josh Elman, with board representation
    • Sequoia
      via

      • Mike Vernal, with board representation
      • $50M
      • 2016?
  • Staff
    • Employees
      • 25
      • “30% increase” since “then” in 2016.
    • Kinshuk Mishra
      • vice president of engineering, Houseparty
      • ex-Spotify AB
      • hired 2016

Quotes

  • “Don’t be too proud to copy” attributed to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook via a leaked memo; in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

Attributed to The Washington Post.

  • <quote>acebook is able to glean detailed insights about what consumers are doing when they are not using the social network’s family of apps, which includes Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram</quote>
  • <quote>Facebook’s use of Onavo is partly borne of need. Because Google and Apple, for instance, control the operating systems in which many apps live, they have access to huge amounts of information about how consumers use their apps. Facebook is more limited. It knows what consumers do within its own apps, and it knows about behavior on apps that work with Facebook — such as for sign-in credentials. Onavo, on the other hand, helps Facebook’s expanding ambitions by offering near real-time access to information about what users do while Onavo is active in the background. Onavo sends anonymized data to Facebook on what apps consumers have installed, how frequently they open those apps, how long they linger inside them, and the sequence throughout the day of consumers’ app usage — information that functions as an early-detection system on whether an app is gaining popularity, according to the people familiar with the company’s activities. This information can be far more valuable, and be available earlier, than waiting for an app or feature to publicly take off.</quote>
  • <quote>Onavo was used to detect the popularity outside the United States of the messaging service WhatsApp, which Facebook purchased for $19 billion in 2014, several months after the Onavo acquisition, according to the people familiar with the company’s activities</quote>

Attributed ot The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

  • <quote>Facebook uses an internal database to track rivals, including young startups performing unusually well, people familiar with the system say. The database stems from Facebook’s 2013 acquisition of a Tel Aviv-based startup, Onavo, which had built an app that secures users’ privacy by routing their traffic through private servers. The app gives Facebook an unusually detailed look at what users collectively do on their phones, these people say.</quote>
  • <quote>Mr. Elman says he is encouraged that Bonfire is a stand-alone app and that Facebook hasn’t been particularly successful with those. But, he says, if Facebook figures out how to integrate the power of Houseparty “into a property that I’m already using 10 times a day, that would scare the crap out of me.”</quote>
    but that’s sorof the point of launching Bonfire as a separable MVP.

Who

In alphabetical order…

  • Jeffrey P. Bezos
    • CEO, Amazon
    • owner, The Washington Post.
  • Itai Danino
    • founder, Houseparty
    • not featured, quoted, pictured.
  • Josh Elman
    • partner, Greylock Partners
    • investor, director, Houseparty
    • ex-product manager, Facebook.
  • Scott Heiferman, chief executive, Meetup.com.
  • Alfred Lin, partner, Sequoia.
  • Kinshuk Mishra
    • vice president of engineering, Houseparty
    • ex-Spotify AB
  • Roger McNamee
    • founder, Elevation Partners
    • claims on Facebook & Google,
      • reminds us of his prescience as evidenced in his early contribution credit.
      • regret on his early contribution as such participation is no longer politic:
        I helped create the Google-Facebook monster — and I’m sorry; Roger McNamee; an oped; In USA Today; 2017-08-08.
        Teaser: ‘Brain hacking’ Internet monopolies menace public health, democracy, writes Roger McNamee.
  • Peter Pham, co-founder, Science (a vc boutique).
  • Scott Sandell
    • managing partner, New Enterprise Associates
    • ex-product manager, Windows 95, Microsoft.
    • quoted for color, background & verisimilitude;
      a confessional testifying to illegal, abusive & predatory aggressive M&A tactics from “back in the day.”
  • Fidji Simo, “head” of “video efforts”, Facebook.
  • Sima Sistani
    • founder, Houseparty
    • age 38
    • featured, quoted, pictured.
  • Scott Stern
    • professor, management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
    • quoted for color, background & verisimilitude.
      testification that an early exit is good for the investors & good for the founders, and something vague about <quote>might be at the expense of a more competitive landscape</quote>
  • Ben Rubin
    • founder, Houseparty
    • age 29
    • featured, quoted, pictured.
  • Rick Webb, CEO, Timehop.
  • Hannu Verkasalo, CEO, Verto Analytics
  • Mike Vernal
    • partner, Sequoia
    • investor, director, Houseparty
    • ex-”executive,” Facebook.
  • Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook

Sources

The Washington Post

  • Some, surely; they went broad.
  • <quote>Facebook declined to comment but noted [some platitudes]</quote>
  • Not so obviously sourced on deep background & pure gossip & rumor.

The Wall Street Journal

  • <quote>says a person familiar with the contacts.</quote>
  • <quote>Rubin and Elman declined to discuss details of the conversations.</quote>
  • <quote>the person says. Facebook said Ms. Simo declined to comment.</quote>

Related

Color

Honorific

  • the prominent venture capital firm
  • the investment firm
  • the startup studio
  • the venture-capital firm

Salutary

  • is nimble
  • forces the best entrepreneurs to be more creative

Epithettery

  • tech giants (contra media giants)
  • Silicon Valley is dominated by a few titans
  • libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley

Previously filled.

Facebook F8, roundup

Original Sources

Mentions

  • “M” (a robot)
  • Wit.ai
  • Vendors (launch partners)
    available via Messenger

    • 1-800 Flowers
    • CNN
    • Disney
    • eBay
    • HealthTap
    • Hipmunk
    • OwnersListens
    • Salesforce
    • Shopify
    • Staples
  • Deep linking (launch partners)
    available in Messenger

    • Giphy
    • ESPN
    • Imgur
    • The Weather Channel.

Promotions

Previously

Actualities

All press outlets have the same gif…



Sure … but remember that chatbots is how low-end retail banking outsources customer services to the South and South-East Asia (India, Phillipines etc.) where they can make one operator multitask into ten or twenty different consumer responses at one time. … way to cut the cost out of customer services.

The Rise of the Platform Enterprise: A Global Survey | Center for Global Enterprise

Peter C. Evans, Anabelle Gawer; The Rise of the Platform Enterprise: A Global Survey; The Emerging Platform Economy, Series No. 1; The Center for Global Enterprise (CGE); 2016-01; 30 pages; previously filled.

The Center for Global Enterprise
200 Park Ave., Suite 1700
New York, NY 10166
USA

Scope

<quote>Given the close proximity, cities around the San Francisco Bay Area include, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Oakland, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.</quote>

Referenced

  • “The rise of the sharing economy: On the Internet, everything is for hire,” staff, In The Economist, 2013-March-09.
  • The companies are Microsoft, Google, Apple, Intel, Amazon, Yahoo!, Facebook, eBay and Salesforce. The patent data is from “2014 Top Patent Owners,” Intellectual Property Owners Association, 2015-06.
  • Unicorns, CB Insights, 2015-06
  • David S. Evans, “Attention to Rivalry among Online Platforms and Its Implications for Antitrust Analysis”, Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 627, 2013.
  • Pierre Collin, Nicolas Colin. “Task Force on Taxation of the Digital Economy.” Report to the French Minister for the Economy and Finance, the Minister for Industrial Recovery, Minister Delegate for the Budget and the Minister Delegate for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Innovation and the Digital Economy, 2013.
  • “Startups Scramble to Define ‘Employee’,” Greg Bensinger, In Wall Street Journal (WSJ), 2015-07-30;
  • Annabelle Gawer, Michael Cusumano, Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation, In Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2002.
  • Annabelle Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, 2009.
  • David S. Evans, Andrei Hagiu, Richard Schmalensee, Invisible Engines: How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006.
  • Jean-Claude Rochet, Jean Tirole, “Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets”, In Journal of the European Economic Association 1, no. 4, 2003, pp. 990-1029.
  • Geoffrey Parker, Marshall Van Alstyne, “Two-Sided Network Effect: A Theory of Information Product Design,” In Management Science; 51, no. 10, 2005;
  • Mark Armstrong, “Competition in Two-Sided Market”, In RAND Journal of Economics; 2006, p. 66
  • David S. Evans, Richard Schmalensee, “Markets with Two-Sided Platforms,” In Issues in Competition Law and Policy (ABA section of antitrust law) 1, 2008. p. 667.
  • Brad Stone, The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon, Random House, 2013, p. 126.
  • Annabelle Gawer, Michael Cusumano. “Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation.” In Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 no. 3, 2014, pp. 417-433.
  • Kevin Boudreau, Andrei Hagiu, “Platform Rules: Multi-sided Platforms as Regulators,” in A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass, 2009, pp. 163–191.
  • The Emerging Platform Economy, The Center for Global Enterprise
  • Quid Web Intelligence
  • Private Company Financing Data Sources, CB Insights
  • Trading Platforms, Thomson-Reuters-Eikon
  • Platform Strategy Research Symposium, Questrom School of Business, Boston, 2015-07-09.
  • CJ Arlotta, SAP Global Partner Summit 2015: ‘Value Drives Volume,’ Talkin’Cloud, 2015-05-04.
  • Marco Ceccagnoli, Chris Forman, Peng Huang, D. J. Wu. “CO-CREATION of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software.” In IS Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2012.
  • Naspers Group Profile
  • Rocket Internet;
    Mission Statement: “Our Mission: To Become the World’s Largest Internet Platform Outside the United States and China”
  • Entrepreneur in Residence Program, Rocket Internet
  • Andrew Karpie,The Future of Talent Acquisition in the Emerging Platform Economy, The Research Platform, a blog, 2015-09-23.
  • “Dallas-based Teladoc launches successful IPO,” Jim Landers, In Dallas Morning News, 2015-07-01.
  • “Johnson Controls opens energy-efficiency app marketplace,” Jennifer Kho, In GreenBiz, 2012-11-13.
  • “Daimler acquires transportation apps RideScout and myTaxi,” Katie Fehrenbacher, In Gigaom, 2014-09-03.
  • Rajiv Leventhal, “Walgreens, MDLIVE announce expansion of telehealth platform,” In Healthcare Informatics, 2015-06-19.
  • “How Arivind Sivaramakrishnan is driving the digital agenda at Apollo Hospitals,” Sneha Jha, In The Economic Times India ETCIO.Com, 2015-05-18.
  • Apollo Hospitals launches Ask Apollo – a first of its kind medical platform in the country for remote patient care press release, Apollo Hospitals, 2015-10-19.
  • Dean Quinn, “Tizen: The operating system that could thwart Android?” In Techradar, 2014-01-21.
  • Geoffrey Parker, Marshall Van Alstyne, Sangeet Paul Choudary, Platform Revolution, How Networked Markets are Transforming the Economy, W. W. Norton & Co. forthcoming.
  • Baruch Lev, Suresh Radhakrishnan, Peter C. Evans, “Organizational Capital: A CEOs Guide to Measuring and Managing Enterprise Intangibles”, The Center for Global Enterprise, New York, NY, 2016-01.
  • Play a Game, Get a Date: The social apps taking China by Storm, Peter Schadbolt, In CNN, 2014-09-16.
  • “Four reasons why Google bought Waze”, Peter Cohan, In Forbes, 2013-06-11.
  • “Google’s Competition is Amazon, Not Apple,” George Baroudi, In InformationWeek, 2014-01-24.
  • “Google’s ‘Rivalry’ with Amazon? It’s Complicated,” Seth Fiegerman, Mashable, 2014-10-14.
  • “Amazon to Stop Selling Apple TV and Chromecast”, David Streitfeld, Katie Benner, In The New York Times (NYT), 2015-10-01.
  • “Insurance Bureau of Canada Pushing to Get Uber Drivers Covered,” Sean Silcoff, Jacqueline Nelson, In The Globe and Mail, 2015-10-13.
  • Günther H. Oettinger, “A Digital Single Market: The Key to Europe’s Industrial Leadership in the Digital Economy,” speech at ICT2015, 2015-10-20.
  • Annabelle Gawer, “What Managers Need to Know about Platforms”, In European Business Review, 2011-Fall.

Promotions

WebRTC and STUN for intra-LAN exploration & end-user tracking

WebRTC

  • WebRTC, promotional site
  • Availabilities
    all the browsers that matter

    • Android
    • Chrome (Linux, Android, Windows)
    • Firefox
    • Opera
    • Safari (iOS)

STUN

Related

Standards

  • RFC 7350Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as Transport for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN); Petit-Huguenin, Salgueiro; IETF; 2014-08.
  • RFC 7064URI Scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol; Nandakumar, Salgueiro, Jones, Petit-Huguenin; IETF; 2013-11.
  • RFC 5928Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Resolution Mechanism; Petit-Huguenin; IETF; 2010-08.
  • RFC 5389Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN); Rosenberg, Mahy, Matthews, Wing; IETF; 2008-10.
    (obsoleted)

    • RFC 3489STUN – Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs); Rosenberg, Weinberger, Huitema, Mahy; 2003-03.

In Jimi Wales’ Wiki.

Implementation

Tracking

In archaeological order

Leaking


665909webrtc WebRCT Tracking; In Bugzilla of Mozilla; 2011-06-21 →2016-01-11; Closed as INVALID


Some droid using the self-asserted identity token cchen; How to Stop WebRTC Local IP Address Leaks on Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox While Using Private IPs; In Privacy Online Forums; 2015-01→2015-03.

Mentions

  • Availability
    of the problem (not of WebRTC in general)

    • Chrome of Google
      • Windows
    • Firefox of Mozilla
      • Unclear, perhaps Windows only
    • Internet Explorer of Microsoft
      WebRTC is not available at all.
    • Opera of Mozilla
      • Unclear
    • Safari of Apple
      WebRTC is not available except through a plugin
    • Unavailable
      • Chrome of Google
        • OS/X
        • Android
      • Linux at all
        not clear; not mentioned at all.
  • Blocking
    • Chrome of Google
    • Firefox of Mozilla
      • Production
        • about:config
        • media.peerconnection.enabled set to true (default true)
      • Development
        same

        • Canary
        • Nightly
        • Bowser
    • Opera of Opera
  • API Directory
    • voice calls
    • video chats
    • p2p file sharing

Configuration

  • Chrome
    default is available and active
  • Firefox
    • about:config
    • media.peerconnection.enabled set to true (default true)
  • Opera
    only when configured, with a plugin, to run Google Chrome extensions

Demonstration

webrtc-ips, a STUN & WebRTC test rig

  • diafygi/webrtc-ips
  • via on-page JavaScript, makes latent requests to certain STUN servers.
  • Firefox 34 → Does. Not. Work.
  • Fails with
    Error: RTCPeerConnection constructor passed invalid RTCConfiguration - missing url webrtc-ips:58

Argot

  • Private Internet Access (PIA)
  • Real-Time-Communication (RTC)
  • Virtual Private Network (VPN)
  • WebRTC

Previously

In Privacy Online Forums:

Referenced

  • 2013
  •  Since WebRTC uses javascript requests to get your IP address, users of NoScript or similar services will not leak their IP addresses.

Via: backfill.


Firefox

  • about:config
  • media.peerconnection.enabled set to true (default true)

Private: Compendium of Palace Intrigue at Yahoo through 2016-02-14

Continued from the Compendium through 2016-01-31
Onward to the Compendium through 2016-02-29.

Opera is acquired by a Chinese consortium (Kunlun, Qihoo 360, Golden Brick, Yonglian)

In archaeological order


Opera gets $1.2 billion buyout offer from mix of Chinese firms, board recommends deal; ; In ZDNet; 2016-02-10.
Teaser: There is “strong strategic and industrial logic to the acquisition,” according to the software maker’s CEO.

Original Sources

Mentions

  • Price
    • $1.2B USD
    • 53% above Oslo close 2016-02-04.
  • Consortium
    • media
      • Kunlun
      • Qihoo 360
    • pure-play investment
      • Golden Brick
      • Yonglian
  • Who
    • Lars Boilesen, CEO, Opera
    • Sverre Munck, chairman of the board, Opera
    • Yahui Zhou, CEO, Kunlun,
  • Process
    • For sale since 2015-08.
    • Representors
      • Morgan Stanley International
      • ABG Sundal Collier

Qihoo 360-Led Chinese Consortium Makes $1.2 Billion Offer for Opera; Rick Carew (Hong Kong), Kjetil Malkenes Hovland (Oslo); In The Wall Street Journal (WSJ); 2016-02-10.
Teaser: Bid for Norwegian company adds to a busy start to 2016 for outbound Chinese acquisitions

Mentions

  • Opera Software ASA, Norway
  • A consortium of Chinese companies
    • Operators
      • Qihoo 360 Technology Co.
      • Beijing Kunlun Tech Co.
    • Investors
      • Golden Brick
      • Silk Road Fund Management (Shenzhen) LLP
      • Yonglian (Yinchuan) Investment Co.
  • Bid (proposal)
    • Equivalently
      • $1.2B USD in cash
      • 71 Norwegian kroner ($8.27)/share
    • Factoid
      • a 46% premium over trading 2016-02-05
      • <quote>When trading resumed on Wednesday, the stock soared more than 40%, and closed up 33% at 65.10 kroner.</quote>
    • Support
      • Board of Directors, Opera Software ASA
      • 33% of the shares
  • Valuation
    • 2016: $690 million → $740 million (range)
    • 2015: $616 million.
  • Consortium
  • Competition
    sources via StatCounter

    • Android of Googleof Alphabet
      • Chrome → 36.8% market share
    • Microsoft
      • unstated products & market share.
    • Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.
      • UCWeb → ~20% market share
  • Market Share
    sources via StatCounter

    1. Something
    2. Something
    3. Safari
    4. Opera (Phone)→ 10.8%
    5. something
    6. Opera (All; Phone, Tablet, Laptop) → 5.7%
  • Background
    • Qihoo is
      • <quote><snip/>in the process of delisting from the New York Stock Exchange after agreeing in December to a buyout by a consortium including its chairman for $9 billion.</quote>
      • makes mobile and PC antivirus software,
      • operates a search engine
        • No. 2 search engine in China
        • Search engine behind Baidu Inc.
      • has a “secure” Web browser.
    • Kunlun
      • a 60% stake in gay-dating app Grindr LLC for $93 million 2016-01.
    • Other acquisitions by Chinese companies.
  • Who
    • Yu Ling, press relations, Qihoo
    • Havard Nilsson, staff, Carnegie ASA.

Previously

In The Wall Street Journal (WSJ):

There are now 229 unicorn startups, with $175B in funding and $1.3T valuation | VentureBeat


There are now 229 unicorn startups, with $175B in funding and $1.3T valuation; ; In VentureBeat; 2016-01-18.

tl;dr → VentureBeat has expertise in market research compendia; the promoted pamphlet exhibits such; landinghires.



Listings

Categorized

As organized in the infographic.

Enterprise

  • Applications
    • Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
      • Apttus
      • InsideSales.com
      • Medallia
      • Zeta Interactive
    • Finance & Accounting
      • Coupa
      • Xero
      • Zuora
    • Human Resource Management (HR)
      • Gusto
      • Workday
      • Zenefits
    • Marketing & eCommerce
      • AdKnowledge
      • AppNexus
      • Blippar
      • Deem
      • Hootsuite
      • InMobi
      • IronSource
      • Marketo
      • MediaMath
      • Qualtrics
      • Shopify
      • Sprinklr
      • Surveymonkey
  • Infrastructure
    • Analytics (Big Data & Business Intelligence)
      • Cloudera
      • Domo
      • Hortonworks
      • MarkLogic
      • MongoDB
      • Mu Sigma
      • MuleSoft
      • New Relic
      • Palantir
    • Cloud
      • Actiflo
      • AppDirect
      • AppDynamics
      • CloudFlare
      • Docker
      • Nutanix
      • Simplivity
    • Content Management & Collaboration
      • Atlassian Software Systems
      • Automattic
      • Box
      • DocuSign
      • Dropbox
      • Evernote
      • GitHub
      • Slack
      • Yammer
    • Mobile
      • Good Technology
      • Meitu, Inc.
      • Wandoujia
      • Yello Mobile
    • Networking
      • Cisco Meraki
      • Nicra
      • Twilio
    • Security
      • AVAST Software as.
      • Avant
      • Illumio
      • Lookout
      • Okta
      • Palo Alto Networks
      • Tanium
      • Zscaler
    • Storage
      • Fusion-io
      • Infinidat
      • Nimble Storage
      • Pure Storage
      • Tintri

Industries

  • Cleantech
    • Betterplace
    • Bloom Energy
    • Sapphire Energy
    • Sunrun
  • Fintech
    • Insurance
      • ZhongAn
    • Investment
      • Credit Karma
      • Hanhua Financial
    • Lending
      • China Rapid Finance
      • Funding Circle
      • Jimubox
      • Kabbage
      • Lending Club
      • Lufax
      • Prosper
      • SoFi
      • TransferWise
    • Payments
      • Adyen
      • Klarna
      • Mozido
      • Powa
      • Square
      • Stripe
  • Healthcare & BioTech
    • Intarcia Therapeutics
    • Moderna Therapeutics
    • NantHealth
    • Oscar
    • Proteus Digital Health
    • Stemcentrx
    • Theranos
    • ZocDoc
  • Internet of Things (IoT)
    • Dji
    • Fitbit
    • Jasper Technologies
    • Jawbone
    • Mobileye
    • Nest
  • Other
    • AUTO1
    • Fisker Automotive
    • Njoy
    • Sogou
    • SpaceX
    • WiFi Master Key

Consumer

  • Online Media
    • AVITO.ru
    • BuzzFeed
    • Panshi
    • Rocket Internet
    • Taboola
    • Vox Media
  • Electronics (Consumer Electronics)
    • GoPro
    • Magic Leap
    • Meizu
    • Oculus VR
    • Xiaomi
  • Games & Entertainment
    • FanDuel
    • Kabam
    • Legenary Pictures
    • Machine Zone
    • Razer
    • Vice Media
    • Zynga
  • Retail
    • Coupons, Bargains. Loyalty
      • Coupang
      • Fanil
      • Groupon
      • LaShou
      • LivingSocial
      • Meituan
      • Quotient Technology
    • Home Furnishing
      • Fab.com
      • Houzz
      • Home24
      • Wayfair
    • Marketplaces
      • Alibaba
      • Auction.com
      • Etsy
      • JD.com
      • Snapdeal
      • 58 Daojia
    • Shopping
      • Mobile Shopping
        • Koudai Gouwu
        • One97 Communications
      • Non-Mobile (Laptop/Officework/Desktop) Shopping
        • BelBel
        • Dianping
        • Fanatics
        • Farfetch
        • Flipkart
        • Gilt Groupe Incorporated
        • Global Fashion Group
        • JustFab
        • Lazada
        • Mogujie
        • NONAME LOGO (magenta/purple, with a ‘J’)
        • Trendy International Group
        • VANCL
        • Wish
        • Zalando
        • Zulily
    • Wellness
      • Honest Company
      • Warby Parker
  • Services (Services to Consumers)
    • Audio
      • Beats Electronics
      • Shazam
      • Spotify
    • Education
      • Lynda.com
      • Pluralsight
      • Renaissance Learning
      • Udacity
    • Messaging
      • Kik
      • Tango
      • WhatsApp (of Facebook)
    • Sharing (The Sharing Economy)
      • Airbnb
      • BlaBlaCar
      • Blue Apron
      • Delivery Hero
      • Didi Chuxing
      • Ele.me
      • GrabTaxi
      • HelloFresh
      • HomeAway
      • Instacart
      • Kuaidi Dache
      • Lwjw
      • Lyft
      • Ola
      • Quickr
      • Thumbtack
      • Tujla
      • Uber
      • Wework
      • Yidao Yongche
      • YouTube
    • Social (Networking)
      • Instagram (of Facebook)
      • Facebook
      • Lamabang
      • LinkedIn
      • Nextdoor
      • Pinterest
      • Snapchat
      • Tumblr (of Yahoo)
      • Twitter
    • Other
      • Eventbrite
      • Waze (of Google)

Alphabetical

  • 58 Daojia
  • AUTO1
  • AVAST Software as.
  • AVITO.ru
  • Actiflo
  • AdKnowledge
  • Adyen
  • Airbnb
  • Alibaba
  • AppDirect
  • AppDynamics
  • AppNexus
  • Apttus
  • Atlassian Software Systems
  • Auction.com
  • Automattic
  • Avant
  • Beats Electronics
  • BelBel
  • Betterplace
  • BlaBlaCar
  • Blippar
  • Bloom Energy
  • Blue Apron
  • Box
  • BuzzFeed
  • China Rapid Finance
  • Cisco Meraki
  • CloudFlare
  • Cloudera
  • Coupa
  • Coupang
  • Credit Karma
  • Deem
  • Delivery Hero
  • Dianping
  • Didi Chuxing
  • Dji
  • Docker
  • DocuSign
  • Domo
  • Dropbox
  • Ele.me
  • Etsy
  • Eventbrite
  • Evernote
  • Fab.com
  • Facebook
  • FanDuel
  • Fanatics
  • Fanil
  • Farfetch
  • Fisker Automotive
  • Fitbit
  • Flipkart
  • Funding Circle
  • Fusion-io
  • Gilt Groupe Incorporated
  • GitHub
  • Global Fashion Group
  • GoPro
  • Good Technology
  • GrabTaxi
  • Groupon
  • Gusto
  • Hanhua Financial
  • HelloFresh
  • Home24
  • HomeAway
  • Honest Company
  • Hootsuite
  • Hortonworks
  • Houzz
  • Illumio
  • InMobi
  • Infinidat
  • InsideSales.com
  • Instacart
  • Instagram (of Facebook)
  • Intarcia Therapeutics
  • IronSource
  • JD.com
  • Jasper Technologies
  • Jawbone
  • Jimubox
  • JustFab
  • Kabam
  • Kabbage
  • Kik
  • Klarna
  • Koudai Gouwu
  • Kuaidi Dache
  • LaShou
  • Lamabang
  • Lazada
  • Legenary Pictures
  • Lending Club
  • LinkedIn
  • LivingSocial
  • Lookout
  • Lufax
  • Lwjw
  • Lyft
  • Lynda.com
  • Machine Zone
  • Magic Leap
  • MarkLogic
  • Marketo
  • Medallia
  • MediaMath
  • Meitu, Inc.
  • Meituan
  • Meizu
  • Mobileye
  • Moderna Therapeutics
  • Mogujie
  • MongoDB
  • Mozido
  • Mu Sigma
  • MuleSoft
  • NONAME LOGO (magenta/purple, with a ‘J’)
  • NantHealth
  • Nest
  • New Relic
  • Nextdoor
  • Nicra
  • Nimble Storage
  • Njoy
  • Nutanix
  • Oculus VR
  • Okta
  • Ola
  • One97 Communications
  • Oscar
  • Palantir
  • Palo Alto Networks
  • Panshi
  • Pinterest
  • Pluralsight
  • Powa
  • Prosper
  • Proteus Digital Health
  • Pure Storage
  • Qualtrics
  • Quickr
  • Quotient Technology
  • Razer
  • Renaissance Learning
  • Rocket Internet
  • Sapphire Energy
  • Shazam
  • Shopify
  • Simplivity
  • Slack
  • Snapchat
  • Snapdeal
  • SoFi
  • Sogou
  • SpaceX
  • Spotify
  • Sprinklr
  • Square
  • Stemcentrx
  • Stripe
  • Sunrun
  • Surveymonkey
  • Taboola
  • Tango
  • Tanium
  • Theranos
  • Thumbtack
  • Tintri
  • TransferWise
  • Trendy International Group
  • Tujla
  • Tumblr (of Yahoo)
  • Twilio
  • Twitter
  • Uber
  • Udacity
  • VANCL
  • Vice Media
  • Vox Media
  • Wandoujia
  • Warby Parker
  • Wayfair
  • Waze (of Google)
  • Wework
  • WhatsApp (of Facebook)
  • WiFi Master Key
  • Wish
  • Workday
  • Xero
  • Xiaomi
  • Yammer
  • Yello Mobile
  • Yidao Yongche
  • YouTube (of Google)
  • Zalando
  • Zenefits
  • Zeta Interactive
  • ZhongAn
  • ZocDoc
  • Zscaler
  • Zulily
  • Zuora
  • Zynga

The App-ocalypse: Can Web standards make mobile apps obsolete? | Ars Technica

The App-ocalypse: Can Web standards make mobile apps obsolete?; Larry Seltzer; In Ars Technica; 2015-12-28.
Teaser: Many big tech companies—absent Apple—are throwing weight behind a browser-based world.

tl;dr → Betteridge’s Law; i.e. No.

  • WebApps are a Google-culture thing.
  • And good luck with Apple; they are intransigent in their non-interest.

Mentions

In (the arbitrary) order of appearance in the piece:

Projects

Standards

Via: backfill.

The conference ‘Platform Cooperativism: The Internet, Ownership, Democracy’ convened techno-skeptics whose objections are growing louder | The Washington Post

Techno-skeptics’ objection growing louder; Joel Achenbach; In The Washington Post; 2015-12-26.

tl;dr → A conference report.  The dissidents met, ate, drank, talked (in the argot of the times: they shared, networked, bonded). A good time was had by all, yet they all are against it in one way or another; they are unhappy; they want it to be different.  Each and every one of them has a dream and a vision; yet none of them has a viable plan.

Original Sources

Platform Cooperativism: The Internet, Ownership, Democracy; a conference; The New School; 2015-11-13 & 2015-11-14.

Mentions

  • Hooks in above the fold with a picture & description of Astra Taylor; her presence & concepts.
  • “A conference”
    The conference is never actually named or citedin the WaPo article

    • Platform Cooperativism
    • The New School, New York City
    • attendees: circa 1,000
    • Concept
      <quote>reinventing the Internet. They dream of a co-op model: people dealing directly with one another without having to go through a data-sucking corporate hub.</quote>
  • Edward Snowden
    • <quote>The Edward Snowden revelations</quote>
    • The rise of Terrorism as a tactic; contra The War on Terror
      (yes yes, you can’t declare war against a tactic, you can only declare war against an entity [citation needed]).
      But

      • Paris
      • San Bernardino
  • Facebook
    • is bad
    • <quote>A frequent gibe is that on Facebook, we’re not the customers, we’re the merchandise. Or to put it another way: If the service is free, you’re the product.</quote>
    • Mark Zuckerberg
      • age 31
  • Google
    • is bad
  • Something about Plato
    On the invention of writing.
  • History (the narrative)
    • 1994 → browser
    • 1998 → Google
    • …time passes…
    • 2006 → Twitter
    • 2007 → iPhone
    • …time passes…
    • today!
  • South Korea
    • gaming is addictive, must be regulated
  • European Union
    • Right To Be Forgotten
    • Affects
      • Google
      • Yahoo
  • The Machine Age
    • Shadowhawk
    • Asimo, of Honda
  • Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
    • a think tank, of lobbyists
    • Washington DC
    • Robert Atkinson, president
    • <quote>two-thirds of its funding from tech companies</quote>.
    • soft Luddites (e.g. Astra Taylor)

Who

In the arbitrary order of mention

The Activists (6 count)
  • Astra Taylor
  • Douglas Rushkoff
  • Jaron Lanier
  • Andrew Keen
  • James Barrat
  • Pope Francis
The Establishment (1 count)
  • Robert Atkinson, president, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

In alphabetical order

Robert Atkinson

  • president; Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
  • opines about regulation
  • worries about (soft) Luddites; e.g. Astra Taylor.

Jaron Lanier

  • <quote>Lanier’s humanistic take on technology may trace back to his tragic childhood: He was 9 when his mother was killed in a car accident in El Paso. He later learned that the accident may have been caused by an engineering flaw in the car.</quote>
  • Proposal
    • consumers be compensated for their data in the form of micropayments.
  • <quote>In our society there are two paths to success: One is to be good at computers and the other is to be a sociopath.</quote>, attributed to Jaron Lanier.

Douglas Rushkoff

  • Team Human

Nathan Schneider

  • co-organizer of the recent New School conference on cooperative platforms.
  • journalist (sic)
    his bio attests as <quote>a writer, editor, and professor of media studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. </quote>

Astra Taylor

  • age 36
  • vocation
    free spirit

    • activist
    • filmmaker
      of documentaries
    • musician
  • not paranoid
  • <quote>21st century digital dissenter</quote>
  • comments about
    • her appearancepresence
    • her education → unschooled (not schooled, home schooled).
  • Proposal
    • government-supported media platforms — think: yet more public radio (public web sites)
    • more regulation of media platforms — contra monopoly formation.
  • Opines
    • information [often] wants someone to pay for it
      contra information wants to be free.

Argot

  • digital social networks
  • digital establishment
  • humanists
  • human-machine interactions
  • Luddite
    • neo-Luddite (Ted Ludd)
    • soft Luddites (e.g. Astra Taylor)
  • machine age
  • machine intelligence
  • shadow narrative
  • stemwinder
    <quote>a stemwinder of a talk</quote>
  • techno-skeptics
  • unschooled
    contra homeschooled

Referenced

Fiction

  • Gary Shteyngart; Super Sad True Love Story; Random House; first edition; 2011-05-03; 334 pages; kindle: $10, paper: $0.01+SHT.
    tl;dr →the protagonists want to find love in an uncaring world.
  • Dave Eggers, The Circle; Vintage; first edition; 2014-04-22; 497 pages; kindle: $12, paper: $2+SHT.
    tl;dr→the protagonist is a Hi-Po at a Google-like company who is a lifestreamer; trouble ensues.

Via: backfill.

The Changing Digital Landscape: Where Things are Heading | Pew Research Center


The Changing Digital Landscape: Where Things are Heading; (Pew Research Center); Presented at Tencent Media Summit, Beijing, China; 2015-11-12; 36 slides.

Contents

  • Three (3) digital revolutions have changed the news
  • State of the digital news media 2015
  • Six (6) impacts on news and the media
  • Five (5) trends for the future

Mentions

Three (3) digital revolutions have changed the news

  1. Internet
  2. Mobile Connectivity
  3. Social Networking / Social Media

State of the digital news media 2015

  • ABC & CBS improved in 2014
  • NBC declined in 2014
  • Mobile crossover occurred
  • Digital Advertising grows
  • Mobile (Digital) Advertising grows
  • Digital News uses display (banner) advertisements
  • Video Advertising grows
  • 61% of revenue, industry-level to five
    1. Google
    2. Facebook
    3. Microsoft
    4. Yahoo
    5. AOL
  • Facebook leads mobile revenue

Six (6) impacts on news and the media

  1. Mobile majority, factoids recited
  2. Mobile and Social Go Together, trendoids are recited
  3. Facebook Now Rivals Legacy News Sources (TV, national & local)
  4. There are Clear Generational Divides
    • Millennials (age 18-34) → Facebook over Local TV
    • Generation X → not shown
    • Baby Boomers (age 51-68) → Local TV over Facebook
  5. Digital Video and Radio News on the Rise.
  6. Consumers are a Part of the Process
    • User-Generated Content (UGC)
    • The Internet is defined as
      • one-to-one
      • many-to-many
      • [not one-to-many; broadcasts, portals, "the" home page]

Five (5) trends for the future

The Internet of Things (IoT) of 2025 is the 4th Revolution

  1. Screens and data will be almost everywhere
    • Lots of screens → All Ads, All The Time & on Every Available Surface
    • All Audiences are Measured
  2. Augmented reality will bring media nd data into real life
    • location awareness
    • Selling Opportunites, Always Be Selling.
    • Privacy will be gone
  3. Virtual reality will become immersive and compelling
    • Product Placement → All Ads, All The Time & on Every Available Surface
    • Personalized
    • Distractions
  4. Alerts will become pervasive and people will regulate their media streams more aggressively
    • Stress → Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO)
    • Expect aggressive management of alerts (mod way down; high bar to disturb the consumer)
  5. Smart agents and machines enabled by “artificial intelligence” will work alongside people as their assistants and “media concierges”
    • the robots will be self-aware
    • they will be actually useful & actionable, not an IT headache

Via: backfill.

Tech and Media Outlook 2016 | Activate

Tech and Media Outlook 2015; Activate at WSJD Live Conference; 2015-10-20; 137 slides; landing.


slides


Mentions

  • boosterism: <quote>CAGR based on values prior to rounding.</quote>, slide 2.

Listicle

Substantially, the table of contents.

  1. The average american spends more time on tech & media than work or sleep
  2. Messaging will blow past social networks as the dominant media activity
  3. The next big winners in streaming audio are already (quietly) here
  4. The long-awaited cord cutting moment is still far off
  5. There is a “cable killer” coming, but it won’t look like you expect
  6. E-sports & wagering will change the game in gaming
  7. Good luck getting rich in the app store!
  8. These companies are grabbing all the money in consumer tech & media
  9. One simple way to predict what tech & media players will do next to compete

1. Attention

  • The product is attention, the purpose of media is the capturing of attention.
  • Minutes-per-Visitor per Month
    • Pandora → 1,200 min/month
    • Facebook → 1,200 min/month
    • Google → 700 min/month
    • Netflix → 500 min/month
    • YouTube → 400 min/month
    • All Those Messaging Apps → 300 min/month
      • Twitch
      • Kik
      • Snapchat
      • Something else with a ping cloud smudge logo
    • Yahoo → 300 min/month
    • Instagram → 200 min/month
    • The Linkbaiters, Old-Line East Coast Media, eCommerce → 0 min/month (rounding error)
  • Bubble economics, “billion dollar businesses” capturing seconds-per-month
    • HelloFresh
    • Vice
    • ZocDoc
    • BuzzFeed
    • Shazam
    • Vox
  • Categories
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Social Media
    • Gaming (actual games, not <euphemism>gambling</euphemism>)
  • Something about multitasking.

Claims

  • Because of overlaps, there are 31:28 hours:minutes of manageable attention per day.
  • Half is spent on media-type activities.
  • Selectivity is high on MAU basis
    • 79% of time on 5 apps out of 27 available.
    • 44% on 5 websites out of 96 available.
    • 100% on 18 channels out of 194 available.

2. Messaging

  • Cultures
    • WhatsApp
    • Facebook Messenger
    • WeChat
    • Instagram
    • Snapchat
    • Pinterest
  • Categories
    • Social Messaging
    • Social Network
    • Hybrid: Social Messaging & Social Network (either, or both)
  • Minutes-per-Week per Month
    • Facebook → 300 min/week
    • Tumblr → 230 min/week
    • Talk → 220 min/week
    • WhatsApp → 175 min/week
    • Pinterest → 140 min/week
    • Instagram → 140 min/week
    • Kik → 80 min/week
    • Something with a purple phone icon → 80 min/week
    • WeChat → 80 min/week
    • LINE → 30 min/week
    • Something with a blue chat bubble and an horizontal lightning bolt → 10 min/week.
  • Messaging competes with telecom-served Short Message System (SMS)
    • Driven by pricing: 63x more expensive abroad than US.
    • Very expensive in the U.S. (for what one gets).
    • Messaging apps are flat-fee or $0.
  • Messaging apps turn into a “platform”
    Features

    • Business storefronts (bot-based businesses)
    • Chat (of course)
    • Channels (television-style bespoke content)
    • Games
    • Music
    • Local commerce
    • Payments
    • Search
    • Taxi
    • Television (replaying broadcast television)
    • Virtual Assistant
  • Revenue Models, slide 34
    • Ads
    • Stickers
    • Games
    • Taxi
    • Payments
    • App Store
    • Music
    • TV
    • Subscription Fees
    • eCommerce
    • Search

Category

In descending order of MAU, slide 19

  • WhatsApp
  • Facebook Messenger
  • WeChat
  • QQ Mobile
  • Gchat
  • iMessage
  • Viber
  • LINE
  • Snapchat
  • Kik
  • Telegram
  • Tango
  • KakaoTalk
  • Hike
  • Zalo
  • Path Talk
  • FireChat
  • YikYak
  • SOMA
  • Jott
  • Nimbuzz
  • Microsoft Send
  • Vurb
  • Zolo

In some order, slides 20-30+

  • LINE
  • WeChat
  • Facebook Messenger
  • WhatsApp
  • Snapchat
  • Vurb
  • Pockettour
  • WeBank
  • Jobot
  • digit
  • Magic
  • Assist
  • Slack

Claims

  • A Buullion new Users by 2018
  • 4B Internet Users (out of ~8B on Earth).
  • Nearly all are abroad, and in “developing” markets.

3. Streaming (Audio)

  • 4 hours/day US for 13+
  • It’s a teen/young-peeple thing:
    • 13-17 → 55% streaming
    • 55+ → 6% streaming
  • Experience is bad
    <quote>inferior user experiences leave engagement lagging</quote>
  • Revenue Models
    • Advertising
    • Subscriptions
  • RedTube (YouTube Red)
  • Only 10% (more) consumers are open to pay for streaming subscriptions
    original research, Activate, panel N=? (they asked around the office?)
  • Podcasts are a thing.
    • demographics → upscale, young, educated
    • format has plenty of room for advertisement load.

Categories

  • Terrestrial broadcast (non-digital)
  • Satellite Radio
  • Streaming
  • Downloads
  • Television (Music Television)
  • Other

Instances

  • A cast of thousands
  • Enumerated on Slide 37.

Also, slide 41

  • Pandora
  • iHeart RADIO

In order of reach, descending; slide 42.

  • YouTube
  • Pandora
  • Spotify
  • Vevo
  • Hlu
  • MTV
  • VH-1
  • Yahoo! Radio
  • Rhapsody
  • Slacker Radio
  • Apple Music

In order of decreasing library size, slide 46.

  • YouTube
  • SoundCloud
  • Spotify
  • Apple Music
  • Pandora

Organized by curation type (human vs algorithm), slide 48, 49.

  • Infinite Tracks
  • Hype Machine
  • Pitchfork
  • SoundCloud
  • Apple Music
  • Google Music
  • Spotify
  • last.fm
  • Pandora
  • Shazam
  • imeem
  • Musicmatch
  • Urge
  • Ping
  • Grooveshark
  • Slacker Radio
  • Sonos

Claims

  • Four Buullion USD, now, US.
  • Ten Buullion USD, globally, 2020.
  • Audio is a multitasking activity (counts double, paired with another activity).

4. Cord Cutting

  • Over the Top (OTT)
    • HBO Now
    • SHO
  • TV Everywhere
  • Binge watching
    • Millennial → 83%
    • Generation X → 74$
    • Boomer → 56%
  • Big Screen Television
    is enjoyed by all ages(!); but Boomers like it more than Millennials
    <ahem>Seems more like Boomers (who are richer & own houses) own more big screen TVs.</ahem>
  • Two-box (four quadrant) model of consumer behavior on video
    • Linear Appointment Viewing = Long Form, High Production Cost & Live.
    • Social Networking Video = Short Form, Low Production Cost & Live
    • Video On-Demand = Long Form, High Production Cost & Recorded
    • Studio-Generated Content = Short Form, Low Production Value & Recorded.

Theses

  • The Future of TV is “Apps”
    • But that is independent of cord cutting
    • But that won’t decide how payment is attributed.
  • The Pay TV transition is “different”
    • not a technology issue
    • an experience issue
    • an access (licensing) issue
Reasoning
  • Users →still hooked on traditional TV
    (whatever this means; redundant with the other reasons)
  • Content → still licensed to pay TV (e.g. sports); not availabl in digital
  • Pricing → digital TV is still expensive
    • Pay TV bundles at low clst (though sell crap in with the desirable)all)
    • Digital TV a la carte is very expensive in aggregate
  • Experience → traditional TV wins
    • traditional is “simple”; & “reliable”
    • digital is “complex” and “unreliable”

Claims

  • (Linear) Television is 72% of all viewing
  • Viewing time is 6h/day, monthly, 2012-2015E
  • $185B/year US
    • $110B Aubscriptions (cable, add-on services)
    • $75B Advertising (of any kind)
  • Have hit “Peak Cable”

5. The Cable Killer (is X)

6. E-Sports & Gambling

7. All App Stores Are Closed

8. The Winner Take All Market Dynamics

Sources

As cited

  • PwC, IFPI, eMarketer, IBIS, SuperData, NewZoo, IBIS.
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics, The Telegraph, Edison Research, We Are Social, eMarketer, Nielsen, National Sleep Foundation, Deloitte, SNL Kagan, Sandvine, Ipsos, comScore, Global Web Index, OECD.
  • Nielsen, comScore, Ars Technica, TechCrunch, Internetlivestats, Digitalsmiths.
  • Edison, We Are Social, eMarketer, Nielsen, Deloitte, SNL Kagan, Sandvine, Ipsos, comScore, Global Web Index, Pew Research Center, Flurry Insights, Informate, NetMarketShare, Statcounter.
  • Edison, eMarketer, Nielsen, Sandvine, US Media Consulting, Cisco, Experientia, Media UK, Global Web Index, Secom, Ofcom, GroupM.
  • Google, Microsoft, Aldebaran, Disney / New York Times.
  •  Business Insider, Fortune, Mashable, Instagram, AppAnnie, AdWeek, Quartz, Yahoo Finance, Experian, TechCrunch, Forbes, Tech in Asia, eMarketer, Compete,
  • GlobalWebIndex, eMarketer, ITO.
  • AppAnnie, AdWeek, Quartz, Yahoo Finance, Experian, TechCrunch, Forbes.
  • AppAnnie, AdWeek, Quartz, Yahoo Finance, Experian, TechCrunch, Forbes, Tech in Asia, VentureBeat, Kakao, LINE, Viber.
  • Gallup, Twilio, U.S. Census Bureau, Forbes, Colombia Reports, World Bank.
  • GlobalWebIndex, Tech in Asia.
  • AdWeek, Quartz, Yahoo Finance.
  • LINE.com
  • LINE Payment map, Twilio, U.S. Census Bureau, Forbes, Gallup, Colombia Reports, nations.org.
  • GlobalWebIndex, Facebook Messenger App, facebook.com.
  • Pew Research, Consumer Intelligence Research Partners, Apple.
  • Snapchat.com, Re/Code, The Information.
  • TechCrunch, vurb.com, CNBC.
  • Fortune, WSJ, Skift, TechCrunch,
  • angel.co, AdWeek, Quartz, Yahoo Finance.
  • slack.com, VentureBeat, TechCrunch.
  • Apple App Store, Google Play.
  • Nomura, Andreessen Horowitz, Forbes, TechInAsia, The Economist.
  • Edison Research / Triton Digital.
  • Recording Industry Association of America, PwC, Radio Advertising Bureau, Ofcom.
  • comScore, Nielsen/Arbitron, Flurry.
  • U.S. Census, Edison Research.
  • SNL Kagan, SESAC.
  • Spotify, Pandora.
  • Apple, SoundCloud, Spotify, Pandora,
  • IFPI.
  • Pew Research, Edison Research
  • Midroll, IAB, US Census, Edison Research,
  • Marketing.science, New York Magazine, Current, Ad Age,
  • Digitalsmiths, eMarketer, GfK, Sandvine, Nielsen, TDG,
  • BIA/Kelsey, Digital TV Research, eMarketer, Google, Hulu, Netflix, PWC, SNL
  • Kagan, Statista Digital Market Outlook, TDG.
  • Leichtman Research Group, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • CDC, CTIA, FCC, Gartner, Interviews, SNL Kagan.
  • U.S. Census, TDG Research, Leichtman Research Group.
  • Digitalsmiths, eMarketer, GfK, Sandvine, Nielsen, TDG,
  • Nielsen’s 2015 Total Audience Report and 2011 Cross-Platform Report, WSJ, Financial Times, The Guardian, Automated
  • Insights.
  • Conviva, Deloitte.
  • Deloitte, Ericsson ConsumerLab, Nielsen.
  • ComScore, Deloitte, Verizon Digital Media Services.
  • HBO, Nielsen, Showtime.

Notes from the Platform’s Edge | The Awl

Notes from the Platform’s Edge; ; Series the content wars, in The Awl; 2015-10-13.
Teaser: Platforms for everyone, publications for no one

tl;dr → discursive, statements, yet thirty questions embedded for ephasis on the contingency. Only time will tell. Platforms (Facebook, Twitter, et al.) are reducing sharing to linkbaitists; clickthroughs are shrinking.  The platforms aren’t sure how to behave, but they are the internet now, they are the gatekeeperss.

Outline

  1. Traffic is down, across the mid-tier linkbaitists.
  2. Quartcast chartism exhibits the decline in traffic on interweb.
  3. News Whip chartism exhibits the decline in sharing on Facebook.
  4. The (business) network effects and consumer product experience of Twitter Moments contra Shapchat Channel, Stories, & Discover are contrasted.
  5. Twitter Moments network effects and consumer product experience is questioned.
  6. The Facebook product mixture is introduced as editorial-amplified-by-algo.
  7. Facebook Notify is introduced, including screenshots & terminology: stations, substations
  8. The metaphor of notifications for a publication network business is unclear.
  9. Apple & Google are introduced as “rethinking;” something about Apple Watch and Siri
  10. Ads in notifications are posited as a business scheme.
  11. What will happen?  What is the sensibility of X for values of X ∈ These Proprietary Platforms.  Optimize for consumer time wastedengagement.
  12. The product of these platforms is consumer attention; attention is transferred from publications to platforms (ahem, to early-days TV-like Channels).
  13. Publishers have allowed platforms to take away their distribution & access to revenue.
  14. The substantive claims
    • Content is a distracting (i.e. content is not king, not here anyway)
      the publisher-contra-platform interaction is controlling.
    • Platforms & publishers are digesting each other
    • Axes
      • Audiences & Attention
      • Advertising (moving from publisher to platform)
    • Experimentation occurs at the border of each categorical
      • publication-like features on platforms
      • channel-like spaces

QED

Mentions

  • John Cook, Editor-in-Chief, Gawker Media
    a (leaked?) memo is quoted

Platforms

  • Apple
    • News
    • Siri
    • Watch
  • Facebook
    • Instant Articles
    • Messenger
    • News Feed
    • Notify
    • Trending Topics
  • Google
    • Now
  • Snapchat
    • App (the chat app)
    • Snap Channel
    • Discover
    • Stories
  • Twitter
    • App (the stream)
    • Moments

Publishers

  • BBC
  • BuzzFeed
  • Condé Nast
    • Pitchfork
  • Conservative Tribune
  • Daily Mail
    • Elite Media
  • Fox News
  • Gawker Media
    • Gawker.com
  • The Guardian
  • Hearst
  • Huffington Post
  • Little Things
  • NBC
  • News Whip
  • The New York Times
  • PlayBuzz
  • Quantcast
  • Thought Catalog
  • Yahoo

Domains

  • buzzfeed.com
  • foxnews.com
  • huffingtonpost.com
  • nbc.com
  • nytimes.com
  • theguardian.com
  • yahoo.com
  • bbc.co.uk
  • diply.com
  • conservativetrbune.com

Via: backfill