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.

 

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.

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

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 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

Content-Based Methods for Predicting Web-Site Demographic Attributes | Kabbur, Han, Karypis

Santosh Kabbur, Eui-Hong Han, George Karypis; Content-Based Methods for Predicting Web-Site Demographic Attributes; In Proceedings of Some Conference, Surely; 2010-01; 11 pages; paywall.

Abstract

Demographic information plays an important role in gaining valuable insights about a web-site’s user-base and is used extensively to target online advertisements and promotions. This paper investigates machine-learning approaches for predicting the demographic attributes of web-sites using information derived from their content and their hyperlinked structure and not relying on any information directly or indirectly obtained from the web-site’s users. Such methods are important because users are becoming increasingly more concerned about sharing their personal and behavioral information on the Internet. Regression-based approaches are developed and studied for predicting demographic attributes that utilize different content-derived features, different ways of building the prediction models, and different ways of aggregating web-page level predictions that take into account the web’s hyperlinked structure. In addition, a matrix-approximation based approach is developed for coupling the predictions of individual regression models into a model designed to predict the probability mass function of the attribute. Extensive experiments show that these methods are able to achieve an RMSE of 8–10% and provide insights on how to best train and apply such models.

References

  • Jian Hu, Hua-Jun Zeng, Hua Li, Cheng Niu, Zheng Chen, Demographic prediction based on user’s browsing behavior, In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), 2007-05-08, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
  • D Chakrabarti, R Kumar, K Punera Page-level template detection via isotonic smoothing, In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), 2007, pp 61-70.
  • Joachims, T. Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features, In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML), Chemnitz, Germany, 137-142, 1998
  • B Zhang, H Dai, HJ Zeng, L Qi, T Najm, TB Mah, V Shipunov, Y Li, Z Chen (Microsoft), Predicting demographic attributes based on online behavior. US Patent Publication number 2007/0208728 A1
  • D. Murray, K. Durrell. Inferring demographic attributes of anonymous internet users. In Proceedings of the Web Usage Analysis and User Profiling Workshop, Volume 1836 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 7-20. Springer, 200?.
  • E Adar, LA Adamic, FR Chen – Xerox Corporation, User profile classification by web usage analysis. US Patent Publication number 2007/0073682 A1
  • Vladimir Vapnik. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer-Verlag, 1995
  • George Karypis. YASSPP: better kernels and coding schemes lead to improvements in protein secondary structure prediction, In Journal of Proteins, 2006-08, Volume 64-3, pages 575-586
  • Huzefa Rangwala, George Karypis, Building multiclass classifiers for remote homology detection and fold recognition, In Journal of BMC Bioinformatics, 2006, vol 7, page 455
  • Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Berthier Ribeiro-Neto. Modern Information Retrieval, Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc.
  • E. Michailidou, S. Harper, S. Bechhofer. Visual complexity and aesthetic perception of web pages, In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC08), Lisbon, Portugal, 2008-09-22.
  • E. H. Moore. On the reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix, In Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 26: 394-395. 1920.
  • Roger Penrose. A generalized inverse for matrices, In Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 51: 406-413. 1955.
  • Comscore
  • Quantcast
  • Alexa Top Sites

Popping the Publishing Bubble | Ben Thompson, Stratechery

Ben Thompson; Popping the Publishing Bubble; In His Blog, entitled Stratechery; 2015-09-16.

tl;dr → the Gentleman’s Business of the Fourth Estate is no more; see the cartoons.

Mentions

  • Ad Blocking
    • Apple
    • Safari
    • iOS 9
  • Ad Platforms
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Pinterest
    • Snapchat
    • Twitter
  • Implications
    • ad targeting misaligns incentive operating on publishers
    • ad blocking is orthogonal (& irrelevant) to this activity
  • stakeholders
    • consumers (readers)
    • customers (advertisers)
  • the product is (was) the attention of consumers delivered to the customers.
  • Thesis
    • ad targeting separates desired consumers out among the publisher’s output, which contains much unwanted product.
    • publishers no longer produce consumers to advertiers
      advertisers can find the consumers anywhere, on any venue.
  • business models
    • niche business → the whales
    • scale business → make it up in volume

Previously

Ben Thompson; In His Blog, entitled Stratechery.

Actualities



Via: backfill

How moms won the Internet — and what that means for the rest of us | The Washington Post

How moms won the Internet — and what that means for the rest of us; Caitlin Dewey; In The Washington Post; 2015-07-16.

tl;dr → linkbait sites are for 40+ women, the same ones who watch AM TV shows.

Mentions

Quips

Attributed to Caitlin Dewey, the reporter:

  • <quote>the momification of the Internet</quote>,
  • <quote>marketers and advertisers adore mothers, the people responsible for most household spending. Moms are the motherlode, so to speak.</quote>
  • <quote>On top of that, there seems to be something unique about how women, and particularly mothers, use Facebook — something rooted in the fundamental, gendered communication styles we’re taught since birth. Studies <snip/> suggest that ladies rely on the network to support relationships in a way that men simply don’t.</quote>
  • <quote><snip/>viral content mills <snip/> all lean older, and heavily female. You’ve heard, perhaps, that millennials created this vapid virtual cesspool of feel-good “virality.” But it’s not millennials: It’s their mothers.</quote>
  • <quote>the inspiration porn that clogs our Facebook feeds so frequently.</quote>
  • “cute[ness] factories”
  • <quote>As [Caitlin Dewey] worked on this column, [she] thought about calling and asking [her Mom] if she ever logs into my dad’s account to check the other kinds of things people post: the “mind-blowing” rescue stories, the cute kid videos, the Little Things piece about a Texas waitress recently shared by our cousin MaryRose.  On second thought, though, she doesn’t need Facebook: She has “Ellen” and “GMA” and “Today.” And in a striking illustration of what the viral Internet’s become, they all basically speak the same language now.</quote>

 

Quoted

For color, background & verisimilitude

  • Liam Corcoran, press relations, NewsWhip.
  • Scott DeLong, editor, Viral Nova.
    • Founder
    • Located in OH
  • Maia McCann, director, content [development], Little Things
    • opines about cute; need more; need heartwarming, inspiring, etc.
    • Project: pets-for-(returning)veterans.
  • Neetzan Zimmerman
    • ran a content mill, The Daily What, (defunct)
    • <quote>Facebook was obviously always going to be co-opted by moms, It’s all about gossip, baby photos, schmaltzy stuff — it’s so mom already.</quote>

Exemplars

in order of appearance

  • Buzzfeed
  • Clickhole
  • LittleThings.com, Little Things
    • is a content mill
    • Maia McCann, director, content [development].
    • Staff of 40 writers.
    • Recruits from Tisch School of the Arts, New York University (NYU)
  • Viral Nova,
    • a content farm
    • Acquired
      • Zealot Networks
      • $100M
      • 2015-07-early
    • sold to [whom?] for $100M 2017-early
    • Scott DeLong, founder, editor.
    • Moved to “native advertising” after the Facebook algo changes of 2015-Q1.
  • Upworthy
    • Audience skews female, 40+
  • NewsWhip
    • Liam Corcoran, press relations

Non-Exemplars (defunct)

  • Cheezburger
    • Ben Huh, ex-CEO (resigned)
  • The Daily What, (defunct)
    • Neetzan Zimmerman

Previously

Prior output from Caitlin Dewey.

Background

  • Life on the Content Farm; Carlos Perez; In Motherboard; 2015-03-06.
    Teaser: Even if we can’t figure out the dress color … We can figure out the beauty of the scalable internet machine, yall!
    Mentions:

    •  HIPSTER RUNOFF(HRO)
      • defunct
      • Carles.buzz; his current blog; last post 2015-06-23.
      • Carles a.k.a. Carlos Perez, age 29
        <quote>‘Carles’ is Carlos Perez, a 29-year-old Texas native and self-described ‘bro from suburbia’ with a degree in accounting from Tulane University. In 2007, when he was 22, like countless other recent grads with crappy jobs, Carlos started a blog. He decided to stay anonymous.</quote>
  • The Last Relevant Blogger; Brian Merchant; In Motherboard; 2015-01-30.
    tl;dr →5400+ words.  Millennial dude makes a blog, it gets successful yet is uneconomic; he walk away [with substantially nothing].

Via: backfill.

 

The Next Internet is TV | The Awl

The Next Internet Is TV; ; Slugged ; In The Awl; 2015-02-05.
Teaser: Websites are unnecessary vestiges of a time before there were better ways to find things to look at on your computer or your phone.

John Herman, “tech blogger”, an editor, The Awl; Statement; 2014-03-04.

tl;dr → a #thinkpiece, 2043 words

Theses

  • <paraphrase>that, for a publisher that wants to grow dramatically, websites are unnecessary vestiges of a time before there were better ways to find things to look at on your computer or your phone. What happens next?</paraphrase>
  • <paraphrase>Television channels are used to filling themselves with content that they don’t totally control.</paraphrase>
  • A publisher without a web site in the middle <quote>Vox is now publishing directly to social networks and apps; BuzzFeed has a growing team of people dedicated to figuring out what BuzzFeed might look like without a website at the middle. Vice, already distributing a large portion of its video on Google’s YouTub</quote>.
  • <quote>If in five years I’m just watching NFL-endorsed ESPN clips through a syndication deal with a messaging app, and Vice is just an age-skewed Viacom with better audience data, and I’m looking up the same trivia on Genius instead of Wikipedia, and “publications” are just content agencies that solve temporary optimization issues for much larger platforms, what will have been point of the last twenty years of creating things for the web?</quote>

Mentions

  • Messenger platforms; chat-on-your-phone.
  • Fusion
    • of Univision & ABC.
    • is an innovation lab (a what?)
    • promiscuous media
  • Zones of Content
  • Paints a picture of how web sites might be abandoned for dedicated reader applications.
    • paper → broadsheet & tabloid
    • web site → front page
    • SEO’ed content → the stream
    • syndicated content → someone else’s stream
    • social media → someone else’s stream
    • dedicated content readers (an app) → the web is just “a slow app”

Exemplars

  • BuzzFeed
  • Fusion
  • Vice
    • SnapChat channel
    • YouTube channel
  • Vox

Platforms

  • SnapChat
    has channels, tradenamed Discover

    • Vice
  • Viber
  • Vine
  • Yak
  • YouTube
    has channels

    • CNN
    • Comedy Central
    • Cosmo
    • Daily Mail
    • ESPN
    • Vice

Previously

Followup

Platform Creep | The Awl

Platform Creep; ; Slugged ; In The Awl; 2015-07-01.
Teaser: When platforms become media.

John Herman, “tech blogger”, an editor, The Awl; Statement; 2014-03-04.

Mentions

<quote>These channels [web portals, circa 1997] were arranged around search, not feeds. They were much smaller than today’s platforms. They predated smartphones and social media. But they were, in their time, the center of internet experience. They had the people—people they needed to keep, people they needed to turn into money. So they offered tools for communication and play, entrenching themselves with email and messaging services as best they could. For years, wielding enormous audiences, they provided news. They navigated syndication and aggregation deals with news organizations and wire services. They partnered with TV networks. They tried mingling media with their search results; they incorporated it directly into their portals. Sometimes they sent huge traffic to outside sites; sometimes they sucked it away.
In contrast to their glory days, Yahoo, MSN and AOL exist in various states of comparative failure, so their lessons are hazy. (Their closest modern counterparts are all-inclusive apps like WeChat.) But one thing sticks out: Eventually, to the last, they tried to make media of their own.</quote>

  • Year of the Channel, C|Net, 1997.
  • Web Portals (think 1997, the Windows IE hegemony).

Exemplars

  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Snapchat
  • Vine
  • Upworthy

Concept

  • Platform Publishing (ahem,Platisher)
  • Messenger app needs venues against which to editorialize & promote
  • Editorial/Curatorial
    • persons
    • algos
  • Product Names
    • Stories
    • Channels
    • Cultural Moments
    • Syndicated Content
    • Instant Articles

Quoted

  • Kevin Systrom, Instagram
  • Mark Zuckerberg
  • Arianna Huffington

Via: backfill

Some hard questions for the self-identifying Open Source Community

The Questions

In the form of provocative statements against which a panel of Greybeards and Elders could react in a plenary session. presented in the style of Nine Point Five Theses.

1. On the continued inability to make a living “performing” Open Source

There have been a few very notable failures in Open Source of late which have been attributed to the inability of anyone (anyone at all) to fund the continued development and maintenance of the critical componentry of the internet. The failure to fund has manifested in the core contributors being unable to fund even a meager lifestyle based upon their work in Open Source. One can point to openssl (as a group of individuals) [1], pgp (gpg), ntp [3], at least. One can assert that this is “all different now” with the Core Infrastructure Initative [4][5], but is it? Why?

  1. Tech giants, chastened by Heartbleed, finally agree to fund OpenSSL; Jon Brodkin; In Ars Technica; 2014-04-24.
    Teaser: IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and others pledge millions to open source.
  2. The Open-Source Question; In Slate; 2015-02-12.
    Teaser: Some of the Web’s most important infrastructure is barely funded. How can we preserve it?
  3. NTP’s Fate Hinges On ‘Father Time’; Charles Babcock; In InformationWeek; 2015-03-11.
    Teaser: The Network Time Protocol provides a foundation to modern computing. So why does NTP’s support hinge so much on the shaky finances of one 59-year-old developer?
  4. Core Infrastructure Initiative
  5. OpenSSL, OpenSSH, NTP Get Funding From Core Infrastructure Initiative; Eduard Kovachs; In Security Week; 2014-05-30.

2. Open Source is priced right (free) because testing is omitted (end-users, consumers, are the testers)

One claim about open source software is that it is so cheap (free) because the quality is commensurate with the price. With all bugs being shallow to the many eyes [1], then every consumer becomes front-line on the quality assurance team. Similarly, the criticism from the pundits follows the line that “if someone isn’t paying you to do it, then it is a hobby.” Now we are hearing that the cost and efficiency gains of opens source software is being replicated in the hardware realm as well [2], namely cutting the cost out of the system by making the end users do the testing; i.e. skipping the testing cycles altogether. With hardware and software combinations being increasingly composed into (human-)life critical applications, this seems like an unwise direction. Should one use, could one use open source in a home automation rig, in a drive-by-wire car, fly-by-wire airplane, in a power plant, in a nuclear power plant? Are there still areas where the open source model is still not appropriate; i.e. where quality “really matters” or where trade secrecy really really is important because(lives are at stake, property is at stake, “think of the children”, etc.).

  1. Linus’ Law; In Jimi Wales Wiki.
    Stated: “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow”; restated: “Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone.”
    Attributed to Eric Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, 1999.
  2. Open Compute Project testing is a ‘complete and total joke’”; Chris Mellor; In The Register; 2015-07-07.
    Teaser: Source questions integrity, neutrality of certification programme

3. Graphics in Open Source is second class, by corollary X11 will never be bettered, will it?

Why is that the open source world has never produced a successor to the graphics stack of X11? A view is that if one wants “kickass” graphics, one has to go closed source (i.e. Microsoft with Windows drivers). One is always hearing that there are new improvements to the open source versions of various graphics drivers, but that they are a ways off from the baseline (i.e. from Windows). One hears about fewer total, utter unworkable incompatibilities nowadays, but the essence remains: the closed source stuff is “better.” Why?

4. Open Source has been captured by copyrighting the very APIs that it uses

Apparently from legal jurisprudence, one can create and copyright Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) within a programming language. Is it still reasonable to believe that one can create valid open source based upon such closed interfaces? Of course, I’m thinking about Android’s application interfaces being based upon Java whose owner has asserted various copyright claims. Is it not unreasonable to believe that “true open source” cannot be written in terms of “locked APIs?” Wasn’t guarding against just such an eventuality as this the whole impetus behind the open source movement in the first place?

5. Open Source OSes live at the behest of BIOS and Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) will squeeze it away

What will become of the open source operating systems when their boot images must be signed with a Microsoft key? <quote>Microsoft refuses to sign binaries distributed under certain open source licenses, including the GPLv3, which GRUB 2 and rEFInd both use.</quote>The “shim trick” seems like a slim kindness that will go away at some point, and soon. Is it not unreasonable to believe that at some point they will longer allow [your] work to boot on available hardware? A rebuttal could be that open source could live on within virtual machine containers, but that doesn’t feel very comforting.

  1. James Bottomley; Linux Foundation Secure Boot Released; In His Blog; 2013-02-09.
  2. James Bottomley; Adventures in Microsoft UEFI Signing; In His Blog; 2012-11-20.
  3. Microsoft UEFI Certification Authority; Jeremiah Cox (Microsoft); At UEFI PlugFest; 2013-09-19; 25 slides.
  4. UEFI Secure Boot: Big Hassle, Questionable Benefit; Carla Schroder; In Linux.com (Magazine); 2012-06-12.
  5. Matthew Garrett; UEFI Secure Booting; In His Blog; 2011-09-20.

6. Closed Source has money and they Play Rough

Consider the case where an open source project achieves success and a large user base only to be taken “off the market” by a closed source competitor. Not immediately of course, but slowly over time the open source (community version) drifts and atrophies. I’m particularly thinking of the MySQL case here, but there may be others. Is this just fair game in the art and science of businesses in a closed-end marketplace?

Like crabs in a bucket they are…

systemd, upstart, sysvinit, /etc/rc.local? Tomato-tomaaaato, let’s call the whole thing off. Don’t you [panelists] think that this sort of squabbling keeps open source software “small” and “hobbyist?”

8. Open Source has hit ‘Peak Toolchain’

tweet

On counterpoint though the Java culture folks will point out that with their JIT compiler, VM technology and multi-tenant mega-container client-server architectures (J2EE), they simply don’t run into the class of problems that Docker and container systems attempt to address.  No remediation needed, they just don’t have the problem.

So a question to the panel is whether the open source operating system world has hit “Peak Complexity” and every move after this is merely saving off the ultimate collapse of the whole regime.  Even Koji, the Fedora build system is really a sourdough system where one must seed the system with the packages & components of the last known working release and build/rebuild to a fixed point in the new stack (kernel, glibc, systemd, service daemon, applications, window system, etc.).

The original reference is 18 months old and the direct criticism may have been addressed. Red Hat now sponsors has Project Atomic (Atomic App, Nulecule, Atomic Host).

An appropriate response to the direct technical criticism of Docker in a 5-min response from a panelist would be that these are the normal teething pains for a new technology.  They should be more solid in the future.  “Let’s move on.”  But the greater criticism of addressing dependencies and complexity to stave off impending collapse is worthy of a plenary panel.

In real life … best to wait until these get solved, and the nested, nasty dependencies only get worse.

For example, we have today’s emergency-mode announcement from OpenSSL of CVE-2015-1793 (2015-07-09) that they have repudiated OpenSSL 1.0.2 and prior outright and that the whole wide world of the internet must upgrade to the new code that has no bugs.  Yet for most systems, it simply isn’t possible to “upgrade” because of the dependency issues, we will have to upgrade from bare metal upwards to get access to the new OpenSSL, and that means upgrading storage systems, databases, networks, and applications.  Some systems just won’t be upgraded.

Currently

Originally

  • Alexander Larsson; Adventures in Docker land; In GNOME Blog; 2013-10-15.
    <quote>Unfortunately Docker relies on AUFS, a union filesystem that is not in the upstream kernel, nor is it likely to ever be there. Also, while AUFS is in the current Ubuntu kernel it is deprecated there and will eventually be removed. This means Docker doesn’t run on Fedora which has a primarily-upstream approach to packaging.</quote>

9.  An Open Source strategy is basically “beggar thy neighbor

There exists thinking in technology strategy circles, and in cocktail party circles (same thing really, no?), that Open Source is a weapon that must be used appropriately and sparingly.  The thinking runs like this:

Use open source
  • for the peripheral competency of your business; think: operating systems of “the cloud.”
  • to devalue the core competency of your competitor’s business; think Hadoop vs (Google)MapReduce.
Use closed source (trade secrets)
  • the core competency of your business; keep how you add value to yourself.

This mode of thinking explains much about open source and how it behaves in the marketplace.  Rebut, assent or explain.

9.5 Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is just a way of packaging Open Source, now isn’t it?

Somewhat of a softball here.  SaaS forces payments to happen on a regular basis.  But also the thinking is more aligned with Peak Toolchain concepts.

Not Quite the Average: An Empirical Study of Web Use | Weinreich, Obendorf, Herder, Mayer

Harald Weinreich, Hartmut Obendorf, Eelco Herder, Matthias Mayer; Not Quite the Average: An Empirical Study of Web Use; In Transactions on the Web, Volume 2, Number 1, Article 4. 2008-02. 31 pages. paywall.

Mentioned

Cited

ATIS Open Web Alliance

Open Web Alliance of ATIS

Concept

  • These are the telecoms and network infrastructure vendors.
  • They have jurisdictional obligations to monitor the traffic on their networks; c.f. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) and other in-country operating laws, regulations, rules.
  • They base their future business aspirations off of Deep Packet InspectionInsertion (DPI) which they call Value Added Services.
  • In particular they are looking to track-and-target persons on their network for at least advertising purposes.
  • In particular, they are looking to insert ad creative into the entertainment-type network traffic.
  • They hope to avoid being low-value dumb pipes supporting a high-value smart edge‘.
  • A web with universal E2E crypto breaks this.
  • They are against end-to-end encryption
  • They are against ubiquitous SSL/TLS
  • They are against SPDY
  • They are against HTTP/2.0 (which will require e2e crypto)
  • They are an substantially an anti-Google axis (yet Google is a member)
  • Their counterproposal is Open Transparent Proxy
    • They crack the SSL at their edge.
    • From their proxy head end, they will transport the communcations to their upline obligations: government, advertisers, vendors, monitors, and also to the consumer’s desired end point.
    • Value Added Services (VAS)

Who

(conveners, staff)

  • Sanjay Mishra
    Distinguished Member of the Technical StaffNetwork Infrastructure Planning
    Corporate Technology
    Verizon
  • Kevin ShatzkamerDistinguished Architect
    Mobility, Web and Media
    Cisco
  • Jim McEachern
    Senior Technology Consultant
    ATIS

Members

  • Alcatel-Lucent
  • AT&T
  • Cisco
  • Ericsson
  • Google
  • GSMA
  • Hitachi
  • Hughes
  • iconectiv
  • Intrado
  • Leidos
  • NTT
  • Openwave Mobility
  • Orange
  • Rogers
  • TDS
  • Time Warner Cable
  • T-Mobile
  • Verizon

Output

Findings

press

Actualities