Google's bid for Linux

Google's bid for Linux

OINGoogle announces its entry into the Open Invention Network (Dirson, InformationWeek), an association of companies to acquire patents related to the development of Linux in order to share research and protect the operating system from possible announcements of legal actions by others Competitors, ensuring free unlicensed access to all related intellectual property (see OIN on Wikipedia). The OIN was originally founded by IBM, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony, and each of its licensees, including Canonical, NEC or Oracle, contributes research, patents (so far more than one hundred Which cover all kinds of aspects related to the development of various Linux constituents and their environment) and economic support to the association.

In the case of Google, the reasons for joining the OIN are perfectly logical: the company not only actively uses Linux (it is one of the largest corporate users worldwide), but also, many Google workers are members Known and respected within the developer community. The OIN guarantees to Google not only a future free of legal complications and patent troll threats, but also a higher return on investment in research and development: for example, it is estimated that IBM Invests more than $ 100 million a year in Linux-related developments, while the community brings in an estimated value of about $ 1 billion - with only half being useful to IBM and its customers, that gives IBM a value of Five hundred million in return for an investment of one hundred, 20% of the cost of developing a proprietary operating system alternative.

In the case of Google, in addition, it is said that the company could be finalizing the development of the highly commented gPhone, which would be based on the adaptation of Linux for mobile devices, OpenMoko, which would thus take Google's bet by Linux each time to A greater number of platforms. At other times, such as the Gtalk case, the company has also made use of open standards (XMPP / Jabber) as a basis for product development.

Automotive operating systems

Automotive operating systems

Automotive via CNN Money and C | Net to the same news from the Daily Yomiuri detailing the formation of a consortium of Japanese companies and institutions (Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Toshiba, Denso and the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Energy, among others) In order to develop an operating system for use in automotive. The system is currently called JasPar, and the objective would be to have a functional prototype in 2009.

Following a little more news, I find that 70% of the market for automotive operating systems is in the hands of OSEK / VDX, A German-French consortium formed by the union of the developments of OSEK ("Offene Systeme und deren Schnittstellen für die Elektronik im Kraftfahrzeug", originally composed of BMW, Bosch, DaimlerChrysler, Opel, Siemens, VW and the University of Karlsruhe as coordinator; And VDX ("Vehicle Distributed eXecutive"), coming from the French automotive industry, specifically PSA and Renault.

It is estimated that electronic components and software already account for around 20% of the cost of an average car, a percentage that reaches 50% in hybrid cars. In the eighties, the number of electronic systems installed in the average car remained stable around five, while at present it is about thirty in average, with some luxury models that exceed one hundred. Such demand is provoking the interest not only of the aforementioned consortiums from the industry but also of technology companies such as IBM or Microsoft.

The evolution of this type of operating system could have enormous consequences for the establishment of communication standards that would largely avoid the escalation of such costs through joint research, as well as a strong impact on the aftermarket service market. At present, brands jealously protect their electronics for competitive and security reasons, which entails enormous difficulties for the workshops and for the development of compatible parts and products, but in certain parts of the industry it is beginning to advocate the convenience of Towards open-type developments.

What is this "Windows Cloud"?

What is this "Windows Cloud"?

A quick mention made by Steve Ballmer last Wednesday is generating a lot of intrigue and interest: a pre-announcement of something that Microsoft's CEO named Windows Cloud, which would be designed for programmers writing cloud computing applications, and who would be unveiled by the Company within one month. The details, ComputerWorld or Slashdot.
The most common reaction is skepticism. Can Microsoft, the company that showed itself unable to react to the arrival of ultraportable more than resurrecting an eight-year old Windows XP, suddenly put on the market a light and cloud-oriented operating system? That a product whose launch is expected for a month does not yet have a definitive name, and assuming a change of strategy so important did not know anything so far does not seem the usual style of Microsoft. According to Ballmer,

"We need a new operating system designed for the cloud and we will introduce one in about four weeks, we'll even have a name to give you by then. But let's just call it for the purposes of today's "Windows Cloud." (...) We're not driving an agenda towards being service providers but we've gotta build a service that's Windows in the cloud "

The ultra-portable ultra-portable market boom, already qualified as a "netbook revolution" and with expected sales of two hundred million units by 2013 (the same size as the entire market predicted for conventional laptops), could be pushing Microsoft to change Its habitually slow pace of development for something more reactive, able to counteract a Google whose latest move, the launch of Chrome, clearly see what we discussed at the time: a threat designed to compete with Windows (incidentally, thanks to All those who in those days came to "explain me kindly" in the comments the concept of operating system, as if I, who had been teaching Information Systems for eighteen years, did not know ... should be the first time I'm glad to agree In my appreciations nothing less than with Steve Ballmer :-)

"If you talk to Google they'll say it's thin client computing but then they'll issue a new browser that's basically the big fat operating system designed to compete with Windows, but running on top of it"

Without a doubt, a powerful reason to try to dynamize the portfolio of Microsoft products by putting on the table something more than the old XP, which contrasts with the fact of being an environment known to many, the evidence of being a system clearly not designed, for Orientation and philosophy, for the characteristics of an ultraportable. Will Microsoft be able to give a response as quick and interesting as what Ballmer has seemed to imply, and get out of the sleeve a light and work-oriented web-based operating system, or we'll be simply talking about something as cloud-like as Vaporware

Watson, between artificial intelligence and Skynet

Watson, between artificial intelligence and Skynet

When, on May 11, 1997, Deep Blue was able to defeat Garry Kasparov to chess, many began to look at computers differently. The feeling of unease was mitigated by some nuances: the victory had been tightened (two wins, one defeat and three boards), the fact that IBM did not accept a new game requested by the Russian champion and decided to disassemble the machine, or the That the excellence of the same was reduced to a reduced scope of the human intelligence like the one of the chess made that many considered that to that of the artificial intelligence still lacked a few boils.

In 2011, a new development of IBM, Watson, defeated in Jeopardy! To the two best players of all time in that contest, and many began to shuffle the idea that a machine could be better than humans in a game involving not only knowledge, but also intelligence when it comes to Interpret questions and answers made in a given context. Watson's victory this time not only did not admit of nuances, but had taken place in the presence of limitations as powerful as the fact of being disconnected from the internet, operating only with the information in his memory.

Last January, IBM installed a Ratsselaer Polytechnic Institute at a private university in New York, a Watson-like machine with access to a huge 15TB database, with the idea of ​​equipping the machine with new skills and preparing it for its Development in new industries. At the moment, it is being experimented in areas such as finance, information technology, business analytics or medicine, in which access and instant analysis of a vast amount of documentation that would be completely impossible for any human to process allows The resolution of complex scenarios subject to a multitude of constraints. To get an idea, you can watch this video of IBM on a hypothetical application of Watson to a treatment of a cancer patient:

Indeed, a very significant part of what we call intelligence is linked to the ability to locate relevant information in a very broad database: what Watson is able to do with its massive processing and storage capacity is simply to expand this Ability to almost infinite, as a doctor who had read, understood and memorized everything published in a particular subject and could also remember it almost instantly and with complete precision. Moreover, the machine can even use its own analyzes and previous results as inputs, leading to a concept very similar to that of human learning as such.

The border now moves to a new type of analysis, as "the machine goes to school": that of data that includes, for example, information and context data generated by one or more social networks in real time. What happens when the ability to enter information into Watson's memory becomes virtually unlimited? What happens when we go from feeding Watson in a controlled manner with academic information to doing it with anything that he can find and classify for himself on the internet, not simply real-time data from a particular source or controlled sources, but all kinds of information?

The evolution of the technology industry towards the cloud

The evolution of the technology industry towards the cloud

Technological take on the cloud - Five Days

Marimar Jiménez writes a piece on technology industry trends in Cinco Días, "Technological Cloud Compromise" (pdf), which reflects some of my comments on Dell's recent acquisition of EMC2, and For whose development he sent me some questions via email.

What we are experiencing is precisely this phenomenon: the development of the cloud by companies initially removed from the so-called "corporate computing", such as Amazon or Google, coupled with the subsequent but decisive leap given by Microsoft in the same direction, is Leading to many of the companies that were dedicated to the sale of hardware to that market are completely out of play, pending the renewal of millionaire contracts that, in most cases, will never arrive. Yes, the cloud is obviously based on hardware, but that hardware is no longer marketed by the HP, EMC2 and Dell in the world, but by components much cheaper than the Amazon itself, Google or Microsoft develop for themselves with factors Critics, fundamentally, minimize their cost and maximize their flexibility.

The result is a sharp shifting of value from the "iron" market to that of services, which many are still trying to understand, and which leaves out more than one.

Then the questions and answers I exchanged with Marimar:

Q. What are the major trends that are setting the pace of the IT sector today?

A. Everything indicates that the IT sector is marked by the transition towards cost variability, outsourcing, lightness and the reduction of investment in fixed assets. Large corporate contracts with hardware companies go down in history, and customers now choose to rent capacity instead of buying machines, by datacenters maintained by specialists, that allow to pay only for the capacity of processing, storage and the bandwidth Which is required at all times, which offer a much higher security (in the hands of specialists) and much more costs.

Q. It seems clear that "iron" is losing weight in favor of services and software, but this phenomenon is the same in the consumer segment as in the business segment?

A. The hardware is a business already practically commoditized, with the great majority of its processes relegated to the efficiency in costs, with generally very scarce margins and little money to win. Compete in this segment is exhausting, and only a few brands do well. In the business segment, the large servers of years ago are moving to the cloud, and the supply contracts involved disappeared.

Q. What companies and why are they better understanding the evolution of the sector towards the intangible?

A. Without a doubt, Amazon, who developed a product from their own needs and subsequently made it into a market leader and continuous learning experience. The growth of Amazon Web Services is impressive, a true case study, and says a lot about the flexibility of a company that started selling books. Microsoft, on the other hand, has carried out a very important refocusing process, has the cloud as one of its top priorities, and is getting very competitive in that area.

Q. And who are the big losers?

A. The big losers are the protagonists of what was called "corporate computing", the suppliers of machines, components and software that now happen to be in the hands of a third party that rents them. Large cloud competitors develop their own technology, scale better because of their focus, and are often not customers of corporate suppliers because they tend to create their own infrastructures to gain control over all aspects that can be optimized.

Q. How does it fit in all this evolution concepts that seems to be marking the roadmap of all companies in the sector, both hardware and services or software such as the Internet of things, 3D printing, robotics?

A. The internet of things requires generally simple and inexpensive components, and connectivity alternatives that make sense. A chip tucked into a bicycle to be able to eventually locate if you are stolen can not connect just like a smartphone, because the needs are completely different. This marks a focus on very light services, almost omnipresent, with narrow margins to boost the creativity of entrepreneurs.

Q. In the end, with this sector towards the intangible, will companies be imposed that do everything, such as Google, Facebook, Amazon or Apple, or the very specialists? Or both?

A. The ecosystem conforms to large companies operating in global environments, surrounded by an entrepreneurial fabric that develops alternatives based on a close proximity to the customer, creativity and needs detection, etc. I do not think that changes especially, it just becomes more efficient.

Q. And in this context, what about the challenge of the European digital single market? It seems that progress and suddenly not, with the last sentence on the transmission of data, for example.

A. The European digital market is a huge need because its lack of development deprives companies of the continent of a huge advantage, a field of development close to reach scale and competitive advantages. 

Head in the cloud

Head in the cloud

It could not be clearer: the cloud is the next big topic of discussion. To Google's strong position in this area for several years with its approaches and products, is already joined by a serious offensive by Microsoft disclosed in a Business Week article, "Microsoft to Google: Get Off My Cloud" In which the company announces an ambitious plan to build in the next years a network of twenty latest generation data centers with a projected cost of more than one billion each, designed to "reinvent the infrastructure of our industry" and face the "Good work done by Google to create hype around the subject." In an industry where its two main sources of competitive advantage, licensing fees and the push of the PC industry as a distribution channel seem to go down in the background, the idea of ​​bringing to the cloud under leasing products like Office Or Exchange seems to have more and more sense.
But Microsoft is not the only major player in putting its head in the cloud: IBM announces a "Resilient Cloud Validation program", a kind of "seal of approval" designed to build trust in those companies that are thinking about their transition to this As well as to offer services to both companies that decide to build their own cloud and those who prefer to rely on third-party infrastructure: build in, or rent out, the everlasting issue with the legions of IBM consultants willing to contribute doctrine.
Between the two news, there is not the slightest doubt that the whole industry can be prepared to go and put the head in the cloud. A trend announced for a long time, which takes advantage of the evidence of the crisis through promises of lower management costs and infrastructure. The clouds are made of steam, but this one seems to be taking more and more body.

Chromebook: New Era?

Chromebook: New Era?

Google reopened yesterday the informational interest of the technological world in its Google I / O with the announcement of the launch of its Chromebook, which for many supposes the culmination of the strategy of the company in an all-in-one solution of hardware, software and services.

Seeing the launch of Chromebook as a simple product, like a computer more, is a very unambitious approach. In fact, it is a complete redefinition, the first serious step in the idea of ​​transforming computing that we know from a computer-centric to a red-centric scheme, with all that that can entail. Obviously, it lacks the fundamental step, the great doubt today: to know if the market is prepared for something like this, whether it will host such devices with enthusiasm or, conversely, will be one of many flops in Google history as company. On the horizon, the presentation of three types of offers: for the consumer market, for companies and for students, with different schemes and prices. In the first case, a payment for the machine of $ 429 in basic version without 3G and $ 499 with 3G (and 100MB of data traffic with the operator of shift - they are consumed in a sigh). In the second, a monthly payment of $ 28 for companies or $ 20 for students that includes maintenance and updating of the system and a guarantee.


The idea is to raise the cloud not as an option, but as an advantage. Something as complex as a series of things that a very significant part of the market perceives today as limitations are seen as something positive, as a guarantee of security, portability or versatility. The change of perception is not simple, even for end users who have spent almost everything in the cloud for years, nor for a corporate market that is still being raised if Google is the partner that they want to entrust the entire operation of their business. In that sense, Chromebook is a very risky product: the presentation in the Google I / O is made before an enthusiastic and apparently convinced public, but the serious approach of purchase is another thing. In fact, in my tests with the product last February, I quickly went on to value positive aspects such as versatility / flexibility (like "I just sit in front of it and feel it as my computer") to limitation Are my files, where is the administrator - it seems that they have improved it - or what happens if the connection falls "). No, it's not a simple transition or it's going to be a two-day thing. After decades of getting used to the market that "the more powerful the better," the Chromebook is such a brutal change of model that my impression is that Google will find more resistance than expected to make Chromebook a success. It's those things that you can analyze analytically, whose advantages you can value or even you can turn into numbers with some solvency ... but that as a decision, it costs you to take more than it seems.

Does Google play with Chromebook a lot? My impression is yes. And I do not mean economically. Of course, great success and a legion of customers paying for cloud services would mean a very positive revenue diversification for a virtually uniproduced company today. But where Google really plays it is in its prestige as a company capable of setting trends. For Chromebook to be considered a success does not count with a sales success. You need a revolution similar to that, for example, Apple could assume with the launch of your iPod or iPhone. Something that really becomes a model for others, that is imitated, that talk about it as a before and after. You need to go from what today are two models (one for me, since Acer as a brand lost all its solvency with the astonishing quality of its Aspire One), to an entire ecosystem of competitors throwing not only machines, but also offers that compete with The Google cloud to the same level. If it is not, if within six months Google is practically alone in this market, we will not be talking about anything other than another flash, another product ahead of time and its market. These kinds of successes, these radical model changes, are not decidedly easy to achieve.

At stake, the actual consideration of the cloud and the validation of your model face to the end user. It is not a bet we see every day.