Four short links: 8 Jan 2009

by Nat Torkington

Four quickies from databases, telephone history, botnets, and disaster tech.

1. MemCacheDB - a persistent storage engine for fast and reliable key-value based object storage and retrieval, with transactions and replication (via stinky). Joining Cassandra, Prophet, CouchDB, and many others in the "doing something new to make use of all this data" game. For an interesting counterpoint, read Not Drinking Kool Aid for an interesting counterpoint, though.
2. True Story of the Telephone - a fascinating story of how Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone, but stole it for love. Distrust most pat stories of invention—Scott Berkun (author of Myths of Innovation) has plenty more of these myths that are great heroic stories but aren't actually, alas, true.
3. Visualizing Botnet Spread - interesting animation showing the spread of a botnet by keeping track of IRC channel joins. (via mauricio)
4. Solvatten - solar powered system for turning undrinkable water into drinkable (video below). (via mauricio)

Four short links: 7 Jan 2009

by Nat Torkington

Draw closer around the flickering firescreen, and hear four tales of brains, words, medical improvement, and the sharp ache of the wisdom teeth of the future poking through the soft gum of the 21st century as diagnosed by Dr Sterling.

1. Mind Bites - Flickr set of findings from neuroscience on top of beautiful photos. Mind candy meets eye candy.
2. Dr Johnson's Dictionary - the original dictionary of the English language, reborn as a word a day blog. Love the old citations, e.g.

   A’DAGE. n.s. [adagium, Lat.] A maxim handed down from antiquity; a proverb.
   Shallow, unimproved intellects, that are confident pretenders
   to certainty; as if, contrary to the adage, science had no friend
   but ignorance. Glanville’s Scepsis Scientifica, c.2.
   Fine fruits of learning! old ambitious fool,
   Dar’st apply that adage of the school;
   As if ’tis nothing worth that lies conceal’d;
   And science is not science ’til reveal’d? Dryd. Pers. Sat. i.

3. Peter Provonost - prevented untold infections in hospital procedures by instituting a simple checklist. This is a long article, but worth reading as it shows how to institute change. He was diligent, scientific, and worked with the teams instead of against them. For more like this, read The Best Practice: How the New Quality Movement is Transforming MedicineThe Best Practice by Charles Kenney, a fascinating look at the quality movement in healthcare.
4. Bruce Sterling's State of the World 2009 - I'm just skipping through reading Bruce's responses. Some fabulous zingers that make me look forward to his presence at Webstock in February: "The Americans don't have a place to offshore their money. They can offshore their LABOR, that's dead easy, but their money? If the American dollar goes, finance as an industry gets the blue screen of death.. On urban reinvention: "Suppose you found some dead James Howard Kunstler strip-mall burg, bought it for a dollar, and turned it into "OpenSource-opolis" where every possible object and service was creatively commonized. Would that be heaven, hell -- or what we've got now only different?" On netbooks + cloud slowing the upgrade cycle: "I've been a computer "consumer" for decades now, in the sense that I follow the trade press and buy computers regularly, but I dunno: if a $300 netbook running freeware lets me get the job done, 2009 may be the year when I just plain vanish off the radar.". Oh forget it, as is always the way with Sterling every damn sentence is quotable—go read the whole thing yourself and enjoy.

WSJ's End of Wall Street: Don't Order The Tombstone Just Yet

by Robert Passarella

It's nice to be back after the holidays.

I just watched a series of short videos from the Wall Street Journal's Digital Network. The series is called the "End of Wall Street". It is a short oral history of the past year since the demise of Bear Stearns and the current crisis. It ends with a part called "What Happens Next", yes the biggest question in the world, right next to the last cyclon cylon on Battlestar Galactica. It's a nice piece of journalism even with the mood inducing sad piano.

Follow this up with another WSJ story on Morgan Stanley written by Denis Berman: "Answering Morgan Stanley Riddle" about the possible successors to CEO John Mack. The two top contenders are James Gorman - longtime brokerage guy and Walid Chammah the institutional securities guy. Both of these guys represent what Wall Street has always been about: Sales, Trading, Research and eventually core Investment Banking. I think we have witnessed (first understatement of the year) the end of financial alchemy of complex assets with neatly model risk assumptions passed to investors as securities, those days to some degree, as long as memory holds, are over (whew!). It is one of the questions I will look to ask Bill Janeway and Richard Bookstaber at Money:Tech as they continue their conversation from last year.

In fact a return to fundamental investing (with some help from the Internet, RSS & social media) is upon us. As sell side firms reduce the number of companies they cover, being able to do 'real' research and find proprietary data is an advantage, again.

Back to MS as a barometer for the Street as a whole, the final sentence in the article is the money quote,

"The CEO pick will say a lot about the firm's vision of itself. And whether Wall Street has, at last, died or survived."

If the choice is between a brokerage guy and a markets guy -- that should tell you where we are going - clients and trading.

The good news is that Wall Street never really dies, firms go under or get acquired, but creative destruction always takes place. Just because MS & Goldman Sachs are bank holding companies doesn't mean they are going to stay that way forever - my own hunch is that this is a holding action to provide stability, as we all start to understand the new rules. In the next few months and years, the shackles of stability and emerging competitors will give way to prudent risk seeking and higher profits. It's just human nature.

As long as people seek to do something more than earn a risk free return and have capital to invest, Wall Street survives. If it didn't die after '29, tariffs, and a World War, the Great Panic of 2008 isn't going to kill it.

The Biggest Ponzi Scheme of Them All

by Tim O'Reilly

Since Bernie Madoff has put Ponzi schemes back onto the front pages, it's worth considering whether we are all complicit in the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all, the idea that the global economy can grow indefinitely.

I grew up on the idea that humanity would grow out into space, and that resources were for all practical purposes infinite. It may well be that in some possible worlds, that could still be true, but it's increasingly looking like we're going to be stuck here with only one world's resources to draw on. And while most reasonable people are aware that we're using up much of our children's inheritance, and handing them debt in exchange, I don't think as a society we've really come to grips with the consequence of that knowledge.

We're rather like the investors who were complicit in Madoff's scheme, playing along while the getting is good. At least some of us know that the game is rigged, but we're not going to be the first to blow the whistle.

Former World Bank economist Herman Daly wrote a vivid piece on the subject of the Ponzi economy back in October, entitled The Disconnection Between Financial Assets and Real Asssets:

The current financial debacle is really not a “liquidity” crisis as it is often euphemistically called. It is a crisis of overgrowth of financial assets relative to growth of real wealth—pretty much the opposite of too little liquidity. Financial assets have grown by a large multiple of the real economy—paper exchanging for paper is now 20 times greater than exchanges of paper for real commodities. It should be no surprise that the relative value of the vastly more abundant financial assets has fallen in terms of real assets. Real wealth is concrete; financial assets are abstractions—existing real wealth carries a lien on it in the amount of future debt. The value of present real wealth is no longer sufficient to serve as a lien to guarantee the exploding debt. Consequently the debt is being devalued in terms of existing wealth. No one any longer is eager to trade real present wealth for debt even at high interest rates. This is because the debt is worth much less, not because there is not enough money or credit, or because “banks are not lending to each other” as commentators often say.

Can the economy grow fast enough in real terms to redeem the massive increase in debt? In a word, no. As Frederick Soddy (1926 Nobel Laureate chemist and underground economist) pointed out long ago, “you cannot permanently pit an absurd human convention, such as the spontaneous increment of debt [compound interest] against the natural law of the spontaneous decrement of wealth [entropy]”. The population of “negative pigs” (debt) can grow without limit since it is merely a number; the population of “positive pigs” (real wealth) faces severe physical constraints. The dawning realization that Soddy’s common sense was right, even though no one publicly admits it, is what underlies the crisis. The problem is not too little liquidity, but too many negative pigs growing too fast relative to the limited number of positive pigs whose growth is constrained by their digestive tracts, their gestation period, and places to put pigpens. Also there are too many two‐legged Wall Street pigs, but that is another matter.

Growth in US real wealth is restrained by increasing scarcity of natural resources, both at the source end (oil depletion), and the sink end (absorptive capacity of the atmosphere for CO2). Further, spatial displacement of old stuff to make room for new stuff is increasingly costly as the world becomes more full, and increasing inequality of distribution of income prevents most people from buying much of the new stuff—except on credit (more debt). Marginal costs of growth now likely exceed marginal benefits, so that real physical growth makes us poorer, not richer (the cost of feeding and caring for the extra pigs is greater than the extra benefit). To keep up the illusion that growth is making us richer we deferred costs by issuing financial assets almost without limit, conveniently forgetting that these so‐called assets are, for society as a whole, debts to be paid back out of future real growth. That future real growth is very doubtful and consequently claims on it are devalued, regardless of liquidity.

This is economic heresy, something that goes so contrary to our every assumption that we're convinced it must be wrong. Surely we can go on somehow, and get back to the way it was before the crash! If we can't, we imagine a dreary world without possibilities, in which there is no motivation, no improvement, and no opportunity.

There is an alternative that Daly, in another piece, calls A Steady State Economy, and that others call "ecological economics". Here's Daly:

A failed growth economy and a steady-state economy are not the same thing; they are the very different alternatives we face. The Earth as a whole is approximately a steady state. Neither the surface nor the mass of the earth is growing or shrinking; the inflow of radiant energy to the Earth is equal to the outflow; and material imports from space are roughly equal to exports (both negligible). None of this means that the earth is static—a great deal of qualitative change can happen inside a steady state, and certainly has happened on Earth. The most important change in recent times has been the enormous growth of one subsystem of the Earth, namely the economy, relative to the total system, the ecosphere. This huge shift from an “empty” to a “full” world is truly “something new under the sun” as historian J. R. McNeil calls it in his book of that title. The closer the economy approaches the scale of the whole Earth the more it will have to conform to the physical behavior mode of the Earth. That behavior mode is a steady state—a system that permits qualitative development but not aggregate quantitative growth. Growth is more of the same stuff; development is the same amount of better stuff (or at least different stuff). The remaining natural world no longer is able to provide the sources and sinks for the metabolic throughput necessary to sustain the existing oversized economy—much less a growing one.

I like Daly's distinction between qualitative development and quantitative growth. The consumption of electronic media perhaps gives a foretaste of an economy in which qualitative complexity might replace quantitative addition as the raw material of exchange. Obviously, we're not there yet, as we're still consuming lots of resources to build the substrate for our increasingly intellectual economy, but I love that he's broken the naive assumption that if we don't have growth, the only alternative is stasis.

It's clear that getting to a steady-state economy will be hard, perhaps even impossible (although it's worth noting that living systems have accomplished that feat.) But what a challenge! How do we keep the dynamism of modern capitalist economies without borrowing from the future? What does it mean to keep the real costs of what we consume on the balance sheet? Will the economy of the future be built on aesthetic value exchange (the whuffie of Cory Doctorow's imagination), with renewable energy in harness and physical materials seamlessly recycled. Great questions, great opportunities for us to invent the answers!

Four short links: 6 Jan 2009

by Nat Torkington

Four thought-provoking links from the worlds of disaster tech, multicore, bioengineering, and 17th century French nobility.

1. Techies: Volunteering to Save the World - article on NGO work being the new black for technology. In particular, this caught my eye: "Earlier this year, IBM launched a program called Corporate Service Corps to send 100 employees to Romania, Turkey, Vietnam, the Philippines, Ghana and Tanzania to work on projects that combine economic development and IT. And the response was impressive: More than 5,000 employees applied to participate."
2. Laurence Livermore Lab releases Stack Trace Analysis Tool - debugging tool for code running over 20k processors. We need new tools like this to handle the complexity thrown up by a multicore world.
3. Spinning Silkworm Cocoons into Biosensors - interesting article in MIT Technology Review about bioengineer Fiorenzo Omenetto who is using silk to build optical devices that can be used as sensors in the body. "In the devices that ­Omenetto and Kaplan are developing, proteins embedded in the optical material efficiently bind to a target such as oxygen or a bacterial protein; when they do, the light transmitted by the sensor changes color."
4. La Rochefoucauld Quotes - lots of thought-provoking quotes. For example, on the freemium business model: "What seems to be generosity is often no more than disguised ambition, which overlooks a small interest in order to secure a great one." On Twitter: "As it is the characteristic of great wits to say much in few words, so small wits seem to have the gift of speaking much and saying nothing." On social network sites: "However rare true love may be, it is less so than true friendship." On Google/Microsoft/Apple/[insert big company here]: "There are heroes in evil as well as in good."

What Will Change Everything?

by Brady Forrest

Regular Radar contributor Linda Stone sent this in to be posted today.

What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see? The Internet, television, antibiotics, automobiles, electricity, nuclear power, space travel, and cloning - these inventions were born out of dreams, persistence, and imagination. What game-changing ideas can we expect to see in OUR lifetimes?

As each year winds to a close, John Brockman, a literary agent representing some of the finest minds in science and technology and the founder of Edge (a 501c3), poses a provocative question to an international community of physicists, psychologists, futurists, thought leaders and dreamers. Brockman is a master convener, both online and in real life. This year’s annual Edge question, What will change everything?, generated responses from Freeman Dyson, Danny Hillis, Martin Seligman, Craig Venter, and Juan Enriquez, to name a few. Here are a few highlights.

Venter imagines creating life from synthetic materials and expects that our view of life, itself, will be transformed.

Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilczek, believes everything will continue to become smaller, faster, cooler, and cheaper -- with its implications of an Internet on steroids and exciting new designer materials.

Several neuroscientists wrote about everything from direct communication of feelings and thoughts from brain to brain to electrical brain stimulation for the treatment of mood disorders to cheap cryonic suspension of brains, to ways to control brain plasticity. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Verena Huber-Dyson, see science evolving beyond analytical focus and including a sense of synthesis. Huber-Dyson envisions the end of fragmentation of knowledge.

George Dyson, science historian, author, kayak-designer and builder, looks toward the stars - or here on earth, suggesting, “the detection of extraterrestrial life, extraterrestrial intelligence or extraterrestrial technology will change everything.”

Discover Magazine editor in chief, Corey S. Powell, offers a list of possibilities from synthetic telepathy to genetically engineered kids.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, “Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.”

Tap your greatness as we welcome 2009!

Enjoy reading responses to the Edge annual question and please comment on the question yourself: What will change everything? What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?

Software for Civic Life: An Interview with Mike Mathieu of Frontseat.org

by Joshua-Michéle Ross

In this interview Mike Mathieu, founder of Frontseat.org, discusses how he is helping to build “software for civic life”. Using publicly available data and web services (many of their applications use S3 and EC2) Frontseat creates simple, highly functional tools like Walkscore (rating neighborhood walkability) and Countmore (helping students in the recent elections decide which state to cast their vote in). Mike is also behind obamaCTO where you can add your opinion and cast your vote for what the new CTO of the USA’s priorities should be.

With the recent election there has been a lot of talk and enthusiasm for the possibility of a more open, modern government that operates with transparency and makes data available for remixing by it’s citizens. People have their eye on government to change…This is a worthy goal to push for but don’t hold your breath. The government of the United States is a behemoth that, all told, employs 12 million people and is preternaturally territorial and risk averse…

Pressing government to change is necessary but is not the only bet we should place. Mike makes the point in this video that we don’t need to wait for data that can improve civic life or increase transparency in government.

If you know of other examples of citizens improving civic life that deserve mention, please share them in the comments.

Part one of this interview is available here.

O'Reilly Media on Twitter

by Tim O'Reilly

Laurel Ruma (@laurelatoreilly) just did a quick census of the number of O'Reilly employees on twitter. She came up with 74 twitter accounts out of about 300 employees worldwide, plus five people who were controlling departmental or project-based O'Reilly twitter accounts like the following:

Official O'Reilly account: @oreillymedia: The top level O'Reilly Media site.
@oreilly_verlag: O'Reilly Germany

Number of O'Reilly products or divisions on Twitter: 8
@make: Make: Magazine and makezine blog
@craft: Craft: Magazine and craftzine blog
@hacks: Hacks book series and hackszine blog
@insideria: Our Inside RIA microsite sponsored by Adobe.
@missingmanuals: The Missing Manuals
@headfirstlabs: Head First book series
@tocTools of Change for Publishing conference and blog
@radar: The O'Reilly Radar blog

Number of O'Reilly conferences on Twitter: 12
@oscon: The O'Reilly Open Source Convention
@etech: The O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference
@moneytech: Money:Tech
@foundconf: Found: The Search Acquisition and Architecture Conference
@where20: Where 2.0
@railsconf: RailsConf
@MySQLconf: The MySQL User Conference
@web2summit: The Web 2.0 Summit
@RailsConfEU: RailsConf EU
@w2esf09: Web 2.0 Expo SF
@w2e09: Web 2.0 Expo NY
@velocityconf: Velocity

Many of you have probably seen some or all of these accounts in my retweet stream. For better or worse, my personal account (@timoreilly) has garnered the most followers, and so I've become a switchboard for passing on the best of the news from others in the company.

I do find this to be an interesting exercise in managing corporate social media. I don't follow every O'Reilly employee, as we have no formal method for tracking them, but often, people who have posted something they want to bring to my attention send me an email requesting a retweet. (So do lots of outsiders. My habit of retweeting has ended up building a great extended information network!)

The fact that I don't automatically pass on company propaganda, but require it to be interesting, makes for a great teaching opportunity with employees. As I explain to them what I consider retweetable and why, and how to write tweets that make me want to share them, we improve the overall social media marketing IQ of the company.

Thinking About Wendell Berry's "In Distrust of Movements"

by Tim O'Reilly

I'm just reading a Wendell Berry essay from 2000, entitled In Distrust of Movements, reprinted on a blog with the inspired name The Irresistible Fleet of Bicycles. I was going to just tweet the link, but realized that more people need to read this, and I ought to quote more extensively. (I hope that fans of Michael Pollan's books like The Omnivore's Dilemma and In Defense of Food will rediscover his great predecessor in thinking about food and its proper role in human society.)

The essence of Berry's argument is that we as a culture need to get away from single-issue movements to fix this or that, and instead embrace holistic thinking about how society as a whole should be organized to achieve our goals. As a farmer, essayist and poet, Berry's focus, is, of course, not on political organization, or industry, but on the more fundamental issue of where our food comes from and how best to produce it. In this time when the broader public is becoming aware, through a variety of economic shocks, that "the way we live now" is unsustainable, Berry's thinking, once perhaps regarded as a relic of the idealistic back-to-the-land movement of the seventies, is finding new relevance in an era in which comparisons between the collapse of the Soviet economy in the 80's and today's collapse in the American economy become a topic of discussion on high tech mailing lists. (I take particular note of the fact that Dmitri Orlov's piece, which provoked that discussion, makes the case that Russia's economy was in many respects more resilient than ours, with one callout being that most Russians still had some ability to grow their own food.) Even the BBC is noting that Food needs 'fundamental rethink'.

What I like best about Berry is his insistence on a holistic approach. He writes:

...if we are concerned about land abuse, we have begun a profound work of economic criticism. Study of the history of land use (and any local history will do) informs us that we have had for a long time an economy that thrives by undermining its own foundations. Industrialism, which is the name of our economy, and which is now virtually the only economy of the world, has been from its beginnings in a state of riot. It is based squarely upon the principle of violence toward everything on which it depends, and it has not mattered whether the form of industrialism was communist or capitalist or whatever; the violence toward nature, human communities, traditional agricultures and local economies has been constant. The bad news is coming in, literally, from all over the world. Can such an economy be fixed without being radically changed? I don’t think it can.

The Captains of Industry have always counselled the rest of us to be “realistic”. Let us, therefore, be realistic. Is it realistic to assume that the present economy would be just fine if only it would stop poisoning the air and water, or if only it would stop soil erosion, or if only it would stop degrading watersheds and forest ecosystems, or if only it would stop seducing children, or if only it would quit buying politicians, or if only it would give women and favoured minorities an equitable share of the loot? Realism, I think, is a very limited programme, but it informs us at least that we should not look for bird eggs in a cuckoo clock.

I love his insight that "environmentalism" as it is so often conceived, preserving wildness for itself, misses the point. The issue is how properly to situate humans in their landscape:

...we need diversified, small-scale land economies that are dependent on people. Therefore, we need people with the knowledge, skills, motives and attitudes required by diversified, small-scale land economies. And all this is clear and comfortable enough, until we recognize the question we have come to: Where are the people?

Well, all of us who live in the suffering rural landscapes of the United States know that most people are available to those landscapes only recreationally. We see them bicycling or boating or hiking or camping or hunting or fishing or driving along and looking around. They do not, in Mary Austin’s phrase, “summer and winter with the land”. They are unacquainted with the land’s human and natural economies. Though people have not progressed beyond the need to eat food and drink water and wear clothes and live in houses, most people have progressed beyond the domestic arts — the husbandry and wifery of the world — by which those needful things are produced and conserved. In fact, the comparative few who still practise that necessary husbandry and wifery often are inclined to apologize for doing so, having been carefully taught in our education system that those arts are degrading and unworthy of people’s talents. Educated minds, in the modern era, are unlikely to know anything about food and drink, clothing and shelter. In merely taking these things for granted, the modern educated mind reveals itself also to be as superstitious a mind as ever has existed in the world. What could be more superstitious than the idea that money brings forth food?

I AM NOT SUGGESTING, of course, that everybody ought to be a farmer or a forester. Heaven forbid! I am suggesting that most people now are living on the far side of a broken connection, and that this is potentially catastrophic. Most people are now fed, clothed and sheltered from sources toward which they feel no gratitude and exercise no responsibility. There is no significant urban constituency, no formidable consumer lobby, no noticeable political leadership, for good land-use practices, for good farming and good forestry, for restoration of abused land, or for halting the destruction of land by so-called “development”.

We are involved now in a profound failure of imagination. Most of us cannot imagine the wheat beyond the bread, or the farmer beyond the wheat, or the farm beyond the farmer, or the history beyond the farm. Most people cannot imagine the forest and the forest economy that produced their houses and furniture and paper; or the landscapes, the streams and the weather that fill their pitchers and bathtubs and swimming pools with water. Most people appear to assume that when they have paid their money for these things they have entirely met their obligations.

Money does not bring forth food. Neither does the technology of the food system. Food comes from nature and from the work of people. If the supply of food is to be continuous for a long time, then people must work in harmony with nature. That means that people must find the right answers to a lot of hard practical questions.

While it is almost certainly true that the sustainable landscape of small farms that Berry treasures is a difficult fit with the scale of modern society, it's also true that we are teetering on a precipice, that just maybe, we are getting the first signs that our society as a whole (and not just our financial system) is a kind of gigantic Ponzi scheme that will one day run out of room for growth, with disastrous consequences.

I know that there are those who will counter that with the right technology we can grow our way out of anything. I used to believe that, but I'm not sure I do any more. I don't know that Berry has the right answer to the challenge we are facing, but he definitely has the right framing for the questions we need to be asking ourselves:

The proper business of a human economy is to make one whole thing of ourselves and this world.

Four short links

by Nat Torkington

1. Hahlo - a very sweet-looking mobile (iPhone in the particular) optimised Twitter interface. Although, as I said, every time a Twitter API-consuming web site makes me type in my username and password, a little piece of my soul dies. Thanks to @sogrady for the pointer.
2. Prius as emergency generator - New York Times story about a clever gent who didn't panic during the ice storm, but used his Prius to generate power to see him through.
3. BurnBall, an iPhone game by Kiwi Foo Camp alumnus Tim Haines.
4. Links as a first class object - Ian Bicking makes an eminently sensible suggestion for everyone building a CMS or even vaguely net-aware application.

Palm's Third Act

by Raven Zachary

2009 marks another year when Macworld and CES are scheduled for the same week. It'll be a great week for product announcements, but it'll also be a week of information overload. RSS feeds will overflow with gadget coverage. For those of us covering technology, it presents some logistical challenges, too. Which conference to attend? I'll be at Macworld again this year, but with Steve Jobs passing on the keynote slot, it's tempting to head to Las Vegas for CES during the second half of the week. Why? Big news is expected from Palm on January 8th.

The last major announcement from Palm was the Foleo in May 2007, a device that was cancelled only a few months later. While the device itself was a failure, the concept was not. Netbooks are quickly becoming a sizeable market with universal appeal. Palm's experience with the Foleo has left much of the tech press skeptical of Palm's coming announcement. Personally, I think this is going to be one of Palm's most important announcements in its history, following its two prior acts - the rise of the Palm PDA in the mid to late 1990s and the company's transition to smartphones after the acquisition of Handspring in 2003. A hit will resurrect the company. A flop will likely lead to its demise.

This is an interesting time for Palm. On December 22, the company announced that it had secured $100 million in an equity investment from Elevation Partners, just four days after a disappointing Q2 FY09 earnings announcement with a substantial net loss for the quater. Palm's CEO Ed Colligan called this an "undeniably difficult period." Indeed. With so much of the smartphone narrative and consumer excitement focused on iPhone, BlackBerry, and Android, Palm has largely been left out.

The far more intriguing Colligan quote from the Q2 FY09 earnings release concerns Palm's upcoming announcement - "We are on track to deliver a breakthrough new platform and products that will bring a truly differentiated smartphone experience to our customers and reestablish Palm as a leading innovator in the mobile industry."

Breakthough new platform...
Truly differentiated smartphone experience...
Reastablish Palm as a leading innovator in the mobile industry...

Sure, press releases are full of language like that, but if you're Palm, you can't make these statements with the smartphone market conditions the way they are and expect to be taken seriously ever again unless there is some shred of truth in these words.

I think Palm has a chance. Not a very good chance, but a chance here and I think it's unfair to be dismissive until we know exactly what Palm has to show us. For Palm to change the smartphone market dynamics at such a critical time, the company needs a hit on January 8th. Anything less than that will turn its third act into its final act.

Google, WalMart, and MyBarackObama.com: The Power of the Real Time Enterprise

by Tim O'Reilly

What do Google, WalMart, and MyBarackObama.com have in common, besides their extraordinary success? They are organizations that are infused with IT in such a way that it leads to a qualitative change in their entire business.

I get frustrated when I see people highlighting use of social media--blogging, wikis, twitter, customer feedback systems like Dell IdeaStorm or MyStarbucksIdea--as if they were exemplars of what has come to be called "Enterprise 2.0."

As I said in my keynote at the Web 2.0 Expo NY (and in a followup radar post), WalMart is a better example of Enterprise 2.0 than any of these more trendy examples of user contribution systems. If Google's key innovation with PageRank was to recognize that a link was a vote, which could be counted and measured to get better search results, so too, WalMart recognized early on that a purchase was a vote. Each company built real-time information systems to capture and respond to that vote. WalMart built a supply chain in which goods are automatically re-ordered as they go out the door, with algorithms based on rate of sale controlling the reorders. Google built a better search engine, in which pages that were "better linked" were given priority over the ones produced by pure keyword matches. They went on to build real-time systems to measure what John Battelle called the database of intentions, as expressed by people's queries and subsequent clickstream data, as well as an ad auction system that prices ads in real-time based on the predicted likelihood of the ad being clicked on.

I came to see just how closely MyBarackObama.com emulated these ideas of the real-time enterprise in accounts of the Houdini project, a bold program in which poll watchers eliminated the names from voters who had actually made it to the polling station from the "get out the vote" call lists:

While the hot line was too overwhelmed to be of much use, the source said the program itself still proved a smashing success....the campaign was able to clean 1.6 million voters from the call lists they distributed to canvassers that afternoon, making those lists 25 percent shorter on average.

While the infrastructure for data reporting broke down under the pressure of the election, the general trend is clear here: competitive advantage comes from capturing data more quickly, and building systems to respond automatically to that data.

Consider MyBarackObama.com as a kind of vast machine, with humans as extensions of the programmatic brain: volunteers log in to get their get-out-the-vote call lists. They place their calls, then use the web to report back their results. Those results modify the call lists for the next volunteer. At the other end, the Houdini volunteers are taking note of who is actually coming out to vote, allowing the system to dispatch additional attention to hot spots, for example where there is an undervote compared to the campaign's projections. Meanwhile, the pruned call lists make the volunteers more effective. Inside the machine, programmers are tuning the algorithms, while top campaign staffers are making key decisions to adjust the resource mix.

Now put these three examples, Google, WalMart, and MyBarackObama together, and ask yourself what they tell you about the future of business, military operations, or any large organization.

Sensing, processing, and responding (based on pre-built models of what matters, "the database of expectations," so to speak) is arguably the hallmark of living things. We're now starting to build computers that work the same way. And we're building enterprises around this new kind of sense-and-respond computing infrastructure. In this sense, you can argue that Microsoft's term "Live Software" is the best name yet for the kind of software-infused enterprise we're building.

It's essential to recognize that each of these systems is a hybrid human-machine system, in which human actions are part of the computational loop. Back in 1998, when I was trying to understand just how people were using Perl and other scripting languages on the web, I came to recognize that web applications, unlike desktop applications, still have the programmers inside them. Perl was called "the duct tape of the internet" precisely because it was used for programming that was only expected to last a short time; the programmers were still there, constantly tweaking the application. (I first began using the image of "the Mechanical Turk" in my talks about this aspect of web applications in 2003.)

What became clear in the ensuing decade is that humans are not just part of the programming, but also sensors and actuators for computers. Our aggregate behavior is measured, monitored, and becomes feedback that improves the overall intelligence of the system. That is why I've said that the defining characteristic of Web 2.0 applications is that they "harness collective intelligence."

Aside: I seem to have lost the battle to define Web 2.0 as" the use of the network as platform to build systems that get better the more people use them. Perhaps its the lure of the obvious: companies and products that harness explicit user contribution are easier to recognize than those that pursue the more subtle and difficult task of harnessing implicit contribution. Or perhaps it's the persistent gravitational tug of the idea that the heart of Web 2.0 is ad-supported business models; therefore, enterprise features that look like those of well-known companies featuring user contribution and ad-supported business models must by definition also be "2.0." For me, the far more profound and powerful systems come from harnessing both explicit and implicit human contribution.

Again, consider MyBarackObama.com. It definitely harnessed explicit contribution, providing a platform for volunteers to organize and host local calling parties, to blog, or perform other campaign activities. But ultimately, Obama's ground game--old fashioned precinct-level organizing, amped up to a new level by an army of distributed volunteers armed with mobile phones and coordinated via a web application--was the key to his victory. The "explicit" social media elements of MyBarackObama.com paled in impact compared to the development of a next generation electronic nervous system, in which volunteers were trained, deployed, and managed by a web application who used them, in John Sean McMullen's memorable phrase, as "souls in the great machine."

Recent Posts

• Admiring Bill Gates | by Dale Dougherty on December 24, 2008
• Richard Jefferson Interviewed in Com Ciência | by Nat Torkington on December 23, 2008
• Waking Up from the 'Nightmare on Tech Street' | by Tim O'Reilly on December 22, 2008
• Flickr Community Fills Gap | by Nat Torkington on December 22, 2008
• Zappos: If You Are Great at Something - Let It Go...
  (Or Resell It) | by Joshua-Michéle Ross on December 21, 2008
• Wikipedia and RNA Biology | by Nat Torkington on December 21, 2008
• Hard Work and Practice in Programming | by Tim O'Reilly on December 20, 2008
• GeoData Explorations: Open Street Map's Growth | by Brady Forrest on December 18, 2008
• GeoData Explorations: Google's Ever-Expanding Geo Investment | by Brady Forrest on December 16, 2008
• The State of Transit Routing | by Jim Stogdill on December 15, 2008
• My Netbook Took Me Back To Windows | by Brady Forrest on December 15, 2008
• Register's Googlewashing Story Overblown | by Tim O'Reilly on December 14, 2008