The New Network Imperative For Today’s Clouds
This SDxCentral video is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
With cloud architectures becoming pervasive across enterprise and service provider data centers, it’s important to understand the reasons why this new architecture is so compelling from both a business and technical standpoint.
It is just as important is to understand what makes up these cloud architectures and how they will drive new networking requirements.
SDxCentral has prepared a video presentation on the key attributes of this New Network Imperative and what any enterprise or service provider building a cloud needs to look for from their networking vendor.
If you’re an enterprise or service provider building out cloud architectures or looking to do so in the near future, you should watch this 20-minute webinar that covers the different flavors of clouds, key components in clouds, the new role of networking in cloud architectures and most importantly, the seven critical attributes needed to build a successful cloud network.
Watch the SDxCentral video to learn more.
This SDxCentral video is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
Video (c) SDxCentral, used by permission; photo courtesy of Shutterstock
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1d4qzib
via
Apple's Latest Acquisition Shows It's Serious About Augmented Reality
While Google was busy showing off its latest innovations in the field of virtual reality yesterday, Apple was quietly acquiring a augmented reality startup by the name of Metaio. TechCrunch confirmed the news.
Apple, as is typical, had very little to say on the purchase, and the terms have not been disclosed.
Metaio began as a project inside Volkswagen in 2003 to build a platform for augmented-reality experiences. It later spun out of the German automaker. One of the projects the firm has worked on in the past is a showroom app for Ferrari that lets users overlay various virtual graphics on top of the cars in front of them.
The San Francisco-based firm had given its customers cause for concern after canceling its user conference and disabling its Twitter accounts. Now the reason for that disruption has been revealed.
With Metaio boasting around a thousand customers and 150,000 users across 30 countries, Apple is getting some serious expertise with its purchase. Metaio had previously received funding from Atlantic Bridge and Westcott.
As Oculus Rift gets closer to a consumer launch and Microsoft wows users with demos of HoloLens, virtual worlds are taking the technology landscape by storm. Even Google's much-maligned Glass is preparing a return. Oculus recently made a purchase of its own, picking up augmented reality startup Surreal Vision earlier this week.
Augmented And Virtual Realities
Augmented reality (where digital graphics are layered over the real world) and virtual reality (where an entirely digital world is created) are distinctly different technologies, though they have a lot in common.
Google Glass and HoloLens offer augmented reality (AR); devices like the Oculus Rift and the HTC Vive are in the virtual reality (VR) camp. AR equipment has to do more work in terms of identifying what's in front of the user and calculating distances and areas.
A demo video shows Metaio software running on the Epson Moverio, a Glass-style device. With the technology advancing so quickly, Apple has little choice but to get involved.
Interesting though this acquisition is, it's hardly a big reveal: Apple was awarded a patent for a head-mounted VR display back in February, and the iOS 9 version of Maps is rumored to include an augmented reality element, enabling users to point their iPhones at a scene and see nearby places of interest.
We don't know whether Apple will eventually produce some kind of headset of its own or simply develop software to put inside iOS, but our augmented and virtual realities are approaching faster than you might think.
Image courtesy of Metaio
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1PSWQdN
via
How To Watch The Google I/O Keynote
Google I/O, the company's annual developer conference, is upon us, and we'll be scouring the event for what's new and noteworthy. Were our predictions right on the money, or way off the mark? Let's all find out together!
The Google I/O keynote kicks off at 9:30 a.m. Pacific. We'll be covering the keynote, as well as the rest of the conference throughout Thursday and Friday.
Join us, won't you?
ReadWrite's Adriana Lee is on the scene at the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco. You can also watch the keynote live on the I/O website.
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1RqKmHy
via
How Oculus Could Extend Into The Real World, Thanks To Surreal Vision
While Oculus has created immersive virtual 3D worlds inside the Rift headset, there isn’t much it can do with the actual world around the headset. However, that might change soon, as the Facebook-owned company announced the acquisition of computer vision startup Surreal Vision on Tuesday.
See also: Get Your Faces Ready: Oculus Announces 2nd Developer Conference This Fall
The deal could be the beginnings of Oculus' bid to extend its virtual reality (VR) promise to actual reality, including technology that can map out users' physical environment and replicate it digitally, to augmented reality (AR), which layers information over their view of the real world. Here's what Surreal Vision may bring to Oculus' table.
The Surreal Deal
The announcement describes the talent at Surreal Vision as “one of the top computer vision teams in the world focused on real-time 3D scene reconstruction.” The three founders, Richard Newcombe, Renato Salas-Moreno, and Steven Lovegrove, have all created impressive examples of computer vision in action, including KinectFusion, DynamicFusion, DTAM, SLAM++, and Dense Planar SLAM.
Armed with a Microsoft Kinect, these tools can interpret and identify the real world and reproduce it in a virtual one. KinectFusion, for example, can digitally map the layout of a room:
SLAM++ (short for “Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping at the Level of Objects) can identify specific objects in a room based on digital reference models. So if the Kinect captures a room with two chairs and a table, it can figure out what those objects are and make a virtual copy using digital objects:
Developers could use these tools to make virtual replicas of actual places, opening the door for virtual tours or faster game development.
So far, various prototypes of the Rift VR headset have been the only hardware we’ve seen out of Oculus. But the company likely hasn't ignored augmented reality, particularly since its appeal got a boost recently, thanks to news that Google will reboot Glass development and Microsoft has entered the niche with its intriguing HoloLens project. Oculus, for its part, may also have an augmented reality device up its sleeve, one that blends digital creations with real world objects and environments. If so, the Surreal Vision deal would also represent a major leap forward in AR development.
From there, it’s not hard to think of what Oculus could accomplish with Surreal Vision's computer vision prowess. Imagine taking a virtual stroll with your vacationing friends in real time, or playing virtual laser tag across the country, with digital recreations of your living rooms.
A Vision Of The Future
The computer vision field’s power and potential has been growing at an exponential rate lately. Two Google projects in particular have shown off just how far computer vision has come in a short time, with an impressive showing in the form of its 3D mapping Project Tango initiative, and the ever-evolving self-driving car project, which would have to map out real-world roads (and obstacles) and digitally interpret them.
See also: Oculus Will Bring Virtual Reality To Real Reality On June 11
Magic Leap may be a little guy, but the much-hyped startup has laid out its vision for an upcoming initiative, courtesy of a video that relies heavily on the kind of 3D mapping tools Surreal could bring to bear at Oculus.
With this acquisition, Oculus may have taken a solid forward to extend its road map into new areas that blend the physical world with its digital VR version. With a press event coming in June and its second developers conference scheduled for September, Oculus likely won’t be waiting long to usher us into the age of virtual surreality.
Photo by Owen Thomas for ReadWrite
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1PNI7Ro
via
What Jony Ive’s Fancy New Title As Chief Design Officer Means
Apple’s move to bring its product designer extraordinaire, Jony Ive, into its "C suite” should surprise no one, given how large he looms over the company’s products. At the same time, the news of Ive’s new position as Chief Design Officer—which broke on Memorial Day—seems to have come out of left field.
Three years ago, CEO Tim Cook gave Ive dominion over Apple’s mobile software interfaces and hardware design. The new responsibilities gave him control over the way the company’s devices looked and behaved, from the inside out. Now, according to The Telegraph, he will head back to his native England (to raise his family), leaving his old responsibilities split between two Apple middle men. Reportedly, Ive’s new assignment will have him working with London's Foster and Partners to design Apple's Spaceship Campus 2 and weighing in on the growing Apple Retail Stores springing up worldwide.
Despite the fancier title, the new designation seems like a goodbye, which is notable because Ive always represented the "old guard," a remaining legacy of Steve Jobs’ rule at Apple. Sentimentality aside, though, the larger concern is over what the move means to Apple devices.
Thanks For Everything, Sir Jony
When the company shunted software chief Scott Forstall aside in 2012, it essentially added those duties to Ive’s plate. The changes were positioned as the company marrying its software and hardware efforts, which seems to have paid off. Apple just can’t stop bragging about its monster iPhone sales. From its initial October to December timeframe, iPhone shipments amounted to 74.5 million units, up 46% against a year earlier.
Now we’re on the precipice of what looks like a divorce between Apple’s hardware and software development, at least when it comes to the daily nuts and bolts. Effective July 1, Alan Dye will become VP of UI design, and Richard Howarth moves into the VP of industrial design role.
See also: "Virtual Rooms" For The Apple Smart Home Sound Like A Great Idea
Ive supposedly won't step completely back, according to what appears to be an Apple internal memo from Cook to staffers about the change. From 9to5Mac:
His new role is a reflection of the scope of work he has been doing at Apple for some time. Jony’s design responsibilities have expanded from hardware and, more recently, software UI to the look and feel of Apple retail stores, our new campus in Cupertino, product packaging and many other parts of our company...
As Chief Design Officer, Jony will remain responsible for all of our design, focusing entirely on current design projects, new ideas and future initiatives. On July 1, he will hand off his day-to-day managerial responsibilities of ID and UI to Richard Howarth, our new vice president of Industrial Design, and Alan Dye, our new vice president of User Interface Design.
Translation: Ive will still weigh in on the broad strokes on both sides. But it won't be his hands guiding and managing daily development.
The impact of this re-shuffling likely won't show up right away, at least not for the iPhone 6S (or whatever the new model will be called) or for the next version of iOS that Apple will showcase next month at its Worldwide Developers Conference. Those changes, if any, will likely materialize in the company’s following product development cycle.
The only thing we might be able to count on in the short term is that Dye and Howarth will probably take on bigger roles at the company’s WWDC keynote. We'll see then if they can wax as breathlessly poetic about Apple products.
Photo courtesy of Apple
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1EvIjsA
via
Open Platforms, Open Networks: The New IP
This post is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
The Internet has grown enormously in the past 20 years. But in many fundamental ways, Internet Protocol-based networks haven't.
New application models require a New IP. See how the New IP architecture is designed for a new environment where cloud, mobile, big data, and open ecosystems are driving change.
Watch this video to learn more.
This post is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1F6NkJP
via
A Flextronics Exec Has Some Advice For Wearable Start-Ups: Scale It Back
When Flextronics’ Jeannine Sargent took the stage at Wearable World Congress 2015 Wednesday, she came with important advice for entrepreneurs who want to make the next big thing in tech: scale it back a bit.
“I think there’s a lot of opportunity,” she said, addressing the assembled audience at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, “but I think you should proceed with caution.”
Sargent should know. She's not only president for innovation and new ventures at the contract manufacturer, she oversees the company's technology and innovation labs. That includes Lab IX, a a hardware accelerator that aims to help small companies and startups make the leap from concept to reality.
Citing the example of Apple yanking a few promised functions from the Apple Watch a few months before its April 2015 launch, Sargent explained the importance of keeping product plans as realistic as possible:
I think giving too much functionality, too soon, to your user base may actually poison them from thinking about how to really take advantage of your new concept. So [take] a staged approach and think about how it’s going to be digested and valued by whoever your target audience is.
In the case of Apple, I think it’s also part of considering the total supply chain of all of the solutions—how are they going to get to market? How are they going to be integrated, both the hardware and the software, so that it’s a robust and resilient system?
Photo by Brian P. Rubin for ReadWrite
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1BcHK71
via
Oculus Will Bring Virtual Reality To Real Reality On June 11
Mark your calendars, virtual reality fans: Oculus plans to hold a press event on June 11 in San Francisco. The event announcement follows earlier news that the Facebook-owned company will open consumer-ready Rift headsets for pre-orders later this year.
The invitation bears a “Step into the Rift” tagline, which could refer to the various stages of the device as it goes from preview to pre-order to shipments, which will put them in customers’ hands in early 2016. At the very least, the VR company will likely disclose more details about the commercial product launch—Oculus’ first—as well as hardware specifications.
See also: The Oculus Rift Will Ship In Early 2016
The image shows a very different design than the current or previous models of the headset, one that's much slicker and polished than developer models released to date (at least as much as a mocked-up graphical rendering can). The components to the left and right seem likely to be the built-in audio, as the company promised. However, it’s not clear if the finished retail version will actually look like this when it finally comes out, or how much it might ultimately cost.
Interest in VR technology has heated up quite a bit since Oculus held its successful 2012 Kickstarter. Now there are numerous entrants vying to alter our realities—everyone from Samsung and its wire-free Gear VR headset, to Sony’s PS4-exclusive “Project Morpheus,” to HTC, which blew away folks who got an early peep at its Vive headset.
I’ve tried out all three, including Oculus’ latest “Crescent Bay” prototype, which has made significant improvements to graphics handling. All share the goal of bathing eyeballs in pseudo-realistic (read: immersive) environments without also making you vomitous, a common hazard of earlier VR setups.
See also: 6 Ways The HTC Vive Will Freak Out Virtual-Reality Geeks
Oculus will need to cover that base if it hopes to beat back HTC’s Steam OS-powered Vive, and steal some spotlight back from other interesting face-gear projects such as Microsoft’s HoloLens and Google’s forthcoming reboot of Google Glass. One thing that helps: The enthusiastic fanbase Oculus has drummed up among developers, who have had a couple of years lead time to work with the technology.
Soon, the public will get the chance to check out the results for itself.
Image courtesy of Oculus
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1FyOIKE
via
Pebble CEO To Google And Apple: Keep Your Platforms Open
Pebble founder and CEO Eric Migicovsky has a message for tech giants like Apple and Google: Keep your platforms open unless you want to crush innovation and disserve your customers.
Here's what Migicovsky said at Wearable World Congress, a San Francisco conference put on by ReadWrite's parent company:
We’re building on top of other people’s platforms. In this world where everything is interconnected, and you see devices like Fitbit, Jawbone, Nest and other connected devices that are using the Android, using the iOS platforms, it’s kind of a time for these entrenched, kind of old school, mobile-generation [companies] to make sure that they’re keeping a fair and open environment for newcomers who are building on top of these platforms.
It would be crazy to think of Apple blocking an app like Misfit, or Jawbone, or Fitbit even because they make products that compete with the Apple Watch.
In the same way you look at products like Nest, and you see that Nest hasn’t bought into [Apple's] HomeKit SDK. Should they be blocked from selling apps or selling their hardware that works with the iPhone? I think it’s crazy to think that. I think it’s an important thing that Apple and Google need to be aware of as we move into the next generation of devices that work with the existing devices that you have.
Some history here. Not that long ago, Apple body-blocked Fitbit by booting it from the Apple Store—perhaps coincidentally after Fitbit declined to sign onto Apple's HealthKit system for sharing health and fitness. There have also been recent reports of Apple's App Store rejecting Pebble apps simply because they explicitly offered support for Pebble—now a competitor with the recently launched Apple Watch.
“There was an issue a couple weeks ago where Apple was misidentifying Pebble apps as being non-compliant,” Migicovsky said. “They fixed that—Apple made a statement to the world that that was a mistake on their part.”
Migicovsky also firmed up his company’s plans to launch the Pebble Time in retail locations this summer, shortly after backers receive the first batch of units to roll off the assembly line. When exactly we might see that happen, however, is still a mystery. I’ve reached out to Pebble for more clarification and will update this post if I hear back.
Lead image by Michael O'Donnell
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1Hr5GIs
via
Why Apple Just Wasn't Feeling It For The TV Set
Thanks to the Wall Street Journal, we now know that Apple really was working on its own television set before it ditched the idea over a year ago. The project got shelved, Gene Munster has said his mea culpa, and we can all move on.
It puts a different perspective on the tech rumors of today: Even when they're right they can be wrong. In other words, speculation about an upcoming product might be spot on, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll ever see the light of day. Apple Car, anyone?
The Simple Reasons Apple Bailed
In retrospect, it's not difficult to see why Apple canned its idea for a TV set to call its own. As one commenter at 9to5Mac put it:
As expensive as they are, TV screens are a commodity. Selling different sizes and features would be a nightmare, and so would lugging one into the Genius Bar for warranty support.
In other words, televisions are bulky pieces of equipment that tend to last a lot longer than the rapidly obsolete electronics you'd expect in a smart TV. Margins are slim and making a profit is hard, as LG, Sony, Samsung, Philips and others have all discovered in recent years. Buyers wouldn't be upgrading very often, and Apple wouldn't make much money when they did.
These are all points that have been repeatedly made down the years. No doubt they played some part in Apple's thinking.
But Wait, There's More
But aside from the practicalities of TV engineering or the realities of the marketplace, Apple's decision also suggests it just couldn't figure out a way to put its own distinctive mark on the screens that fill our dens and bedrooms.
By contrast, Apple had no problem green-lighting its smartwatch. Whether the Apple Watch goes on to be a roaring success or not, it's certainly distinctive, premium and disruptive. Could any television set Apple might have come up with have made the same impact? It's doubtful.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, iPhones—these bits of kit are compelling and iconic in a way that you can't really envisage a television set being, even with the best efforts of Sir Jony Ive.
Ultra-high resolutions are already here, as are super-slim bezels, curved screens, integrated apps, gesture control and lots more. How would Apple's version have stood out? Or stood out enough to make the endeavour worthwhile?
Indeed, it's the things that would have made an Apple TV set truly compelling that are being built into the Apple TV box that it actually does sell: smart home control, live TV streaming, Siri integration, access to the App Store, and so on.
The Real Apple TV
It's perhaps no coincidence that the real Apple TV is getting a lot more love and attention since the theoretical Apple TV bit the dust. Maybe Tim Cook and his team realized that all the best parts of their new project could be added to the one they had under their noses all along.
And look at the competition: Google, Microsoft, Amazon... these companies are all building boxes to go under your living room TV, without worrying about the actual sets themselves.
Ultimately, a TV is simply a window into something else, plus a small package of extra smarts, and Apple has realized putting those smarts in a separate puck-shaped black box gives it the flexibility it needs to do something that can really make an impact.
Lead image courtesy of Apple
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1S8AIL8
via
Why Your Private Cloud Will Fail
Are you building clouds, or are you building applications that run in the cloud?
This is a crucial question, and many companies are getting it wrong. By frittering away their time building out infrastructure rather than building on others' infrastructure, the IT department's quest to control infrastructure is causing companies to get left behind.
With the primary reasons for moving to the cloud being agility and speed of development, the more enterprises spend on building out private clouds—i.e., ones they host in their own data centers—the less time they spend in the cloud. This contention is borne out by new Gartner data.
Why Go Public
Though most enterprises recognize the value of the cloud, 83% of CIOs are struggling to rein in unauthorized cloud adoption, according to a new Brocade survey. By "unauthorized" they essentially mean public cloud—i.e., computing services offered by the likes of Amazon and Microsoft—since it's impossible to sneakily spin up a private cloud with all the required infrastructure.
And yet the very presence of that unauthorized (public) cloud adoption should tell them something. It should tell them that their efforts to make agile infrastructure, whether delivered as traditional data center assets or private cloud assets, are failing.
It's therefore not surprising that public cloud is growing much faster than private cloud (20x vs. 3x).
But not all public cloud is created equal. And not all of public cloud providers will thrive. As Gartner analyst Lydia Leong highlights, "few providers have the financial resources to invest in being broadly competitive in the cloud IaaS market." Such "relentless economies of scale", as Redmonk analyst Stephen O'Grady cautions, don't simply favor big providers over small, but also big over big.
Amazon, for example, builds its own hardware, including networking gear. There is simply no way to compete without following suit, as Google and Microsoft have.
Customers are buying in. As Gartner finds, 2014 saw the absolute growth of public cloud "infrastructure as a service" (IaaS) workloads exceeding the growth of on-premises workloads (of any type) for the first time. In fact, Gartner's 2015 CIO survey shows that 83% of CIOs actively consider cloud IaaS as an infrastructure option, and 10% are already cloud-first with cloud IaaS as their default infrastructure choice.
What Do You Want To Build Today?
And yet some workloads will continue to find their way to the private cloud, for both good and (many) bad reasons.
Some will succeed. You can absolutely make a private cloud work.
But much of your effort is spent ... building the cloud, rather than focusing on the applications that leverage the cloud. And in the case of OpenStack, you're going to have to invest a heck of a lot of resources to make it work to get beyond what Gartner calls "the nine circles of [private cloud] fail."
As Gartner analyst Alan Waite told an audience in Sydney recently, "[OpenStack] is a science project," one that can be made to work but demands skilled resources to achieve success.
This may be one reason Gartner is only able to find 740 production OpenStack deployments. If even remotely true, that's a damning indictment of the private cloud's poster child.
Some commentators rightly complain that such "comments about OpenStack could be applied to ANY private cloud software (proprietary or open source)," insisting that "There are very few successful platforms mostly because the guys designing them...never think through the actual use cases, so end up building a platform that has no value to end users because they are locked into the usual IT department echo chamber."
Which seems to be an awkward defense, indeed.
Others, like this one, claim "For the average user, any cloud system, OpenStack included, is something which someone else puts together for you. It's sort of like the next level of operating system." You probably don't want to cobble together your own OS (no, really, you don't), and so those who embrace private cloud, and more often than not this will involve OpenStack, will do well to go with a leading distribution like Red Hat.
But this still isn't as easy as AWS.
Give Them What They Want
AWS has been winning because it was the first to really focus on developers. This gave them a surprising "seven-year head start," according to AWS cloud chief Andy Jassy.
Microsoft and Google also have the developer religion, and are making gains accordingly. But most others still seem to think that the primary customer for their clouds is the CIO, and they're flailing and failing accordingly.
OpenStack, for its part, counts 30,000 community members. That's great. But what is really, desperately needed is a product that makes it easy for developers to get up and building apps, not infrastructure.
Lead image by George Thomas
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1JXFsgW
via
Startup 101: 9 Ways To Get Honest Feedback From Your Team
Guest author Scott Gerber is the founder of the Young Entrepreneur Council.
The ideal manager is someone who solves problems before they reach the CEO. Sometimes, though, communicating honestly about business problems is important, especially if a lower manager isn't sure how to handle a specific situation.
If you're a leaders who suspects you aren't hearing everything you should, perhaps tweaking your approach to communication with colleagues is the way to go. I asked nine entrepreneurs from the Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) to share the No. 1 question that founders and CEOs can use to get honest feedback. Their best answers are below.
What's The One Thing You'd Change About Your Job?
Asking your team leads the number-one thing they could change about their job will typically make them unveil valuable insight into what's really happening. This can peel back the covers to problems in the business and allow you to address the underlying issues to their answer.
—Mark Cenicola, BannerView.com
If You Were Me, What Would You Change Tomorrow?
Honest feedback can be hard for employees to share when they feel insecure or weary. An easy solve is to reframe the question so an employee is answered by using "I" phrases instead of "you" phrases.
Instead of giving a backseat driver observation, "You don't care about the customers" or "Jane doesn't come into work on time," the employee is able to put themselves in the driver's seat to be the agent of change. By asking them what they would change, they are empowered to answer with "I would..." statements such as, "I would gift the customers with a discount after each large purchase" or "I would set up a clock-in system."
This also gives an actionable opportunity for management to agree with the idea and have that employee lead the charge on it, thus fostering both honest feedback and change!
What's The Most Tedious Thing About Your Job?
This question allows you to walk a day in their shoes, and find out whether they're really paying attention to the job or simply just going through the motions. The answer that they give will give you insight into their character, and the environment that is most conducive to their productivity. Working together, you will be able to minimize the "tedious" tasks, and maximize of the most profitable ones.
If the most tedious part of the job is also the most profitable, speaking to your leaders about this fact will allow them to see the bigger picture, and not just feel like another cog in the system.
Where Do You See This Company Next Year?
To be more specific, ask them where they seem themselves in this company next year. The answer you get will show you, as a leader, the 'path' you have laid out to your team leads. If that path or vision isn't where you see the company going, then you need to communicate more.
Show them where you want to take this company and how their honest feedback will get them there. If the team lead has a clear path to success, they will give you honest feedback because you're all headed to the same place.
Keep this type of communication going and it will build a rapport with your team leads. They'll know and see how that their honesty leads to improvement. You will become a better owner and leader, with a more cohesive team.
What Is Your Biggest Challenge?
The key here is to lead by example. Be very candid about your own problems and shortcomings. Let employees see that you are human and also struggle. When you face challenges, recruit help, develop creative solutions, and quickly bounce back with a resolution. Employees are more likely to seek assistance if leaders do the same.
This lead by example approach, coupled with open communication, will create an environment in which it’s encouraged to ask for assistance, and acceptable to not have all the answers. Ask employees what is and isn’t working, and what their biggest challenge is. These questions are crucial when trying to make every team run as efficiently as possible. When employees detail their challenges, show them you value that feedback by making it a priority to fix them.
—Dusty Wunderlich, Bristlecone Holdings
Why Are You Facing These Challenges?
Many leaders ask their team members "what" they are struggling with. By doing this, you're putting your team member in a tough spot. "Do I complain or do I keep quiet?" Instead, always ask, "Why?" For example, instead of asking, "What issues are you facing in your project?," ask, "Why are you facing challenges in your project?"
This subtly redirects perceived blame away from the person and lets them separate themselves from the issue at hand. It frees their mind to think objectively about the issue without fear of being the person who complains about issues. By asking "why," you've become a partner in finding a solution, and the team member will speak more openly with you.
How Can I Help You Be More Successful?
A lot of people don't want to give you bad news, but they love to offer new ideas. Don't make your question about asking about negative things, because most people won't tell you the hard facts.
Instead, focus on the positive and update your angle accordingly. Instead of asking about the problems they're having, ask them for advice on how to improve. Whatever you do, don't implicate them for the failure (unless they are actually the failure, but that's up for you to judge). The best route is to empower them first and foremost, and to give them a chance to say what they really think. That might actually take you in the right direction.
How Is Your Team's Morale?
Team leads may be more willing to be honest with their feedback if they are sharing their own outlook and opinion on the moral of their team. Asking "How is your team's moral lately?" takes the focus off of their own feelings and possible problems and instead allows them to reflect on the team that they work with and what they have been seeing lately.
Team leaders can then give feedback on how each team member has been working and feeling in the work environment, which will give more insight into possible problems or concerns within your business.
—Miles Jennings, Recruiter.com
What Keeps You Awake At Night?
I find that this question always elicits a team member's deepest concerns about the business. It also is disarming because it is not necessarily asking directly about what they are having a problem with, rather asks them to reflect on the business as a whole. Oftentimes, the concerns that they raise are not even directly about their area of the business but overall big-picture areas that they think we need to address as a company.
—Douglas Baldasare, ChargeItSpot
Lead photo by Lake Crimson
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1ebytqP
via
Europe's Mobile Carriers Are Plotting An Internet Hold-Up Of Google
The major European mobile operators are weighing up a blanket ban on mobile advertising, enforced through ad-blocking software installed at the carrier level, according to the Financial Times.
Such a move would have a potentially calamitous impact on both apps and websites funded by mobile advertising—the vast majority of them, in other words. It would also strike at the heart of Google's business model, which appears to be the point. Ads embedded in feeds (such as those on Twitter and Facebook) would be exempt, the FT says.
The blocking technology itself is developed by an Israeli startup called Shine. The company points to large data drains as one of the reasons mobile ads are bad for carriers and consumers, and seems unrepentant about the effect its software could have on publishers.
"We believe ad blocking is a right, full-stop," Shine's chief marketing officer Roi Carthy told Business Insider. "If the consumer decides to use it, we believe that it should be their right, and they should be able to do it with full integrity... nobody [in business] has a God-given right to exist."
Anonymous sources say the system could be opt-in to begin with or may be limited to certain types of ads. However, a blanket ban is also being considered, which suggests no firm decisions have yet been made.
But for sites who rely on the billions of dollars spent on mobile advertising every year, it's going to set alarm bells ringing. Consumers will no doubt enjoy an ad-free experience on mobile—but how would they feel about their favorite sites shutting down?
Mobile Turf Wars
Given the huge ramifications of such a move, this is not something carriers are going to be able to deploy quietly or without a great deal of regulatory red tape. It may be that they're merely testing the waters in an attempt to get Google to the negotiating table.
All over the world, carriers labor under the impression that running data networks—often highly profitably—should rightfully entitle them to a cut of the activity that takes place on those networks. Europe's are no exception. The FT's Robert Cookson recycles this age-old carrier grievance as established fact:
Many mobile operators are frustrated that digital media companies profit from their high-speed networks without having to invest in the infrastructure behind them. Such irritation was inflamed last month when Google launched Project Fi, its own wireless carrier in the US.
Of course, the carriers are already handsomely paid ... by their actual customers. (Even Google's Project Fi is going to end up paying Sprint and T-Mobile, since it's reselling their bandwidth.) What they'd really like, though, is to get Google and other Internet companies to cough up some extra cash. As ReadWrite's Dan Rowinski noted here last year:
What [carriers] want is the freedom to levy additional fees on service providers—in essence, so they can get paid twice for transmitting the same data. Economists call this "rent seeking," and it's basically the antithesis of competitive, customer-focused behavior.
And to do that, they're willing to consider what's basically a high-tech stickup. Cookson again:
The idea is to specifically target Google, blocking advertising on its websites in an attempt to force the company into giving up a cut of its revenues.
Google argues that it has its own infrastructure to invest in—data centers to power YouTube, Gmail and its other products—and that adverts are crucial in funding the free services users rely on.
As the Wall Street Journal reported last year, Shine is also in discussions with carriers in the US. How close any operator is to applying a block on advertising isn't clear, but Verizon's $4.4 billion purchase of AOL—largely, it seems, for the company's advertising-automation technology—suggests it won't be stamping on online publishers anytime soon.
It doesn't seem likely that legislators would let operators pick and choose the data they display on websites, no matter how unsightly pop-up ads are—but the EU is no friend of Google's dominance of advertising and search either, so it's difficult to predict how the debate will pan out.
What's clear is that the multinational corporations already making millions from consumers are eager to get a bigger slice of the pie any way they can, with mobile advertising likely to be the next battleground.
Lead image courtesy of Shutterstock
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1HlnYxo
via
Wearable Technology Is Sensing Technology
This post is sponsored by StretchSense. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
Smart wearables require sensors that are small and able to move with the human body without restricting natural movement. They need to be able to receive information, process it and relay it back to the wearer in a way that is meaningful and useful.
The main challenge in creating sensors that can make these measurements lies in the nature of the body itself. The human body is a soft structure, and many of the objects that people interact with everyday—such as clothing, shoes, and furniture—are also soft. The human body is mobile; it can bend, stretch, twist, and be squashed, and there is a real need for sensors that can accurately measure complex body movements in an unobtrusive way.
StretchSense has solved this problem by developing wireless stretch, bend, pressure, and shear sensors that are made of soft materials. The basic StretchSense sensor is made of a soft material (such as fabric or silicone) connected to a Bluetooth circuit and a battery.
As a wearer moves, the sensor stretches with the movement and transmits motion information to a Bluetooth enabled device. By providing realtime feedback on a wearer’s motion, posture, or technique, StretchSense sensors are becoming increasingly important in providing better healthcare, sports training and gaming experiences.
The opportunities afforded by smart, soft sensor technologies are limitless.
For more information, visit StretchSense on the Web or see our Expo Stage presentation at Wearable World Congress.
This post is sponsored by StretchSense. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1E9KrpR
via
The Walled Gardens Of The Web Are Growing
Facebook's long-anticipated Instant Articles initiative just went live, enabling a select number of media companies to publish their content inside Facebook rather than on their own sites.
Ostensibly, it's so we the users can get reading faster. "Instant Articles load as much as ten times faster than standard Web articles," enthuses the announcement post. "Once there, new features like tilt-to-pan photos, auto-play video, embedded audio captions, and interactive maps let you explore the story in beautiful new ways."
All of which is no doubt true, but it's another step in a growing movement towards segmentation and the siloing of writing, video and other content on the Web—and Facebook isn't the only one at it.
See also: Why Facebook Messenger Is A Platform—And WhatsApp Isn't
For now Instant Articles only appear on Facebook's iOS app, and then only from a handful of media partners: the New York Times, National Geographic, BuzzFeed, NBC, the Atlantic, the Guardian, BBC News, Spiegel, and Bild. The basic idea makes a kind of sense on mobile, where swapping between apps takes longer.
But Facebook's long-term goal is to keep users inside its own walled garden, and that has implications on every platform.
To this end we've seen Facebook launching Messenger apps, playing around with in-app search tools and challenging YouTube with some more sophisticated video features. Even embedded YouTube clips aren't welcome in Facebook's house, let alone links that actually take people to other places.
Stay Right Where You Are
Google may be feeling the heat from Facebook, but its aims are largely the same. Where once its intentions were to point you to the best link on the Web, now it seems more eager to keep you exactly where you are.
Movie and music information pops up right on the results page; words are defined instantly; "how to reset your iPhone" shows a list of instructions before a list of Web addresses. (To be fair, Google has been aiming for this sort of "perfect" search result for a long time.)
See also: Why The EU Hates Google—Its Goal Is Still A Single Search Result
Meanwhile Twitter has added native image hosting, native video hosting and a whole stack of cards to ensure that people spend more time in the stream and less time clicking out to YouTube or Imgur or anywhere else.
Twitter and Google aren't host outside material on their networks—at least not yet. But the pattern is the same: One stop for all your browsing needs and less of a reason to venture out onto the wilds of the Web.
We can't blame these public companies from trying to retain user eyeballs. But we should resist a slide into a scenario where the Web consists of little more than a handful of major players, and where anything outside their walls withers and dies.
AOL Version 2.0
Verizon's acquisition of AOL is a timely reminder of a company who long ago tried to replace the Web. In AOL's heyday it wasn't uncommon to see AOL keywords listed alongside (or instead of) actual URLs on posters and marketing material, in much the same way a Twitter handle might be today.
The intimation was that you could head to AOL and enter a simple keyword rather than complicate the issue with dots and forward slashes and difficult-to-remember text strings. Of course, the Web won out anyway, and we don't hear much about AOL keywords any more.
With 1.4 billion users and growing, Facebook has a much better chance of becoming the Web for the majority of people who use it. That may do wonders for page loading times and tilt-to-pan photos, but it means we're all playing by Mark Zuckerberg's rules, both publishers and readers alike.
That's not a privilege that Facebook, Google or anyone else should have. But with content creators surging en mass to wherever the viewers are, and the viewers looking for the best (and fastest-loading) content, it may be that it's already too late to stop the process.
Image courtesy of Facebook
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1PH9Uh9
via
The Challenge With Legacy Networks
This excerpt from ZK Research’s white paper Compute Transitions Drive the Need for the New IP Network is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
The architecture and infrastructure used to build legacy networks have not changed in almost three decades. There have been great leaps in the speed of network connections and the density of ports, and link latency continues to fall.
However, the network is fundamentally the same as it was 30 years ago. Many limitations need to be overcome if organizations are to make the shift to a New IP network.
These limitations include:
Rigid architecture and topology
The architecture used to build traditional networks was designed for an era when IT resources such as compute and application infrastructure were fairly static. Therefore, the network, too, could be rigid in nature. When an event occurred that required the network to change, such as adding or deleting a new application, long lead times were often required to make even simple changes.
In today’s era of increased agility requirements, this is not acceptable because the IT infrastructure can only be as agile as its least agile component—which is often the network. Too often, the rigidity of legacy network infrastructure is a huge impediment to organizations becoming agile businesses.
Siloing of the network inside IT
The network has always been treated as its own silo within the IT department. Network changes can certainly impact the performance of applications and compute infrastructure, but historically the network was managed independent of the technology that sits “up the stack” from it.
Legacy networks built on closed, proprietary protocols
Market-leading vendors have used closed, proprietary technologies as a way to deliver features faster instead of waiting for industry standards to be developed. Often, this leads to “vendor lock-in” and inhibits customers from implementing a best-of-breed technology.
Despite these limitations, closed, proprietary networks were sufficient when the network existed in its own silo. The cloud has driven the need for greater integration among applications as well as compute and network infrastructure. Closed and proprietary technologies can hinder cloud ecosystems and limit innovation.
Inefficient use of network resources
Traditional, multi-tier networks use Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) to protect against routing loops and broadcast storms. When multiple paths exist between two points, STP will enable the fastest path, disable the alternative route, and only make it active when the primary connection fails.
STP was a great leap forward for networking a few decades ago. However, as networks have grown, the use of STP has caused organizations to overbuild networks. Today, as a result of STP, up to half of network ports are inactive because they are passive links.
Consequently, service providers and enterprises have had to overbuild networks significantly, resulting in a less-than-optimal average network utilization of approximately 30%, according to ZK Research.
Hardware-centric
With legacy networks, any kind of scaling for additional capacity or new services must be done through the addition of new hardware. This typically requires “forklift upgrades” of the existing technology over a long period of time, resulting in lower application and data availability.
In addition, the hardware-centric nature of legacy networks makes running a network very expensive, particularly for service providers and global enterprises that often need to add capacity or services quickly.
Manual configuration processes
Traditional network devices, such as switches and routers, are designed with integrated control and data planes. Therefore, the majority of configuration and management must be done on a box-by-box basis. This leads to lengthy change management periods and a high amount of human error.
The ZK Research 2014 Network Purchase Intention Study reveals that human error is the number- one cause of network downtime today (Exhibit 2). To enable rapid, accurate changes, automation has become a top priority, with IT leaders and business executives looking to automate changes to their compute and application infrastructure based on business policies. The device-centric nature of managing network devices makes it difficult, if not impossible, to bring automation to the network.
Lack of programmability
Because converged infrastructure has become more commonplace, it’s important that the network is able to interface with a wide range of applications and infrastructures to optimize performance. For example, when a video call is being initiated, the application needs to direct the network to reserve a certain amount of bandwidth for the voice and images.
This is challenging today because legacy infrastructure lacks programmable interfaces, which prohibits application developers from programming the network to automatically accommodate these types of random traffic spikes.
Designed for “yesterday’s” applications
Traditional networks were optimized for old-school applications such as email, voice, CRM and other static applications. Today’s applications are enabled by the cloud and include mobile applications, big data analytics and social business. These new-age applications have significantly different network requirements from their old-school counterparts, though there is still a need to simultaneously support both. The shift to cloud computing is ushering in a new era in networking. A New IP network that is optimized for the cloud era is now required.
Historically, organizations made network infrastructure decisions based on brand, incumbency and market share versus technical superiority because “good enough” was adequate to support legacy compute models.
But as the cloud era gains momentum and hybrid clouds become the dominant compute model, the network will continue to increase in value. Infrastructure that was good enough for Internet computing will not be sustainable for cloud computing. A New IP network is now a business mandate.
Photo by dominik99
This excerpt from ZK Research’s white paper Compute Transitions Drive the Need for the New IP Network is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1H3xyQe
via
AWS To Data-Center Worshippers: You'll Be Back, Just Like Zynga
As if Zynga didn't have enough problems.
The once dominant game company has been in free fall for years, struggling to make the industry shift from desktop to mobile. One reason for that struggle, it turns out, is the company's misguided attempts to scale out its own infrastructure, as Zynga CEO Mark Pincus admitted in the company's latest earnings call.
Sure, some companies—like Etsy—find it advantageous to roll their own data centers. But for most companies struggling to embrace agile, scalable development, the public cloud is the way to go.
Zynga's Core Issue
To be clear, Zynga's problems are deeper than its infrastructure. While a company's hardware and software matters, it's secondary to actually having products that people want to buy.
Zynga made its mark with games designed to be played on desktop-powered Facebook. But even as Facebook shifted to mobile, Zynga kept spamming Facebook friends with Farmville requests on their desktops.
Zynga's primary problem, then, was an inability to embrace mobile.
As the company tried to make the shift to mobile, however, its infrastructure did it no favors. As Amazon Web Services data science chief Matt Wood told me in an interview:
Those that go out and buy expensive infrastructure find that the problem scope and domain shift really quickly. By the time they get around to answering the original question, the business has moved on.
While Wood was speaking of solving tough data science problems, the same principles apply to IT infrastructure, generally. When you build out a data center to solve particular problems, you're stuck with infrastructure that may not suit itself to new business challenges that arise.
Like, in Zynga's case, mobile.
Paying Someone Else To Scale
Which is why it's not surprising to see Zynga do an about-face on its decision to abandon AWS for its own data centers. As Pincus told investors:
When we think about scale, we['ve] got to think about where we want to get scale. And we want to get scale in places like data and analytics where we need to be world class in order to arm our game teams to deliver the most value for our players. There's a lot of places that are not strategic for us to have scale and we think not appropriate like running our own data centers. We're going to let Amazon do that. So what we're really trying to do here is have scale where it can give us a real leverage across our product teams and not maintain scale that we really can't justify.
Or, as the WSJ's Robert McMillan writes:
When Zynga built the data centers, it bet that it could operate them more cheaply than paying Amazon. But squeezing better price performance out of a city block of servers turned out to be a tricky proposition.
As mentioned, Etsy and others have gone against the cloud tide and seem to be making it work. Etsy CTO Kellan Elliott-McCrea told me that the online marketplace has discovered "very real cost savings" and higher utilization by running in its own data centers.
But Etsy is the exception, not the rule.
The "rule" looks increasingly like AWS, wherein we pay public cloud providers to ensure elasticity and scale at a reasonable price. As mobile, Big Data, and other trends roil existing enterprises, savvy companies will build agility into their IT infrastructure, allowing them to easily experiment with new apps and new approaches.
Photo by Robert Scoble
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1Hf0A4P
via
11 Things To Remember When Your Startup Tackles A New Market
Guest author Scott Gerber is the founder of the Young Entrepreneur Council.
Getting customers in the door is a challenge that all entrepreneurs face. But even if you've been successful with one business model to date, targeting a new customer base—whether through expansion or a new venture—can feel like starting all over again.
To save you time and money, I asked several YEC entrepreneurs what one thing they'd prioritize above everything else when expanding an existing model to target a new customer base. Their best answers are below.
Customer Feedback
When expanding your existing model, it is imperative that you intensely and actively listen to your new customer base. Things that you might have assumed as a constant when moving into the field may not be.
It is essential in the first few days and months you are asking questions in as many ways and forms that you can to gather all potential feedback. Analyzing this feedback and adjusting your position quickly will help minimize glitches and potholes that you may have fallen into had you not been a vigilant listener.
Overlooking your end user, whether B2B or B2C, is the mistake that will come back to hurt you in hours spent, dollars wasted, or misdirected effort down the road.
Potential Partnerships
Before I step into another customer base, I do my research. I first look to my own partnerships and affiliations and try to determine if I know anyone who has experience in that direct customer base, and then I either call, email or ask them to lunch. I want to get every detail of their experience from the good and the bad.
That becomes my biggest learning tool to plan my strategy. From there, if I have partnerships that bridge the gap between my old and new customer base, I try to make that publicly apparent.
I believe customers enjoy this kind of synchronicity, and it's almost as if their favorite brands are humanized to them and are "friends" for lack of a better word. If they already believe in your peer's product, they'll trust their word in recommending yours.
—Rob Fulton, Exponential Black
Review Site Research
Make sure you do appropriate market research. Check Amazon or similar sites that list your product category to see what people are saying about products that are already in the industry, the problems/issues they have with those products, and what they like.
Also, check to see whether people are actually purchasing the product. Amazon and/or Yelp reviews are a great place to do this kind of market research.
—Kevin Henrikson, Acompli (now Outlook iOS/Android @ Microsoft)
The Competition
You should never overlook your competitors and the total addressable market size. It’s critical to understand how strong your competitors are—what they’re doing well, what they’re not doing well, how you can differentiate yourself and how big the market is. You should never assume that you’re going to be dramatically bigger than the current market leader.
Your Current Clients
The current users/customers of your product have already instilled their trust in your brand. Make sure to not alienate them during this change because they are the customers you have already worked to create. While you are expanding, be sure to not isolate your original business model.
Potential Rebranding
When it comes to expanding your existing model to a new customer base, be open to the idea that you may need to rework your branding to best message your new audience. It can be a challenge as an organization to change your aesthetic identity or tone, but sometimes it is an important change to make in order to succeed in a new market.
As you go through the process of evaluating whether you need to adjust your existing brand, make sure to conduct interviews with your new target market customers so that you have a holistic understanding of their needs and preferences. This will help you make critical branding decisions as you expand successfully.
Redefining The Need
You have to spend more time and effort reaching a new customer base than you do reaching your current customer base. People often think that it’s a simple matter of changing their marketing to target a new group, but they often forget that the effort needed to reach their initial market was huge.
Think of the first marketing you did to get your business launched. It isn’t going to take as much effort as that because you probably have some brand recognition already. However, you’re still going to have to define the need for your product all over again.
Perspective From Other Fields
The typical approach to market research is simply looking at customer trends in your field and asking your existing customers about what they’d like to see next. Instead of pigeonholing yourself, try to gain perspective by reading about or getting exposed to other companies outside your field. Learn from their experiences in targeting new customer bases and innovate solutions from there.
Thorough Market Analysis
You need to determine whether there is truly a need by conducting a thorough market study and gathering data. You should not make this determination based on a gut feeling.
A market study can uncover specific challenges you might face, so you can anticipate those and shape your product and campaigns appropriately. A market study should identify competitors and explore why they are not fully meeting the needs of customers. You can use this information to come up with a plan to distinguish your business from the competition.
Strategic Messaging
Make sure you are purposeful with your messaging about how this new product or vertical will weave in with your existing products. Whether you want it to be totally separate or integrated somehow with your existing product or service, there needs to be purpose around that messaging.
Expanding with a new product provides you with an opportunity to excite existing customers about your growth trajectory and ability to innovate. However, if not positioned properly, your approach could be perceived as scattered, or as if your other products aren’t working.
Changes In Sales And Service
Don’t overlook the challenges associated with pivoting a sales force and customer service team. You’ve hired specific people and trained them to sell to and work with a certain customer base. If you’re changing the model, you should consider that, in addition to updating your sales pitch, product differentiators and pricing to resonate with a new segment, you also may need to make adjustments to your sales and service recruiting strategies and training processes.
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1HamMdv
via
Node.js Drama Continues: Project Lead TJ Fontaine Is Out
Drama over the open-source JavaScript framework Node.js continues. In the latest installment, its official project head, TJ Fontaine, has abruptly stepped aside—both from Node and from his job at Joyent, Node's longtime corporate sponsor.
Fontaine's departure comes just a few months after Joyent announced plans to turn over Node governance to an independent foundation. That decision followed an open-source schism in the Node community that led several of its primary contributors to launch their own version of the Node software dubbed IO.js. (There are now signs that the Node and IO projects may be on the road to reunion.)
See also: Joyent Waves A White Flag, Hands Off Node.js To A New Foundation
In a blog post, Fontaine said it’s the “right time” to move on. “It’s because of this strong team, community, and the formation of the Foundation that it makes it the right time for me to step back.”
Fontaine's post didn't mention that he was leaving Joyent, although a company spokesperson confirmed the departure via email to VentureBeat. Julien Gilli, a Joyent software engineer, will slide in as the interim Node lead. Fontaine praised Gilli in his farewell post, calling him an “incredible addition” to the team who has “done wonders for the project.”
Photo by Lauren Orsini for ReadWrite
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1Quoxqc
via
In Praise Of The Average Developer
Jacob Kaplan-Moss, a core contributor to Django, is many things. But he's not, he insists, an "incredible programmer."
In fact, as he argued in his PyCon keynote, the false dichotomy of the rock star programmer and the weak developer is just that: 100%, completely false.
But also destructive. As Kaplan-Moss concludes, describing developers as either "great" or "terrible" leaves no middle ground. That often pushes them into punitive work hours to keep up, or dissuades them from making a career in technology at all. Neither is healthy.
We Are All Average Together
While Kaplan-Moss may not deserve to be labeled the inventor of Django or even its co-creator, two labels that others often affix to him, most would still call him an amazing programmer.
But he's not. At least, not by his standards. As he told the PyCon crowd, "I am, at best, an average programmer."
Really?
Yes, really. Because, as he goes on, we all are. We might like to think that we're all above average, Lake Wobegon style, but the reality is that we're nearly all at the fat part of the typical bell curve.
And yet there's a pernicious myth of the "10X" programmer, he continues, that drives recruiters to focus on white males that "look like a programmer" and keeps diversity and honest developers out. The heavy competition for developer talent only exacerbates this myth.
This is destructive.
Above Average Angst
Because of the myth of the Linus Torvalds-esque programmer, we set "an impossibly high bar for entry", Kaplan-Moss argues. Instead, we should establish a lower bar, one that acknowledges that "average is actually pretty awesome."
Otherwise, as Jake Edge's exceptional summary captures, we end up with an unhealthy monoculture:
If the only options are to be amazing or terrible, it leads people to believe they must be passionate about their career, that they must think about programming every waking moment of their life. If they take their eye off the ball even for a minute, they will slide right from amazing to terrible again. That leads people to be working crazy hours at work, to be constantly studying programming topics on their own time, and so on.
This myth, he feels, "is driving people out of programming, and it is preventing "most of the growth we'd like to see."
Thank Goodness For Microsoft
It is an exceptional keynote, one that you should absolutely take time to watch.
As I did, I thought a lot about Microsoft. While Microsoft is in the middle of a rebirth, even during its heyday the company took a lot of grief from the Ubermensch developers that felt Microsoft had inexcusably dumbed down programming, systems administration, and more.
But here's the thing: Most of us need that dumbing down. Microsoft's billions in the bank are a testament to this. Microsoft made it possible for an average programmer to do good work. Microsoft, in other words, dismantled that pernicious "10X developer" myth that Kaplan-Moss lambasts.
My concern, following Kaplan-Moss, is that we're raising a new generation of developers to believe they have to be A-M-A-Z-I-N-G-! to be relevant. This, in part, has driven the "full-stack developer" phenomenon which, thankfully, is starting to wane, as Redmonk analyst Stephen O'Grady notes:
Developers have historically had an insatiable appetite for new technology, but it could be that we're approaching the too-much-of-a-good-thing stage. In which case, the logical outcome will be a gradual slowing of fragmentation followed by gradual consolidation.
Consolidation implies a dumbing down of options so that we all congregate around similar technologies to solve problems. In this way, it's very much an uprising of the average against the urge to pretend we all have to be exceptional.
Which, as Kaplan-Moss describes, is a very, very good thing.
Lead photo by Alexandre Dulaunoy
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1IozjLQ
via
The FAA Keeps Edging Closer To Broader Commercial-Drone Use
Little by little, the FAA seems to be unclenching from its strict regulatory limits on commercial-drone use.
Earlier this week, the agency said it would allow three companies to push past the boundaries of restrictive drone guidelines the FAA proposed earlier this year. Specifically, the FAA will allow these companies to test commercial drones that operate beyond their operator's direct vision and, in one case, in urban areas.
Would-be commercial drone operators—particularly Amazon and its proposed Prime Air delivery service—have long chafed at the FAA's unwillingness to allow broader testing and use of remotely piloted copters. The FAA's proposed rules, for instance, would force all commercial-drone operators to obtain FAA certification, limit flights to daylight hours and altitudes of less than 500 feet, and require drones to remain within their operators' lines of sight.
See also: The FAA Finally Suggests Drone-Use Rules—And They Don't Allow Much
Now, however, the FAA says it will allow PrecisionHawk, a North Carolina-based remote sensing and data processing company, to use drones to survey crops in rural areas beyond visual range of their operators. BNSF Railroad, meanwhile, will do something with drone inspections of its rail infrastructure, again outside operator line-of-sight.
In a separate effort, CNN will explore using drones for news gathering in populated urban areas.
"Even as we pursue our current rulemaking effort for small unmanned aircraft, we must continue to actively look for ways to expand non-recreational [unmanned aircraft systems] uses," FAA administrator Michael Huerta said at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International Unmanned Systems 2015 conference this week. "This new initiative involving three leading U.S. companies will help us anticipate and address the needs of the evolving UAS industry."
Drone enthusiasts find the FAA's move heartening.
"It's a very big development," Michael Drobac, executive director of the Small UAV Coalition, said in an interview with ReadWrite. "Based on what they had been saying, the future of commercial drone use and even continued excitement around consumer drone use looked somewhat bleak. This represents a significant pivot on their part."
Photo by John Mills
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1Iob8xc
via
Hacking Our Brains: Motivating Others By Snatching Back Rewards
This post first appeared on the Ferenstein Wire, a syndicated news service; it has been edited. For inquires, please email author and publisher Gregory Ferenstein.
Cognitive psychologists have refined a clever brain hack for improving performance on challenging tasks: Give people their maximum reward up front, but deduct from it when they don't hit the mark.
Turns out that if we start off assuming people will live up to our highest expectations, imposing consequences for falling short ends up being a better motivator than tying rewards to doing well.
First Giveth—Then Taketh Away
The strategy exploits a unique fact about motivation: Humans generally care way more about losses than gains.
The theory is based on famous experimental studies on the so-called “endowment effect.” When people get something for free—a coffee mug, say—they get attached to it and want more money to let it go than they’d pay to acquire it in the first place. For instance, someone might ask $5 for the mug when selling it, but wouldn't pay more than $3 to buy it themselves.
More recent research exploited the endowment effect to help teachers improve student test scores. Researchers found up to a 10 percentile score improvement when teachers got their entire bonus pay up front, but had to hand part of it back if they failed to meet their goals at the end of the school year. By contrast, promising teachers a bonus at the end of school produced no score improvements at all.
In the most recent study (PDF link), a team at the University of Washington found a similar effect when testing people on challenging sensory tasks. When researchers deducted money from a preexisting reward pot, subjects made fewer errors than a group that received incremental rewards for each correct response.
Rewards Make Us Risk-Averse
But that study showed something else interesting. First, consider the study's visual task. Participants watched randomly flashing lights from the right and left side of a screen and had to quickly determine which side blinked more frequently.
Subjects receiving traditional rewards were more likely to choose the side they had previously guessed, even though each round of the game was completely random. Those in danger of losing money, by contrast, were less likely to be biased toward their previous answer — and, hence, were better at guessing correctly.
“Objectively, you’d think that winning 25 cents would have the same magnitude of effect as losing 25 cents, but that’s not what we find,” explained Jan Kubanek, lead author and graduate student at the Washington University School of Medicine.
The upshot: presuming people will perform at their very best may be a better strategy than hoping they can get somewhere close to a goal.
Brain image courtesy of Shutterstock
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1bBiv7A
via
Second That Emotion
This article is sponsored by MakerCon, the epicenter of the maker movement. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
"What's neat about working in the wearables space right now is that it is coming to life now more than it ever has before," says artist, author, and professor Kate Hartman.
"We're seeing a number of wearable computing products come out that sense, track, and augment our activities in ways that a few years ago seemed completely out of reach."
The author of Make: Wearable Electronics, Kate joins a panel moderated by Wearable World CEO Redg Snodgrass on May 12 at MakerCon to discuss emerging trends in wearable technology. (Wearable World is ReadWrite's parent company.)
What's fascinating about Kate's point of view is that she doesn't consider the Apple Watch, for example, to really fit the rubric of "wearable tech" other than at its essence, it's technology that you wear.
Register now: MakerCon 2015, May 12
Rather, she and other panelists in MakerCon's Wearables Breakout Session—who include Lumo BodyTech founder and CEO Monisha Perkash and data scientist Rachel Kalmar—view wearables as possessing the ability to further the personality, express emotion, showcase attitude and point of view, and extend the generous dimensions of an individual's soul.
"I’m specifically interested in how we as humans relate to ourselves, each other, and the world around us," Kate told the TED audience when she presented there in 2011. In her work, Kate has played with how to interact with a highly trafficked Canadian glacier, for example, finally deciding to refashion a heat-attractive shield as a body blanket that would allow her to hug the ice mass.
If this is all rather heady, that's because it's the leading work of artists and thinkers like Kate, Monisha, and Rachel that are poised to bring about the true promise of wearable technology.
Could your clothes blush or inflate when you're flustered or happy? Should they?
These innovators imagine a near future in which that's as commonplace as fabrics that stay just one color or can't rise of their own accord.
"We're entering a formative period where we will be deciding what technology we will be wearing and how and when we will be wearing it," Kate says. "It's a great time for people to be making in this space because it gives them an opportunity to create and think critically about what comes next."
Photo of Kate Hartman courtesy of Maker Media
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1F0z7RU
via
A New Model for Networking Is Needed
This excerpt from ZK Research’s white paper Compute Transitions Drive the Need for the New IP Network is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
The enterprise network has undergone two major transitions since the introduction of computing as a pervasive business resource. First, the client/server era introduced networking and created the need for basic local-area network (LAN) connectivity. During this era, LANs lived in isolation, and there were several competing connectivity methods including SNA, AppleTalk and LANtastic.
Second, the next wave of computing introduced branch office connectivity and gave rise to the corporate wide-area network (WAN). Branch office computing created the requirement to connect the LAN “islands” to one another. The era of branch computing brought about routed IP networks to interconnect locations. Also, the network evolved to have limited application intelligence for prioritization purposes.
Now, cloud computing is driving yet another shift in the network as the cloud creates new demands that legacy networks simply cannot meet. The cloud computing era is here, and the network must be able to deliver cloud principles everywhere. The network needs to become open and agile, and it must shift to a new economic model to be in better alignment with the cloud.
Why “Best Efforts” Aren't Good Enough
Legacy networks were designed for an era when the connected endpoints were static. Rigid endpoints meant the network could also be rigid in architecture. Also, most traditional, premises-based applications were “best effort” in nature, so the network that delivered the applications could be designed with best effort in mind. In reality, despite the billions of dollars spent on network infrastructure, current networks are no better than “good enough.”
Although a good-enough IP network may have been sufficient until now, it will not meet the future demands of the cloud computing era. The cloud is a key enabler for other key technology trends such as mobility and the Internet of Things. Cloud services are elastic in nature and require a network with an equal amount of agility. The next era of computing will enable the connectivity of an order of magnitude more devices, requiring the network to scale up and out almost instantaneously.
Additionally, network operators will need the ability to create services anywhere, at any time, and those services must be migrated whenever required. Cloud providers have already adopted new network models, and it is critical for network operators to follow these models to remain competitive.
Too Much Spent On The Status Quo
Today, the rigidity of legacy networks inhibits network operators and enterprises from taking full advantage of the cloud. Additionally, the inefficient, manual processes that plague network operations today have driven costs up to the point where there is little time or budget for innovation. The ZK Research 2014 Network Purchase Intention Study revealed that 83% of the budget allocated to managing networks is used just to maintain the status quo. What’s required is a new type of network that is better aligned with cloud and mobile computing.
To address the needs for this next generation of computing, evolving the network is now a business imperative. The New IP network is open, standards based and flexible, and it can meet all the new demands that cloud computing brings. Organizations that embrace the New IP era will thrive and leapfrog their competition, while those that do not will fall behind their peers and rapidly become irrelevant.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
This excerpt from ZK Research’s white paper Compute Transitions Drive the Need for the New IP Network is sponsored by Brocade. It reflects the views of the sponsor, not ReadWrite's editors.
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1Qj3qXI
via
Facebook Opens Internet.org To Developers—Just Not Very Much
Facebook is learning a valuable lesson: Giving away Internet access is hard. Making a business out of giving a little bit away and then charging for more is even harder.
Internet.org, Mark Zuckerberg's plan to offer free Internet to the developing world, has always been a commercial affair cloaked in high-mindedness. If there was any doubt about that, it’s become even clearer in Facebook's response to Indian net-neutrality supporters who complain that its walled-garden approach threatens the open Internet in their country.
See also: Facebook's Growth Is Slowing—So It's Going To Expand The Internet
On Monday, the company announced that it will open up the Internet.org app to developers, presumably so anyone can make their sites and services available through the Internet.org “platform.” Facebook hopes that will be enough to appease the critics.
But instead of swinging open the door, the company opened it just a crack. To gain entrance, third parties must strip down their offerings, while those that require high data bandwidth—like video sites or ones using high-resolution photos—won’t get in at all. Neither will sites that use standard Web security (TLS/SSL, sometimes known as HTTPS) or JavaScript, among the most common Web tools today.
All that makes Internet.org an "open platform" that’s not really very open at all. It allows for just enough Internet to give people a taste. The idea: Once hooked, these users will gladly pay for broader access. As a calculated business move, it makes some sense. But it doesn’t exactly make for a pure humanitarian play.
Facebook itself even acknowledges that.
Endangered: The Open Internet In India?
Facebook has a complicated dance with Internet.org. It needs to dangle just enough Internet access and services to keep users interested, and enough motivation for partners and network providers to stick around, while simultaneously fending off detractors.
The latter is no easy feat. Internet.org distills the available online world down to only a few dozen basic services, so far deployed in just nine regions. Perhaps Facebook thought these areas would just happily accept these crumbs, since they’re free for developing markets with fewer alternatives. But on the contrary, that makes for even more scrutiny.
When Facebook prioritizes some sites over others, or artificially limits free access to information, that has larger implications in areas where few other pipelines of communication exist. That’s a nightmare scenario for net-neutrality advocates, who believe in an open Internet and denounce schemes that confer preferential treatment on some sites over others. The concern came to a head in India, after Internet.org launched there last February.
The Huffington Post reported that Cleartrip, NDTV, Newshunt and the Times Group have all backed away from the Facebook project. "The Times Group will be pulling out TimesJobs and Maharashtra Times from Internet.org,” the site wrote last month, "and has committed to withdraw from internet.org if its direct competitors—India Today, NDTV, IBNLive, NewsHunt, and BBC—also pull out.”
Interesting New Developments
Apparently in response to the criticism, Facebook will let outside developers make their sites and services available to Internet.org—though the company says that the move was always in the cards.
“The debate here certainly accelerated our plans,” Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president of product for Internet.org, told Scroll.in, an independent politics and culture blog based in India. "The debate also gave us an opportunity to go to all the constituents of the debate and hear how they see Internet.org, the benefits they see from it and the concerns people have about it.”
In a video, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg clarified a bit more:
When people use free basic services, more of them then decide to pay to access the broader Internet, and this enables operators to keep offering the basic services for free. It's not sustainable to offer the whole Internet for free, though. It costs tens of billions of dollars a year to run the Internet, and no operator could afford this if everything were free. But it is sustainable to build free basic services that are simpler, use less data, and work on all low-end phones.
But critics worry that Facebook is effectively fashioning itself into a gatekeeper of what users can and cannot access for free. To address this head on, the company will "offer services through Internet.org in a way that’s more transparent and inclusive,” Zuckerberg wrote in the official blog post.
The company contends that acceptance won’t be arbitrarily decided by Facebook. It will hinge on adherence to a few fundamental guidelines: Developers should encourage people to explore the larger Internet by linking to outside sites, develop a simpler or stripped-down version as a free basic service (that networks can more easily support), and conform to technical requirements that allow "zero rating" (that is, free carriage) and other tactics for minimizing data load, cost and network effects.
Facebook has made it clear that Internet.org will only allow for basic services. The terms effectively bar data-heavy sites and services that require a lot of bandwidth, such as streaming sites, as well as SSL/TLS/HTTPS security protocols and JavaScript.
At the very least, the company does seem more transparent, making no bones about where it sees its greatest priority. And it’s not with end users.
The Complexities Of A Freemium Internet
Internet.org "has to work for operators in the long-term,” Facebook's Daniels said in the Scroll.in interview. He continued:
What we believe though is that giving consumers more choice will make them experience some of these basic services that are valuable to them and then they can go on to explore the broader Internet. When they do that, they will pay for the data, and that does work for the operator.
Indeed it does. Facebook needs to make sure carriers get something out of the arrangement, because they're the ones footing the bill for service. The system falls apart without those networks—at least for the foreseeable future. Facebook has been exploring other tactics, including beaming connectivity from drones and satellites, likely so it can bring Internet.org to remote regions. But for now, carriers are still key.
Therein lies the freemium model, which wouldn’t work if users had unfettered Internet access from the beginning.
But Facebook is the one with the most to gain, if it can pull off this intricate balancing act. Because the more people it can connect, with either free or paid services, the larger its pool of potential users, which has been its real goal all along.
Lead photo/screenshot courtesy of Facebook
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1IK7b6l
via
Pinterest Opens Its Doors—And Its API—To Developers At Last
Developers finally have a Pinterest API of note—though the social network is inching open its doors rather than swinging them wide. Today the firm launched a beta Pinterest Developers Platform, described as "a suite of APIs for developers to build apps and integrations that bring pins to life."
The API, or application programming interface, lets coders build all kinds of apps on top of Pinterest's data. (See our API explainer.) The official examples include an app that orders ingredients from a recipe "pin"—pins being the visual bookmarks that serve as Pinterest's analogue to Facebook updates and Twitter tweets—and one that arranges bookings based on a travel pin.
For now the program is only open to developers in the U.S., and they have to go through an application process first. The beta API allows developers to access an authorized user's pins, boards and followers, as well as boards, users and interests the user is following.
Board access extends to reading a board's pins and creating, updating and deleting an authorized user's boards. In addition developers can get details of specific Pins as well as create, update and delete them.
TechCrunch reports that users will get full control over which apps are authorized, with the ability to revoke credentials at any time, and Pinterest won't tolerate shady practices. The social network began work on an API in September, TechCrunch says.
A Different Kind Of Network
The thought of getting busy with Pinterest integration is sure to leave developers drooling. Unlike larger social networks, it promotes a much more positive, aspirational outlook on life. Weddings, food, architecture, travel, design, fashion ... these are the areas where Pinterest excels.
What Pinterest lacks in user numbers—estimates suggest roughly 47 million people access Pinterest accounts at least once a month, way less than Facebook's 1.4 billion and Twitter's 302 million—it makes up in being much more product-focused.
Pinterest stands to benefit too. More ways to utilize the underlying platform means more reason for users to sign up and stick around. Maybe you'll take more care over your dream holidays board if there's an app that can help you make a booking off the back of it.
With Amazon muscling in on Pinterest territory and Google+ rumored to be heading in a Pinterest-esque direction very soon, developer involvement could be crucial for Pinterest's growth.
This isn't Pinterest's first API, but it is the first that's really of use to developers in both its scope and its functionality. Be warned, though: Pinterest says only a few hundred developers are going to be allowed through the gates while it scales up the technology behind the new tools.
Lead image by Madeleine Weiss for ReadWrite
from ReadWrite http://ift.tt/1AA6MMV
via