Category: Uncategorized

Tim Bray talks about how all this concern about bloggers being fired from their companies for saying too much is a bunch of bullshit. In fact, he says, in a world where communication is of the essence, having a strong online prescence can only aid your career. As regards getting into trouble:

Put it another way: not blogging won’t protect you from career-limiting moves, and if blogging provokes one, well, you were probably going to do it anyhow.

:-) Nice! So, for your reading pleasure:

Ten Reasons Why Blogging is Good For Your Career

1. You have to get noticed to get promoted.
2. You have to get noticed to get hired.
3. It really impresses people when you say “Oh, I’ve written about that, just google for XXX and I’m on the top page” or “Oh, just google my name.”
4. No matter how great you are, your career depends on communicating. The way to get better at anything, including communication, is by practicing. Blogging is good practice.
5. Bloggers are better-informed than non-bloggers. Knowing more is a career advantage.
6. Knowing more also means you’re more likely to hear about interesting jobs coming open.
7. Networking is good for your career. Blogging is a good way to meet people.
8. If you’re an engineer, blogging puts you in intimate contact with a worse-is-better 80/20 success story. Understanding this mode of technology adoption can only help you.
9. If you’re in marketing, you’ll need to understand how its rules are changing as a result of the current whirlwind, which nobody does, but bloggers are at least somewhat less baffled.
10. It’s a lot harder to fire someone who has a public voice, because it will be noticed.

Here’s an article that provides, finally, an analysis of Google that is thankfully devoid of any of the hundreds of conspiracy theories that abound over the Internet about Google’s plan to take over the world.

The writer takes apart conspiracies one-by-one and provides more sane justifications for Google’s actions.

The article is disappointing in one funny way – you tend to agree with most of the writer’s arguments, but that means that Google isn’t, after all, some out-of-this-world, astonishing company with a top-secret master plan that it’s going to unleash upon the world. By taking away the suspense, the romanticism and the mystery surrounding Google, we’re left with nothing more than a tech company with a firm focus on its area of expertise, that’s just doing far more things right than wrong. That’s all there is to it. The writer’s attempts to rationalise, though, are bang on.

Hey look. Someone else is predicting that Google will user their super-mega-ultimate-supreme server farm to replace your PC’s operating system.

That sounds familiar.

I do not buy it. Let’s look at some of the arguments:

“Google has hired OS experts like Rob Pike and Marc Lucovsky! Clearly they are toiling away on the Manhattan project of OS research, which will culminate in some kind of…SOMETHING! Some kind of something which will sweep Microsoft from the face of the earth!”

A more likely scenario is that Google does indeed perform OS research, but not for you and I. For themselves. Their clusters use a custom filesystem. They run linux, but it’s been modified from the original Red Hat. They need (and can attract) smart folks to build and extend these systems. But it’s all for the benefit of storage and search. They didn’t hire Rob and Marc to work on giving you online spreadsheets. Sorry.

“Google uses wowie-zowie javascript for Gmail and Google maps! Clearly this is the harbinger of their browser-based OS-like-thingy!”

I think they use javascript because it works well. It’s one step beyond html. Like any other technology-driven company, they’ll use the best tools they can, even if those tools aren’t mainstream yet. I’ve looked at the source code for both Gmail and Google maps, and I believe they are two entirely different projects, run by two separate groups. The goal of one is to make a good web-based email service. The goal of the other is to make a good online map service. I find it difficult to fit those pieces together into a master strategy. I think they evolved independently.

“Google has invested in native clients like Picasa and Keyhole maps and Desktop Search! Clearly this is an aggressive move into the consumer application space!”

Well, that’s partly true. But Google isn’t primarily interested in selling consumer apps. I think Picasa and Keyhole were acquired because Google wants to own delivery channels (browsers) for data that doesn’t currently have a good delivery channel. Html data is delivered by a web browser, and it’s probably a bit late for Google to own that. But Geographic data (the real thing, not road maps) has no browser, except either a full-blown GIS system or a lightweight client like keyhole. Photos on your hard drive have no browser (unless you have a mac).

I think Google desktop search was kind of a fluke. Something they could do fairly easily (right?) with some market opportunity (because windows default search BLOOOOOOOOOOWS). A low-investment play that incidentally forced MS and Yahoo to play catch-up.

Let’s talk about business strategy. It’s fun to imagine that Google has some awesome master plan for controlling all computerdom. But I have a simpler theory that I think fits the evidence:

A) Google cares first and foremost about web search. Most of their architect-level employees will be working on making search better. I think one of Google’s big shots said something similar right out loud. Search is what they do.

B) Google cares secondly about new kinds of search. Book search. Place search. Image search. Discussion group search. Product search. Email search. Because they have an advertising model that can be targeted to most any type of search. (Google also cares about new kinds of search because web ads may not work forever.)

C) Google cares thirdly about interesting new things. These come from employees. Depending on which source you believe, Google employees spend either 10% or 20% of their time working on personal projects. (Update: It looks like 20% is the correct number) The really successful projects get publicized via Google labs. Google maps started as one of these. I bet Gmail did too.

I’m especially interested in (C). 20% is a lot of time. Would your company willingly slash 20% from its developer-hours? Why is this important?

For one thing, it’s the world’s best marketing department. Those Google labs projects don’t generate much revenue, but they draw mindshare like crazy. How often does your company announce something genuinely new and interesting? Because of the constant bubble of percolating personal projects, Google enjoys near-constant online buzz.

Would your company sacrifice that 20% development time if it meant they could fire the entire marketing department, spend $0 on web advertising, and still boost their media coverage?

That 20% is also key for attracting talent. Working at Google has a lot of perks (so I hear), but for a developer, the ability to work on personal projects is magic. To my knowledge, no other company offers this. (Update: My knowledge is sadly limited – see comments)

Finally, those outside projects (call them lab projects, personal projects, forever-in-beta projects, whatever) are a powerful competitive weapon. Microsoft probably understands that the real competition with Google is (A) and (B). But I bet they’re focusing way too much thought on the projects from (C). From a competition point of view, (C) is a feint. (or maybe it isn’t! ha ha!)

Put another way, it’s fire and motion. For instance, Microsoft is working on a new version of IE. MS will need to test their browser against Gmail and Google maps — arguably the most complex websites in existence — and God help them if their new browser breaks those sites. For anyone who has spent hours testing code against IE, this is delicious irony, sweet and savory.

So that’s my theory: There is no secret replace-windows master plan. Google is just a smart company with a solid business strategy, an understanding of their core competency, good talent and a few tricks (simple tricks!) for leveraging such talent.

But this theory could be wrong. If Google creates some kind of OS of the gods, I’ll happily admit my error :)

I finished reading Michael Crichton’s “Timeline” a couple of days ago. I can’t stop raving about it! This book probably ranks among the top 5 books I’ve read!

The premise of the story is so fantastic – the guy’s melded Quantum Physics and the Middle Ages in Europe – and he’s done a damn fine job! He’s also put in a lot of research into the topic. This is my first Crichton, but I’ve been told by a few of my friends that deep research is a Crichton hallmark.

This is a book that thrills every single page! It’s made me contemplate missing my dinner last Tuesday, and keeping me awake till 1:30 AM Wednesday and Thursday. Oh, and the climax is simply amazing! Totally absorbing. One point which a lot of thrillers sorely lack is closure. This book, though, doesn’t make that mistake. Nothing’s left hanging in the air. Ending it give you a nice, satisifed feeling.

A lot of my friends, even after grudingly acknowledging Crichton’s writing skills, have accused him of writing books for the sole purpose of getting them adapted into movies. I guess that stems from the unparalelled success of Jurassic Park and The Lost World. If he does, so be it. It makes the book more enrapturing.

Go read it! Of course, be prepared for a wretched drop in productivity!

I finished reading Michael Crichton’s “Timeline” a couple of days ago. I can’t stop raving about it! This book probably ranks among the top 5 books I’ve read!

The premise of the story is so fantastic – the guy’s melded Quantum Physics and the Middle Ages in Europe – and he’s done a damn fine job! He’s also put in a lot of research into the topic. This is my first Crichton, but I’ve been told by a few of my friends that deep research is a Crichton hallmark.

This is a book that thrills every single page! It’s made me contemplate missing my dinner last Tuesday, and keeping me awake till 1:30 AM Wednesday and Thursday. Oh, and the climax is simply amazing! Totally absorbing. One point which a lot of thrillers sorely lack is closure. This book, though, doesn’t make that mistake. Nothing’s left hanging in the air. Ending it give you a nice, satisifed feeling.

A lot of my friends, even after grudingly acknowledging Crichton’s writing skills, have accused him of writing books for the sole purpose of getting them adapted into movies. I guess that stems from the unparalelled success of Jurassic Park and The Lost World. If he does, so be it. It makes the book more enrapturing.

Go read it! Of course, be prepared for a wretched drop in productivity!

This page on Google, about the company’s corporate philosophy:

Google Corporate Information: Our Philosophy

Google’s philosophy centres around ten things the company has found to be true. Each of those ten points offers valuable advice for any business. Definitely worth reading.

A lot of companies probably need to pay more attention to two aspects of Google. One, their focus. As the page says: ” Google does search. Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat. With the largest research group in the world focused exclusively on solving search problems, Google knows what it does well and how it could be done better”. It’s tempting for a company with the kind of talent and reputation that Google has, to branch off into new markets. But the company’s steadfastly refused to do anything of the sort. And that’s the reason for its phenomenal success. That’s how simple it is.

The other is the legendary way they keep their employees happy. By breeding a culture that’s radically different from anything else in corporate America, Google maintains a “geek-friendly” atmosphere throughout. This is a company that considers free food, soft drinks and haircuts as investments, not expenses. And that shows in the mind-boggling productivity their employees are famous for.

Finally, Google’s motto sums it all up. “Don’t Be Evil” and you’ll always do well!

This page on Google, about the company’s corporate philosophy:

Google Corporate Information: Our Philosophy

Google’s philosophy centres around ten things the company has found to be true. Each of those ten points offers valuable advice for any business. Definitely worth reading.

A lot of companies probably need to pay more attention to two aspects of Google. One, their focus. As the page says: ” Google does search. Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat. With the largest research group in the world focused exclusively on solving search problems, Google knows what it does well and how it could be done better”. It’s tempting for a company with the kind of talent and reputation that Google has, to branch off into new markets. But the company’s steadfastly refused to do anything of the sort. And that’s the reason for its phenomenal success. That’s how simple it is.

The other is the legendary way they keep their employees happy. By breeding a culture that’s radically different from anything else in corporate America, Google maintains a “geek-friendly” atmosphere throughout. This is a company that considers free food, soft drinks and haircuts as investments, not expenses. And that shows in the mind-boggling productivity their employees are famous for.

Finally, Google’s motto sums it all up. “Don’t Be Evil” and you’ll always do well!

Here’s a screenshot of Sage, the RSS reader I use. It’s a Firefox extension, no less! I’ll talk more about Sage in an upcoming article on Firefox.

Two articles on MIT’s TechnologyReview talk about how most HP employees detested Carly Fiorina:

Carly’s Way
A Research Scientist from HP’s Imaging Systems Labs talks of how Carly killed HP’s research infrastructure because of her obsession with the “bottom line” and quarter-to-quarter results. What it’s done, he says, is to hurt HP’s competitiveness in the long run, and its ability to hire top-notch technical talent.

The latter part of the article, where he talks about the results of overall decline in research investment in the U.S., is particularly interesting:

Profit is every CEO’s major focus. Research almost always benefits an entire industry more than any particular company. And research doesn’t have immediate results.

Sometimes it doesn’t have the results that CEOs want. You invent a product that has a longer life-cycle, that doesn’t need constant refills or upgrades. Research is expensive and unpredictable. Things that today’s business world frowns on.

New technology typically has a five-year development cycle. The U.S. technology business stopped being serious about research in 2000 and the results are showing now.

People have a little more money but there’s nothing they want to buy. There’s nothing that makes you say, ‘Wow.” Ten years ago I was seeing something interesting every month, but now we’re touting bloated software and cute case designs as innovation.

The damage to HP and the U.S. technology industry at large may already be irreversible. If we start investing today and let our engineers play we might have something exciting to show people in 2010. That’s a long time to wait for the next big wow.

To me, this rabid fixation on short-term profits is a bigger threat than outsourcing — it is killing our ability to make astonishing things.

IBM remains the only company to continue to nurture and fund industrial research at such a HUGE scale. IBM’s 8 research labs are second to none. No other organisation – not Sun, not Microsoft, certainly not HP – can boast of a research culture of the kind we have. No wonder we’ve dominated the number of patents granted every year for the last 12 years. No wonder an IBM fellow like Dr. Charles Bennet of T. J. Watson Research Labs finds mention as a “pioneer” even in fiction novels like Michael Crichton’s “Timeline”.

Carly’s Gone. HP Celebrates.
Even as an IBMer, this is unpleasant reading. The article begins with:

Just after the official announcement came down that CEO Carly Fiorina would be sacked, corks were popped and bottles were opened.

All shapes and sizes of skeletons have come tumbling out of the closet now that Fiorina’s left the company. This article provides insight into how bad relations were between line workers and upper management, and how her tenure as CEO has left HP a demoralised company.

I bet the strategy mandarins at our Big Blue are licking their lips – their job just got a lot easier!

Two articles on MIT’s TechnologyReview talk about how most HP employees detested Carly Fiorina:

Carly’s Way
A Research Scientist from HP’s Imaging Systems Labs talks of how Carly killed HP’s research infrastructure because of her obsession with the “bottom line” and quarter-to-quarter results. What it’s done, he says, is to hurt HP’s competitiveness in the long run, and its ability to hire top-notch technical talent.

The latter part of the article, where he talks about the results of overall decline in research investment in the U.S., is particularly interesting:

Profit is every CEO’s major focus. Research almost always benefits an entire industry more than any particular company. And research doesn’t have immediate results.

Sometimes it doesn’t have the results that CEOs want. You invent a product that has a longer life-cycle, that doesn’t need constant refills or upgrades. Research is expensive and unpredictable. Things that today’s business world frowns on.

New technology typically has a five-year development cycle. The U.S. technology business stopped being serious about research in 2000 and the results are showing now.

People have a little more money but there’s nothing they want to buy. There’s nothing that makes you say, ‘Wow.” Ten years ago I was seeing something interesting every month, but now we’re touting bloated software and cute case designs as innovation.

The damage to HP and the U.S. technology industry at large may already be irreversible. If we start investing today and let our engineers play we might have something exciting to show people in 2010. That’s a long time to wait for the next big wow.

To me, this rabid fixation on short-term profits is a bigger threat than outsourcing — it is killing our ability to make astonishing things.

IBM remains the only company to continue to nurture and fund industrial research at such a HUGE scale. IBM’s 8 research labs are second to none. No other organisation – not Sun, not Microsoft, certainly not HP – can boast of a research culture of the kind we have. No wonder we’ve dominated the number of patents granted every year for the last 12 years. No wonder an IBM fellow like Dr. Charles Bennet of T. J. Watson Research Labs finds mention as a “pioneer” even in fiction novels like Michael Crichton’s “Timeline”.

Carly’s Gone. HP Celebrates.
Even as an IBMer, this is unpleasant reading. The article begins with:

Just after the official announcement came down that CEO Carly Fiorina would be sacked, corks were popped and bottles were opened.

All shapes and sizes of skeletons have come tumbling out of the closet now that Fiorina’s left the company. This article provides insight into how bad relations were between line workers and upper management, and how her tenure as CEO has left HP a demoralised company.

I bet the strategy mandarins at our Big Blue are licking their lips – their job just got a lot easier!

Interesting comment on Slashdot for this discussion:

Steve Jobs is capable of being mean-spirited, cruel, self-centered, and the like. If Apple were to take 90% of the computer market, I have no doubt he would bully people around. That said, no, I don’t think Apple ever could be the next Microsoft just because he is not Gates. Microsoft is the way it is because of Bill Gates. His thirst for total domination goes beyond most CEOs. He is not satisifed with 90% and will continue to crush competitors until he has it all.

Jobs, in contrast, is at his core someone who knows marketing and wants to dazzle his customers. With Microsoft it’s what they want and you have to go along with it. With Apple, it’s about finding the best customer experience and using that for profit.

Look at the quality of their respective products. What kind of quality do you get from Gates? Convoluted, buggy, but hey it’s got features so shut up. What kind of quality do you get from Jobs? Look at Pixar. They are a money-making machine, but they do it by providing customers with top-notch quality. People are glad to give them their money. With Microsoft, it’s often a case of grudgingly giving their money.

So a world dominated by Steve Jobs would undoubtably have it’s own problems, it would be different problems than we have seen from Bill Gates. Their personalities are different enough to ensure that.