LSQHA Blog Reviews

Maybe we're getting to be a bit of a broken record on this point, but a blog post this morning by Robert Scoble on how malleable social graphs could change the direction of location based services reminded us of the fine line we think we're all walking. Malleable social graphs, much like recommendation engines and customized searches, sound like the wave of the future, but we fear that they will, if improperly used, ensure that we never hear a disagreeable opinion or see something outside of our day-to-day ever again. Sponsor Scoble's Argument: LBS Dead In The Water Without Innovation For much of Scoble's post , we heartily agree: We are in the very early days of LBS and Facebook could easily squash services like Gowalla and Foursquare if done right. His suggestion for these services is to use what he calls "malleable social graphs", that is, a set of connections that change in response to real-world conditions. Some of his suggestions and criticisms are right on point, such as the opportunity Gowalla has to point someone checking in at a car wash to anything but a lamp store. Checking into the TV show "24" and chatting with other fans sounds like a great idea that Miso is on top of already , just as SuperGlued has taken center stage for aligning like-minded folks around live music events. ...And Then It All Goes Wrong It's when Scoble gets to suggesting that, because he identified himself as a Democrat on Facebook, he shouldn't be shown any "Republican crap" in his news feed, that our spidey-sense starts to tingle. Just as we argued when we found that Google was customizing one in five searches, all of this recommending, customizing and filtering, can put us into an idea echo chamber of sorts, where we only come across safe and previously approved, by our actions, opinions. But a part of what we like so much about Facebook is getting into debates with friends we might never get into in "real life". Go ahead and post a video of the Tea Baggers on your profile, say how absurd you think it is or how much you support it, and see what unexpected discussion ensues. It may not end up being pretty, but maybe you'll learn something - if everyone can keep it polite enough to actually exchange ideas and information. Unless we truly believe that one side is always right and another always wrong (a ridiculous proposition) then filtering out any content we may not agree with is sure to create even more people who believe they are absolutely right. After all, everything they read on the Internet tells them so. ...Or Does It? Then again, when Scoble gets to talking about tastes and reviews, such as his refined taste for sushi versus those who like "fried crap [he] can't even pronounce", it starts to make sense again. Maybe it's because the only thing at stake here is missing out on a good meal. Here's what happens: Yuzu is a place that is awesome for advanced sushi lovers. I've eaten sushi all over the world in places like Tokyo, Yokohama, New York, London, and other places. I love advanced sushi. I look for restaurants who do sushi well. But most people aren't like me. Most people don't even like sushi. So, if they get dragged to a place like this they try to order "Americanized" sushi like, um, California rolls. Or fried crap I can't even pronounce. That is NOT sushi. Anyway, these people, er, newbies, get to Yuzu and find that all the other "non-sushi" stuff sucks. So they rate it low. Me? I could care less about all that other non-sushi stuff when I am looking for a sushi restaurant, which is why I rate this place five stars. Now, Yelp does NOT have a malleable social graph. We can't filter out all the "sushi newbies" who don't like sushi anyway. Malleable social graphs, recommendation engines, customized searches and the like all have great uses and can be immensely powerful tools. We can find out about all sorts of things we might have missed because they would have otherwise been lost in the overwhelming stream of information. Using these sorts of tools in conjunction with LBS is where the industry needs to go, as Scoble argues, to stay afloat. But once you return back to the ideological realm again, though, as with his argument about movie reviews, we feel that the stance gets a bit tenuous. Our fear, as we discussed when looking at recommendation engine My6Sense , is that people need to step outside these filters otherwise they will never see the unexpected and have their thoughts challenged. And of course, this is not a black and white debate . It isn't between either having content recommended or having the entirety of the Internet's data blasted at you, full force. There are gradations and in-betweens, and maybe, sometimes, you just want to know what all of your friends are talking about. But even then, do you only want to know what your friends are talking about that you can be sure you agree with? Different opinions, ideas, and their vigorous debate is essential to a free and developing society. On this point, we implore Facebook, Google, My6Sense, Twitter and everyone else - no matter how much our staunch Republican friends may annoy us, please don't silence them. We'll never get anywhere if you do. One Last Thing With all of that being said, we have to fess up to one, minor detail. Where did we find Scoble's article? Was it in the unfiltered chaos that contains all of the different opinions of the world? Not at all. It was, in fact, the third story down in our Twitter Times , a website that creates a custom, newspaper-style page, specifically personalized by looking at all of the links being tweeted and retweeted by all of the people you follow on Twitter. So much for personalization killing debate, eh? Discuss

Read the original post:
Why We Need To Keep Debate Alive In A Customized, Personalized World

The AFP is reporting that the person who leaked internal business documents from Twitter Inc. to the blog TechCrunch last July is also the same person who compromised the Twitter accounts of Barack Obama and other celebrities last year. A 25-year-old who went by the name "Hacker Croll" has been tracked down and arrested in France by French authorities, with the assistance of the FBI. It's not clear from the report what charges are to be filed. Reportedly, the FBI alerted France to the man's presence in that country almost a year ago, in the same month the internal documents were leaked. Update: Hours after the report of the man's arrest, the AFP now says he has been released after questioning. Apparently the man explained that he merely guessed peoples' passwords and the police were unimpressed. "He's not a genius," a source explained. Sponsor The media report doesn't make mention of the leaked documents, only the illicit takeover of Obama's account. "Hacker Croll" was identified as the source of the controversial files, though. It seems possible that these two incidents are being improperly connected, but the report filed indicates they were carried out by the same person. We've reached out to both Twitter and TechCrunch for comment. When the documents were sent to TechCrunch, that blog deliberated publicly at length about whether it had a journalistic obligation to publish or suppress them. Founder Michael Arrington in the end decided to work with Twitter executives to identify the most sensitive documents but published other, less sensitive information days later. The resulting blog posts provided a very interesting look into the thinking of one of the most important companies on the Internet, but proved severely damaging to TechCrunch's reputation with people in the industry who considered the decision to publish them an unacceptable betrayal. TechCrunch argued that it was within its legal rights to publish the information, and the law breaking had been done by the person who sent them the files. Now that person is apparently headed to trial. The ethical and perhaps legal implications of TechCrunch's decision will no doubt be discussed again due to this turn of events. The one clear lesson from all this that no one can argue with, though: Don't mess with Twitter or the FBI will hunt you down where ever you may be around the world. Discuss

More:
Twitter Hacker, TechCrunch Document Leaker, Arrested in France (UPDATED)

Over the last few months, as data has been released by the National Venture Capital Association , we have spoken about how the venture capital industry struggled in 2009 . Though things appear to be returning to normal , 2009 was still a tough year for both VC investments and fund raising. Investor Seth Levine offered his opinion Monday on where he thinks the industry is headed and raised some interesting points on how VC firms will be funded in the future - an issue which could impact the way startups get funding. Sponsor Interestingly enough, according to VentureSource , VCs have been investing more than they have been raising themselves - $14 billion more over the last five years, to be exact. The strange thing is that $9 billion of that difference came in 2009 alone when VCs invested $21 billion but only raised $12 billion for themselves. This is a steep decline from the previous four years which saw fundraising and investment hover around $25 billion. Levine believes that because of the drop in fund raising, VCs will begin settling into a lower level of investment. "Somewhere around $15Bn is the right 'steady state' investment pace for the venture industry as an asset class. At this investment level the return profile of the industry maps to a reasonable expectation of inputs and outputs (the money invested in start-ups as compared to the exit activity)," writes Levine. Additionally, he believes that VC fundraising is headed towards an inverted bell-curve distribution where the majority of the money goes to the "outliers" of the industry. Larger funds with diverse portfolios will continue to attain large funds (like the $750 million we saw go to Battery Ventures earlier this month), while smaller funds which place higher investments in fewer companies will also grab a majority of the VC funds. It's that middle group of funds that will likely suffer, he says. So what does this mean for startups looking for funding? Unfortunately, if this trend continues, lower VC funds means fewer investments, so the pool of money available to startups is shrinking. However, if Levine's idea of the inverted bell-curve holds true, then that means more money will be pumped into the smaller venture funds that provide many early-stage investments. In other words, it could become significantly easier to snag seed funding, but much more difficult to raise those subsequent rounds of funding later on down the road. This, of course, all hinges on Levine's subscription to the idea of the $15 billion "steady state" (an idea he attributes to investor Fred Wilson ) that he thinks the industry is headed to. But if early indicators of 2010 activity show anything, VC investments could be making a rebound from 2009 instead of heading for the "safe zone". It will be interesting to watch the numbers to see which way this scenario plays out, but it seems that either way, seed investments should stay steady or go up in 2010. Discuss

See original here:
How Upside Down Bells Could Help Startups Get Seed Funding

Watch this battle unfold. The virtualization wars are just getting started. On one side we have Microsoft, which announced changes in its licensing structures this week. The change reflects an understanding that the customer wants full access to its virtualization platform and not be charged a tax for that right to access it on a PC, no matter if it is at work or in their home. And in true fashion, Microsoft is on the attack, Citrix at its side, in a full on fight with VMware for the virtualization market. Sponsor On the VMware side, we see a company ready to move into Microsoft's customer base by offering more than virtualization as witnessed with its recent acquisition of Zimbra. VMWare is gearing up to tap into the Microsoft Exchange market by combining its virtualization technology with the Zimbra email platform. Microsoft Offers Some Flexibility Historically, Microsoft has charged for separate licenses to access Windows operating systems in a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) environment. Until now, there would be separate licensing fees for people to access their virtual desktops from secondary devices like home personal computers. The licensing issue in all of this gets complicated pretty fast. According to Simon Bramfitt: "Right from the start Microsoft showed that it had been listening to its customers' feedback. As of July 1st Microsoft is rolling Virtual Enterprise Centralized Desktop (VECD) into the Windows Software Assurance (Windows SA) program. This means that anyone with Software Assurance can deploy desktops locally or in the data center at no additional cost. At the same time Microsoft is extending the remote access rights so that remote isn't tethered to a single PC in the primary users' home. This awareness of the fact that users want flexibility around when and where they work is the key element that has been missing from Microsoft's virtualization strategy since day one. If this wasn't enough, Microsoft is introducing a new desktop virtualization license called Windows Virtual Desktop Access (Windows VDA) costing $100 per year per device and aimed at organizations who are using endpoints that do not have a Windows SA license - Contractors PCs, devices that are do not run Windows (e.g., thin-clients, smart phones and Apple Macs) and yes, PCs with OEM licenses. Hang-on, isn't that just the same as the old non-SA VECD license? More or less, yes; it's certainly cheaper, although at $100 per year not by much. What's more important is that Windows VDA is now a first-class citizen in the Microsoft licensing hierarchy with all the benefits of Software Assurance (e.g., 24x7 support, upgrade/downgrade rights), and as a desktop virtualization license it gets the same extended roaming rights offered to the a full member of the SA club." VMWare, in smart retort, praises Microsoft for the move and bowing to "intense customer pressure." Raj Mallempati , director, product marketing, calls it an opening for VMWare View. You know it's competitive when you see this kind of rhetoric: By loosening up the restrictive desktop virtualization license policy (VECD), Microsoft has finally bowed to intensive customer pressure. This validates the acceleration in demand in the desktop virtualization industry that VMware helped start and continues to lead. Microsoft's move here is extremely positive for the industry. But what is Citrix part in all of this? At the beginning of the year, VMWare offered the opportunity to exchange Citrix XenApp licenses for VMWare View. In response, Microsoft and Citrix announced a partnership this week aimed right at VMWare with some pretty attractive licensing deals. The promotion intends to undercut VMWare by reaching into its customer base with offers to trade in as many as 500 licenses in exchange for a Microsoft integration offered with Citrix. To kick it off, the two companies plan a 100-city tour. But what this really represents is Microsoft providing some flexibility in its virtualization licensing agreements. That move alone will help open up the market. And VMWare? The company has 80 percent of the virtualization market. Any move on its customer base should be expected. VMware's vision for Zimbra is another matter. That's a battle it is taking right back to Microsoft - square on its home turf. Discuss

More:
The Virtualization Wars: Microsoft and Citrix v. VMware

At the RSA Keynote a few weeks back, Amazon's Security Lead, Steve Riley participated on a panel with other security leaders of the industry. We were impressed with the openness of all of the participants, and particularly excited with the new concepts coming from at Amazon. Riley used a term that is being used within his part of Amazon, the "Think Cloud". As we understand it from the discussion on stage, a Think Cloud is a "body of knowledge" that is a real-time information base of Amazon cloud that can be pivoted all the way down to the threads and individual data concurrency. It would be an index that acts like a control point that helps define movement of data through a servers and compute tasks. Looking at the journey from the data point of view, including data about the environment itself and how to repair itself when damaged and keep data concurrency in tact. Sponsor Here's the RSA cloud security keynote to get a bit of inspiration to benefits of portable (cloud) computing. In this 30 minute discussion, there are several notable considerations from the contributors on how cloud security challenge can be thought of as a big opportunity and that perhaps now is time to debunk the myth that security is not a part of the cloud. We picked out a few of Riley's comments that we believe are leading towards the idea of the Think Cloud and why Amazon may be there first. I/O Amazon knows it is critical to be able to have good inputs and outputs. And emphasizes ease of use even more than data portability standards themselves. Riley described a great use case where an un-named customer used Amazon for compute, another cloud provider for data processing, SalesForce for crunching, and then pushed the results to Facebook. Interconnection is happening and applications are already "using all the clouds out there". In this case, all the way down to the consumer. When we look at this pattern, it we see parts that mimic the history of web in the enterprise. Back-end systems moving data around, optimizing, and passing it to the a web portal. And, the portal demanding "real time" updates for key pieces of data, while relying on batch for others. We can see that idea of a Think Cloud may come into this pattern to help set boundaries and checks so that when a piece of data passes through an Amazon, it is returned reliably, ever time. Perhaps a Think Cloud is a registry that does part of what a smart Enterprise Services Bus does when registered new applications for master data, that is keeps track of activity. In a way, we need to solve the cloud-equivalent "floating point" problem in the CPU of generations past in the computer itself. On the CPU math co-processor, the question was, "Does it know how to do math correctly every-time under all conditions?". Perhaps the question in the cloud may be "Are all my customers still in the database even though that thread died?", or "Do we have encryption set on every cpu that this user's information is stored in memory or on disk". Solving that problem of interchange the role the concept of Think Cloud might lead. Many legacy applications won't make it to the cloud. At least, not as-is. Riley comments that "servers are disposable horsepower, they come, they go". In other words, Since applications sit on top of servers, and servers are sinking into the cloud, applications will sink or swim based on how they migrate to this model. So, the first movers are "the rats" that have jump ship as it started to sink. Follow the rats, or drown. The tear-down of the server into the n-resource cloud breaks-or-suboptimizes server based applications in a fundamental way. Thinking back, this is very similar to web services revolution in the enterprise, where just because an application can export its data model, doesn't mean it is optimized for web services, or API level interaction. We find this almost a reverse-trend to server virtualization, which has expanded the physical compute space. Perhaps we are finding that there is some new turf to be claimed on where the cloud reaches and virtualization ends. We like to think of it as "smart service bus" meets "smart application" on infinite resources. Infinite, or course, equaling the credit in your PayPal (or other) form of payment collection required by either, or both parties. As reported by The Register's Cade Metz, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer recently pointed out that this is a potential opportunity with Microsoft and Azure. Where, instead of "only" focusing on infrastructure clouds, the company is working towards a new programming model, Steve said on March 4, 2010. "I think Azure is very different than anything else on the market. I don't think that anyone else is trying to redefine the programming model" When we look at the services recently in our post, Is Amazon's Computing Fabric a New Economy , we noted a series of services outside of core computing that start evolving Amazon quickly down the path of a new development paradigm. Abstracting storage, network, monitoring, and perhaps in future security, in raw terms gives rise to new opportunities to bind them back together. Security is the topic for RSA. Compliance is the reason to get it right. If the computing model wants to be secure, it needs to know the assets and their relationships. As reported by Search Cloud Computing , Amazon's Riley also tipped the audience at RSA that Amazon is weighing in on encryption as a service offerings. This is another example, where that now Amazon is supporting a new services such as Virtual Private Cloud, it moves one step closer the knowledge point for all the key assets, including their peers within the corporate network. We find this area, as well as certificate management, to be an area ripe for the type of thinking we see at Amazon. The problem to be solved isn't a better routine, but is how to apply it tandem with the moving assets and data that is ever changing in demand. Perhaps We Needed to Get to Random, to Get to Secure We wonder if Amazon's Think Cloud is something new, and if so, is a path towards solving the collision of the major parties in the network. If it joins network, storage, person, and server resources together, perhaps it is the brains of the next generation Internet. The winner will be the one that makes it simple, because as Devo on Chatroulette is proving, demand is asymmetric, and access control is from the eighties. Photo credit: RSA , Devo , Inc. Discuss

See more here:
Future: Amazon's 'Think Clouds' are Data Aware