Computerworld columnist Jeff Ello

The Unspoken Truth About Managing Geeks

    This article was published on ComputerWorld on September 8, 2009 –

     

    I can sum up every article, book and column written by notable management experts about managing IT in two sentences: "Geeks are smart and creative, but they are also egocentric, antisocial, managerially and business-challenged, victim-prone, bullheaded and credit-whoring. To overcome these intractable behavioral deficits you must do X, Y and Z."

    X, Y and Z are variable and usually contradictory between one expert and the next, but the patronizing stereotypes remain constant. I’m not entirely sure that is helpful. So, using the familiar brush, allow me to paint a different picture of those IT pros buried somewhere in your organization.

    Computerworld columnist Jeff Ello

    My career has been stippled with a good bit of disaster recovery consulting, which has led me to deal with dozens of organizations on their worst day, when opinions were pretty raw. I’ve heard all of the above-mentioned stereotypes and far worse, as well as good bit of rage. The worse shape an organization is in, the more you hear the stereotypes thrown around. But my personal experiences working within IT groups have always been quite good, working with IT pros for whom the negative stereotypes just don’t seem to apply. I tended to chalk up IT group failures to some bad luck in hiring and the delicate balance of those geek

    Recently, though, I have come to realize that perfectly healthy groups with solid, well-adjusted IT pros can and will devolve, slowly and quietly, into the behaviors that give rise to the stereotypes, given the right set of conditions. It turns out that it is the conditions that are stereotypical, and the IT pros tend to react to those conditions in logical ways. To say it a different way, organizations actively elicit these stereotypical negative behaviors.

    Understanding why IT pros appear to act the way they do makes working with, among and as one of them the easiest job in the world.

    It’s all about respect –
    Few people notice this, but for IT groups respect is the currency of the realm. IT pros do not squander this currency. Those whom they do not believe are worthy of their respect might instead be treated to professional courtesy, a friendly demeanor or the acceptance of authority. Gaining respect is not a matter of being the boss and has nothing to do with being likeable or sociable; whether you talk, eat or smell right; or any measure that isn’t directly related to the work. The amount of respect an IT pro pays someone is a measure of how tolerable that person is when it comes to getting things done, including the elegance and practicality of his solutions and suggestions. IT pros always and without fail, quietly self-organize around those who make the work easier, while shunning those who make the work harder, independent of the organizational chart.

    This self-ordering behavior occurs naturally in the IT world because it is populated by people skilled in creative analysis and ordered reasoning. Doctors are a close parallel. The stakes may be higher in medicine, but the work in both fields requires a technical expertise that can’t be faked and a proficiency that can only be measured by qualified peers. I think every good IT pro on the planet idolizes Dr. House (minus the addictions).

    While everyone would like to work for a nice person who is always right, IT pros will prefer a jerk who is always right over a nice person who is always wrong. Wrong creates unnecessary work, impossible situations and major failures. Wrong is evil, and it must be defeated. Capacity for technical reasoning trumps all other professional factors, period.

    Foundational (bottom-up) respect is not only the largest single determining factor in the success of an IT team, but the most ignored. I believe you can predict success or failure of an IT group simply by assessing the amount of mutual respect within it.

    The elements of the stereotypes –
    Ego — Similar to what good doctors do, IT pros figure out that the proper projection of ego engenders trust and reduces apprehension. Because IT pros’ education does not emphasize how to deal with people, there are always rough edges. Ego, as it plays out in IT, is an essential confidence combined with a not-so-subtle cynicism. It’s not about being right for the sake of being right but being right for the sake of saving a lot of time, effort, money and credibility. IT is a team sport, so being right or wrong impacts other members of the group in non-trivial ways. Unlike in many industries, in IT, colleagues can significantly influence the careers of the entire team. Correctness yields respect, respect builds good teams, and good teams build trust and maintain credibility through a healthy projection of ego. Strong IT groups view correctness as a virtue, and certitude as a delivery method. Meek IT groups, beaten down by inconsistent policies and a lack of structural support, are simply ineffective at driving change and creating efficiencies, getting mowed over by the clients, the management or both at every turn.

    The victim mentality — IT pros are sensitive to logic — that’s what you pay them for. When things don’t add up, they are prone to express their opinions on the matter, and the level of response will be proportional to the absurdity of the event. The more things that occur that make no sense, the more cynical IT pros will become. Standard organizational politics often run afoul of this, so IT pros can come to be seen as whiny or as having a victim mentality. Presuming this is a trait that must be disciplined out of them is a huge management mistake. IT pros complain primarily about logic, and primarily to people they respect. If you are dismissive of complaints, fail to recognize an illogical event or behave in deceptive ways, IT pros will likely stop complaining to you. You might mistake this as a behavioral improvement, when it’s actually a show of disrespect. It means you are no longer worth talking to, which leads to insubordination.

    Insubordination — This is a tricky one. Good IT pros are not anti-bureaucracy, as many observers think. They are anti-stupidity. The difference is both subjective and subtle. Good IT pros, whether they are expected to or not, have to operate and make decisions with little supervision. So when the rules are loose and logical and supervision is results-oriented, supportive and helpful to the process, IT pros are loyal, open, engaged and downright sociable. Arbitrary or micro-management, illogical decisions, inconsistent policies, the creation of unnecessary work and exclusionary practices will elicit a quiet, subversive, almost vicious attitude from otherwise excellent IT staff. Interestingly, IT groups don’t fall apart in this mode. From the outside, nothing looks to be wrong and the work still gets done. But internally, the IT group, or portions of it, may cut themselves off almost entirely from the intended management structure. They may work on big projects or steer the group entirely from the shadows while diverting the attention of supervisors to lesser topics. They believe they are protecting the organization, as well as their own credibility — and they are often correct.

    Credit whoring — IT pros would prefer to make a good decision than to get credit for it. What will make them seek credit is the danger that a member of the group or management who is dangerous to the process might receive the credit for the work instead. That is insulting. If you’ve got a lot of credit whores in your IT group, there are bigger problems causing it.

    Antisocial behavior — It’s fair to say that there is a large contingent of IT pros who are socially unskilled. However, this doesn’t mean those IT pros are antisocial. On the whole, they have plenty to say. If you want to get your IT pros more involved, you should deal with the problems laid out above and then train your other staff how to deal with IT. Users need to be reminded a few things, including:

  • IT wants to help me.

  • I should keep an open mind.

  • IT is not my personal tech adviser, nor is my work computer my personal computer.

  • IT people have lives and other interests.

Like anyone else, IT people tend to socialize with people who respect them. They’ll stop going to the company picnic if it becomes an occasion for everyone to list all the computer problems they never bothered to mention before.

How we elicit the stereotypes –
What executives often fail to recognize is that every decision made that impacts IT is a technical decision. Not just some of the decisions, and not just the details of the decision, but every decision, bar none.

With IT, you cannot separate the technical aspects from the business aspects. They are one and the same, each constrained by the other and both constrained by creativity. Creativity is the most valuable asset of an IT group, and failing to promote it can cost an organization literally millions of dollars.

Most IT pros support an organization that is not involved with IT. The primary task of any IT group is to teach people how to work. That’s may sound authoritarian, but it’s not. IT’s job at the most fundamental level is to build, maintain and improve frameworks within which to accomplish tasks. You may not view a Web server as a framework to accomplish tasks, but it does automate the processes of advertising, sales, informing and entertaining, all of which would otherwise be done in other ways. IT groups literally teach and reteach the world how to work. That’s the job.

When you understand the mission of IT, it isn’t hard to see why co-workers and supervisors are judged severely according to their abilities to contribute to that process. If someone has to constantly be taught Computers 101 every time a new problem presents itself, he can’t contribute in the most fundamental way. It is one thing to deal with that from a co-worker, but quite another if the people who represent IT to the organization at large aren’t cognizant of how the technology works, can’t communicate it in the manner the IT group needs it communicated, can’t maintain consistency, take credit for the work of the group members, etc. This creates a huge morale problem for the group. Executives expect expert advice from the top IT person, but they have no way of knowing when they aren’t getting it. Therein lies the problem.

IT pros know when this is happening, and they find that it is impossible to draw attention to it. Once their work is impeded by the problem, they will adopt strategies and behaviors that help circumvent the issue. That is not a sustainable state, but how long it takes to deteriorate can be days, months or even years.

How to fix it –
So, if you want to have a really happy, healthy and valuable IT group, I recommend one thing: Take an interest. IT pros work their butts off for people they respect, so you need to give them every reason to afford you some.

You can start with the hiring process. When hiring an IT pro, imagine you’re recruiting a doctor. And if you’re hiring a CIO, think of employing a chief of medicine. The chief of medicine should have many qualifications, but first and foremost, he should be a practicing doctor. Who decides if a doctor is a doctor? Other doctors! So, if your IT group isn’t at the table for the hiring process of their bosses and peers, this already does a disservice to the process.

Favor technical competence and leadership skills. Standard managerial processes are nearly useless in an IT group. As I mentioned, if you’ve managed to hire well in the lower ranks of your IT group, the staff already know how to manage things. Unlike in many industries, the fight in most IT groups is in how to get things done, not how to avoid work. IT pros will self-organize, disrupt and subvert in the name of accomplishing work. An over-structured, micro-managing, technically deficient runt, no matter how polished, who’s thrown into the mix for the sake of management will get a response from the professional IT group that’s similar to anyone’s response to a five-year-old tugging his pants leg.

What IT pros want in a manager is a technical sounding board and a source of general direction. Leadership and technical competence are qualities to look for in every member of the team. If you need someone to keep track of where projects are, file paperwork, produce reports and do customer relations, hire some assistants for a lot less money.

When it comes to performance checks, yearly reviews are worthless without a 360-degree assessment. Those things take more time than a simple top-down review, but it is time well spent. If you’ve been paying attention to what I’ve been telling you about how IT groups behave and organize, then you will see your IT group in a whole different light when you read the group’s 360s.

And make sure all your managers are practicing and learning. It is very easy to slip behind the curve in those positions, but just as with doctors, the only way to be relevant is to practice and maintain an expertise. In IT, six months to a year is all that stands between respect and irrelevance.

Finally, executives should have multiple in-points to the IT team. If the IT team is singing out of tune, it is worth investigating the reasons. But you’ll never even know if that’s the case if the only information you receive is from the CIO. Periodically, bring a few key IT brains to the boardroom to observe the problems of the organization at large, even about things outside of the IT world, if only to make use of their exquisitely refined BS detectors. A good IT pro is trained in how to accomplish work; their skills are not necessarily limited to computing. In fact, the best business decision-makers I know are IT people who aren’t even managers.

As I said at the very beginning, it’s all about respect. If you can identify and cultivate those individuals and processes that earn genuine respect from IT pros, you’ll have a great IT team. Taking an honest interest in helping your IT group help you is probably the smartest business move an organization can make. It also makes for happy, completely non-geek-like geeks.

Jeff Ello is a hybrid veteran of the IT and CG industries, currently managing IT for the Krannert School of Management at Purdue University. He can be contacted at jello@techoped.com.

VirtualBox 3.0 Beta: Finally something exciting in desktop virtualization

 

Sure, but can it run Excel? –
The 3d animator in me appreciates big iron, massive compute clusters and grid computing.  As my compatriots at Pixar and LucasFilm will attest, there is NEVER enough computing power for what we want to do.

But my day job is to handle the computing needs of a top tier Business School where the research is much less dependent on raw computation as it is dealing with large datasets and iterative processes.  Cluster computing is the new hottness in academia, but for the uninitiated Windows user, cluster computing is quite limiting, as one’s compute jobs must be written in such a way as to make it distributable, and that’s not usually as simple as hitting “Go”.  There is still a world of research out there for which clusters are either not useful, or are still too much of a hassle to bother with.  There bulk of the research world can still benefit from having familiar desktop tools shared on a single large computation resource.

So then, what’s the answer?  Terminal Services is a real pain to manage and application compatibility is problematic.  Virtual Applications would be nice, but we have yet to see a Virtual applications platform that handles 64-bit computing, and again, application compatibility is problematic. 

Load em up, Roll em out, then put em out of their misery –
So my big idea was to provide “on-demand higher-performance” virtual machines.  VM’s are quick to provision and dispose of, without permission worries and other “administrative overhead”, so it just made sense to give a user temporary access to a VM with a limited software set, let them run their computations using the interfaces they already know… and then delete the VM.

I have been trying to do something similar myself.  Many of the 3d applications I use come with free licenses for distributed processing of the final frames of animation.  Cluster computing may be new to the general computing world, but tell that to the 150 node rendering farm I set up in ’94.  The problem has always been in the setup and maintenance of the software, not so much in the ability of the software to distribute computing load.  Instead of installing the software a hundred times, it would be far better to configure a VM once and distribute that to each host. I have had some success with this method under ESX and Hyper-V, but they aren’t exactly "desktop" solutions, and they only scale so far. Without being able to access all available processing power of a physical host through the VM, neither vendor offers a real solution for this purpose. 

That has remained on the wishlist for years.  Straight up Desktop Virtual Machine technology has crept along very slowly, as vendors have rushed other kinds of virtualization products to other markets and the major vendors have spent their time fighting over server virtualization.

So many technologies, so little polish –
The virtualization market is flooded with potentially excellent products that could be used in so many more ways… if only they did "x", or if only they supported "y" without crashing.  While a reasonably priced computation server could have as many as 32-logical CPUs today, Hyper-V only allows a VM to use 4 of those, and VMWare’s newest version of ESX now brings only 8 to the party.

I have tested both solutions, and both utilize their virtual processors as well as physical hardware (within a couple percent), so the problem is one of scale, not capability.

On the desktop it’s worse.  VMWare Workstation has long been the only option for multi-core, 64-bit VM’s, and it only supports 2 virtual processors.  VirtualPC is way, way, way behind the technology curve and doesn’t support multiprocessing at all, much less graphics acceleration, even with Windows 7’s new version.  And neither solution accepts its competitor’s virtual hard drive format, which makes both solutions less attractive.

As an aside – I really think Microsoft blew a huge opportunity to sieze market share from VMWare by failing to produce a desktop variant of Hyper-V.  EPIC FAIL!!  The latest VirtualPC is years behind every other offering, and I simply could not look a client in the face and tell them to use "XP Mode" as a way of maintaining compatibility with their XP applications.  Someone really should get fired for that… but I digress.

Sun’s VirtualBox project has been the lesser known Swiss Army knife of Virtualization, accepting VMWare’s and Microsoft’s virtual hard drive formats in addition to its own.  VirtualBox provides most of the functionality of VMWare Workstation, and more, for FREE… but it has always had one major failing in my eyes: No Virtual Multiprocessing.

But then the silent dragon made a puff –
All that is about to change.  VirtualBox 3.0 beta1 is available… and in addition 64-bit VM support, experimental DirectX support and “Seamless Mode”… it supports NOT 1… Not 2… not even 8… but 32… yes, 32 virtual processors.  As I said, that’s a quad-quad-Nehalem’s number of Virtual Processors.

Sadly, it is still beta.  On my Core i7 machine, running Server 2008, I was able to configure a virtual machine with 8 virtual cores, but it would only launch with 4.  There is debate as to whether VirtualBox recognizes hyperthreads as virtual cores; I am testing this.  Windows 7 setup will not even run without certain options enabled (you’ll have to guess).  The graphics acceleration seems to only available in 32-bit WIndows guests at the moment, so no Aero in x64 yet.  Beta difficulties aside, I did manage to get a new machine installed on a .VHD and managed to import that machine to Hyper-V.  I was also able to take a VMware Workstation machine into VirtualBox, though there were some odd crashes with that.

Nevertheless, this is a good thing and it’s nice to see a significant competitor bully its way into the stagnant realm of Desktop Virtual Machines.  Being able to virtualize without the traditional penalties of virtualization will open many doors beyond simple server consolidation.  My “on-demand” model for high"er" performance Windows machines is likely to become reality.  I would like to see our laboratory and kiosk machines running as virtual appliances, unbeknownst to the users… portable highly secure administrative machines… checkout VM’s for using high end or temperamental software in a sandbox.  Which precise combination of virtual machines, virtual applications, presentation virtualization and so forth wind up saving the most time and money is yet to be determined, but clearly we’re finally entering into the days where the performance differences between the virtual and physical worlds are coming well within acceptable ranges.

If you’ve got the stomach for beta, give VirtualBox 3 beta 1 a try.  I like it already… can’t wait for the final.

boat

Finding oneself, lost, in plain sight: Distress calls for satellite imagery

News, Movies, and The Life Random –

A little about how my brain works: I was watching the news, hearing about those football players lost at sea, and I saw how big and obvious the overturned boat looked from the video.  Then I thought of the movie Cast Away, wondering just what I would do to signal people… and then I thought of James Kim and the tragedy he and his family suffered.  At the same time, I had just looked up a restaurant on Google Maps and as I zoomed into to the map I noticed the big white arrows we paint on the roads for turning lanes.  I hadn’t really noticed them before, but thought to myself just how much they stand out when you actually look for them… and somehow I came back to how big and obvious the boat looked in the water.

boatThen I had the thought that many have had before me – "wouldn’t it be nice if Google Maps was real-time so we could search for things live; we could find those lost people quickly.".  Obviously we have the ability to see sufficient resolution, even when restricted by the government.  DigitalGlobe and GeoEye (the providers behind  Google and Microsoft) offer resolutions as tight as 1.3 ft per pixel.

At the moment, unfortunately, individual commercial satellites can only capture so much of the planet per day – an area about the size of Nevada.  More satellites are going up all the time, plus all the government satellites.  So in combined capacity we may be approaching a level where something like this is possible.  The technology is there… it is only a question of scale.

But the biggest problem with finding people alive is knowing they are missing in the first place.  Real time imagery doesn’t help if no one is looking, so search and rescue operations often don’t start until those in distress are already at the brink, or beyond.  We have no way for those without some kind of transmitter device to effectively signal their distress to the only observer that’s always watching – a satellite.  Perfectly healthy people are lost and die in plain sight of our space based cameras.  In James Kim’s case, the absence of a way to effectively signal for help was the difference between making the fateful decision to go off on his own to find help, or staying with his family to wait for help which eventually did arrive.

 

FaceDetectionComputers find Waldo very quickly –

So, let’s say we have the ability to snapshot the bulk of the planet at 1-2 ft sq resolution at least once per 24-72 hr period.  How do we search for someone we don’t know is lost?   The same way we detect other things like faces, retinas, missile launches, bad eggs and poorly manufactured rivets, etc.  Computers already analyze images for expected signs, patterns and shapes across visible and invisible spectrums… and they alert people when matches are found.

Just like someone lost on a desert island might carve messages in the sand or light fires in a clearing… if the cameras in space were actively awaiting a sign… a specific sign… 24 hours a day, it would be more effective than the biggest bon fire you can build. Pattern recognition software is commonplace and efficient, and adding it to the standard post-processing regimen of satellite imagery does not seem an unreasonable burden.

 

sos The most important Twittering you’ll ever do –

So what I’m suggesting is a world wide standard signal of distress/rescue for satellite imagery.  Not something for the rescuers to look for after they know you’re missing, but a something you can display as soon as YOU know you’re missing.  I’m not sure if actively scanning satellite imagery for distress signals is a new idea, but I don’t seem to find it in my substitute brain, Google.  Certainly it is a logical next step in the common art of catching the eye of a pilot or passing ship.

This sign could be part of standard survival gear in the form of a mylar sheet with tent stakes.  The sign could be etched on other survival gear or shown on stickers so people know to carve it into the dirt, or make it out of branches or arrange it with stones… anything of sufficient size and contrast that it can be recognized from space.  It could even be painted on the bottom of boat hulls, sewn into the top of emergency parachutes, the bottoms of airplane floatation seats, life rafts & jackets, even deployed like a popup tent in the desert.

 

The Search for Terrestrial Intelligence (STI) –

We need a shape that does not occur in nature and simple enough to construct quickly… color independent and so unique that it can be detected even with some tolerance to the exact shape.  It may be tough to find a unique shape that isn’t found in Urban areas and this is why I think that urban, or reasonably populated areas should be excluded from the search.  You still have to contend with clouds, but there may even be ways around that with IR-reflective materials. showimage

The task of identifying and proving a good candidate signal shouldn’t be that hard.  Simply identify a few candidate shapes and see if, or how often, the same shape can be found in existing satellite imagery.  Then test to see how easily the signal can be identified when constructed in potential survival scenarios.

Essentially, everything needed to make this work already exists in some form or another.  The biggest question is how quickly/often images are typically pulled from satellites and analyzed… and whether that can be done on a sufficient schedule to make it useful.

Then it becomes more of a diplomatic effort.  If we have an international distress signal, we also need some international cooperation in protecting the shape from being used for non-distress uses and in architectural design.  Perhaps multi government agreement to make searching for the signal a standard part of planetary surveillance as a matter of humanitarian cause.

 

laser Someone up there likes me –

When I think even further down the road, since we already have lasers that can burn a hole through a missile casing at 200 miles, why not embed a satellite based laser that can make a visible dot, or even graphics/text on the ground from 200 miles up?  Once a distress sign is identified, the satellites themselves could signal back to the lost… as well as pinpoint the location for rescuers or unmanned craft with supplies, just like painting a target with a laser in combat scenarios.

Why would we put visible lasers on satellites?  Well, just think of the commercial possibilities (and potential blindness law suits) of projecting laser signage onto the Earth from space (my idea, pay me).

How many people could we save?  Hopefully enough to be worth all the "stalking pop up ads from space", and the glowing ring at your feet as you walk around (also my idea, pay me).

You’ll never see the SIMS the same.

image

The real meaning of Comcast generosity

 

In the old days –

10 years ago, I entered the "broadband" world as a DSL customer with GTE.  I started at 768 kbit/s service, and it was about $35/mo.  A lot has happened since then, GTE spat out Verizon, and eventually offered more speed for the same money.  Cable modem service was pretty lousy until Insight Communication unleashed their 10 mbit/s service in my area.  I have been a cable modem user ever since.

I do IT work, as well as independent graphics and filmmaking work (bit of a hobby), so my life is tied very tightly to the internet and I don't mind paying a little more for extra capacity.

However, I live in one of those "effective monopoly" areas where there's effectively only one cable provider, only one phone provider, and most of the independent ISPs have been run out of business.  My cable provider, Insight, eventually gave way to Comcast, which brings us to today.  Comcast's service didn't start out "too bad", the only thing I noticed is that all in all, performance went down a bit.

The loss of Net Neutrality –

In addition to Comcast's secret, but well known practice of shutting off service to those who exceed a secret amount of bandwidth per month, it was also discovered that Comcast was secretly and arbitrarily slowing down specific kinds of network traffic, at their discretion.  The FCC told them not to, Comcast said they stopped, but of course, it was discovered that this was not entirely (nor partly) true.  But NOW they say they've stopped, for reals. 

The FCC of the last 8 years hasn't exactly been consumer-focused.  But surprisingly, even they saw Comcast's secret bandwidth manipulation for what it was – anti-competitive behavior.  I'm not sure how much of that was FCC fortitude and how much of it was political pressure, but at least it was something. 

The New (double) Deal –

Comcast, theoretically, gave up its secret manipulation of your internet traffic, deciding instead on taking a different course.  They announced plans to implement a new two-pronged scheme that they publicly claimed was aimed at both curbing internet usage preventing congestion on their network.  A plan they call "generous".

This has been implemented as of January. 

Prong #1 – Comcast now has a publicly stated limit of 250 Gigabytes of downloaded data per month.  You are not currently allowed to know how much bandwidth Comcast thinks you've used, but if you use more, and if Comcast chooses to, they will call you to and ask you to curb your usage.  If you don't, you may be disconnected for 6-months.  Seems pretty straight forward.

Prong #2 – This is more interesting.  If you use more than 70% of your bandwidth for 15 minutes or more, your data may be delayed or dropped.  Theoretically, this only happens during times of congestion, but details on how it specifically works are sparse, so knowing what Comcast is really doing is, how to put it, "a matter of faith".

Generosity or something just a tad more selfish? –

On the surface, these two rules might appear to be part of a new, data-neutral Comcast, just trying to to relieve clogged network traffic on behlf of their customers.  But the curious mind would naturally ask –

  • What kinds of data are likely to put someone over 250 Gigabyte limit each month?
  • What kinds of data are likely to utilize 70% of one's bandwidth for 15 minutes or more, tripping the delay/drop switch?
  • Why isn't the data that Comcast sends to me part of the data limit?
  • If Comcast is having throughput problems that necessitate these bandwidth constrictions, why did they just announce and implement 50 mbit/s service?

Never presume stupidity when greed is a possibility –

This is better said with an analogy.  Let's say you buy everything from various online vendors and have it shipped to your house via FedEx, because it's the only courier who delivers to your house.  Amazon is a vendor that depends on a delivery service, so they buy FedEx.  Now Amazon is both a distributor and controls the means of delivery for all other vendors.  Then, Amazon says "we'll ship as many boxes of Amazon goods to your house as you want, for a monthly fee.  We'll still ship boxes from other companies, but you can only receive 100 lbs. of boxes per month, and if you try to send a lot of boxes at once, we reserve the right to delay or lose them at our discretion.  It should only affect 1% of our customers, it is very generous.  It will help ease shipping/delivery congestion."

Comcast is a content distributor, and they rely on sending their data to your home like other content distributors.  Now that they are in the ISP business, they control the means of delivery for all content providers who need to send their data to you, but their goal is, of course, to protect the profits of their own content distribution business. 

So, naturally, they would seek to arrange things so that their services supersede all other vendors.

So, why a 250 GB cap?  Because the media content Comcast competes with is big.  4 gigs or more for a standard full-quality DVD.  A Blu-ray HD movie in its native format could technically be up to 50 GB (though usually around 25 at the moment).  Add a few movies on top of all the little crap you download every day, with windows updates, maybe you have a few remote desktop sessions open 24/7 like I do, internet radio, maybe you downloaded the Windows 7 beta, you watch a lot of netflix streams,  webcams,  etc, it all adds up. Comcast is well aware that the few who get their media from other vendors today will multiply over time, because cable service just isn't very competitive compared to the on-demand, wide variety, internet world.

So, why a delay/drop if one uses 70% of bandwidth for 15 minutes?  Let's say you download a movie from one of Comcast's competitors, Vudu, which is sort of a Netflix for HD video.  Vudu movies take a long time to download, even at 100% of your bandwidth.  Disrupting such services would be in Comcast's interest.  If your download keeps dropping, you may give up and just use Comcast's competing services instead.

So, why isn't the data that Comcast sends to me part of the data limit?  Because Comcast makes the rules and you're lucky you even have internet service in this town, chump.  When it comes down to it, your digital cable service is essentially video streamed over the network, but you can watch Comcast HD all day with no penalty or restriction, the restriction only applies to the stuff you get from other distributors.  If this doesn't underline anti-competitive practice, I don't know what does.

So, If Comcast is having throughput problems that necessitate these bandwidth constrictions, why did they just announce and implement 50 Mbit/s service?  Well this is an interesting one:

As I said, I started in the broadband world 10 years ago with 768 Kbit/s monthly plan.  One would assume that 10 years later, Comcast would have a network backbone that's a little more substantial.  So let's do the math:

Today, I pay for 10 Mbit/s service:

10 Mbit/s = 3240 GB/Month

but Comcast tells me I'm not allowed to use 92% of it, leaving me with 250 GB/Month:

250 GB/Month = 771 kbit/s.

image

On a monthly basis, everyone on Comcast, whether they have 1mbit or 50mbit service actually has a maximum of 771 kbit/s of service over the course of the month, period.  No different than the DSL I had 10 years ago –  except that no one was secretly deciding whether my data was important enough to actually make it to my desktop, and there was no threat of being cut off for actually using bandwidth that was paid for and made available to my connection. If Comcast's network is as frail, outdated, and oversold as it claims – such that it can barely stay up with a decade old level of bandwidth – something seems very wrong.

So, in short, I struggle to find any logic to the notion that Comcast's primary interest is in preventing network congestion.

You might say "Other ISPs have used download caps and speed throttling in the past. What makes Comcast different?" Well, this is an issue for the FCC to figure out. It can be argued that the independent ISP is largely a thing of the past, and capping downloads contributed to the demise of many. But Comcast is not just an ISP, it has a vested interest in pushing you toward services it, as a content distributor, provides. In many areas it carries monopoly weight, sitting on cable infrastructure embedded into just about every home. So the question isn't about the rights of an ISP to set its terms of service… it's about whether Comcast, as a content distributor/infrastructure/ISP hybrid, can align its ISP terms of service and operational practices in such a way that discriminates against competing internet based services.

 

A New FCC, a New Hope –

I actually wrote this article in October, but sat on it until now because yesterday's FCC just didn't give me a lot of confidence (to put it very, very nicely).  But as of today, the FCC is new, hopefully has a new direction, and will hopefully take a more critical look at the conflicts of interest posed by Comcast and other media vendor/ISP hybrids.  In fact, today they are taking a look at Comcast's VOIP policy with the same lens.

There are three critical principles that I think should govern the behavior of any company that wishes to engage in ISP-like business (and yes, these are broad generalizations, not necessarily worded as I might word them in a final regulation, and I recognize that there must be some nuance).

  1. Data is sold as throughput only, not as a cap or combination of factors.  If you pay for a gym membership, you can be at the gym as much or as little as you like.  If you pay monthly for 10Mbit/s, you should get up to 10Mbit/s ALL MONTH LONG.
  2. It is up to the ISP to provide sufficient throughput to reasonably support the levels of service they have sold.
  3. Packets sent or requested by a subscriber are routed BLINDLY.  They are not inspected, parsed, subject to delay, unless there is a warrant or external evidence that the machine in question is engaged in an intentionally malicious activity against the function of another machine. 

Or some facsimile thereof.

As for Comcast itself, I actually have to give them a hand.  Other companies tend to hide their contempt for the customers as a general rule.  But in providing real-world, straightforward and crude examples of why we need it, Comcast has done more to progress the cause of net neutrality than the EFF.

Touch

Two Weeks Touching It (The Sprint Touch)

Six months ago I got a sneek peek at the iPhone.  A beautiful piece of machinery lacking only in 3 critical places:  It is a 21st century network device tied to a stone-age cellular network.  Its on-screen keyboard is clumsy (though far better than others up to that point).  It is a new OS and has little 3rd party dev support (partly because it’s new, but mostly because Apple has willfully denied developers the tools needed to create apps for it).  As a full time media player and part time PDA/Phone, it really does shine.  Though not quite as obscenely successful as predicted, it certainly hasn’t been a flop.

TouchStill, it wasn’t for me.  I do a large number of things with my phone that simply aren’t possible with an iPhone.  Things like real Exchange synchronization, turn by Turn directions, remote management, even having a decent scientific calculator on hand.  The iPhone is a technological marvel, but just doesn’t have the software to do what I want.

Six months ago, I was still pretty happy with my Windows Mobile 5-based Treo 700wx.  Certainly less beauty and more utility, the Treo has definitely my favorite phone to date.

Six months ago, I also alluded to the HTC 6800 "Mogul" and HTC 6900 "Touch".  Having previously owned the Sprint 6600 and 6700, I had already been soured by the poor performance of HTC’s Windows Mobile based phones, as well as the slide out keyboards which I find annoying.  The Mogul, a large, heavy, side-keyboard-sliding brick, reminiscent of the 6700 was just not going to cut it.  But what about the Touch?  Here’s what I said about the Touch six months ago:

"HTC has also launched the “Touch” phone, which is a bit more marketing than functionality. It’s not a multitouch display, but it plays one on TV. Really, it appears to be little more than a Today screen enhancement for Windows Mobile 6, IMHO.

HTC does a lot of great work, but they just seem to miss the boat when pulling it all together into a consumer device."

Turns out the early call on the Touch was accurate, but incomplete.  That is to say, it is a good device, but I’m more impressed with what doesn’t come with the phone than what does. With that, here’s my thinking:

Physically, the Touch is a well designed device, lightweight but solid.  It feels better in the hand and on the ear than the Treo, which is bulky, or iPhone, which is absolutely flat.  Far smaller than I expected it to be, it is about half as thick as my Treo, and does not have the protruding antenna, which is a big plus.  In fact, it is so slim I can very comfortably and unnoticeably carry it in a pants pocket instead of a holster.  Yes, geeks, you no longer have to leave your phone in the car to avoid looking like a looser on Saturday night at the clubs.

The surface mount screen is a subtle but important difference from all other Windows Mobile based phones, and something that the industry should simply adopt universally.  The Treo, and every other device I have owned, has a raised bezel around the screen that makes touching scroll bars, the OK button, the Start Menu, or any other items on the screen edge a major hassle.  But, not only can you hit corner-lying pixels with ease on the Touch, HTC was forward thinking enough to extend the touch sensitivity out past the pixels a little bit, making it that much easier.  I have found myself, almost intuitively, using the netherzone outside the pixels almost every time I use the device.

This past-the-edge sensitivity was designed to support HTC’s TouchFLO interface, which, getting back to my pre-release commentary on the Touch, really is little more than marketing.  You flick your finger from the bottom edge of the screen upward, and up pops your picture-dialer… slide your finger from the edge across the device and you get panels of launchable applications.  Big whoopdeedoo.  Sure, it looks cool, but it is still far more efficient to launch apps from other launchers, including the start menu, which HTC has thoughtfully super-sized for finger friendliness, as well as the HTC Home plugin for the Windows Mobile Today Screen.  So the TouchFLO in it’s current form is a bit useless to me, but the idea of launching applications with a finger gesture IS a solid idea that I think would be extremely useful. Imagine, for example, dragging your finger across the top 3rd of the screen for one app, across the center for another, and across the lower third for another.  Maybe left to right vs right to left, etc.  You could have a good 10 or so "quick launch" gestures with simple horizontal and vertical strokes.

The Touch’s screen, while not nearly as "mushy" as other WM devices, does not even come close to the sensitivity of the iPhone’s multi touch display.  The Touch should really be called the Press.  The Touch likes it rough, baby, no pansy fingering here.

Screen_03 The Touch does not come with an automatic touch/key/screen gaurd like the Treo, and The Treo’s keyguard is about perfect.  For Touch users, however, there is an iPhone rip-off called s2u2 or "Slide to Unlock" which, despite being completely unoriginal, is a necessary, and free, add-on.

Internet Explorer on WM6 sucks.  This is something MS claims to be working on for WM7-8.  However, Opera Mini is a pretty nice rip off of the iPhone’s Safari browser, with zooming and touch-panning, DIV based resizing, etc.  It runs on Java, which HTC included on the Touch, but I’ve switched to JBED Java instead, because it loads a lot faster and works better, IMHO.  The full version of Opera Mobile 9, when it releases, will have the same features the java-based Mini and more, but will cost $.

I also use a free package called PocketCM as a Contacts manager.  This is another iPhone rip-off with finger scrolling, a threaded SMS application (that doesn’t work too well yet) and filtering contacts by favorites or SMS conversations.  Stll, it is sexier than HTC’s default contacts manager, even if it is finger-scroll friendly.

Screen_01 Now, the big item, keyboarding.  Phones and keyboards have a love hate relationship like no other.  Keyboards take up real estate you’d rather save for the screen, but physical keyboards, as tiny and crappy as they may be, still make keyboarding feel more secure due to tactile feedback.  But I’m beginning to see signs of hope for the death of physical keyboards – and it’s NOT because of the Touch’s built in on-screen keyboard.

The Touch comes with 4 keyboard layouts, and tries to anticipate which one you need.  For example, at a password prompt, you are likely to get the typical QWERTY keyboard.  But most of the time, you get the 20 key keyboard which does XT9 predictive wording, or standard T9-style multi-tapping for desired letters.  The 20 key, XT9 prediction works great for typing typical words, as you can see in the picture, the large keys of the 20 key keyboard are much easier to hit than the iPhone’s QWERTY keyboard.  In fact, once you get used to the predictive text, the 20-key can be faster than typing on a physical keyboard like the Treo.  However, as soon as you type a name, a password, a website URL, anything with punctuation, etc. everything changes and you will find yourself hating HTC’s keyboard.

Screen_04 But unlike the iPhone, you actually have options, and the one I like is called TouchPal (YouTube video).  It is a 20-key keyboard that does predictive text OR character accurate input using normal touches OR finger gestures.  It works far, far better than HTC’s keyboard and is so far the best input method I have found for the Touch.  It has a couple glitches, but things which are easily handled in future upgrades.

Still, those switching from a physical keyboard will likely find that they use more garden variety words, for the sake of word prediction.  I, personally, like using non-words… "Bush-izations", if you will.  But have found that I have to stick to plain english when using a predictive keyboard because it barks at you when it doesn’t know what you’re typing, or will try to substitute its own words.  Also, you may notice some thumb cramping.  With a physical keyboard you can rest on the keyboard, moving the thumb and pressing.  On an on-screen keyboard, you have to lift the thumb and direct it to the next button in a more careful and deliberate action.  This exercises muscles in the thumb you otherwise wouldn’t use.

But still, entering passwords, email addresses and such still sucks without a keybaord.  So enter TapText and Pocket IE Form Filler.  TapText maintains a list of frequently used strings of text you can hit whenever you like.  This is great for your usernames and other frequently used strings.  Pocket IE Form Filler, however, is something that Windows Mobile users have been begging for.  This is like RoboForm on regular PC’s, you go to a website, you fill out your information, and Form Filler remembers it so you don’t have to enter it again, even after your cookies expire.  Sadly, it only works with IE, so us Opera users are SOL.

Screen_02 But what about the death of keyboards all together?  Let’s take city and local searching.  Entering Search information, just like logins and passwords, is a real pain without a physical keyboard because few words you type can be predicted.  But my hat is off to Microsoft (for once) for releasing the latest version of Live Search, which includes VOICE RECOGNITION!  And it works pretty damn well, I might add.  So you say "Wal-Mart near Lafayette, Indiana" and up pops a list of Wal-Marts near Lafayette Indiana.  With two clicks you can call it, map it, or get directions based on your current GPS location (The Touch has a GPS in it, but won’t be turned on until Q1 of 2008 via a Sprint Firmware update).  Before now, it hasn’t been very wise to try to find a location and directions while driving… there was just too much to type.  But with voice recognition, it’s a far less distracting process than, say, having a back seat driver along for the trip.  This is where having a keyboard would be entirely superfluous, and this is one of those applications that makes you feel good about ditching the keyboard.

So, why can’t I do voice dictation instead of keyboarding?  Well… this video… errr… well the video that existed last week, mentioned in engadget, from last year showed Nuance’s Dragon Dictation software being used on a Treo with good success.  Why hasn’t it shipped as a product?  I don’t know… but I want it… now.  I believe that having a good voice dictation interface would finally make me feel alright about not having a physical keyboard.

The original HTC Touch, which was released on GSM networks in Europe, had a much slower processor.  The Sprint Touch runs on the highly touted Qualcomm 400 Mhz processor, has twice the memory (much nicer than my Treo) and takes SDHC microSD cards (but it is hard to swap, so buy one card, insert it, and keep it that way).  Even with all this power, my Treo actually felt just as responsive, sometimes moreso.  This is HTC’s real deficit.  They simply don’t do enough to tweak Windows Mobile performance.  I can’t imagine how slow the GSM Touch was.

The Touch also has EV-DO rev A capability which has not yet been activated by Sprint.  This will come as an update to the phone in Q1 2008, along with the GPS support.  I do find network performance to be a tiny bit improved over the Treo, probably due to the faster processor.  Signal reception is about the same.

By the way, what do we have against buttons… really?  The iPhone has one button, the Touch has 4, plus a 4-way navigator and slider for volume.  It’s not enough.  Even if you don’t have a keyboard, having a few extra programmable buttons for things you do every day would be nice.  There’s plenty of space for them.

So after two weeks Touching myself, I’ll go back to my original statement.  The Touch that comes in the box IS more marketing than functionality.  However, the device itself is quite significant in ways that only become obvious as developers build interfaces and functionality that really speak to the realities of relying solely on a touch screen.  I have no doubt the same will soon be said of the iPhone.  At the end of two weeks, most of my interaction with the device goes through 3rd party applications.  At the risk of being repetitive, i’ll sum it up with, I like the Touch, but I’m more impressed with what doesn’t come on it, than what does.

What would I like to see? 

– A real voice dictation interface OR a physical keyboard while keeping the same form factor.

– A higher resolution screen (640×480… it may be tiny, but that’s OK!)

– More programmable hardware buttons

– Gesture-based device control that is always awaiting input, regardless what application you are in.

– Better low-light sensitivity on the camera.

By the way, I know this isn’t a traditional device review.  If you liked this review format, please take a moment and Digg it or Reddit it, or leave some feedback and I’ll write more reviews like this.

184665954_6e032f5ac8[1]

ID Theft, Good for Business

On their web site, the FTC estimates that "as many as 9 million Americans have their identities stolen each year."  There are 300 million people in the US… you can do the math.  On average, they say, you will likely be impacted by identity crime several times during your life.

In the IT world, we’ve known this for a long time.  Everyone’s basic information, including your SSN is readily available, cheaply and in a full spectrum of legal and illegal ways.  We also know that the real failing isn’t the fact that the information is out there and available, it’s the fact that such information is easy to use that constitutes the danger.

So, you may wonder why credit card ID theft commercials are en vogue, reporting on how much consumers and companies lose to ID theft each year… yet you never hear about the credit, medical, insurance, or any other industry lobbying congress to change the situation…

Could it be that ID theft is good for business?

Of course it is, and it all revolves around one word, “liability”.

Simplifying the problem –
People get confused about ID theft because it’s not a simple act, but for the sake of clarity, I will break it down to the major parts, Privacy and Crime.

184665954_6e032f5ac8[1]

Privacy is simple, you give company A your information, and suddenly company B, or criminal C has it.  Doesn’t matter how it happened, this is an invasion of your privacy.  The Crime portion comes when someone decides to use this information in a criminal manner.  This can be as simple as someone using your credit information to buy a TV, or when HP’s private investigators get your phone records to prove you were leaking info to the press.

So, which is worse, having your information out there, or having it be easily misused?  It’s a very simple answer.  People want your information BECAUSE it can be easily misused, in both criminal and non-criminal-but-should-be ways.  If there’s no profit in stealing your identity, or if the risks outweigh the benefits, then the privacy situation returns to the non-, or small issue it had been for hundreds of years.

Of Crime and Jengo –
ID Crime relies on one fundamental building block, absence of liability.  No one has to steal anything from you to get a credit agency to extend a line of credit in your name, nor is anyone liable by default, for the damages done… so it happens every day.  Making personal information more difficult to use – or to improve the “Authentication” of those conducting transactions of all kinds is the only thing that will bring the ID theft tower down, but without liability, no business will take on the messy task of pulling that block.

For example, it is entirely possible that a 10 year old kid in America already has a mortgage… it’s entirely plausible that his identity was stolen years ago, used for lines of credit ending in a home loan that the criminal has skipped out on.

Did the mortgage agency commit a crime?  No, they did all they were required to do.  They will likely take the loss and help the kid restore his credit.  He is after all, 10 years old, and it would be a tough court case to win… but they could try to make the case to a judge if they chose.  So imagine how much harder it is for a 30 year old who may have to spend his life savings just to prove that he didn’t spend his life savings. 

Nowhere to turn –
It’s perfectly legal for a crediting agency to issue a line of credit to anyone claiming to be you; they set their own authentication procedures.  It is also legal for the crediting agency to hold you responsible for a line of credit given to the wrong person.  Credit reporting agencies are also not required to validate or authenticate information provided to them by creditors.  There simply is no minimum requirement for authenticating transactions of any kind, so you really have no recourse, it’s just your word against theirs.

THAT is the pillar upon which ID Theft is built.

Your misfortune is a good way to turn a buck –
What’s more, credit and insurance agencies have found out that the fear of ID theft is a pretty good money maker… and makes a pretty entertaining commercial to boot.  Now all credit cards offer some kind of premium anti-fraud service you can pay for… or you can get anti-ID theft insurance for yourself or your business.

You may recognize that racket in mobster movies.  In the old days, you paid the mafia protection money… protection from whom?  The mafia.  Today, you pay money to protect your identity to the people who lobby to ensure your identity isn’t protected.

Seems an apt analogy.

The public is confused about the issue and hounding legislators for action.  Legislators on the other hand, have been given very clear message from business:  Fo’gettabboddit!

Self-Solving Riddles –
We do not have to regulate the means of authentication to make things right… all we have to do is hold companies liable for costs and damages associated with providing credit or conducting transactions (financial or informational) with the wrong individual.  Let the free market figure out how to deal with that. 

Any massively centralized Federal effort, like a National ID card would be fraught with loopholes and corruption.  Personally, I think that private industry can offer far more elegant, varied and secure solutions.  All I am saying is that right now, what’s good for business is also good for criminals, so much so that it’s difficult to distinguish the two.  Business needs a reason to join the fight, and the best way to do that is to make it cheaper to do the right thing.

Apple iPhone

The iPhone is Great! (For Everyone Else)

Stephen Colbert may not be able to get his hand on an iPhone, but yours truly can. :)  (Sorry Stephen, but you’re still our #1 American).

I spent some hands-on time with the iPhone a couple days ago and came away with the same general impression that most have had up to this point, except for one thing:  I don’t want one.

Apple iPhone My So-Called Wireless Life –

Ever since my first cell phone, that ubiquitous Sprint clamshell (I still have it), popularized by the man-in-trenchcoat commercials, I’ve been a cell phone junkie.  I change cell phones faster than a jail stay for Paris, faster than another rehab for Lindsay, even faster than you can turn a gay preacher straight.  I think my Treo 600 stayed with me the longest – almost a year! 

After a stint enjoying a couple HTC phones (the 6600 and 6700 respectively), I’m back on a Treo 700wx and quite fond of it.  I have phones of every design and operating system and I’ve tried just about every carrier.  Some have thrown around the phrase, “Cell phone slut”… I don’t deny it.

Treo 700wxThe Treo 700wx is about as close to perfection as a PDA phone has gotten so far, for me.  I am a Microsoft Exchange user (and about 15 different gmail accounts, an unavoidable consequence of the profession), and using Active Sync on the Treo has been flawless.  I hook my phone up to my laptop to use the internet connection on the road.  I have even broadcast a couple trips from my car using a webcam, laptop, and my phone.  I use it to do remote administration of the servers I manage. I use it to turn on an off the lights in my apartment.  I have all of my favorites, from weather to banking set to pop up instantly.

In short, my life is wireless, and I like it that way.

Note that when I see a new phone, I really couldn’t care less who makes it, so long as I can continue to do what I want to do, and more. So I’m not schilling for Palm, but in order to make the comparison, I have to use my Treo as the current benchmark with respect to what I use a PDA/Phone for. A lot of what I do is possible on the iPhone, but in practice, not so much.

Wait for it…. waaaaiiiitt for it… –

After a few minutes with the iPhone, red flag number one popped up.  Browsing the internet on AT&T’s network is like jumping back to that 1200 baud modem I used to have in my Commodore 64.  The iPhone has a gorgeous screen that screams “TOUCH ME AND BE INFORMED!”… but while the skin is willing, the soul is tired from waiting for the page to load.  From what I hear, the contract with AT&T is for two years!  What a miserable disappointment.  So much for the browsing, and the remote administration (even if it was possible), even the time it takes downloading my e-mail would drain the battery.  It’s got Google Maps, but you’ll miss your exit waiting to the maps to download, so that’s kinda pointless too.

Pairing a phone that begs to be on the internet to a network that all but abhors it is like hiring Mel Gibson to throw a Bat-Mitzvah.  It’s baffling and I hereby request that they drop the “i” from the name, because clearly, there is no “i” on this phone.

There is WiFi, which is a bit of a consolation, but frankly, if I’m in range of open WiFi, I’m probably also in range of my computer or my laptop, so I don’t want to have to depend on it.  My Treo 700wx doesn’t have WiFi, and I don’t miss it.  Never used it on my PPC-6700 because it drained the battery in a flash.  That’s the difference that the network makes.

Best touch keyboard yet, not good enough. Make me FEEL it –

The touchscreen is impressive.  I love touchscreens, by the way… I have never used the stylus on my last several phones.  If the 5 way nav doesn’t do it for me, I use my finger.  So when I first learned that the iPhone was going to have a multitouch display, I was instantly turned on.  But then I found out that’s all it has.

In practice, the touchscreen is a world beyond current touch technology to be sure… and yes, typing on it is also significantly improved.  But, you’ve got to use two hands and you’ve got to look at it.  On my Treo, there’s a lot of stuff I can execute, or even type, with one hand and blindfolded (or driving, which is a lot more common for me).

Typing on the iPhone compared to a Treo (Or any keyboarded device) is clumsy at best.  The touchscreen may be infinitely more accurate than anything you’ve every used before, but still suffers from the lack of tactile feedback.  Typing with it is a little like regaining your virginity, you suddenly can’t be sure of hitting the right buttons, or that you’ve touched hard enough.

This may or may not give you pause.  I text a lot, I email a lot, I browse the web a lot, and I don’t want to always have to look at the phone when I turn it on, shut it off, answer a call, etc.  Having real buttons and a real keyboard is an advantage and frankly, no one has topped the Treo keyboard, especially for my tree trunk fingers. 

Plenty of good with the bad –

The music quality is as good as any iPod, the screen is just too beautiful for words, so it would be a crime to not keep your photos on it.

The phone is awkward on the ear; you can simulate the sensation by holding a brick to your head, or a laptop hard drive, or any other flat rectangle measuring 4.5×2.5.  This isn’t a big deal for me, after having used the Spring PPC-6700, the brickiest brick of them all.

I didn’t see any voice control stuff on it, which would help, but I’m sure someone will develop it.

The camera is pretty decent, no problems there.  The sensor that rotates the display when the device is pivoted is very cool.  There is an ambient light sensor that adjust the screen when it is held to your head or in a dark room… also nice.

Sorry, no iPhone for j.ello…. well… maybe –

My conclusions are thus: 

  • The iPhone is one of the coolest pieces of geek tech to arrive on this planet this decade. 
  • It’s targeted toward wealthy iPod users who are both sick of both their phone and their current iPod, and have been saving up to replace both. 
  • It’s priced for professionals, but lacks the two most important things professionals need… speedy connectivity and a physical keyboard. 
  • Frankly, I’d be half tempted to keep my Treo and buy an iPhone purely for use as a UMPC, iPod, Photo Frame or Male Enhancement.

An iPhone skin for Treos I have, however, heard that Palm has obtained multitouch technology as well (rumor), so in the not too distant future, maybe we’re looking at an iTreo?  If Palm plays its cards right, it can lock up the professional PDA/phone user market for a long time to come.  Apple has taken a good leap, now we just need someone to bring it home.  Unfortunately, the Palm Foleo has placed some doubt in my mind that Palm is entirely in touch with the audience (a big ole’ WTF?) but hey, we’ll give them a Mulligan on that one. 

 What about the Mogul?  –

HTC has revealed the 6800 for Sprint/Verizon, AKA the Sprint Mogul.  After having used two HTC slide out keyboard style phones, I can say that the larger keyboard doesn’t seem to work any better for me, and the slide out bit is a pain in the butt.  Also, both of my HTC devices had awful performance problems.  Palm worked diligently with Microsoft to ensure that the Windows Mobile based Treos, while containing a slower processor, perform circles around the previous HTC devices. HTC Touch I don’t know about the Mogul, but if HTC hasn’t drastically improved the way their device interacts with Windows Mobile, I won’t like it. 

HTC has also launched the “Touch” phone, which is a bit more marketing than functionality.  It’s not a multitouch display, but it plays one on TV.  Really, it appears to be little more than a Today screen enhancement for Windows Mobile 6, IMHO.

HTC does a lot of great work, but they just seem to miss the boat when pulling it all together into a consumer device.

So… back to the iTreo… now THAT would be something to shell out $600 for.

4 (Uncommon) Habits for Better IT, part 2

Jump to part 1…

II – Use the Resources you have –

Damn, if I had a nickel for every organization that bleeds money on unimplemented technology and underutilized, or more accurately “inappropriately utilized” staff…

Companies, the world over, could save billions in IT, and operational costs, if they just used what they already have.  It doesn’t matter if you’re Unix based or windows based, it’s 99% likely that there’s something you could automate, today, in a few minutes, to chop out half an FTE or more of useless labor.  Most organizations are paying for hardware and software they don’t need, or don’t use… and most organizations have no process for assessing or innovating what they do, how they do it, or why.

There’s just no focus on operations in this day and age.  Everything’s gotten so filled with buzz words (like IT alignment, CRM, ERP, Web 2.0) that there’s no leadership in the area that actually provides the business its greatest cost savings (or losses)… Operations.  I have yet to see an organization that isn’t throwing away big money on senseless human labor, unnecessary software and hardware.  It’s just a fact (because I say so).

Start automating today, and then, instead of firing employees when you’ve freed up some FTEs, get them into a 50/50 training scheme, so the organization can become even more effective over time. 

Oh, but you don’t have anyone to do automation.  BULL.  Every single IT professional should be able to do basic administrative scripting.  Every single IT professional can be trained to automate enterprise level work.  Every single IT professional should be on the lookout for better techniques… and the organization should be prepared to make changes.

If this isn’t how it is in your organization, it’s a management issue, plain and simple.  The benefit of good operations is the currency upon which you get CRM and ERP projects to fly.  I’ve said it before, automation is the fundamental purpose of computers, so it simply has to be a primary task of the IT group.  Automate as much as possible… then spend the time savings on more education and bigger projects.

To sum it up:  Start using what you’ve got, and make it a priority to investigate and squeeze out unnecessary labor and costs wherever they can be found.  If someone has to do a process more than once, you should consider automating it.  Making computers do the work is the fundamental reason for having the computers!

I – Manage output.  Treat IT like IT, business like business –

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this question/complaint in different organizations, “How do I get my IT people to come in 9-5… they take 2 hour lunches, etc.”  Now, to be fair, you can pretty much tell the state of the IT department when the question is asked… and it never seems to be asked by anyone with direct knowledge of the work… it’s always a Business manager, HR rep, or other type of manager. 

So this problem is not necessarily endemic to IT, but rather endemic to the integration of IT and other kinds of industries.  Also, the question itself has the unintended consequence of showing why outsourcing seldom works. 

In the ancient world, people showed up for work in the morning… they ate lunch for an hour, and later they went home to forget about work til the next day.  That was all that was possible…. and sure, there are still many jobs for which it’s a necessity.

Just as modern technology makes the world your office, more efficient management scenarios are also possible. Sure, if you have a help desk, the help desk has to be manned for certain hours, so a presence is a given – does that presence have to be in the office? Maybe not.  Your systems have to be up 24/7, and remote management is child’s play, so why would your systems admin be a 9-5 employee?  Development can happen anywhere, anytime… so why would you constrain your creative thinking developers to a tie, a water cooler, and a 1 hour lunch break?  

Turns out that good developers like to work in their underwear at 3 am, high on Mountain Dew. No one has dissected one to find out why… it’s just a fact (because I say so). 

I’m not saying the IT people are special and should be treated special.  I am saying that even if your IT group is part of a manufacturing company, running IT like an assembly line will ensure low productivity.  In fact, anything resembling micro-management is universally despised amongst IT professionals.  It’s not even a debate.

Of course this is about far more than a timeclock, it’s about the whole culture of work and finding ways for people to be more productive, less stressed, more responsible, more loyal, etc… not because you have to, but because it’s good for business.  Efficiently managing the 24/7 modern world is about placing expectations on the output, not monitoring the input.  Set goals for your IT teams and let them figure out what they need to do to be successful.  I’d certainly rather fire an unproductive 9-5er than a productive developer I only see on webcam.

Coincidentally, the root problem is the same in outsourcing failures.  If one can’t manage the output expectations of employees, one certainly can’t manage the output expectations of non-employees… which is all an outsourcing relationship is.  That, of course, comes back to having competent management.  They who set the goals need to know what the goals are… and more importantly, they need to have the respect of the IT team to achieve any of it.

To sum it up:  The 40 hour work week does not ensure results, managing results ensures results.  Explore working options with your IT staff.  Productivity increases by adapting to the nature of the work, and the nature of the worker. 

4 (Uncommon) Habits for Better IT, part 1

Jump to part 2…

I’ve seen my share of IT gone wrong, and I pay attention when it does.  Sure, the problems and solutions may seem obvious, “do good, don’t do evil” as a CIO colleague of mine likes to say… but making the conscious effort to recognize and stand up for the most critical values takes something you don’t often see in today’s IT workplace.

So here’s 17 years (oh god, is it 18 now?) of watching successes and failures, wrapped up in the form of 4 Habits:

IV – Competence and Character above all else –

Sure, it seems obvious… but most IT organizations in decline can trace their woes to incompetency and/or lack of character amongst their ranks.  It’s all the more disastrous when these characteristics emerge in upper management.

No matter how well integrated to a business, IT is, by nature, an organizational island… albeit one in which the natives fear the beach, sunlight and are allergic to everything. 

The business as a whole has to trust, almost blindly, that the IT management has things in hand.  This makes Character and Competence the two most important qualities of IT professionals at all levels. 

Sure, we think about those things when we hire people, but they aren’t the focus… and they need to be.  

With all due respect to managers, it is no great feat to keep geeks in line and pointed at a goal.  Most IT groups consist of members whose skills do not generally overlap, so most organizations already depend on IT staff managing themselves, whether anyone realizes it or not.  This is, in fact, an increasing trend.  For most IT pros, independent management is just part of the job.  

This aspect of IT is a key oversight when finding IT people, particularly CIO’s.  IT pros don’t look toward a boss for management, rather, for their competent, engaged and coherent input on the technical and policy issues that are facing them in their work.  The CIO is responsible for the grand scheme, making the cogs fit together, so a lack of technical competence at this level is a grave, yet pervasive liability the industry currently endures.  Technically competent CIOs are both more useful to subordinates, and make better decisions.  It’s just a fact (because I say so).  

Also, IT professionals who find themselves responsible for the livelihood of an organization also realize how important it is to be trusted implicitly.  The job simply can’t be done without the trust of the users.  If the group loses that trust, it takes forever to earn it back.  All it takes is one bad hire.

Competence and Character are simply indispensable, no matter how technical, ceremonial or managerial you think the job is.  IT staff are extremely sensitive to these two characteristics.  So instead of looking for generally “good” candidates, using whatever arbitrary factors may be in play, the first question that should be asked of your HR people is “how to we verify the technical competence of IT hirees” and the second is “how do we assess their character”.  If there is no current method, create one.  ALWAYS involve the rest of the IT staff in the decision making process, and DEMAND their unrestrained opinions.  You’ll be sorry if you don’t.

To sum it up:  Obvious or not, a little respect goes a long way at all levels of IT.  Hire people you and your IT staff respect, and foster a culture of doing the right thing, or expect major problems.

III – IT Employee Development and the 50/50 Rule –

In failing IT organizations, IT employees often work 100% of the time or more.  In successful IT organizations, IT employees often work 50% of the time or less.   It’s just a fact (because I say so).

You may grumble about that assertion, but the old adage about working smarter, not harder, is pretty much the mantra of the successful IT organization.  A good IT employee in a successful IT organization consumes and applies a PhD’s worth of information every couple years of their career.  Those who don’t, simply become irrelevant, or even a hindrance in short order.  Continuous education and retraining is an absolutely essential part of the job, from the CIO to the technician.

But you say, “The CIO doesn’t need to know how to configure a router…”  No, but it is the process of obtaining education in IT related disciplines that gives them the insight to contribute intellectually on other technical topics… in fact, it’s even more important for the CIO because a tech competent CIO will see possibilities well beyond what’s available on the shelf… and generally save their organizations large amounts of cash.

Of course, the shape of such education for IT staff need not be defined.  Certifications and degrees have no more value than the education derived from tinkering, experimenting, and reading Slashdot or Digg.

In order to progress and do things cheaper, faster, better… IT employees must both have the time, and be expected to learn and implement new concepts, technologies and strategies.  If your group is overtaxed just to get the daily work done, then you’re not only failing at employee development… but you aren’t providing a competitive advantage to your organization. The competitive advantage comes from doing things better than the other guy, and customizing the IT solutions to the benefit of the organization.  

Of course, the current management norm is to cut FTEs to the bare minimum any time there’s an excess of man power for the immediate work.  This, however, ensures that what you do today is all you’ll ever do, and likewise ensures that what your employees do today is all they’ll be able to do.  At that point, there’s little value to having an IT department… and is a major reason why organizations wind up unable to deploy new technology or adapt to unforeseen changes.
  
The more desirable outcome, indicative of both good management and employee development, is to have challenging goals being achieved, reasonable expectations being met, and employees that only spend 25%-50% of their time working, and the rest educating themselves.  Organizations in  this situation have the best chance of retaining employees and providing exceptional service.

To sum it up:  Education is half the job.  Organizations that make it a priority are more effective than those that do not.

4 (Uncommon) Habits for Better IT, part 2…

j.ello on IT Part 8: pWNing IT Management

Yes, I could devote every article to the pervasiveness of bad IT management and it’s chilling effects on business, but it depresses me and it’s time to move on, so we’ll wrap that up today.  The next article will be on how to fix IT gone bad… tips anyone can use to restore the value of an IT department.

First, a last word on bad IT management –

To sum up the shape of IT today… the old computing Director has retired along with his punchcards and VAX system.  In response to the larger role of IT in the business, the need to deal with increased regulatory and legal pressure, etc… the new IT leader is a slick, middle aged MBA who has some historical experience related to computing.  The primary vision is to reduce cost with fewer, cheaper employees… to commoditize every day computing.  IT management functions have been distributed throughout the organization – not generally by choice – to cope with the realities of the work.  The IT group “appears” to be no worse for the wear on the surface.

How it hits you in the wallet –

There’s a common economic term, “Opportunity Cost“, which is what you lose as a function of choice… i.e. if I have property and I build a condo, I can’t use the land to build something else.

A related term that everyone knows more personally is the “Hidden Cost“, or that which, by definition, is an unforeseen cost of a choice, one that often leaves you feeling like a jackass. If you’ve ever bought a device, only to find out you need several accessories to make it work, you know the feeling.

The ideal in life is to have all your choices governed by evaluating opportunities instead of dealing hidden costs. But converting what you can’t foresee to that which you can, is all about knowledge and creativity. So if you’ve read the previous IT articles, you’ll see where I’m going with this:

Those who make IT decisions based on a wide base of technical knowledge are less likely to fall prey to hidden costs.

In fact, if you didn’t understand the title of this article…  you may be part of the problem.

“Commodity computing means that you spend X, with no expectation of improving Y… and that’s why it offers no value.”

“Failure is the default.” –

Currently, the most obvious source of hidden costs are in large project undertakings, where a poorly conceived request for proposal can doom a project from the start. I challenge anyone to show a multi-$Million ERP project on the planet that has NOT incurred major costs that could have been mitigated through competent technical oversight. 

But the less obvious, and far more costly errors are those that occur as a response to every day questions… little decisions that have seemingly no impact, completely unnoticeable… even to a lot of IT managers.  Do you spend money on extra ram for your user’s machines, or a faster processor?  Do you conduct a training session on Office, or create a few screen capture videos?  Do you spend time automating your systems, remove a service, or expect users to manually accomplish certain tasks?

It may seem like minutia, but you would be shocked at how much money is wasted on poor choices at the most basic levels.  It’s not always easy to see this effect behind the closed doors of business, but we get an education on this *literally* every day in academia, between organizations that would otherwise be identical in terms of responsibilities, resources, personnel and cash.  Over surprisingly short amounts of time, any two IT groups will wind up at two completely different levels of effectiveness, with vast repercussion on the business and culture of the organization… purely as a function of their approach to common every day IT value questions.

How much impact does it have in the business world?  Enough to give thousands of consultants and outsourcing organizations a reason to exist!  So don’t ignore it.

The commodity lie –

If very subtle changes to your approach to IT can have multi-$Million consequences, then how does one make the case that there is such a thing as commodity computing?  Well, keep in mind that a “commodity” is a concrete term.  CEO’s and CFO’s like this term because it puts a specific dollar value on a service.

But, as is made evident above.  “Commodity” in IT does NOT mean that you spend X, and you get an industry-standard Y, there is no such thing – and anyone who says so is selling something.  Commodity computing means that you spend X, with no expectation of improving Y… and that’s why it offers no value.

There is simply no case for the notion of “commodity computing”… as it makes the assumption that operational questions have simple answers that vary as a function of money.  This is clearly not the case, but it is this mentality that defines the state of IT this decade.

In short, few organizations extract value from the IT resources they have at their disposal RIGHT NOW.  Not because they wouldn’t jump at the cost savings, but because they literally don’t have the knowledge to recognize, much less evaluate these kinds of choices.

And of course, who’s responsible for evaluating such choices?  The IT leader… and so we’ve full circle.

Are you an idiot? The Vendors think so! –

You can tell what advertisers think of their targets in how they advertise. For example, Apple clearly believes that their average consumer is so dim that the difference between a Mac and a PC is best when reduced to culturally stereotypical human icons engaging in inane, but amusing banter.

And of course… it’s the most effective Mac campaign in Apple’s history.

The state of IT decision making can likewise be seen in how vendors advertise.  Ever seen a whitepaper from an ERP vendor? Ever delved deep into Dell’s pricing models?  Ever negotiated a contract with Oracle?  Technology vendors, from software to hardware, are in business to make money, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out which member of the herd they believe is weakest.

Conclusion –

Alright, enough on that.  Our IT managers have taken enough abuse for now.  I, of course, welcome any comments you might have on the subject, as I think that this aspect of the IT industry just hasn’t received much attention.  I’d like to get some dialog going.

And so it blows…