Not All Clouds Are Equal - Host Analytics and Browser Limitations

Recently I ran into Host Analytics, a 'web-based' SaaS application that makes the claim, "Cloud delivery: a business model aligned to your success" on their home page. What they don't tell you is that the application only works on a PC using Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

To say that I was surprised is a bit of an understatement. It's probably been nearly ten years since I've run into a web-based application that only worked on the PC, and most of those were legacy hold-overs from years before that. But to come across a modern web based application that seems to ignore Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and everything that Apple has done in the past seven or eight years is absolutely mind-blowing.

Only on a PC using IE? Seriously? What year is this?

Even the Wikipedia page on cloud computing lists the following as a key characteristic:

Device and location independence enable users to access systems using a web browser regardless of their location or what device they are using (e.g., PC, mobile phone). As infrastructure is off-site (typically provided by a third-party) and accessed via the Internet, users can connect from anywhere.

While I don't know of other specific examples, I'm sure that Host Analytics isn't the first company to festively decorate their marketing with cloud positioning. And if you found yourself in a political debate with a company spokesman, you would have to concede that technically they do deliver their service in the cloud. But frankly, if I were planning the future of my IT infrastructure, it wouldn't be on an IE-Windows island.

Apple and the Case of the Bumbling Design Thief

You know how classic mystery stories unfold with a series of strange events and then get near the end and the detective/hero character gets to a point where they say, "now let me tell you what really happened." As I've been following the Apple vs. Samsung trial, I recently came across one of those moments, a little bit of evidence that really frames the entire story in that flashback revelatory style. So, let me tell you what really happened...

You all know about this little company with a fruit-shaped logo. One of the things that the company had going for it was this design-centric ethos. They didn't just build stuff, they thought about what it should do, what it needed to do, and built systems to make those things work elegantly. This design ethos ran through everything they did, from the spacing of the type in their documentation to the ratio of round on their corners. Form, function and style were always closely integrated.

The iPhone was born from this process. It's operational elements incorporated functional design elements developed through years of process and work on the Mac platform. The metaphors for working within the virtual space were aided and cued by animation and graphics that synthesized an environment that was understandable, coherent and approachable as an interface. And in the same way that Apple forced developers to uphold standardized menu and interface structures in the Mac environment, they enforced the same level of control across the iPhone environment. When a new piece of software was allowed on the platform, it had to 'fit' into the platform.

Then Google went off cobbled together the Android OS. Perhaps it was spawned from some grand notion of open source, an idea that if a Terminator could have gone back in time and introduced Linux at the right moment in history, the Microsoft monopoly could have been thwarted. In some ways, iOS and Android are kind of like the Mac OS and Linux. Sure, there is a common Unix kernel, but Apple has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort building an interface for many of the underlying functional elements. And sometimes an integrated approach to a set of complicated functions is transformational.

And along came Android and a bunch of hardware manufacturers that saw it as an easy, ready-made platform for copying the iPhone. After all, from a technical perspective, it provided most of the same functionality, right? And it wasn't like most of these device hardware manufacturers had a lot invested in the software development side of the business. In the world of feature phones, a feature simply needed enough software to support its defined functionality. If it did, it did; it didn't have to be graceful or elegant.

Of course, the iPhone isn't just a phone. It's engineered to be more like a small computer that solves the phone problem in a way that meets Apple's standards. By that, I mean that the hardware is a platform, but what really makes the device is the software, what it does, and how it does it. In so many ways, this was at the heart of the magic underlying the device.

And so, when they attempt to echo this revolutionary product, our copying culprits simply assumed that they could slap some matching layers of functionality on the their devices and expect that it would work similarly -- or perhaps meet the standard of "good enough". Good enough works in a world that sells on feature sets and one louder. Good enough says that six mega-pixels equals six mega-pixels.

It's the bumbling assumption that a feature equals a feature, and that customers can't tell quality.

And so, entered into evidence at the Apple vs. Samsung trial is this wonderful piece of evidence showing how of Samsung -- after pumping out a weak, good enough version one of their product -- went through feature by feature trying to make their device work more like an iPhone. Here's a link to a post about the presentation on All Things D. And, if you find it interesting, here's a link to the presentation pdf file referenced in the post.

As I flipped through the pages of the presentation, what quickly became clear to me wasn't just how they were attempting to copy the iPhone -- it was how clearly it showed that they didn't understand the design. The presentation feature over 130 pages of examples. Each shows a what. None show an understanding of the underlying why. In short, they don't get it.

What your looking at here is like someone sitting inside the Louvre, making a crayon copy of the Mona Lisa and trying to sell that to you as though it were the original. And when 'customers' are not satisfied, they focus on which trying to make better and better reproductions, all the while missing the bigger picture.

If you remember some of those early smart-phone surveys, many Android users would respond with, "I want an iPhone as my next phone." What this presentation shows is that as much as they may have wanted to sell a product that was competitive to the iPhone. they really didn't know how to make a truly competitive product. Except by copying them. The 'openness' of Android's open source was too open. It didn't include enough design principles to navigate some of the structure and complex functionality that Apple had created with the iPhone.

Never underestimate the importance of design. This document provides about 130 case-studies on what that means.

How NBC Cancelled the Olympics

I haven't watched any of the Olympics this year. None. The only events that I know about are stories that have crossed my news ticker or been discussed on the radio. NBC has made the Olympics unwatchable for me.

Aspects of this story are not new and I know that I'm not the only one complaining about their coverage. Delayed broadcasts, edited coverage, an exclusive focus on US athletes, and the insufferable profile pieces that seem to get more airtime than the actual event -- it all sucks.

This is why we get up for the early morning live broadcast of the Tour -- the prime time broadcast is inane.

In previous years, they used some of their other network channels to provide coverage for many of the events that aren't covered in their prime time pile of crap. This used to be the watchable coverage of the Olympics. This year, a scan of all of those channels came up empty. Weekend off hour broadcasts on MSNBC still featured prison stories, NBC's other sports channel was showing an old auto-racing program, and the USA network ran it's usual programs.

Theoretically, they've upped their coverage on the Internet, "engaging" users on Twitter and Facebook. Haven't seen it. Haven't heard anybody talking about it. If it was good, I guarantee that friends and colleagues would be talking about it.

I did hear a spot on the radio where they were talking about the complaints. The mentioned how NBC continues to follow a content structure that dates back to the 1960s. They talked about the complaints from users on Twitter and Facebook, even questioned whether NBC was getting these complaints because they 'courted' new media users. The un-broadcast answer: "No, the coverage has always sucked. Now, more people have the ability to publish their feelings about it." But that was edited out to make the story more dramatic.

So far, the best coverage of the Olympics that I've seen this year was from NBC Delayed. I came across a post from here while browsing through Twitter updates of the Apple-Samsung trial. Hilarious.

Tour de France Hangover

Every year about this time, I find myself caught up in my Tour de France hangover. Part of it comes from getting up early and turning on the television to watch the live broadcast of the day's stage. I don't usually turn on the television in the morning, so it's a very different routine for me. But somehow, after the Tour ends, I find myself walking by the television with my finger twitching, anxious to power the TV up. So, if you're like me, consider this a post-Tour recovery step.

Positive Take-aways
It was a nice race for the Brits. It's always nice to see one of those 'first time for a fill-in-the-blank to win this' events. It makes for a nice meta-story. And yet, as the world has grown flat, I think it's harder for us to think of national boundaries as a barrier. National identity is not the same kind of barrier as the first Jamaican bobsled team where the entire team grew up with no experience of snow. And now we're headed into the Olympics, where national identity defines teams and we can expect to hear a lot of 'heartwarming' stories of background struggles against the odds. And yet, while there are differences between countries in terms of sports funding and support, do we really believe that national identity might prevent someone from winning?

It was also interesting to see Strava buy commercial time. Several of the clips featured roads or trails that seemed familiar -- very much like they were grabbing a scene from some place that I've ridden. That aspect often drew me in. At the same time, the payoff fell flat for me. If I didn't already know what Strava was, I don't think I would have gotten anything more out of the commercials. When I've talked to several of my cycling friends about it, they don't anything about Strava. It makes me think that their commercials need a bit more substance tucked in under that glossy visual imagery.

Disappointments
By the end of the Tour, it's easy to forget about the drama from the early weeks of the event, but it was rather frustrating to see the USADA / WADA folks using the season to get press for their endless rehash of the classic "let's take down Lance Armstrong for doping" tune. Seriously? Don't get me wrong, I understand that three things that will get average Americans to follow bicycling racing on television are:

1. An American in the story
2. Crashes
3. Doping scandals

When he was riding, Lance Armstrong helped sell cycling. In that same way, with the absence of a big American star to draw viewers, the media loves to look for any Lance story to draw eyes. So in the early part of the tour, we get coverage of the "who has testified against Lance" rumors flying around. Anything to help build eyeballs.

Now, I'm not going to revisit all of the back and forth on Lance Armstrong. And while there are some great jokes about how far down the results they would have to go in order to find "an untainted winner",  if we extrapolate to assume that a broad part of the field is "tainted" in some way, what does it mean to compete and outperform those "tainted" peers?

And what's really at stake here? In many ways, professional cycling is a show. The pro Peloton is a rolling extravaganza, a gypsy circus promoting cycling and sponsored products. In the same way that the peleton used to let local riders pedal ahead to be the first to arrive in their home town or the way that all racing among the leaders was stopped after the recent nail event,  the community operates and competes under a set of established codes and traditions. It has it's own definition of sanctioned and unsanctioned behavior.

WADA and the USADA insert themselves into this environment as some arbiter of equality as though they ensure a fair race that enables racer to have an equal chance of winning. Of course, this flies in the face of the Stars and Watercarriers tradition. Who can forget that statement to Greg Lemond when he thought he had the opportunity to win in 1985, "you ride for Hinault."

In that way, when you see some new rider in the pro peloton suddenly appear out of nowhere to become a surprise strong contender, it's usually one of those things that makes you wonder. Improved testing has helped proved some level of filter against that type of behavior. And when you see a 'surprise contender' that appears arrogant or behaves contrary to the traditions of cycling, you almost find yourself rooting for the doping controls.

All that being said, the USADA / WADA pursuit of Lance Armstrong has just gone too far. Instead of being some sort of pursuit of truth and honesty in sport, it's become a vindictive witch hunt for that guy who you think might have stolen the cookie from your lunch in second grade. Regardless of the specifics of any legal code, as a society we have a statute of limitations. In that way, this thing should have been over a long time ago. Lance Armstrong's racing career is not active. We don't have the opportunity to shape behavior, save lives, or right some great injustice. In the grand scheme of things, a win here is not a win.

Today, Lance Armstrong's career represents a foundational cornerstone in the battle against cancer. For many people, the guy is a hero. And a hero not because of the destination, but because of the journey. USADA pursuing a win in this case is kind of like trying to win a court judgement to tell small children that there is no Santa Claus. Win or lose, it's kind of a dick move.

The Tour de France Brings Bike Marketing Season

We're wrapping up that time of year again, the time when the ecosystem that surrounds cycling can take advantage of the world's greatest bike race to pimp their wares. For people that are new to cycling, it can be an exciting time filled with amazing demonstrations of new products and new technologies. But for those of us who've logged a few miles in the saddle, it can be kind of funny watching the marketing circus that celebrates Tour time.

Here in Silicon Valley, we're always looking for the latest technology, for that new new thing that disrupts everything that has been done traditionally. With cycling, selling technology improvements, or the snake oil of technology improvements, is a time-honored practice. And the tour often fuels a hungry market of consumers, anxious to find that edge that will make them feel faster on the bike paths and beyond -- if they make it that far.

When you've logged a lot of miles on the bike, it's easy to get annoyed by the technology fashionista world of recreational sports. To quote from the Fred page on Wikipedia:

More recently, particularly in the US, a Fred is more often somebody with higher quality and more expensive cycling equipment than his or her talent and commitment would warrant. For example, a stereotypical Fred by this definition would be an individual with little cycling experience who watches the highlights of a few Tour de France stages, then goes to a bike store and purchases a Trek carbon fiber Madone in Team Discovery colors, along with Team Discovery shorts and jersey. Thus outfitted with equipment virtually identical to that which Lance Armstrong used, far more expensive than that used by many high-standard racing cyclists, and more costly than many automobiles, the "Fred" then uses his bicycle merely to ride on a cycling path at 15 mph (24 km/h), something which even the most casual untrained cyclist can manage on an inexpensive hybrid bicycle. Some use "Fred" in a somewhat similar matter, but more synonymous with a roadie poseur. However, a Fred isn't necessarily someone who intentionally tries to put forth an image of being better or more knowledgeable than they are. Rather, a Fred is an inexperienced or unskilled cyclist who gets some top high-end or copy-cat racing gear for any reason. Unlike most poseurs, a Fred may still ride lacking some fundamental piece of competitive roadie equipment or style.

Why did the "Fred" buy that stuff? He has been sold on it through the power of the Tour marketing engine and the cycling industry's symbiotic ecosystem.

On Cycling and Innovation
What most Freds forget -- and what most cycling industry marketing tried to hide -- is that the bicycle has been around in it's modern form for about a hundred years. If you wanted to get picky and just talk about the racing bikes being used, look at races from fifty years ago. While you can pinpoint a lot of small differences in materials and configurations, recognize that basic frame geometry, brakes, and drive train are essentially the same basic design as what was being used this year.

Sure, the gearshifts are on the brake levers, the gears index, there are 22 gear options instead of 10, and the frames are made of carbon fiber instead of steel, but the basic design is essentially the same.

Now don't get me wrong, there have been some significant improvements in the past fifty years, things that make it much easier for the average rider to log lots of miles, go faster, or simply enjoy aspects of their ride, but these transformations are not a yearly Moore's Law kinds of innovation. Here are a few of the innovations that I would call noteworthy over the past fifty years:

• Spandex and advanced textiles - wool is great for some things, but nobody really wants to ride in wool cycling shorts.
• Index shifting and brake-lever shifters - there are a lot of awesome aspects to the old friction-based shifters (much less wear and tear, interchangable components, silent shifting), but who can deny the benefits of being able to change gears without having to let go of the handlebars. 
• Material advances using aluminum, titanium, carbon fiber, ceramic - modern bicycles benefit from 30 years of advances in material science enabling optimization across a range of requirements. Sadly though, these days that often translates into a rather generic set of carbon fiber pieces and a regression to the mean in frame design.

Many 'innovations' aren't really designed with the consumer or rider in mind. Instead, they represent new approaches to manufacturing that let the bike manufacturers build things more cheaply and more generically. Here are a couple of examples:

• Threadless headsets - sold as having a number of advantages, the biggest advantage was that a manufacturer could build fewer forks. Instead of fitting each fork to each bike, one fork could be used on many bikes.
• Compact frames - sold as stiffer, lighter frames, this design moved a lot of sizing and frame fit to the seat post.

Perhaps the best example comes from classic frame builder Dave Moulton. Check out this post, Selling The Benefit, from his blog. It's a great example with 1960's Cinelli frames.

Finding Peace with Innovation Marketing
If your thinking about cycling and getting excited, it's also natural to get excited about some of the amazing hardware that you can take advantage of. I remember watching the battles between Bernard Hinault and Greg Lemond and wishing that I could afford one of those first generation Vitus carbon frames. Hell, a couple of years ago I had dreams about adding a 28-tooth gear, imaging myself effortlessly pedaling up Old La Honda. Eventually though, you'll find that the miles you ride and your wallet will let you in on that deeper truth -- it's your legs, your heart, and your lungs that will carry you down that road, not that carbon-titanium-synthetic-oval-power-meter.

If you're getting ready to purchase a bike this year, then you're probably going to need to do some research to find what's available and what's right for you. The excitement that you feel when you look down at your machine, that sense of confidence you feel as you turn the pedals, will give you a boost up a few hills. But remember, this isn't like your iPhone or your iPad. They aren't rolling out new apps everyday, and you don't need to keep looking for the new new thing. The odds are that that new new thing is just an illusion, a marketing wrapper around something you don't really need or want.

How Marissa Mayer Became Wayne Gretzky

So the top story in this week's news around here was Marissa Mayer taking over as CEO of Yahoo. Sarah Lacy had a nice look at the situation with, Why on Earth Did Marissa Mayer Say Yes to Yahoo? All in all, part of what made this such big news is just how unexpected this is. You've got all of the right elements for a great story.

First there's the Yahoo story: 
Once dominant Internet company, stumbling through repeated leadership challenges. So much potential (users, technology, brand), if it could just find the right missing ingredients to keep it's leadership position in today's market.

Then there's Marissa Mayer:
Technology celebrity/rock star with some big trophies from one of the dominant Internet companies of the 2000's. Sort of a female Buckaroo Banzai, she was a notable player on the team that repeatedly beat Yahoo in those championship games of several years back. In that way, she is a nod to accepting that strategic wrong turn that Yahoo took so many years ago -- 'if we had just gone that way, WE would have been Google.'

It's that sort of 'bring in a star to build a dream team' solution that makes so much sense in a theoretical world, but doesn't always play out in reality. Here's a great example.

The Great One
Years ago, the St. Louis Blues found themselves in playoff series after playoff series, but were unable to unable to win the cup. This despite having one of the top goal scoring forwards, Brett Hull. When St. Louis traded for Wayne Gretzky, there was this idea floated that, not only had they added this missing ingredient that would carry them through to the Stanley Cup, but we should also be prepared to be blown away by the combination of Gretzky and Hull. But it didn't happen. Chemistry, it turns out, is more than the sum of a couple of great ingredients.

Marissa Mayer may face a similar situation at Yahoo. Sure, there are all of the things that you can say make for a perfect fit, but the challenges that Yahoo faces are probably deeper and more entrenched than what you see on the surface. More often than not, the myth of a single hero as a solution to a systematic challenge is just that, a myth. Ultimately, only time will tell if there is real chemistry here... and real change.

Redefining the Political Divide in America

A couple of weeks ago, I happened to catch part of a radio program that featured New York Times columnist Gail Collins discussing her new book, As Texas Goes...: How the Lone Star State Hijacked the American Agenda. While I haven't read the book, one of the themes that she talked about was a divide between the crowded places and the empty places. Quoting from another piece from her on the topic,

Our biggest political division is the war between the empty places and the crowded places.

It's natural. People who live in crowded places tend to appreciate government. It's the thing that sets boundaries on public behavior, protects them from burglars and cleans the streets. If anything, they'd like it to do more. (That pothole's been there for a year!) The people who live in empty places don't see the point. If a burglar decides to break in, that's what they've got guns for. Other folks don't get in their way because their way is really, really remote. Who needs government? It just makes trouble and costs money.

I think it's a great summary concept. As she noted in the program, while most of us would be hard pressed to find find a truly empty place, the right uses this as a thematic ideal for selling. The myth of the empty space. Like slender in fashion. Or youth. Adventurer. Wealthy playboy. An aspirational ideal that we connect with on a thematic level. Definitely worth reflecting on.