devx
I expect Microsoft's partners will increasingly continue to push other operating systems into the market on their devices, even if initially it's not exactly what the market wants. But they will do it anyway, because they will increasingly hate Microsoft.
And it will work, because the PC ecosystem is much bigger than Microsoft, and Microsoft won't succeed fighting against it. They will lose more money from lost licenses than they will be making (in profit, since so far Surfaces have continued to lose them money) than they will be making from these devices.
This should be the main issue at this year's elections. Unfortunately, this is America, where the main issues are only those the large campaign donors care about.
All the ISPs will slow down all the major companies services, unless they pay up. There is no "faster" Internet. It's just "paying to get normal Internet back", like they've already done with Netflix:
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious...
[1] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa-...
That being said, I hope this forces Google to deprecate Java on Android and start pushing developers to using Go. They should've been working on this since the trial with Oracle started, and not rest on their laurels.
They are pretty much the same theory, though. They are not that "new", just much better researched by these two books, and more fleshed out. Peter Drucker was actually talking about this strategy in his book Innovation and Entrepreneurship decades ago, although while it was obvious he "got it" himself, his book doesn't do a great job of explaining it to the reader in a way that he can understand it very well and then go and apply it. But I think Innovator's Dilemma and Blue Ocean Strategy authors were inspired by that to research their theories.
Innovator's Solution sequel is also pretty great, if you want to read it after Innovator's Dilemma (especially for the integration/disintegration insights).
But really these books and these theories have taught me so much about how technology companies can succeed or fail, and I think they are so critical to a CEO, especially a large company's CEO, that if I was a board's Chairman, I would not hire a CEO that doesn't have a deep understanding of the disruption innovation theory.
Oh, and btw, Steve Jobs was a big fan of Innovator's Dilemma (it's mentioned somewhere), and I remember thinking years ago that Steve Jobs is the CEO that is applying the most the disruptive innovation/Blue Ocean theory, out of all existing CEOs in the world at the time.
Olli just refuses to take responsibility. He kept dismissing both the iPhone and the adoption of Android for its phones for 4 years after the iPhone came out. That's a ridiculous amount of time in today's tech world.
> In the end, timing is all about intuition.
Saying he needed intuition, is like saying any advanced technology is like "magic". He didn't need intuition to "get it". He just needed to understand the disruption innovation theory and to have read Innovator's Dilemma (seriously, how can any CEO ignore the teachings of that book 10 years after it came out? It should be every large company's BIBLE. If they don't really get it, they should be reading it again every single year until they do).
Google itself seems to be doing this, too (not properly labeling ads), while telling everyone else not to do it and penalizing them.
#2 reason why they should not fire Vic Gundotra: I really like him, ever since he gave that Google I/O keynote in 2010 [1]. I thought he gave a Steve Jobs level of keynote, and it's still the most exciting Google I/O I saw in recent years. When Eric Schmidt announced his retirement from CEO position, I was hoping Gundotra would get the job, actually.
Kill Google+ if they must, but I think firing Gundotra would be a big mistake.
How deeply? Enough to implement proper end to end encryption? Otherwise, you're just paying lip service to "privacy", just like Facebook and others are. They all say "we value your privacy greatly", but track and mine every single thing you do or say. The facts don't match the words in almost every case.
So show us how much you value our privacy. Implement end to end encryption (by default, obviously - don't pull a Telegram).
But if that makes Hollywood sleep better at night, sure - sleep tight, Hollywood! All is well with the world now. No need to bother your pretty heads with Popcorn Time anymore. You can go back to your extortionist business models again.
The future is definitely being able to stream all the shows and movies immediately after release anywhere on the web. The problem is it could take 20 years before we get anything close to that at the pace Hollywood is moving. Something like Popcorn Time could've pushed the move to happen within 5 years or less.
Google, the search engine, will die by the end of this decade. Mark my words. This is the beginning of the end. This is the moment in history when Google the search engine, started to serve not its users, but the governments.
As soon as there's a "good enough" P2P censorship-free and privacy-friendly alternative to Google, millions of people will move to it. Such a search engine seems pretty unlikely today, but it will come, and when it does, Google won't be able to stop it, because to be like it, it will mean reverting all of these shitty policies they're engaging in right now, and it will be too late to do that.
This technology matters to people. The Internet matters to people, more than you think. Because it's not just a technology, it's a way to connect people. That's why it can be more important than safe drinking water or food to a lot of people. It's not just a matter of "gadget vs staying alive". There are other fundamental issues at stake here.
There is also research that shows that the more technologically advanced an area is, the richer it becomes - which means jobs, infrastructure, and food and clean water for people. So don't dismiss it so easily.
Technology through phones and Internet is also helping people have more democratic states, which is also a pretty critical issue in Africa. People can talk to each other and inform themselves better. They can organize and protest. They can chase away the dictators this way. So who are you to say that clean water is definitely more important to them than technology?
Who seriously thinks Google and Facebook bringing the Internet to the whole of Africa isn't a good thing for Africans? The only things I'd be worried about in this case is
1) Google/Facebook enabling mass surveillance of Africans, against Africans' will, but there would be nothing they can do about it except "stop using the Internet", in their case, since they wouldn't be able to control them (at least that's what the author is insinuating, too)
2) They serve a very restricted version of the 'Internet', where they heavily promote their own services
But in case 1) the majority of the African countries already decided to implement deep packet inspection at the ISP level at that last ITU meeting, and other such technologies to enable mass surveillance of Africas, and in case 2), I can't imagine they would do that, because their services would become a lot less useful, too.
As for stuff like providing competition to their local carriers - come on. Most ISP's and carriers can't cover the whole Africa and they won't do it anytime soon anyway in the traditional way. Either they do this sort of stuff themselves in the future, or others do it before them. One way or the other, it's much easier to bring Internet to the whole of Africa this way, from the sky.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/think-your-skype-mes...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/why-doesnt-skype-inclu...