Bits And Buzz, by @JeremyChone

If you are lucky, and curious enough, Oracle can be the best place to learn the enterprise software market. I have worked at Oracle for about seven years and, in my entire career, it is where I have learned the most about enterprise software. When Oracle announced it was buying Sun, I was actually not that surprised, and I thought it was to be expected after the IBM escape. Oracle is in a self-fulfilling prophecy to consolidate the enterprise software market and, after IBM turned down what could have been a great match for open source and Java, Oracle had to jump in. Larry Ellison and Safra Catz are great market strategists, and Sun should have been on their radar for a long time. Larry has also been good friends with Scott McNealy, and this topic must have come up many times over the years.

Read the rest of this entry »

Software technologists tend to learn by oscillating. We never arrive directly at the right solution; we just come closer to it by going back and forth. We always think (or like to think) that our current solution is correct; only to realize, some years later, that we overshot and need to take a few steps back. The evolution of the software application model is a great example of this syndrome. Every technologist knows about the three main application model phases—Mainframe, Client/Server, and Web [1.0]—and many of them think they know what the next phase will be. In fact, two models are currently being promoted. In order to better understand the current trend, it is important to first understand the three original model phases.

1) Mainframe

The first application model was the mainframe;  the client was simply a screen (typically green) and a keyboard that could display and send characters back and forth through a network. The server had all the definitions of the screens (i.e. User Interface), application logic, and data, and was communicating with the client by sending characters (which represented the UI and data) back and forth.

This approach had the benefit of being relatively simple, cost effective to scale, and was easy to manage because the application could be centrally managed. The limitation was obviously that the client’s lack of richness limited the type of application that could be offered. For example, a Google Map on a green screen would have been a challenge to implement.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the software industry, and probably in other industries as well, there are two types of startups: the scale-first type and the monetize-first type (sometimes called lifestyle business). Any organization needs to eventually do both, but in the beginning, a startup needs to decide to focus on scale or monetization. Seesmic and Balsamiq are great 2008 examples of each type of startup. (Good comment from Vasudev Ram, Not everyone needs to or wishes to becomes a Google or a Yahoo! or a Microsoft)

Read the rest of this entry »

Although there is evidence that the two styles will converge in the future, enterprise and consumer Web architecture and technology are quite different today. If one talks to an enterprise application architect, he or she will probably say that while consumer Web applications are cute, simple, and sometimes useful, their architectures and technologies are merely a bunch of scripts and hacks put together. If one talks to a consumer Web architect, she or he will probably say that enterprise software is overly complex, often unusable, and based on over-priced and under-performing technologies (i.e., JSF or Portal). (See the previous post about Web Developer Spectrum.)

Having lived in both worlds, I can see some truth in both arguments; however, I think that most of the divergence comes from a different set of requirements that leads to separate technical routes.  

I see six main differences between consumer and enterprise Web Applications:

1) Scale (Users vs Applications)

Read the rest of this entry »

Now that Google is in, the game is on. As I mentioned in my previous post, software is now ruling the mobile industry. As in the PC world, the big contenders are Apple with iPhone, Google with Android, and Microsoft with Windows Mobile.

But the big questions are: which one is better and which one is going to ultimately win?

While it is hard to objectively answer this question, here is my first attempt to create a simple score card. I have created a “4 Ss Scorecard” that I think is quite representative of the mobile market need.

Read the rest of this entry »

The value chain used to be one of the main differences between the mobile and PC markets. The PC industry was driven by software vendors (i.e., Microsoft, Apple, Oracle), while the mobile industry was controlled by the Telcos and device manufacturers. For a long time, the Telcos  even had the power to remove features from devices that they felt caused too much competition with their own service offerings. For example, tethering and other features frequently were disabled on early versions of Windows Mobile devices. Interestingly, iPhones 3G, despite its flying pixels, still does not have tethering nor allows it. I am not sure if it is an iPhone limitation or another example of Telcos control.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tagging has been a relatively popular, human-driven method for organically categorizing information on the Web. Users are now accustomed to tagging the content that they are publishing or bookmarking.

However, by design, tagging requires users to have some sort of writing privilege, which greatly limits its reach potential. Practically speaking, it means that if a user wants to tag an item on a system (e.g, Youtube, Flickr, or delicious) he or she must have an account on that system and be logged in at the time of the operation.

While this is probably not an issue for major Internet services, it can be a chicken-and-egg issue for new, upcoming services that do not yet have a large enough community to build a meaningful tag cloud. How can a new service maximize its community tag cloud if it doesn’t yet have a community?

Read the rest of this entry »

Google Chrome is only about three weeks old and is already an Internet phenomenon. To sum it up, Google Chrome is all about making web browsing safer, faster, and easier. While some might see a fierce competition between Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, I see harmony.

Here is some background to better understand this point of view. There has been a somewhat valid belief stating that the un-typed and interpreted nature of the JavaScript language was a major limitation for building demanding client applications. Consequently, to overcome this challenge, the browser technology providers had the following two options:

1. Re-invent the language by “upgrading” the JavaScript language to a more a traditional typed and object-oriented language, such as Java or C#, allowing the runtime to just focus on running the code.
2. Re-invent the runtime by creating novels ways for the JavaScript virtual machine to parse and interpret the JavaScript code, making the language as robust and reliable as more traditional languages.

Read the rest of this entry »

The two premises of this article are as follows:

1. Social Networking is the method of connecting and communicating with the purpose of increasing knowledge (of people and of domain).
2. Collaboration is the method of organizing knowledge and expertise to efficiently accomplish a particular task.

So, Social Networking is about sharing and discovering, and collaboration is about organizing and creating. Although informal, the point of these definitions is to demonstrate the similar but inherently distinctive meanings of collaboration and social networking.

The latest challenge for an enterprise is that social networking has undergone significant innovation cycles, mostly on the consumer side, and collaboration has not kept pace. As a consequence, an enterprise is often tempted to substitute collaboration by social networking, which could lead to an oversized enterprise social network with very little productivity gain, or even a loss, due to the over-communication side effect.

Read the rest of this entry »

For a commercial entity, building an effective open source strategy can be a relatively daunting task. Open Source strategy discussions tend to revolve around licensing. Typical questions are, ”Should we use dual licensing?,” “Should we use GPL or BSD?,” “What are the risks of GPL?,” “Can the licensing help us drive users to our commercial assets?,” or “What are the competitive risk associated with each type of license?“

Well, while the licensing questions are pertinent and will need to be answered at some point, the real questions are “What? Why? And How much [open]?”

Read the rest of this entry »