newspeak

Why you Probably Don’t Need an API Strategy.

The point of the article, “In pursuing that route, most companies should not be discussing their “API Strategy,” they should be talking about their API as a tactic in support of their broader business strategy and objectives,” I tend to agree with. Strategy, for me, focuses on the making or distribution of a product. In open source, that dyad is implicitly involves the constitution of a collaborative network, a community. Constituting such a community is a strategy because it comes into being, as as such, in a milieu of contestation and competition. 

Technology Trumps Dogma, And Other Open Source Insights – ReadWrite.

Dropbox…opening my docs? | wncinfosec.

The opened docs were .doc files and the user agent was–actually a surprise!–LibreOffice. I’m no fan of LibreOffice but do appreciate the community it has gathered, and I can’t believe that the actual community is involved in this interesting behaviour. What gives? I mean, with Dropbox. I can imagine that it could have to do with translating .doc files to .odt for save in space, and that the conversion would be neutral. But in that case, wouldn’t it be in Dropbox’s interest to do what Google does and make any such conversion clear, if that is indeed what is occurring?

Microsoft now offers Office 365 for free through its nonprofits program – The Next Web.

I wonder how successful this will be. Honestly, I hope that it does help out nonprofits, but really, I think that the main issue is not the immediacy of being able to create (and edit) “office” documents but being able to work on those that were created by others or by oneself in the past. And it is also very important how an application presents itself–as a source of ad hoc adjustment, as a vehicle for ecosystem development, as an interface for those billions who have not been raised using qwerty and writing commands.

And how well will this offer work with the large embrace of mobile devices?

Fantástico – NSA Documents Show United States Spied Brazilian Oil Giant.

Glynn Moody’s article summarising the _GLobo_ article cited here alerted me (and others) to the importance of the news. As I see it, the issue is the further erosion of trust in the Web itself that for the last 20 years has been touted as the next great market field. And which depends, for its success as a commercial field, on trust: that of consumers, that of vendors, in systems allowing secure transfers of credit.

NSA Revelations Cast Doubt on the Entire Tech Industry | Threat Level | Wired.com.

“But the doubt is still there. And that’s the problem.”

New computer program analyses Twitter to map public sentiment | Technology | theguardian.com.

The US government has betrayed the internet. We need to take it back | Bruce Schneier | Comment is free | The Guardian.

Is Schneier being provoking or issuing a necessary alert? And: What is the effect on your business and your life of the revelations? What has changed?

Can Rupert Murdoch hold on to Kara Swisher? | Felix Salmon.

Chart of the day, Microsoft edition | Felix Salmon.

Salmon succinctly demolishes all obvious reasons to think that this late move by MSFT is anything but a pathetic rearrangement of the deck chairs on a sinking behemoth long believed as too big to sink. (Note: Gates always claimed that was not so, when he argued that MSFT was not, really, a monopoly.)

The point, the obvious, excruciatingly obvious, point is that MSFT has missed every big fast boat in the last 15 or so years. It is not, however, just because of its arrogant blindness. It’s also been for the same reasons Sun couldn’t help but sink: The weight of legacy and prior commitments weighed down Sun and are weighing MSFT into a similar, if more spectacular, fate.

But as I have written many times before, the passing of MSFT may seem obvious to those of us outside of the matrix but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be swift; certainly not as swift as RIM’s collapse. The billions in profits that keep MSFT afloat come from legacy commitments, for desktop applications that big organizations have already bought and which they’ll renew, in all likelihood, for at least the next 5 or even 10 years–even as they add more mobile elements to the mix. But the market is expanding, and that market is not the desktop one, it’s the mobile one.

It’s also not necessarily open source. I long proclaimed that in MSFT’s vast wake open source would flourish, and it probably will. But so will a lot of other systems and products. These will have one thing in common, mobility. And we should thank Apple for that.

Why? Because Apple’s base is the consumer, not the enterprise organization. The consumer can shift allegiances swiftly and fatally; and if they like the toy they bought, and if it does work, too, then why keep the kludge at work? Why not use the toy for work, as well?

It’s a remarkable revolution in approach and inverts that which MSFT pursued in the early 90s and which resulted in WordPerfect’s demise and nearly Apple’s. Then, the idea was to insinuate the work tool into the home and thus make it even more the only thing to use.

But it also could only work if the world were frozen, and with Apple and Google promoting a hedonistic individualism that reclaimed the technological devices, it stood no chance of holding fast. Rather than looking at the device as the work tool, the Mac became “my” and a thing of pleasure–that could also, with very little effort, be used for work, too.