Dear %%FIRSTNAME%%,

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2012/07/13.]

Recently, you were kind enough to complete one of our online surveys, following a purchase of our products.  We hope you are satisfied with your purchase, and enjoyed participating in our customer satisfaction research.

We would be very interested to hear your opinion on our surveys, and receive any feedback you would be kind enough to share with us about them, so we have devised a very short questionnaire for you.  We promise it won't take more than 5 minutes of your time, and it would really help us to fit our future research to our customer needs.  If you could spare us those five minutes, please click here to take you directly to the first questions.

Thank you, and our very best wishes,

%%SURVEYCLIENTSHORTNAME%%

Now, I'll admit right now that this is a spoof.  I haven't yet been invited to participate in a meta-survey...but it's only a matter of time.  It seems to me that business has become survey-mad.  You can't buy anything online, can't even enter a commercial website without being offered the "opportunity to assist us in our customer satisfaction research", before, during or after the event - or perhaps all three.

So let me ask: Why has business become so neurotic?

Accepted, it's a good thing to understand how your customers feel about you.  In a store (you know, those places in High Streets and shopping centres?), you could get someone with a clipboard and a smile to poll random shoppers.  If you're already a household name, you could hire a telephone research company to call random people and get their opinions.  So why is it unreasonable to do the same thing online?

Well, it isn't unreasonable at all - in moderation.  Unfortunately, some companies have taken it all a bit too much to heart.  Surveys after every single purchase.  Surveys before you're even allowed onto the website.  Surveys that won't let you leave the website without declining them.  Surveys hitting every single person who visits, every single time.

This. Is. Not. Necessary.

And it makes your business look deeply insecure.  Not a sales-friendly message.

If your (prospective) customers realise that they're going to be pestered by a "needy" vendor every time they come near...guess what?  Yep, that's right, you're now officially working for the competition, and you're making great contributions to their revenues.  You might even get named in their quarterly conference call.

Perhaps, after all, you ought to do a survey asking customers or visitors how they feel about your survey strategy.  I guarantee that if you do, and you act on the results, it'll be the last survey you ever do.

And your customers - those who haven't already drifted away - will love you for it.

What to do when your business goes wrong [JTSOS, Jun 2012]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2012/06/25.]

There's two reasons why things don't go the way we want.

1. The Universe is a source of infinite possibilities. You're doing the right thing - more or less - it's just that you can't plan for everything, and something just slapped you in the face for trying:

2. You've got it wrong. The Universe and a number of your colleagues and customers have been trying to tell you so, but you won't get the hint until they explain through the medium of breakdance to a soundtrack co-written by Björk, Metallica and Wagner, sung by Ruby Wax and a backing chorus of penguins.

The trick is to identify which category applies.

Yes, I'm being flippant, but the principle stands regardless. As I'm hinting, the problem is often ego: we're damned sure we've got the Next Big Idea, and despair at a Universe that doesn't "get it". So how do we tell?

Now, I'll admit I'm no expert here - but I've run six companies to date, with results varying from complete success to abject failure, so at least I've some experience and a few mistakes from which to winnow an answer.

And that answer seems to me to be metrics: impartial ways of analysing your idea, your approach, your cashflow - to find what's good and what's bad. If things are going wrong, you need to find out where the point of failure is, and be prepared to discover it's you.

Every company has a product, whether that's a widget or a service. That's the starting point.

If it's not selling, find out why. If it used to sell, but isn't now, what's changed? If it's selling, but not making money, understand your cashflows: are you charging enough?; are your overheads too high?; have your unit costs risen unnoticed?; do you have a problem getting invoices paid on time?; are returns killing your profits? Is your marketing pitch-perfect, being seen in the right places, and cost-effective?

It's by no means a comprehensive list, of course, but it's intended more to help you stop and try to take an impartial view. If you find that too difficult because you're "too close to the business" - and a lot of people do, it's not unusual - buy in an outside opinion. A business consultant to look at your business end-to-end. An independent accountant to scrutinise the cashflow model. A surveyor to poll your customers, current and (critically) past. A marketing consultant to examine how you're promoting your business and products, and check your media coverage for message and volume. If you're uncomfortable with any of these, that's probably the one to go for first! (We instinctively avoid exposing our weaknesses - it's a primal thing.)

If you don't understand why things are going wrong, and getting in help sounds too much like admitting fault, then - excepting Divine intervention - your business is doomed anyway: sorry, but that's how it is. The outcome might be that anyway, but at least you can walk away with your head held high, and eyes on the next chance.

On the other hand - and even now, I believe this is the most common outcome - you may well find that there's a kernel of value in the business that just needs food, water, time and effort to germinate into profits, if you've the will to do what's needed.

An open letter to Werner Vogels, Amazon's CTO [JTSOS, Jun 2012]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2012/06/07.]

Dear Werner,

Firstly, I want to congratulate Amazon for the remarkable success of Amazon Web Services, and the remarkable vision that gave rise to it. I've been a user of AWS since before most people in the industry had heard of it. AWS has completely changed the technology startup model: no longer must a funding proposal include $100k or more of machine room fit-out and infrastructure - in fact, many startups that would have needed venture funding can now grow purely on turnover, paying for their infrastructure at the same rate that the infrastructure's generating cash.  The impact on Big Business has been no less revolutionary, allowing a tighter fit of cost and need than ever before.

But it's startups that I wanted to talk to you about.

I was one of the many who encouraged AWS, through feedback forms at your technology events, and mercilessly lobbying your staff, to introduce a Developers' Conference.  I was delighted to read, after the London events this year, that you had listened, and that the first re:Invent AWS Conference has been scheduled for November 27-29, 2012 in Las Vegas. This is a really positive move, and reinforces the message that Amazon is putting as much effort as possible behind developers.

I have no doubt it will be oversubscribed. And it will be tempting for Amazon to exploit that fact, and charge substantial rates for delegates. I think that that would be a very, very bad idea.

I know you're very well aware of this but, since this is an open letter, I'll say it for the audience anyway: this year's startups will be Amazon's biggest income generators a few years from now. The problem is that right now, those self-same startups aren't flush with cash.

Silicon Valley companies can just send delegates for a short hop over the hills. The picture is very different for those of us outside North America: airlines typically charge around $1600 extra for a return flight - even in coach - if we don't stay over a Saturday. So whether we do that, or take the hit for a shorter stay, it's going to cost us $2,500 or more just for flight, hotel and living expenses...per delegate. That's a big hit for a small firm. And each delegate's just taken a week out of the office, when they could be generating value. That's a lot different to a short internal flight and two nights at TI.

I won't belabour the point - but I will make this bald statement: if Amazon chooses to make re: Invent a profit centre, not a loss-leader or promotional write-down, I do believe it will have a negative impact on your business five or ten years down the line - an impact far more substantial than the cost of staging re: Invent.

I don't want that to be the case. I'm an outspoken and enthusiastic advocate of AWS, and I don't want to see you lose your global thought leadership in cloud computing provision, because so far your ideas have all* been absolutely on the money, you've anticipated my every cloud need to date, and you're way ahead of your competition.

So please, make it easy for us startups, and not just the North American ones, to send our delegates to re: Invent. And we'll do our damnedest to help you fly, too.

Thanks for listening - all the way from the very start to today.

Jon

(* Well, apart from not allowing non-North American requesters use Mechanical Turk, but we'll let that ride. :) )

Microsoft's old tricks will doom Windows on tablets [JTSOS, May 2012]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2012/05/10.]

Amazing. Just when I was actually starting to like MS again (after decades agin), they fall back on their old bad ways.

In a recent Register article, the Mozilla Foundation and Google have been complaining loudly that Microsoft will only be allowing Internet Explorer as the default browser on ARM-based tablets and devices running Windows 8 - or Windows RT as it will be called on those platforms.

For those of us with recall slightly better than the common-or-garden-pond goldfish, this brings back memories of the antitrust battles that were fought in the US and in European courts as Microsoft tried to monopolise first the browser space, then the media player space. In both cases, MS gave their own products "most favoured nation" status, with private programming interfaces not provided to rivals. In both cases, MS tried to make their own product inherent to the operating system, restricting or even preventing rival products' attempts to allow themselves to be default. In earlier times, Microsoft even (allegedly) committed occasional "dirty tricks" that deliberately caused their competitors' programs to misbehave, and appear to be buggy, in unfair comparison with MS's own.

And now it's happening again.

The antitrust lawyers will have a field day with this. MS will be stomped on from on high in the US and European courts, and end up paying a fortune and opening out the OS again, just as happened before.

Compare Microsoft's market capitalisation with Apple's and Google's, over the past ten years. They tell their own tale. MSFT's been on a slow slide over that period, and the upcoming news isn't good.

The problem is a lack of vision at the highest levels.

Microsoft's principal market is in desktop and laptop PCs, particularly in business - and desktops are rapidly going the way of the mammoth. Microsoft's laptop market share is under pressure from Apple laptops, and Apple and Android tablets, and it's only going to get worse unless MS acts. Rather late in the day, Microsoft has seen that it must have a tablet proposition, or fail; hence the genuinely innovative Metro user interface.

They've also spotted that Intel-architecture processors aren't future-proof any more, and that ARM is making more and more Intel products look decidedly yesterday's news. Compare ARM's and Intel's growth, and it's plain to see the trend. So, MS had to come out with ARM versions of their key products before market drift made them (MS, and their products) obsolete.

There have been signs of a change in Microsoft's course. For about the first time, the company has been engaging fairly with the open source community. They've started to innovate, at long last - Metro being a case in point. And, of course, addressing the ARM-based portable devices was seismic in its impact.

Unfortunately, the old-school leadership has undermined these welcome initiatives. Microsoft hasn't yet stopped covert operations around open standards, a pattern we all remember from allegations of ballot-stuffing on standards committees. And this most recent anti-competitive behaviour shows once again how Microsoft's leaders seem locked in an early-1990s time warp, and yet appear to have learnt nothing at all from the company's history of causing costly and ultimately unsuccessful court battles.

Microsoft's corporate investors can have only limited patience. Microsoft needs vision. Time for a change at the top, before their leaders squander the rest of Microsoft's share value.

HTC, and the cliff [JTSOS, Apr 2012]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2012/04/23.]

As reported in ITProPortal, HTC's Creative Director Claude Zellweger, speaking at a recent trade event, believes that HTC should drop physical keyboards for haptic (on-screen, with a buzz when you touch a "key") ones.

Yeah, because there's nothing that improves usability of a smartphone more than having half the screen real estate eaten by a haptic keyboard, is there?

The Desire Z, with the flip-out keyboard, was probably the best all-round handset HTC ever made. It was (and is) a passable laptop replacement for short trips, and it's pocketable. As a business tool it's near-perfect, far better than anything Apple's produced.

And now they're also saying that underpowered batteries are necessary "in order to respect design principles"?

On precisely which planet do "design principles" not include the practical needs of their customers?

Obviously HTC believes that they're channelling the late Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field". Sadly, they're going to discover that at the end of that field is a steep cliff, and they're walking backwards towards it, waving cheerily back at the people frantically trying to warn them.

Bye, HTC. It was good while it lasted.

How To Survive Your Next Interview [JTSOS, Feb 2012]

[From a posting of mine to the cam.misc newsgroup. Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2012/02/22.]

Forget how-to-be-interviewed books. No, really - forget them. They're a waste of your money and time. I can probably condense the most useful advice into a single blog posting, so here goes.

RESEARCH YOUR TARGET

Know what the organisation has done, what they will be doing (the Press Releases section of the website is a gold mine!), and about the part of the business you're targeting yourself towards. Find out the names of the people in charge of that part of the company, and whether they've been in the news recently.

Research the company itself in the online news sources.

If you understand finance, pull their financial records for the past few years. You can often do this through Yahoo! Finance or similar for free, or Companies House's "WebCHeck" [sic] for smaller UK companies - it only costs a few pounds. Find out where they are in their growth cycle, and whether they're on the up or the down generally. A good number to look at is "cash in hand" - compare with turnover. Do they have the reserves to keep them going if things go pear-shaped? Remember a few quotable numbers for the interview.

RESEARCH YOURSELF

Seriously! I've lost count of the number of candidates who can't remember their own CV at interview, and have to be prompted (by a stranger) about what they've done in their own life! Make sure you know the companies, the dates of employment, and what you did there.

For each organisation, go over in your mind what you did, what skills you used, what you did wrong, what you did right, what responsibilities you had, how the job assisted your career growth and path, and what lessons you learnt.

RESEARCH YOUR INTERVIEWERS

Find out who's interviewing you, and all you can about them - what they did in previous jobs, what they're doing now, their blog posts, tweets and so on. LinkedIn is handy - and if you're researching me for your next interview, my LinkedIn profile is here!

You're probably not going to mention much if any of that stuff during the interview, but it will give you a real insight into the people you're hoping will be your future colleagues. That said, if you can remember one or two facts about what each interviewer is doing at the company right now, or has said at recent conference talks, that might be worth dropping in casually. People like to be remembered and respected.

UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WANT

Read the job spec forwards and backwards: commit it to memory. Remember the points where you fit it. Remember the points where you don't, and be prepared to say what you plan to do about it.

Also look at the company's website Careers section and find out what else they're looking for - after all, if you're not a perfect fit for one job, it doesn't hurt to say: "OK, I can see I'm not going to be ideal for you for this job - but I see you're also looking for a [...]. Would it be helpful to discuss that with you, or with your colleagues that are dealing with it, whilst I'm still in the building today?"

BE HONEST - BUT POSITIVE

Don't, for pity's sake, in response to those horrible "What are your weakest points?" questions, come up with something corny like "I'm just too modest/perfectionist/...". Trust me, interviewers will cringe inside when they hear them.

Instead:

* Understand your shortcomings - and how you plan to overcome them in the future.

* Understand your strengths - and what you plan to do with them.

* Understand your future intents - what you expect to be doing years hence. It's absolutely acceptable, by the way, to say, "I'm following the fun, doing the stuff that I enjoy most. What that will be may change a lot in five years time, so I'm open to where life will take me." You might think it sounds wishy-washy and indecisive, but you're showing adaptability and enthusiasm. And if it they don't like that, and want someone with a fixed career trajectory, did you really want to work for them anyway?

Be prepared to say, "I don't know - but I'm very willing to learn, and [if your CV supports it] I've an excellent track record of picking up and using new skills on the job."

BE PREPARED

1. Bring several copies of your own CV with you. Sometimes rogue agencies have been known to - shall we say? - polish CVs...vigorously. If you turn up at interview, and you're not what they were expecting, it reflects badly on you first! Being able to put your original CV in front of your interviewers ought to help out, if they're asking questions about skills you don't have, or don't have to the level they were given to expect. It's pulled me out of an agent-inspired crisis more than once - and yes, I do still get interviewed, although it's as a consultant these days.

If you do do that, make it clear that you're not doing an end-run around the agency, just trying to put the best information to the interviewers, "from the horse's mouth", as the saying goes.

2. Go to Staples or Office World and buy a set of narrow-point whiteboard markers. If there's a risk you'll have to write on a whiteboard - and it happens often - doing it with great big chisel-tipped markers never allows you quite enough space. Narrow-point markers give plenty of room for additions, corrections and notes. Just remember to write large enough for them to read...and bask in the admiration when they see how well prepared you are.

3. Consider buying a pico-projector you can plug into your laptop - and bring the laptop, loaded with whatever tools you will be likely to need. MS Office or LibreOffice software suites are a must-have; for electronics engineers, bring suitable capture+design tools; software developers should have a suitable development environment installed and tested; accounts people will need a credible commercial package. Just make sure you've practised connecting and setting up the kit quickly beforehand, and that you're completely familiar with e software!

Why? Even better than scribbling stuff on a whiteboard is projecting from your laptop. You're not going to be paid to write full-time with a whiteboard marker, so why start now if you're more comfortable with a keyboard? Plus, you're working in your normal and natural environment. Very handy if you get a bit nervous standing in front of inquisitors' stares - they're looking at the whiteboard, not your fingers. (It's a bit like a PowerPoint presentation, but far more interesting.)

AND ABOVE ALL

Be honest, and be relaxed. Think of it as a chat, not a starch-stiff interview; be yourself, be honest, and you'll come across as genuine and friendly.

UNDERSTAND WHAT EVERY INTERVIEWER WANTS

Someone who's honest (even at their own expense), who's bright, diligent, informed, interested, interesting and adaptable.

Half the time, the skills they'll need will have changed by the time your legs are under the desk, so don't be deluded that the job spec is the be-all and end-all. Your interviewers want to check your technical credentials, sure, but they're looking at you as a potential future colleague, and it's up to you to be that person.

Good luck.

CES 2012: Microsoft's keynote. Speak it softly, Steve! [JTSOS, Jan 2012]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2012/01/10. At the time of writing this update, July 2012, the CEA has yet to announce who's doing the pre-show keynote for 2013.]

Last night, at the Consumer Electronics Show, Microsoft presented what they had claimed would be their last opening keynote. The most interesting points, though, were the ones that were unsaid.

As usual, Gary Shapiro, the Eternal Leader of the Consumer Electronics Association, intrduced it. His spin on the ending of MS's annual pre-show presentation: that it was a joint decision. I have my doubts, lots of them. Reading the body language, I'd say that wasn't entirely the whole story. There was a mawkish handover to Steve Ballmer of a framed set of photographs from previous keynotes that will sit well in a restroom somewhere in Seattle, and a lot of half-hearted back-slapping displays of mutual respect.

And this is where we hear the first big hidden hint. Shapiro kept the door open for a return from Microsoft post the 2013 Show. That in itself isn't so surprising, but the way he phrased it was - referring not to Steve Ballmer, but to "The leader of Microsoft". Ballmer looked momentarily struck by that, before getting back to speed. This is worthy of interest - a power play by Shapiro, pointedly showing a loss of respect for Ballmer, an acknowledgement of information obtained behind the scenes, or just the caginess of a natural politician?

There were some notable product announcements, mostly new allegiances and step-changes. The Kinect will become available for the PC, something that was blindingly obvious ever since it was introduced for the Xbox. Both Windows 8 and Windows Phone will have voice control at their hearts, successfully demonstrated by one employee...to need a little work yet. MSFT showed off the Windows 8 "Metro" interface - interesting, but hardly new news.

What were more intriguing were the several mentions of Windows 8 on ARM (regular readers will recall I broke this story about 15 months ago) - but no demonstrations. Telling, that, no? As a number of other commentators noted, Nvidia also failed to demonstrate Windows 8's ARM port in their own keynote, which left a hole in their presentation big enough to drive an x86-powered Ford (another MS announcement) through.

Back to body language, Ballmer's was just a little ambiguous - let's be more exact; he flinched - every time he mentioned the big February milestone for Windows 8. Even the extra leap day in the month this year might not be enough, he seemed to be thinking.

And finally, the biggie, the echelon of elephants stacked pyramid-style in the corner of the proverbial room...who would be taking Microsoft's place as the leading pre-show keynote?

I'm going to shuffle to the thin end of the branch I'm teetering on, and make a prediction.

Apple.

Well yes, obviously, huh? Not quite. Apple has pointedly eschewed CES for years, preferring to present to their faithful congregations at Developer Conferences and the like. There's never been a completely believable explanation, but it has to be connected to MSFT's guaranteed pre-Show spotlight. Apple has never liked sitting in someone else's shadow, particularly that of the owner of the predominant personal computer platform.

Getting Apple to lead the Show next year would be a stunning win for the CEA - and perhaps not before time. Although Microsoft has showed some genuine innovation (in Kinect and the Metro interface), for the first time in a very long time indeed, it's been very, very late to the smartphone party, and missed the tablet shindig completely. Almost everything Microsoft's done in recent years, other than in those two products, has been in response to Apple. Apple has shown leadership in interactivity, in design, in style, in robustness, in market-breaking new concepts and products, and MS has had to watch. Microsoft's plays in the non-PC markets have mostly been, by comparison, me-toos, whilst Apple now owns the mind-share in personal consumer electronics. And it /is/ the Consumer Electronics Show, no?

And there's more. According to today's figures, MSFT's market cap is less than 2/3rds that of AAPL, and the trend is not in MSFT's favour. So now, MSFT is not only no longer the CE leader, it's not even the biggest player, and that's unlikely to change soon - or at all. Microsoft still has majority ownership of the PC market, but those figures are declining too, and the PC is looking more and more dated as a product, and as an architecture. Ballmer's the Captain on a leaky, listing and sail-shredded ship, and he's desperately casting around for buckets of tar. It's hard to know whether Microsoft needs a new Captain, or a new ship.

Gary Shapiro is a consummate politician. That's how he's kept his job as the CEA's leader and figurehead for so long. In his place, there's only one phone call I'd make, to fill the hole that Microsoft leaves in the Show programme, and it terminates at 1, Infiinite Loop.

The only question in my own mind is - was that call made before or after MS departed?

Don't occupy Wall Street - occupy the patents courts! [JTSOS, Nov 2011]

[From a comment thread in The Register. Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2011/11/04.]

For some time now, I've felt that patents have been over-used and over-priced...and heading for a big fall - not just in value, either.

They're being used not only to obtain value from invention - as was always the way - but now to stifle innovation, and - worse - also to set out deliberately to destroy companies. See Jobs' recently-published quotes on Android, and Apple's outspoken intentions towards Samsung, if you're in any doubt.

It feels like we're on the eve of a war. I think we probably are, but it will come from an unexpected direction.

In China, India and other emerging economies, patents don't hold back progress in the way they do in established economies. Sooner or later, the biggest Western governments will realise the potential consequences. At some point - and it may happen sooner than we expect - there must be moves to weaken patents.

That could come from a number of directions. The entry barrier to patent enforcement litigation could be raised by having the litigant place a large bond (say, three times the compensation/penalties sought) in court escrow, to be released to the defendant if the case fails.

Given that a lot of patents are spurious, the defendant could be granted a pre-hearing opportunity to overturn the patent by submision of proof of prior art or lack of inventive step - meaning that any litigant could be faced not only with the potential of financial disaster in failure, the risk of having their patents ruled invalid.

The actions of the court in enforcing the patent could be limited: an upper limit on claim size; a strictly limited window of opportunity to file claims (in effect, a statute of limitations on patent violations); the restriction of recourse to retrospective establishment of a court-set reasonable licence fee; the removal of any powers to ban sales of supposedly infringing items, except where the defendant has failed to pay the retrospective licence fee after a reasonable period.

One way or the other, the current patents system has to be fixed, and on a worldwide basis - and not just to protect business interests.

Otherwise the human race's dying words could well be, "We couldn't shoot down the meteorite, because the patent court grounded the weapon system."

"Human Resources" - the phrase that should have died a-birthing [JTSOS, Oct 2011]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2011/10/07.]

My inbox was assaulted today by an email from a publisher that shall remain nameless, with the subject line: "Human Resources: Managing your Most Valuable Asset".

I unsubscribed at that point. Anyone who can't see the irony in that email title isn't qualified to pronounce on it, and I wrote as much to the company, expecting it to be forwarded to the digital shredder.

Much to my surprise, the editor emailed me back. And I'll give her full credit, she was courteous, even if she did justify the use of "Human Resources" on the basis that everyone else is doing the same: argumentum ad populum, for anyone who still cares about debating rules.

It would have been churlish not to have replied, so I did. Here's what I wrote:

Hi Name Omitted, and thanks for responding.

Having been in business for over a quarter of a century, and running them for most of the last decade, I'm painfully aware that "Human Resources" is a term in common use. However, that in itself doesn't justify its use: that's just following the sheep. Buzzwords can change. Some should.

Any company that truly does value its staff and their contribution to its profits - and wants to keep both - has to do better than speak of its people in terms that reduce them to the same status as a desk fan. The word "company" means a group of people with a common purpose - and that's what distinguishes staff from "resources". You could replace every desk in a business with a different model overnight, and trading would continue unaffected. Try doing that with staff...

It's rather ironic that we as a community finally managed to bring an end to the thoroughly unsavoury practice of treating women in business as objects - only to extend the same courtesy to everyone else too!

Oh well, rant over. :) Thanks again for your response - and if I can in some small way have moved your (personal and collective) views on "HR", I'll have had a great Friday!

Best wishes,

Jon

So, am I a lone voice in a confederation of the dumb, or a dumb schmuck in the confederation of the smart?

I Told You So! (Episode 2) [JTSOS May 2011]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2011/05/09.]

Way back in November, in a blog article called "ARM's Cortex-A15 CPU, and how it will change your world"", I closed with this paragraph:

So here's the real left-field question: given the power and BoM cost savings, how long now before Apple ditches Intel completely for ARM?

In a follow-up ("Desktop ARMs - and what they'll mean for Microsoft"), I expanded on those thoughts, opening with:

If Apple finds that the ARM processors out-compete Intel on price and power consumption, and at least match x86 for performance, the choice to switch is going to be a no-brainer.

And lo, it came to pass. Again.

Today, Charlie Demerjian published a very interesting article entitled "Apple dumps Intel from laptop lines" in his own blog, "Semi Accurate".

It seems as though I've been a tad prescient. That, or well-informed.

The rest of my blog article contained some other, equally dramatic, predictions. Well, let's call them "predictions" for now. One, which I've since admitted came from insider sources (in the first "I Told You So!"), was that Microsoft was porting Windows and Office to ARM. There were several more that are waiting to be proven.

Now here's another, just to keep your interest whetted. Rik Myslevski has written a well-informed article for The Register, titled "Intel's Tri-Gate gamble: It's now or never". In it, he adds a throw-away speculation near the bottom of the last page: "Intel could license the ARM architecture and start buiding its own ARM variants in its own fabs, using its 22nm Tri-Gate process. That's unlikely, but stranger things have happened."

Stranger things indeed. And I think that Rik is well and truly on the money. Intel's executives are very, very far from dumb. They are painfully aware of ARM's squeeze on their markets, both from above and below, as I'd outlined in that first blog article. Intel really has three obvious plays they could try:

1. Find a transformational technology that puts them in contention with ARM but retains x86 compatibility.. Intel's Tri-Gate announcement was clearly an attempt at this play.

2. Try to find a way to put ARM out of business, or at least weaken it. We've not seen this attempted seriously yet, and it's reasonable to wonder why that is.

3. License ARM cores for desktop use, and keep in the market by following the market..

I contemplated in the second blog post:

Here's a statement I never thought I'd make: with a stock and cash exchange, Apple. Could. Buy. Intel.

Now things start to add up.

* Apple needs a top-tier ARM supplier. Their relationship with Samsung, their current ARM fabrication partner, is reportedly getting a little rocky. Industry reports suggest that they're considering switching to Intel chip fabs.

* Intel needs an answer to the ARM squeeze on x86.

* Apple has tons of ready cash.

What it all adds up to is the possibility that Apple could invest in Intel, both commercially and financially, to license the ARM cores, and set up new fabs to make Tri-Gate ARMs, for both their iOS and MacOS products.

It would make a great deal of sense. It would also give Apple the power to put the squeeze on Microsoft. If only Apple has access to the Tri-Gate ARMs, it leaves Microsoft out in the cold - or rather, the far-too-warm - when MS start to produce the ARM versions of Windows, which will only be able to run on old-school pre-Tri-Gate hardware.

Microsoft will have to consider a very similar investment in Intel, for the same reasons, before Apple can lock them out.

Whichever way you look at it, Intel's prospects may well have brightened.

LATER NOTE (2011/05/18): it seems that one or two people may have read this blog, after all. :) Paul Otellini of Intel was put on the spot in an investors' meeting about the possibility of Intel using Tri-Gate to fab ARMs, and did his level best to dampen speculation: "The short answer is 'No'."

Mind you, if Apple came knocking, with barrow-loads of dollars in tow...? It's possible that Otellini's playing a wooing game, as his next comments could be construed as a come-on: "We have [...] an ARM architecture license. The important thing for us is to figure out how to get paid and how to be present. And we think the best way to be paid and present [...] is to build best-of-class chips."

EVEN LATER NOTE (2011/05/28): perhaps Paul Otellini wasn't reading from the hymn-sheet after all...Intel's CFO Stacy Smith appears to be a lot more positive to the idea of Tri-Gate on ARM, and specifically mentioned Apple as a possible buyer (of devices, not Intel!), according to a Reuters story this week.

Now, bear in mind that a CFO's words probably carry even more weight in the financial markets than the CTO's. After all, CTOs have been known to make some pretty daft comments - but the CFO is the person the money listens to. Smith said that an Apple deal was "Not in the works today". To the untrained observer, that's a flat denial, but it's more likely to be coded speech for, "We're not manufacturing yet, but a deal's cooking." We shall see. Keep watching this space!

Why Gov.UK funding goes to the big boys [JTSOS, May 2011]

[This came up in a discussion on Facebook in a friend's Wall, when it was pointed out that a large proportion of research and business development grant cash goes to big business. Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2011/05/08.]

I'm not surprised that small enterprise doesn't apply for (or doesn't get granted) funding through these routes.

Firstly, the fund-matching criteria require an appropriate amount of liquid cash, whose expenditure must be carefully accounted for. Yes, there's the option of match-finding "in kind" through staff salaries etc. (where rules permit), but even that has bear traps. One friend who applied for such funding, and used his own (unpaid) labour as the funds match, discovered to his horror that he had to pay income tax and NI on the amounts he _hadn't_ paid himself in order to trigger release on the major tranche.

Secondly, the compliance régime can mean a lot of paperwork and effort. Fine when you've plenty of experience of what the funding body requires (as large concerns do); arduous and frustrating when you don't - and it ties up limited staff availability. And if an SMB hires someone experienced to help apply for and manage the funding*, the amount of funding that actually makes it to the project itself can make the game of raising it barely worth the candle. Big business doesn't have these problems. A large enough enterprise can retain someone permanent and experienced to deal with funding, streamline the process and the funding stream, and use its plentiful staffing to cover the funding matches.

It would be soooo nice if there was genuine Governmental effort to boost entrepreneurs and new enterprise, rather than lip-service, half-hearted follow-through, and an erratic drip feed of funding that's first in the list to be cut when times are tight. The only thing that'll pull the UK out of economic doldrums is SMB enterprise. Our present Government, and those that preceded it, talks the talk - and walks away.

(* Absolutely not trying to tread on anyone's toes, BTW. It's probably better to hire a funding consultant than not get any at all.)

Intel's ARM replacement? [JTSOS, Feb 2011]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2011/02/15.]

So Intel has announced their ARM-killer device: the "Medfield".

Medfield is a power-constrained dual core Atom. Although Intel hasn't said as much, it's reasonable to expect that they'll be making system-on-chip (SoC) devices using the Medfield core, particularly given recent acquisitions that enhance their silicon portfolio to include modern wireless and graphics support.

Will it be enough?

Unlike Microsoft, Intel doesn't have a great history of entering markets opened by its competitors

It's a hard one to predict. Unlike Microsoft, Intel doesn't have a great history of entering and then dominating markets opened by its competitors. In fact, it's often struggled to retain control of its own core markets. AMD, for example, has taken and retained a significant portion of Intel's market share with its lower-cost x86 processors. That's despite being a market follower, not a market leader, and hence always a generation behind its larger rival. (It's notable that AMD hasn't attempted to compete in the mobile device space, preferring to concentrate on CPUs for desktop and server products.)

ARM CPUs achieved their popularity because of three killer benefits: great processing power per watt, a really low price:performance ratio, and small physical size, all of which earned them a massive lead in the small embedded systems market.

But that's not why ARM dominated their competitors. The real reason has little to do with those benefits. ARM achieved their lofty position by moving from being a chip manufacturer to being a processor core licensor. At a stroke, they improved their cashflow, as intellectual property (IP), once created, doesn't have a lead time to manufacture, and you don't have to warehouse huge stocks of IP somewhere air-conditioned, waiting for someone to buy it: "dead money" until the customer orders them and pays the invoices. They made those difficulties, endemic to manufacture, someone else's problem.

That's why ARM survived successive boom-busts, but the real success came from the number of companies who licensed ARM cores and embedded them in their own products. It reads like a high-school register call of everyone in the embedded device space. I'm not going to list them here: go to ARM's site and read it. It's long - no less than 158 licencees and foundries - and very impressive.

Intel's biggest problem is going to be that it's going to be fighting a war on 159 fronts

Intel's biggest problem is going to be that it's going to be fighting a war on 159 fronts - including ARM, of course - if it wants to claim for itself some of ARM's market. It's going to be doing so against opponents who are well armed, well-entrenched and fanatical to their cause. It's going to be trying to make alliances with sovereign powers that are well-disposed to ARM, cynical of Intel, and little inclined to switch, unless the benefits over ARM are very, very compelling.

Intel's Atom offerings to date haven't exactly set the world alight - well, unless you count heat dissipation. Potential partners have responded to Intel's bugle with a resounding..."Meh." Those that did venture to make Atom-based products found that their netbooks, supposed to change the portable computing battlefield, instead met a "Meh" from the buying public too.

This has put Intel in a very difficult position. The Atom was specifically designed for portable computing devices, and the indifference that met netbooks has, by association, hit Atom too. Intel is scrambling now to find a niche in which Atom can play successfully, and my feeling is that Medfield is probably their last serious attempt to achieve a real share of a sector in which they've never really sat easily - and their partners, burnt in the netbook fiasco, are going to need a lot of persuading to put big money behind Atom a second time.

Intel's Atom customers have a single point of supply; a single point of failure

And let's not forget the point I made above, the biggest difference between the two companies. ARM is a licensor, with a huge number of partners all making their own devices, and a very healthy cashflow that can only be damaged if manufacturing problems hit all their licensees at the same time. Intel is a chip maker, and - as the recent $700m recall of the "Cougar Point" chipset demonstrates - its customers are very vulnerable to Intel manufacturing issues: a single point of supply (for Atom devices) means a single point of failure, whereas they can buy ARMs from almost anyone.

I have no doubt that Intel will be marketing Medfield aggressively - and maybe, just possibly, that might tip the scales. But I can't help but think that it's the wrong product, too little, too late. AMD seems doomed to be the Intel wannabe that can't win, but won't die. And now Intel tries to be the same thing to ARM.

Ironic, no?

Why Steve Jobs' absence might help Apple's health [JTSOS, Jan 2011]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2011/01/18. Steve Jobs died in October that same year. My condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.]

I'm not the kind of person who wishes ill health on anyone, even my worst enemy. I took no pleasure in the news that Steve Jobs is stepping back from Apple for the sake of his health. But I do have some hope that it might signal a new direction for a company I respect, but whose products I don't want.

Let me explain what I mean. I was at a friend's a few evenings ago. He's a big fan of Apple's kit. We were chatting, and listening to music on his Apple TV. There was a track on my mobile phone I wanted him to hear. The conversation went like this:

"Has the the Apple TV got Bluetooth?"

"No, sorry."

"OK, well, if I put my phone on your network and set it up as a UPnP audio streamer, it'll pick it up and browse it, right?"

"No, it doesn't do ordinary streaming. I can send files from the iPad, though."

"Huh. Look, the iPad has Bluetooth, right?"

"Yeah."

"Well, my phone knows A2DP. You can pick up the file from there, yes?"

"iPad doesn't know A2DP."

"Well, how about I 'tooth the file to the iPad, then you can send it on to the Apple TV." (Getting desperate now; I don't like copying IP around.)

"It won't accept Bluetoothed files."

"And it can't browse my phone over wireless, using uPnP?"

"Nope."

"Right, well how about I hand you over the microSD memory card from my phone?"

"iPad doesn't support removable memory."

I played the song using my mobile's speaker.

Now, that's a couple of self-confessed alpha geeks, using every trick in their books to try to play a tune from my phone using Apple kit. What chance do mere mortals have? And every way was blocked because Apple decreed it so. It wouldn't have been difficult for Apple to have included those facilities, but they said:

• Thou shalt have no streaming server support in Apple TV"
• Thou shalt have no streaming server support on iProducts
• Thou shalt not use Bluetooth the way God and Ericsson meant it to be, but only in the ways decreed by Us
• There shall be no removable anything in our iProducts. What you've got, you've got. Be glad of it, and want no more. Or buy the next, bigger, one when it comes out.

See what I mean? Welcome to the world of jaw-droppingly expensive consumer disposables. When your battery starts losing capacity, pay a fortune to an Apple Centre to get it replaced, or buy a new device. When your battery pegs out on a long plane flight, be glad you had the use of it whilst you could. Don't expect to do anything other than what Apple decrees on its own hardware. Because you don't own the hardware really; Apple does, and Apple says what you can do with it.

Actually, I can tell Apple what it can do with it. I like being able to carry a charged spare battery on the place. I like to watch YouTube every now and then. I like being able to stream my phone's music to my Bluetooth-enabled car radio. I like to add to my device's memory when it's getting a bit full.

The annoying thing is that I want to buy Apple's stuff. I was an early adopter of the Mac Mini, and loved it. If the MacBook Air had a removable battery and a DVD burner, I'd have it. If the iPad were about half or two-thirds as expensive, and had a microSD slot, Flash support and a user-replaceable battery, my wife and I would probably have had one each by now. It's hugely frustrating to me that every time Apple comes out with a nifty new piece of kit, it doesn't meet my needs. And the decisions that dictated the specs that caused that problem arose, I believe, from Apple's Executive Office.

Jobs' illness is very unfortunate, and I genuinely hope he recovers and goes on to lead as long and healthy a life as any liver transplant patient could hope for. But I think it will be best both for his health and Apple's if he does what he promises, and stands back from the company now.

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, his vision transformed the company and its products. But now I believe he's become a hindrance: a portcullis between the company and its customers, and a barrier to its growth - yes, Apple could grow faster, if its products were less encumbered by executive doctrine.

Get well, Steve. But let Junior fight his own battles now. It's time for Dad to step back.

Starting your own UK Company - it's not that scary! [JTSOS, Dec 2010]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/12/28.]

[This article is about forming Companies in the UK. Specifically, my experience covers England and Wales. To the best of my knowledge, the details are the same if forming in Scotland or Northern Ireland, but there may be differences in companies law in those countries, so please seek detailed advice if you are forming your company there.]

Whether you're launching yourself as a consultant, or starting another kind of business, the one thing you really need is a company of your own. For a lot of people, that's a big, scary idea, and they simply don't know where to start.

The good news is that it's trivially easy, and not very expensive either.

Finding a name

So what do you need? Well, the first thing is a name. You want a name that's memorable, and descriptive or suggestive of what you're selling (without limiting the future scope of the company). Being earlier in the alphabet is also useful. Don't use a dictionary word on its own: firstly, someone will already be using it, and secondly, you can't trademark/service mark dictionary words, you need to do something with it such as write it in a unique font or combine it with other words. ("Bright" isn't a trademark; "Bright Flight" is.) Be as inventive as you can.

Your best friends here are Companies House (http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/), Google and WHOIS - I use http://www.virtualnames.co.uk/whois.php when I'm not using a Linux PC. Companies House's WebCHeck (their capitalisation) service lets you look for past, present and proposed company names, and make sure you're not going to conflict with someone else's trading name. WHOIS lets you search for related domain names. You want a .com or a .co.uk (both, ideally) as a bare minimum. Ideally, you want the full set of .com, .org, .net, .co.uk, .org.uk, .info, .eu and .biz available. You may wish also to consider .gb.com, .uk.com, .gb.net and .uk.net.

My experience is that this process - coming up with a list of candidate names, removing the ones that conflict with other entities and owned trademarks - takes several days. Don't get upset if your favourite name gets eliminated, or you'll find it a depressing process!

Domain names

Before you register the company, buy the domain names. They're not expensive. Getting the full set above (apart from the ones in the "You may also wish to consider" list) will cost you only £111+VAT from VirtualNames (http://www.virtualnames.co.uk/) - a domain registrar/ISP that I strongly recommend.

Why do you want to register the domains first? Because it stops cyber-squatters, who keep eagle eyes on newly registered companies at Companies House, from getting there before you.

Once you've secured the domains, you're ready to move onto company registration.

Buying your company

Now you're ready to buy your company. I'm going to assume that you want to form a Company Limited By Shares, the "standard" kind, but I'll cover other options later.

Years ago, it cost a small fortune. You'd have to buy a pre-formed company with a stupid name from an accountant or solicitor, along with its Company Seal, then go through the faff, bother and expense of changing the name to something you preferred - usually paying the original registrant even more to help you. Alternatively, you could operate it under another name...but "Clever Ideas (trading as Dumbsmart Bridge Ltd.)" never struck me as a great look.

These days it's a lot simpler - and you don't need a Company Seal any more! You can do it all yourself, direct with Companies House, but it's a lot easier to get someone else to do it. Surprisingly, it's often cheaper, and they'll provide you with Articles of Association, Memoranda of Association and a few other extras too. The firm I've used most of all is Companies Made Simple ("CMS" for brevity), at http://www.companiesmadesimple.com/ - and I'll use their prices here, all of which are ex-VAT. Other registrars are broadly in line with CMS's pricing, or slightly highter.

CMS's cheapest registration package costs all of £16.99, with a three-hour formation time. That compares very favourably with Companies House's £50 same-day service! They throw in a Google AdWords voucher that almost pays for the cost of registration too. I'd remove the Barclay's Business Banking option; I've not been favourably impressed with their service. We'll cover banking a little later.

If you don't want (or are not allowed) to register the company at your home address, many registration agents offer a Registered Office service with mail forwarding. CMS's package including that service for a year is £49.99 (this is instead of the £16.99, not in addition), and there are some added extras included. You may also need a Company Secretary. CMS offers this for an additional £75, although they hide it well!

So, the cheapest way to register (let's assume you want the .com and .co.uk domains, and don't need more than the basic services) is going to cost you (ex-VAT):

.com	£8.50
.co.uk	£18.00
Company formation	£16.99
TOTAL:	£43.49

That's a total of £52.19 inclusive of the new 20% VAT rate - the equivalent of a couple of months' mobile phone costs, or less than a tank of petrol.

Alternatives to a Limited Company

You don't have to have a Limited Company; there are other options. One that will appeal to group consultancies, and the likes of solicitors and accountants, is the Limited Liability Partnership, or LLP. This is a kind of half-way house between a conventional Partnership and a Limited Company. Unlike a traditional Partnership, where its membership is written into its Articles, the LLP is an independent legal entity. Partners can enter and join without major upset. Whilst each partner is responsible for their own actions, and jointly liable for the LLP's, they are not responsible for each other's.

An LLP can reduce paperwork, compared with a Limited Company. LLP registration can be a lot more expensive than a Limited Company's, though: ex-VAT prices vary from £94 to £150 or more. I find this strange, as Companies House charges only £15 (or £30 for same-day service). If you are thinking of forming an LLP, I'd suggest doing so directly with Companies House, and sourcing a standard Partnership Agreement (optional, but advisable) separately.

Banking

Now you've formed your company - from now on, I'll use that to mean either Limited Company or LLP - you need to consider banking.

If you're expecting to handle significant amounts of cash, or if you're going to need a direct relationship with a named account maanger, you should probably be looking towards branch-based banking. Branch accounts are generally a little more expensive to operate. Beware of non-optional "optional" extras: Barclay's, for example, likes new companes to rent accounting software from them, and it can be a bit difficult to persuade them that you want a basic account.

If you don't have those requirements, and you're happy to deal with centralised internet-based banking, I'd recommend Santander Business Banking (http://www.santander.co.uk/business/), currently operated under their recently acquired Abbey Business marque. Almost all transactions are free "forever", provided you don't exceed a substantial turnover level (£1 million at time of writing), and you can still pay in cash amounts (up to £3000 per month) free at Santander branches. They don't charge for cheque books or paying-in books, nor for cheques issued. For a small to medium sized business, that's a pretty good deal. The one warning I'd give is that they inherited Abbey's creaky computer systems. I think they're improving, though.

[Later note (2012-01-25): they didn't, and we sacked them in favour of HSBC Business Banking. In particular, we got very, very tired of Santander not being part of the BACS Faster Payments scheme, so that our payments to other UK banks were delayed by most of a working week, and any payments over a few hundred pounds having to be confirmed as non-fraudulent before they would be passed. That kind of fraud prevention may be fine for low-net-value personal accounts, but not for business accounts, where there's an established trading pattern, and transaction accounts are routinely in the thousands. There were other problems too, including more computer problems and outages at their end. HSBC offers small businesses an initial year of fee-free banking, and then a transition to a primarily online account that has no fees for normal operation, and this is now my recommendation.]

Your web site

So you've got your domains, and your company. Now, and finally, you need a shop front: a web site and corresponding letterhead. For these you need three groups of helpers here, and often you can find them all in one place. The really good news is that at Adeptium Consulting, we can provide all of these for you, and we're not as expensive as you might think, so don't panic! More about that at the end of the article.

The first helper is a designer. You've got a company name, and that's the starting point for creating a corporate image that fits it. Now, you may think, "Why do I, just a singleton consultant, need a corporate image?" Believe me, a good logo combined with a complementary colour scheme makes a great impact, whether it's on a letterhead or a web site. If you're handy with graphical design packages and/or fonts, you might even take this part of the work yourself, but if you do, do pleasse get opinions on your ideas from both strangers and potential customers.

The second and third groups are web site designers and web site hosting providers.

For the design, you'll need to work with a company that creates good, clean web sites that can be maintained and extended by someone who's not a computer guru. After all, you may want to be writing articles yourself when you get new contract wins, without having to pay someone else to do it. That's only the starting point, though.

You're going to need two sites - one that's "live", and one that's a private prototype area not accessible by the public, which parallels the live site. The objective is to make all your changes to the prototype site, never to the live site. Once your prototype site looks good, you've proof-checked it, and you are ready to roll it out to the live site, you need an easy and secure way to make that happen. Finally, the vital bit that many new business people forget - you need backup! Backups should happen regularly, and before each live rollout. Those backups should be sent securely to a server on a different network, so that if your web server fails completely, or a hacker wipes its disk, you can get up and running in minutes, not days or weeks.

Your hosting providers must be able to provide stable, reliable and scalable site hosting. If your business takes off, you want to be able to boost the hosting facilities to manage the increasing load, without visitors ever noticing. Your site designers should be able to work with your hosting providers to set up everything for you and document how to operate your site.

Epilogue

I wrote this blog article to help other business people and pass on some of the tips and tricks I've learnt, having formed quite a few companies, and set up many clients with web hosting, but I'm going to make no apology for a bit of promotion. After all, you got all this advice for free!

One of the companies I've formed, Adeptium Consulting Ltd., can help you with every stage of starting a new company - whether it's just setting up your web service, or the whole package from helping you find a company name, through registration, to sorting out your IT. We can even provide you a portfolio (that's to say, part-time and pay-as-you-go) Technical or IT Director who can be named on your Companies House register of Directors, to advise you on your technical needs, and help you present a much more attractive proposition to prospective customers or potential investors.

Finally, I'd like to make it clear that, with the exception of Adeptium, I have no beneficial interest in any of the companies I've recommended. That is to say: at the time of writing, I don't hold shares in any of them, I don't sell products or services to any of them, and I get no benefit from the recommendations. I have been a satisfied customer of products or services provided by them, and it's solely on that basis that I make the recommendations.

I told you so! [JTSOS, Dec 2010]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/12/22.]

Regular readers will remember that I dropped a hot little piece of tittle-tattle about a month-and-a-half ago. In this blog posting, I happened to mention: "Will we see Windows and Office for ARM? Well, here's a bit of gossip: keep your eyes open in the next twelve months."

And, lo, it came to pass.

Today, The Register published an article that blew the secret wide open.

So was it just speculation on my part? No. What I wasn't allowed to say in that November blog piece was that I'd got the information from an authoritative source within Microsoft. In fact, I'd been sitting on the coup for about two months because I wanted to leave enough time that the source in question couldn't be traced - and it still hasn't been.

The Register's earlier article mentioning the Microsoft/ARM pact shows how much they'd been misled - or misled themselves. El Reg had speculated that the ARM licensing was to do with the next generation of XBoxen. With the advances made in recent ARM architectures, that might yet come to pass, but the real deal was the one that no-one had dared suggest: Windows and Office on ARM.

Glad to be of service.

Musings and Microsofts [JTSOS, Nov 2010]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/11/22.]

You know, some of my recent blog posts (here, here, and here, for example) probably make me look like a rabid Microsoft-hater.

But I'm not. Not any more.

Sure, I don't like their business methods, and never have. Their software products in general are heavily bloated and inexplicably resource-hungry. (MS SQL Server 2005 Express needs over 1.3GB of disk space! How can a SQL server possibly need that much disk space?) They produce a very small amount of genuinely innovative technology (Kinect), and a lot of mediocrity. They are constantly trying to shoot down Open Source, a battle they know they can never win.

There's a lot to like, or at least admire, about Microsoft

However - there's a lot to like, or at least admire, about MSFT. They have some very smart people indeed. I've worked alongside or for a number of them, in my career, and I can't think of one who didn't deserve respect. (Declaration of interest: MS tried to head-hunt me once. I took a rain check.) Microsoft are superbly good at owning and controlling a market - try to buy a PC without Windows from a major retailer, and you'll see what I mean. Their marketing is sometimes hilariously inept ("I'm a PC!" - what, you're beige inside and out? "Windows 7 - my idea!" Yeah? I bet you drive your Ferrari 430 everywhere in first gear), but it clearly works sufficiently well. Some of Microsoft's products are rather good: their keyboards and mice are largely bland, but solidly built and just keep working; their Visual Studio development environment is recognised as probably the best in the industry.

The thing is, we - all of us - need Microsoft. We need their products to set a certain performance and behaviour standard, so that its competition knows how far they have to extend to better them and distract the public eye. The haters need a bugbear they can fulminate against. The City folk need a bellwether for the health of the technology industries.

However much MSFT huffs and puffs, Open Source isn't going to blow down.

I used to hate Microsoft too, for stifling technological progress and competition, but I think their Big Bad Wolf has come up against the brick house at last, and it's called Open Source. However much MSFT huffs and puffs, that house isn't going to blow down. If it wants inside, Microsoft is going to have to put the teeth away, ask nicely, and try not to eat the occupants.

It used to be the case that big corporate and Governmental buyers would call in the Microsoft guy with the clipboard and the tick list, much as their predecessors did with IBM and their mainframe products. The adage always was, "You can't get sacked for buying [IBM, Microsoft]." But things have changed. After a ropey start, Open Source is now considered commercial-grade, enough to get the attention of the big buyers. For some time, we watched MS offer Government purchasers ludicrously low prices for Windows and MS Office licensing. You don't often see those stories now, and it's not clear why. I suspect it's because the buyers' attitudes have changed. Where once they would raise the spectre of Open Source, to force Microsoft to discount their pricing below cost, now they're just not interested in paying for MS products any more, so there's no point having the conversation.

I don't want Microsoft to fail: I want them to change their approach.

I don't want Microsoft to fail: I want them to change their approach. I can't see Windows or Office going Open Source, however much I might wish it, but I can envisage a Microsoft that is driven by its market, rather than vice-versa; a Microsoft that engages with open standards without a killer agenda; a Microsoft that collaborates, not competes. It sounds like a hippy agenda, but it's not. IBM switched to that model, and saved itself from destruction. Sun Microsystems tried, but it was too late, and didn't fit well with a business model dependent upon declining chip and system sales. I don't think MSFT can make that change with Steve Ballmer at the helm (although I hear he's handy at rearranging furniture), but I have my doubts that Ballmer will hold his tenure for much longer. Windows 7 has gone some way to recovering from the train wreck of Vista, but Open Source is hurting Microsoft, and the hurt's only going to get worse. Ballmer's combative style is looking more and more outdated in the face of the modern market.

Another thing I never thought I'd say: good luck, Microsoft.

Microsoft: Linux is at the end of its life-cycle. Oh really? [JTSOS, Nov 2010]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/11/21.]

Nikolai Pryanishnikov, president of Microsoft Russia, has reportedly claimed that Linux is at the end of its life-cycle.

I think that comes under the category of, "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

There are a lot of companies that'd envy that kind of "end of life-cycle" product!

Linux works on just about every hardware platform bigger than a PIC, supports a mind-bogglingly large range of hardware, is used on everything from the smallest gadget to the world's most powerful supercomputers, and the average person in the street probably has at least five to ten times as many Linux OS licences as they have of Microsoft products. There are a lot of companies that'd envy that kind of "end of life-cycle" product!

ARM devices are squeezing Microsoft out from the bottom up, on embedded devices, and the top down: the new Cortex-A15 based chips will create Linux-friendly servers that should be hugely more power-efficient than the Intel/Microsoft combination manages - and Microsoft doesn't currently have mainline ARM products (Windows, Office) to defend its space - not yet, anyway. I blogged about the consequences earlier this month.

Pryanishnikov's comments form part of a recent FUD campaign Microsoft's been waging against Linux, and Open Source in general. (I blogged about more of it a month ago.) The campaign says more about Microsoft than Linux and Open Source Software (OSS).

The more Microsoft tries to chop off Open Source's Hydra heads, the bigger the problem they create.

The more frantically Microsoft tries to chop off Open Source's Hydra heads, the bigger the problem they create for themselves. Desperation is hard to hide; increasing desperation, even more so. The solution for MS, of course, is to accept Open Source, concede that MS doesn't have answers in a number of OSS's key markets, and probably never will now, and change the business model to work with OSS, rather than paying lip-service in public, and waving knives behind the scenes. I don't think Microsoft has the ability to make that change, though. It would involve admitting that revenues have peaked, which wouldn't please Wall Street one bit - but better restructure now than face a collapse later, which is where MSFT is heading without some creative thinking that has to happen now.

Ironically, conditions in both customer and stock markets could well mean that MS is closer to end-cycle than its competition.

Aww, a cute baby business-person! [JTSOS, Nov 2010]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 201-/11/17.]

What should you use for your forum "avatar" picture? Should you use your photo, a caricature, even a picture of you as a baby?

The more I think about them, the more I realise that the answers are completely different depending on whether they apply to business-to-business (B2B) sites like LinkedIn, or to informal social media sites (Facebook, etc.). I'll answer for B2B.

Linda Lee-Potter used a masthead photo from the 1960s. I always thought that a bit tragic.

It's not uncommon for photos to be a few years old, but it's daft to present one that's not clearly and recognisably you, now. For decades, the late Linda Lee-Potter, columnist for the Daily Mail, used a masthead photo from the 1960s, judging by the hair and the style. I always thought that was a bit tragic. B2B social media like LinkedIn can lead to personal meetings. Particularly for a businessperson, a really out-of-date photo can lead to an instantly negative reaction when the reader then meets them in person - which may carry over to their attitude to doing business with them

You want the in-person relationship with your counterpart to carry over naturally from your online discussions, you don't want to be jarred by meeting what appears to be your correspondent's Dad¹! So, if you're planning to use a headshot, keep it recent and honest.

I don't see a problem with caricatures, provided they're recognisable - a good caricature is quite a neat way of presenting the "personal brand" with a bit of self-deprecating humour, particularly if the subject's a bit camera-shy. Whether it's appropriate depends largely on the writer's business sector. I guess the risk is that the cartoon eventually takes over as the "brand". When it becomes clearly out-of-date, replacing it with a new one means the "brand"'s starting again from scratch, as it'll be some while before the new picture's known, recognised and accepted by those who knew the old one. Photos don't have quite the same problem. Update them every few years, and the "brand" carries over to the new one seamlessly.

There's humour too in a photo of one's self as a child - I've a good friend who does this. It's perhaps not a great idea for a "brand", but fine for non-business networking or media-related sites. On the other hand, I don't think it's appropriate to use a family photo with kids as there are some inherent risks no parent should feel comfortable about. Even a picture with one's spouse is probably not a great idea on a B2B site, unless the spouse is a business partner too. Leaving aside personal risks, publishing a new picture of just the blogger alone could imply marriage (and therefore business) problems to canny readers.

I'm not convinced by the idea of using a non-personal picture/avatar of some sort on specifically B2B sites - it suggests that the person's hiding behind it, which raises the question - why? If they're going to be posting to forums on a B2B site, presumably they want to do business at some point. Being unwilling to admit to their appearance carries a host of negative connotations, and no positive ones, and makes first meetings awkward. There's a big exception to this: look for elephants later on in this post!

Photos are insidious. They create expectations in our minds.

I don't think there's a huge investment of readers' interest initially, but photos are insidious. They create subconscious relationships, associations and expectations in our minds. Not surprising when you realise how much of the human brain is devoted to sensing, recording and analysing images - nor that the first image the newborn brain learns to process accurately is their mother's face. We see faces everywhere, even where they're not. Readers will combine the picture with the person's online persona to form an expectation; it's how we're wired. And that means that the choice of picture is crucial.

However - there is an elephant in this room.

Unfortunately, if a businesswoman is attractive-looking, and publishes her photo, she will be likely to get unwanted attention from the knuckle-dragging² contingent on the one hand, and short shrift from the Old Skool types on the other. Things are improving year on year, but however much the more enlightened males (and females) might abhor it, it still happens. Deflecting those issues by using an image that's not strictly a portrait - perhaps a company logo - or not using one at all, might suit her purposes better. It's all down to what works best for the individual. Martha Lane-Fox, Carly Fiorina and so on have used their images as her calling cards, and done terrifically well out of it, so there's no general rule.

Blimey, I'm sounding like an image consultant. Next stop, square red-framed glasses (*shudder*).

¹ Particularly if they're female.
² The Urban Dictionary defines "knuckle-dragger" as a racial epithet - which is not what I'd meant at all. I was referring to about the second image in the famous Ascent of Man image - an unreconstructed male of primordial mindset.

Desktop ARMs - and what they'll mean for Microsoft [JTSOS, Nov 2010]

[Background: the blog post I wrote on ARM's new Cortex-A15 MPCore processor core. Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/11/13.]

If Apple finds that the ARM processors out-compete Intel on price and power consumption, and at least match x86 for performance, the choice to switch is going to be a no-brainer.

Apple has enough cash to buy every person in the world a McDonald's burger and fries.

Would Apple risk a legal challenge to any preferred-supplier lock-in agreement with Intel? Let's put it this way: at the time of writing, INTC market cap: $120bn, up 7.5% year-on-year and generally flat; AAPL market cap: $280bn, up 48% y-o-y and climbing consistently. Apple has around $26bn sitting around in the bank. That's an astonishing amount of cash. To put in context, that's enough to buy every man, woman and child in the world a burger and fries from McDonald's, and have change left over. Here's a statement I never thought I'd make: with a stock and cash exchange, Apple. Could. Buy. Intel.

Except Apple's got too much sense. If Apple switches to ARM for its MacOS products, Intel's stock will tank - while Apple's will go ballistic. And there's nothing Intel could afford to do about it, because Apple would buy them then, at the bottom of the market, just to shut them up and send their lawyers packing.

Will we see Windows and Office for ARM? Well, here's a bit of gossip: keep your eyes open in the next twelve months.

Microsoft knows that unless it raises its game, it'll be the meat in an iPad and Android sandwich.

Microsoft is not blind to ARM's incursion into desktop-grade computing, by way of Android and iOS tablets. With ARM's announcement of its Cortex-A15 MPCore architecture, Microsoft knows that unless it raises its game and is prepared to abandon positions entrenched for a quarter of a century, it's going to be the thin layer of meat in an iPad and Android sandwich, because for the first time since ... well, since the very emergence of the industry, corporate computing's got sexy.

And beige bricks aren't.

Once it's feasible to run MS products natively under MacOS's Boot Camp on an ARM, it'll complete Apple's business case for an ARM MacOS port, and the dominos start falling.

Let's look at the consequences if MS doesn't follow through on its internal projects. Documents To Go is already available for both iOS and Android. With the potential to take MS's market away from them, DataViz would be insane not to consolidate, add Open/LibreOffice support, and evolve their mobile application into a fully featured corporate-grade tool. QuickOffice is also available for both platforms, but to my mind isn't quite up there with DtG quite yet.

The fate of LibreOffice (as OpenOffice.org now is - daft name, but there you go) will be interesting. Based on C++, it's not in a great position to convert to ObjectiveC (iOS) or Java (Android). Of course, there is a development route for C++ into Android, via the Native Development Kit, but compared with the Java environment it's like pulling teeth, and it doesn't play nicely with Dalvik for now. LibreOffice may find itself the second layer of meat in that sandwich unless its developers can at least port to Android - ObjectiveC is probably too big an ask for now.

But anyone who's been around in the industry knows that Microsoft, whilst often slow to spot emerging markets, will adapt its products, marketing and spin to shut out competitors before they can cause too much damage. Microsoft is more vulnerable now than at any time in the past two decades, but it's still got teeth. It may yet be able to use them.

ARM's Cortex-A15 CPU, and how it will change your world [JTSOS, Nov 2010]

[From a discussion on LinkedIn (registration may be required to read it). Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/11/12.]

Steve Liebson wrote a recent article on the ARM Cortex-A15 MPCore processor, launched at the ARM Technology Conference in Santa Clara on the 10th November 2010. It's a very interesting read.

ARM is closing in on the Big Iron server market, Intel's traditional home ground, with a processor capable of 2.5GHz operation, eight or even 16 cores per chip, and some smart interconnects and support to make them fly. It's an open secret that Amazon, Google and other intensely server-critical firms are keeping a watching brief, as the A15 promises remarkable improvements on their power consumption and heat dissipation problems. It's hard to believe that VMWare, Citrix¹ and other cloud infrastructure providers don't have at least tentative roadmaps for rolling out their Type 1 hypervisor products to the A15.

What few people seem to be picking up upon, though, is how the A15 could change the corporate desktop market too.

Of course, it all depends upon the power figures, which, as Steve notes, ARM isn't yet publishing, but try this for size...

Put a dual-core 2.5GHz Cortex-A15 in a tablet and load Android 3. Make a desktop drop-in charge/kbd/mouse cradle for it - maybe inductive charging and Bluetooth inputs so it's contactless. Now you've a tool that will act as a touchscreen PC on your desk, or grab it from the cradle and bring it to meetings as a note-taking tablet. You've got the performance of an Apple desktop or mid-range PC product when you need it, and it should run a lot cooler than a laptop.

It's been a fair while coming but if the industry gets the right ideas, this could well be the processor that killed the PC and (with Android) stood up to Apple on its own ground.

So here's the real left-field question: given the power and BoM cost savings, how long now before Apple ditches Intel completely for ARM?

¹ Since writing this article, the author has provided paid consultancy to Citrix. The comments made above are solely the author's own, were not made in the light of any "inside information" obtained from Citrix or its current or former staff, and have not been updated since the start of that consultancy, other than to add this footnote. Oh, and this footnote was added entirely from the author's free will - as a declaration of interests, not because of any lawyerly intervention or contractual obligation.

The East London Tech City: what will happen after the 2012 Olympics? [JTSOS, Nov 2010]

[Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/11/11.]

There was some interesting editorial on the "East London Tech City" on page 50 of Tuesday 9th November's London Evening Standard. (You can read it at standard.co.uk for up to 28 days: select e-Edition; free registration required.)

There appears to be an expectation that, despite the apparent technology bias suggested by the name, the majority of businesses resident there will be focused upon solutions for the financial sector, rather than pure technology per se.

It's going to be a fascinating thing to watch. Normally, I'd suppose that that would have to be the overwhelming business sector, since the costs of renting relatively central London property for a company would be way beyond the pockets of any but the firms most benefiting from rich City clients. However, I can imagine a certain amount of desperation on behalf of the land owners to get units occupied however they can, as soon as the athletes move out. It may change the rules of the game, at least for a while.

Could East London be the next M4 Corridor? It's not impossible. But the difficulty of commuting into the area from affordable suburbs might just restrict its potential. In the end, it might just be the haunt for City-related businesses anyway - after all, even in a property slump, few others' employees can afford Docklands warehouse-conversion flats.

On Microsoft's "OpenOffice Perspectives" video [JTSOS, Oct 2010]

[Based on a comment in a LinkedIn discussion. Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2010/10/18.]

Microsoft recently published a video entitled "A Few Perspectives on OpenOffice.org"¹

Publishing the video is a clear sign of weakness and worry on MS's part.

Let's compare. Microsoft is a NASDAQ-quoted corporation with about 90,000 employees, and a market capitalisation of around $223bn on annual revenues of about $62.5bn.

OpenOffice.org is a small business unit of Oracle (formerly Sun Microsystems), producing a standards-based free office suite.

Why would MSFT even bother to acknowledge OpenOffice.org? There are only two possibilities that come to mind:

1. MSFT doesn't like Oracle, so it wants to damage them as much as possible. Well, that's plausible;
2. MSFT's very seriously worried about its free-as-in-beer competition, and it's hurting.

Even if the true reason's 1., going to that much bother to try to rubbish OO.o makes it look to the world like 2. I suspect it's a mixture of both. More and more businesses are seeing the sense in not licensing N thousand copies of MS Office if they can have a free competitor that works well and can usually read MSO documents that don't contain too many macros.

But that video can only be considered a desperate rear-guard action. Let's face it, any business with the market penetration of MSFT can scare up a few customers who tried the opposition's product and came back into the fold - it would be shocking if it couldn't.

Publishing the video is a clear sign of weakness and worry on MS's part. Ironically, it probably helps the Open Source community more than it hinders it. After all, it's a backhanded validation of the OO.o suite of programs - and how much revenue does OpenOffice.org stand to lose?


¹ Follow this link, and you ought to see "A Few Perspectives on OpenOffice.org" as the only option. MS appears to invalidate direct links, so you have to use the search function to get to it. You'll probably need SilverLight or MoonLight installed too.

Apple, Mac OS X, and why they're missing a trick [JTSOS, Nov 2009

[Adapted from a comment on an article at The Inquirer. Originally posted on my Just This Side Of Sane blog on 2009/11/04.]

Wnat I don't understand about Apple right now is that they don't seem to understand what a cash cow they have in their barn.

If Apple released Mac OS X for general PC devices, they'd at a stroke make massive inroads into Windows.

At the same time, sales of Apple hardware would drop, sure, but not all that much. The current crowd of Mac-heads would remain loyally buying Apple kit, but they'd be joined by a whole new group of both home users and business people desperate to get away from MS's stranglehold. It's even possible, maybe even likely, that a new côterie of Mac OS users would drive an increased demand for Apple kit.

And the best thing of all, from Apple's viewpoint, is that it costs practically nothing to press and ship DVDs. Unlike hardware sales, which need a constant and VERY expensive design, development and production pipeline, OS sales are almost entirely margin, and don't have all the WEEE/green/certification problems that hang off electronics manufacture. Trust me, I've been there. I'm still there!

I just want to see the AAPL share ticker when they finally see the light. There's never been a better time for Apple to liberalise and liberate their OS assets, but they've got to move NOW, whilst Microsoft is still weakened from the Vista débacle.

So who is this BizGeek, anyway?

Hi,grab some sofa.  How'd you take your coffee?

Let me introduce myself.  I'm Jon Green.  I'm a geek.  And, yes, I'm a techie, but I'm also a geek of business.  I've worked for and in enough of them to know what works and what doesn't - and these days I run a few, too.  You might want to take a look at Adeptium Consulting, my business and technical consultancy, for instance.

This blog spun out of another, Just This Side Of Sane (just-this-side-of-sane.blogspot.com), or JTSOS for short.  Originally, that was a quirky blog - the name's a hint! - with no real focus except for its author.  I've found that what I'm increasingly posting there is comments, observations, predictions and diatribes about business: mostly the technology sector, but with some broader commentary too.  It seems like the right time to move those posts to a location that's a little more...hmmm...mentally sound?

Sometimes the articles are completely serious, but mostly I write with humour.  (I'd write with humor instead, but the UK import duties are horrible, and don't you find that humor tends to dry up if stuck in Customs and Immigration for too long?)  That's who I am, someone who enjoys entertaining his audience whilst he's delivering his message.  If I'm doing my job properly, you're nodding and chuckling, often at the same time.  If you want cracker-dry business information, check the Business shelves at your local bookstore instead.


When I've time and will, I'll be copying the business articles from JTSOS to here - I won't delete them, so that your links stay working - and JTSOS will become more of a personal blog.  More humo(u)r, less business, and quite possibly more crows too.

So that's me.  Jon Green, BizGeek.  Welcome to my newest blog.  Hang around, help yourself to coffee, and if you're at a loose end, you'll find some magazines on the table.