Mood:
celebratoryNow Playing: "Spark Plug Polka" Dancers undergo electric shock therapy without commercial interruption (ritual mutilation))
Topic: Pervasive Computing
Take these 10 principles from the manifesto and present them as the opposite stand. That's what Microsoft, Google and Amazon will have to sell to the industry and the market. IBM has a very easy job and has a marketing hammer by which to allow clients and the market to ask the recalcitrants critical questions.
Simply applying a "not" in front of each sentence subject sheds light on the way traditional software companies have done business and how they want to continue operating.
1. User centric systems [DO NOT] enrich the lives of individuals; education, communication, collaboration, business, entertainment and society as a whole.
2. Philanthropic initiatives can [NOT] greatly increase the well-being of mankind.
3. Openness of standards, systems and software [DOES NOT] empower(s) and protect(s) users.
4. Transparency [DOES NOT] foster(s) trust and accountability; decisions should [NOT] be open to public collaboration and scrutiny and [NOT] never be made "behind closed doors". (The double negative means "decisions... should be made behind closed doors" to the anti-manifesto player.)
5. Interoperability [DOES NOT] ensures effectiveness of cloud computing as a public resource; systems must [NOT] be interoperable.
6. Representation of all stakeholders is [NOT] essential; interoperability and standards efforts should [NOT] not be dominated by vendor(s). (The double negative means "interoperability and standards efforts should be dominated by vendors" to the anti-manifesto player.)
7. Discrimination against any party for any reason is [NOT] unacceptable.
8. Evolution is [NOT] an ongoing process in an immature market; standards may [NOT] take some time to develop and coalesce.
9. Balance of commercial and consumer interests is [NOT] paramount.
10. Security is [NOT] fundamental, [NOT] not optional. (The double negative means "Security IS optional" to the anti-manifesto player.)
Of course, each party will argue they are NOT putting a "[NOT]" against each point. They will argue for more finesse. But, each finessing point will require a rationale made public and arguing against each of these points in public will damage each party's future posture.
IBM must have a large list of notable players already signed on to force these anti players to engage in "negotiations". Negotiations for what? What strength does the manifesto have behind it and how damaging will an anti-manifesto be for these players in the future?
The manifesto is a baseball bat corporations may now use against those who are posturing to build universal platforms but are angling to present proprietary lock-in platforms.
Google and Amazon and Salesforce, to name the top few, have found themselves unwittingly forced into posturing precisely like Microsoft. Not a good thing when you're trying to differentiate yourself for the beginning of a new age.
What do they have to fear from these?
IBM
Sun Microsystems
VMWare
AT&T
Telefonica
Cisco Systems
EMC
SAP
Advanced Micro Devices
Elastra
rPath
Juniper Networks
Red Hat
Hyperic
Akamai
Novell
Sogeti
Rackspace
RightScale
GoGrid
Aptana
CastIron
EngineYard
Eclipse
SOASTA
F5
LongJump
NC State
Enomaly
Nirvanix
OMG
Computer Science Corp.
Boomi
Reservoir
Appistry
Heroku
Plenty.
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 3:51 AM EDT
