Make your own free website on
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« September 2019 »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics
Apple Fritters
Chinadotcom and VCSY
DD to da RR
Gurgle  «
Microsoft and VCSY
Nobody Can Be That Stupid
Notable Opinions
Off the Wall Speculation
Pervasive Computing
The Sneaky Runarounds
VCSY / Baseline
VCSY / Bashed
VCSY / Infotech
VCSY / MLE (Emily)
VCSY / NOW Solutions
VCSY - A Laughing Place #2
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Pokin' the PorkyPine
Mood:  accident prone
Now Playing: "Pink PookyPie" Flatulent landlord causes explosive landrush (kitchenus physicis)
Topic: Gurgle

Once upon a time an idea is so basic and good it sticks around and festers until it pops.

Several years ago, the company found a way to build a data center quickly and easily by simply filling a warehouse with stacked shipping containers — each one filled with computers. You just plug the containers together and flip the switch. Clever.

Google actually borrowed the shipping container concept from The Internet Archive, a digital library, which envisioned using such containers to replicate its archive in locations all around the world. Once Larry Page, a co-founder of Google, learned how they could work, he saw shipping containers as a way for Google, too, to get its data closer to users.

Proximity to users is important because of the way that data moves around the Internet — by hopping from one router to another. Each router looks at the packet of data and sends it on in the appropriate direction; the average data packet hops 18 times as it makes its way across the Internet. Because each hop takes time — only a matter of milliseconds, but still measurable time — the best way to speed transmission is to reduce the hops. This can be done either by creating a figurative fast lane, which violates net neutrality, or by simply putting the data closer to the user, which doesn’t.

Google’s agreement with Verizon could very well be merely a way for Google to get its data closer to users, by dropping its shipping containers into Verizon data centers, or perhaps their parking lots. The phone company’s data centers, after all, are typically only one or two hops from Internet users.


So... having gateways geophysically close to users (as in one's home country) is more than just a gimmick, isn't it? Why, yes it is. It's an understanding of how latency damages the experience and immediacy breeds intimacy.


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:21 AM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, 11 August 2010 4:27 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
So, when I say "run" what are you supposed to do?
Mood:  cool
Now Playing: 'Non-functional Lubricative Knuckles' Training video on preparation of front end suspension for racing. (Nascar)
Topic: Gurgle

Nook nook nanu puki pang.

Being interpreted from Wanga Pangy as 'You're just not pretty enough to be traded for a goat.'

The Soul of Google, The Cruelty of Microsoft

The Stalwart submits: I came across a nice line from Cringely the other day:

No president could spend money like Ronald Reagan could spend money. His greatest legacy, in fact, was spending so much on defense projects like his "Star Wars" anti-missile system that the USSR was torn apart economically by simply trying to compete, thus ending the Cold War.

Reagan could have worked at Google (GOOG).

Certainly in light of Microsoft's (MSFT) purchase of aQuantive (AQNT), that comparison seems pretty apt. Microsoft has a lot of cash, but if it has to keep making deals like that in order to stay on par with Google, then the company is in trouble -- sort of like the Soviet Union.

Google on the other hand has acquisition insurance, as it knows that anytime it makes a purchase, it's competitors will respond with the purchase of a weaker, but more expensive rival. That might be a bit of a generalization, but it's interesting to see how aggressive a company Google is.

There is a key difference between Google's aggression today and Microsoft's aggression during its Halcyon days. Google is all about its cash. It wants to acquire it and use it. Early on, Google hinted that this would be its strategy when it announced a follow-on offering back in August '05, taking advantage of its soaring stock to net itself a cool $4 billion. Since then, the company's shown a willingness to part with its cash for premium properties, like YouTube.

Microsoft never showed a willingness to let go of its hard-earned cash. Only recently has it really started buying small firms. In a way, its aggression was much meaner than Google's, because instead of buying out upstarts, it just under-priced them and killed them. This might explain why Google doesn't seem to inspire the same animosity that Microsoft always did.

There's the perception that the company would rather shower startups with its cash as opposed to pushing them out of the market. Google is a VCs friend, not a VCs worst nightmare.

Meanwhile, as long as Google continues to grow as fast as it does, it will be able to get away with an aggressive acquisition strategy. But as things slow and investors start paying more attention, simply doling out huge gobs of cash (or stock) will prompt much more scrutiny.


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 8:02 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, 23 May 2007 8:03 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 21 May 2007
Last thing I remember I looked up and said "Hey, isn't that our tour bus?"
Mood:  accident prone
Now Playing: 'Snowball' Things get out of control quick as accumulated trash rolls through office complex.
Topic: Gurgle

Here comes the avalanche. Are all you Microsofties in your snowfort? Did you remember to bring your lumps of coal, a carrot and a top hat so we can recognize you after the slide? You boys and girls had better be getting some new goo or your future will be pasty poo.

A blog regarding risks, problems, drawbacks, and alternatives.

The Enterprise System Spectator
Monday, May 21, 2007
by Frank Scavo, 5/21/2007 10:16:00 AM

Google and to team against Microsoft?

(uhhh ya think?)

The Wall Street Journal this morning is reporting that talks are underway between Google and concerning a partnership. The goal is to combine Google's email, instant messaging, and other online services with's applications, effectively providing an alternative to Microsoft's desktop and business applications.
By teaming up, Google and could be better equipped to contend with Microsoft, a mutual rival. Google has long competed with Microsoft in areas such as search and email. More recently, Google began offering online word-processing, spreadsheet and calendar services for consumers and businesses -- Web-based applications known as Google Apps -- that offer an alternative to Microsoft's productivity software. also competes with Microsoft's customer-relationship management software. Microsoft plans to offer a Web-based version of that software that could compete more directly with
I say, why stop there? Google should acquire outright. That would put Google's best-in-class scalable infrastructure underneath's best-in-class software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform. It would catapult's position as a provider of enterprise applications to small and mid-size businesses, leapfrogging Microsoft's nascent attempts in this area.

A Google buyout of I think it's a real possibility.

Related posts unbundling its platform from its apps
Computer Economics: The Business Case for Software as a Service
by Frank Scavo, 5/21/2007 10:16:00 AM


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:46 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 21 May 2007 3:30 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older