Gnoso

Joel Spolsky has a great article this week about the Architecture Astronauts at Microsoft. I have to agree with core tenet of his post. In my experience, the most successful products are written with a particular end user application in mind. If you start with infrastructure, the risk of being wrong is huge.

I think that’s the reason that Amazon’s Web Services have been so successful. They’ve taken existing capability and made them better rather than inventing a whole new world.

1. EC2 - Amazon’s virtual server hosting product, basically took an old service (dedicated server hosting) and made it better by automating it with a programmable API and lowering the cost substantially. However, the key was that they kept most of the same core features and functionality that companies had come to expect in their hosting providers.
2. S3 - Amazon’s storage service took online file storage (done by many companies previously) and made it cheaper and more automated. Again, not creating a revolutionary new service, but just making something that existed already better.

Microsoft, with their new Live Mesh, is making a step to provide all kinds of new infrastructure that nobody asked for. Maybe they will be successful eventually, but I think it’s a product looking for a customer.

My suggestion… start with a product that meets a real customer need and then build infrastructure around that product that makes sense. Starting with infrastructure and then looking for product applications is a risky strategy and doomed in the long run.

Wrap your head around this one…

“The next time a Martian visits earth, try to explain to him why those who favor allowing the elimination of a fetus in the mother’s womb also oppose capital punishment. Or try to explain to him why those who accept abortion are supposed to be favorable to high taxation but against a strong military. Why do those who prefer sexual freedom need to be against individual economic liberty?” — Nassim Nicholas Taleb in The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

I was minding my own business, checking on my PayPal account when I happened across the following screen. (Click on the image to see it full size.)

Notice that I’ve browsed to the PayPal site, and the PayPal browser add-in is warning me that I may be on a phishing site. Being a developer myself, I know how easy it is to make these kinds of mistakes. I’m sure there are a dozen good technical reasons why this is happening. Still, it’s mighty embarrassing for PayPal.

Speaking of the PayPal add-in… It has worn out its welcome. I guess it’s supposed to pop up on sites that accept credit cards and help you use their new secure card feature to pay. Yikes. It needs a lot of work. The pop-up constantly pops up while I’m visiting sites where I’m not paying for anything and when it pops up, it steals the focus from my typing. To make matters worse, the preference setting to make it go away does not work. I’ve set it several times, and yet it keeps popping up anyway. Get it together, PayPal!

I have long held the belief that software patents are a bad idea. Brad Feld has recently asked for help on his blog with the End Software Patents Coalition, and I agree wholeheartedly.

1. Software changes so rapidly that by the time you get a patent (2+ years from filing), your need for patent protection is quite possibly gone.
2. The timeframes for patents are way too long for software.  By the time a patent expires, a software invention is most likely dead and replaced by new innovations.
3. For the most part, it does not take huge capital investments to generate software innovation.  Thus the need for patent protection in software is much less.  Drug development or materials research, for instance, require large investments that might make the business model inviable without patent protection.  Software does not have that problem.
4. The vast majority of all current software patents are ridiculous.  Patents are supposed to be non-obvious to a skilled professional, and by that definition most software patents should be thrown out.
5. Name me a single software company that has thrived because of its patent protection.  Or, put another way, can you think of a software business that wouldn’t be possible without patent protection? (I’m talking about software businesses, not “patent raiders”).

Software patents have devolved to defensive weapons for large companies to protect themselves against litigation from other large companies at this point.  The only benefactors of software patents today are the “patent raiders” who buy up questionable patents and hold large companies for ransom (and of course their attorneys).

I have high regard for Warren Buffett and his unmatched investment record. He’s clearly a very intelligent man; however, I can’t help but be astonished at his comments on taxation. Buffett has long been a proponent of increasing taxes on the rich. He’s recently made waves by stating that he pays less taxes than anyone in his office, including his receptionist.

First, I must make the obvious point that Buffett certainly does not pay less taxes than his staff. He is referring to the percentage of his income that he pays in taxes. I know that’s kind of a “duh” statement, but it should be pointed out. Secondly, it would appear that Buffett makes most of his income as capital gains. That is the only way that his tax could be 17.7% given that the capital gains tax rate is 15% and the top income tax bracket is 35%. I don’t think you can claim that Buffett is the typical rich person. Buffett is in an interesting position, because most of his income is in the form of capital gains rather than payroll. This is true of pretty much anyone who makes their living primarily from investing in undervalued assets as long as they turn them over slowly enough for the long-term capital gains rule to kick in.

Buffett’s profits are invested right back into the companies he owns. He’s famous for it. Invested money is used to build production capacity, hire workers, mitigate risk, etc… By saying that the government should raise his taxes, he is implying that giving tax money to the government is a better investment than his businesses. Of course, the Feds would “invest” his money in earmarked pork-barrel projects and other nonsense. I really do think he’s being disingenuous with these statements. If he is really that concerned about the issue, he should put his money where his mouth is. He could always take the money that he is donating to the Gates Foundation and give it to the Feds instead. Maybe they could use it to bolster Social Security [kidding].

Uncle Sam doesn’t need more money, it needs more self-control. Buffet’s mantra is investing for the long term. Well, investing in America for the long term means investing in infrastructure, people and technology (with accountability) not shuffling money between well-heeled Washington power brokers so they can dole it out as rewards to their supporters.

I wrote a post on the NCover blog today about modern development teams shifting focus from Quality by Specification to Quality by Verification. I’d be interested in your opinions on this concept.

Certainly, it’s important to use principles from both approaches in your development process, but as automated testing gets better and better, code is written faster and faster while maintaining the same or better quality.

Cheers are breaking out over the announcement that Google is rolling out IMAP support for its mail sites (GMail and Google Apps).

Here’s another Google Maps gem. Apparently, back in the glory days of Studebaker, someone got the idea to spell their name in pine trees on their testing grounds. That’s about all that’s left of the iconic automobile company aside from beautiful museum pieces scattered around the globe.

Google Map courtesy of Jalopnik.

If you haven’t noticed yet, the Swamp Fox web site has a new look courtesy of my friends over at Orange Coat. If you are looking for a place to connect with entrepreneurs, innovators and business leaders in the southeast, Swamp Fox is the place to be.

I just finished the book The PayPal Wars by Eric Jackson. It was a great read. This book basically tells the story of PayPal through the eyes of a marketing executive at PayPal, from its early founding days until its sale to eBay.

The book highlights the remarkable set of obstacles the company faced. As auctions became their largest market they repeatedly clashed with eBay. They fought off organized crime syndicates who were trying to use the service to launder money and bilk PayPal. And once they went public, they were hounded by class-action lawsuits, and overzealous regulators trying to make a name for themselves.

It’s quite a tale and certainly worth reading.