Vacation
Will head out for some quality family time. See you guys in a couple of weeks.
Morgan Stanley's 2010 Tech Conference
Are you attending this year's Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference? If you are, let me know. I will be there and it would be good to catch up.
===
P@P
Showing posts with label Silicon Valley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Silicon Valley. Show all posts
Friday, January 22, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The proud, the few, the (PARC 2010) interns
PARC Internship
Yes, we do "interns". As a matter of a fact, this is a pretty good opportunity to work with some of the top names in a field, do interesting work, visit the San Francisco bay area, meeting interesting people, and get paid for your work.
We have opportunities in hardware, software, social science, and business.
More information and how to apply for the 2010 PARC Internship.
Life at PARC as an Intern
Here is quick glimpse of what interns did at PARC in 2009. Look forward to good stories from the class of 2010 interns.
===
P@P
Yes, we do "interns". As a matter of a fact, this is a pretty good opportunity to work with some of the top names in a field, do interesting work, visit the San Francisco bay area, meeting interesting people, and get paid for your work.
We have opportunities in hardware, software, social science, and business.
More information and how to apply for the 2010 PARC Internship.
Life at PARC as an Intern
Here is quick glimpse of what interns did at PARC in 2009. Look forward to good stories from the class of 2010 interns.
===
P@P
Friday, January 8, 2010
Open source and its hook
Marten and Open Source Hook
I was chatting with Marten Mickos recently. The question of what makes an open source effort succeed when others just flounder came up. He suggested that having a specific hook/niche that can be easily articulated is an important factor amongst many others. In the case of MySQL, it was a database designed specifically for web usage.
In the mundane business talk, it is about having an unique value proposition.
CCN and its Open Source
CCN's open source release came out last year. So, Marten's observation got me thinking about what is CCN's hook.
According to the recent Network World article, it is about security and multimedia/content consumption.
Would be interested in your take on what CCN's unique value proposition is. I am all ears.
===
P@P
I was chatting with Marten Mickos recently. The question of what makes an open source effort succeed when others just flounder came up. He suggested that having a specific hook/niche that can be easily articulated is an important factor amongst many others. In the case of MySQL, it was a database designed specifically for web usage.
In the mundane business talk, it is about having an unique value proposition.
CCN and its Open Source
CCN's open source release came out last year. So, Marten's observation got me thinking about what is CCN's hook.
According to the recent Network World article, it is about security and multimedia/content consumption.
Would be interested in your take on what CCN's unique value proposition is. I am all ears.
===
P@P
Monday, November 16, 2009
R2D2 vs. C3PO
Star Wars
I re-watched Star Wars: A New Hope over the weekend. I suspect it would not come as a surprise that I am a star wars fan being in Silicon Valley. More broadly speaking, Silicon Valley is full of people who are of the same ilk.
This reminded me of a chief scientist friend of mine who works in the Los Angeles area.
What?
One time he wanted to highlight what he was vs. was not looking for in a particular technology. To give it more texture, he said "this is like getting C3PO when I wanted R2D2."
And, instead of light bulbs in the room, he got a lot of blank stares.
(For the uninitiated, C-3PO and R2-D2 are two major characters in the Star Wars series.)
--
I am happy to report that in a recently visit to Silicon Valley his audience got the droid reference with knowing smiles.
===
P@P
I re-watched Star Wars: A New Hope over the weekend. I suspect it would not come as a surprise that I am a star wars fan being in Silicon Valley. More broadly speaking, Silicon Valley is full of people who are of the same ilk.
This reminded me of a chief scientist friend of mine who works in the Los Angeles area.
What?
One time he wanted to highlight what he was vs. was not looking for in a particular technology. To give it more texture, he said "this is like getting C3PO when I wanted R2D2."
And, instead of light bulbs in the room, he got a lot of blank stares.
(For the uninitiated, C-3PO and R2-D2 are two major characters in the Star Wars series.)
--
I am happy to report that in a recently visit to Silicon Valley his audience got the droid reference with knowing smiles.
===
P@P
Monday, July 27, 2009
PARC's Longevity
PARC is better than NASA
That should get your attention.
In a Harvard Business blog (http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/sviokla/2009/07/organized_information_is_the_n.html), John Sviokla argued that we need another ambitious project like NASA's Apollo on organizing information. Then, he concludes by arguing that for a cost of $100 million, PARC is a better investment than NASA's $150 billion.
With all due respect, I suspect his is a minority view. A better description is that both PARC and NASA spectacularly fulfilled their respective raison d’être in intended dimensions and beyond.
PARC's Longevity
Indeed, in my mind, a more interesting question is how has PARC kept up its role as a world leading source of technology and innovation.
For those who are looking for the Cliffs Notes version on PARC's longevity, the short answer is that PARC has continuously evolved existing know-how and invested in new ideas as each new generation of global technology and innovation come on-line.
I should start a new short series on PARC's longevity.
In the meantime, here is an interactive tool that highlights some of the milestones at PARC since 1970. (http://www.parc.com/about/milestones.html)
Organized Information at PARC
Coming back to John Sviokla's entry, PARC has a lot of investment into this precise issue. Here is a blog that talks about the notion of Augmented Reality as a way of intelligently organizing information. (http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/07/augmented-reality-increasing-collective-intelligence/)
===
P@P
That should get your attention.
In a Harvard Business blog (http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/sviokla/2009/07/organized_information_is_the_n.html), John Sviokla argued that we need another ambitious project like NASA's Apollo on organizing information. Then, he concludes by arguing that for a cost of $100 million, PARC is a better investment than NASA's $150 billion.
With all due respect, I suspect his is a minority view. A better description is that both PARC and NASA spectacularly fulfilled their respective raison d’être in intended dimensions and beyond.
PARC's Longevity
Indeed, in my mind, a more interesting question is how has PARC kept up its role as a world leading source of technology and innovation.
For those who are looking for the Cliffs Notes version on PARC's longevity, the short answer is that PARC has continuously evolved existing know-how and invested in new ideas as each new generation of global technology and innovation come on-line.
I should start a new short series on PARC's longevity.
In the meantime, here is an interactive tool that highlights some of the milestones at PARC since 1970. (http://www.parc.com/about/milestones.html)
Organized Information at PARC
Coming back to John Sviokla's entry, PARC has a lot of investment into this precise issue. Here is a blog that talks about the notion of Augmented Reality as a way of intelligently organizing information. (http://blogs.parc.com/blog/2009/07/augmented-reality-increasing-collective-intelligence/)
===
P@P
Monday, July 20, 2009
Opportunity Discovery
Fail fast fail cheap
This is probably the slogan that best captures the operandi modus of Silicon Valley and, to some extent, to innovation in general. The trouble is that "fail" is a dirty word in most places outside of Silicon Valley but the innovation imperative is not any less.
Over the years, companies have looked to PARC as a partner in creating innovation solutions. And, we have developed a methodology on how to "fail fast fail cheap" without the "fail".
Now, we are talking!
PARC's Opportunity Discovery service
The insight is that while small validations upfront to test assumptions and ability to consider all adjacent applications may add some additional initial overhead, they will yield a more robust and successful result and generally result in lower overall project resource and time requirements.
With PARC's Opportunity Discovery service, or O/D, we have created a systematic framework and a set of tools to unearth market and user insights which provide the basis to design a product/service.
On a per product/project basis, O/D allows the client team to capture and share information for better decision making. At the corporate level, O/D allows the management to feel comfortable that all reasonable options have been actively considered and explored before making a large investment.
This is probably the slogan that best captures the operandi modus of Silicon Valley and, to some extent, to innovation in general. The trouble is that "fail" is a dirty word in most places outside of Silicon Valley but the innovation imperative is not any less.
Over the years, companies have looked to PARC as a partner in creating innovation solutions. And, we have developed a methodology on how to "fail fast fail cheap" without the "fail".
Now, we are talking!
PARC's Opportunity Discovery service
The insight is that while small validations upfront to test assumptions and ability to consider all adjacent applications may add some additional initial overhead, they will yield a more robust and successful result and generally result in lower overall project resource and time requirements.
With PARC's Opportunity Discovery service, or O/D, we have created a systematic framework and a set of tools to unearth market and user insights which provide the basis to design a product/service.
On a per product/project basis, O/D allows the client team to capture and share information for better decision making. At the corporate level, O/D allows the management to feel comfortable that all reasonable options have been actively considered and explored before making a large investment.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Nothing is a success until it has been canceled three times
Hi-Tech Ethos
I was chatting with one of the PARC colleagues about one of the projects that I am working on and he made the observation "nothing is a success until it has been canceled three times."
I think this captures the spirit of Silicon Valley as well as any that I have heard.
Let a thousand ideas bloom
In the old days, the rule of thumb about getting a new idea funded by a VC works something like this.
For every 10 ideas, 1 turns into a business plan
For every 10 business plan, 1 turns into a VC conversation
For every 10 VC conversations, 1 gets funded.
In other words, an idea has a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting funded. And, this is makes no prediction on if a funded idea has even a 50-50 chance of surviving beyond the first two years.
1 in 3 vs. 1 in 1,000
Given the 1 in 1,000 context, having something canceled/rejected three times is really not that big of a deal.
On the other hand, if you feel light-headed after reading this statement, you should not be in Silicon Valley.
---
I think the real question is how does PARC continue its longevity and relevance. Maybe I can convince somebody in the social science group to do an analysis.
===
P@P
I was chatting with one of the PARC colleagues about one of the projects that I am working on and he made the observation "nothing is a success until it has been canceled three times."
I think this captures the spirit of Silicon Valley as well as any that I have heard.
Let a thousand ideas bloom
In the old days, the rule of thumb about getting a new idea funded by a VC works something like this.
For every 10 ideas, 1 turns into a business plan
For every 10 business plan, 1 turns into a VC conversation
For every 10 VC conversations, 1 gets funded.
In other words, an idea has a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting funded. And, this is makes no prediction on if a funded idea has even a 50-50 chance of surviving beyond the first two years.
1 in 3 vs. 1 in 1,000
Given the 1 in 1,000 context, having something canceled/rejected three times is really not that big of a deal.
On the other hand, if you feel light-headed after reading this statement, you should not be in Silicon Valley.
---
I think the real question is how does PARC continue its longevity and relevance. Maybe I can convince somebody in the social science group to do an analysis.
===
P@P
Monday, March 9, 2009
Relational Software's Pitch
An archeological find
I was doing some research on Oracle. Specifically, I was trying to understand how the world transitioned from hierarchical database to relational database. It turned out that circa 1983 Oracle was handing out their stories when their name changed from its 1977 name as Relational Software to Oracle.
This is an archeological find on the earlier days of commercial relational database.
How did Relational/Oracle do it?
According to this 1983 document, the value proposition for relational database is that it can be manipulated by non-technical users. So, instead of waiting days on database administrators and programmers to produce the information, an user can construct a query and get the data in a matter of minutes/hours.
Ultimately, however, the key economic/business driver is that it is easier for corporations to build up huge amount of data than to hire and train database specialists. In this context, relational database and the SQL language make the data much more valuable to the business operators.
Looking for the fundamental economic shift
With perfect hindsight, Oracle was clearly right.
At a deeper level, however, relational database fundamentally changed the economics of database from a high-end specialty tool to something that is a common utility in almost all aspects of our digital life today.
The more relevant question is then, what technology is fundamentally changing the economics of how we do things today?
===
P@P
I was doing some research on Oracle. Specifically, I was trying to understand how the world transitioned from hierarchical database to relational database. It turned out that circa 1983 Oracle was handing out their stories when their name changed from its 1977 name as Relational Software to Oracle.
This is an archeological find on the earlier days of commercial relational database.
How did Relational/Oracle do it?
According to this 1983 document, the value proposition for relational database is that it can be manipulated by non-technical users. So, instead of waiting days on database administrators and programmers to produce the information, an user can construct a query and get the data in a matter of minutes/hours.
Ultimately, however, the key economic/business driver is that it is easier for corporations to build up huge amount of data than to hire and train database specialists. In this context, relational database and the SQL language make the data much more valuable to the business operators.
Looking for the fundamental economic shift
With perfect hindsight, Oracle was clearly right.
At a deeper level, however, relational database fundamentally changed the economics of database from a high-end specialty tool to something that is a common utility in almost all aspects of our digital life today.
The more relevant question is then, what technology is fundamentally changing the economics of how we do things today?
===
P@P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
