Archive for June 29th, 2009

h1

Hohm, and cloud computing

June 29, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Last week I wrote about Microsoft’s Hohm energy management product announcement. Yesterday at earth2tech, Katie Fehrenbacher elaborated on the cloud computing angle, and how Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing service might change energy data storage, computing, and business models. Microsoft, Google, and others are all exploring cloud computing, for good reason:

The trend of turning to cloud computing as a more efficient way to utilize computing power will only grow, too. At the Structure 2009 conference, held by our sister site GigaOM, the CEO of content delivery network company Akamai, Peter Sagan, said that cloud computing was a much more efficient and green way to do computing, a sentiment that was echoed by executives from web companies, telecom firms and Internet infrastructure makers.

h1

Transparency and representation in the Waxman-Markey vote

June 29, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

In his usual trenchant way, Jonathan Adler has hit upon the two things to which I object the most in the Waxman-Markey bill and vote. The first is the one about which I wrote in May: despite all of the tooth-gnashing and knicker-twisting about the cap-and-trade portions of the bill, the really egregious aspects of it are its old-school command-and-control characteristics.

The second is the implications of the quick, ramrod process for bringing the bill to vote before any of our so-called representatives could have physically been able to read the bill, or even to have their staff read it and analyze it for them. With so much horse trading and jockeying happening at the last minute, and without any actual physical copies of the actual final version of the bill upon which they were voting, how can the members of Congress really retain any shred of an argument that they are indeed representing their voters, and that there is any room for public involvement or discourse in debate? Sure, they are representing some of their constituents, the ones who have concentrated enough economic interests to engage in the wasteful rent-seeking that leads to things like last-minute 300-page amendments to appease ethanol producers. If you try to tell me that ethanol rent seeking is on balance value-creating, I will guffaw directly in your face. And this is not the first time this Congress has used this ramrod; the energy bill debate back in February had the same type of process, with House members voting on a bill that they clearly had not had time to read and process.

Jonathan notes:

If legislation of this sort, which establishes the first-ever regulatory controls on the most ubiquitous byproduct of modern industrial society, imposes new efficiency requirements on all-manner of appliances and consumer products, could trigger the imposition of tariffs on foreign products (likely in violation of U.S. trade commitments), furthers the federal government’s environmentally destructive love affair with corn-based ethanol, contains numerous provisions drafted or urged by various special interest groups, and (at least in one version) contained provisions designed to create a national housing code, can be adopted by a House of Congress within hours of being written (let alone becoming public), then any claim of transparency in government is a farce.

This is depressing. With this Congress, have we finally met Ben Franklin’s curse?

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

h1

NYT’s interactive Waxman-Markey voting map

June 29, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

The New York Times has a spiffy interactive map showing all of the House votes from Friday’s Waxman-Markey bill vote, as well as the entire roll call.

h1

Is either Google or Facebook the model of the Internet’s future?

June 29, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, claims that Google’s information and relationship model is top-down, Big Brother, while Facebook’s is bottom up and organic means of creating and gathering information based on social networks. He’s been making this claim quite vocally lately, and this Wired article provides a detailed discussion of the issues raised in the competition between Facebook and Google “for the future of the Internet” <doom music>DAH DAH DUH</doom music>.

I think Zuckerberg has a point in one area, and that is searches that arise from recommendations from your friends.

Today, the Google-Facebook rivalry isn’t just going strong, it has evolved into a full-blown battle over the future of the Internet—its structure, design, and utility. For the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google’s algorithms—rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg’s vision, users will query this “social graph” to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire—rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center. In other words, right where Google is now.

But here’s the challenge: one core feature that is a key to Facebook’s success may also be its biggest limitation, and that’s what its users will and will not allow Facebook to do with their private information. There are plenty of Facebook users who, like me, are fairly specific about the breadth and depth of our information sharing, and how far down the social network web we allow that information to go. Facebook settings allow us to control that, and if they didn’t, lots of folks (including me) would not use it.

Similarly, Google is very clear in its position about how it treats private information that is “in the cloud”, but I don’t think its business model is going to be as constrained by privacy concerns as Facebook’s will be.

My answer to the question heading this post is “who knows?” Not having a crystal ball, I suspect that both approaches can probably coexist, and will interact in ways that morph into some other model. I don’t think Google v. Facebook is like VHS v. Betamax, or railroad gauges, or Blue Ray v. HD. There’s enough heterogeneity among individuals using the Internet, and enough plasticity among platform models, that coexistence and synthesis are possible.

Oooh, that’s way more abstract than I meant to be this early on a Monday …

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers