IBM’s Slow Moving Cloud
April 28, 2008
In late 2007, IBM announced it “blue cloud”. If you don’t recall the announcement, you can read the IBM announcement here.
The key points that jumped out at me last year when I learned about this initiative are:
- The start of a shift from on-premises computing to cloud computing and Salesforce.com-type
- solutions for some of the IBM enterprise, government, and not for profit clients
- A series of cloud computing offerings that include hardware, services, and systems
- Distributed, globally accessible fabric of resources targeted for existing workloads and emerging massively scalable, data intensive workloads.
Last week, IBM revealed additional blue cloud component. The firm’s iDataPlex hardware is designed for cloud computing specifically for distributed data centers. Engineered to reduce power consumption and air conditioning load, the servers put the IBM “seal of approval” on network-centric or cloud computing solutions for business and large organizations. The zippy hardware can be managed with IBM’s Tivoli-based Blue Cloud software, which helps allays some organizations fears about “out in the cloud” solutions.
Infoworld’s story “Battle Brewing in the Cloud”, which you can read here, does a good job of summarizing similar initiatives from Amazon, Google, and EMC.
IBM’s push into cloud computing is interesting. The company says, “Cloud computing is an emerging approach to shared infrastructure in which large pools of systems are linked together to provide IT services…Blue Cloud will particularly focus on the breakthroughs required in IT management simplification to ensure security, privacy,reliability, as well as high utilization and efficiency.”
My take on IBM’s November 2007 announcement and last week’s iDataPlex and management software availability is that cloud computing is the next application platform. IBM’s verbiage says with authority what Webby companies have been arguing for several years. Largecompanies often pay little attention to innovations from upstarts like Amazon and Google. Industrial giants do notice when IBM gets behind an information technology trend.
Here’s the kicker. I don’t think cloud computing is going to be an overnight sensation. Large organizations are by their nature slow moving. IBM’s announcement certifies that cloud computing is a viable enterprise systems option.
The next IT struggle for dominance, mind share, and revenues is officially underway. Just slowly and for some organizations that pace won’t permit the behemoths to adapt quickly enough to avoid some consequences of the coming shift in enterprise computing.
Stephen Arnold, April 28, 2008
Publishing for Cash: What Is Here Is Bad. What Is Coming May Be Worse
July 1, 2025
Smart software involved in the graphic, otherwise just an addled dinobaby.
Shocker. Pew Research discovers that most “Americans” do not pay for news. Amazing. Is it possible that the Pew professionals were unaware of the reason newspapers, radio, and television included comic strips, horoscopes, sports scores, and popular music in their “real” news content? I read in the middle of 2025 the research report “Few Americans Pay for News When They Encounter Paywalls.” For a number of years I worked for a large publishing company in Manhattan. I also worked at a privately owned publishing company in fly over country.
The sky looks threatening. Is it clouds, locusts, or the specter of the new Dark Ages? Thanks, you.com. Good enough.
I learned several things. Please, keep in mind that I am a dinobaby and I have zero in common with GenX, Y, Z, or the horrific GenAI. The learnings:
- Publishing companies spend time and money trying to figure out how to convert information into cash. This “problem” extended from the time I took my first real job in 1972 to yesterday when I received an email from a former publisher who is thinking about batteries as the future.
- Information loses its value as it diffuses; that is, if I know something, I can generate money IF I can find the one person who recognizes the value of that information. For anyone else, the information is worthless and probably nonsense because that individual does not have the context to understand the “value” of an item of information.
- Information has a tendency to diffuse. It is a bit like something with a very short half life. Time makes information even more tricky. If the context changes exogenously, the information I have may be rendered valueless without warning.
So what’s the solution? Here are the answers I have encountered in my professional life:
- Convert the “information” into magic and the result of a secret process. This is popular in consulting, certain government entities, and banker types. Believe me, people love the incantations, the jargon talk, and the scent of spontaneous ozone creation.
- Talk about “ideals,” and deliver lowest common denominator content. The idea that the comix and sports scores will “sell” and the revenue can be used to pursue ideals. (I worked at an outfit like this, and I liked its simple, direct approach to money.)
- Make the information “exclusive” and charge a very few people a whole lot of money to access this “special” information. I am not going to explain how lobbying, insider talk, and trade show receptions facilitate this type of information wheeling and dealing. Just get a LexisNexis-type of account, run some queries, and check out the bill. The approach works for certain scientific and engineering information, financial data, and information people have no idea is available for big bucks.
- Embrace the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach. Believe me this works. Look at YouTube thumbnails. The graphics and word choice make clear that sensationalism, titillation, and jazzification are the order of the day.
Now back to the Pew research. Here’s a passage I noted:
The survey also asked anyone who said they ever come across paywalls what they typically do first when that happens. Just 1% say they pay for access when they come across an article that requires payment. The most common reaction is that people seek the information somewhere else (53%). About a third (32%) say they typically give up on accessing the information.
Stop. That’s the key finding: one percent pay.
Let me suggest:
- Humans will take the easiest path; that is, they will accept what is output or what they hear from their “sources”
- Humans will take “facts” and glue they together to come up with more “facts”. Without context — that is, what used to be viewed as a traditional education and a commitment to lifelong learning, these people will lose the ability to think. Some like this result, of course.
- Humans face a sharper divide between the information “haves” and the information “have nots.”
Net net: The new dark ages are on the horizon. How’s that for a speculative conclusion from the Pew research?
Stephen E Arnold, July 1, 2025
If AI Is the New Polyester, Who Is the New Leisure Suit Larry?
June 19, 2025
“GenAI Is Our Polyester” makes an insightful observation; to wit:
This class bias imbued polyester with a negative status value that made it ultimately look ugly. John Waters could conjure up an intense feeling of kitsch by just naming his film Polyester.
As a dinobaby, I absolutely loved polyester. The smooth silky skin feel, the wrinkle-free garments, and the disco gleam — clothing perfection. The cited essay suggests that smart software is ugly and kitschy. I think the observation misses the mark. Let’s assume I agree that synthetic content, hallucinations, and a massive money bonfire. The write up ignores an important question: Who is the Leisure Suit Larry for the AI adherents.
Is it Sam (AI Man) Altman, who raises money for assorted projects including an everything application which will be infused with smart software? He certain is a credible contender with impressive credentials. He was fired by his firm’s Board of Directors, only to return a couple of days later, and then found time to spat with Microsoft Corp., the firm which caused Google to declare a Red Alert in early 2023 because Microsoft was winning the AI PR and marketing battle with the online advertising venor.
Is it Satya Nadella, a manager who converted Word into smart software with the same dexterity, Azure and its cloud services became the poster child for secure enterprise services? Mr. Nadella garnered additional credentials by hiring adversaries of Sam (AI-Man) and pumping significant sums into smart software only to reverse course and trim spending. But the apex achievement of Mr. Nadella was the infusion of AI into the ASCII editor Notepad. Truly revolutionary.
Is it Elon (Dogefather) Musk, who in a span of six months has blown up Tesla sales, rocket ships, and numerous government professionals lives? Like Sam Altman, Mr. Must wants to create an AI-infused AI app to blast xAI, X.com, and Grok into hyper-revenue space. The allegations of personal tension between Messrs. Musk and Altman illustrate the sophisticated of professional interaction in the AI datasphere.
Is it Sundar Pinchai, captain of the Google? The Google has been rolling out AI innovations more rapidly than Philz Coffee pushes out lattes. Indeed, the names of the products, the pricing tiers, the actual functions of these AI products challenge some Googlers to keep each distinct. The Google machine produces marketing about its AI from manufacturing chips to avoid the Nvidia tax to “doing” science with AI to fixing up one’s email.
Is it Mark Zukerberg, who seeks to make Facebook a retail outlet as well as a purveyor of services to bring people together. Mr. Zuckerberg wants to engage in war fighting as part of his “bringing together” vision for Meta and Andruil, a Department of Defense contractor. Mr. Zuckerberg’s AI infused version of the fabled Google Glass combined with AI content moderation to ensure safeguards for Facebook’s billions of users is a bold step iin compliance and cost reduction.
These are my top four candidates for the GenAI’s Leisure Suit Larry. Will the game be produced by Nintendo, the Call of Duty crowd, or an independent content creator? Will it offer in-game purchases of valid (non hallucinated outputs) or will it award the Leisure Coin, a form of crypto tailored to fit like a polyester leisure suit from the late 1970s?
The cited article asserts:
But the historical rejection of polyester gives me hope. Humans ultimately are built to pursue value, and create it where it doesn’t exist. When small groups invent new sources of value, others notice and want in. The more that the economy embraces synthetic culture, the more we’ll be primed for a revival of non-synthetic culture. But this is where you come in: We have to be ready to fully embrace this return of human-made art. Our generation’s polyester salespeople are not deep thinkers and they don’t care about the externalities of what they’re doing. They’re here to sell us polyester. We don’t have to buy it, but more importantly, we don’t have to feel bad about not buying it.
I don’t agree. The AI polyester is going to stick like a synthetic shirt on a hot day at the iguana farm in Roatan in June. But that polyester will be care free. The AI Leisure Suit Sam, Elon, Satya, Mark, or Sundar will definitely wrinkle free and visible in hallucinogenic colors.
Stephen E Arnold, June 19, 2025
Move Fast, Break Your Expensive Toy
June 19, 2025
An opinion essay written by a dinobaby who did not rely on smart software .
The weird orange newspaper online service published “Microsoft Prepared to Walk Away from High-Stakes OpenAI Talks.” (I quite like the Financial Times, but orange?) The big news is that a copilot may be creating tension in the cabin of the high-flying software company. The squabble has to do with? Give up? Money and power. Shocked? It is Sillycon Valley type stuff, and I think the squabble is becoming more visible. What’s next? Live streaming the face-to-face meetings?
A pilot and copilot engage in a friendly discussion about paying for lunch. The art was created by that outstanding organization OpenAI. Yes, good enough.
The orange service reports:
Microsoft is prepared to walk away from high-stakes negotiations with OpenAI over the future of its multibillion-dollar alliance, as the ChatGPT maker seeks to convert into a for-profit company.
Does this sound like a threat?
The squabbling pilot and copilot radioed into the control tower this burst of static filled information:
“We have a long-term, productive partnership that has delivered amazing AI tools for everyone,” Microsoft and OpenAI said in a joint statement. “Talks are ongoing and we are optimistic we will continue to build together for years to come.”
The newspaper online service added:
In discussions over the past year, the two sides have battled over how much equity in the restructured group Microsoft should receive in exchange for the more than $13bn it has invested in OpenAI to date. Discussions over the stake have ranged from 20 per cent to 49 per cent.
As a dinobaby observing the pilot and copilot navigate through the cloudy skies of smart software, it certainly looks as if the duo are arguing about who pays what for lunch when the big AI tie up glides to a safe landing. However, the introduction of a “nuclear option” seems dramatic. Will this option be a modest low yield neutron gizmo or a variant of the 1961 Tsar Bomba fried animals and lichen within a 35 kilometer radius and converted an island in the arctic to a parking lot?
How important is Sam AI-Man’s OpenAI? The cited article reports this from an anonymous source (the best kind in my opinion):
“OpenAI is not necessarily the frontrunner anymore,” said one person close to Microsoft, remarking on the competition between rival AI model makers.
Which company kicked off what seems to be a rather snappy set of negotiations between the pilot and the copilot. The cited orange newspaper adds:
A Silicon Valley veteran close to Microsoft said the software giant “knows that this is not their problem to figure this out, technically, it’s OpenAI’s problem to have the negotiation at all”.
What could the squabbling duo do do do (a reference to Bing Crosby’s version of “I Love You” for those too young to remember the song’s hook or the Bingster for that matter):
- Microsoft could reach a deal, make some money, and grab the controls of the AI powered P-39 Airacobra training aircraft, and land without crashing at the Renton Municipal Airport
- Microsoft and OpenAI could fumble the landing and end up in Lake Washington
- OpenAI could bail out and hitchhike to the nearest venture capital firm for some assistance
- The pilot and copilot could just agree to disagree and sit at separate tables at the IHOP in Renton, Washington
One can imagine other scenarios, but the FT’s news story makes it clear that anonymous sources, threats, and a bit of desperation are now part of the Microsoft and OpenAI relationship.
Yep, money and control — business essentials in the world of smart software which seems to be losing its claim as the “next big thing.” Are those stupid red and yellow lights flashing at Microsoft and OpenAI as they are at Google?
Stephen E Arnold, June 19, 2025
Control = Power and Money: Anything Else Is an Annoyance
June 17, 2025
I read “Self-Hosting Your Own Media Considered Harmful.” I worked through about 300 comments on Ycombinator’s hacker news page. The write up by Jeff Geerling, a YouTube content creator, found himself in the deadfall of a “strike” or “takedown” or whatever unilateral action by Google is called. The essay says:
Apparently self-hosted open source media library management is harmful. Who knew open source software could be so subversive?
Those YCombinator comments make clear that some people understand the Google game. Other comments illustrate the cloud of unknowing that distorts one’s perception of the nature of the Google magic show which has been running longer than the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Act.
YouTube, unlike Google AI, is no joke to many people who believe that they can build a life by creating videos without pay and posting them to a service that is what might be called a new version of the “old Hollywood” studio system.
Let’s think about an answer to this subversive question. (Here’s the answer: Content that undermines Google’s power, control, or money flow. But you knew that, right?)
Let’s expand, shall we?
First, Google makes rules, usually without much more than a group of wizards of assorted ages talking online, at Foosball, or (sometimes) in a room with a table, chairs, a whiteboard, and other accoutrements of what business life was like in the 1970s. Management friction is largely absent; sometimes when leadership input is required, leadership avoids getting into the weeds. “Push down” is much better than an old-fashioned, hierarchical “dumb” approach. Therefore, the decisions are organic and usually arbitrary until something “big” happens like the 2023 Microsoft announced about its deal with OpenAI. Then leadership does the deciding. Code Red or whatever it was called illustrates the knee-jerk approach to issues that just go critical. Phase change.
Second, the connections between common sense, professional behavior (yes, I am including suicide attempts induced by corporate dalliance and telling customers “they have created a problem”), and consistency are irrelevant. Actions are typically local and context free. Consequently the mysterious and often disastrous notifications of a “violation.” I love it when companies judged to be operating in an illegal manner dole out notices of an “offense.” Keep the idea of “power” in mind, please.
Third, the lack of consistent, informed mechanisms to find out the “rule” an individual allegedly violated are the preferred approach to grousing. If an action intentional or unintentional could, might, did, would, will, or some other indicator of revenue loss is identified, then the perpetrator is guilty. Some are banned. Others like a former CIA professional are just told, “Take that video down.”
How does the cited essay handle the topic? Mr. Geerling says:
I was never able to sustain my open source work based on patronage, and content production is the same—just more expensive to maintain to any standard (each video takes between 10-300 hours to produce, and I have a family to feed, and US health insurance companies to fund). YouTube was, and still is, a creative anomaly. I’m hugely thankful to my Patreon, GitHub, and Floatplane supporters—and I hope to have direct funding fully able to support my work someday. But until that time, YouTube’s AdSense revenue and vast reach is a kind of ‘golden handcuff.’ The handcuff has been a bit tarnished of late, however, with Google recently adding AI summaries to videos—which seems to indicate maybe Gemini is slurping up my content and using it in their AI models?
This is an important series of statements. First, YouTube relies on content creators who post their work on YouTube for the same reason people use Telegram or BlueSky: These are free publicity channels that might yield revenue or a paying gig. Content creators trade off control and yield power to these “comms conduits” for the belief that something will come out of the effort. These channels are designed to produce revenue for their owners, not the content creators. The “hope” of a payoff means the content will continue to flow. No grousing, lawyer launch, or blog post is going to change the mechanism that is now entrenched.
Second, open source is now a problematic issue. For the Google the open source DeepSeek means that it must market its AI prowess more aggressively because it is threatened. For the Google content that could alienate an advertiser and a revenue stream is, by definition, bad content. That approach will become more widely used and more evident as the shift from Google search-based advertising is eroded by rather poor “smart” systems that just deliver answers. Furthermore, figuring out how to pay for smart software is going to lead to increasingly Draconian measures from Google-type outfits to sustain and grow revenue. Money comes from power to deliver information that will lure or force advertisers to buy access. End of story.
Third, Mr. Geerling politely raises the question about Google’s use of YouTube content to make its world-class smart software smarter. The answer to the question, based on what I have learned from my sources, is, “Yes.” Is this a surprise? Not to me. Maybe a content creator thinks that YouTube will set out rules, guidelines, and explanations of how it uses its digital vacuum cleaner to decrease the probability that that its AI system will spout stupidity like “Kids, just glue cheese on pizza”? That will not happen b because the Google-type of organization does not see additional friction as desirable. Google wants money. It has power.
What’s the payoff for Google? Control. If you want to play, you have to pay. Advertisers provide cash based on a rigged slot machine model. User provide “data exhaust” to feed into the advertising engine. YouTube creators provide free content to produce clicks, clusters of intent, and digital magnets designed to stimulate interest in that which Google provides.
Mr. Geerling’s essay is pretty good. Using good judgment, he does not work through the blood-drawing brambles of what Google does. That means he operates in a professional manner.
Bad news, Mr. Geering, that won’t work. The Google has been given control of information flows and that translates to money and power.
Salute the flag, adapt, and just post content that sells ads. Open source is a sub-genre of offensive content. Adapt or be deprived of Googley benefits.
Stephen E Arnold, June 17, 2025
Googley: A Dip Below Good Enough
June 16, 2025
A dinobaby without AI wrote this. Terrible, isn’t it? I did use smart software for the good enough cartoon. See, this dinobaby is adapting.
I was in Washington, DC, from June 9 to 11, 2025. My tracking of important news about the online advertising outfit was disrupted. I have been trying to catch up with new product mist, AI razzle dazzle, and faint signals of importance. The first little beep I noticed appeared in “Google’s Voluntary Buyouts Lead its Internal Restructuring Efforts.” “Ah, ha,” I thought. After decades of recruiting the smartest people in the world, the Google is dumping full time equivalents. Is this a move to become more efficient? Google has indicated that it is into “efficiency”; therefore, has the Google redefined the term? Had Google figured out that the change to tax regulations about research investments sparked a re-thing? Is Google so much more advanced than other firms, its leadership can jettison staff who choose to bail with a gentle smile and an enthusiastic wave of leadership’s hand?
The home owner evidences a surge in blood pressure. The handyman explains that the new door has been installed in a “good enough” manner. If it works for service labor, it may work for Google-type outfits too. Thanks, Sam AI-Man. Your ChatGPT came through with a good enough cartoon. (Oh, don’t kill too many dolphins, snail darters, and lady bugs today, please.)
Then I read “Google Cloud Outage Brings Down a Lot of the Internet.” Enticed by the rock solid metrics for the concept of “a lot,” I noticed this statement:
Large swaths of the internet went down on Thursday (June 12, 2025), affecting a range of services, from global cloud platform Cloudflare to popular apps like Spotify. It appears that a Google Cloud outage is at the root of these other service disruptions.
What? Google the fail over champion par excellence went down. Will the issue be blamed on a faulty upgrade? Will a single engineer who will probably be given an opportunity to find his or her future elsewhere be identified? Will Google be able to figure out what happened?
What are the little beeps my system continuously receives about the Google?
- Wikipedia gets fewer clicks than OpenAI’s ChatGPT? Where’s the Google AI in this? Answer: Reorganizing, buying out staff, and experiencing outages.
- Google rolls out more Gemini functions for Android devices. Where’s the stability and service availability for these innovations? Answer: I cannot look up the answer. Google is down.
- Where’s the revenue from online advertising as traditional Web search presents some thunderclouds? Answer: Well, that is a good question. Maybe revenues from Waymo, a deal with Databricks, or a bump in Pixel phone sales?
My view is that the little beeps may become self-amplifying. The magic of the online advertising model seems to be fading like the allure of Disneyland. When imagineering becomes imitation, more than marketing fairy dust may be required.
But what’s evident from the tiny beeps is that Google is now operating in “good enough” mode. Will it be enough to replace the Yahoo-GoTo-Overture pay-to-play approach to traffic?
Maybe Waymo is the dark horse when the vehicles are not combustible?
Stephen E Arnold, June 16, 2025
Will Amazon Become the Bell Labs of Consumer Products?
June 12, 2025
Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?
I did some work at Bell Labs and then at the Judge Greene crafted Bellcore (Bell Communications Research). My recollection is that the place was quiet, uneventful, and had a lousy cafeteria. The Cherry Hill Mall provided slightly better food, just slightly. Most of the people were normal compared to the nuclear engineers at Halliburton and my crazed colleagues at the blue chip consulting firm dumb enough to hire me before I became a dinobaby. (Did you know that security at the Cherry Hill Mall had a gold cart to help Bell Labs’ employees find their vehicle? The reason? Bell Labs hired staff to deal with this recuring problem. Yes, Howard, Alan, and I lost our car when we went to lunch. I finally started parking in the same place and wrote the door exit and lamp number down in my calendar. Problem solved!)
Is Amazon like that? On a visit to Amazon, I formed an impression somewhat different from Bell Labs, Halliburton, and the consulting firm. The staff were not exactly problematic. I just recall having to repeat and explain things. Amazon struck me as an online retailer with money and challenges in handling traffic. The people with whom I interacted when I visited with several US government professionals were nice and different from the technical professionals at the organizations which paid me cash money.
Is this important? Yes. I don’t think of Amazon as particularly innovative. When it wanted to do open source search, it hired some people from Lucid Imagination, now Lucid Works. Amazon just did what other Lucene/Solr large-scale users did: Index content and allow people to run queries. Not too innovative in my book. Amazon also industrialized back office and warehouse projects. These are jobs that require finding existing products and consultants, asking them to propose “solutions,” picking one, and getting the workflow working. Again, not particularly difficult when compared to the holographic memory craziness at Bell Labs or the consulting firm’s business of inventing consumer products for companies in the Fortune 500 that would sell and get the consulting firm’s staggering fees paid in cash promptly. In terms of the nuclear engineering work, Amazon was and probably still is, not in the game. Some of the rocket people are, but the majority of the Amazon workers are in retail, digital plumbing, and creating dark pattern interfaces. This is “honorable” work, but it is not invention in the sense of slick Monte Carlo code cranked out by Halliburton’s Dr. Julian Steyn or multi-frequency laser technology for jamming more data through a fiber optic connection.
I read “Amazon Taps Xbox Co-Founder to Lead new Team Developing Breakthrough Consumer Products.” I asked myself, “Is Amazon now in the Bell Labs’ concept space? The write up tries to answer my question, stating:
The ZeroOne team is spread across Seattle, San Francisco and Sunnyvale, California, and is focused on both hardware and software projects, according to job postings from the past month. The name is a nod to its mission of developing emerging product ideas from conception to launch, or “zero to one.” Amazon has a checkered history in hardware, with hits including the Kindle e-reader, Echo smart speaker and Fire streaming sticks, as well as flops like the Fire Phone, Halo fitness tracker and Glow kids teleconferencing device. Many of the products emerged from Lab126, Amazon’s hardware research and development unit, which is based in Silicon Valley.
Okay, the Fire Phone (maybe Foney) and the Glow thing for kids? Innovative? I suppose. But to achieve success in raw innovation like the firms at which I was an employee? No, Amazon is not in that concept space. Amazon is more comfortable cutting a deal with Elastic instead of “inventing” something like Google’s Transformer or Claude Shannon’s approach to extracting a signal from noise. Amazon sells books and provides an almost clueless interface to managing those on the Kindle eReader.
The write up says (and I believer everything I read on the Internet):
Amazon has pulled in staffers from other business units that have experience developing innovative technologies, including its Alexa voice assistant, Luna cloud gaming service and Halo sleep tracker, according to LinkedIn profiles of ZeroOne employees. The head of a projection mapping startup called Lightform that Amazon acquired is helping lead the group. While Amazon is expanding this particular corner of its devices group, the company is scaling back other areas of the sprawling devices and services division.
Innovation is a risky business. Amazon sells stuff and provides online access with uptime of 98 or 99 percent. It does not “do” innovation. I wrote a book chapter about Amazon’s blockchain patents. What happened to that technology, some of which struck me as promising and sort of novel given the standards for US patents? The answer, based on the information I have seen since I wrote the book chapter, is, “Not much.” In less time, Telegram dumped out dozens of “inventions.” These have ranged from sticking crypto wallets into every Messenger users’ mini app to refining the bot technology to display third-party, off-Telegram Web sites on the fly for about 900 million Messenger users.
Amazon hit a dead end with Alexa and something called Halo.
When an alleged criminal organization operating as an “Airbnb” outfit with no fixed offices and minimal staff can innovate and Amazon with its warehouses cannot, there’s a useful point of differentiation in my mind.
The write up reports:
Earlier this month, Amazon laid off about 100 of the group’s employees. The job cuts included staffers working on Alexa and Amazon Kids, which develops services for children, as well as Lab126, according to public filings and people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named due to confidentiality. More than 50 employees were laid off at Amazon’s Lab126 facilities in Sunnyvale, according to Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) filings in California.
Okay. Fire up a new unit. Will the approach work? I hope for stakeholders’ and employees’ sake, Amazon hits a home run. But in the back of my mind, innovation is difficult. Quite special people are needed. The correct organizational set up or essentially zero set up is required. Then the odds are usually against innovation, which, if truly novel, evokes resistance. New is threatening.
Can the Bezos bulldozer shift into high gear and do the invention thing? I don’t know but I have some nagging doubts.
Stephen E Arnold, June 12, 2025
Developers: Try to Kill ‘Em Off and They Come Back Like Giant Hogweeds
June 12, 2025
Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?
Developers, which probably extends to “coders” and “programmers”, have been an employee category of note for more than a half century. Even the esteemed Institute of Advanced Study enforced some boundaries between the “real” thinking mathematicians and the engineers who fooled around in the basement with a Stone Age computer.
Giant hogweeds can have negative impacts on humanoids who interact with them. Some say the same consequences ensue when accountants, lawyers, and MBAs engage in contact with programmers: Skin irritation and possibly blindness.
“The Recurring Cycle of ‘Developer Replacement’ Hype” addresses this boundary. The focus is on smart software which allegedly can do heavy-lifting programming. One of my team (Howard, the recipient of the old and forgotten Information Industry Association award for outstanding programming) is skeptical that AI can do what he does. I think that our work on the original MARS system which chugged along on the AT&T IBM MVS installation in Piscataway in the 1980s may have been a stretch for today’s coding wonders like Claude and ChatGPT. But who knows? Maybe these smart systems would have happily integrated Information Dimensions database with the MVS and allowed the newly formed Baby Bells to share certain data and “charge” one another for those bits? Trivial work now I suppose in the wonderful world of PL/1, Assembler, and the Basis “GO” instruction in one of today’s LLMs tuned to “do” code.
The write up points out that the tension between bean counters, MBAs and developers follows a cycle. Over time, different memes have surfaced suggesting that there was a better, faster, and cheaper way to “do” code than with programmers. Here are the “movements” or “memes” the author of the cited essay presents:
- No code or low code. The idea is that working in PL/1 or any other “language” can be streamlined with middleware between the human and the executables, the libraries, and the control instructions.
- The cloud revolution. The idea is that one just taps into really reliable and super secure services or micro services. One needs to hook these together and a robust application emerges.
- Offshore coding. The concept is simple: Code where it is cheap. The code just has to be good enough. The operative word is cheap. Note that I did not highlight secure, stable, extensible, and similar semi desirable attributes.
- AI coding assistants. Let smart software do the work. Microsoft allegedly produces oodles of code with its smart software. Google is similarly thrilled with the idea that quirky wizards can be allowed to find their future elsewhere.
The essay’s main point is that despite the memes, developers keep cropping up like those pesky giant hogweeds.
The essay states:
Here’s what the "AI will replace developers" crowd fundamentally misunderstands: code is not an asset—it’s a liability. Every line must be maintained, debugged, secured, and eventually replaced. The real asset is the business capability that code enables. If AI makes writing code faster and cheaper, it’s really making it easier to create liability. When you can generate liability at unprecedented speed, the ability to manage and minimize that liability strategically becomes exponentially more valuable. This is particularly true because AI excels at local optimization but fails at global design. It can optimize individual functions but can’t determine whether a service should exist in the first place, or how it should interact with the broader system. When implementation speed increases dramatically, architectural mistakes get baked in before you realize they’re mistakes. For agency work building disposable marketing sites, this doesn’t matter. For systems that need to evolve over years, it’s catastrophic. The pattern of technological transformation remains consistent—sysadmins became DevOps engineers, backend developers became cloud architects—but AI accelerates everything. The skill that survives and thrives isn’t writing code. It’s architecting systems. And that’s the one thing AI can’t do.
I agree, but there are some things programmers can do that smart software cannot. Get medical insurance.
Stephen E Arnold, June 12, 2025
Will the EU Use an AI Agent to Automate Fines?
June 10, 2025
Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?
Apple, at least to date, has not demonstrated adeptness in lashing smart software to its super secure and really user friendly system. How many times do I have to dismiss “log in to iCloud” and “log in to Facetime”? How frequently will Siri wander in dataspace? How often do I have to dismiss “two factor authentication” for the old iPad I use to read Kindle books? How often? The answer is, “As many times as the European Union will fine the company for failure to follow its rules, guidelines, laws, and special directives.
I read “EU Ruling: Apple’s App Store Still in Violation of DMA, 30 Days to Comply” and I really don’t know what Apple has blown off. I vaguely recall that the company ignored a US court order in the US. However, the EU is not the US, and the EU can make quite miserable for the company, its employees residing in the EU, and its contractors with primary offices in member countries. The tools can be trivial: A bit of friction at international airports. The machinery can be quite Byzantine when financial or certification activities can be quite entertaining to an observer.
The write up says:
Following its initial €500 million fine in April, the European Commission is now giving Apple 30 days to fully align its App Store rules with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). If it fails to comply, the EU says it will start imposing “periodic penalty payments” until Apple [follows the rules]…
For me, the operative word is “periodic.” I think it means a phenomenon that repeats at regular intervals of time. Okay, a fine like the most recent €500 would just occur in a heart beat fashion. One example would be every month. After one year, the fines total €6,000,000,000. What happens if the EU gets frisky after a bottle of French burgundy from a very good year? The fine would be levied for each day in a calendar year and amount to €2,190,000,000,000 or two trillion one hundred ninety billion euros. Even for a high flier like Apple and its pilot Tim Apple, stakeholders might suggest, “Just obey the law, please.”
I wonder if the EU might consider using Telegram bots to automate the periodic fines. The system developed by France’s favorite citizen Pavel Durov is robust, easily extensible, and essentially free. The “FineApple_bot” could fire on a schedule and message Tim Apple, his Board of Directors, the other “leadership” of Apple, and assorted news outlets. The free service operates quickly enough for most users, but by paying a nominal monthly fee, the FineApple_bot could issues 1,000 instructions a second. But that’s probably overkill unless the EU decides to fine Apple by the minute. In case you were wondering the annual fine would be in the neighborhood of €52,560,000,000,000 (or fifty-two trillion five hundred sixty billion euros).
My hunch is that despite Apple’s cavalier approach to court orders, some less intransigent professional in the core of Apple would find a way to resolve the problem. But I personally quite like the Telegram bot approach.
Stephen E Arnold, June 10, 2025
Is Google Headed for the Big Computer Room in the Sky? Actually Yes It Is
June 9, 2025
Just a dinobaby and no AI: How horrible an approach?
As freshman in college in 1962, I had seen computers like the clunky IBMs at Keystone Steel & Wire Co., where my father worked as some sort of numbers guy, a bean counter, I guessed. “Look but don’t touch,” he said, not even glancing up from his desk with two adding machines, pencils, and ledgers. I looked.
Once I convinced a professor of poetry to hire me to help him index Latin sermons, I was hooked. Next up were Digital Equipment machines. At Halliburton Nuclear a fellow named Bill Montano listened to my chatter about searching text. Then I bopped into a big blue chip consulting firms and there were computing machines in the different offices I visited. When I ended up at the database company in the early 1980s, I had my own Wang in my closet. There you go. A file cabinet sized gizmo, weird hums, and connections to terminals in my little space and to other people who could “touch” their overheated hearts. Then the Internet moved from the research world into the mainstream. Zoom. Things were changing.
Computer companies arrived, surged, and faded. Then personal computer companies arrived, surged, and faded. The cadence of the computer industry was easy to dance to. As Carmen Giménez used to say on American Bandstand in 1959, “I like the beat and it is easy to dance to.” I have been tapping along and doing a little jig in the computer (online) sector for many years, around 60 I think.
I read “Google As You Know It Is Slowly Dying.” Okay, another tech outfit moving through its life cycle. Break out your copy of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s On Death and Dying. Jump to Acceptance section, read it, and move on. But, no. It is time for one more “real news” write up to explain that Googzilla is heading toward its elder care facility. This is not news. If it is, fire up your Burroughs B5500 and do your inventory update.
The essay presents the obvious as “new.” The Vox write up says:
Google is dominant enough that two federal judges recently ruled that it’s operating as an illegal monopoly, and the company is currently waiting to see if it will be broken up.
From my point of view, this is an important development. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the smart software approach to search. After two decades of doing exactly what it wanted, Google — like Apple and Meta — are in the spotlight. Those spotlights are solar powered and likely to remain on for the foreseeable future. That’s news.
In this spotlight are companies providing a “new” way to search. Since search is required to do most things online, the Google has to figure out how to respond in an intelligent way to two — count ‘em — big problems: Government actions and upstarts using Google’s own Transformer innovation.
The intersection of regulatory action and the appearance of an alternative to “search as you know it” is the same old story, just jazzed up with smart software, efficiency, the next big thing, Sky Net, and more. The write up says:
The government might not be the biggest threat to Google dominance, however. AI has been chipping away at the foundation of the web in the past couple of years, as people have increasingly turned to tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity to find information online.
My view is that it is the intersection, not the things themselves that have created the end-of-the-line sign for the Google bullet train. Google will try to do what it has done since Backrub: Appropriate ideas like Yahoo, Overture, and GoTo advertising methods, create a bar in which patrons pay to go in and out (advertisers and users), and treat the world as a bunch of dorks by whiz kids who just know so much more about the digital world. No more.
Google’s legacy is the road map for other companies lucky or skilled enough to replicate the approach. Consequently, the Google is in Code Red, announcing so many “new” products and services I certainly can’t keep them straight, and serving up a combination of hallucinatory output and irrelevant search results. The combination is problematic as the regulators close in.
The write up concludes with this statement:
In the chaotic, early days of the web, Google got popular by simplifying the intimidating task of finding things online, as the Washington Post’s Geoffrey A. Fowler points out. Its supremacy in this new AI-powered future is far less certain. Maybe another startup will come along and simplify things this time around, so you can have a user-friendly bot explain things to you, book travel for you, and make movies for you.
I disagree. Google became popular because it indexed Web sites, used some Clever ideas, and implemented processes that produced pages usually related to the user’s query. Over time, wrapper software provided Google with a way to optimize its revenue. Innovation eluded the company. In the social media “space”, Google bumbled Orkut and then continued to bumble until it pretty much gave up on killing Facebook. In the Microsoft “space,” Google created its own office and it rolled out its cloud service. There have not had a significant impact in the enterprise market when the river of money flows for Microsoft and whatever it calls its alleged monopolistic-inclined services. There are other examples of outright failure.
Now the Google is just spewing smart software products. This reminds me of a person who, shortly before dying, sees bright lights and watches the past flash before them. Then the person dies. My view is that Google is having what are like those near death experiences. The person survives but knows exactly what death is.
Believe me, Google knows that the annoying competitors are more popular; to wit, Sam AI-Man and his ChatGPT, his vision for the “everything” app, and his rather clever deal with Telegram. To wit, Microsoft and its deals with most smart software companies and its software lock in the US Federal government, its boot camp deal with Palantir Technologies, and its mind-boggling array of ways to get access to word processing software.
Google has not proven it can deal with the confluence of regulators demanding money and lesser entities serving up products and services that capture headlines. Code Red and dozens of “new” products each infused with Gemini or whatever the name of the smart software is today is not a solution that returns Google to its glory days.
The patient is going through tough times. Googzilla may survive but search is going to remain finding on point information. LLMs are a current approach that people like. By itself, it will not kill Google or allow it to survive. Google is caught between the reality of meaningful regulatory action and innovators who are more agile.
Googzilla is old and spends some time looking for suitable elder care facilities.
Stephen E Arnold, June 9, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
