IDC and Reports by Schubmehl
July 25, 2014
I wanted to nail down a handful of facts.
First, IDC published without a contract four reports in 2012. These reports were disseminated via the IDC Web site, various communications, and via Amazon’s eCommerce site. These reports were:
- Attivio 236514
- Elasticsearch 237410
- Lucid Imagination / Works 236086
- Polyspot 236511
Each report was $3,500. One report about Attivio was sold on Amazon until July 17, 2014.
The “authors” of these IDC reports included:
- Susan Feldman, a former IDC professional positioned as a “search expert”. Only Attivio.
- David Schubmehl, a former OpenText and Janya (no longer in business) “professional” and heir to Ms Feldman as IDC’s search expert who has jumped from my Attivio information into a consulting relationship with that company founded by former Fast Search & Transfer executives. See this link. Dave Schubmehl’s name appears on each of the four published reports using information from my team and me.
- Constance Ard, MLS, who was at this time the coordinator of my research projects
- Dr. Tyra Oldham, one of the 2012 members of my research team
- Stephen E Arnold, me. I have pointed to a biography on my Web site set up to promote the deal I had with IDC to publish an open source search monograph containing profiles of more than a dozen companies in 2012.
So what’s the big deal? Let me highlight the reason I will be taking a look at some of the IDC expertise in the future.
First, Ms. Feldman and I worked on projects that originated at Manning & Napier, then an investment services company. I was happy to cooperate with her when she joined IDC as the head of the IDC search practice. However, under circumstances I don’t understand, Ms. Feldman left IDC and the area of her responsibility was snagged by David Schubmehl. Without Ms. Feldman at IDC, I made numerous efforts to get a contract, get information about sales, find out where the 13 profiles provided by me and my team were at IDC, and, of course, get paid. Ms. Feldman made administrative procedures work. Mr. Schubmehl took a different approach from where I sat.
Second, Mr. Schubmehl made certain his name appeared on the reports published and sold by IDC without written permission from me to use my material or to stake a claim on the work. Furthermore, the source material we provided contained certain information that was in 2012 not widely known. Significant information about the companies we analyzed were not included in the IDC reports. As a result, the IDC reports using my material were not in line with my thinking. One example of Mr. Schubmehl’s thinking is this tweet:
According to LinkedIn, IDC’s analyst profile, and various biographies charting his work career, he is an expert in Enterprise Search, Text Analytics, Customer Relations, Consultancy, Document Management, Enterprise Content Management, Business Intelligence, Information Management, Intellectual Property, Litigation Support, Enterprise Software, SaaS, Product Management, Cloud Computing, Analytics, Go-to-market Strategy, Knowledge Management, Software Development, and Enterprise Architecture. This impressive list begs one simple question: “If one is so expert, why is it necessary to use without permission and payment the work of others?”
Third, my attorney sought information about sales and finally pressed IDC to stop selling reports with my name and David Schubmehl’s on them. One fix was for IDC to roll Lucid information into a separate report. IDC stopped selling the four reports identified above in early 2014. IDC continued to sell the Attivio report on Amazon until July 17, 2014. IDC is no longer selling reports with my name on them. This is a modest victory, but it leaves the question hanging, “What motivates a large and presumably well regarded consulting firm to trample over basic business procedures?” I don’t have an answer. I do believe IDC is perhaps not quite so confident of its “experts’” expertise, particularly with regard to search and content processing.
Net net: IDC used my name without my permission. IDC published my research material without issuing a contract for work for hire. IDC took possession of detailed, high value information and permitted that information to “inform” David Schubmehl to further his impact as a sales person and “expert” at IDC like Mr. Schubmehl, a “long suffering Buffalo Bills fan and reformed youth soccer referee.”
The next time you read an IDC report, please, consider these questions:
- Who is the “expert”? The contributors or the IDC person who piggybacks on the names of others with particular expertise?
- Is $3,500 for a rehash of other people’s work a wise use of scarce resources?
- Why does a large company fail to follow standard business practices such as issuing contracts, observing contracts, providing sales reports, and compensating those who actually performed original work?
Stephen E Arnold, July 25, 2014
Factualities for December 5, 2018
December 5, 2018
The word of the year is “misinformation.” With that in mind, believe these factualities or do not believe them. Your call.
- 18 million. According to the Inquirer, “LinkedIn received a small slap on the wrist from Ireland’s Data Protection Commission (IDPC) over its usage of 18 million email addresses belonging to non-members of the world’s biggest humblebrag website.” Ah, Microsoft LinkedIn.
- 60 million. Number of people affected by the United States Post Office data leak. Source: Dark Reading
- 500 million. Number of people affected by data leaks at Marriott Starwood. Source: Pymnts.com
- 52. The number of times a day a person checks his or her mobile phone. Source: Ubergizmo
- 175 zettabytes. How much data will be produced each year by humans and their systems. Source: the ever reliable IDC. See this link for information about their administrative expertise.
- 4,829 percent. Revenue increase at Darktrace, a UK cyber security firm. Source: Compelo
- 1,300. Number of photos of their children parents have posted online by the time the kids are 13. Source: Technology Review
- 900 percent. Amount Facebook inflated its data related to its “ad watching”. Source: Slashdot
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2018
Oracle: A Leader in a Blockchain Service Which Is Fast, Efficient, and Cost Effective
July 18, 2018
Neither Amazon’s nor Oracle’s blockchain capabilities have captured the imagination of die hard Facebookers or Tweet drones. I read “Global Businesses Turn to Oracle Blockchain Service to Speed Transactions Securely.” The write up struck me as a content marketing type document, but I am skeptical of much of the information I sift each day.
The main point of the write up struck me as an argument for Oracle as the blockchain tool chest and service provider for an organization wanting to avail themselves of the distributed database technology. Oracle suggests in the write up that its approach can transform, provide efficiency, and cost effectiveness.
I noted this statement:
Oracle Blockchain Cloud Service provides customers with a development platform to build their own networks, and to quickly integrate with Oracle SaaS and third-party applications they already use, as well as other blockchain networks and Oracle PaaS services. It also enables users to provision blockchain networks, join other organizations, and deploy and run smart contracts to update and query the ledger. Oracle’s blockchain platform leverages the company’s decades of experience across industries and its extensive partner ecosystem to reliably share and conduct trusted transactions with suppliers, banks, and other trade partners through blockchain.
There is a nod to Linux and the uptime of the Oracle cloud. That would be welcome news to any Oracle customer who tried to take advantage of Amazon discount day deals. My understanding is that Amazon Prime was a different cut of beef yesterday, but I could be mistaken. Cloud services do have their issues, and even the vaunted Google stumbled with streaming video, a technology which I thought was nailed down.
Back to Oracle.
As interesting was the use of Oracle’s blockchain service to verify the virginity of olive oil, I noted this factoid:
“As a company dedicated to making business-to-business payments and supply chain finance secure, frictionless and ubiquitous using blockchain, we are able to significantly accelerate the time to onboard corporations, their suppliers and banks by using Oracle’s blockchain platform,” said Amit Baid, CEO, TradeFin. “It provides a REST API-driven platform with rich integration options in Oracle Cloud Platform, allowing us to quickly onboard existing customers. Additionally, Oracle Scaleup Ecosystem provides access to the platform itself, cloud credits, mentoring, and a number of Oracle resources that can help start-ups like ours grow quickly.”
After reading the write up, it struck me that there were some parallels between Oracle’s service and Amazon’s Ethereum and Hyper Ledger capabilities. The API angle is interesting because Oracle, like Amazon, can knit together other functions and services to create quite specific implementations of the technology.
I did not three things:
First, there was no mention of the number of Amazon professionals who now work at Oracle. Our research suggests that like IBM, Oracle has been able to lure some of Amazon’s own experts with relevant work experience and perhaps some patent highway miles under his or her belt.
Second, Oracle emphasizes cost effectiveness. I assume that quite a few Oracle customers will be delighted with that news. Oracle’s products, services, and engineering support can be expensive when compared to some competitors’ offerings. Microsoft Azure has allegedly been aggressive with some pricing deals, but that may be idle chatter. After all, the high end Surface notebook is supposed to run fast and cool.
Third, the evidence for the value of the speedy Oracle blockchain implementation is none other than IDC. That’s quite an outfit. I wonder if the firm has realigned its compass after selling my reports on Amazon without obtaining permission in writing or paying me for helping make IDC so darned smart. Great and credible source for something as important as blockchain is IDC. But that’s just my normal skepticism.
Stephen E Arnold, July 18, 2018
Gartner Starts 2018 with Stale Spam
December 31, 2017
After a decade of New Year blog posts I was running out of ideas. But, I received an email from a Gartner Group professional named Brandon Pineres.
I don’t know Brandon. I don’t know anyone in Florida I would trust to walk my 11 year old boxer Max.
I assume Brandon is a person who is trying hard to sell me Gartner’s consulting services. He may be eager to convert me to a dot point in one of Gartner’s intellectually challenged Magic Quadrants. (BCG’s Bruce Henderson probably shakes each time he contemplates what happened to General Eisenhower’s grid which BCG whipped into the cash cow, star, loser graphic decades ago.) Brandon may be hoping that I will write a check for %55,000 or more so I can give a talk at one of Gartner’s networking events.
Quick tip: Navigate to Beyond Search and run a query for Gartner. I have written about or mentioned Gartner a handful of times. Try this write up, for instance: Cacaphones.
His spam (email I did not request) enjoined with wonky syntax like “being that” and offered with great good cheer:
Having attempted to reach out to you over the last few weeks I wanted to follow up one last time before the end of Gartner’s financial year. Being that Gartner is a publically traded company, we are being offered the most aggressive commercial flexibility now. I have the ability to get you unlimited access at a highly discounted price. I would love to work with you to explore the most cost effective Gartner solution that can support ArnoldIT’s strategy in 2018. Would you be interested in having an exploratory dialog today and discuss the commercial incentives and how you can work with your key analysts in 2018 to accelerate time to revenue and increase awareness with your buyers?
Does the tone and approach reminds you of the baloney some business school majors absorb from adjunct professors who don’t want to work at Wendy’s or McDo’s?
Also, I have no record of Brandon’s “reach out.” I have been sitting in my office working on the second edition of the best selling “Dark Web Notebook” and making Dark Cyber videos. I am not sure Gartner can help me with my strategy. I suppose if he attends the Telestrategies ISS events at which I lecture, he might pick up an idea or two about where my research is headed. Well, maybe not.
Brandon does not think I know that Gartner Group is publicly-traded. I do know this. I also know that Gartner Inc. has trended down, flopping around $123 a share. In an effort to pump up revenue, Brandon’s spam is, according to mid tier consulting firm reason, going to generate revenue from me.
Wrong.
As a former Booz, Allen & Hamilton professional and veteran of some other reasonably interesting jobs, I typically pay little or no attention to what I call mid-tier consulting firms and their staff. I have done odd jobs for some other blue-chip outfits, but I have not involved myself with the mid-tier or bottom-feeders unless I was paid by them to show up at an event or write a short report. In my experience, the non-blue chip firms buy reports from people like me and then put their name on them. Want proof? Check out the erstwhile Dave Schubmehl, an administrative master, at this link.
Several points:
- Why not spend a moment to research the person before sending spam? Spam might have unintended consequences.
- Why pretend to have tried to contact me and I, because of stupidity or indifference, did not respond to unsolicited email?
- Why assume that a former Booz, Allen person will write a check to a mid-tier consulting firm’s offer of low-ball pricing and help making contacts?
My hunch is that there are people who will fall for this type of marketing.
I won’t and don’t. A word of advice from the sage of Harrod’s Creek: Don’t spam me. I can be frisky plus I have time to write humorous essays about those who don’t take the time to learn about my background.
Brandon, I bet 2018 will be a better year without unsolicited emails. What do you think?
Now I have to email your message with headers to my pals at spam@uce.gov.
Stephen E Arnold, December 31, 2017
Elastic Remains Strategically Bouncy
November 10, 2017
Enterprise search remains a dull and rusty sword in the museum of enterprise applications. Frankly, other than wordsmithing with wild and crazy jargon, the technology for finding information in an organization works a bit like the blacksmith under the spreading chestnut tree.
The big news from my point of view has been the uptake in open source enterprise search software. The lead dog is Lucene. Even the much hyped free version of Fast Search technology pitched as Solr is built on Lucene.
Yep, there are proprietary solutions, but where are these folks? Outfits with search technology are capturing the hearts and minds of decision makers who want solutions to findability problems, not the high speed sleet of buzzwords like ontology, taxonomy, natural language processing, facets, semantics, yada, yada, yada.
I read an article, which I assume is true, because I believe everything I read on the Internet and in white papers. The write up is “Elastic Acquires SaaS Site Search Leader Swiftype.” Elastic is the result of a bold search experience called Compass. The champion of this defunct system was Shay Banon, who created Elasticsearch.
For many people, Elasticsearch and the for fee “extras” available from the company Elastic is Lucene. Disagree? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, gentle reader.
The write up informed me:
Elastic, the company behind Elasticsearch, and the Elastic Stack, the most widely-used collection of open source products for solving mission-critical use cases like search, logging, and analytics, today announced that it has acquired Swiftype, a San Francisco-based startup founded in 2012 and backed by Y Combinator and New Enterprise Associates (NEA). Swiftype is the creator of the popular SaaS-based Site Search and the recently introduced Enterprise Search products.
Swiftype used Elastic to captur3e some customers with its search solution. According to the write up, even Dr. Pepper found a pepper upper with Swiftype’s Elasticsearch based system.
Why’s this important? I jotted down three reasons as I was watching a group of confused deer trying to cross a busy highway. (Deer, like investors in enterprise search dream spinners, are confused by the movement of fast moving automobiles and loud pick up trucks.)
First, compare Elastic’s acquisition with Lucidworks purchase of an interface company. Elastic bought people, a solution, and customers. Interfaces are okay, but those who want to find information need a system that springs into action quickly and can be used to deal with real world information problems. Arts and crafts are important, but not as important as search that returns relevant results and performs useful functions like chopping log files into useful digital lumber.
Second, Elastic has been on a role. We profiled the company for a wonky self appointed blue chip consulting firm years ago. The report went nowhere due to the managerial expertise of a self appointed search expert. See this link for details of this maven. In that report, my team of researchers verified that large companies were adopting Elasticsearch because those firms had the most to gain from an open source product which could be supported by third party engineers. Another plus was that the Elasticsearch product could be extended and amplified without the handcuffs of a proprietary search vendor’s license restrictions.
Third, Elasticsearch worked. Sure, it was a hassle to become familiar with the system. But if there were an issue, the Lucene community was usually available for advice and often for prompt fixes. Mr. Banon pushed innovations down the trail as well. It was clear five years ago and it is clear today that Elastic and Elasticsearch are the go to systems for some savvy people. Contrast that with the floundering of outfits flogging their search systems on LinkedIn or on vapid webinars about concepts.
Net net: Elastic is an outfit to watch. For most of Elastic’s competitors watching is easy when one is driving a Model T behind the race leader in one of those zippy Hellcats with 700 horsepower.
Even blacksmiths take notice when this baby roars down the highway. And the deer? The deer run the other way.
Stephen E Arnold, November 10, 2017
Bezos Paper Research Item: Report Has Disappeared
December 6, 2016
I read a weird, sort of out-of-time write up from the “real” journalistic outfit the Washington Post. The story is “Pentagon Buries Evidence of $125 Billion in Bureaucratic Waste.” The days of the fun Golden Fleece Award have passed us by. The Washington Post is apparently trying to revivify an interesting series of announcements about expensive, inefficient US government processes. I know the US government is a paragon of efficiency, so I was curious about the hot news which I read on December 5, 2016. If the url doesn’t work, you may have to pay to view the Bezos paper’s content. Don’t hassle me. Contact the big guy at the digital Wal-Mart.
The “news” in the story is that a 2015 report HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WEB SITE. The capital letters are necessary because the investigative team at the Bezos paper has discovered that a white hot report is no longer findable.
Guidepost for some real journalists. Helpful and apparently accurate.
Okay, that’s just not true.
The report “Transforming DoD’s Core Business Processes for Revolutionary Change” is available. Just click this DTIC link for the short version and this link for the 140+ page version. Dive into the document which was in preparation for more than a year. The reports appeared in January 2015. It took me exactly 20 seconds to navigate to USA.gov, enter the title of the report, and identify the document in the result list. Sure, the USA.gov search relevance thing is not too good, but the document is indeed online from a unit of the Department of Defense. (I wonder if the intrepid Bezos paper researchers have sought ZPIC and RAC contract information on the US government’s fraud related Web sites. There’s a story there.)
This report was assembled in 2014 and made available in 2015. The Bezos paper rolled out the “Pentagon Buries…” write up on December 5, 2016. That’s a bit like reporting that in 2014 Wiz Khalifa’s “We Dem Boyz“ was a reasonably popular rap song. Run the story today and you have a real timely report. That’s “real” journalism.
The DoD fiddles with its Web site frequently. Try and locate details of the 2015 DCGS meeting in Virginia. The information is online, but due to the spiffing up of US government Web sites, content seems to disappear. In some cases like the MIC, RAC, and ZPIC information, a contractor or a clever government Web master moves content from a public folder to a non-public folder. Some bureaucrats are not completely ditzy.
The DoD, however, is another kettle of fish. The agency has to deal with the tanks it does not want yet it continues to receive, the F-35 thing, and the stealth ship which is neither stealthy or ready to take a quick spin to Jeju this afternoon. These expensive projects are difficult to hide. Notice I did not mention my fave US government project, the Distributed Common Ground System available (sort of) in Air Force and Army flavors.
My point is that “investigations” implies something substantive, reasonably new, and not widely known. The “Pentagon Buries…” write up is not new. Its information is widely known even here in rural Kentucky, and I would presume by legions of Beltway Bandits who wonder what the Trumpeteers will do to their highly polished apple carts used to ferry proposals and invoices to the the Department of Defense and assorted sub entities.
In an era during which real journalists at outfits like the Guardian REALIZE THAT FREE WEB SEARCH IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS, I conclude that the “real” journalists prefer old news to tracking down something of substance which is current. Even my comment about MIC, RAC, and ZPIC contracts is old news. I keep the juicy new stuff to myself.
Because I am not a “real” journalist, I sell information because I am a semi retired consultant. Watch for “Dark Web Notebook.” The monograph contains information not previously collected. Some of the information is “actual factual” just like the podcast by three millennials. Perhaps the Bezos paper will buy a copy? I know better than to put the study on Amazon. I watched the horror of the Schubmehl thing, which tried to hawk eight pages of my research for $3,500 on the digital Wal-Mart. What was that “wizard” thinking? Maybe he could work at the Bezos paper? Might be a good fit.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2016
IBM Watson and Its QAMs
November 27, 2016
“What’s a QAM?” some may ask. The answer is revealed in “What Can Modern Watson Do?” The answer is a question answering machine.” The idea is that one talks to a computing device and the device provides high value, on point output. One can also type the question, but mobile phones are not designed for query formulation. Phones are designed to do Facebook, Twitter, and app-based functions.
The write up is interesting because it reveals that Watson is not a game show winner or the reason to spend a week in Las Vegas at the World of Watson conference. Nope. I learned:
IBM’s Watson as it exists today is as close as we’ve come to a single integrated platform for AI. It contains all the capabilities for image and video, natural language speech and text input and output, and the most comprehensive knowledge recovery module yet combined together.
Consider the gap between IBM Watson and its many competitors. Watson must be making life very difficult for the companies offering smart software systems. One feels sorry for Amazon, Facebook, Google, and other outfits who are not in Watson’s league.
The write up explains that Watson does image and video processing, text and speech processing, and knowledge retrieval.
What caught my attention was the notion of QAMs. I learned that knowledge retrieval (which to me means search) is complex. IBM has not been able to get the media excited about search as about Watson’s other capabilities. Is this a failing of IBM marketing, the system, or the media. Perhaps IBM’s CEO should tweet late at night to amp up the interest in search and retrieval?
The write up points out that Watson combines natural language processing, hypothesis generation and evaluation, and evidence based learning with [a] image processing, [b] text and speech processing, and [c] knowledge retrieval. When these capabilities are placed in one single system, the future is here or maybe just around the corner.
The write up invokes Dave Schubmehl, a person who tried to sell reports containing my information on Amazon for $3,500 a whack for eight pages without my permission. I wonder if Watson assisted him in making this decision? Here’s a passage mentioning this maven which I highlighted in yellow:
David Schubmehl, an analyst at IDC compares IBMs new playbook in AI with Microsoft’s Windows in personal computing and Google’s Android OS in mobile. “IBM is trying to do the same thing with Watson,” he said, “open up a platform, make it available for others, and democratize the technology.”
There you go. IBM Watson is the equivalent of Windows and Google Android. Yep, that works except the analogy is undermined by reality. Watson is not either of these “products.” Watson is a collection of open source code, acquired technology like Vivisimo’s, and home brew code. Keep in mind that IBM Almaden invented some of the guts of Google and did zero with the technology. Clever, right?
The write up identifies these Watson “products for end users.” Yep, “end users” just like me.
- Watson Virtual Agent. Yes, automated customer service
- Watson Explorer. Learn about your customers and their reaction to automated Watson customer service.
- Watson Analytics. A free version is available.
- Watson Knowledge Studio. Do end users code?
- Watson customized for specific industries. Yep, end users build custom apps when they are not binge watching.
- Watson health. Got cancer? Oh, don’t forget to have a doc with access to Watson.
If you are a developer, you can code even more applications. I think the end user examples say quite a bit about Watson. Watson is a collection of stuff. IBM is trying to create a business from odds and ends. I am confident that with a wizard like Dave Schubmehl, Watson will be a success because Watson is just like Windows and Android. Great mid tier consulting thinking. Just like Windows except for the revenue. Just like Android except for the market share. Hey, close enough for horseshoes.
Stephen E Arnold, November 27, 2016
Is IBM Watson Like Microsoft Windows and Google Android? What? Huh?
November 16, 2016
Short honk. As we approach the end of 2016, I am paying attention to the prognostications for the future. I noted a stunner which I want to highlight. The source is Data Science Central’s “What Can Modern Watson Do?” (This is a heck of a question by the way. I will comment about the article in more detail next week.) For today, I want to present this statement from a mid tier consulting firm’s guru wizard savant human. Here’s the statement made in reference to IBM Watson:
David Schubmehl, an analyst at IDC compares IBMs new playbook in AI with Microsoft’s Windows in personal computing and Google’s Android OS in mobile. “IBM is trying to do the same thing with Watson,” he said, “open up a platform, make it available for others, and democratize the technology.”
Dave Schubmehl, IDC, allegedly compared IBM’s “playbook” to Microsoft Windows in personal computing and Google Android’s operating system in mobile. The hedge is the word “trying.” Yep, trying includes paying mid tier consultants to toot the Watson tuba. The premise strikes me as something a day worker in Harrod’s Creek might say; for example, the democratization of technology makes IBM Watson’s future great, maybe huge, or Number One. Yep, a day worker says this stuff frequently in rural Kentucky.
A couple of observations.
- A playbook is not what Microsoft Windows or Google Android are. But for the fact that a “playbook” is not widely used software for consumers, the IDC logic warrants the creation of a new word for this type of logical misstep: Schubmehlian. I like that word Schubmehlian.
- Windows has revenue. Watson does not have Windows-scale global reach, a comparable “brand,” or a subscription revenue model producing real billions every quarter. The lawyers use the phrase “but for” to help explain this type of logic. Watson is great “but for” its lack of scale, brand value, and revenue. The metaphor looks shaky, Mr. Mid Tier Consultant guru.
- Google Android OS has market reach. The last figure I recall is that Android is the operating system on more than 80 percent of the world’s mobile devices. (The source for this magic number is none other than IDC, the same folks who generate pretty crazy numbers like how much time a professional spends looking for information each day.) Watson is great “but for” its lack of market share.
Yep, those “but fors” can be a problem. However, mid tier consultants are not paid to be right, just to sound right. Tuck this away for future reference. Watson is the new Windows AND the new Google Android OS.
Will the anti trust issues tag along? Not for a while. You can hire IDC and get this type of logic by filling out the form at this link. The result will be — how can I say it? — Schubmehlian.
Stephen E Arnold, November 16, 2016
Worried about Risk? Now Think about Fear
November 3, 2016
I clicked through a remarkable listicle offered by CSO Magazine from my contract savvy pals at IDG. I don’t know much about risk, but I have encountered fear before. I recall an MBA Wall Street person who did not have enough cash to pay for lunch. I picked up the tab. That fellow had fear in his eyes because his firm had just gone out of business. Paying for a car service, nannies, country clubs, and a big house triggered the person’s fright.
You can be captured and tortured in an off the grid prison. Be afraid. Embrace IDG and be safe. Sort of. Maybe.
Well, CIO Magazine wants to use technology to make you, gentle reader, fearful. In case you are not nervous about your job, the London tabloids reports about a nuclear war, and the exploding mobile phone in your pocket.
Here are the “fears” revealed in “Frightening Technology Trends to Worry About.” Here we go:
- Overlooked internal threats. (Yes, someone in your organization is going to destroy you and your livelihood.)
- Finding and retaining top talent. (Of course, Facebook or Palantir will hire the one person who can actually make your firm’s software and systems work.)
- Multiple generations in the workforce. (Yes, what’s an old person going to do when dealing with those under 25. You are doomed. Doomed, I say.)
- Shifts in compliance. (Yes, the regulatory authorities will find violations and prevent your organization from finding new sources of revenue.)
- Migrating to the cloud. (Yes, the data are in the cloud. When you lose a file, that cherished document may be gone forever. Plus, the IT wizard at your firm now works at Palantir and is not answering your texts.)
- Getting buy in on hyper convergence. (Yes, you are pushing the mantra “everything is digital” and your colleagues wonder if you have lost your mind. Do you see hyper pink elephants?)
- Phishing and email attacks. (Yes, your emails are public. Did you use the company system to organize a Cub Scout bake sale, buy interesting products, or set up an alias and create a bogus Twitter account?)
- Hacktivism. (Yes, you worry about hackers and activism. Both seem bad and both are terrifying to you. Quick click on the link from Google telling you your account has been compromised and you need to change your password. Do it. Do it now.)
- The next zero day attack. (Yes, yes. You click on a video on an interesting Web site and your computing device is compromised. A hacker has your data and control of your mobile phone. And your contacts. My heavens, your contacts. Gone.)
- The advanced persistent threat. (Yes, yes, yes. Persistent threats. No matter what you do, your identify will be stolen and your assets sucked into a bank in Bulgaria. It may be happening now. Now I tell you. Now.)
- Mobile exploits. (Oh, goodness. Your progeny are using your old mobile phones. Predators will seek them out and strike them down with digital weapons. Kidnapping is a distinct possibility. Ransom. The news at 6 pm. Oh, oh, oh.)
- State sponsored attacks. (Not Russia, not China, not a Middle Eastern country. You visited one of these places and enjoyed the people. The people are wonderful. But the countries’ governments will get you. You are toast.)
How do you feel, gentle reader. Terrified. Well, that’s what CSO from IDG has in mind. Now sign up for the consulting services and pay to learn how to be less fearful. Yes, peace of mind is there for the taking. No Zen retreat in Peru. Just IDG, the reassuring real journalistic outfit. Now about those contracts, Dave Schubmehl?
Stephen E Arnold, October 3, 2016
Computerworld Becomes ComputerWatson
October 22, 2016
I followed a series of links to three articles about IBM Watson. Here are the stories I read:
- Watson’s the Name, Data’s the Game, dated October 10, 2016
- Milestones Along the Way in Watson’s Colorful History, October 10, 2016
- It’s (Not) Elementary: How Watson Works, October 10, 2016
The publication running these three write ups is Computerworld, which I translated as “ComputerWatson.”
Intrigued by the notion of “news,” I learned:
Watson uses some 50 technologies today, tapping artificial-intelligence techniques such as machine learning, deep learning, neural networks, natural language processing, computer vision, speech recognition and sentiment analysis.
But IBM does not like the idea of artificial intelligence even though I have spotted such synonyms in other “real” news write ups; for example, “augmented intelligence.”
There are factoids like “Watson can read more than 800 pages a second.” Figure 125 words per “page” and that works out to 100,000 words per second which is a nice round number. Does Watson perform this magic on a basic laptop? Probably not. What are the bandwidth and storage requirements? Oh,not a peep.
Computerworld—I mean ComputerWatson—provides a complete timeline of the technology too. The future begins in 1997. Imagine that. Boom. Watson wins at chess.
The “history” of Watson is embellished with a fanciful account of how IBM trained via humans assembling information. How much does corpus assembly cost? ComputerWatson—oh, I meant “Computerworld”—does not dive into investment.
To make Watson’s inner workings clear, the “real” news write up provides a link to an IBM video. Here’s an example of the cartoonish presentation:
These three write ups strike me as a public relations exercise. If IBM paid Computerworld to write and run these stories, the three articles are advertising. Who wrote these “news stories”? The byline is Katherine Noyes, who describes herself as “an ardent geek.” Her beat? Enterprise software, cloud computing, big data, analytics, and artificial intelligence.
Remarkable stuff but I had several thoughts:
- Not much “news” is included in the articles. It seems to me that the information has appeared in other writings.
- IBM Watson is working overtime to be recognized as the leader in the smart software game. That’s okay, but IBM seems to be pushing big markets with no easy way to monetize its efforts; for example, education, cancer, and game show participation.
- The Computerworld IBM Watson content party strikes me as eroding the credibility of both outfits.
Oh, I remember. Dave Schubmehl, the fellow who tried to sell on Amazon reports containing my research without my consent, was hooked up with IDG. I have lost track of the wizard, but I do recall the connection. More information is here.
Yep, credibility for possible content marketing and possible presentation of “news” as marketing collateral. Fascinating. Perhaps I should ask Watson: “What’s up?”
Stephen E Arnold, October 22, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
