The Blog of Burgher Jon - Latest Comments

Re: Apple Stock and the Laws of Probability

mark mcallister — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:35:12 -0000

Apple's still under valued, with their foray into The TV market and Education Markets they will continue to disrupt. The beauty of their products is their integration amongst themselves. No other company offers a seamless experience across so many unique devices... apples about to blow out earnings again and probably won't move much because of manipulation, but this time next year, it will have surpassed $500 at some point this year.

Re: The Myth of the Virtual Desktop Comes to the Phone

Burgher Jon — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:08:17 -0000

I think the transition to thin clients based on cloud applications (Gmail, etc...) is subtly different than a transition to virtual desktops. While they both result in smaller computers on the client-side, they are different ways to skin the same cat. Actually, I think because of the maturity of cloud applications and the lack of adoption of virtual desktops, the window when virtual desktops is useful is coming to a close.

I think the same thing may happen where security software and the use of cloud based data (that's actually sitting on a server instead of actually sitting on your phone) may similarly mean that before the market adopts phone virtualization it won't be necessary.

As far as Tebow in New England goes. I think they have a great chance as long as by the end of the first quarter Tom Brady is only 70%, the starting center is injured, the entire defensive line is injured, the top 2 running backs are injured, the strong safety can't play, and the defense is too stupid to adapt from a strategy that clearly isn't working.

Re: The Myth of the Virtual Desktop Comes to the Phone

Dave Brillhart — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 09:36:59 -0000

Hey Jon! You captured the value prop of thin stateless clients well. It makes as much sense as Big Ben heading to the Superbowl again. I've preached the concept also, since the Java Station from Sun (circa 1996). You're right that IT (generally a cost center) rarely has the courage or power to mess with revenue-producing business units and their users. But, I think maybe the transformation may actually happen this time around. Because, it'll be the *users* that demand it from IT. Their new mobile platforms (tablets, powerful smart phone, etc) and fast ubiquitous cell/wifi networking allow them to access their data and run their apps and tap into networked services (Gmail, Web, Social, Banking, etc, etc), and they will demand similar access to corporate services. They may even think they came up with the idea, and wonder why IT is always behind the curve and playing catch up with innovation by consumers of IT :-). I'm okay with that... whatever it takes to offer resilient managed recoverable services. Ultimately it is a win-win. Speaking of which, can Tebow do it again in New England!?

Re: Too Big to Fail and IT

John Hammer — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:29:22 -0000

The enterprise data portion of Google is indeed the item with the largest potential for disruption. I don't know enough about the contracts that Google signs with enterprises to know what would happen to that data. For example, I recently found out the City of Pittsburgh has moved to Google Mail (from Exchange). From a cost perspective, that makes great sense (City Taxpayers should be thanking the City for saving money).

However, how does the city ensure the e-mail that is being hosted on Google's Servers is available in the event of an extreme event (Disaster or the Financial Collapse of Google)? Does the city get a regular backup shipped to Grant Street from Google? I know if I was in charge of the City IT department, I'd want to make sure that I would have a fairly recent copy of my data readily available. I don't know the answer, but I wonder if all of Google's customers would request that type of backup.

Re: Too Big to Fail and IT

Burgher Jon — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:56:10 -0000

I think you're probably right that a full bailout of any of these companies would not be necessary. I think in the case of all of them it may be necessary for the government to require them to make the data accessible for their users though. You'll notice I didn't even mention the search engine part of Google's business as that would be easily replaced, it's mainly the enterprise data portions of Google and the other companies that would cause a GM or Bank like ripple.

Re: Too Big to Fail and IT

John Hammer — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:46:08 -0000

While I didn't agree with the bailout of GM or the measures taken to save the giant banks, I do think I understand why they occurred.

GM is a manufacturing firm with a highly integrated supply chain. The problem is that many of GM's suppliers aren't all that big and they provide supplies not only to GM, but to GM's competitors. If GM failed, those suppliers would have lost a major portion of their business and with that, many of those suppliers would have failed. Not only would that have caused the loss of thousands of jobs at these suppliers, it would have caused problems for Ford, Toyota, BMW and other major car manufacturers, who would all have to look for new suppliers. And in manufacturing, you can't just quickly start building millions of new widgets. Production lines would have to be expanded at surviving suppliers, something that would take months. A failure of GM would have caused major disruptions for an entire global industry.The failure of large banks also would have caused major disruptions. If Bank of America were to fail, not only would it put a major strain on the FDIC, it would put major holes in the portfolios of many other financial institutions because of the loans that banks frequently make to each other. That would make these other institutions less willing or less able to provide loans to individuals trying to purchase homes and companies that are trying to expand their business. The Too Big to Fail argument here is that the loss of BoA would have caused major disruptions in the Financial Industry, which is the economic lifeblood for every other industry in the world.The argument in favor of bailout out both banks and GM is that not bailing them out would have made a bad recession even worse. Again, I don't necessarily agree with 'Too Big to Fail" argument, especially when it comes to banks. I am only explaining it here because I am thinking through how the failure of an IT firm would impact the economy.IT is different. There are literally thousands of vendors out there providing IT support services today, ranging from building web-sites, to outsourcing whole data centers (regardless of hardware vendor).What would happen if Facebook went under? Well, I would argue, "Not Much". Unlike a major bank or General Motors, there aren't many barriers for competitors to start a social web site. You and I could find a couple of college kids and have a social web site up and running in a month or so. The problem is that no one would probably join our site, meaning that we won't get any revenue. But, if Facebook failed, our site would suddenly have millions of potential new customers. Yeah, all of that data I gave to FB would be gone, but hundreds of competing sites would be actively recruiting new customers to replace FB (If FB went under, maybe then somebody would use Google+). Yeah the Facebook Connect would go away, but companies like the Washington Post used to allow anonymous commenting. In a relatively short time, they could go back to anonymous commenting until a replacement for FB Connect would come up. I don't use FB for retail purchases, so I am not sure what kind of impact a shutdown of FB would cause in that space, but since most retailers still accept credit cards or Paypal for purchases, I don't think that would be a major issue for retail. Retailers would simply move from FB to MySpace (or some other social site) and stay connected with customers that way.How about if Google or Microsoft went under? Well, Google is primarily a search engine (well, now with a phone business). There are thousands of little Googles out there, dying to get more search traffic. And, there are at least two major phone manufacturers that would be thrilled if Google Android went away (Apple? Blackberry?) Yes, those places that use Google Docs or Gmail for corporate services would be in a bind, but I would assume most of these places would be able to get a replacement for either of these systems up and running quite quickly (and, in all honesty, e-mail is probably the LEAST important system in any corporation). They might run into some issues in getting their data off of Googles servers, but I am sure that they would be able to retrieve it eventually.Microsoft would be a bit more interesting. There are literally millions of Windows servers and PC's running in the world. I am sure an IBM, Oracle or HP would be more than willing to provide support on those servers & PC's until a replacement OS could be implemented (paid support, of course) -- or until one of those companies buys the Windows brand name and all of its developers. The failure of Microsoft would result in more disruption than either Facebook or Google (for example, would security and patching of the Windows OS be impacted by a failure of Microsoft?). However, I don't know if even MS is "Too big to Fail". In short, I don't think any IT firm is too big to failI (then again, I would say the same thing about Citbank, too). While the collapse of some IT firms would cause some disruption, primarily firms that provide hardware and OS for hardware (Microsoft, Oracle, HP, IBM, to name a few), there are enough service providers who would be wiling to provide short term paid support until the disruption is mitigated.

Re: ChromeOS, Google Docs and Fighting With Microsoft

Burgher Jon — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:32:10 -0000

Normally I would delete something so spammy... but I have used their product (considered buying a chromebook and leveraging it) and it worked just fine.

Re: ChromeOS, Google Docs and Fighting With Microsoft

Adam — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:18:44 -0000

Until Google Docs are able to meet the needs of business, the enterprise can still get the benefits of Chromebooks and also access their Windows applications by using a third party solution such as Ericom AccessNow, a pure HTML5 RDP client that enables Chromebook users to connect to any RDP host, including Terminal Server (RDS Session Host), physical desktops or VDI virtual desktops – and run their Windows applications and desktops in a browser.

Ericom‘s AccessNow does not require Java, Flash, Silverlight, ActiveX, or any other underlying technology to be installed on end-user devices – an HTML5 browser is all that is required.

You can choose to run a full Windows desktop or just a specific Windows app, and that desktop or Windows app will appear within a browser tab.

For more info, and to download a demo, visit:
http://www.ericom.com/html5_RD...

Note: I work for Ericom

Re: Coworking (or not coworking) in Pittsburgh

Epagelhogan — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:04:35 -0000

I just read about one called the Beauty Shoppe, again in the East End. I want one in the suburbs!

Re: Amazon Silk’s “Cloud Acceleration” Isn’t Working

John Hammer — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:45:00 -0000

I blame Obama for it all.

Re: Why I’m Glad The Kindle Fire Is Nothing To Be Excited About

tcaddoo — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:25:47 -0000

I tend to agree with your assertion. Amazon should stick with what was working for them; the Kindle. It was purpose built for what is one of Amazon's best know services, books, and specifically e-books now.

Re: Upgrading My Home on the Web

Burgher Jon — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 14:19:11 -0000

Nope, wasn't him. I think our mutual friend doodle's to pass the time... if I asked him for specific doodles he would probably doodle to something else to procrastinate.

I thought this one (the one for technologist) turned out ok, but I actually wasn't very excited about a couple of the other ones. Oh well, works for now.

Re: Upgrading My Home on the Web

tcaddoo — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:02:07 -0000

I like the new site. Who did those caricatures of you? They are really good, oh wait, I bet I know who....

Re: Netflix Hitting Cntrl Z

bojansoldan — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:28:19 -0000

I actually don't think this is the wrong move. I honestly believe that even if they have to split the two companies in the future, some things have to remain intact in order for the split to be a success.

First and foremost, the ratings are a huge deal. The two companies not being able to share rating information, and therefore better recommendations actually almost made me cancel the service (both services?) not too long ago. I was kind of relieved to see the Undo until they have their separation figured out on a more granular level.

That's purely from a tech perspective tho. I realize that a lot of users are just gonna be more confused by this jumble.

Re: The Upside to Being Leashed

Sheppard Narkier — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 14:56:51 -0000

You are absolutely correct. The 1st.time I saw the Apple Newton commercials in 1990's I couldn't wait for that reality to arrive. Being virtually tethered since the mid 90's has.helped my work output enormously. I also feel that when I come back from a vacation, my 1st 2 days back are not a.blur of catch up

Re: Sauerkraut Sunday: Zoo Brew Edition

tcaddoo — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:01:49 -0000

This is awesome that you do this Jonathan; I would do it, but it would look like I was a copycat. :)

Re: Even if Twitter isn’t For Everyone, It’s For Everyone

tcaddoo — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:20:37 -0000

Perhaps Twitter has helped keep the evening news more relevant as most local and national news organizations regularly quote someones twitter feed.

Re: Social Media Stalling?

Burgher Jon — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:12:24 -0000

I had meant more that SM's growth was stalling then that the entire concept was rubish. The interesting part is that investment continues as if some of these giants aren't having any trouble at all. I hate to bring that bubble word back up, but it sure smells like it. Foursquare may be the latest company that can't reach its previous valuation.

Re: Social Media Stalling?

Bob — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 10:26:53 -0000

I don't think that social media is stalling. I think people become overwhelmed and a little burned out with overload.

Re: Can Do People and Can’t Do People

Burgher Jon — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:31:21 -0000

I love the newspaper idea... any interest in writing a guest post about it? I think a ton of startups could benefit from the experience.

Re: Can Do People and Can’t Do People

Sean Kitzmiller — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:09:06 -0000

Good point Jonathan. The power of negative thinking in reasonable measure can be a salvation. One of the dangers I have experienced and admittedly exhibited is too much optimism... "we can do that" "no problem" "love this idea" can lead to a false sense of security. You get lazy. Sometimes the pessimist "Eeyore" can be just the person to spur true breakthroughs.

The best leaders and innovators I have worked alongside also have the ability to effectively switch hats or channel their own inner nay sayer. For died in the wool Can Do folks there are two techniques I've seen work, but they have to really buy into the exercises- 1) You are now working for [insert company's most fearsome competitor/or startup]. How do you crush the idea/product (that you "love"). 2) You wake up six months from now and your company just declared bankruptcy. Come up with the causes of why it happened. On the later, I've actually produced realistic news articles to help really plant the seed.

Re: Tomorrow’s News on Android and Motorola

bojansoldan — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:41:09 -0000

See that would be a smart move for Microsoft AND for RIM. They are both already well rooted in the corporate space. RIM is still viewed as the de facto security standard in corporations when it comes to mobile computing, and MSFT is a trusted vendor with a very large footprint globally.

My understanding right now is that RIM is all but abandoning NA enhancements and is focused on emerging cell markets overseas instead of trying to innovate and improve. Their latest tech is already a late comer to the game, and is being rushed out the door which will make for a mediocre product at best.

Something has to change at that company and a MSFT buy would position them pretty favorably provided they can turn around the hardware and a mobile office platform that would be appealing relatively quickly.

Re: Tomorrow’s News on Android and Motorola

Burgher Jon — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:35:14 -0000

Fair, hadn't thought about it that way. I may do a post on it later this week, but I've been thinking about how it's early enough and MSFT's mobile OS is good enough that they could buy RIM, make versions of MS Office that are WAY better than the Office ToGo stuff that's out there for Android and Apple, integrate the security of Blackberry Server and just OWN the business part of the world. At least for companies/government agencies that insist on not allowing personal technology on their network.

Re: Tomorrow’s News on Android and Motorola

bojansoldan — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:30:25 -0000

You're probably right about that, but I've kinda gotten used to not putting anything past google. I mean... they still make the vast bulk of their revenue on ads, and have been throwing money in every direction to see what sticks, so buying a manufacturer didn't strike me as odd as MSFT buying one.

Re: Tomorrow’s News on Android and Motorola

Burgher Jon — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:26:11 -0000

And it was in Google's typical space to buy a handset manufacteur? RIM has an OS and hardware, Apple has an OS and Hardware, Google has an OS and Hardware, HP has an OS and Hardware, Microsoft is the only guy out in the dark and I think competitive pressures might drive them to do something they normally wouldn't (just as it did with Google). Not saying it WILL, but MSFT is vulnerable as they are.