Archive for agosto \30\+00:00 2010

TR 35- Technology Review: 2010 Young Innovators Under 35

agosto 30, 2010

A nova newsletter da Creativante já está no ar, e você pode acessá-la aqui!  O tema desta semana é sobre o 35- Technology Review: 2010 Young Innovators Under 35; ou seja, seu ranking dos jovens inovadores com até 35 anos de idade, cujas invenções e pesquisas a revista considera mais interessantes e que estejam mudando nosso mundo. 


The New Normal in Enterprise Infrastructure

agosto 28, 2010

Post do blog!


The New Normal in Enterprise Infrastructure

By Ellen Rubin, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:50 PM

As we work with dozens of companies that are actively running pilots and doing early deployments in the cloud, it made me think about what the “new normal” will look like in enterprise IT infrastructure. A recent report from the Yankee Group shows that adoption of cloud is accelerating, with 24% of large enterprises already using IaaS, and another 37% expected to adopt IaaS within the next 24 months. It’s clearly a time of major shifts in the IT world, and while we wait for the hype to subside and the smoke to clear, some early outlines of the new paradigm are emerging. Here’s what it looks like to us at CloudSwitch:

  1. Hybrid is the dominant architecture: on-prem environments (be they traditional data centers or the emerging private clouds) will need to be federated with public clouds for capacity on-demand. This is particularly true for spikey apps and use cases that are driven by short-term peaks such as marketing campaigns, load/scale testing and new product launches. The tie-back to the data center from external pools of resources is a critical component, as is maintaining enterprise-class security and control over all environments. Multiple cloud providers, APIs and hypervisors will co-exist and must be factored into the federation strategy.
  2. Applications are “tiered” into categories of workloads: just as storage has been tiered based on how frequently it’s accessed and how important it is to mission-critical operations, application workloads will be categorized based on their infrastructure requirements. In the end, app developers and users don’t really want to care about where and how the application is hosted and managed; they just want IT to ensure a specific QoS and meet specific business requirements around geography, compliance, etc. The cloud offers a new opportunity to access a much broader range of resources that can be “fit” against the needs of the business. In some cases, the current IT infrastructure is over-provisioning and over-delivering production gear for lower-importance/usage apps; in other cases it’s woefully under-delivering.
  3. IT becomes a service-enabler, not just a passive provider of infrastructure resources: IT is now in a position to provide self-service capabilities across a large set of resources, internally and externally, to developers, field and support teams. This requires a new set of skills, as we’ve blogged about before, but the cloud gives IT the opportunity to meet business needs in a much more agile and scalable way, while still maintaining control over who gets to use which resources and how.
  4. The channel shifts from resellers to service providers: as noted by Andrew Hickey at ChannelWeb, the opportunities for resellers will need to shift as companies reduce their large hardware and software buys in favor of the cloud. The new focus will be on providing services and consulting with an opex model and monthly payments, and expertise in change management and predictive use models will become core competencies. We’ve already started to see this shift at CloudSwitch with a new crop of cloud-focused consulting/SI boutiques springing up in the market to help CIOs plan their cloud deployments.

For many enterprises, these shifts are still being discussed at a high level as CIOs formulate their cloud strategies. Other organizations are diving right in and selecting a set of applications to showcase the benefits of cloud to internal stakeholders. We’ve been fortunate at CloudSwitch to work with some of the earliest cloud adopters and with our cloud provider partners to help define some of the “new normal.”

How Developing Nations Could Revolutionize Cloud IT

agosto 25, 2010

 Post do blog!

Rob Salkowitz
How Developing Nations Could Revolutionize Cloud IT
Written by Rob Salkowitz

When companies like Forrester Research Inc. issue forecasts about the “upheaval” caused by cloud computing, they generally mean upheaval in the IT and software industries: those whose traditional business models and revenue streams are most directly disrupted.

But the rise of cloud computing — particularly infrastructure as a service (IaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS) models — has the potential to upend more than just the data center. It may end up changing the whole concept of economies of scale and put market power into the hands of a whole new set of players.

Despite the increased capabilities of hosted enterprise infrastructure from top-line vendors like Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT), Oracle Corp. (Nasdaq: ORCL), and SAP AG (NYSE/Frankfurt: SAP), full IaaS/PaaS uptake will probably take awhile in developed markets, as established enterprises slowly unwind their investments in on-premises data centers. Then there are those pesky issues around security, data custody, business continuity, and regulation, which are unlikely to be fully resolved anytime soon.

But IaaS makes perfect sense in developing markets. Customers in these markets are as concerned with privacy, security, and regulation as first-world enterprises, but the business case is simply too compelling to resist for long.

Why would a relatively new business in a such a market — where equipment costs, infrastructure, and security are problematic — dump scarce capital into an on-premises money pit, when it could get the same or better service through the cloud, and count it as an operating expense rather than a capital cost?

The drive to cloud-source infrastructure in emerging markets remains constrained by bandwidth and availability issues, but those barriers are falling fast as carriers amp up service and extend broadband beyond the big cities. Seventy-two percent of Indian infrastructure firms recently surveyed by Ernst & Young International reported significant interest in migrating to IaaS in the next two or three years. Other emerging markets will likely follow this same path.

In these emerging economies, the vast majority of growth is at the lower end of the market: SMBs and small enterprises (fewer than 1,200 staff). Typically, these would be prime customers for SaaS offerings like or Google Apps. The problem is that many of these businesses are in traditional or highly specialized industries. Their workforce may not be digitally literate or English-speaking. The kind of software they need to run core business functions requires customization and localization.

Few individual firms can afford to pay for that kind of custom development, and the market as a whole is too poor and fragmented for any software developer to bother making an off-the-shelf product that could help them be more competitive.

IaaS/PaaS changes that equation. As more small businesses move to the cloud for both applications and infrastructure, they present an increasingly attractive market for IT service providers and software vendors. Developing a specialized business app for a dozen Hindi-speaking fabric makers, each with its own quirky IT systems, is a bit of a stretch — but what about 1,500 or 15,000 of them all gathered in one place, on one robust platform?

Clouds not only consolidate IT infrastructure across a fragmented market, they can potentially consolidate business relationships. The costs of managing those thousands of individual SMB accounts could be simplified and dramatically reduced by using the cloud provider as a single point of contact for the businesses using its hosting services.

Cloud hosts could broker deals that promise the big providers of IT services and localization a threshold volume of business in exchange for a per-unit pricing structure that brings enterprise-quality services within the reach of smaller businesses.

In this scenario, clouds of SMBs sharing a common IT infrastructure become indistinguishable from large enterprises, and the economies of scale that enterprises use to generate competitive advantage through custom IT begin to vanish.

Upheaval? When the cloud becomes the customer, it’s going to look more like revolution.

— Rob Salkowitz is the author of Young World Rising: How Youth, Technology and Entrepreneurship Are Transforming the Global Economy.

The SAAS Garden Isn’t All Rosy

agosto 23, 2010

Post de ontem do blog!

The SAAS Garden Isn’t All Rosy

Author: Chris Daly
Published: August 22, 2010 at 7:59 pm

Read more:

One of the new business models that’s been riding on the crest of web 2.0, Software As A Service (SAAS), has meant that organizations of all sizes can leverage a software platform and release online products and services without major up front investment.

This is good in the short term, but as Alex Handy argues in Software Development Times this may not be a panacea for all organizations. He quotes Forrester Research as saying that they have observed concerns about prices and costs of the SAAS Model in that they will only go one way, which is up.

Prices can also go the same way in the more traditional “Platform as service” model though, in the SAAS model you are only renting it, so the organization has no control over the application. As a counter weight to this, it is argued that in the traditional model, software providers such as Oracle do not out punch the SAAS opponent here. They may annually increase their support fees even for legacy applications, regardless of whether the client’s product ceases to be supported as part of any new product release.

A variation on a straight SAAS model is where the software is open source and there are no license costs. The client can then pay for support or consultancy as and when appropriate, or upgrade without cost. This enables a company to take the opportunity of the skillset in house and develop their application while harnessing external expertise. This leverages a key component of web 2.0 where a range of modular applications can be bolted together using a variety of architectural frameworks from SOA to REST.

Of course the major players are not resting on their laurels and in the short to medium term at least, are providing both. Oracle now offers the SAAS model as well as, enabling customers to purchase the traditional platform.

Both the traditional and SAAS models offer the software provider the opportunity to sell training, consultancy and support so there will still be healthy revenues for the successful provider. In the longer term the modular nature of web 2.0 and beyond means that SAAS will eventually triumph, even where there is a requirement for software installation, this would all be done remotely using HTTP or HTTPS where required.

Read more:

Japan is now the world’s third-largest economy. Can its firms cope?

agosto 21, 2010

Matéria da nova The Economist!

Japan as number three

Watching China whizz by

Japan is now the world’s third-largest economy. Can its firms cope?

Aug 19th 2010 | TOKYO


FIVE years ago China’s economy was half as big as Japan’s. This year it will probably be bigger (see chart 1). Quarterly figures announced this week showed that China had overtaken its ancient rival. It had previously done so only in the quarter before Christmas, when Chinese GDP is always seasonally high.


Since China’s population is ten times greater than Japan’s, this moment always seemed destined to arrive. But it is surprising how quickly it came. For Japan, which only two decades ago aspired to be number one, the slip to third place is a gloomy milestone. Yet worse may follow. 

Many of the features of Japanese capitalism that contributed to its long malaise still persist: the country is lucky if its economy grows by 1% a year. Although Japan has made substantial reforms in corporate governance, financial openness and deregulation, they are far from enough. Unless dramatic changes take place, Japan may suffer a third lost decade. 

Of course, Japan still boasts some of the world’s most innovative firms. Carmakers such as Toyota and electronics firms such as Toshiba are in a class of their own. Japanese firms hold more than a 70% market share in 30 industries worth more than $1 billion in annual sales, from digital cameras to car-navigation devices, according to 2008 data. Whatever the brand on a digital gadget’s case, Japanese wares are stuffed inside or are essential for producing it. 

Yet the success of Japan’s best firms masks wider weaknesses. Yoko Ishikura, a business professor at Hitotsubashi University, believes that Japanese bosses are complacent. “They are either too afraid to face the reality of the power shift,” she says, “or [they] want to stick to old, familiar models.” Yet the core problem is that Japan suffers from a gross misallocation of resources, both financial and human. 

Japan has long kept the cost of capital low, to boost investment or help stragglers. Since the financial crisis began, bureaucratic organs such as the Innovation Network Corporation of Japan and the Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corporation have been handed $25 billion to revitalise ailing companies. Among the latter agency’s first acts was to assist a dying wireless operator that bet on archaic technology. 

Food for zombies 

The system almost guarantees that fresh capital goes to the losers of yesteryear. Because struggling companies rarely die, new ones do not form. Japan’s bankruptcy rate is half of America’s; the rate at which it creates new firms is only a third as high. Japanese venture capitalists are few and far between. Japan’s bureaucratic allocation of credit seldom spurs animal spirits. Rather, it nourishes zombies. 

Japan has also lost its knack for getting the best out of its human capital. Its people are superbly literate and numerate, but certain cultural traits are holding businesses back. Respect for seniority means that promotions go to the older, not the most able. Young executives with good ideas refrain from speaking up. Retiring presidents are kept on as chairmen or advisers, making it awkward for the new guy to undo his predecessor’s mistakes. A rising executive at a big trading house says he was counselled by his seniors to keep his views hidden if he wanted to get on. 

Japanese salarymen, who were once regarded as modern-day samurai, are today known as soshoku-danshi (wussy, unambitious “grass-eating men”). Since 2003, the proportion of young Japanese entering the labour force who want to be entrepreneurs has halved, to 14%, while those who seek lifetime employment has nearly doubled, to 57% (see chart 2). Bosses grouse that the young eschew overseas posts; even a foreign-ministry official confides that Japanese diplomats prefer to stay at home. 

The herbivores are markedly less “globalised” than their elders. Since 2000 the number of Chinese and Indians studying in America has doubled, whereas the number of Japanese has dropped by a third, to a fraction of the other Asian countries’ total. And despite years of mandatory English-language classes in secondary school, the Japanese score lowest among rich countries on English tests. This needn’t be a problem, except that as an export-dependent economy, Japan’s lifeblood is its relations with other countries, frets Takatoshi Ito, an economist at the University of Tokyo. 

Half the nation’s talent is squandered. Only 8% of managers are female, compared with around 40% in America and about 20% in China. There are more women on corporate boards in Kuwait than Tokyo. Women are paid 60-70% as much as their male counterparts. A manager at one of Japan’s biggest conglomerates says that 70% of qualified job applicants are women, but fewer than 10% of new hires are, since the work may entail visits to factories or mines, where they might perspire in an unladylike way. Kirin, a brewer, seeks to double the number of its female managers by 2015—to a mere 6% of the total. 

To get the economy moving, Japan Inc took a page from its industrial-policy playbook of yore. In June the trade ministry released a sweeping new “growth strategy” that identifies a score of vibrant sectors meriting government assistance, from overseas construction to attracting medical tourists. The project calls for hundreds of reforms, big and small. But the bureaucrats most intimately involved were shunted to other jobs in July, so who knows whether any will be implemented. Once again, the practices of old Japan scuttle the new. Richard Katz, editor of the Oriental Economist (no relation to us), believes Japan has trouble tackling its problems because they are all inter-related. “It is hard to fix one without fixing the others,” he says. 

The local news media have played down Japan’s slip to third place. Alarmists fear that South Korea—which has a much smaller population—may overtake Japan, too. Is Japan willing to fight to keep its bronze medal for as long as possible? 

Supporters say that the country always seems to shuffle its feet but then snaps into action when faced with a crisis. It did so in the 19th century, adopting modern ways to avoid being colonised, and again after the second world war. Japan was the world’s second-largest economy for 40 years. But the traits that made it an economic powerhouse in the 20th century—easy capital, big companies, rote learning, management by mandarins and stable jobs for male breadwinners—are ill-suited to the 21st. Today, Japan’s biggest obstacle is itself. Without dramatic reform, it will slip swiftly to number four, number five and beyond.

Intel-McAfee acquisition deal threatens security industry, say analysts

agosto 20, 2010

Post do blog!

Intel-McAfee acquisition deal threatens security industry, say analysts

Intel, McAfee and HP, Fortify deals hurt security innovation, claim analysts

By Jaikumar Vijayan | Published: 11:25 GMT, 20 August 10 | Computerworld US

Some IT managers and analysts today said the planned $7.7bn (£4.9bn) Intel-McAfee deal and HP’s acquisition of Fortify this week are the latest examples of a trend that could threaten long-term innovation in the security industry.

This week’s moves are the latest in a long line of merger and acquisition activity in the security industry in recent years.

The McAfee acquisition marks a completely unexpected entry into the security market by Intel. But the chip giant’s move follows similar ones by other major vendors like IBM, Cisco, EMC, Symantec and HP to pick up security vendors.

On one hand, the acquisitions underscore the continuing robustness of the security market – Intel agreed to pay close to $8bn for a company with less than $2 billion in 2009 revenue. Analysts say the price tag is a sign of just how valuable security companies have become.

At the same time, though, as major vendors gobble up large and small security tool makers, the main loser could be innovation. “I think there’s a big impact [on innovation],” said Jan Oltsik, an analyst with the Enterprise Strategy Group. “Acquisitions typically don’t help as small, innovative companies become product features or divisions of large companies.”

Oltsik cited TippingPoint, which was acquired by 3Com in 2005 and then by HP late last year, and Internet Security Systems, which was acquired by IBM in 2006 for $1.3bn.

“ISS and TippingPoint were two of the more innovative security companies around until they were acquired,” he said. “While it looks like HP will re-invest in TippingPoint, the company languished for a few years and really lost its innovative edge. The same is true of ISS,” Oltsik said.

Oltsik said the bigger vendors would do well to focus on developing tightly integrated security products, Oltsik said. “The government is ready to fund these kinds of solutions. Companies such as Cisco, Juniper, RSA, and Symantec need to recognize that there is will be a huge market for new types of security solutions in the near future,” he said.

The acquisitions have been driven largely by the need for big IT companies to have security products in their portfolio, said Matt Kesner, CIO at Fenwick & West, a San Francisco-based law firm “I suspect that what is driving the trend are customers that want to hear about the security implications when they buy any IT product, large or small,” he said.

Nonetheless, he agreed that such purchases can have a negative impact on innovation.

“I am a little sad about the wave of acquisitions of security vendors,” Kesner said. The current threat environment requires ‘real innovation’ on the part of security vendors, Kesner said. “That kind of innovation tends to come from smaller companies.”

Jim Kirby, director of engineering at Dataware Services, called Intel’s planned purchase of McAfee “rather odd,” though he acknowledged that such odd moves are becoming somewhat typical among security companies. “As far as a trend goes, I’m not really seeing anything other than typical market grabs,” Kirby said.

“Small, good security companies have been getting gobbled up and their products ruined for the last 10 years,” he said. Kirby cited Symantec’s purchase of Sygate as one example. “I’m not really seeing anything different” with the announcement today, he said.

Richard Stiennon, chief research analyst with IT-Harvest, did note that the continuing investments in the security market do accompany a comtinuing robustness in demand for products. He noted that the security business is growing at a 22% annual rate and that some of the more innovative smaller companies are doubling in size each year.

“Even with the continuous acquisition activity there are 1400 vendors in this space,” Stiennon said. “That is a net gain of 200 over the past three years.”

Intel buys McAfee

agosto 20, 2010

Notícia impactante no universo digital (a abaixo é de The New York Times)!

With McAfee Deal, Intel Looks for Edge

Published: August 19, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — Hoping to accelerate its move into smartphones and consumer electronics, the chip maker Intel has turned to security software and services as a way to separate its products from those of its rivals.

On Thursday, Intel paid $7.68 billion to acquire McAfee, one of the leading sellers of antivirus and other computer security software. The companies, both based in Santa Clara, Calif., plan to create tight links between Intel’s chips and McAfee’s security technology.

Such ties will be crucial as millions of products, including phones, cars and home appliances, gain more computing horsepower and access to the Web, according to the chief executive at Intel, Paul S. Otellini.

“This will better protect Internet users and their devices,” Mr. Otellini told Wall Street analysts.

Investors appeared flummoxed by the purchase, Intel’s biggest ever, sending the company’s shares down about 3.5 percent, to $18.90, in afternoon trading. McAfee shares rose 57.07 percent, to $47.01.

With the purchase, Intel is spending a huge chunk of the $12.2 billion in cash and short-term investments it had on hand as of last quarter. Analysts expect that other technology companies sitting on large cash hoards, like Microsoft, Apple, Cisco and Google, are primed to make more major acquisitions, though some analysts have urged the companies to give shareholders some of the money in dividends.

Analysts doubted that McAfee’s business would have much near-term impact on Intel’s bottom line.

Intel’s fortunes are tied to PCs and the computer servers that go into data centers. As such, Intel, with revenue of $35.1 billion in 2009, goes through boom-and-bust cycles as demand waxes and wanes. McAfee, with revenue of $1.93 billion last year, sells a great deal of software on a subscription basis, which can smooth out financial results from quarter to quarter and year to year.

“There are no immediate synergies that I can see,” said Stacy A. Rasgon, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Company. “It is a strategic deal, and it is a pretty rich price for a strategic buy.”

Intel will pay $48 a share in cash, a 60 percent premium over McAfee’s Wednesday closing stock price of $29.93. The deal hinges on standard regulatory approvals.

Demand for McAfee’s core security products should rise as people look to protect their smartphones, cars and Web-ready products from Internet threats, said David G. DeWalt, the chief executive at McAfee. Consumer electronics products like phones and hand-held gadgets face fewer threats than PCs, although it is expected they will be subjected to the same torments from hackers as they gain access to the Internet.

McAfee has 17.7 percent of the market for securing computing devices, trailing the market leader Symantec, which has 36.2 percent, according to the research firm IDC. In the last couple of years, McAfee has gained ground on Symantec by signing a large number of deals with PC makers and Internet service providers to offer its security software to consumers and workers.

Intel already builds a number of security hooks into its chips. These tools can help block malicious software from disrupting a computer or give a technician the ability to fix a computer from a remote location. The purchase of McAfee would give Intel access to more security specialists and the ability to hardwire more of these types of tools into its chips.

Still, analysts noted that Intel spent plenty to obtain these security skills. “Eventually the software features will get embedded in the hardware,” said Ashok Kumar, a technology analyst with Rodman & Renshaw. “So maybe this is an expensive way for Intel to acquire domain expertise.”

With its share price stagnant for years, Intel has been hunting for growth outside of the PC and computer server markets. In particular, Intel has decided to go after the smartphone and consumer electronics segments, which are dominated by rival chip designs.

Intel’s growth push has been met with resistance, largely because its chips remain more expensive and power-hungry than those of rivals.

McAfee will operate as an Intel subsidiary, reporting to Renée J. James, the head of Intel’s software and services group.

In an interview, Ms. James declined to provide details on how Intel products would gain an edge over the competition through the McAfee technology.

She has led Intel’s transformation into a software powerhouse.

Last year, Intel bought Wind River for $884 million, giving it a software maker that played in the consumer electronics and wireless markets. Earlier, Intel purchased Havok, a company that provided software tools to video game makers.

Intel and Nokia also work together on the MeeGo operating system for smartphones and other consumer electronics devices, placing the companies in competition with Apple, Google and Microsoft.

Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting from New York.

A version of this article appeared in print on August 20, 2010, on page B1 of the New York edition.


China and India: Contest of the century

agosto 19, 2010

Matéria da nova The Economist!

China and India

Contest of the century

As China and India rise in tandem, their relationship will shape world politics. Shame they do not get on better

Aug 19th 2010

A HUNDRED years ago it was perhaps already possible to discern the rising powers whose interaction and competition would shape the 20th century. The sun that shone on the British empire had passed midday. Vigorous new forces were flexing their muscles on the global stage, notably America, Japan and Germany. Their emergence brought undreamed-of prosperity; but also carnage on a scale hitherto unimaginable. 

Now digest the main historical event of this week: China has officially become the world’s second-biggest economy, overtaking Japan. In the West this has prompted concerns about China overtaking the United States sooner than previously thought. But stand back a little farther, apply a more Asian perspective, and China’s longer-term contest is with that other recovering economic behemoth: India. These two Asian giants, which until 1800 used to make up half the world economy, are not, like Japan and Germany, mere nation states. In terms of size and population, each is a continent—and for all the glittering growth rates, a poor one. 
Not destiny, but still pretty important

This is uncharted territory that should be seen in terms of decades, not years. Demography is not destiny. Nor for that matter are long-range economic forecasts from investment banks. Two decades ago Japan was seen as the main rival to America. Countries as huge and complicated as China can underachieve or collapse under their own contradictions. In the short term its other foreign relationships may matter more, even in Asia: there may, for instance, be a greater risk of conflict between rising China and an ageing but still powerful Japan. Western powers still wield considerable influence.

So caveats abound. Yet as the years roll forward, the chances are that it will increasingly come down once again to the two Asian giants facing each other over a disputed border (see article). How China and India manage their own relationship will determine whether similar mistakes to those that scarred the 20th century disfigure this one.

Neither is exactly comfortable in its skin. China’s leaders like to portray Western hype about their country’s rise as a conspiracy—a pretext either to offload expensive global burdens onto the Middle Kingdom or to encircle it. Witness America’s alliances with Japan and South Korea, its legal obligation to help Taiwan defend itself and its burgeoning friendships with China’s rivals, notably India but also now Vietnam.

This paranoia is overdone. Why shouldn’t more be asked from a place that, as well as being the world’s most-populous country, is already its biggest exporter, its biggest car market, its biggest carbon-emitter and its biggest consumer of energy (a rank China itself, typically, contests)? As for changing the balance of power, the People’s Liberation Army’s steady upgrading of its technological capacity, its building of a blue-water navy and its fast-developing skills in outer space and cyberspace do not yet threaten American supremacy, despite alarm expressed this week about the opacity of the PLA’s plans in a Pentagon report. But China’s military advances do unnerve neighbours and regional rivals. Recent weeks have seen China fall out with South Korea (as well as the West) over how to respond to the sinking in March, apparently by a North Korean torpedo, of a South Korean navy ship. And the Beijing regime has been at odds with South-East Asian countries over its greedy claim to almost all of the South China Sea.

India, too, is unnerved. Its humiliation at Chinese hands in a brief war nearly 50 years ago still rankles. A tradition of strategic mistrust of China is deeply ingrained. India sees China as working to undermine it at every level: by pre-empting it in securing supplies of the energy both must import; through manoeuvres to block a permanent seat for India on the United Nations Security Council; and, above all, through friendships with its smaller South Asian neighbours, notably Pakistan. India also notes that China, after decades of setting their border quarrels to one side in the interests of the broader relationship, has in recent years hardened its position on the disputes in Tibet and Kashmir that in 1962 led to war. This unease has pushed India strategically closer to America—most notably in a controversial deal on nuclear co-operation.

Autocrats in Beijing are contemptuous of India for its messy, indecisive democracy. But they must see it as a serious long-term rival—especially if it continues to tilt towards America. As recently as the early 1990s, India was as rich, in terms of national income per head. China then hurtled so far ahead that it seemed India could never catch up. But India’s long-term prospects now look stronger. While China is about to see its working-age population shrink (see article), India is enjoying the sort of bulge in manpower which brought sustained booms elsewhere in Asia. It is no longer inconceivable that its growth could outpace China’s for a considerable time. It has the advantage of democracy—at least as a pressure valve for discontent. And India’s army is, in numbers, second only to China’s and America’s: it has 100,000 soldiers in disputed Arunachal Pradesh (twice as many as America will soon have in Iraq). And because India does not threaten the West, it has powerful friends both on its own merits and as a counterweight to China.

A settlement in time

The prospect of renewed war between India and China is, for now, something that disturbs the sleep only of virulent nationalists in the Chinese press and retired colonels in Indian think-tanks. Optimists prefer to hail the $60 billion in trade the two are expected to do with each other this year (230 times the total in 1990). But the 20th century taught the world that blatantly foreseeable conflicts of interest can become increasingly foreseeable wars with unforeseeably dreadful consequences. Relying on prosperity and more democracy in China to sort things out thus seems unwise. Two things need to be done.

First, the slow progress towards a border settlement needs to resume. The main onus here is on China. It has the territory it really wants and has maintained its claim to Arunachal Pradesh only as a bargaining chip. It has, after all, solved intractable boundary quarrels with Russia, Mongolia, Myanmar and Vietnam. Surely it cannot be so difficult to treat with India?

That points to a second, deeper need, one that it took Europe two world wars to come close to solving: emerging Asia’s lack of serious institutions to bolster such deals. A regional forum run by the Association of South-East Asian Nations is rendered toothless by China’s aversion to multilateral diplomacy. Like any bully, it prefers to pick off its antagonists one by one. It would be better if China and India—and Japan—could start building regional forums to channel their inevitable rivalries into collaboration and healthy competition.

Globally, the rules-based system that the West set up in the second half of the 20th century brought huge benefits to emerging powers. But it reflects an out-of-date world order, not the current global balance, let alone a future one. China and India should be playing a bigger role in shaping the rules that will govern the 21st century. That requires concessions from the West. But it also requires commitment to a rules-based international order from China and India. A serious effort to solve their own disagreements is a good place to start.

Why The Cloud? – An Economic View

agosto 17, 2010

 Post do blog!


Posted By Robin Bloor

Member Since: 08.13.2010
Title: Analyst
Company: The Bloor Group

robinbloor | Aug 16, 2010

Why The Cloud? – An Economic View

There is an avalanche of reasons why organizations everywhere are thinking about and gradually adopting cloud computing. It spans everything from time-to-market to a desire for a virtual data centers, but in most cases it can be reduced to simple economics. The implication of  cloud is that it will be a less expensive style of computing for most applications – if not now, then soon.

So let’s take a practical economic look at the cloud. This is what we’ve depicted in the graph below. It plots user populations v cost per user for different hardware environments. Admittedly it’s not precise, but that’s not the point here. We’re simply seeking a perspective of the cloud.

The first thing to note about the graph is that the Y-axis is logarithmic, which means that the curve is an awful lot steeper than it looks; much steeper. The Y-axis shows user populations from 1 to a billion. If the Y-axis wasn’t logarithmic, it would need to be about 6000 miles long, not 3 inches long.

The X-axis is not really even, so I didn’t put any measurements on it. It represents increasing costs per user. The curve itself represents different computer configurations running just one specific application. This is important for understanding the graph. Imagine exactly the same application running in all the environments listed at the side of the curve. Let’s provide some notes on the various environments indicated listed at the side of the curve. From right to left:

• Siloed Servers. Until recently many applications were deployed on dedicated “siloed” servers; one application per server.  The primary reason for this is that it was easy to deploy applications that ran in the inexpensive server environments, Windows and Linux, on commodity hardware. However, in strict per user costs, applications run in this way are the most expensive per user because of the management overhead. There is very little economy of scale in this style of computing.

• VM Servers. The antidote to the cost of siloes is virtualization (for Linux and Windows servers.) This makes more effective use of resources and as long as it remains manageable, cuts the cost per user.

• Large Unix Clusters. These are less expensive per user because of the scaling involved and because you don’t get the overhead of multiple guest OSes. However only certain applications are able to run in such environments; large database or OLTP applications for example.

• Mainframes. The mainframe is still more scalable than large-scale Unix and the management costs (per user) are lower. However, we should note that it is distinctly more expensive per user to run applications in Linux partitions on the mainframe than to run applications natively. A mainframe consisting entirely of Linux partitions is really a VM server of a kind.

• Grids. This is where the cloud enters in. In the hundreds of thousands of users area you have the cloud operation of The main Salesforce CRM application is supposed to run on a grid of just over 1000 computers. At a component level, grids may also be large collections of virtual machines. However, the whole grid is configurable so that new instances of a VM can be deployed in a self-service manner. Small grids of say, hundreds of commodity servers, don’t deliver a lower per user cost than mainframes. But it is clearly heading in that direction. Right now small grids are being deployed by early adopters as private clouds.  The importance of this cannot be understated. A private cloud provides a gateway to the public cloud if it is well designed.

• Large grids. In theory all cloud operations are large grids. Once you have large grids you start to really cut into data center costs and per user costs start tumbling. You can build the data center where electricity and floorspace is cheap and design it for efficient cooling, disaster recovery, etc. Here we’re talking about data centers with concurrent users at the million level.

• Massively scaled out grid. This is for user populations in the tens of millions. There are very few examples. Google search is an example where there really are tens of millions of concurrent users. Each search query is resolved by a purpose-built grid of up to 1000 servers and Google has many such grids which queries are routed to. Yahoo also has a massively scaled out email system. It caters to over 260 million users, of which tens of millions are active at a time.
Other Aspects of the Graph

At the top of the graph we’ve roughly indicated the fact that low per user costs are achieved by scaling out (the divide and conquer approach to catering for large user populations) rather than scaling up, which is what the IT world pursued for many years – a single centralized application tuned for efficiency. Once the numbers of users get large scaling out is a necessity. Scaling out is far more efficient if a whole environment is devoted to a single application

The dotted box indicates the area of corporate computing which is defined quite simply by the fact that it usually runs very mixed workloads with relatively low user populations. The same servers that are used in corporate environments could also be used just as easily in scaled-out arrangements, where workloads are not at all mixed.

And that’s pretty much the whole point of this illustration. It indicates a economic imperative. It makes it clear that no corporation that runs a variety of mixed workloads is ever going to achieve the economies of scale of cloud computing, not even if they have user populations of hundreds of thousands. So the “private cloud” is, in essence, a staging area for moving applications into the cloud and cutting costs over time.

This illustration also indicates how corporate computing is likely to move, from the smallest business to the largest. If you want to lower the costs per user, in general, you need to migrate to the left. That means heading for the cloud.

Dell to buy 3Par for $1.15 billion

agosto 16, 2010

Notícia de hoje do blog (aliás, é a notícia mais comentada no universo dos negócios digitais)!


Dell to buy 3Par for $1.15 billion

by Jonathan E. Skillings

Dell is set to acquire storage specialist 3Par for about $1.15 billion to beef up its enterprise cloud offerings, the tech giant announced Monday.

3Par, founded in 1999, offers highly virtualized storage arrays designed to help businesses treat storage as a utility, meaning they use–and pay for–capacity only as they need it, Dell said. 3Par’s offerings include data management features such as dynamic tiering and thin provisioning for multitenant cloud-computing environments.

With the addition of 3Par’s capabilities, Dell said it aims to help customers reduce overall data management costs by 50 percent.

Dell plans to acquire all of 3Par’s outstanding common stock for $18 per share in cash and expects to close the acquisition by year’s end. The boards of directors of both Dell and 3Par have approved the terms of the deal.

When the acquisition is complete, Fremont, Calif.-based 3Par will join Dell’s storage portfolio, which already includes PowerVault, EqualLogic, and Dell/EMC offerings. Dell said it plans to maintain and invest in additional engineering and sales capability for 3Par.

Jonathan Skillings is managing editor of CNET News, based in the Boston bureau. He’s been with CNET since 2000, after a decade in tech journalism at the IDG News Service, PC Week, and an AS/400 magazine. He’s also been a soldier and a schoolteacher. E-mail Jon.

%d blogueiros gostam disto: