Oh my, OData
Microsoft went further this week. It announced OData, a set of plumbing APIs to help applications consume such information. It's the company's extension of Atom and an alternative to Google's Rest-based GData. Also announced were 25 data sets and SDKs as part of Microsoft's Project Dallas that it's willing to let developers use in their applications.
Is coding as we know it reaching some kind of commoditization end point, where the rush to connect to exactly the same Facebook or Google data means looking for new to ways to make money?
Yes, according to one Adobe executive speaking at an OSBC panel on the web platform. Adobe director of open-source standards Dave McAllister, said: "How the hell do we make money on open data - that's the thing, that's really the question that comes in to play. We can link all these things together ... [but] you have to start moving from the model of money is made in the program or in the presentation to the money is made in the data."
According to McAllister, the money comes in finding ways to build services that capitalize on all the raw data that's rapidly accumulating inside the massive server farms of Facebook, Google or Microsoft and has been enriched by people helpfully and unselfconsciously adding tags, geolocation information or simply emailing friends or colleagues.
"There's money to me made out of the billions of data points, there's also money to be made out of the personal service points," McAllister said. He confessed he had no answers as to how to do this.
Palm director of developer relations Dion Almaer told OSBC he believes open-standards like HTML 5 provide a "unifying platform" capable of delivering the same experience based on all this information across a range of different devices, regardless of their underling architectures.
Let's not get carried away here. There will always be a need for coding and this world of open information will not become the default programming paradigm.
In classic Silicon Valley fashion, the OSBC debate focused on web- and cloud-based services, a world defined by massive volumes of data, storage and processing in huge data centers from tier-one providers. This is not surprising given that Google's on the doorstep and venture capitalists down the road at Sand Hill set the pace by telling start-ups to get in the cloud if they want funding. A few years back the VCs also told Valley hopefuls to get with Software as a Service (SaaS), open source and the dot-com wave.
For most ordinary developers or users in the real world, reality is not cloud computing - it's their desktop or server. In this world, companies will choose on-premises software instead of cloud computing for a variety of reasons ranging from corporate inertia, lack of budgets, and internal politics to paranoia over security.
Brian Goldfarb, Microsoft's lead product manager for web platform tools believes - correctly - that this means there will continue to be a role for both Java and Microsoft's .Net, along with the current crop of highly agile frameworks, because they both serve different customers. Microsoft's challenge is releasing code fast enough to satisfy agilistas [wha? -Ed] while being slow enough for the out-of-shape enterprise using .NET to keep up.
There's also plenty of scope for the industry to screw things up as it nearly did in the early 2000s. We have nimble, modular, and light-weight frameworks like PHP and Rest in spite of - not because of - companies like Microsoft and IBM who cooked up a heavy set of WS-web services specs with the goal of outflanking the competition at the time (mostly Sun Microsystems).
The standards bodies themselves responsible for generating things like HTML 5, meanwhile, are notorious for bulking out specs as members shoehorn what they want into the main specification.
Almaer said he hoped industry giants have learned their lesson from adding more and more features to technologies that had created what he called the "WS-Death Star oriented crap" of the early 2000s. McAllister was less optimistic: "It will get big. Hopefully we leaned our lesson, but it will get big," he said of cloud technologies behind open information.
There's also a threat from Apple. Almaer said while HTML 5 provides a unifying force, the iPad - if it takes off like the iPhone - could throw up another proprietary hardware and software island that means a return to the past of lock-in on the web.
Next page: Beware the giant sucking sound
"How the hell do we make money on open data
Its my data - what the fuck makes you think you have any right ot make money out of it just because you've held back open standards for 15 years?
You know, the militant "agile development is all" group. Spasmodic development methodology, or development by hallucinogenic random approximation. Explosive web2orhea against the Teflon wall and see what sticks.
Is there really value (money to be made) in data? For what purpose? Needless government scrutiny and advertising revenue?
News flash: if your only real revenue stream is advertising, then you are selling fluff. Microsoft is trying to make money from fluff, and has been failing miserably at it since MSN-NBC went online. Google sells billboard space, and it is worth as much as its real customers think. Just because there is a lot of something doesn't mean that there is money to be made with truckloads of it. Yes, Google has my searches. But what is my raw search information worth? About as much as a blog post. This means that it isn't worth anything, yet supposedly savvy executives keep grasping at the mirage of a pie miles up in the sky.
There is no "curse" here of open source. Open source means "open source CODE" and HTML5 is a text mark-up language, not something meant to be acted upon by a CPU. I never liked writing the same web page for different browsers, and I'm sure others feel the same way. And since IE9 doesn't work on XP, I'm sure that there will be many people miserably (but gainfully) employed for some time to come.
Is there even "open data" out there? When was the last time that anybody (absolutely anybody) could access Google's information at will? Um, never? So the real term is "closed data" and hoo boy, it takes some legal wrangling to get it. Not something that any of us can do at a whim. So Google's great mountain of data about our searches, etc., actually has a white picket fence around it. Same with any of the others.
The support of HTML5 does NOT mean that there will be a privacy "invasion." HTML5 is not affected by the laws of various communities, states, and national governments. What *is* affected is the information wrapped up in HTML5 (or HTML4, HTML3, HTML2, HTML, notes wrapped around a pigeon's leg, etc) that makes governing bodies squawk. If the information collected about people was made totally anonymous and never published at all, nobody would care. But it isn't. The data is meant to be used to paint a target on our collective foreheads, all in the name of advertising.
Open source code is *not* some panacea. It just means that the software can be modified by anybody with the expertise to do so. If the software is crap, then it is simply crap. If the overall concept is good, then someone may come along and toss out the crap and create the next version. This is done by someone with the will and drive to do it. If nobody comes around to change it, then it just stays crap.
FOSS does not immediately mean ponies for everyone. That's like saying that if someone writes a web page, then you have a business. No, you have a business because you are selling something to paying customers, and you are making a profit.
There is no curse of open source. There *is* a curse of cluelessness. ("Clues for the clueless, clues for the clueless .. here, can you spare a clue?")
"This trend for integration is starting to reach into the world of the desktop. Lucid Lynx - the next version of the Linux desktop due imminently"
Lucid Lynx is not the next version of 'the Linux desktop'. It's the next version of the Ubuntu distribution. I know Canonical tries very hard to do this reality distortion field trick on you poor press hacks where 'Ubuntu' and 'Linux' become synonymous, but it really isn't true. Do try to resist. =)