We announced an alliance with VCE, a consortium of VMware, Cisco and EMC, to build public clouds for service providers. VCE sells an integrated cloud infrastructure stack built called a Vblock(TM).  A Vblock provides the compute, network, storage and virtualization to build a public or private cloud; however, it does not include the orchestration, billing, API and user controls that enable a service provider to build a complete pay-as-you-go public cloud service.  Our partnership seeks to solve this problem by creating an integrated solution made up of OpSource running on top of a VCE Vblock. What is exciting about this alliance is that OpSource is a "Certified Orchestration Software Provider" for the VCE Vblock platform. This means that our "OpSource Stack," made up of the software that provides the user interface (web and API) layer, integration layer (billing, accounting, user controls, etc.), and infrastructure layer (ability to control compute, network, memory and storage resources), have all been tested and certified by VCE to run on their Vblock. OpSource will manage this stack as a service just as we do for our White Label resellers. VCE, OpSource and our ecosystem consulting, integration and infrastructure partners are working together to target service providers all over the world. This provides OpSource the ability to more efficiently scale our efforts to target service providers and differentiates us further in the market. Read our announcement about our partnership.  

Gartner's 2010 Magic Quadrant for Cloud IaaS and Web Hosting is out, and OpSource has been recognized this year as a “Challenger,” a nice improvement over last year’s position. Putting pressure on the incumbent providers, OpSource was recognized as having an enterprise-class cloud offering that is aggressively priced. Strong growth, product innovation and competitive pricing drove OpSource to a spot in the 'challengers' corner on this year's Gartner Magic Quadrant, moving from its position as a niche player. Published just a few weeks ago, there has already been a lot of talk about the MQ this year, with Derrick Harris at GigaOm criticizing Gartner’s ranking system, and Lydia Leong of Gartner defending it. Whatever side you support in this debate, the reality is that the Gartner Magic Quadrant is one of the most influential benchmarks for companies seeking to evaluate vendors. From the outside it may seem like a mystery as to how companies gain a position on the magic quadrant as a niche provider, visionary, challenger or leader. Lydia did a good job explaining the objectivity that goes into the MQ; and, I can say that this was by far the most detailed evaluation I have been through by an industry research group. Their questions and myriad surveys were detailed, quantitative as well as technical. It took a while for Gartner to publish the 2010 report; however, Lydia has stated that the pace of innovation in the cloud IaaS market is so rapid that she and Gartner colleague Ted Chamberlin will be issuing a mid-year update rather than waiting a whole year for the next report.  As one of the companies committed to this innovation, we look forward to the next report.

Wrecking Balls and Open PO's 2009-09-23 11:38:21 Imagine this scenario. You're an IT manager and you want one of your sys admins to set up a new server in your data center. To accomplish this you do three things: Give the sys admin the root password to every other system in the data center. Rent a wrecking ball, put it in front of the data center and give them the keys. Give them an Open Purchase Order with the ability to buy unlimited amounts of equipment! Now, no IT Manager would ever do this with their current data centers, but it's pretty much what every IT manager has to do with most of today's cloud environment. That's because the vast majority of clouds today are built to be used by one person with one password. If you want multiple people to access the account, they each have to use the same user-name and password! That's like having every single person in your IT department using the same password for every system. I'm not a security paranoid, but even I shudder at the thought. Every single system with the same user name and password? You have no way of tracking who's made what changes to the systems or who is even allowed to make changes to the systems. Someone could install a virus across your environment and there would be no checking on who did it because everyone uses the same user name and password! But with cloud it's even worse than that. Not only could they infect all of your systems, they could wipe them out with a few clicks of the mouse (hence the Virtual Wrecking Ball.) You could log in to find hundreds of systems and years of work completely destroyed in about 3 minutes by one windows admin with a grudge. But of course you wouldn't know who did it because everyone uses the same user name and password! Finally, even assuming your staff has the best intentions (and most of them do), you are also giving them unlimited access to add as many systems and as much storage as they like. That's liking me giving my 7th grade daughter unlimited text without a plan (like

Wrecking Balls and Open PO's 2009-09-23 11:38:21 Imagine this scenario. You're an IT manager and you want one of your sys admins to set up a new server in your data center. To accomplish this you do three things: Give the sys admin the root password to every other system in the data center. Rent a wrecking ball, put it in front of the data center and give them the keys. Give them an Open Purchase Order with the ability to buy unlimited amounts of equipment! Now, no IT Manager would ever do this with their current data centers, but it's pretty much what every IT manager has to do with most of today's cloud environment. That's because the vast majority of clouds today are built to be used by one person with one password. If you want multiple people to access the account, they each have to use the same user-name and password! That's like having every single person in your IT department using the same password for every system. I'm not a security paranoid, but even I shudder at the thought. Every single system with the same user name and password? You have no way of tracking who's made what changes to the systems or who is even allowed to make changes to the systems. Someone could install a virus across your environment and there would be no checking on who did it because everyone uses the same user name and password! But with cloud it's even worse than that. Not only could they infect all of your systems, they could wipe them out with a few clicks of the mouse (hence the Virtual Wrecking Ball.) You could log in to find hundreds of systems and years of work completely destroyed in about 3 minutes by one windows admin with a grudge. But of course you wouldn't know who did it because everyone uses the same user name and password! Finally, even assuming your staff has the b

Often the two biggest concerns about using Cloud resources today is the lack of latency SLA's and the difficulty of locking down sensitive data in cloud environments. These issues of performance and security are often cited as the most common reasons users either don't adopt the cloud, or if they do use cloud resources, the reason they only use them for test/dev environments. Interesting enough, the base reason for the inability of cloud providers to SLA latency between different systems in the cloud and the difficulty in locking down data in the cloud is the same. It is what I call the flat network problem. The flat network problem is the underlying structural defect of the first generation of cloud systems. Essentially in order to make the cloud as flexible as possible, all of the systems within a cloud sit on the same network. This is fine if you want to add lots of front end systems doing the same thing. But in a traditional two tier architecture, putting your databases on the same network as your front end web traffic creates all sorts of headaches. First of all, while you can secure the servers it's generally best not to directly connect sensitive database servers to the internet. Secondly, since all traffic between your web/application servers and your database servers must be routed over the front end network it is difficult if not impossible to guaranty latency between those systems. Even if they sit in the same data center, the latency can often be microseconds instead of milliseconds. That just won't work for most traditional two tier architectures. Now their have been many ingenious work arounds to the increased latency between cloud based systems. That said, what would make the cloud much more accessible for enterprise is a way to create what I call Virtual Private Clouds within the public cloud. Essentially it gives cloud users network level as well as systems level control on how their infrastructure is managed. Cloud infrastructures would look much more like this: By creating true layer t

Often the two biggest concerns about using Cloud resources today is the lack of latency SLA's and the difficulty of locking down sensitive data in cloud environments. These issues of performance and security are often cited as the most common reasons users either don't adopt the cloud, or if they do use cloud resources, the reason they only use them for test/dev environments. Interesting enough, the base reason for the inability of cloud providers to SLA latency between different systems in the cloud and the difficulty in locking down data in the cloud is the same. It is what I call the flat network problem. The flat network problem is the underlying structural defect of the first generation of cloud systems. Essentially in order to make the cloud as flexible as possible, all of the systems within a cloud sit on the same network. This is fine if you want to add lots of front end systems doing the same thing. But in a traditional two tier architecture, putting your databases on the same network as your front end web traffic creates all sorts of headaches. First of all, while you can secure the servers it's generally best not to directly connect sensitive database servers to the internet. Secondly, since all traffic between your web/application servers and your database servers must be routed over the front end network it is difficult if not impossible to guaranty latency between those systems. Even if they sit in the same data center, the latency can often be microseconds instead of milliseconds. That just won't work for most traditional two tier architectures. Now their have been many ingenious work arounds to the increased latency between cloud based systems. That said, what would make the cloud much more accessible for enterprise is a way to create what I call Virtual Private Clouds within the public cloud. Es

Much has been made lately of the fact that the cloud is not enterprise-ready. Security, performance, SLAs, support, standards and management tools are all cited as reasons the cloud isn't ready for enterprise adoption. Many vendors are proposing Private Clouds as a solution. Private Clouds are clouds that run inside enterprise data centers, by enterprise IT, for the use of the members of the enterprise. Basically it's a way to virtualize a large swath of the IT data center. As is often the case with technology vendors, they think that the infrastructure technology, virtualization, is the end solution the user wants rather than the vehicle with which their needs are filled. While large scale adoption of Private Virtual farms will aid in the management of the data center, it will not address the value that users are getting from true Cloud computing. To understand the true value of Cloud computing, you first need to understand how the 'Cloud Generation' uses technology and why the Cloud is so attractive to that generation as an infrastructure solution. The Cloud Generation has grown up on the web. As a result they have come to expect three core elements to their technology experience: Immediate Availability - They do a search and get going right away. Ubiquitous Access - They can get to their data and apps anytime, anyplace. Sharing and Collaboration - They expect to be able to collaborate and share anything they are working on. The current Cloud addresses those needs by providing infrastructure in a way that is far different than any past solutions. Immediate Availability = Complete Flexibility Cloud solutions allow users to provision resources immediately. By the time you are done reading this, you could have a server running in Amazon or an application published in Google. It's that immediate. Moreover, it's completely flexible. You can turn off services as quickly as you turn them on. Finally you only pay for what you use down to the hour or gigabyte. This resonates with a group that's n

Much has been made lately of the fact that the cloud is not enterprise-ready. Security, performance, SLAs, support, standards and management tools are all cited as reasons the cloud isn't ready for enterprise adoption. Many vendors are proposing Private Clouds as a solution. Private Clouds are clouds that run inside enterprise data centers, by enterprise IT, for the use of the members of the enterprise. Basically it's a way to virtualize a large swath of the IT data center. As is often the case with technology vendors, they think that the infrastructure technology, virtualization, is the end solution the user wants rather than the vehicle with which their needs are filled. While large scale adoption of Private Virtual farms will aid in the management of the data center, it will not address the value that users are getting from true Cloud computing. To understand the true value of Cloud computing, you first need to understand how the 'Cloud Generation' uses technology and why the Cloud is so attractive to that generation as an infrastructure solution. The Cloud Generation has grown up on the web. As a result they have come to expect three core elements to their technology experience: Immediate Availability - They do a search and get going right away. Ubiquitous Access - They can get to their data and apps anytime, anyplace. Sharing and Collaboration - They expect to be able to collaborate and share anything they are working on. The current Cloud addresses those needs by providing infrastructure in a way that is far different than any past solutions. Immediate Availability = Complete Flexibility Cloud solutions allow users to provision resources immediately. By the time you are done reading this, you could have a server running in Amazon or an application published in Google. It's that immediate. Moreover, it's completely flexible. You can turn off services as quickly as you turn them on. Finally you only pay fo

Just in time for the third part of my Silo Busting Trilogy (don't be confused by the 4, the first post was just an overview) Sarah Lacy published her fantastic article On Demand Computing: A Brutal Slog. (Sara, thanks for the set-up. Let me know how I can return the favor.) For those without the patience to read her prose, Sarah basically says, the world is going to On Demand but selling this stuff is really, really hard. CEO's are flying all over the place trying to get deals done. The natural reaction might be, isn't this the case with traditional software as well? It is for big deals, but smaller deals (still the majority of SaaS sales) are done through the channel. The network of channels for traditional ISV's is huge, from local Mom and Pop VARs, to huge resellers such as CDW, to the big integrators like Accenture. Unfortunately none of these organizations does much for SaaS (seems like they are as addicted to up-front revenue as the traditional ISV's.) Fortunately we are seeing a next generation of integrators focused on integrating SaaS products. Companies such as Astadia, BlueWolf, and Appirio have built burgeoning business's around SaaS application cusotmization and integration. Problem is that most of the focuse has still been around integration SalesForce.com. That's where web services come in. By insuring you have a good web services interface you allow your app to be integrated in to these solutions by these next generation integrators. This opens whole new channels (admittedly small right now, but growing like the rest of SaaS.) Integrators can either use your software as a platform in which to develop custom apps, or more likely, integrate your app as part of a custom solution for a specific company or vertical. Beyond the SI play, there is the ability to integrate your app in other SaaS applications allowing them do the hard work of sales while you grow every time they get a new customer. Intacct software has done just that with RealPage. Intacct is a critical component of RealPage, providing

Just in time for the third part of my Silo Busting Trilogy (don't be confused by the 4, the first post was just an overview) Sarah Lacy published her fantastic article On Demand Computing: A Brutal Slog. (Sara, thanks for the set-up. Let me know how I can return the favor.) For those without the patience to read her prose, Sarah basically says, the world is going to On Demand but selling this stuff is really, really hard. CEO's are flying all over the place trying to get deals done. The natural reaction might be, isn't this the case with traditional software as well? It is for big deals, but smaller deals (still the majority of SaaS sales) are done through the channel. The network of channels for traditional ISV's is huge, from local Mom and Pop VARs, to huge resellers such as CDW, to the big integrators like Accenture. Unfortunately none of these organizations does much for SaaS (seems like they are as addicted to up-front revenue as the traditional ISV's.) Fortunately we are seeing a next generation of integrators focused on integrating SaaS products. Companies such as Astadia, BlueWolf, and Appirio have built burgeoning business's around SaaS application cusotmization and integration. Problem is that most of the focuse has still been around integration SalesForce.com. That's where web services come in. By insuring you have a good web services interface you allow your app to be integrated in to these solutions by these next generation integrators. This opens whole new channels (admittedly small right now, but growing like the rest of SaaS.) Integrators can either use your software as a platform in which to develop custom apps, or more likely, integrate your app as part of a custom solution for a specific company or vertical. Beyond the

A couple of posts ago, I spoke to the busting of the SaaS Silo with Web Services and the impact that was having on the SaaS industry. The last post spoke specifically about using Web Services to add functionality to your app. While adding cool new functionality to the app is big for the product guys and the marketing guys, the interest from the sales side seems to be driven by a whole separate set of concerns, chief among them... Integration. According to recent research by both Saugatuck and Forrester, integration has surpassed security as the main concern for enterprise implementations of SaaS. This is actually a great sign for SaaS vendors. It means that SaaS is extending beyond the departmental sale and making true progress into the enterprise. It also means that in order to get past this increasingly common sales objection, companies need to figure out how to use Web Services to integrate their SaaS application. While enterprise adoption of SaaS has been quite good, it's usually done at the departmental level initially. That means good SaaS apps appeal to business users with specific problems. As the adoption of those applications spreads from the department to the whole enterprise, IT gets involved. And it's logical to think IT wouldn't want a separate employee record in its Taleo system than it has in its payroll system. Solutions such as Boomi's Atoms help IT shops avoid that problem. Besides integrating with legacy applications, Web Services are beginning to help companies integrate multiple SaaS applications. Up to now the most ubiquitous integration problem, user management, has either been ignored by companies using SaaS or has had to be cobbled together by in house teams. I can tell you, we use everything from SalesForce to NetSuite to RightNow and we've had to put some pretty tricky things in to (imperfectly) manage users. Now we are seeing ready built solutions from TriCipher and Symplified that are making this easier and easier for both the SaaS vendor and the enterprise. Finally, the integrat

A couple of posts ago, I spoke to the busting of the SaaS Silo with Web Services and the impact that was having on the SaaS industry. The last post spoke specifically about using Web Services to add functionality to your app. While adding cool new functionality to the app is big for the product guys and the marketing guys, the interest from the sales side seems to be driven by a whole separate set of concerns, chief among them... Integration. According to recent research by both Saugatuck and Forrester, integration has surpassed security as the main concern for enterprise implementations of SaaS. This is actually a great sign for SaaS vendors. It means that SaaS is extending beyond the departmental sale and making true progress into the enterprise. It also means that in order to get past this increasingly common sales objection, companies need to figure out how to use Web Services to integrate their SaaS application. While enterprise adoption of SaaS has been quite good, it's usually done at the departmental level initially. That means good SaaS apps appeal to business users with specific problems. As the adoption of those applications spreads from the department to the whole enterprise, IT gets involved. And it's logical to think IT wouldn't want a separate employee record in its Taleo system than it has in its payroll system. Solutions such as Boomi's Atoms help IT shops avoid that problem. Besides integrating with legacy applications, Web Services are beginning to help companies integrate multiple SaaS applications. Up to now the most ubiquitous integration problem, user management, has either been ignored by companies using SaaS or has had to be cobbled together by in house teams. I can tell you, we use everything from SalesForce to NetSuite to RightNow

Probably the simplest thing SaaS apps can do to improve their business is to use web services to improve the functionality of their application. By integrating third party applications in "Corporate Mash-Ups" SaaS companies can have the best of both worlds; a robust feature set and a complete focus on their core product. Companies like SalesForce and WebEx have all shown the value of doing things like offering on-line ordering and billing, tracking site usage, and adding strong reporting and user management features. The problem with all of these additional features take programming time away from the core value of the apps, sales force automation and collaboration. That's fine if you have 100's of million in funding and 8 years of development. What's the new SaaS app to do? Fortunately, we have a new world of apps available to add that functionality. No longer is it just Google Maps and Hoover information. There is a ton of new apps you can integrate via api's or web services. Examples include: TriCipher - For strong identity management and integration with corporate directories. Sabrix - For tax calculations. PivotLink - For graphs and pivot tables. OpSource Billing - If I don't get one corporate plug in, Richard, Kim, and Christina get mad. Business Objects - For Crystal Reports and others. Ribbit - For integrating Cell Phones in to your app. If that doesn't make sense, go to their site. It's extremely cool. This list could be ten times as long and it's growing daily. Needless to say, a lot of the "extraneous" work of creating the app can now be integrated instead of programmed, allowing your precious coders to focus on the core value you are selling to your customers. This not only keeps the R&D costs down, it allows for more robust apps to hit the market sooner. Up next, Silo Busting 3 - web services for enterprise integration.

Probably the simplest thing SaaS apps can do to improve their business is to use web services to improve the functionality of their application. By integrating third party applications in "Corporate Mash-Ups" SaaS companies can have the best of both worlds; a robust feature set and a complete focus on their core product. Companies like SalesForce and WebEx have all shown the value of doing things like offering on-line ordering and billing, tracking site usage, and adding strong reporting and user management features. The problem with all of these additional features take programming time away from the core value of the apps, sales force automation and collaboration. That's fine if you have 100's of million in funding and 8 years of development. What's the new SaaS app to do? Fortunately, we have a new world of apps available to add that functionality. No longer is it just Google Maps and Hoover information. There is a ton of new apps you can integrate via api's or web services. Examples include: TriCipher - For strong identity management and integration with corporate directories. Sabrix - For tax calculations. PivotLink - For graphs and pivot tables. OpSource Billing - If I don't get one corporate plug in, Richard, Kim, and Christina get mad. Business Objects - For Crystal Reports and others. Ribbit - For integrating Cell Phones in to your app. If that doesn't make sense, go to their site. It's extremely cool. This list could be ten times as long and it's growing daily. Needless to say, a lot of the "extraneous" work of creating the app can

It's time to grow up....and learn to play nice with others. SaaS adoption in the enterprise has definitely increased. But with that organizations are increasingly asking SaaS applications to start working with both other SaaS applications and the company's legacy applications as well. According to recent studies by both Saugatuck and Forrester suggest that integration has surpassed security and compliance as Enterprise IT's chief concern with implementing (or growing) SaaS applications. This is an extremely encouraging sign. It shows the acceptance of SaaS as a legitimate enterprise software solution by the majority of Enterprise IT shops. Up to now, SaaS has been primarily a departmental sale. HR departments buy Taleo for human capital management, Marketing buys Marketo for marketing analysis, and call centers buy SupportSoft to manage their ticketing. As you know from past posts, selling immediately recognizable value at the departmental level is key to a strong success story in SaaS andwe can see how that has happened. But now these apps are growing up and reaching across the organization (growing your app is another key SaaS sales strategy.) When that happens, IT is willing to accept the app's growth, but needs it to do more now. Enterprise IT doesn't want a separate employee record in Taleo from their payroll system. The want to be able to correlate all this marketing data back to their sales productivity, and they want to use the same master customer record for their ERP system as for their ticketing system. And they don't want to have different log-ins for each employee, they want a single sign-on solution for all of their SaaS as well as on-premise apps (ala TriCipher.) So SaaS applications have to stop being Silo's that work just inside themselves. They need to start using web services to integrate with other SaaS apps and with legacy applications. By doing so, they'll open up three great new areas for growth: Increased Functionality by working with other Apps Enterprise Growth by integra

It's time to grow up....and learn to play nice with others. SaaS adoption in the enterprise has definitely increased. But with that organizations are increasingly asking SaaS applications to start working with both other SaaS applications and the company's legacy applications as well. According to recent studies by both Saugatuck and Forrester suggest that integration has surpassed security and compliance as Enterprise IT's chief concern with implementing (or growing) SaaS applications. This is an extremely encouraging sign. It shows the acceptance of SaaS as a legitimate enterprise software solution by the majority of Enterprise IT shops. Up to now, SaaS has been primarily a departmental sale. HR departments buy Taleo for human capital management, Marketing buys Marketo for marketing analysis, and call centers buy SupportSoft to manage their ticketing. As you know from past posts, selling immediately recognizable value at the departmental level is key to a strong success story in SaaS andwe can see how that has happened. But now these apps are growing up and reaching across the organization (growing your app is another key SaaS sales strategy.) When that happens, IT is willing to accept the app's growth, but needs it to do more now. Enterprise IT doesn't want a separate employee record in Taleo from their payroll system. The want to be able to correlate all this marketing data back to their sales productivity, and they want to use the same master customer record for their ERP system as for their ticketing system. And they don't want to have different log-ins for each employee, they want a single sign-on solution for all of their SaaS as well as on-premise apps (ala TriCipher.) So SaaS applications have to stop being Silo's that work just inside themselves

When Mike Mankowski sent me this blog post today, I figured "Yeah! My running buddy David Greenfield from Altera is writing a post about me. I didn't even know he blogged. Alas, it was a case of mistaken identity but the post was real. This David Greenfield disagrees with my hogwash, but that's O.K., I just like getting quoted. That said, I think Mr. Greenfield's issue that function (cloud applications) and form (cloud computing) are mutually exclusive is misguided. I was stating that the next generation of users will demand on-demand, collaborative group applications they can access anywhere and connect to in any way. This is what everything we see on the web from SaaS to Social Networking is driving to. David's argument that these applications will run like exisiting applications behind the firewall and on servers bought and managed by IT is short sighted. Instead, I think Cloud Infrastructures will evolve with the applications that they serve. And with that evolution, IT will find a way to exert the kind of data control and security necessary to run Enterprise critical applications. So instead of buying servers, IT will find ways to use cloud resources that give them the same type of control they had with the old models. We are already seeing that today. While an Amazon ec2 cluster is fine for a blog site, when a Web Applications (or SaaS) company wants to sell they know their cloud environement needs to be secure and robust. Hence the proliferation of certifications (SaS 70, PCI, European SafeHarbor, etc.) that have become the ingrained into the DNA of SaaS applications. These are the beginnings of IT reasserting it's control over cloud apps. I see the evolution of enterprise class Cloud computing similar to what we saw with Client/Server. When the PC was seen as a toy IT talked about getting apps back under central control. This was accomplished not by moving back to mainframes and mini's but by evolving PC apps to Client/Server apps. Many people forget that "Servers" are just souped up PC's with more pr

When Mike Mankowski sent me this blog post today, I figured "Yeah! My running buddy David Greenfield from Altera is writing a post about me. I didn't even know he blogged. Alas, it was a case of mistaken identity but the post was real. This David Greenfield disagrees with my hogwash, but that's O.K., I just like getting quoted. That said, I think Mr. Greenfield's issue that function (cloud applications) and form (cloud computing) are mutually exclusive is misguided. I was stating that the next generation of users will demand on-demand, collaborative group applications they can access anywhere and connect to in any way. This is what everything we see on the web from SaaS to Social Networking is driving to. David's argument that these applications will run like exisiting applications behind the firewall and on servers bought and managed by IT is short sighted. Instead, I think Cloud Infrastructures will evolve with the applications that they serve. And with that evolution, IT will find a way to exert the kind of data control and security necessary to run Enterprise critical applications. So instead of buying servers, IT will find ways to use cloud resources that give them the same type of control they had with the old models. We are already seeing that today. While an Amazon ec2 cluster is fine for a blog site, when a Web Applications (or SaaS) company wants to sell they know their cloud environement needs to be secure and robust. Hence the proliferation of certifications (SaS 70, PCI, European SafeHarbor, etc.) that have become the ingrained into the DNA of SaaS applications. These are the beginnings of IT reasserting it's control over cloud apps. I see the evolution of enterprise class Cloud computing similar to what we saw with Client/Server. When the PC was seen as a toy IT talked about getting apps back u

As many who know me, know that I have not been a big fan of Google. I love the desktop search (or I did until I got a Mac with Spotlight) but am not a big fan of their corporate culture. Just because they got search right (emphasis on the past tense, but that's a later post) doesn't give them the license to walk around the valley looking down their noses. (Prius anyone?) They are a notoriously difficult company to partner with and to sell to (probably the real genesis of my distaste.) I especially dislike the "Do No Evil" motto. As if other companies have the motto "Do Evil." It's like an ad campaign that asserts "Trebelicious BubbleGum has no Spider Eggs in it." (Although we know that certain telco's bubblegum does have spider eggs.) But lately, I'm beginning to like Google. They really do seem committed to an open web, and that is good for everyone. First was their support of Net Neutrality. Actively fighting the telcos in their effort to control what traffic they deliver is critical to the success of the Internet. To see what would happen if AT&T and Verizon got their way on Net Neutrality, one would just have to look at how horrible the mobile web browsing experience is (another area Google is trying to address with it's gPhone initiative.) Now one could argue that Google supports Net Neutrality because they don't want to pay telcos for carrying terabits worth of YouTube videos. Except that Google has more than enough cash to pay the telcos and serve their cafeteria meals in disposable gold happy meal boxes. If Google didn't believe in an open web, it would do just that. The truth is while Google can afford to pay the telcos off, start-ups would not. They could effectively bar a good portion of their next generation of competitors from the market by allowing the telcos to set up a content tax that would be a market killer. Google's latest salvo of course is their OpenSocial initiative. Again, Google has come down on the side of an open platform over using its muscle to promote a Google-only platform. The

As many who know me, know that I have not been a big fan of Google. I love the desktop search (or I did until I got a Mac with Spotlight) but am not a big fan of their corporate culture. Just because they got search right (emphasis on the past tense, but that's a later post) doesn't give them the license to walk around the valley looking down their noses. (Prius anyone?) They are a notoriously difficult company to partner with and to sell to (probably the real genesis of my distaste.) I especially dislike the "Do No Evil" motto. As if other companies have the motto "Do Evil." It's like an ad campaign that asserts "Trebelicious BubbleGum has no Spider Eggs in it." (Although we know that certain telco's bubblegum does have spider eggs.) But lately, I'm beginning to like Google. They really do seem committed to an open web, and that is good for everyone. First was their support of Net Neutrality. Actively fighting the telcos in their effort to control what traffic they deliver is critical to the success of the Internet. To see what would happen if AT&T and Verizon got their way on Net Neutrality, one would just have to look at how horrible the mobile web browsing experience is (another area Google is trying to address with it's gPhone initiative.) Now one could argue that Google supports Net Neutrality because they don't want to pay telcos for carrying terabits worth of YouTube videos. Except that Google has more than enough cash to pay the telcos and serve their cafeteria meals in disposable gold happy meal boxes. If Google didn't believe in an open web, it would do just that. The truth is while Google can afford to pay the telcos off, start-ups would not. They could effectively bar a good portion of their next generation of competitors from the market by allowing the telcos to set up