skwpspace yan pritzker’s home on the web

skwpspace is Yan Pritzker's home on the web

Blog :: Photography :: About Me

TwitterCounter for @skwp

Get the news feed
Get updates by email
Follow me on twitter

hello, i'm yan

This blog is about startups, blogging, Ruby On Rails, virtualization and cloud computing, photography, customer service, marketing, ux and design, git, and lots more.

planypus

I'm the founder of Planypus, the place to share your plans!

cohesiveft

Virtualize your application for download or deploy to the cloud in minutes!

flickr

it's hailing in san franciscojessatianalyndaBird in the handkerimodeldanielle pettee and models-4449

Categories:

Archives

Contact

Reach me at yan at pritzker.ws

What cloud computing is NOT

The Wall Street Journal just published an article trying to define cloud computing. Although hardly anyone can be faulted for not understanding the cloud (ahem) of jargon spewing from every marketing department of every IT department scrambling to be relevant without actually innovating, I wanted to help by offering a sort of proof by contradiction.

By examining the types of companies and technologies claimed to be “cloud computing” (by themselves, or others), and then showing that what they are providing has been around for many years and already has its own label, we can hopefully narrow down what exactly is the important bit about cloud computing.

So…what cloud computing is NOT…

  • Gmail, google docs, salesforce.com, and etc. These things are simply web-based services, or SaaS, or even PaaS if you want to get fancy. This type of technology has been around and evolving at least for a decade. It may be getting popular and significant now, but it doesn’t warrant a new jargon term.
  • Running your software distributed among many computers. This is called grid computing, parallel computing, and so on. It’s been around in one form or another for decades, and again, does not warrant a new jargon term.
  • From the WSJ article: “In it’s broadest sense, cloud computing describes [...] Information is stored and processed on computers somewhere else — “in the clouds” — and brought back to your screen.”. No, that’s called the Internet. See also client/server, server side processing, thin clients, take your pick.
  • “A company’s backroom mass of servers and switches is cloudlike.” - No, that’s a datacenter. There’s nothing significantly more cloudlike about it today than there was ten years ago.
  • Just a marketing term. Cloud computing is a significant change in how businesses acquire and pay for computing resources.

See more: Storing your stuff online is not cloud computing, What is Cloud Computing?

Shameless plug: Elastic Server will have you running in the cloud in minutes.


Hulu’s long form ads and the future of pull advertising

Hulu is testing a new feature which lets you select whether you want the regular 30 second spots spaced throughout the show you watch, or one long (2 minute) clip from one sponsor. Here’s why I think this is a great move:

  • 30 second spots interrupt you right as you’re watching a show so your annoyance factor is high.
  • With a 2 minute spot, the advertiser has to work to capture your attention. This is a key aspect. One recent commercial I saw was a 2 minute short film about Honda racing. The film was actually relatively interesting to watch and a lot more palatable and engaging than a 30 second spot involving jingles and a radio announcer voice.
  • The 2 minute spot will give advertisers more creativity to deliver content that is actually interesting to users, rather than resorting to traditional 30 second spot limitations of drilling messages into your brain.
  • I am more likely to associate a positive experience with a brand if they’ve earned my respect. By showing me an interesting clip and then leaving me at peace to watch my show, the brand wins.

I found one blog that claims an 88% response rate in favor of the 2 minute ads. They also talk about how it would be potentially hard for advertisers to come up with good content, making a point that a 2 minute long commercial about Wal-Mart may be hard to swallow. This is a Good Thing. Advertisers should work for our attention. If they can’t muster up an interesting 2 minute clip, then they don’t deserve our attention.

The age of push marketing is coming to a rapid close as our primary content delivery method shifts to the Internet and on-demand technologies. We’re not going to sit there and wait for our shows to come on, we’re just going to click a button and watch what we want, when we want.

But we need to make ads just as pullable as we do our content. If I’m gonna have to watch a 2 minute ad, why shouldn’t I choose which ad I want to see? If I’m presented with 2 or 3 choices I might click on an 2 minute long ad about rock climbing because I’m really into that, or a funny short advertising The Office, but I’m not really into shopping at Wal-Mart so I’m going to ignore that one whether they like it or not. With pull advertising, the publishers also get my attention data, because I chose to watch their ad over several others. They get data about how they’re doing demographically, and they get data about how they stack up against competitors.

Hulu would also get an interesting idea about advertising demographics and determine ad popularity. Eventually they could use this data to figure out which ads people would like based on ads they’ve watched in the past and attention data from the rest of the community. This could usher in a new age of advertising where crappy uninteresting ads float to the bottom and out of sight, creating a competition for quality of ads by the publishers.

When the ad content gets interesting, user attention is captured, users aren’t annoyed by bad and irrelevant ads, everybody wins.


Why Safari 4’s new tab layout is detrimental to usability

While there were many good improvements made to Safari 4 beta, I hope that Apple considers bringing the tabs back to their rightful place, or at least offering an option for classic tab view. Here are the reasons I believe the new tab layout is actually detrimental to usability.

  1. Fitts’s law. When I click to open a new tab, I previously had immediate visual feedback that this had occurred. Now I have to look past two additional rows of screen real estate (the shortcut bar, and the url bar) to spot the change. I have already had a few times where I command-clicked a link to open in a tab and had a bit of trouble spotting that the tab had actually opened. Not only does it affect the distance my gaze has to travel, but also my mouse, when going from page content to clicking between tabs I now have to pass two additional rows.
  2. Inconsistency. Up to the release of Safari 4, all Mac applications had a uniform title bar. The top line of the window was reserved as a place to display the window title. Now the top line is taken up by tabs, making this application behave differently than every other. Not only is this visually inconsistent, but if you click the corner of a tab you can end up dragging the tab instead of the window. You can also (with admittedly small probability) land on the close tab icon when trying to drag the window, which will not enable you to drag at all. While both of these events have small target areas, and thus low probability of being hit, the fact that it’s possible makes it a worse choice for usability.

Why did they do it? I am guessing that eliminating the standard title bar and using that real estate for tabs enables us to gain about 25 pixels more vertical space for actual page content. But I don’t think 25 pixels of content is a fair tradeoff for the usability problems introduced by the change.

Update: Restore your sanity:

defaults write com.apple.Safari DebugSafari4TabBarIsOnTop -bool NO

Just good enough

I recently finished Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers , a really interesting look at some of the most well known success stories including Bill Gates, the Beatles, and Jewish lawyers, among others. The book covers a range of topics but one of the central premises is that what we perceive is talent is more like an affinity to work your ass off and practice, practice, practice.

The book presents lots of interesting evidence for this, and even throws out a number - you need 10,000 hours of practice at something to achieve expert level. Gladwell says getting started young and having access to the environment they needed to spend those ten thousand hours perfecting their art helped Bill Gates, Mozart, and the Beatles to become great.

The other key notion in the book is that you have to be just good enough. For example, to win a Nobel prize, statistically you need an IQ of about 130. But it turns out that having an IQ of 150 or 200 does not increase your chances of getting the Nobel prize. In other words, there is a particular threshold above which you are good enough to get a Nobel prize. The rest is up to how hard you work, the hours you put in to practice and get great at what you do.

Not all of us can be Nobel prize winners, but most of us are probably good enough in our areas of specialty to have a chance at greatness. So the only thing standing in our way is practice. There’s my inspirational thought for the day…time to go practice :-)


Identity photo project: casting call

I’m starting a photo project this month that will investigate the concept of identity by looking at your hobbies. I want to take two shots of each person. The first will illustrate you in the personality of your favorite hobby. Whether it involves a particular costume, set, environment, props, we will capture this identity. The second shot will be something you’ve always wanted to do but haven’t done for whatever reason. We will come up with the idea for the shot together, once you tell me your chosen identities.

No previous modeling experience is necessary, and shooting will take place on saturdays and sundays in Chicago and Evanston, at locations of your choosing, as long as they’re easy to get to by public transportation. Please contact me at yan AT pritzker DOT ws with your two identities (it’s ok if you need time to think about them) and your availability over the next two months if interested. You will receive a CD with the full resolution photos for printing or publishing on the web. Thanks!

Update: Please see the scheduling page for my availability.


Why you (and I) are not designers

The problem with design is that, at first glance, it seems intuitive.

It’s pretty universally agreed that the iPhone is well designed. What makes it so? The rounded corners and shiny glass? The special effects in the OS? It’s too easy to think that once you’ve seen an example of great design, you can reproduce it. I’m not trying to pick on Microsoft, but the Zune and Windows Vista are failed attempts by engineers to reverse-engineer great design.

Some photographers take great pictures without ever formally learning the Rule of Thirds. Most people take boring or even offensively crappy pictures. Some programmers without formal training have an intuitive grasp of algorithmic complexity and code patterns. Most of them reinvent the wheel daily and write terrible code. In design, there are also people with a great eye and an intuitive sense of the principles of good design. But, like in these other disciplines, they’re very few and far between. Chances are you’re not one of these rare talents, even in your field of specialty. You probably had to learn the rules and practice your skills, like everyone else. It follows then, not having learned the rules of design or practiced them, that you’re not a good designer.

Come to terms with this now, so that no one else gets hurt by your bad design decisions.

Do you know English pretty well? If it’s your native language, you may consider yourself a master. If someone shows you a sentence, you can probably spot grammar mistakes from a mile away. But could you explain the tenses or morphology of the English language to a foreigner? More than likely, you don’t know the technical information about what makes English ‘tick’. In the same way that you don’t know the principles that were put to use to make a great product like the iPhone.

It is too easy to confuse the ability to spot something with the ability to create it, or even explain why it is the way it is. Design, like most other disciplines comes with a set of rules, patterns, and principles. These theories have been developed over time, from experience of other designers solving many problems. Some of these theories are very intuitive. Others are very counterintuitive, like the Paradox of Choice (which is not perhaps per se a design principle, but should inform your design decisions). Most of them require a lot of practice to internalize.

Understand this now: if you did not spend time studying the theory of design, analyzing case studies of past design problems and solutions, and practicing to the point of design becoming second nature to you, you will have a wrong intuition about how things should be designed. You may really honestly think you have an amazing eye, and that you’ve seen enough examples to do it right yourself, or you may simply think design doesn’t affect product sales or customer satisfaction. You are wrong. The sooner you get this, the sooner you can hire the right person for the job, and produce excellent products.

If you don’t really understand grids, you’ll probably create things that are poorly aligned and create confusion in the minds of your consumers. If you don’t know what ligatures, kerning, and letting are, your business cards will look unprofessional, and you won’t realize it (hint: Microsoft Word won’t do it for you). If you don’t know the first thing about color relationships, you’re likely to create combinations that hurt someone’s eyes, or create the wrong emotions for the product you’re selling. If you don’t know about the basics of interaction design, you will design products that are frustrating to use.

You are a not a designer. A designer is someone with training and experience in design. You may convince yourself otherwise, but your customers will not be fooled.

For more on this topic, or if you need a book to convince your boss about hiring a designer, The Inmates are Running The Asylum, is a must read for any engineering manager interested in producing excellent products.

P.S. This is obviously written toward the engineering-slanted audience that reads my blog. If I’ve offended you, good. It’s time to wake up and realize most engineers are terrible designers. Not because they’re stupid or incompetent, but because design is a discipline like any other, and if you don’t expect an English major to write your code, then you shouldn’t expect an engineer to create your design.

As engineers we’re accustomed to scanning hundreds of pages of docs and learning new technologies quickly. Design isn’t something you can learn this way, and it’s a big blow to an engineer’s ego to realize that he has come up against something he can’t learn overnight without tons of dedicated practice. If you read the book I mentioned above, it makes some good points about why the very thing that makes you a good engineer makes you a bad designer.

Hire a designer, and listen to this person very carefully. They know how to make users happy. You don’t. The worst part is if I asked you to solve problems in theoretical physics, most of you would realize right away you don’t have a clue, but nearly everyone thinks they have a clue when it comes to design. If they did, we wouldn’t have so many terribly designed products.

Update: some people thought this post was patronizing. I’ve updated the title to make something clear: I’m not a designer either. I’m just someone who is around them enough to understand that what they do is equally important and complicated as what I do. I’ve taken the time to educate myself as much as reasonable in design, in order to manage design projects and communicate effectively. I have educated myself well enough to know that I don’t know enough.


Leading from the bottom - Seth Godin’s Tribes

I just finished the new Seth Godin book, Tribes. The book talks about the idea that humans like to cluster around ideas, and they like to have someone to follow, and that a great leader is a facilitator, who helps connect the members of a community and fosters communication.

When I was telling my friend about the book, she asked me why she should read it? This book applies to everyone. Not just entrepreneurs and social networking mavens. Because it talks about creating change and leadership. One of the most useful subjects he touches on in this book, is leading in the workplace, especially the concept of leading from the bottom. Whether you work in a 5 person startup or in a 100,000 person megacorp.

Book Cover

Seth tells a great story about how in his youth, he couldn’t get approval from his boss to work on a particular project that he was very interested in. So he did it in his spare time, and he started an internal newsletter about it. As people became aware of what he was doing, and became interested, they donated their spare time to help out, and soon enough most of the project team had defected to Seth’s project (in their own spare time, of course), until the management realized the power of this new idea and made it official. Creating a newsletter

helped create a tribe around this project, and helped Seth become a leader and create the change he wanted.

Yesterday, Seth and Robert Scoble, who became famous first as an internal blogger at Microsoft, had a great livecast about Tribes. Scoble mentioned how he had created change at Microsoft by creating a place for thought and conversation for people in the company internally. At Microsoft. A mega giant corporation. Who would have thought one man could influence change in upper management, from the bottom? The reason it worked, is that Scoble wasn’t acting alone. By creating a place for like-minded individuals to gather and talk, he started conversations, internally, externally, everywhere. Conversations that led to change.

Seth and Scoble both talked about how the increase in communication capabilities on the Internet and within companies creates a flattening of hierarchy that makes leaders out of everyone. You just have to seize the opportunity. What does it mean to lead? To create internal change, to reach out to your customers, to create communities you’re passionate about, both within the company and outside it. One thing Seth said during the podcast was really powerful, so I’ve transcribed the quote here. It’s important enough to be in bold.

Ultimately everyone is self employed. Ultimately, you cannot say, oh I work at General Motors I’ll just do what the boss says and everything will be fine. If you think you work at a company that will not let you lead, I think you’re wrong, and I think that you are hiding, but it’s possible that you’re right. If it turns out that you are right, you should leave. And the best way to find out if you’re right is to lead and see what they do. [...] To work at a place where you are afraid to stand up and lead in any way is an incredible waste. You will never get better at what you do, you will never extract value from what you do, you will merely be a replaceable cog in the machine. [...] You have to decide, before the week is over. I don’t care what the economy is like — the kind of person who can lead, who desires to lead, who insists on leading, will always be able to find a great job.

The bit that Seth really drives home is that no one is preventing you from being a leader. If you work in an organization that you think would frown upon you leading, whether it means talking to your customers and creating passionate tribes there, or even informally leading groups within your own company to create change, you are probably wrong. To give a small example, think about so many old school megabrands who are just completely stuck right now. They don’t know how to embrace communities, how to build tribes. They are used to old school unidirectional marketing. They don’t get that traditional advertising is not working. They don’t know how to create conversations.

But it’s not that these companies lack talent and knowledge. That talent and knowledge just happens to be locked up in what’s likely to be the lowest tier of the company workforce - the smart, new media savvy crowd, coming straight out of college, having grown up on the Internet, YouTube, microbrands, and the Long Tail of everything. Given no official power to create change, these people need to lead from the bottom to create internal tribes that can create the change the organization needs to create passionate external tribes.

Speaking of the Long Tail, it dawns on me that what Seth is talking about in his book is the Long Tail of Leadership. A leader isn’t just the head of a country, organization, or team. As communication increases, hierarchies flatten, employees and customers can talk directly, niche communities are created around the most obscure interests, leaders of all shapes and sizes must rise up to facilitate the tribes that form. In their podcast, Seth and Scoble both emphasize that leaders aren’t special, they are every day people who rise up to become facilitators of their tribes.

The Tribes Q&A document is a free resource that is a great accompaniment to the book. It’s written by members of Seth Godin’s own tribe, from their personal experiences with leadership. It’s a great lesson and an illustration of the very point of Tribal leadership itself.


A good week for cloud computing

Amazon offers 99.95% SLA

Amazon announced today that it was exiting beta and offering a 99.95% SLA within a region. Hopefully this is going to put some cloud naysayers to rest, at least on the reliability front. Amazon is offering accountability in the form of service credits if it violates the SLA. Now this may not be enough for some of you with mission critical applications, but my guess is that most people out there are going to be just fine with it, considering the cost savings that on demand cloud infrastructure provides. Oh yeah, they’re going to be offering Windows servers too. This should make some dot-net-heads pretty happy.

There are already hundreds (thousands?) of companies taking advantage of Amazon EC2 computing resources, and those that aren’t are going to catch up real quick, especially as they realize how much money they are wasting on static server resources that are mostly sitting around idling. You just can’t afford that, not in this economy. Companies are going to wise up and start cutting costs on non critical infrastructure and pushing it into the cloud. And as they gain trust for the cloud, pieces of critical infrastructure are going to follow.

Rackspace building weapons of mass destruction

Rackspace just acquired Slicehost and JungleDisk in what appears to be an effort to shore up its arms race against Amazon. They are still pretty far behind true cloud infrastructure (by this I mean on-demand api-driven resource allocation) but maybe Slicehost can make this happen for them. I’ve been a loyal Slicehost customer for close to two years now, and they’ve declined to accept uploaded virtual images thus far, but maybe that will change. See below for why Slicehost isn’t really a cloud, yet.

Your VPS ain’t a Cloud

Many ‘cloud’ vendors are still just rebranded VPSs. We’ve had virtualized infrastructure in hosting companies for years. What makes a true cloud like Amazon EC2 is that it only takes a credit card and a minute to get computing resources. The other key is that manual tweaking and hand provisioning are going the way of the dinosaur. You need to be able to get a new server up and running with your latest environment and software in minutes, not hours, days, or weeks.

Hosting solutions that require you to first acquire resources by booting up an image and then installing your software are going to be left in the dust. Amazon lets you upload a virtual image you create, which means you can mange your own image catalog, and if you’re using something like Elastic Server then you can dynamically provision your servers from recipe templates that ensure the quick reproducibility of your stack to any virtual format, whether it’s in your datacenter, or up in the cloud.

In 2009 we’re going to start to see companies moving to virtual and cloud infrastructure and dynamic provisioning to cut costs and gain agility. It’s going to be an interesting year.


Planypus 2.0 launches the fastest way to make plans with your friends

I’m really happy to report that after seven months of hard work, we’re back and better than ever! The new Planypus is an example of beautiful user-driven design, that really focuses on the goal: to make plans as humanly fast as possible.

Not satisfied with the overcomplicated process of making plans at competing websites, we’ve got it down to one screen, and actually just one field! Type in a title and let your friends fill in the details. It’s that easy. You can have a plan page up in about 10 seconds and let your friends use the planspace wiki, vote on time and locations, create and respond to polls, and chat. And of course you can get notifications on your phone, email, rss, integrate with calendars, and one-click post to Twitter and Facebook!

We wouldn’t be here today without the hard work of the Planypus team, especially Luciano Pouzada, the talented designer who created the interface for the new Planypus. And tons of thanks to our beta users who helped us test the product in its final pre-release stages. Your support has kept us going!

And while all that’s been going on, we launched our new platform website at http://platform.planyp.us to help websites use the Planypus engine to enable social interaction on their events. Get in touch with us and find out how we can create page views and brand loyalty for you!

Now onto world domination in 2009 :-)


Richard Stallman gets reactionary on clouds

GNU founder Richard Stallman is denouncing clouds as a proprietary trap. I greatly respect this man, but I have problems with his statements on two levels. First, I have previously argued that the most important and game changing factor of cloud computing is not the idea of storing your stuff on the interweb, (which is just SaaS, a concept that is ten years old), but on-demand resource provisioning (this really is a New Thing worthy of our attention).

So my first problem is that people even as informed as RMS are still calling SaaS cloud computing. The second problem I have is with the actual meat of Stallman’s statement: he claims that e.g. giving google your data is somehow going to lock you in, and this will cost you over time. Now despite the fact that he calls this cloud computing, I’m going to grit my teeth and respond anyway: O RLY?

First of all, I recall when Gmail opened up it was free and offered 2 gigs of storage. Today it offers more than 7 gigs of storage, and is still free. Does Google have an immensely evil plan to get me locked into their email system and ten years later to start charging for it? Not likely. And what’s more, the free market won’t stand for it.

Besides, as hardware costs approach zero, businesses built on charging for commodity resources are very low margin and quite frankly not interesting to companies like Google. Instead, it is a way to get you into the Google world. The gateway drug to Google apps, if you will. And all of this is, of course, an evil plan to harvest your attention data and sell you advertising. Well as horrifying as this is — guess what else is an evil way to harvest your data and sell you advertising? Credit cards. We got over it (well, most of us anyway). We have benefitted greatly from it. I hope RMS carries only cash, otherwise he’s giving away his data to proprietary vendors.

Let’s face it, our generation doesn’t expect any privacy. We’ve recognized intuitively that with the great power and capabilities of online search, social networking, and the immense quantities of raw data being generated by everything we do, comes a tradeoff in privacy. Hell, many of us have embraced it. You know there’s this little app called Facebook where people voluntarily dump the most private of data for the world to see. Like credit cards, the utility provided by these things to their users, clearly outweighs their invasion into our privacy.

In his interview, Stallman railed against companies that are claiming that the process of outsourcing your data to external services is inevitable, and said “It’s stupidity. It’s worse than stupidity; it’s a marketing hype campaign.” Yes, there’s that. And then there is pure hard factual economics. If Google can store my data cheaper, and more reliably than I can, and on top of that give me some extra capabilities like collaboration, then why shouldn’t I put it there? There is no good economic reason, and if we live in a free market economy, then that means that it is inevitable.

Face it — Skynet is coming, it’s just a question of embracing it early on and developing standards and methods for security and privacy control, or to call it “idiocy” and “stupidity” and do nothing about it. I choose the former.


← Before After →