The pulse of Alexander Interactive

Last post.

I am going to be moving on, leaving Ai in the capable hands of the excellent people who work here, and this blog in the hands of David and whoever else he can pull into it. Instead of blathering on about tech, I’d like to take this opportunity to talk for a minute about my heroes and influences.

There are a few pivotal figures that taught me a number of critical lessons. These people influenced me and have shaped my thinking about life, career, people and the universe in general. They are a disparate group, and at times seem to have little in common, but each one has brought a unique perspective and insight into their particular slice of life.

Lets start with the parents, of course. My Mom taught me about compassion for other humans, and taught me at an early age that “I can do anything I want in life” – proving that it’s possible to teach freedom.

My Dad taught me about ethics and principles, and how to work with groups of people. He also bought home a dumb terminal with a scroll of paper attached to it, with which he proceeded to call up the DEC-10 at his work, to let me play the dungeon game that ran on it there. I was immediately eaten by a Grue, and my life changed forever.

Claudio Adolpho Iedwab, South American martial arts champion, and the creator of the Gorindo School, taught me about true excellence and how its possible to push one’s self to new heights. He also taught how its possible to be scary good at something, and yet humble and friendly.

John Harris, band manager, concert promoter, deal maker, and founder of the Harris Institute, was the first person to teach me about business, leadership, and negotiation. Introducing himself as “someone who has never held a job”, Harris has built an enduring legacy around him, touching the lives of scores of professionals in the Canadian music industry.

James David Smith, hardware guy, self taught, self made, my former employer and later business partner. Runs a business that makes remote controlled lighting equipment used on Broadway. Also, ever see the scrolling signs on the Toys ‘R Us store in Times Square? Him. Ever see the scene in Phantom of the Opera where the stage seems to be on fire? Him. He is the kind of person that will casually teach himself trigonometry as he needs it. Jim taught me about entrepreneurship, and the incredible power of following through on a great idea, and making it happen.

And finally,

Alex Schmelkin and Josh Levine – founders of Alexander Interactive. From them I’ve learned about consultative sales, about maintaining a culture that is both fun and excellent, but most importantly about having the courage to recognize when it’s time to change the way they’re doing things, and then swiftly moving on implementing that change. This commitment to continuous improvement, (instead of clutching ideas the way so many people do), is one of the things that distinguishes them in their industry, and in the world of business in general.

I thank them for the opportunity to work with them, and with all of the other great people at Ai. I’ll miss you guys.

Imagination is a scary word in business. It raises images of finger painting and story time. It threatens business people with the onus of being creative – a place that may be out of their comfort zone. There is a constant search for repeatable formulas that can be brought to bear on business decisions; formulas that relieve business from the necessity of periodically re-examining the fundamental assumptions the form the foundation of their day-to-day activities.

Imagination, however, is the critical ingredient in business success. Imagination:

1. Allows one to see past the existing context, the ideas and assumptions, that form the foundation of the many day-to-day activities of business. This is creative destruction.
2. Allows for perception of the larger environment – the big picture. This shows the fundamental market and societal forces bearing down on the business.
3. Allows for a synthesis of a new context, one that is more in alignment with the larger environment than the old context.

Let’s look at each of these phases. For each phase, we’ll see the both advantages of success and the risks of failure at that phase:

Destruction of Context

In the destruction phase, imagination means the act of questioning “Does this make sense?”. It is a periodic re-examination of the fundamental ideas and assumptions, the context, that provides a foundation for the every day activities that occur within the business. It can be difficult to not get so mired down in the details of the day-to-day that this questioning process never occurs. Furthermore, it requires great courage to admit that the existing context no longer works. This phase can be unnerving, because at its beginning there is a working context, and at the end there is not.

When destruction of context is achieved, there is a realization that the current context requires re-thinking; that it is not really a fit for the larger environment any more, and that sooner or later, clinging to the existing context will bring serious negative consequences. Destroying the old context clears it out of the way, allowing for a space in which new ideas can take hold.

If the necessary destruction of context is not achieved, whether through lack of perception or courage, then the organization risks being stuck in its ways while the world passes it by.

Seeing the Big Picture

Once one starts to question one’s existing assumptions, it is time to look at the world and to try to determine what is going on. Again, this is a fundamental quality of imagination. Seeing the big picture can be accomplished by looking at a number of events over time and recognizing the underlying pattern, or it can be done through examining other industries and drawing parallels. In any case, a recognition of the larger environment means that an understanding of the fundamental forces bearing down on the business can be achieved.

When one is unable to see the big picture, then one doesn’t understand the reasons for the long term success or failure of their business. This lack of knowledge can lead one to believe that the status quo will last forever, or that the environment is completely random – neither of which are true.

Synthesis of a New Context

Finally, in light of the perception of the greater environment, the final phase of imagination is to create a new context – one that is more in alignment with the prevailing winds of the world. A working context is essential in order to be able to get anything done – we need assumptions in order to operate.

Frequently this synthesis requires a cognitive leap – a new way of seeing things, to take the place of the destroyed old context. This is imagination at its purest.

Even if one can achieve the first two phases of the cycle, if one can’t synthesize a new context, then there can be no plan to deal with the world. Ideas and assumptions form the foundation on which plans, goals and tasks are built.

Imagination is the bridge which takes people from one context to the next, so that they are able to deal with the fluid and changing world around them. Leadership draws from imagination: it is the act of bringing other people across that bridge with you. Together they form the long-term mechanism of survival in business.

Apparently switching operating systems isn’t easy. Besides the issues that people talk about (Can I run my apps? Is it faster? Is it better?) there are all sorts of personal identity issues tied up in the operating system one chooses.

(Pausing a moment for full disclosure: my personal operating system history, in reverse order, is Mac OS X, SuSE Linux, Red Hat Linux, Windows 9x/NT, Mac 6/7/8/9, TRS-DOS, PET, and whatever happened to be running on the DEC-10 with the dumb terminal and the roll of paper. Also there have been a few side-dalliances with FreeBSD and Win 2k.)

Initially I didn’t think of an OS as a separate entity from a computer. It was just part of the computer, what showed up when I turned on the old TRS-80. We can thank Microsoft for making us think of the operating system as a thing in itself, other than an inherent attribute of a computer.

At the beginning of the 90′s I started to work on Macs because that’s what was going on in the music world, where I was operating. This was about when Windows 95 came out, and in retrospect it was a pretty dark time for Mac. People were crowing about how Windows 95 eliminated any need to get a Mac. They really took it personally.

(A couple of years later, I abandoned the Mac because I was getting into Java programming, and the Java runtime sucked on the Mac. Macintosh Runtime for Java. MRJ. I remember it well. Bleh.)

Working on the Internet led me to discovering UNIX. I wanted it. I suddenly came to the realization that the Internet was really a UNIX-centric place. UNIX and the Internet just seemed to go nicely together, in a way that Windows simply did not. I downloaded the super-cool, incredibly indie Red Hat distribution (wow, times have sure changed) and pretty soon was installing it everywhere, including on my IBM laptop.

Fast forward to more recently – when Mac OS X came out, and I realized I could have UNIX on my laptop, and all of the shiny Mac stuff (including commercial audio production software) all on one OS.

Now I’ve never used XP much, and don’t have an opinion about Vista. Apparently some otherwise happy Windows users don’t like Vista. The complaints I’m hearing are along the lines of “too slow, fancy UI chrome doesn’t actually enhance usability, security features drive me insane” and so on.

One of the biggest sins seems to be that after 5 years of nothing from Microsoft (and during the course of many, many OS X upgrades), Vista simply wasn’t as jaw-droppingly amazing as it should have been.

Well for whatever reason, a number of people I know, who were previously staunch Windows users, are bailing. But they’re bailing under protest. They hate the idea of being part of the herd, and joining those dirty hippies in the cult of Mac.

The idea that one’s consumer habits are part of their identity isn’t terribly new, but it is kind of fascinating for me to watch people struggle with reconciling the apparent conflict between the technical and user experience benefits associated with switching to Mac, with the danger that they’ll become yet another latte-swilling zombie, wandering aimlessly under the influence of the mighty Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field tm.

To which I say: folks, its all temporary anyway. Apple makes the best stack right now, but someday they’ll get knocked off by something easier, faster, more powerful and yes, sexier. And then you’ll find me switching. And I won’t be losing sleep over it.

Can lightning strike the same place twice? Can we get some more angels to dance on this pin? How about re-creating the PC demand explosion on another hardware platform, hopefully resulting in the same wealth creation that coincided with the PC revolution?

Hm. I think I’ll take the angels. Looks easier.

The 90′s was filled with venture capital firms looking for someone to be the next Microsoft. The effect of that particular tornado was so wide and so long lived that most people lost sight of what an anomaly it was. People kept making business plays based on creating an equivalent to the PC explosion, while glossing over the fact that the odds of doing so were quite a bit worse than winning a lottery. In a lottery, at least someone is guaranteed to be the winner. It could be a long time before something like a new hardware platform explosion occurs again.

Let’s look at the forces that combined to create the original Intel-based IBM PC Clone + MS Windows market explosion:

• Rapid standardization of business on an open platform (which was open by accident: it was based on the PC reference specification put out by Intel)
• A proprietary product (MS Windows) was attached to the explosion, but only because it was a significantly undervalued part of the supply chain. No one had thought seriously about an operating system for a computer as the high ground in technology before then.
• A radically open platform for application development. For a retail-level offering, there was a remarkable lack of centralized control over what you could run on top of it. You didn’t need Microsoft’s, IBM’s, or anyone’s permission to write an app.

Alone these factors would have been significant, but together they created a firestorm that is extremely rare. In fact, a firestorm that is practically impossible to re-create. What everyone now knows is that IBM screwed up. To let these factors coincide is against the basic instinct of business, and it wouldn’t have occurred in this case if IBM had understood properly what was happening, and had executed properly.

So in an environment where key players in an industry are not massively screwing up, the conditions to create the firestorm just don’t happen. Fire does not get stolen from the gods.

In the business world, people keep wanting to use the razor blade model. They catch the customer and then extract recurring fees. This is the way that game consoles, cell phones, cable tv and so many other things work. This can be a great way for a business to make money, but it essentially guarantees that the firestorm and the associated wealth explosion will not occur.

I started thinking about this topic when I was speaking with a co-worker here about his Zune. (Yes he has a Zune. He’s the only person I’ve ever met in person with a Zune. Actually he owns two of them, a black one and a coveted brown Zune.)

Initially Microsoft’s response to the iPod was to initiate Plays For Sure – an attempt to re-create the firestorm. The idea was Plays For Sure was a program in which Microsoft supplied the software and independent manufacturers supplied the hardware. The plan was that they would displace the iPod just as they had the original Macintosh.

But relying on re-creating the firestorm is a weak bet. Not surprisingly, it didn’t pan out, and Microsoft abandoned the strategy (screwing their Plays For Sure partners in the process) and released the Zune instead. An integrated, closed, offering instead. The Gods continued to keep fire to themselves.

How many CPUs do you have?

One of the most interesting changes to the web in the last couple of years is that computing hardware is moving beyond mere commodotization and into the realm of the metered service. Companies that formerly would have had to heavily invest in hardware (and the associated system administration costs) in order to deploy web sites are beginning to have a viable alternative: cloud computing, available in various flavors such as Amazon’s EC2, Slicehost’s virtual machine based hosting, or quick set-up hosts like WebFaction.

Instead of buying hardware to host your website, it is now possible to rent computer time at any capacity level. This allows businesses to essentially pay for only the computer power they need.

This is great, but implicit in this is that we need to change the way we build web applications. What is rapidly becoming the predominant hardware paradigm (via cloud computing) for web applications is in a direct disconnect with the technologies that we’re using to build them.

It has to do with how many CPUs (processors) the technology can handle.
The approach-du-jour in web apps is rapid development through frameworks that take advantage of powerful, dynamically typed languages like Ruby and Python. These frameworks allow people to build web applications very, very fast.

However, these languages are executed in runtimes that are not SMP (symmetrical multi-processing) enabled. In other words, the runtimes can only handle one processor at a time. There are numerous hacks in the web development world to get around this, mostly involving running multiple instances of the runtimes. However problems creep up – the well known scalability problems that Twitter has encountered have their roots in these issues.

So up on the bleeding, ragged edge of web development, we’re starting to look at alternatives from other industries. In the telephony world they’ve had to deal with these kind of scalability and reliability issues long before we were around, and they have some pretty impressive solutions.

Erlang, developed by Ericsson, is a language and runtime created from the ground up to live in an SMP world (originally its “cloud” was telephony equipment). There is a famous Erlang app which claims nine nines of reliability. That’s 99.9999999% uptime, or a few seconds every 30 years. Way more than any website needs.

Unfortunately, Erlang is, well, kind of weird. People coming from said Python or Ruby background will have to re-learn some very fundamental approaches to problems, and that’s not going to be easy. In fact it might not even be possible. Fortunately, Erlang compiles to bytecode (similar to the way Java and Python work) meaning that its possible to write a different compiler and perhaps uses a different language on the Erlang runtime (called BEAM).

So just today I noticed, (in what is clearly a really, really early incarnation) – a little project called Reia. Its pretty raw now, but it purports to be a Python/Ruby-like high level language that compiles to Erlang BEAM format, giving it all the SMP-loving, fault-tolerant and distributed goodness that comes with Erlang. I don’t know if Reia is the winner, but I feel pretty confident that creating a friendler programmer interface to the Erlang runtime is a winning proposition.

Want to be able to use Google to search your corporate intranet? You can sign up with it as a service, letting its spiders crawl over your side. Or you can buy their hardware. So the product range takes an interesting leap from a remote hosted service, to a piece of rack hardware.

Noticeably missing is the middle-ground of shrink-wrap software to be installed on your own hardware. This is a significant departure from the way software used to be sold.

This is the end-game of hardware commoditization at work. Against the price of developing and marketing software, the cost of hosting the app in some off-the-shelf hardware is pretty minor.

Compare the cost of hardware against that of installation support. Imagine if there was an installable “Google Intranet Search” product, designed to go onto a server run by the IT department. Well, first off, there would have to be a version for Windows, because some companies are Microsoft-only shops. That means at least two platforms to support. And then, now matter how fast and easy installation was, there would be a deluge of installation support calls coming in, because someone has the wrong version of the operating system, weird hardware or a conflicting application. This can get expensive.

The alternative is simply to bundle a computer with the software. This guarantees that the software is always installed on an appropriate operating system, with the appropriate hardware. It also dances around IT Department requirements for tech stacks, such as “we only support Microsoft”. Generally with appliances the operating system is hidden away from view (it’s usually Linux, but it doesn’t matter). The IT Department is simply told – “there is no operating system for you to support – just turn on the box and run the setup wizard”.

Put this together with software as a service (SaaS) and you have a pretty good offering. You can offer your app in basic, pro and enterprise flavors, or you send them a box. The software vendor doesn’t waste nearly as much time with installation support and the customer doesn’t have to maintain the software.

1. Whats hotnewwebsite.com?
2. Are you on/do you use hotnewwebsite.com?
3. We’re building the hotnewwebsite.com for our obscure niche.
4. Whats hotnewwebsite.com?

(Apologies to the “hollywood cycle” of which this is an obvious rip-off.)