Hacker news had the following article at the top of their list: the wolf of wall tweet. It talks about algorihms that used a rumor and the options market to make millions in seconds. This article refers to Flash Boys as well, a famous book about high frequency trading. However the big news is that whatever the article talks about as being magical is not magical at all, you can do a lot more and you will read about examples later on.
How does tweet option buying work?
Advances in neural networking have led to Deep Belief Networks (DBN). DBN in some cases are able to do natural language recognition and other types of recognition better than human beings, or at least a lot faster. So a DBN that is trained to read from the Twitter firehose and scan lots of news articles will beat humans in speed. Add an interface to options trading and you have what the article describes.
Taking it to the next level – knowing the future of the economy
What if you would know economical facts with a high degree of certainty before anybody else, and not sub seconds but hours, days, weeks, even months before anybody else. This is what Internet of Things combined with DBNs and automated trading can give you. How? Imagine you are into trading car stocks. Via computer vision you are able to count events. There are lots of public street cameras that stream in real-time data about what is happening on the roads. Humans look at them to see if there is a lot of traffic. Computers can use them to recognize and count events. So what would happen if strategically picked street cameras get hooked up to DBNs, you would be able to count how many trucks leave a factory with cars. You would be able to correlate these events month after month with the revenue figures of car manufacturers and then correlate with their stock value. The car manufacturers will at the end of a quarter announce their profits and a key aspect of their success depends on how many cars where sold. If you would know weeks or a month in advance that the volumes of cars coming out of a factory have picked up dramatically then you know the stock value will go up. If you would buy minutes before the figures come out a large quantity of car stocks then trading algorithms will pick up on this and will make you loose lots of the potential profit. However if you can spread purchase orders over weeks in small quantities then HFT can not detect your strategy.
Street cams is only the beginning
Using street cams would only be the beginning. Add weather sensors and lots of other sensors and you can do magic at large scale and would have a magical dashboard of the real economy before anybody else. If you are interested in this subject be sure to reach out on LinkedIn…
The “Ectors Principle” says that it is impossible to be excellent at hardware, software and services. You have to pick one and at most two but you can’t have all three.
Why can’t you be excellent at all?
Hardware is a discipline that requires you to define everything upfront and then to produce in as large volumes as possible to get to the lowest price per unit. It is a volume business with low margins.
Services requires people that understand customers ‘ problems and try to find solutions for them. It focuses on integration, customization, support, etc. To double revenue, you need to double the workforce.
Software is the art of combining easy to use solutions, with extensible and customizable features at an optimized and acceptable level of performance and availability. Smarter programmers can win from armies of dumb programmers.
So how can you combine a hardware platform that needs to have all features prebaked, with a people business that focuses on adding new features for each customer, with a software in which the art is to offer more with less features because feature overload kills ease of use, performance and availability? The simple answer is you can’t do them all well. You have to pick.
Who is trying to prove the “Ectors Principle” wrong?
IBM, HP, etc. come to mind when the words hardware, software and services are mentioned. How are they doing? BAD!!! Please name 5 HP software products that you find inspiring! IBM at least realized that being excellent at all three is hard and sold its PC and server business to focus on services and software. A word of advise: spin-off Power processors as an independent company!
Apple? Apple is not in the services business because you can’t have a closed software and hardware ecosystem and try to customize it to everybody’s needs.
Google? Google tried hardware with Motorola (failure!) and Nest but is not focusing on services because they don’t want to have to hire double the amount of people to double revenue.
Amazon? Hardware is proving difficult. Enterprises cloud services was a stretch.
General Motors? Do you like the software that comes with cars. Would you call it excellent?
Cisco, Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia, etc.? Software defined networks will kill their hardware margins in the next months/years. Alacatel Lucent just threw in the towel. More consolidation to follow.
General Electric? Wait until everything becomes “smart”. If GE is smart then their smart fridges have app stores with apps and peripherals from others. If not it will not be pretty.
Focus on one
Ideally you focus on one discipline and have another one as a hobby at most. Trying to do all will result in a weak link in the chain. The exact link that competitive startups will focus on to bring the imperium on its knees…
Every industry will be affected by IoT. Homes, businesses, cities, farm land, seas, space, etc. will get sensors. However the first IoT devices that will be massively adopted will not be a new breed of devices. They will more likely be devices we already know but will come with extra connectivity options and other IoT features.
Why not new devices?
For any new device that customers don’t know, you will have to educate the users, setup a new distribution channel as well as aftersales services offerings. This takes time and is risky and as such device manufacturers will not massively produce them from day one. The result is that new types of devices will cost more than the magical $100 for which they auto limit their market success.
What will be the first IoT devices?
You can already say that Bluetooth scales, Nest thermostats & firedectors, Phillips Hue, etc. are the first IoT devices alongside Fitbits and other wearables. However these devices are single purpose devices that often don’t do more than their non-connected counterparts. Let’s call them the Internet of Isolated Things because out of the box, most of them work only with their app or their cloud and none has any meaningful peer to peer relationships. They only allow other devices to be a remote control.
The real revolution in IoT will start when devices will not come with everything prebaked by the manufacturer. As soon as for instance a storage NAS is able to run multiple IoT apps to connect to your Bluetooth scale, your Nest firedectors, your Hue lights and your Fitbit will we see the real power of IoT in the home. From that moment onwards you will see something amazing happening, devices together will have synergies that weren’t there before. You will have the lights in the living room go red, Fitbits receiving messages and your Nest firedectors downstairs launching a “mom will be upset alert!”, just because Mom stood on the scale and the results wasn’t pretty. You will have 30 seconds to hide the scrambled eggs and butter croissants and substitute them by fresh fruits and Special K 🙂
Without a joke, the devices that you will buy regularly, but whose next-generation can hold many IoT apps will become the key IoT success enablers. Think WiFi routers, NAS, unified conference systems, set top boxes, etc. They might not be the sexiest devices in the world but people buy them in large quantities so IoT app enabling them will assure the IoT revolution to be accelerated…
GSMA, ETSI, etc. have been defining standards for the telecom world for years. However outside of the telecom industry these standards have found little or no adoption. In a world where telecom operators are fast becoming bit pipes, do we really need telecom standards? Why can’t the telecom industry just use SIP, WebRTC, REST, etc. just like everybody else?
The current systems in telecom are assuming calls and SMS need to be billed for. What would happen if the starting point is: data insights, network apps and connectivity are the only things that are billed? Connectivity is likely going to be unlimited or with very high limits over time. New revenue would have to come from selling data insights, either individually with consent, or aggregated and anonymised. As well as from apps that run inside the network: on CPEs, DSLAMs, mobile base stations, etc. So for the purpose of this blog let’s focus on a world where calls and SMS can no longer be charged for and connectivity is close to unlimited for most normal use cases. To move bits fast through a network, you want the least number of protocol converters. So using many different standards would make things slow and expensive. Additionally telecom operators have overpaid for lots of standards and their software support during years without ever using them. Finally implementing a standard is very costly because often only 20% of the functionality is really used, but the other 80% needs to be there to pass compliance tests.
The nonstandard or empty networking appliance
In a world where software can define networks and any missing functionality is just a networking app away, it would be a lot better to start from an empty networking appliance, i.e. networking hardware without software, and then to buy everything you need. If you need a standard then you might want to buy the minimal/light, equals 20%, implementation and see if you can live with it. Chances are you still have too many functions that are not used. Facebook open sourced its top of the rack networking solution and surprise, surprise, the interface is Thrift based. Thrift is used in all the other Facebook services to have a standard high throughput interface for all its software services. Google probably uses protocol buffers. Apache Avro would be another alternative and the most openly licensed of them all. So instead of focusing on a standard, it would be better to standardise on a highly throughput optimised interface technology instead of public slow standards. Inside a telecom operator this would work very efficient and for those systems that talk to legacy or outside world systems, adding a standard is just a networking app away. This would simplify a telecom network substantially, saving enormous costs and accelerating speed of change because less code needs to be written and maintained making integrations easier. These are all ideas that assume there are actual appliances that are software defined. As soon as general purpose compute becomes fast enough for heavy data plane traffic then the reality will be software defined networking in a virtualized way with autoscaling and all the other cloud goodies. However this reality is still some years off, unfortunately. In the short run virtualization of the control plane and software defined networking appliances [SDNA] for the data plane, is the most realistic option…
IT departments are a strange beast. Several years ago they were the most innovative department in most companies. They offered software solutions the business was not prepared for. However cloud, big data, IoT, etc. have accelerated in the last years faster than most in-house IT departments could handle. Some IT departments have more focused on putting processes in place to avoid talking to end-users than to actually helping the business compete faster and better. So how do you know if you are dealing with an IT dinosaur department or not?
1) speed of simple routine tasks
How fast can an IT department do simple tasks, e.g. open a firewall port, correct a misspelling on a website, add a user, add a subdomain, etc. If yours can turn around these tasks via automated solutions in minutes, you are top class. In hours, you are fine. However when we start talking about weeks or months then you definitely have an IT dinosaur department.
2) willingness to help the business
If your business has a problem, do you go to your IT department to ask for help on how IT might solve the problem and give the company a strategic advantage? Or on the contrary, the business has no other choice then to bring their own devices, use corporate credit cards to buy cloud resources, use external consultants, etc. because the last department that will listen to them is the IT department? Years of IT cost optimisations have pushed innovation out of some IT departments. If this sounds like yours: “IT dinosaur department”.
3) attitute towards change
The world is innovating so fast that any business that wants to be competitive needs to embrace change. This means that waterfall methodologies no longer work. Lean, scrum, minimum valuable product, continuous deployment, etc., call it whatever you like. The reality is that if your attitude is that whatever you decide today will need to be changed tomorrow, you are doing the right thing. Few businesses can afford to make a five year IT plan any more. When the ink dries, it will be outdated. In a world were HP, Dell, IBM, Accenture, etc. need to reinvent themselves continuously or risk dying, what do you think will happen to other sectors? One mobile app like Uber, can create global chaos in an over-regulated sector like the taxi sector. There are too many sectors that have not been innovating and risk being disrupted, e.g. telecom, energy, logistics, financial services, retail, etc. If there is no attitude to embrace change, then you are at risk of becoming or already have become an IT dinosaur.
What is a dinovator?
A dinovator is a person that accepts that they work for or are at risk of becoming an IT dinosaur but don’t accept this reality. A dinovator will look for unproven, non-standard, and often risky technology solutions to apply to the current business challenges and will via prototypes demonstrate to others that there is a better future. A dinovator will not try to make slides and convince others. They know that some people still don’t have a smart phone and will probably never change their mind. A dinovator makes sure that others understand how cutting-edge technologies can give a company a unique advantage. Seeing is believing. If you would live in 1802, would you belief that one day the world would be jammed with cars, planes and smart phones? You would not. You would call a fool to anybody trying to convince you otherwise. However if somebody would show a prototype of a car to you, then you would have to belief that horses are not the only means of transportation. Only over time will you realise that traffic jams and F1 will be possible. But at least you stopped believing that horses will continue to have a monopoly. The world needs dinovators to show this message to telecoms, energy companies, transport companies, banks and insurers, super market chains, etc.
Everybody can be a dinovator
You don’t need to be technical to be a dinovator. If you are in a business position, just asking smaller or alternative suppliers to show different more innovative approaches will also work. Telecom operators have during years asked their suppliers to give them faster and cheaper networks. They did not ask with the same intensity for new revenue generating solutions. The end result is that their regular suppliers have been focusing all their energy on what the customer asked. If a customer does not ask for it, then a “well managed company” will not dedicate resources to it. It is the typical innovator’s dilemma. The end result is that the industry is shrinking and once super companies have no other choice then to consolidate and fire employees, e.g. Nokia just bought Alcatel Lucent. You have a choice. Either you wait for others to make your job irrelevant or you become a dinovator. If you are good at being a dinovator then pretty soon you will be able to call yourself and your company an innovator. Being an innovator is an attitude. So join the dinovator movement, tweet your dinovations to the world and include #dinovator @telruptive.
Google is the poster child of innovation. At least it was some years back. Google was surprising the world very frequently with very large innovations until recently, e.g. Maps, Youtube, Android, etc. There hasn’t been any big ones for quite some time however. Self-driven cars might be the only exception and they seem more marketing than product still.
So is Google innovating too slow?
One of the key differentiators Google always had was superior back office solutions. Lately however more and more competitors have open sourced their backoffice marvels, e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Netflix, etc. This has meant that communities have grown around them, e.g. Open Compute, Hive, Kafka, Suro, etc. Now Google is not competing any more against competitors but also against their eco-systems. Kubernetes, the Docker orchestration solution from Google, is not used internally but if successful hopefully stimulates open sourcing more infrastructure elements. Also Google’s cloud business, although they were first with PaaS, never got the adoption an AWS or Heroku got.
Google and Slow Telecom Innovation
Android is the key to the biggest global mobile ecosystem but Google has been slow in rolling out other telecom innovations. Google Fiber is still limited to some lucky US cities. Google flirted with TV white spaces and announced enterprise wifi solutions but nothing really shocking came out of it so far. Why didn’t they compete with operators yet? If anybody could invent a way to circumvent mobile spectrum licences, you would expect it to be Google. LTE-U, the unlicensed spectrum for LTE networks does not seem to be a bad starting point. Until now there are just some rumours about Google becoming an MVNO. Also why did they buy Motorola, in order to sell the device business shortly after? Where their patents really worth the money? Some cool devices could have been created instead! WebRTC is a good standard but except for the free Google Hangout it is unclear what will happen next with it on Google’s side. Google Voice has never broken out of the US. It seems like the Voice team ran into a company politics battle and lost from the Hangout team. Finally Facebook is moving strong towards defining the future of network equipment. Why is Google not playing their SDN cards publicly?
Google and IoT
Google bought Nest for a lot of money and that was it. No IoT cloud, no IoT other product portfolio, etc.
Google and Social Networking
G+ finally got some users and there are some features that are better than Facebook but there is nothing world shocking about it.
Did Wall Street kill Google innovation or is there just silence before the storm?
Publicly traded companies no longer have the liberty to forgo short-term profit, for mid-term revolutionary products. Has Google fallen victim of the shortsightedness of day traders or is there just silence before the storm, ideally hurricane or tsunami? Time will tell…
Today’s networks are mainly based on hardware acceleration of a limited set of low-level routing rules. This was perfect in a well established world of a limited set of well known protocols traveling mainly from servers to clients. The new reality is that software has become elastic, data has grown big, Internet of Things clients are growing exponentially & are very chatty, streaming 4K video will be the norm, etc. Networks now need to become software defined if they want to survive this new reality.
Is SDN on top of private cloud the solution?
The answer is only partially. There are just too many data plane heavy use cases that still need hardware acceleration in the short term. Too many networking software is not ready for scale out and too many layers of hypervisors and other complex abstractions make current solutions too slow.
The solution is divide and conquer. Just like transactional database are still around after a wave of NoSQL, NewSQL, streaming analytics, graph databases, etc. So will next-generation networking need a mix of best in breed virtualized and appliance-based solutions to each problem.
Networking White Boxes or SDNA
Software defined networking appliances will be the first big innovation in 2015 to be adopted at scale. These boxes combine network acceleration with software-defined networking applications. In the beginning this will mean that standard networking ASICs can be reprogrammed in more dynamic ways. Good examples are the Facebook Wedge and Six Pack. This is however just the start. Expect multi-core processors that can handle many ports at the same time or new versions of ASICs and FPGAs that are more optimised for SDN logic.
Just like IT and Cloud got a big Devops boost through orchestration tooling, so will network orchestration tools allow for virtualized SDNs and physical SDNA to be orchestrated seamlessly. These will likely be additions to existing devop and orchestration tools instead of a new set of tools.
Software Define Radio
Instead of using cables and broadband solutions which are expensive to install, expect the next generation of software define radio to allow for end-devices to communicate with their peers and hubs a lot more freely, optimised and ad-hoc. This means that the next-generation of networking needs to take into account a reality of wired and wireless. Also expect protocols to evolve. With software defined radio it will be possible that new wireless standards emerge from small projects on Github that become overnight successes. Yaml, Json, Node.js, WebRTC, etc. were not born in a standardisation group. They became standards through usage. Expect the next generation of networking protocols to come from small super smart startups.
Networking Apps & App Stores
At the moment you buy an appliance that comes with an embedded operating system and a set of pre-installed networking logic. At most you can install plugins. The near future will see networking apps be sold via networking app stores on SDNA from a third-party. Expect new networking startups to become overnight successes because they no longer need to ship atoms worldwide, they just need to upload bits to an app store.
Reshuffling of the networking and telecom market
With software, operating system and hardware being separated, the old networking industry rules get rewritten. It used to be enough to be good at 2 or at least 1 out of three. Excellent hardware, an ok operating system and some good software was enough to be market leader. Now no longer. Best-in-class can be easily obtained in each category. The problem will be when revenue streams come from software maintenance but the supplier actually was only excellent in hardware. These suppliers will see their revenue disappear overnight when others start winning the networking software battle. Expect also the networking services business to change. If hardware, operating system and many networking apps substitute the single vendor approach then very likely IT system integrators will have a better shot at dominating the services market then traditional network vendors. Networking will have become more like IT. Even telecom networking. So IT system integrators have everything to win by accelerating this trend.
Expect many new technologies and business changes that will make new winners and old losers in the next 24 months. My money is on the network software innovators to come out winning…