And we shall all live on clouds...

The thing that struck me about Google’s announcement of its new-fangled web browser Chrome wasn’t the inward groan of “do we really need another browser?” No. It was a sneaky confirmation of the suspicion that one day, we will live on clouds. Cloud computing, that is.



If, like 90% of the world’s population, you’ve not really bothered to stay up to date with the latest in geekspeak, “Cloud computing” is the lovingly coined term that describes the storing of data, applications etc. on servers connected to the internet, as opposed to on your friendly hard disk (C: drive, for the uninitiated).

Basically, this covers storing your photos onto online services like Flickr, PhotoBucket or Share on Ovi, running Google Docs off the Google server via a JAVA shell, or even, just posting on your blog. Why Cloud? Because your data is not stored on you hard disk, but on the sprawling morass of the internet.

Innovative companies like Adobe and Microsoft have started jumping onto the bandwagon with platforms like Adobe Air and Silverlight that allow you to run web applications when not connected to the internet even. Google Gears also lets you run Google Docs offline.

But none of these platforms are as ubiquitous as your browser. Thus, I’m seeing Chrome as Google’s play to get its platform on the desktop / laptop PC /Mac. To simplify the thinking, as Cloud Computing takes root the web browser will become more and more important, and the actual Operating System becomes less and less important. Think about it; the FireFox Foundation doesn’t care whether you run Windows or Mac OS, so long as your browser is FireFox.

So if you get to a point where the first thing you do is log-on to your browser and surf the internet, would you really care to splash RM 580 for Windows XP when free Linux builds (like Ubuntu)will give us just as good an experience? What if Chrome launches as a shell on boot, cleverly disguising Mac OS, Windows XP or Ubuntu with a swish Google interface?

Of course, there are challenges roadblocking this dream and I just want to point two out:

Security and privacy:
With your home computer, it was your responsibility to ensure you have all the requisite firewalls, antivirus, antispam and what-nots installed to safeguard your data. When all that data goes to the cloud, I wonder what level of liability / responsibility on the providers (like Google) to ensure our (mostly private) data is safe and sound. Sure, they have privacy policies, but when your emails actually get stolen, what’s the recourse?

The other thing about putting all your stuff on the cloud is that like information then gets clumped together. Hackers who want to steal lots of private emails just have to target Gmail. Similarly, targeting Facebook will net you lots of private contact information.

Online all-the-time:
The second obvious challenge is that when more and more gets put on the cloud, the more you’ll need that internet connection everywhere. Obviously, there’s need to balance between what you put on the cloud and what you store locally, but being online and connected is intrinsic to cloud computing.

This challenge is actually an opportunity for mobile because cloud computing basically plays on the strengths of mobile and covers its weaknesses. With mobile technology on the up and up (WiMAX, 3.5G), full internet web-browsing on your mobile etc.), what you can’t store on your mobile you can easily pull off the ‘cloud’.

There’s an awful lot of potential in the clouds.

PR people smile too much?

Was just having breakfast with an editor friend this morning and somehow, the conversation turned back towards work. My friend (let's call him D for dude), said something about PR people being all the same that kind of struck a chord with me.



As best as I can recall, that part conversation went like this:

Me: So how's are you finding the PR agencies in XXX country?
D: Well, they are all the same lah.
Me: What do you mean?
D: Haha... all PR people always come across as happy, chirpy people who smile too much and sound too cheerful.
Me: Ya what, what do you expect them to do?
D: Well, it does make sense as its part of their job, but this means everyone sounds the same.
[Me, thinking: This is food for thought]

Which is what got me to this point. Are all of us PR people just too generic-smiley? Should we throw a dash of a frown somewhere? Or a bit of a consternation-type look?

In truth, there are off-times when you can catch PR people in their most honest of expressions. By far, the best comment I got from a journalist about another PR person, was: "Why does (he / she - gender unspecified to protect the innocent) always look so constipated?" See... we do know how to have another expression other than "smile."

So here's another leaf to go into my retirement plan, one day once I'm out of this industry, I'll write a book titled "Wipe that smile off your face - how PR people can use facial expressions other than smiles to communicate."

Have a conversation with me on Plurk

A couple of months back @kevyn tried to convince me to join Plurk. I wasn't convinced... Twitter was where all my friends were, so why would I switch?



@kevyn made a passionate argument that on Plurk, "you can have real conversations." Technically, that's true. But I wasn't all that motivated to switch because, clearly, while I could have the means to have a conversation on Plurk, I didn't have anyone to have a conversation with. Also, I was busy.

Still, Plurk interests me with the promise for what it can do for conversations on the web. So, right here, right now, I'd like to ask you: if you have a Plurk account, please add me: davidlian as your friend. See you soon.

Jobs 2.0: Ever thought of collaborating with your employees?

Edit: In order to avoid unnecessary speculation and consternation, I would like to clarify that the below post does not reference any company's I've worked in or work for. I will have it on record saying I thoroughly enjoy (and am still enjoying) working for both agencies I have had the pleasure to work with. Said friend works for a totally separate industry and was never a colleague. Said friend is not me. Don't ask if I'm looking for a job.

P.s. Erna says this is a good post, so I'm leaving it up. :)

A friend on the verge of leaving his company is being blamed by his boss for undermining the company's delicate pay structure and causing unrest in the entire office. I think it's laughable that bosses have to shake and quiver with fear when their employees "finally figure out what they are worth."

Was the whole business model to hire staff as cheaply as possible in the first place and then sell their services to the highest bidder? Sounds like a workable business model? Yeaps, in the old days perhaps. But, today it's just not a sustainable business model. Mainly because employees will "finally figure out how much they are really worth."



Thanks to the internet and social networks, everyone knows what their worth now...sort of. Just run a search on 'salary survey' on Google and you'll know what I'm talking about. Or, better still, if you're connected, post on a forum of like-minded professionals (don't ask them what they earn, ask them what they think you should earn - provide years of experience, field and some idea of your current job scope).

What does this mean for you, the boss? If I could sum it up into two words, they would be - transparency and collaboration. (My friend disagrees, he thinks it should be three words - big, fat, paycheck.)

First, be transparent about how you arrived at what that employee should be paid. Obviously, its tied to his / her job-scope and how that contributes to the company's profitability or ability to function. If your employee has a clear view of her role and how that translates into her pay, you're 50% there for the next step of the way. Remember, your "survey" of the "industry" is not the end-all of the conversation.

Secondly, collaborate. As a boss, you're always going to fight an uphill battle to keep employees if your goal is to "keep them at the lowest wage possible for as long as possible." Understand that people have financial responsibilities too and the oil prices hit everyone. Help the employee understand why the company can only pay them so much for what they do, and offer solutions (additional roles they can fill, perhaps?) to help them meet their personal goals. If the employee is unreasonable, sack them - you have my permission.

Notice I haven't mentioned a word about company culture? I feel that's a word that's often trumped up too much, so much so that there are actually companies who feel "great company culture™" is a substitute for proper pay and benefits. Hello! Pay and benefits ARE part of the company culture. No one's saying we should go overboard like these people, but please realise that rousing motivational talks from the boss don't fill stomachs.

Capiche? A great employer would make the employee feel that he / she is key part of the organisation and is being rewarded as a co-owner and co-driver of the company's success. Transparency and collaboration.

Okay, I guess I should clarify in case this post gets taken the wrong way that I am not writing this to target any particular company. Half the content in this post should be credited to my friend (who shall remain anonymous), but I felt echo in many people I have met, worked with or chatted with about work-in-general over the past 5 years.

The concept of job has evolved. I think it's worth re-evaluating.

How I know the economy is in bad shape...

Edit: Have been too busy these past coupla' days to do a proper cerebral post, so bear with me on a coupla' brainless ones first.

So back to the post, this is the effect of the recession on Mamee:

Outside:



Inside:



I know, I was surprised too.