March 28, 2006
So we received our new Google Mini. We purchased the 100k document version. It took me all of about 1 hour to do the custom integration work. We decided to do the custom integration utilizing the built in XML API. I first thought that this would be at least a several day project. I was surprised when I had it working flawlessly in less than an hour.
How long do you think it will be before Google will release an Exchange killer via Gmail-Mini?
So if they bundled Gmail, Gtalk, Search, News Reader and their CL2 calendar up into a nice manageable package like the Google Mini. IMHO you would have an Exchange killer. Throw in a nice XML API and it would be an excellent collaboration server.
Hell they could do the same thing with Google Analytics and we would probably buy one.
Update: They seem to be getting closer.
3 Comments |
Google |
Permalink
Posted by Colin Faulkingham
March 24, 2006
According to the SpaceX web site the launch of the Falcon 1 carrying a small satellite will be launched today at 1:00 California Time.
Today could be a good day for Space X or it could turn out to be a bad day for Space X. If they can’t prove that the Falcon can fly, they have a good chance of loosing 200 Million dollars worth of pre-launch orders.
I hope they are successful with today’s launch. Space X could really turn this industry upside down. BTW, Space X was created by Elon Musk the creator of PayPal.
Good Luck Space X!
Update: Oyeee! The Falcon 1 blew up shortly after launch. That sucks!
1 Comment |
Space X, Uncategorized |
Permalink
Posted by Colin Faulkingham
March 22, 2006
Interesting discussion over at Mini-Microsoft about Microsoft’s latest woes. It really seems that Microsoft Management is not the only one to blame for their OS delays. According to the discussion at Mini-Microsoft their ISV’s are placing a huge demand on the company and the OS division. This would explain why it’ seems little old Apple can ship software and Microsoft can’t. Apple doesn’t have the same set of problems Microsoft does. Apple like Sun really doesn’t have to answer to anyone on the scale that Microsoft does.
So, why couldn’t Microsoft buy Sun and produce there own hardware software solution?
Solaris is a hardened OS but lack’s the usability of Windows. Sun’s hardware IMHO is the best in the world. They could release a version of their OS for their hardware first. Then work on delivering their OS to fit the need’s of there ISV’s after their core OS/Hardware solution was released. They could also release a backward compatibility layer like Apple did with Classic for OSX.
This might help with Microsoft’s 2 biggest problems.
1. Security
2. Innovation
I would be bending over backwards to figure these 2 issues out even if it meant swallowing a little of my own pride. Why reinvent the wheel when there is a perfectly good wheel that just needs a new vehicle?
No Comments » |
Microsoft, Sun Microsystems |
Permalink
Posted by Colin Faulkingham
March 20, 2006
It seems that David Pogue of the NyTimes could learn a thing or two from Robert Scoble. No more freebies.
New York Times columnist David Pogue, who is also a contributor to CBS News and National Public Radio, received $2,000 in free personal-data-recovery services from DriveSavers in connection with pieces Pogue did for all three news organizations. Pogue wrote the stories after his own drive crashed, entombing his voice message and e-mail files.
- SF Weekly
Ehh! That's enough of Pogue for me thanks.
No Comments » |
NyTimes |
Permalink
Posted by Colin Faulkingham
March 15, 2006
If you have been watching the discussion at any one of the familiar spots about Amazon’s new S3 web service you will see a lot of talk about comparing the new S3 service with standard hosting compaines.
How S3 differs
The core of S3 is the Object database, your not just storing bits, your storing bits and meta data. It’s like exposing the underlying layer of a filesystem with a platfom agnostic API. That’s a lot differnt then putting a file up on to your web host’s hardrive.
The killer app(s)
So what is S3’s killer app? I duno for sure. But I think a lot could be done in 2 areas.
- Backup
- Platform portability is a no-brainer.
- You can have the user expose certain files to the public(like photos or movies) or the user can could choose whether or not to share the file via BitTorrent.
- The cost for a standard full 250 gb drive would be $37.50 a month there would be an initial transfer fee of $50.00 all subsequent backups would be differential so you cost for the transfer would only be based off what has changed or what has been added.
- The benefits are outstanding. You get reliable distributed storage for your entire drive for only $37.50 a month. And that’s if you actually use all 250gb of your drive. I would bet the price will probably get better.
- Bloging apps & casting
- There are a lot of different casting applications out there today Podcasting, Photocasting etc.. Most bloging systems don’t offer much storage for media beyond images. For instance this WordPress blog only allows me to upload images. If I want to do a podcast, photocast or just upload code for people to view then I have to find other server to store it.
- Apps like WordPress, Blogspot, TypePad and Live Journal could create a plug-ins that would allow users to use there A3 accounts. A user could then store and link to what ever files they wanted to.
I bet Dave at will be the first to integrate this into his outliner app.
No Comments » |
Amazon, Uncategorized |
Permalink
Posted by Colin Faulkingham
March 14, 2006
The Tech Crunch folks published a nice review of Amazon S3 grid storage. But they totaly missed what’s so cool about it. If you read beyond the standard features about price and storage you will find out why it’s really the killer app. Take a look at the developer documentation and have a look at the last section entitled “Using BitTorrent with S3“. That’s right Amazon S3 supports BitTorrent, it will create and seed your object(file).
Here is the snippet from the docs,
There is no extra charge for use of BitTorrent with S3. Data transfer via the BitTorrent protocol is metered at the same rate as client/server delivery. To be precise, whenever a downloading BitTorrent client requests a “piece” of an object from the S3 “seeder,” charges accrue just as if an anonymous request for that piece had been made using the REST or SOAP protocol. These charges will appear on your S3 bill and usage reports in the same way. The difference is that if a lot of clients are requesting the same object simultaneously via BitTorrent, then the amount of data S3 must serve to satisfy those clients will be lower than with client/server delivery. This is because the BitTorrent clients are simultaneously uploading and downloading amongst themselves. The data transfer savings achieved from use of BitTorrent can vary widely depending on how popular your object is. Less popular objects require heavier use of the “seeder” to serve clients, and thus the difference between BitTorrent distribution costs and client/server distribution costs may be small for such objects. In particular, if only one client is ever downloading a particular object at a time, the cost of BitTorrent delivery will be the same as direct download.
Wow! And to create that torrent? No problem,
Retrieving a .torrent file for any publicly available object is easy. Simply add a “?torrent” query string parameter at the end of the REST GET request for the object. No authentication is required. Once you have a BitTorrent client installed, downloading an object using BitTorrent download may be as easy as opening this URL in your web browser.
14 Comments |
Amazon |
Permalink
Posted by Colin Faulkingham