nextstopcafe.com

Web Services Bullshit

I just read a Red Herring article about the "Top 10 Trends for 2005" and feel sorry for people who are forming opinions based upon inaccurate techspeak as is found in Don’t Blink – Web Services Just Became Real.

This little gem defines "Web Services" with such broad brushstrokes that virtually every thing I can think of that is mediated between two computers on the web becomes a "Web Service" whether it’s based upon new technologies or hacked and poorly crafted legacy technologies.  If you define them so broadly, then I think web services have been a "hot trend" since at least 1993.  I can think of several decade-old examples of one machine publishing useful automated information to another using web protocols.

Add to the soup a few buzzwords like RSS and XML and it gives the article a ring of authority.

"Web Services" are more complex.  For web services, in the truest sense, to become real and truly revolutionize machine-mediated interaction:

1. The protocols must be based upon a common standard specifically targeted at secure, authenticatable, machine-to-machine interaction.
2. There must be a few dominant, popular, and readily-supported protocols.
3. There must be a means to publish services in directories to create a producer-consumer model, with requisite authority broken down by domains of control, subscription, and licensing.
4. These protocols must be adopted widely and in preference to proprietary solutions.

Ad-hoc B2B machine-to-machine protocols don’t count.  HTTP or FTP don’t count.  Custom built proprietary solutions by a set of self-interested vendors don’t count. 

Maybe RSS feeds count.  But the promise of the "web services world" as a beautiful commerce-enabled infospace hyper-connecting businesses throughout the world?  RSS is hardly worth pointing to if that’s your aim!  And I believe those are the juicy predictions the pundits are prognosticating about.

Prognosis: Don’t expect a web services revolution too soon.  Get the bulk of your ROI from mature technologies that can at least be identified rather than living "somewhere out there in the minds of journalists".

OMG NO! — new TLDs?

It’s happening again.  New top-level domains.   I read "New Internet Domains in the Works" with amazement.  History truly does repeat itself.

I remember the rush for the .biz domains, the crazy auctions, the ridiculous anticipation wondering if the domains we’d applied for would be secured. We had many clients who had domains and we, being as responsible as we could, advised many to secure .biz domains, all of which have now lapsed or have never been used, making us look pretty stupid.  Why did we offer such advice?

Every single thing you’d read said that the new .biz domains were one of the "most anticipated and important announcements for the internet".  We believed the hype, and that’s just what it was.  Oh, it was very good hype, but mostly propgated by two groups: wishful idealistic thinkers who believed consumers all think the way they did, and opportunistic domain registrars who knew that regardless of their success, the new domains would line their pockets.

So, it’s no surprise that you can read similar hype from people like DomainMart about the new upcoming domains.  It’s all so much tripe.  The claims that new domains will yield "new geographically sensitive functionality" is like saying that buying garlic will make you a great chef.

Until further notice, consumers recognized dot-com as the preferred real-estate.  Issuing even more TLDs makes this worse, since it adds to the confusion.  When there are too many choices, people tend to rely upon what they know.  So, the more ridiculous TLDs ICANN issues, the more strength and value dot-com addresses will have.

For what it’s worth, uncle Tim agrees with me.

In Australia (where I live), domains are more highly regulated.  It is more difficult to be a domain squatter and if you have a trademark, product or brand, it is almost assured that you can get the appropriate domain.  While at first I was annoyed with this, being very used to the openess of dot-com, I eventually began to appreciate the value of a more predictable namespace.  After the tech crash, ICANN missed a valuable opportunity to introduce sensible regulations into the dot-com space.  Squatters were losing their ROI, and many domains were expiring every week.  By introducing sensible regulations regarding what you can call your domain, and why, dot-com could have fewer problems.

Dot-com will remain the prime real-estate.  Why not do some urban renewal instead of creating tacky suburbs?

Western Wake-up Call

I just read a news.com interview with Kim Ssang Su, CEO of LG.  It was a real eye-opener.

Read his personal website for an insight into real leadership.  His ideas, words, and communication with LG employes are a model for combining innovation with the kind of dedication and persistence needed to achieve ambitious goals.  A quick perusual of company communications from the CEO also provides insight into the dramatic difference between how leaders with Asian cultural backgrounds differ from western leaders in similar positions.

Regardless of cultural differences, I cannot help but contrast Kim’s style and ideas with those of similar CEOs in American companies.  While he speaks of exciting and socially beneficial exploration of new territory, many American CEOs words read like attack plans for war on competitors with little or no regard for the consequences of such thinking on thier customers.

What kind of company do I want to create?

I am now creating a new, exciting company.

At 47, it is tempting for me to think that I have seen many companies come and go, that "conventional wisdom" and accumulated common-sense may guide me to make the company a good one.  I want the company to have innovative products and management, and keep looking for "innovative ideas" about managing start-ups and corporations.

But, the more I read, the more I learn that the world of management and start-ups is filled with so much voodoo.  In the end, I do not think there are any new, innovative ways to create companies, just old steadfast principles that work.

I recently read "Will and Vision" by Tellis and Golder (get it at amazon).  If you think that technology companies win by "being first" and by "creating technologies that sell themselves" read this book.  Through extremely objective research and exposition, Tellis and Golder debunk almost every "innovative first" you can think of in the business world, revealing that those we thought were "the first" or "the best" were actually latecomers to their industries who, through diligence and passion, went the last mile and didn’t give up while the true inventors never quite made a business of their idea.    It’s refreshing to think that it’s never too late to create a great company, and that hard work, persistence, and belief in a well-thought-out plan is not only workable, but has been proven effective time and time again.