The a**h*liness of companies

When I look at some ongoing events in tech, I see companies having the same characters as in real-life. To me, this is very revealing – and you should understand this as well…

Disclaimer: I know a lot of people within at least one of the organizations I am referring to in this posting. I expressively don’t accuse them or say anything about their integrity, I totally accept their choice of employer, I actually respect the companies I am referring to – and I am not too sure, if I would behave in a different way when being in the same situation.

Example 1: Trump vs. TikTok

Trump hates TikTok. Trump wants TikTok to either disappear or become a controllable entity. So he issues an order and suggests its parent company ByteDance should sell it off. To Microsoft. And they happily see a chance there, they don’t think of any consequences or implications – they just see the chance to take over a successful platform for a bargain. The same is true for Twitter.

If it would be humans, I would know how to call them: Opportunistic. And if it would be humans, I would be ashamed to be associated with them.

Example 2: Epic vs. Apple and Google

Epic hates paying AppStore-fees to Apple and Google. So they circumvent them, get thrown out of the stores due to breaking of rules. Then they sue Apple and Google with pre-prepared paperwork and present themselves as the ones fighting for freedom and independence. Truth is: It’s only about earning more money, not contributing back and not following the rules.

During congressional hearings, other companies behave the same way (i.e. Microsoft…). They deliberately ignore the fact that Apple and Google created their ecosystems and own them. They perhaps even try to make us forget about their own failures.

If it would be humans, I would know how to call them: Egoistic a**h*les. And if it would be humans, I would be ashamed to be associated with them.

The question is: Are we doing any better?

Well, frankly: I doubt it. We’re talking about business and companies, not humans. If organiuations want to grow, they usually need to do that by fighting against other organization, by being opportunistic and by eliminating their competition.

The point I am trying to make is this: Companies tend to care only about themselves, regardless of which image they might give themselves. You don’t become huge without becoming an a**h*le. Period.

So keep that in mind when doing your next purchasing decision or when fanboying a company.

To them, the only thing that matters is business and profit, not being a remarkebly “nice” organization. Because “nice” turns into “niche” quite simply – and “niche” implies failure. At least to them.

Just wanted you to understand this.

PS: Thanks to Michael for pointing out that TikTok belongs to ByteDance and not Tencent. 🙂

#OpenSource: Trust vs. Usage

When I published my article about open-source and the way I see it as an ecosystem, I received some – very welcome and critical – feedback from a very valued Microsoft employee and architect, who rightfully pointed out, that Microsoft is among the biggest contributors to open-source frameworks and -foundations – and still I don’t trusted them.

He is absolutely right in his analysis: I don’t trust the company and most of its products.

Let me explain that.

First, I have some history with Microsoft. I have been Microsoft Most Valuable Professional for ASP and ASP.NET for several years in a row a decade ago. And I am very, very thankful for this – I got to know many very talented and experienced people, great products, loved the atmosphere and the cultural diversity at Microsoft. I still do, at least in regard to most of the aspects I just pointed out (subtract the products, which is what I am going to explain here). Later, I was working with a small group of awesome, smart and talented people in regard to Windows Phone and Windows Mobile – I was teaching on behalf of Microsoft, wrote several very successful applications for the platform and truly loved all of this. And I still do. I even considered several times joining them as Evangelist and Architect.

I lay that out to make clear that I am by no means a hater or a disappointed fan boy or something similar. I truly love many aspects of Microsoft, I have the fullest and most honest respect for many of its employees and from a technical perspective I can understand a lot of excellence within their products (and some of the excellence is way beyond my level, to be honest).

But: I don’t trust Microsoft.

And the reason for this is: They are not an open-source company. Their products are mostly closed source. Their platforms are closed source. Azure is closed source. And their business practices are embracing closed- and proprietary source ecosystems over open-source ecosystems.

It is absolutely true and needs to be acknowledged that Microsoft is amongst the biggest contributors to open-source ecosystems. And they even open-sourced many of their own products. Thank your for this, Microsoft!

But: I don’t trust Microsoft.

My point is this: Regardless of how much valuable and excellent work you put into open-source technologies – it does not increase the trustworthiness of a proprietary environment or a proprietary ecosystem. Because it is not completely transparent. It is not completely open. There are substantial blind spots in the software and the ecosystem.

Take a picture: If you add layers of glass (open-source glass for the matter :-)) to each other, it stays transparent. But just one layer of – say – concrete or wood in between makes the whole transparent stack in-transparent. You won’t be able to see through all the layers. And that is enough, because you don’t see what is going on with that stack of glass.

Transfer this picture onto a cloud-environment, and it immediately becomes apparent: How are you supposed to trust this environment, if it is not transparently laid out? What do you trust more: The words of the people who built it, revisors and auditors? Or a community of experts, who constantly review and audit?

To me, the answer would be obvious: I would trust the community of experts (plus additional auditors and reviewers). And that is regardless of the awesome quality, the overwhelming quantity and the sum of funding that is put into open-source projects, because – again – it is a matter of trust.

What does that imply for Cloudical’s offerings?

Good question! Thanks for asking!

The same measurements need to be applied here! If we ever create a software stack (and you could bet it would be a Vanilla software stack), we would need to open-source it. Without discussion and dispute. It would be a matter of trust!

Actually, the foundation behind our Managed PaaS– and Managed SaaS-service-offerings is an open-source software-stack. It consists of SUSE-products, such as CaaSP (Kubernetes) and CAP (Cloud Foundry), plus additional scripts and tools required to roll it out and to operate it.

Although we are speaking of a service on a platform stack everyone can easily roll out on its own (well, actually, no, there is a LOT of effort and a TON of knowledge in it), we will open-source it, within the next two to three months. Because we are committed to this kind of thinking, to transparency, trustworthiness and open-source.

Thanks again for asking. And thanks for commenting – and being critical on this and with me.

And yes, I still love Microsoft. 😉

Kauflust (IV): Surface Go (English edition)

A smaller Surface Pro? Powerful enough to master all everyday office- and business-applications? Starting around 449,– EUR? Give me that Surface Go!

LRM_EXPORT_37065968901674_20180902_104605247

Surface Go with Type Cover, Surface Pen and mug of coffee

Continue reading →

Kauflust (IV): Surface Go (Deutsche Version)

Ein Surface Pro in kleiner? Leistungsfähig genug für alltägliche Office- und Business-Anwendungen? Ab 449,– EUR? Her mit dem Surface Go!

LRM_EXPORT_37065968901674_20180902_104605247

Surface Go mit Type Cover, Surface Pen und Kaffeetasse

Continue reading →

Kauflust (II): Microsoft Surface Book PB

Did I say hardware should not be that expensive? Well. Err. Hmm.

I bought a Microsoft Surface Book 1st gen back in 2016 for around 2,700 Euro, which was pretty good equipped with a Core-i7-processor, 16 GB of memory and a 512 GB SSD. I gave it to one of our brightest minds once he joined the company back this year – ultimately feeling like I miss something.

For whatever reason, I surfed on eBay the other day.

s-l400I stumbled upon some Surface Books 1st gen, equipped with the smaller Core-i5-processor, smaller SSDs and less RAM.

It felt like “For writing stuff and surfing around, it would be ok”, so I looked a little deeper into the offerings and found a Surface Book with Performance Base, equipped with 16 GB RAM, a 512 GB SSD and the faster GTX 965m graphics. For not even half of the price a current gen model costs. And also cheaper than other Surface Books with PB or at least discrete graphics. Offered by a solid dealer, including an invoice.

What shall I say?

It will be delivered on Friday.

And I don’t want to discuss my shopping behaviors.