Recent Blog Posts
View all blog posts

Social Network Privacy Standards

Posted by Mattias Ganslandt on Friday, August 13th, 2010

The explosion in worldwide use of social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter has resulted in the amount of private material being uploaded has increased exponentially. Users share opinions, experiences, advice and much much more. A study released last year reports that there are serious flaws in the privacy policies of social network sites; and concludes that privacy standards need to be widely implemented in order to prevent unauthorized abuse of personal information.

Social network sites are special in the sense that they encourage – and build on – people posting information in their own name, the concept would be rather flaw if accounts were anonymous. This puts high demands on security and privacy standards to prevent personal information being abused. A 2009 Physorg study of 45 social networks reported “serious concerns” about how the sites protected personal information.

Social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, which each boast user-bases of hundreds of millions, are becoming an ever larger part of our everyday life both online as well as offline. For instance, the impact on “real life” of online actions has seen people fired following statements made on Facebook.

As people put more and more private material on the internet – whether it being vacation photos, opinions about work and politics or banking information – the question of who is ultimately responsible for the protection of such material is increasingly raised? The Physorg study states:

Some 90% of sites, for example, needlessly required a full name or date of birth for permission to join. 80% failed to use standard encryption protocols to protect sensitive user data from hackers. And 71% reserved the right to share user data with third parties in their privacy policies.

Even if the concept of “social network privacy” is somewhat of an oxymoron, it is important that these sites only share what people willingly agree to share. It is therefore vital that social networking sites provide secure protection to avoid the hi-jacking of accounts.

The issue is complicated by the presence of third parties. Many sites state within their privacy policy that third party compliance to the network site’s privacy policy cannot be guaranteed (e.g. Facebook), which is an issue due to the fact that for many sharing though third-party application is a primary attraction to a social networking site.

Similarly sites such as Facebook and Twitter began as small endeavors and have grown far beyond initial expectations, both in the extent and speed of public adoption. As such necessary privacy controls have only become a necessity after the fact and often difficult to implement due to specific implementations and legacy code.

The need for privacy standards deployment is obvious. It is assuring that policy makers recognize this need (e.g. the Madrid Privacy Declaration) but market actors need to respond as well. And given the likeliness of people’s continued need/will to be active and visible on the web the amount of personal material placed online will not decrease.

Vertical vs Horizontal Mobile Apps Models

Posted by Mattias Ganslandt on Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

In February, 24 of the world’s largest telecoms announced the formation of an alliance – the Wholesale Applications Community – to provided a unified and open platform for the rapidly growing – both in magnitude and fragmentation – mobile application market. The stated aim to enable developers to “deploy a single application across multiple devices (through the use of standard technologies) and across multiple operators”, which will lower costs and improve both the quality and quantity of mobile applications available to consumers.

The alliance – which boasts a customer base of more than 3 billion people though members such as Vodafone, AT&T, China Mobile, China Unicom, Orange, LG, Samsung and Sony Ericsson – will work independently of the GSMA to create a platform and distribute mobile and internet apps, although the GSMA is a supportive and active participant. In a statement, Rob Conway of the GSMA said that the WAC “…will build a new, open ecosystem to spur the creation of applications that can be used regardless of device, operating system or operator”.

While proudly claiming lofty ambitions of openness and interoperability, it is clear that the alliance is a direct move by telecoms against Apple’s App store which has come to dominate the mobile software application market. The App store was launched roughly 2 years ago and has an estimated 99% market share. As of June 2010, there are over 225 000 applications available, over 5 billion total downloads have been recorded and over US$1.3 billion in revenue has been generated for both Apple and 3rd party developers (with a 30%/70% split). Comparatively, the second largest distribution platform, the Android market, has just 80 000 applications.

Whether the initiative is based upon a need for cross-platform compatibility or a desire for a slice of Apple’s significant pie, it seems destined to failure for a number of reasons:

Firstly, vertical integration, while fragmenting the market, is in many ways the foundation for its success. By providing a localized standard and a single, unified product line, the App store guarantees applications which are streamlined and optimized for the iPhone.

The Android market on the other hand suffer from significant fragmentation within the platform, due to the vast difference across devices running the same OS. Similarly the WAC covers a myriad of different devices, user interfaces, display resolutions, which will surely dilute the projects implantation.

Secondly, the initiative is in many ways behind the curve as the continued move towards web based applications, a platform accessible from all modern mobile handsets, will ultimately render the WAC obsolete. For instance, Google offers mobile optimized web applications for Gmail, Google Reader, etc rather than native iPhone applications in the App Store. Furthermore, HTML5 promises to make the Web ever more integrated and mobile friendly.

Most importantly however is that WAC, a unified giant with 25+ company voices, will be at great risk of being out maneuvered by the single and unified visions/voices of Apple, Google, or any other platform dedicated distribution channel.

Exploring the Browser Market

Posted by Mattias Ganslandt on Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) dominates the web browser market in terms of users, commanding a market share of over 60%. But there is an increasing trend towards alternatives such as Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome. These alternatives, which in according to some measures offer superior technical performance and standards compliance, have gradually been eroding IE’s lead.

In September last year I reported on the struggle that the Goggle Chrome web browser had faced in gaining a market foothold despite superior technical performance, standards compliance and emphasis on Open Source, compared to market leader Internet Explorer. (The original post can be found here). At the time of writing, Sony had recently announced that all Sony branded netbooks would begin shipping with Chrome pre-installed.

Since then Chrome’s market share has more than doubled from 3.17% in Sept 2009 to 7.24% in July 2010. While still a fraction of Internet Explorer’s market position, Chrome has grown almost exponentially since late 2008.

Similarly, IBM’s Bob Sutor recently blogged upon his company’s official shift to the Mozilla Firefox browser. While admitting that many within the company (400,000 employees worldwide) already prefer the browser, he reports that from now on the official policy will see that “all IBM employees will be asked to use it as their default browser”. (Although legitimate as corporate policy, one can question the efficiency of top-down mandating the use of a particular browser rather than merits-based choices by users.)

While IE continues to command a 60% market share, this has been declining. Presented below are market share estimates from December 2007 and July 2010 (source). Within the two and half years between estimates, IE’s market share has fallen almost 20 percentage points (a 24% reduction) of which almost half has accrued to Firefox. This is a significant decrease within a relatively short period of time.

Over a longer timeframe, presented below (source: Wikimedia Commons, user arichnad), we see that within the last 5 years the market has evolved from essentially a single browser with a few fringe players. Despite antitrust authority concerns, the market accordingly shows a healthy degree of competition.

The increased focus on open source and standards–compliant application will in many regards make alternative browsers a reality. This will further spur competition and innovation, improving the user experience.

Closed Systems Built on Open Source and Open Standards

Posted by Ajit Jaokar on Monday, August 2nd, 2010

SYNOPSIS

There is a curious paradox which we are seeing increasingly. We see closed systems built on open standards and open source. I illustrate the phenomenon giving three instances below (Apple and Facetime, Open source and the Cloud and SPDY – the proposed new protocol from Google to replace HTTP). I seek comments on these.
Read More…

The Government at the Standards Bazaar Redux (Or, When Should A Government Mandate An IT Standard?) – PART 6

Posted by Stacy Baird on Thursday, July 29th, 2010

This is Part 6 in a series of articles in which contributor Stacy Baird presents and in-depth analysis of the role of governments in standards setting initiatives which is released on a bi-weekly basis. For previous instalments see here: Part 4, Part 5 – Editor

PART 6: The Well Developed Range of Standards, both Proprietary and Open, Reflect a Sophisticated Standards-Setting Ecosystem

Previously I described the several forums and market characteristics that can develop an IT standard: SDOs, patent pools, market driven de facto standards and consortia. As further evidence of the sophistication of the IT standards-setting marketplace, there are numerous and highly differentiated types of standards that can achieve interoperability


Read More…

Farmscaping- Saving the Planet and its Population

Posted by Mattias Ganslandt on Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

The solution to securing future food supply may be found in 30 story high greenhouses. Aside from potentially providing food for the world’s growing population, Vertical farming may also help save the environment. It is a great example of what technological innovation and intelligent solutions can accomplish.


Read More…

The Government at the Standards Bazaar Redux (Or, When Should A Government Mandate An IT Standard?) – PART 5

Posted by Stacy Baird on Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

This is Part 5 in a series of articles in which contributor Stacy Baird presents and in-depth analysis of the role of governments in standards setting initiatives which is released on a bi-weekly basis. For previous instalments see here: Part 3, Part 4 – Editor

PART 5 – Not Hot, nor Cold, but Just Right… (or “Not Formal, Not Informal, but Drawing on the Best of What Came Before”): Consortia

I have been discussing the sophistication of the IT industry in setting standards as evidenced by the industry’s long history and considerable use of formal (SDO) and informal means such as patent pools. In between SDOs and patent pools resides a more recent concept commonly used by the IT industry, a truly flexible approach to standards development – where the relevant industries or businesses develop and support a standard by mutual agreement through a consortium.


Read More…

The Government at the Standards Bazaar Redux (Or, When Should A Government Mandate An IT Standard?) – PART 4

Posted by Stacy Baird on Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

This is Part 4 in a series of articles in which contributor Stacy Baird presents and in-depth analysis of the role of governments in standards setting initiatives which is released on a bi-weekly basis. For previous instalments see here: Part 2, Part 3 – Editor

PART 4: The Least Formal IT Standard Setting: Patent Pools and De Facto Standards

I have discussed the alphabet soup of formal standards setting forums where thousands of IT standards have been adopted. At the other end of the spectrum from formal SDOs is one of the least formal approaches to standards setting, that of “patent pools.” Patent pools are often used to address complex patent licensing issues surrounding standards in an efficient manner. A “patent pool” is the sharing, or pooling, of patent ownership interests to benefit the market at large. There is a long history of the use of “patent pools” in connection with the development of standards and the adoption of proprietary technologies into standards. The broadcasting, consumer electronics and computer industries (collectively the IT industries in such a look back into history) have long been part of that history.

Often it is the pioneers in an industry or technical achievement that use the patent pool. An early example in the IT sphere was the Associated Radio Manufacturers, later renamed the Radio Corporation of America. Formed in 1924, the Associated Radio Manufacturers brought together the radio interests of American Marconi, American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), General Electric and Westinghouse, to develop standards for radio parts, spectrum management, and television transmission standards. Fast forward to 1998, when Sony, Philips, and Pioneer developed the DVD-Video and DVD-ROM standard specifications, and 1999, when Hitachi, Matsushita, Time-Warner, Toshiba, and others pooled patents for DVD compliant products. Modern computing technology standards using patent pools include MPEG, MPEG-2 AAC audio codec, DVI, and USB. RFID vendors formed a patent pool to resolve intellectual property rights ownership issues. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has clearly stated its support for patent pools, as has the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, providing guidelines for antitrust enforcement in regard to such collective rights management.


Read More…

4G, little more than a buzz word?

Posted by Mattias Ganslandt on Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

As the third generation of wireless mobile networks reaches the end of its development and the next generation looms on the horizon, the term 4G is being increasing thrown around as the latest buzz work for the mobile industry.

Technically speaking, no network or device commercially available as of writing can truly be described as 4G. The radio-communication division of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines 4G, or IMT-Advanced, compliant technology as being capable, among other key features, of data rates in excess of “100 Mbit/s for high and 1 Gbit/s for low mobility” systems. However, with the progress of the industry as it is, the strict definition of the term seems to be in danger of irrelevance.
Read More…

The Government at the Standards Bazaar Redux (Or, When Should A Government Mandate An IT Standard?) – PART 3

Posted by Stacy Baird on Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

This is the third in a series of articles in which contributor Stacy Baird presents and in-depth analysis of the role of governments in standards setting initiatives which is released on a bi-weekly basis. For previous instalments see here: Part 1, Part 2 – Editor

PART 3: There are Many Ways in Which the IT Develops Standards: The Most Formal Forums for Standard Setting

The IT industry’s capacity to create interoperability standards is well supported by the fact that there is a veritable alphabet soup of formal forums in which IT and related standards are developed and an equally exhaustive use of the alphabet in IT standards nomenclature. The traditional course for standards development is gaining adoption in voluntary consensus forums most commonly described as national standards bodies (NSBs) and standards development organizations (SDOs). I am not going to go into detail as to the formal processes, suffice it to say they have well established consensus processes and most have an extremely long history of success in setting a wide range of industrial standards.


Read More…




An active online community where developers, researchers, policymakers and other interested parties can share ideas and collaborate on the global standards system.