Sunday, August 10, 2008

Successful Prediction

1. Prediction (Jakob Nielsen)

“Websites will give their users individualized service to build up relationships.”
Although Jakob did not specify dates for this prediction, more sites are offering users individualized services on the Internet.

2.iPhone to juice demand for flash memory? By Jon Fortt.

As Jon Fortt claimed, in July 2007 the iPhone would need more memory and flash memory would be more appropriate. See Figure 1. At the time Phil Schiller, Apple’s VP of worldwide marketing did not heed the warning. Today apple is using a form of flash memory. Although this may seem somewhat simplistic, I have not read anyone on the record making such prediction till I read this. Others may have made similar claims but until its recorded (witness, documented or taped) in a manner where it can be corroborated, the first person to do record it gets to claim it.

Figure 1. memory comparison.

3. E-Discovery - Evolution, Not Revolution.

This article by Dennis Kennedy, Published on June 10, 2006 exemplifies why e-discovery has become an important element in the legal arena, especially when it come to uncovering information about business practices in industry. Examples of e-discovery can be email conversations, systems logs for forensic purposes, stored files on personal and corporate computers which can be used to show cause. Although i am certain that it may have seemed far fetched at the time, e-discovery is here to stay.

While electronic surveillance have been around for some time, the notion of ones and zeroes being used in the legal communities for litigation purposes have taken evidence collection and analysis to another level. It has also proven to be helpful in seeking convictions for hacking and fraud. Another aspect of e-discovery can be looking at electronic copies of policies, procedures and processes to see if there are negligent (do not observe due care) which can cause product defect or result in grave service issues to consumers.

E-discoveries have proven to be helpful in fighting crimes because search warrants can be obtained to confiscate computers, media and other electronic records to solve crimes that involve the use of technologies:




edcs855 said...

Many of the situations in this article published in 2006 have already become current legal issues in 2008, so much for the slow and steady pace predicted by Dennis Kennedy. The issues I see forthcoming are software as a service (SaaS) as described in this CIO magazine article or Microsoft’s Software + Service (S+S) described at URL . Which ever architecture is implemented will depend upon the amount of control desired. The new eavesdropping systems will be built into each application. Currently, Microsoft’s Vista operating system requires Internet access to activated, track and maintains the systems integrity. Gone are the days in the Windows world when a user could install the OS without calling the mother ship.

The SaaS or S+S will actively monitor usage of each software and service component. Based upon the usage the service will be deactivated or the software uninstalled from the users computer with or without the users authorization. The point being that the entity supplying the software and/or service can elicit a fee to enable the service or re-install the software.
What do think about SaaS and S+S as a Big Brother feature of the near future?

John said...

You bring up an interesting point. Microsoft's use of their activation mechanism was created to prevent SW piracy (at least that is the claim).

I would not find it unbelievable that one day SW will record your entire history on the computer and report that to the SW creator (of course they will claim that it is only used to create a better product).

Will this have an impact on the Internet as a whole, I doubt it. I think that slowly society will just adopt it as a way of life. Of course our Grandparents and Parents would be outraged.

Steve's CS855 Blog said...

Doesn't this also skirt the edges (or maybe completely violate) the fifth amendment to the constitution, by forcing self incrimination?