Wozniak is 69. You can do your own grim maths calculation here. A self-driving car may yet pull up in my lifetime, hopefully your’s too.
The tech sector has a long history of misplaced ‘coming real soon now claims’.
One of my first jobs covering technology was in 1981. I went to a press conference showing an early speech recognition computer. It could just about understand ten words some of the time if you spoke very carefully.
At the press conference we were told computers able to recognise and understand everyday speech are just two years away. They’ve been just two years away ever since.
Self-driving cars are not that different. In fact the reason for misplaced optimism is much the same. That is, people are terrible at forecasting future technology.
Waymo, which is part of Alphabet (Google) has been testing driverless taxies in Phoenix Arizona this year. Waymo choose Phoenix because it has wide, flat roads.
In theory it is one of the easiest places in the world to drive. In practice Google still sits human drivers behind the wheel; just in case.
One reason for overconfident forecasts is that tech company leaders believe their own hype about progress in artificial intelligence and related technologies.
Progress is difficult. Much of today’s AI uses brute force; improvement can be a long, hard slog. That doesn’t sound anything like as good at a rah rah sales event as whipping up excitement about what could be possible.
Research company Gartner predicts that by the end of 2021, 70 percent of large enterprises will rely solely on the internet for their wide area network connectivity for small and remote branch offices. This is twice the number of enterprises who connected this way in 2017.
A report, How to Use the Internet for Cloud Connectivity Without Performance Disasters, by Australian-based analysts Bjarne Munch and Padraig Byrne says: “We are now seeing enterprises introducing an internet-first strategy for their WANs. This will also incorporate consumer-grade internet services, where possible.”
In other words, where they can companies are dropping expensive WAN products and jumping on to services like New Zealand’s UFB.
In some cases they use the same consumer services as residential users, in other cases, they use slightly more expensive business-class fibre services. The main difference between the two is the lack of contention on business services, although this isn’t a problem for users in New Zealand.
Business-class fibre services also usually come with better support.
As the name of the Gartner report suggests, the focus here is using the internet to connect to cloud services.
There are many nuances for businesses wanting to get the best performance from an internet service provider. For New Zealand companies one potential problem is the lack of alternative routes to cloud services. Another issue to consider is whether the service offers direct peering to the cloud services you require.
One interesting point made by the Gartner analysts is that many companies now want to include wireless broadband in their connectivity mix. Or as Munch and Byrne put it:
“Mobile broadband is increasingly included for truly diverse access designs.”
It’s a great option when companies have employees on the move, but it shouldn’t be a first choice for cloud connectivity. As the report says: “These are generally asymmetric and have unpredictable overbooking.”
I’m Paul Spain’s guest on the New Zealand Tech Podcast this week. We talk about Spark selling its Morepork security business to ADT and how Netflix is struggling with content deals.
Elsewhere I describe Elon Musk as a Bond villain in the segment discussing Neuralink.
Also in the podcast: NZ drone rule update refresh, mobile-only streaming offering in India, FaceApp, Microsoft highlighting nation-state attacks, Huawei staying in headlines and why Apple may acquire Intel’s Modem business.
New Zealand’s media enjoyed a day where computer, or maybe cyber, hacking made the headlines.
Here’s the RNZ take:
There is a lot to unpack in the story. You can find that elsewhere. One thing that needs clarification is what is meant by the word ‘hacking’.
Hacking is a term that’s meaning changes depending on who uses it.
Hacking once meant one thing…
It means one thing to old school computer programmers — kids note that’s what people who wrote computer software were called before the job description was upgraded to developer.
For those people a hacker can be someone who cuts a piece of code.
It can mean someone who writes good code or it can mean someone who writes bodged code. I never quite caught the nuance there but definitely heard it used both ways in different contexts.
You may argue, but for most people this meaning of hacker is now archaic.
… it then meant another thing
It means another thing to people who work in and around computer security. Most of the time they take care not to use the word hacker. I assume that’s a least in part because there can be slightly glamorous connotations.
Or it could be they are lanugage pedants who don’t want to get in a fitght.
Many modern computer security folk prefer terms like bad actor, which makes me think of Tom Cruise.
Or maybe they talk about attackers. At one industry event, some high flying US security experts kept referring to hostiles.
Whatever. The key here is that in some security and enterprise system circles the word hacker can, but doesn’t always, refer to a person who manages to breach a system’s perimeter security and get inside.
Once again there are nuances.
Media see hacker another way
For the more excitable parts of the media, a hacker is someone who wears a balaclava while using a computer. They might also wear military fatigues.
You don’t often get to see the computer, but if you do, it’s often an old fashioned-looking computer, never a tablet or a phone, which seems odd to me, but there you go.
Another feature of this kind of hacker is they ofter work with green, text-based screens. What they do may be advanced and scary, but their computer hardware seems to come from the cold war era. More Trabant than Tesla.
Much of the media and the general public think of hackers as people who do bad things with computers. It’s not just newspapers, radio and TV journalists. When you see computer crime in movies or TV shows, the bad guys are hackers.
Far be it for me to cast aspersions on my colleagues, but there is something a tad click-baity about hacker.
As an aside, I’ve written before about how the word cyber now seems to be related to hacker. In a nutshell when something computery is good, the prefix is computer. When it’s bad the prefix is cyber.
Which explains why the great unwashed now understands the term hacker in this context.
Guilty your honour
I’ve found myself using the term, most likely incorrectly in your eyes, on TV and radio precisely because it is a shortcut to explaining things to the audience.
You might only have 120 seconds to explain something complicated. If you spend that qualifying terms defining the attack like a crusty old classics academic deconstructing Ancient Greek texts you’ve lost the audience.
It’s all Greek to them anyway.
So, was this week’s Treasury Hack actually a hacking attack or was it something else? It appears that someone found some data that was stored on a web page or series of pages that had not yet been made public.
You can, I sometimes do, stumble over things like this by accident.
Now that’s not necessary hacking as we know it in 2019. It might well have been described as hacking in 1999.
You can sometimes get to these pages using spiders. This is something Google does every day. No-one thinks of that as hacking.
Dozens, even hundreds of pages on this site are spidered every day. This can include deleted pages, draft posts and posts that will never formally see the light of day,
If I look at the weblogs there are also thousands of probs every day where people — let’s call them hostiles, after all, it starts with an H — are looking for ways to compromise my security.
Some are easy to spot as they are calling URLs that don’t exist on my site, but might exist on some sites and can contain known vulnerabilities.
I just checked. This site, that’s little old me, had 1486let’s say, dubious, calls in the last 24 hours.
If I’m getting that. And trust me, there is no information on here worth stealing, then a government system like Treasury will be getting an order of magnitude more probes. At least.
Another aside: There might not be anything worth stealing, but it could be worth gaining access to launch a bot attack or other mischief.
Is that hacking? Not in the sense computer professionals and geeks use the term. But it is in the sense that the media use the term and the sense the general public has come to understand the word.
You don’t have to like seeing the word used this way, but you don’t have any control over it. Those people speak a different language to you. They know what it means to them.
Not so long ago the company looked like a has-been. Nadella rebooted the business to focus on the cloud and today it is primed for an optimistic future.
No surprise that the company’s share price jumped 5 percent after the announcement.
What wasn’t part of the popular narrative of the last five years is the pain Microsoft went through as its shifted its focus. The company needed to invest vast sums in cloud capacity to get where it is today. That was a huge risk. Similar investments have not paid off for the likes of IBM or Oracle.
To a degree Microsoft is still playing catch up with Amazon, which invented cloud computing as we now know it. It had one huge advantage over Amazon; its installed base. Windows was, in some cases still is, loaded onto millions of servers the world over.
As these workloads move from on-premise hardware to the cloud, customers know it’s not hard to move Windows apps and data from a local server to Azure.
There’s a downside for Microsoft. Cloud margins are small compared to Windows licences. Microsoft could rely on gross margins as high as 90 percent when it sold licences. It’s lucky to get half that from selling cloud services. Still, 40 percent or thereabouts is still a healthy margin.