Having a wake for Drosophila

by Image Editor

In Which, Despite Not Being The Crowd Favourite, Drosophila funebris Holds D. melanogaster Down and Kicks It Repeatedly in the Teeth
[Via Catalogue of Organisms]

It’s been two years in the making, but the ICZN decision on Drosophila has finally been announced (ICZN, 2010). You may recall that an application had been submitted (Linde et al., 2008) to make Drosophila melanogaster, the subject of countless genetic studies, the type species of the genus instead of the current holder of that title, D. funebris. See previous posts here and here for background details.

And the verdict: by a surprisingly large margin (23 to 4, with one absence), the Commission has turned the proposal down. Drosophila funebris remains the valid type species of the genus; D. melanogaster retains the potential for reclassification. Those of you with a particular interest in the workings of nomenclature* would do well to get hold of a copy of the decision. In light of the higher than usual public interest in this case, the unusual step has been taken of publishing individual comments from each of the commissioners on the reasoning behind their decisions. As well as the insight provided into this particular case (and it’s worth noting that some of the commissioners on both sides of the floor ended up voting against their own initial sympathies), some of the comments provide interesting talking points about the role of nomenclature in general.

*Yes, we do exist. I’m afraid the doctors say that there’s nothing they can do.

[More]

Drosophila melanogaster is probably the most scientifically important insect. It has been a model organism for almost 100 years. Its genome has been examined in greater detail than almost any other complex creature and its importance to research is immeasurable.

But, the arcane rules of naming life on Earth mandates that it may lose it name. It would be called Sophophora melanogaster. See, the genus name has always been reserved for the first description, which was not of Drosophila melanogaster but Drosophila funebris.

Recent work has revealed that there is too much genetic distance between these two fly specis for them to remain in the same genus. One of them must be moved to another, newly named, genus. By the rules, since funebris was first, it gets to stay with Drosophila and melanogaster must move.

But this can be horrible for all the databases that list the genus as Drosophila melanogaster or just plain Drosophila. Not only will someone have to change/fix all of this – 100 years of data – but it will greatly complicate things in research as these databases are accessed.

Lots of headaches. Two years ago, when this was first broached, the consensus seemed to be that this would never happen. Well, it has.

I think we should all think about this quote from the comments at Sandwalk:

First they went after Prince, I did not stand up because I was not a singer.

Then they went after Pluto, I did not stand up because I was not an astronomer.

Then they went after Drosophila…

Apple not only won, it became what MS wanted to be

by SubZeroConsciousness

‘He Can’t Win’
[Via Daring Fireball]

Cringely, quoting Bill Gates from 1998:

“What I can’t figure out is why he (Steve Jobs) is even trying (to be the CEO of Apple)? He knows he can’t win.”

[More]

10 years ago, Microsoft wanted to be the dominant player in digital transactions

Because Bill Gates is not afraid of making definitive statements, he can get into some trouble when people look back at what he said. I remember an interview where Gates talked about how, as a teenager, he would go dumpster diving behind the computer sciences building to get discarded printouts with various programming codes on them, in order to see what the pros were doing.

Of course, that image just fit into the meme that he stole all the things he ever created. “He was even stealing code as a teenager. From the trash.”

The Cringely article is interesting but some of the comments are excellent, particularly this one:

“But I do think that Jobs recognized the hardware/software (software in this case being music) combination that had made the Macintosh successful. The success of the iPod led to the iPhone which has lead to the iPad… One of Steve’s obvious talents is to see the value in something new that others don’t see.”

This is a huge point. Jobs was one of the first to look past software merely being tools to make the hardware do something and see Content as the software that would drive the industry. And I think a big part of that was because he looked past business as *the* market and really went for the user dollar where style and consumption were more the focus. When he changed the model to use hardware to extract the software dollar rather than the other way around he changed the entire industry. Lots of credit is due him for the insight and the execution.

The most innovative thing Microsoft really did was convince people that they should pay for software. This put them at the top for years, while hardware was pretty much devalued.

But Jobs was able to see what the tight coordination of software AND hardware could accomplish, particularly for the delivery of digital information. This close coordination makes evertthing almost invisible to the customer, allowing them to simple use.

He has now created a self-reinforcing system that includes all the pieces to maintain itself – software, hardware, retail, development, advertising, games, etc.

One of Microsoft’s goals had been to create an environment that would allow them to take a little bit of money from every digital transaction. If they could do that, they would have a revenue stream forever.

Take the quote from a 2002 article in Businessweek, an article about the Internet and digital media without any mention of Apple at all:

The software king’s new .Net (pronounced dot-net) initiative aims to capture every segment of the Web business, from the software and servers that host Web sites to the Web browsers, billing software, and even the Internet service provider customers who form the core of both AOL and MSN, Microsoft’s competing online service. As consumers increasingly shop, listen to music, and watch movies online, Microsoft wants a piece of the action.

But they could never make it worthwhile for people to do this. No one gained much benefit but MS. Not the customer, the developer, the retailer. It was too apparent as a grab for cash.

Well, Apple has done almost exactly what MS tried to do – get a cut of digital transactions. And there is not yet too much of an outcry from customers.

One of the overlooked innovations of the iTunes store was the ability of Apple to provide a way for micropayments of less than $1 to be feasible. By doing this, they opened up the marketplace to a wide variety of opportunities that simply did not exist before.

Now Apple actually has created a system where they gain a cut of almost every transaction, from music to video to books to apps to ads. They have achieved what MS attempted to do but in a way that actually benefits almost everyone.

Apple made it worthwhile to do business with them. They saw how digital technologies changed the business environment and allowed new pricing systems.

This is, currently, a trade worth making for most people. I firmly hope that Apple keeps its eye on this ball and does not succumb to the corporate need for more money at any cost. Because if they really forget the customer’s needs here, the customer will eventually bring this system down.

For this ecosystem really only exists as long as the customers are happy. If Apple starts only dealing with what the shareholders want, all of this will crumble.

Gates does not seem to really get this. Jobs does get it. I hope whoever replaces him eventually gets it also.

I want more Apple vs. PC ads

by Cornell University Library

Steve Jobs missed his calling
[Via Brainstorm Tech]

Forget Silicon Valley. He would have killed on Madison Avenue.

“I had forgotten,” a colleague said recently, after an off-the-record meeting with Apple’s (AAPL) CEO, “what an interesting and dedicated student Steve Jobs is of other people’s businesses.”

Take, for example, the advertising business.

If you are in the ad trade, or care about it, or just want to see a first-rate sales pitch, you could find worse ways to spend 15 minutes of your life than to watch the last quarter hour of Apple’s preview of iPhone OS 4.0, the new operating system for the company’s growing family of mobile devices.

That’s how long it took Jobs Thursday to presents iAd, the mobile advertising platform that Apple is bringing to the iPhone and iPod touch this summer (and to the iPad next fall).

The video can be streamed from Apple.com in QuickTime. The iAd portion starts at the 44 minute mark.

“We think most … mobile advertising really sucks,” Jobs begins, before making the case to an audience of reporters, developers and agency reps that Apple can do better. His evidence: three Apple-created sample interactive ads that are a rarity on any screen: advertisements on which you might actually want to click.

The iAd story was front-page news in the trade press Friday morning. Sample headlines:

• Advertising Age: “Apple’s iAd Not Game-Changing, but Will Move Market.”
• paidContent: “Here’s How Apple Will Beat Google at Mobile Advertising”
• New York Observer: “Apple Is Starting to Freak Us Out”

Jobs pitch: Apple will provide the tools, sell and host the ads, give developers 60% of the revenue and by the time the service debuts this summer, offer a billion impressions a day to one of the world’s most valuable demographics.

In a note to clients Friday morning, Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster found Jobs’ 1-billion-a-day claim, to say the least, “aggressive.” None the less, he left the pitch a believer:

“We believe we are seeing Apple enter a meaningful new category, as it did with the App store,” he wrote. “We believe this type of mobile inventory will likely capture the biggest portion of mobile ad dollars through 2013. Given the iPhone OS platform has 64% mobile browser market share today according to Apple and the mobile web will account for over $700 million in revenue in 2013, we believe that the iAd platform could potentially double revenue in 2013.”

[More]

Perhaps Apple will change the way ads are delivered. These certainly provide the ability of creative ad types to include all sorts of interactive digital content while advertising. I think it will take some time for the ad agencies to realize that the types of ads that work on TV – grab the attention in any way possible, preferably by screaming – will not work on a digital device.

People control their digital work/play flow way too much. The ads are not really going to have people captured like they do with TV.

But for those that figure out how to do this, it could be a very lucrative arena.

I bet Apple is already working on syching iPad in the cloud

by Cushing Memorial Library and Archives, Texas A&M

Tim O’Reilly on the iPad and the End of the PC Era
[Via Daring Fireball]

Great observations from Tim O’Reilly on Apple’s weakness:

Media and application syncing across iPhone and iPad is poorly thought out. MobileMe, which should be Apple’s gateway drug for lock-in to Apple services, is instead sold as an add-on to a small fraction of Apple’s customer base. If Apple wants to win, they need to understand the power of network effects in Internet services. They need to sacrifice revenue for reach, taking the opportunity of their early lead to tie users ever more closely to Apple services.

It wouldn’t even be that much of a sacrifice to revenue if Apple included, say, a year or two of free MobileMe service when you buy an iPhone OS device. Or just make MobileMe service free for the lifetime of the device — that way, developers, including Apple, could count on a cloud-based syncing service.

This is Google’s primary advantage, but Apple — judging from how the iPad iWork apps don’t even attempt to sync documents, and how non-MobileMe users are stuck with USB syncing through iTunes — doesn’t seem to see that.

[More]

I would not be surprised to learn Apple is doing something here. One possibility was discussed in detail just a few months ago in an article discussing Apple’s purchase of a digital music startup, lala:

An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user’s catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet. The Lala upload technology will be bundled into a future iTunes upgrade which will automatically be installed for the 100+ million itunes users with a simple “An upgrade is available…” notification dialog box. After installation iTunes will push in the background their entire media library to their personal mobile iTunes area. Once loaded, users will be able to navigate and play their music, videos and playlists from their personal URL using a browser based iTunes experience.

Apple will link the tens of millions of previously sold iPods, Touches, AppleTV and iTablets to mobile iTunes giving users seamless playback of their media from a wide range of Apple branded devices. Since media will be supplied from the user’s personal collection, Apple is freed from the hassles of device and region limitations. iTunes shoppers will be able to continue to buy music and movies as they can now with purchases still being downloaded, but once downloaded they will be automatically loaded to their mobile iTunes area for anywhere access. Again because users are in possession of the materials no new licenses are required from the record labels or publishers.

This sounds exactly like what is being discussed by O’Reilly, et al. Apple is on the job. They just have one little problem, currently – storage capacity.

If they opened MobileMe up to everyone with an iPhone, or even just an iPad, would they have the system capacity to properly service that cloud? we would have 10s of millions trying to sync all the time.

They need that capacity. And, since last year they have been building it. In North Carolina. Read this report from last year:

“Apple is planning about 500,000 square feet of data center space in a single building,” says Rich Miller, editor of Data Center Knowledge. “That would place it among the largest data centers in the world… This would qualify as a big-ass data center.”

Question is, what will Apple use it for? Apple’s plans are secret, of course, and some have speculated it’s to support Apple’s growing MobileMe business and online iTunes stores.

But Miller says the size of the data center hints at something else. Companies building centers this big are getting into cloud computing. Running apps in the cloud requires massive infrastructure: Google-size infrastructure.

<snip>

The early site plans indicate Apple is planning about 500,000 square feet of data center space in a single building. That would place it among the largest data centers in the world. For comparison purposes, Apple’s existing data center in Newark, Calif. is a little more than 100,000 square feet. Most new stand-alone enterprise data centers are in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 square feet. So this would qualify as a big-ass data center.

<snip>

Facebook cited latency to Europe as a key factor in its decision to add data centers in Virginia. Before that, MySpace added a data center in Los Angeles to reduce its reliance on CDNs. But in both cases, those companies sought out Internet hubs where they could connect with dozens of other networks to manage their Internet traffic. You don’t get that in rural North Carolina, so Apple seems more focused on cost and scale than on connectivity – which again would suggest a cloud focus.

So, even last year the discussion about this data center was about cloud computing, exactly the thing that is now being discussed for synching these mobile devices.

You can watch a short video of the data center with this relevant text:

Apple’s data center in Maiden is expected to provide the back-end for a larger move into cloud computing, with most speculation focusing on a shift of iTunes user libraries from user desktops to online storage.

Sounds like what O’Reilly and others are talking about. Apple will be providing storage services in the cloud for our digital stuff, allowing us to sync and access it from anywhere. Let’s wait for the plant ot come on line.