Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analysis. Show all posts

Friday, February 14, 2025

Love, a playlist

Love. The eternal subject. What is this thing called love, I wondered? Once upon a time I scoured my music library for the folk wisdom about love, filling my old ipod mini with 1,000 or so songs about love and its many textures.

Herewith then: Love, a playlist (spotify version)

I tried to stick to love qua love and focused on the word itself and its ramifications, thus there are only 5 songs about 'lovers' and 4 songs about 'loved' e.g. Bob Marley's Could You Be Loved? and The Impressions' I Loved and I Lost

Similarly, there were 12 songs about loving (You've Lost That Loving Feeling obviously needed to be on this playlist and clearly Minnie Riperton's Lovin' you was essential). A boyish Michael Jackson asking Who's loving you could not be denied.

With some effort, I ended up with 1,032 takes on love (caveat: A Love Supreme came in 4 parts). The playlist amounts to almost 3 days of continuous listening and flows quite beautifully if I might say so.

I tried not to repeat myself in this exercise so there are 866 distinct titles. The constraint of disk space on the fondleslab meant that I couldn't add the hundreds of cover versions of standards like Love for Sale that I have amassed (and only 7 versions of You Don't Know What Love Is made it sadly)

The selections focus mostly on soul, jazz and pop. Hip-hop hardly features (love doesn't sell in hip-hop on the whole, LL Cool J's I Need Love notwithstanding), and reggae features disproportionately (lovers rock being an important facet of that genre, just ask Dennis Brown)

Having amassed this body of love as it were, this corpus of love, that many splendored thing (3 versions), I couldn't help myself and did some rudimentary analysis. Consider these liner notes research on the anatomy of love. Let me tell you about love...

Frequency


The usual suspects who made a career on love shine here: Sade, Anita Baker, Luther Vandross and The Temptations. And Motown looms large, the composers Smokey Robinson and Ashford & Simpson dominate. Also, I was initially suprised that Al Jarreau and Regina Belle had such encylopedic takes on love.

The singularity that is Barry White is mainly dealt with in a separate playlist. I only included 7 of the 54 songs I have of his that directly addressed love. A monomaniac focus on the topic was a virtue of the walrus of love.

As far as the frequency distribution goes, who opines on love? Who shapes the narrative?
  • Luther Vandross - 18 songs
  • Prince - 17 songs (or 14 if we omit his duets with Sheila E, Madonna and Nona Gaye)
  • Al Jarreau - 13 songs
  • Temptations / Chaka Khan / Dennis Brown - 12 songs
  • Smokey Robinson / Regina Belle - 11 songs
  • Ashford & Simpson / Stevie Wonder / Elton John - 9 songs
  • Anita Baker / Sade / Gregory Isaacs / Dwele - 8 songs
  • Al Green / Barry White / Alexander O'Neal / Brian McKnight / Keith Sweat / George Benson - 7 songs
  • Brenda Russell / The Isley Brothers - 6 songs apiece

Typology


Then to the meat of things. There were 66 songs "of love"

What do these songs of love tell us (skipping for now the 20 explicit by less precise "kinds of" love? e.g. The Sunday kind of love that Etta James sings of

The basics: Look of love, Power of love, Way of love, Mystery of love, Glory of love, Gravity of love, Ritual of love, Game of love

Metaphorical: Freeway of love, Caravan of love, Army of love, Sea of love, Land of love, Bed of love, Prisoner of love

Practical: Mind of love, Test of love, Best of love

Whimsical: Ingredients of love, Seeds of love, Color of love

Emotional: Tears of love, Victim of love, Pains of love

Association


"Love and" - what goes with love? Consider fully 24 companions of love. Al Green obviously has the anthems (Love and happiness, Love and affection). The Persuaders famously sang of the Thin line between love and hate complicating the picture. Love sometimes goes with war (Tamar Braxton) and at other times with peace (per Quincy Jones)

There are also the outliers, including my countryman Ebo Taylor who asks the listener to lend him their ears as he weaves a troubling tale about Love and death

odo nyera fie kwan



Characterization


We may be social beasts but love is a matter of perspective and indeed love is personal:

Sweet love, Good love, Slow love, Tender love, Baby love, Real love, Endless love, Lost love, Everlasting love, Tasty love, Emotional love, Self love, Blessed love, Precious love, Lifetime love

There's a naivete in love:

Simple love, Special love, Perfect love, Pure love, 100% Pure love, Superfine love, Fine Fine love, True love, Easy love, Sentimental love

Or think of the stages of love: New love, Old love, Young love, Teenage love, Puppy love, Old fashioned love, First love

Pathologies of love: Secret love, Blind love, Hidden love, Unrequited love, One way love, Unreleased love, Stupid love, Strange love, Crazy love, I'd hate to love you

Arcane takes: Cosmic love, Stone Love, Hysteric Love, Carnival Love, Electric Love, Killer Love, Tough love, Bitter love, Superficial love, Famous love, Lucky love, Shotgun love, Telephone love

Time-bound love: Saturday Love, Weekend Love, Love in the night, or as Roberta Flack notes, Tonight I celebrate my love

Religious love: Jesus is love, God is love (a couple of versions). Opinions are divided on whether the Higher love that Steve Winwood sings off falls in this category.

Parental love: The love between me and my kids per Smokey Robinson. The Supremes' Baby love is euphemistic despite the name on the front

It's about mores and values, some takes are quite spicy: Free love, Sexual Love, Love Triangle, Part time love, Love Affair

But love is complicated: Love can't turn around per Farley Jackmaster Funk and its celebrated Isaac Hayes sample, indeed we can get into semiotics: Love is not made in words (Deborah Cox) and Love is not a word (Peter Cinotti)

Love can also be prescriptive: Love shoulda brought you home per Toni Braxton or say, It's gonna take all our love as Regina Belle asserts

And then the defaults: One love, Any love, Typical love, More love, Only love and a couple of versions of Love changes (Mother's Finest and the lovely cover by Kashif and Meli'sa Morgan)

At a loss, 12 artists just go with the single word: Love, and who can blame them.
  • Big City double things up with Love Love
  • The incomparable Donny Hathaway is three times exuberant with Love, Love, Love
  • Lulu claims with the Rule of Four that Love Loves To Love Love
  • As Tall as Lions go over the top with Love, Love, Love (Love, Love)

Perspectives


More analysis, who is the subject of love?

40 songs about "your love"
39 songs "love you"
5 songs "love your"

27 songs "my love"
26 songs "love me"

9 songs "our love"

And on declarative matters:

12 songs "for love", causes of love perhaps

4 songs "love or" alternatives to live (Prince's Love or Money being the funkiest)

33 songs "the love"
24 songs "this love"

kumiwah love bug 2



Declarations


Then there are the descriptions. There are fully 93 songs explaining what "love is" including a few eye openers:
  • Love is a house
  • Love is a battlefield
  • Love is my religion
  • Love is contagious
  • Love is like a plague
  • Love is medicine
  • Love is my drug
Following that social disease theme, it's no wonder that Robert Plant is Addicted to love

True, there are contradictions: Love is the answer for Kenny Burrell but for Linval Thompson, Love is the question

Sade, almost inevitably, chimes in with hard-won experience, namely that Love is stronger than pride while Roy Ayers claims that Love will bring us back together.

Similarly, Loose Ends declare I don't need to love, but for LL Cool J, it's the opposite: I need love; your mileage may vary

Location


There are 9 songs about finding love, its difficulty and its locations (e.g. Love on a two way street by The Moments), The places you find love by Tevin Campbell and Beres Hammond crooning about Love from a distance

Where Roberta Flack is somewhat coy Feel Like Makin' Love; Johnny Gill explicitly suggests making Love in an Elevator. No wonder some say they don't make love songs like they used to?

Obligatory disclaimer, any playlist I make has to flow and move me, hence I included a few songs that you might say are love adjacent per my criteria. Sue me
  • Right and a Wrong Way by Keith Sweat - this falls under prescription. The lyric goes "There's a right and a wrong way to love somebody"
  • The Lovers and Sentimental from Alexander O'Neal (Jam and Lewis's best interpreter oozes love without trying)
  • Between the sheets by the Isley Brothers mostly for the part that goes "Enough of this singing, let's make love"
  • Je t'aime, moi non plus Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin after realizing that this was an overly anglophone take on the matter
  • Part time lover by Stevie Wonder simply for Luther Vandross's adlibs on the chorus
  • Loving you by Tony Toni Tone which, as I've noted previously, puts the contraception in baby making music
  • As well as a couple from Prince: Joy in Repetition for the telling phrase (Love me) that prompted the song's title and Adore which is the ultimate love song ("love is too weak to define what you mean to me")
I'll end with sentimental favorites: The Beatles optimistically chiming in with All You Need Is Love while Brenda Russell sings of A Little Bit Of Love and, for good measure, Teddy Pendergrass is struck by Love T.K.O.

There's a spreadsheet, if you want to wrangle the data for yourself.

But mostly there's the playlist, do give it a listen.

I'm no expert but hey, I wrangled with the textures of love. Be prepared, they said, so I gave you Love, a thousand so ways. I tried to do my part, let me know what you think.
Love, a playlist (spotify version)


Disclaimer: About 80 songs didn't make it in the journey from YouTube to Spotify

The Adinkra symbol, odo nyera fie kwan, or "Love always finds its way home".

See previously: 66 Ways to Franco

File under: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Writing log. May 6, 2024

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

On IBM and Africa

So IBM has launched an initiative on innovation and economic development in Africa. Presumably this is a prelude to a potential return to the continent twenty or so years after bailing out. One hopes the results of this brainstorming exercise are reasonable and enough interest is garnered. I even entered a few gnomic bullet points into the 'ThinkPlace' that aggregates ideas on the topic.

I have been asked by many in recent weeks what I think of the matter. Normally I tend to ignore Grand Initiatives ™ since I firmly believe in small things. In this case however, there is is a pleasing intersection with my declared interests: I am an African working at IBM and very publicly concerned with technology, Africa, cultural exchange and development issues.

There are lots of Africans at IBM, and lots of IBMers interested in Africa; the company however has been missing-in-action when it comes to the place. I suppose part of it is that the Africa constituency at IBM has been so diffuse. We are all heads down, minding our business and getting on with things - a head nod or two in corridors or names recognized on email threads. It's also been hard to figure out where and how to start the conversation. As a case in point, I started an Africa 'community' on our intranet just a week ago - apparently the first. When I searched our forums, "Community Central" and the Lotus Connections community portal, I couldn't find any such thing. But such is life, our dark matter warps the world in our quiet and informal way. Even better, there's now a forum and opportunity for such things to coalesce. Baby steps.

So: innovation and economic development in Africa. To my mind it's a matter of technology adoption, systems design and infrastructure with some attention to social and cultural factors. I thought the least I could do was share my jaundiced perspective, and give a little historical analysis of the scene. Herewith some unfiltered toli on IBM and Africa.

Busy Internet

The Great Game


There must be something in the air, Africa is very much in the news - the last such frisson d'Afrique was at the end of the Cold War, the democratic thaw and tightening of military budgets opened things up for a brief interlude. The signs have been there in recent years. In the technology world we have HP and Microsoft with their own initiatives. We also hear of the web companies like Google getting into the education market in Africa. In recent years IBM has turned towards the bottom of the pyramid, moving towards the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and the low end.

Like everyone we're in search of growth and new streams of income. As the oft-quoted 'quip' from Willie Sutton goes, when asked why he robbed banks the response was "because that's were the money is at". In this same vein, Africa it appears, is the new scene of The Great Game, a game moreover playing itself out in politics, economics and now in the technology sphere. Great Games, I've noted, are all about cultural interplay. Technology adoption, which is what concerns a company like IBM on the whole, is not immune to interplay.

There must be black gold at the bottom of the pyramid - and, well, Africa is at present (and sadly so) that proverbial fundament. Thus there are opportunities but also pitfalls. If those on the ground in Africa are wise, they will be picking and chosing with care because, as befits the inexorable march of capital, the hard sell is on the way.

I'll casually stipulate that social implications and cultural sensitivity will be at a premium going forward. If everything is local, should you have an "Africa strategy" or do you need nuance, a regional focus and have to adjust to each country accordingly? How mature are the economies in question? Some countries are emerging from civil war and worse or even engaging in, pace Sudan. Is it a case of "South Africa, Nigeria and The Rest" like the World Bank (pdf) and UN economic reports would have it?

The more reflective will also want to ask: why all those years of benign neglect? And what are the implications of this renewed focus? IBM is cheerfully upfront about the motivations behind its initiative - "this is about business development, not charity", we're in the realm of hardnosed pragmatism - the capitalist sort. Still, if we move beyond rhetoric, is a partnership with Africa being sought? Is it a conversation? Will it be a fickle commitment? Are we seeking monopoly rents or to dictate to pliant new markets? Or are we rather intending to muddy the waters for other players, spoiling the game?

As you can see, there are lots of questions to ask. Also, you've no doubt noted that when I use the word 'we', I oscillate between Africans and IBM - confusion all around...?

In history the race to Fashoda is said to have precipitated the great Scramble for Africa, with effects that reverberated in the colonial era. Indeed some suggest that it is still ongoing. One wonders whether future historians of technology will view such initiatives as similar precipitating events.

Ghana technology

Personal History


I have very fond memories of IBM typewriters, some have suggested that this is why I ended working for IBM in later life. That is a red herring: I was recruited and hired by Lotus, but IBM took over the company between my acceptance of Lotus' offer letter and my start date. I thought I would be working for relatively young upstarts in the software industry, instead I came to be employed by IBM. I was thus one of the first to experience that typical confusion that reigns when companies do mergers and acquisitions and try to adjust and integrate processes. My first few months were a kind of gruesome initiation ritual, summary abandonment in the swampland of Human Resources on Merger Island.

Sidenote: human resources - there's a phrase you never want to hear. If you ever find yourself wondering how to get in contact with the human resources department, you are in a very bad way. Such departments are long-suffering and indeed helpful at their best, but their very appearance in your mental landscape is ominous — a sign of the Apocalypse perhaps. I should know. But I digress...

More apt is that my first 'real' work experience was a summer stint circa 1992 working for the IBM dealers in Ghana; their name: Masai Computers. Thus I have some personal experience with the evolution of IBM in Africa and can supply a case study.

IBM had pulled out of Ghana and most African countries, bar South Africa, a few years earlier, and dealt with the continent through a network of local business partners. Beyond the occasional big government deal where one would need to call in the heavy duty consultants, Big Blue has essentially been away from the continent since the late 70s and early 80s.

This is fair I suppose, broadly speaking there wasn't much economic activity or investment in technology and infrastructure between 1970 and say 1993. Handwaving a little, and with some amount of hindsight, we can say that if you were a prudent Chief Financial Officer of a large technology company, you might as well have sat out that period. Heck there was regression in the economies of a sizable cohort of countries. Other than a few holdouts like Botswana, there wasn't much to cheer. Certainly Africans weren't cheering. Sidenote: the conventional wisdom per Meredith and others is that the 80s were "the lost decade".

On the other hand, some made lots of money in Africa during this period. The French, for example, never stepped away from the continent and they maintained their spheres of influence; their political system demands an outlet for easy money, and getting money from Francophone Africa has been easy, if a little messy at times. By and large however, Big Oil, Big Military, Big Cold War and Big Rogues had the field to themselves. Big Pharmaceuticals, like Big Agriculture, kept a foot in the game but were disinterested players on the whole. Big Technology, with the notable exception of the slow and steady Big Telecom, was not interested in Africa.

The population grew. Africa has one of the youngest populations in the world and labour costs are cheap (although not rock bottom like say Bangladesh, Vietnam and the like). Presumably the dynamism of this surplus can be harnessed - modulo education, literacy and supporting infrastructure.

High St - Accra


But back to technology... If your core business was software, hardware and consulting services, there wasn't much joy, after all a service industry requires the existence of things to service. What growth there was between the 1970s and 1990s rode the disruption of personal computers and their accoutrements. So: the printer business was as lucrative as elsewhere (ergo HP always maintained a presence). Communication also was a slow but steady business - for phone networks, the emphasis was on a slow roll out.

All this to say that during my months at Masai, my experience was in dealing with the spread of personal computers. The focus was on hardware with only the occasional software intervention. I dealt, on the whole, with small businesses that needed a little handholding. Significant also was the government work - the banks and mining companies too were a reliable source of business.

Technology adoption was thus a matter of gaining familiarity with office productivity tools. In the background, email and groupware were beginning to be deployed as the lure of networks was rearing its head. I also dealt with a few financial and accounting jobs - harassed office managers were greatful for my visits and tutorials - one offered me a bag of rice for my troubles.

There was a little dissonance on my part: there I was getting an electrical engineering education - with a little side angle on software, and yet the only skills that were applicable were of the technician variety. "We just need to vacuum the inside of your computer, Kwabena". "Yeah the air-conditioner isn't working, it gets dusty, Afua". "Oh Ama, the printer cable was unplugged". I'd walk around vaguely unsatisfied at the level of challenge I was facing. It was chastening but instructive and caused me to revisit my assumptions about how one could contribute. Until basic infrastructure is in place and redundancy is ubiquitous, one will have to lower one's expectations.

Funnily enough it was the social factors that were most challenging. The folks who can handle Excel and such are the critical audience, for they just want slightly better tools to help them work more effectively without having to refer to the IT department - if indeed they have the luxury of such a beast. How could one empower a little department? How does one get collaboration in distributed environments with unreliable and intermittent connectivity? A focus on the interpersonal and social was the answer.

I loved to watch how power flowed in these organizations and spent time trying to figure out who really ran the place. Ownership and familiarity with computers would give some people almost magical powers. At the same time others, the ones who actually seemed to be getting things done, had little patience for these computer things. Thus games of authority, reputation and knowledge played themselves out. What were the incentives for asserting one's knowledge and expertise given a dysfunctional polity of arbitrary military rule as a background. If you became known as an authority, would that expose you to risk courtesy of The Authorities? And could others jump their station simply by knowing the right people?

In any case, these observations served me well as precursors to the focus on collaboration that I later saw when I joined Lotus. The challenge of capturing the rigours of a constrained environment and organizational behaviour writ large.

IBM, Compaq and HP were then dominant in the local PC industry although Dell was beginning its ascendancy. I was surprised at the potency of Packard Bell in the market given their reliability issues (issues that would later doom them). In Ghana they appeared to have a major presence presumably because of their pricing for the low end. One was beginning to see the Taiwanese and white box manufacturers play their cards and also take root - they are now the main game in town. The second hand market was also a major factor, discarded or recycled computers from the West gained new life in our hands.

I spent a fair amount of time simply fixing printers. HP at the time was in a minor slump and weren't loved, although their printers were in widespread use since "that was what the bosses ordered". In contrast, Canon printers and faxes were cheap, reliable and, crucially, suitably rugged for the tropical environment. Which leads me to another observation and a sentence I frequently spoke: "Kofi, we need to order another stabilizer and surge protector".

generator


Power capacity and reliability were a major concern - they continue to be, witness the load shedding exercises in the past year in Ghana. The operating environment meant that software and hardware needed to be tropicalized because lights out was a frequent occurrence, and not everybody had backup power generators. The high-tech electronics that the modern world features can't handle the kind of surges and spikes we experienced daily. Thus there is an implicit energy tax when you work in some parts of Africa - your software and hardware should adjust accordingly.

Another sidenote: a little cottage industry was developing to tackle these power management issues - many of my colleagues were building custom power stabilizers and slightly tweaked software that, for example, saved to disk more frequently to recover more easily from power outages. They would make side arrangements to supply clients with these "tropicalized" hardware and software systems. Draw your own conclusions about company loyalty in an environment where it is every man for himself, or perhaps be gladdened by the initiative and entrepreneurial spirit that these unofficial consultancies implied.

One further leading indicator: malaria was wreaking its usual toll. This was the time of go-slow malaria: relapses every week for a month or more - fun times, right? A fair number of my colleagues had malaria at some point; you'd notice the sweaty palms and the occasional mid-afternoon slumping on their desks. One's first thought was that it was laziness, but a closer look would reveal the economic cost of the mosquito principle. There wasn't an office I'd visit that didn't have someone dealing with the disease, with the obvious deleterious effects on capacity and productivity.

sleeping on a roof in mopti - mosquito nets


Later Masai got into politics - sadly unavoidable given the vultures that were ruling us during the period. It was a simple cost of doing business in Ghana at that time: you had to contribute to that cabal of rogues. Indeed there was an enforced election in 1992 and those folks had to hand over to themselves... Like all small businesses in Ghana when confronted with offers you couldn't refuse (demands for kickbacks and more), Masai 'diversified' and got into 'buying and selling' - and with gusto. Thus there was a turn to such things as importing cars, televisions, stereos and even kitchen equipment (Masai pots and pans!) from Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and the like. Increasingly as the nineties progressed, China became the supplier of choice. The core business persisted but ultimately it was neglected.

Thus it was that Ghanaian businesses amounted to buy-and-sell in the eighties and well into the nineties, largely as a reaction to misrule. Scrutinize the majority of companies and you won't find many cases of resources or capital being plowed back into the core business. Investment and growth faltered accordingly. The computer services industry was not big enough; there was nothing to service.

Melkom poster

It was a fun summer and, in the 15 years since, I've followed the evolution of the technology industry in Ghana with keen interest. Masai and others went by the wayside, hollowed, as it were, from the inside. The restless types eager to escape their constraints saw the opportunities coming. The internet loomed and they made their move. Now there is a viable technology industry in the country. Big Capital is taking note.

Strategic Outlook


I offer these notes to give a sense of the complexity of dealing with technology adoption in Africa - the agony and the ecstasy as it were. Sometimes it is the small things that can blindside you. For example if malaria is a significant cost of doing business in Africa then perhaps, your first investment should be in mosquito nets for all your employees and their families (like some enlightened mining companies are now doing). Perhaps a focus on such side issues may provide the biggest bang for your investment dollars. Still I wouldn't extrapolate too much on the particulars I've raised. The Ghanaian experience, let alone my personal diasporan experience of it, can't possibly capture all of the African challenge.

More to the point, the terrain of the technology game in Africa has changed. As personal computers have continued their spread, there has been more use of software and there is now a market for such services - cash registers, payroll systems, inventory control and so forth - the guts of modern business infrastructure. The major change has been the ascendancy of networks - the internet, with its great popularizer, the web, and, of late, mobile telephony. This has lead to more interest in collaboration as distribution and coordination costs have been dramatically reduced. Also the costs of starting up internet-related business have vastly decreased and we have experience dealing with Moore's law in the network-enabled datacenter. You can even lease internet infrastructure if need be.

The Masai example however should give an idea of the challenges. Structurally, many businesses are undercapitalized and on the surface, disorganized. There are lots of good ideas, and indeed there is much entrepreneurship but when you come into the continent and partner up, you should know that your partners may not have the single-minded focus that you have. They are juggling constraints you can't imagine and have adapted their strategies and behaviour accordingly. Also keep in mind that sustaining investment will be like keeping up a good conversation - if you don't pay attention to your interlocutors, they, and Africa itself, will remain opaque. Nigeria is a case in point, its brand of capitalism is a cauldron of creative destruction. But if you can master it, well... they don't call it black gold for nothing.

The benign neglect of the 70s and 80s paradoxically left enough space open for small entrepreneurs to pick their niches. That is the way of capital. One currently hears lots of young lions growling, hungry after a decade or so of growth. Some outsiders seek high and quick rewards when investing in Africa, others opt for slow and steady income growth. Africa is a greenfield and strategies are many.

The MBA types are all about sizing the market, no one wants to invest on blind faith. Armed with a few statistics and Gartner predictions you can forge ahead or demur. There are lots of analysts and strategy consultants that cover this terrain, offering advice about investing in emerging markets for a fee of course. Some of the analysis is insightful and when I read, I search for nuance about the challenges: economic, structural, legal, political and social. Thus it has been interesting going over the many ideas posted to the ThinkPlace: a curious mixture of pie-in-the-sky and very focused pragmatism. My guess is that one will get as much from the exercise as any expensive McKinsey survey could provide.

I'll use this note then to suggest a few areas that could be scrutinized - free analysis courtesy of the toli.

construction materials


I've been slowly developing a low end theory of technology and I'll use its nascent framework to tease out a few strategic directions for the outsider investing in technology in Africa. To recap, the main tenets of The Low End Theory
  • identify and leverage disruptions in the system
  • Lower coordination costs through layer stripping
  • Favour participation over control
  • Temper the human factor to encourage adoption

Disruptions


The first step is to identify disruptions. I see four major disruptions in the technology arena:
  • personal computers
  • networks: the internet and the web
  • mobility
  • storage
Of these we can perhaps discount the workings of storage, that has been a second order disruption and emerging markets will be last to capitalize on it. At least that seems to be the trend.

One change from a the past is that IBM has opted out of the low end in the Great Game of Chips and sold its personal computer business. Thus it can't benefit from that ongoing disruption, which is only now working its way through emerging markets. The field in the personal computer ecosystem is open to those who kept their hand in the game. As I've suggested, in hardware we'll have the white box manufacturers, the Taiwan and China contingent (Lenovo, Acer etc) and the chipset and assembly folks, some of the big boys who never faltered (e.g. HP), the chip manufacturers (Intel, AMD and perhaps some of the DSP crew) and of course the software ecosystem (say Microsoft, Adobe and savvy Linux folks). For IBM, the focus on high-end servers and mainframes is fine (and certainly lucrative) but it narrows the disruptions that the company can leverage in the African market. Oh well, you can't win them all and hopefully the disruption of the spread of the internet and mobility opens a large enough investment field.

So: networks. The internet and IP based technologies are fostering great advances in communication (TCP/IP, VOIP, Ethernet, Wi-Fi etc.). Coupled with the web, we now have a great platform for distribution of software and services with the fringe benefits of collaboration, participation and group forming. The innovation that comes from these technologies is transforming everything in sight - witness the inexorable march of open source. Sidenote: I'm currently paid by IBM to contribute to the Dojo toolkit open source project, who would have thought it even a decade ago?

On mobility, the immediate focus is again on communication. Many in emerging markets are voting with their pocketbooks for mobility. Mobile phones, with accompanying SMS, and some of the new data services are the main draw. The architectural challenge here is how best to deal with intermittent connectivity and synchronization.

People are making great claims for mobile platforms and there are lots of interesting numbers about the uptake - I'll be discussing some in a later note. The obvious pitfall about mobility is that the current incumbents have the temptations of walled gardens and you often have to get permission from phone companies, handset manufacturers and network operators before you can deploy your Next Great Idea ®. You have to deal with these gatekeepers and share billing infrastructure and, most importantly, profits in whatever area (hardware, software or services).

The low end theory predicts that platforms that encourage participation over control will see greater adoption. Thus, even though mobility may be more exciting and sexy as an investment arena, mobile operators might well lose the plot. So long as you are susceptible to a priori negotiation with gatekeepers, generativity, as Zittrain would put it, will be constrained. This of course is all a clear reading of the End-to-End principle. In terms of strategy then, I suspect you'd be happier riding the voice over IP wave than the cell phone market in the current environment. Pay close attention to the actions of the gatekeepers in the mobility ecosystem. Sidenote: If you want some mathematics or economics to motivate this insight try Bradner and Gaynor - a real options metric to evaluate network, protocol, and service architecture (pdf) for example.

Directions


A brief survey of investment directions in technology in Africa.
Advertising

Regional Economic Integration


Too many African economies are focused externally, whether in terms of being export-driven or importing from outside Africa and almost never regionally. This is part of the colonial legacy. Ultimately sustainability will come from being able to develop internal and regional markets. Opportunities here are in targeting government and regulatory systems. Not very exciting or with immediate payoff since politics are involved, but a reasonable investment opportunity.

Remittances


There's lots of room for increased lubrication of the system to harness the considerable diasporan contributions and to reduce the transaction fees. A business model backed with appropriate technology can wipe off the floor the monopoly rents that Western Union and company have been accruing. Of course there are regulatory and security concerns in this new age of terrorism but there is clearly a business model to be teased out, as with the banking sector. Consider the big fat target that was hit in Mexico where "the fee for remitting money has dropped from an average of 9.2% in 1999 to 3% in January 2007" - note that many are making huge profits even on 3% fees. A simple suggestion: look over Ben Hyde's shoulder and implement whatever he says (see pseudo Bank Accounts for the poor for example).

Banking


The banking industry is interesting and a known quantity to companies like IBM so it should receive lots of attention. In many countries in Africa, there is a large informal sector and the banks are often in furious competition with it - the susu collectors in Ghana for example. Informal they may be, the latter could stand to be automated and organized, if not brought into the formal sector.

In the USA for example, "a significant portion of urban consumers continue to be unbanked and under-banked" and these are often minorities. By analogy, the same broad strategies can be applied to African markets.

The application of technology in banking and the informal sector should be a no brainer, as is careful and efficient money management. Why leave the market to the equivalent of Western Union or payday loan sharks? You can even hedge your investments if need be. Thus I'd suggest that software and systems developed for banking services are a significant area of interest and profit.

Rapid Enterprise Anthill

Rural Strategizing


In many African countries a significant proportion of the population is often rural and engaged in agriculture. True there is the centuries-long trend of migration to urban areas with the resulting slums, and as a matter of policy most governments tend to prioritize the urban poor over the rural poor even in their constrained budgets.

An interesting challenge is how can one make technology work for the rural and agricultural sector. What are the services that can improve capacity and development? The immediate answer is communication and transportation to smooth the back and forth interactions with families, friends and customers in the city. With regards to agriculture, there are also things like better and more timely information about pricing, and the disintermediation that improved connectivity can provide. There's a business model in servicing the needs of rural communities, it's not sexy but I think it could be rewarding.

Infrastructure


Almost by definition the biggest need in developing countries is infrastructure. Infrastructure is much neglected, whether it is power, water, transportation, housing or education. These are persistent problems and here governments and businesses have their hands full. Such areas are mostly out of the comfort zone of big technology companies, hence I'll elide the analysis.

Network infrastructure, whether for mobility or the internet, is the clear target. Folks on the ground, constrained by costs and capital, are starting with open source software and commodity hardware when they build their internet services.

IBM has lots of expertise in building and running heavy duty infrastructure and might be able to compete in internet infrastructure game. IBM and Sun for example could be more flexible with pricing so that their higher-end hardware and operating systems could get consideration instead of Linux on commodity x86 hardware - the low end theory again. On software, folks will use PHP/Jetty/Tomcat instead of Websphere Application Server or BEA Weblogic, open source is the starting point for many (pdf). For companies like Microsoft and IBM, this is highly problematic, because an entire generation is starting up with the web or internet in mind and little familiarity with their toolchains. Linux and company are disruptive even on the basis of extending the lifespan of hardware that would be considered underpowered in the developed world.

Whether it is in datacenter hardware systems or software, infrastructure must be tropicalized to deal with unreliable power. As a design principle one will need a single-minded focus on power consumption and on resilient systems - perhaps IBM's mutterings on autonomous computing might have been prescient - the jury is still out. The problem space of intermittent connectivity and synchronization could also be explored. Wild speculation: the best solutions will come from the developing world since it is the daily bread of the environment.

air conditioning essentials


Taxes


In the developed world, death and taxes are the only certainties. In the developing world, death is the only certainty. Taxes are avoided by virtue of a large informal sector. Again, taxation is not a sexy business and it is one where one deals with governments, regulation and compliance. Still, it is a sizable business and there are considerable inefficiencies in tax collection and assessment in Africa. Removing the human factor from the equation can and should be a lucrative business opportunity.

Markets

In West Africa at least, a lot of our cultural and social energies come from marketplaces. Small business, petty traders and such need organization and the pooling of capital for further investment and growth. Their needs are primarily communication (phones, VOIP), basic content management, accounting services etc. You'll see a lot of small businesses collaborating on complex projects along with the emergence of pockets of incubation. I'll simply suggest a business opportunity in services that target the aggregation of marketplaces and engages with the informal sector.

So-called intellectual property

A brief note on so-called intellectual property...

The great spurt of American capitalism, the one that laid the foundation for the current enduring prosperity occurred between 1820 and 1920. The later innovations of the modern corporation are all well and good, but we should not forget that the building blocks and the core infrastructure build-out occured in an environment in which America paid no attention to the intellectual property of others. At best, it was lip-service that was paid, and there was the requisite rhetoric in terms of the laws on the land. Enforcement was another question.

Patents, copyrights and such were important internally, but when it came to stealing the best of European and other innovations, there was no holding back. In polite language, there was liberal borrowing from others. But this is not a unique phenomenon, whether it was Japan, Taiwan, the eastern tigers in living memory, in matters of development, talk about so-called intellectual property are sideshows. Such talk is at best ignored until a critical mass of development has been achieved.

All this to suggest that you aren't going to get much sympathy with talk about so-called intellectual property in Africa. At a time when many African countries are barely emerging from biblical depths, and in a context when exploitation of the continent's resources has occurred for centuries, the attitude of Africans towards so-called intellectual property is rightly going to be disdainful. It's a fact of life, deal with it. Check back with us in a few decades.

bank

Pricing Models - a thought experiment

Let's flesh out one of these areas more fully as an example.

I'll suggest a business model based on servicing flat rate pricing and/or prepaid, pay-as-you-go for a variety of goods and services. Initial targets are basic utilities like electricity and gas but many other services can be addressed.

Potential benefits: Provide predictable pricing and micro-financing for consumers. Fuller capacity utilization for producers and ease of planning for expansion.

Why: African consumers and small businesses on the whole are very price sensitive; many are under-capitalized. Business are undercapitalized, and consumers especially the urban poor and in the rural sector live a precarious existence from paycheck to paycheck. Thus their consumption of all manner of goods and services is predicated on predictable pricing, micro-financing and subject to the vagaries of exigency. Producers in these markets often enjoy considerable price discrimination but paradoxically often have excess capacity. Producers thus would like to stimulate demand to get full capacity utilization but have been stymied by their use of traditional pricing mechanisms.

This suggestion is based on a couple of observations
  • African consumers have voted with their wallets for mobile telephony even at the expense of fixed line telephony. The most popular arrangement in this uptake has been prepaid pay-as-you-go billing.
  • Even for things like electricity, if you could deliver the service with a prepaid card, you can get significant uptake. For example, small vendors in marketplaces will often pool resources together if need be in order to obtain vital communal service - sometimes these arrangements are informal. The same goes for other kinds of utilities.
Flat rate or pay-as-you go seem to be the key ingredients in that they provide predictable pricing and bite-sized micro-consumption that is amenable to better planning by both consumers and producers. These in combination are an effective way of marketing goods to the developing world.

One could offer producers packaging and billing services for their products that emphasize either pre-paid or flat-rate pricing. Provide infrastructure and billing services for all-you-can-use or bite-sized services. Many goods, whether it is electricity or call minutes, can be unbundled or packaged and delivered for flat rate or pre-paid increments. There are two aspects that are interesting businesses in and of themselves: the initial consulting services for businesses, the implementation of billing, un-bundling infrastructure, potential outsourcing of said infrastructure. Brand it if need be.

Do note that I'm deliberately doing some bundling of my own here, conflating, as I am, flat rate and pay-as-you-go. Anybody can do flat rate pricing and obviously you can use dynamic pricing with prepaid - as most calling cards tend to do. I think that these are complimentary approaches.

There are many obvious downsides and feasibility is in question but technology can help. I'll anecdotally note that electricity companies in Ghana have had an easier time of it, in their planning and in their utilization, by going to the urban areas and selling their services on this model in recent years.

A few other comments... Most companies see the billing relationship with customers as very crucial and will not want to outsource it. The conventional wisdom in customer relationship management 101 says never cede the ground to intermediaries. This limits the business opportunity here to consulting services.

Many companies want to retain more dynamic pricing mechanisms to better leverage price discrimination and they are unconvinced about flat rate pricing on the one and the prepaid model on the other. Nothing precludes anyone from having 'flex payments' alongside the flat rate or the prepaid options. Many businesses would like to be like to have the swagger of the old school airline companies with dynamic pricing and gouging of first and business class and even the casual traveler. Consumers, I'd note, seem to like flat rates whenever they are offered.

The products in question need to have utility for consumers to want them in the first place, that goes without saying. It seems that core things like transportation and communication are the proving grounds. Handwaving as usual, I'd argue that you can gain a competitive advantage in emerging markets - where most consumers by definition are price sensitive, by exploring these options. Oftentimes, businesses don't realize that these options are available, nor indeed that the technology to implement them exists and comes relatively cheaply.

Anyway this is just a thought experiment, caveat emptor, caveat lector and so forth.

observers are worried

Summing up


There are lots of opportunities in Africa. The competition will be fierce and one needs focused execution in markets that ride disruptions and commodities. When developing for the low end, ubiquity and leverage are everything and one's mindset should be adjusted accordingly. The interplay in coming decades will be undoubtedly be interesting.

There are encouraging trends but one also should seek some numbers to back them up and inform decisions. I've discussed here a view from the outside about strategies to go into Africa. What I find significantly more interesting is the reverse perspective. Are Africans brainstorming their own initiatives for engagement with the rest of the world? When you spot Big Capital coming your way, do you have your plans ready for them? Do you know what you want to use capital for? The question shouldn't solely be a matter of what you have to offer the world, it bears thinking about what you want to get from the rest of the world.

In conclusion, I feel a little like George Keenan writing my unsolicited Long Telegram home, although, with the changing medium, it has been a couple of hours of thinking aloud, furiously blogging away. In setting these thoughts down, it appears I have more open questions than answers. The main thing however is to enter in the global conversation and prod it in my favoured directions. Living as I do in the dark matter of technology, I'm minded of what the physicists say: dark matter surfaces occasionally.

Afro-Blue: A Soundtrack


As is my custom, I give you a short soundtrack for this note. As befits interplay there w
  • John Coltrane - Africa
    The big brass band, the two bass players getting busy, the saxophone doing its thing. It sounds a little like Olé except augmented with the big band. There is a little dissonance at first, it's a little unfamiliar, you wonder what is happening. The bass is thumping, the horns are shrieking, the drums have their solo. The folks at Breath of Life discussed Africa pointing out a few cover versions worth investigating: Dwight Tribe's version is angry, the SF Jazz Collective is urbane.

    Coltrane's musings on Africa are what I use to test out the bass of any loud speakers system and many fail to handle it. Trane stepped into the zone after these sessions. I think he loved Africa.
  • Abbey Lincoln - Afro-Blue
    Afro Blue was the centerpiece of Abbey is Blue, one of my favourite jazz albums. It's a stunning debut with a band plainly excited about her vocal stylings. She messes with the beat in this upbeat and jaunty song, playfully evoke a blue sentiment. I especially love her voicing of that lyric: "shades of delight, afro blue".

    Abbey is Blue


    I'll also point to her version of Africa sung almost a lifetime later. Again, the lyrics she supplies and the way she voices the words is incendiary. Abbey is back after last year's open-heart surgery and continues to do her thing. Thank goodness, I want to vibe with her some more.
  • Dianne Reeves - Afro Blue
    The head diva in charge gets down with Mongo Santamaria. Afro-Cuban and afro-blue stylings ensue. It's no wonder she was the first vocalist Blue Note enlisted.
  • Lizz Wright - Afro Blue
    She is a little too respectful of Abbey Lincoln in her take on the song. I think she could have made it her own in the way Dianne Reeves did. A missed opportunity perhaps, but it shows her impeccable taste and talent.
  • Horace Parlan - Congalegre
    Soul jazz aficionados loved this take on Ray Barretto's composition. The album appropriately enough is called Heading South
  • The Meters - Africa
    The funk trail starts from New Orleans. "Oh, take me back to the motherland".
  • Angelique Kidjo - Afrika
    A litle afro-pop from the Black Ivory Soul album. This was an international affair.
  • Toto - Africa
    Although overplayed in every eighties radio station, this is simply infectious pop music. A close reading of the lyrics reveal that they are pablum and a matter of cultural projection. Still everybody projects onto the Africa. As you know
    "the wild dogs cry out in the night as they grow restless, longing for some solitary company...

    I bless the rains down in Africa"
    Indeed.
  • Fela Kuti and Roy Ayers - Africa, Center of the world
    A great meeting of minds on Fela's turf, what's not to like? Afrobeat meets the vibes in the unhurried, discursive funk song and we hear music of many colours.
  • Dennis Brown - Africa (We Want To Go)
    The voice of reggae in his prime yearned for the motherland
  • Freddie McGregor - Africa Here I Come
    The best use of the full up riddim
  • Morgan Heritage - Africa, Here We Come
    "Protect Us Jah."
  • Reflection Eternal - Africa Dream
    Talib Kweli and Hi Tek expound from without on something deep inside of them
  • Youssou N'Dour - Africa, Dream Again
    After a few decades of stagnation, perhaps the continent can dream again. Certainly the young population hopes their dreams won't be deferred. This is taken from Youssou' Nothing's In Vain album. It is also the most syrupy pap he's ever recorded. I don't like his forays into commercial music and, especially when he starts singing in English, it is best left unheard. The étoile de Dakar and star of mbalax should come to the scene on his own terms.
  • Toumani Diabate's Symmetric Orchestra - Africa Challenge
    From the Boulevard de L'Independence album we have virtuosity from Diabaté' and his collaborators. Virtuosity, what more can I say
  • The African Brothers – Self Reliance
    Come up with your own strategies.
  • D'Angelo - Africa
    I'll end with a little voodoo. There is a certain naivete and hopefulness in this lullaby. The percussion of children's wind up toys is inspired. The vocal arrangement is lovely. It's about a renewal.
Let's cast this note as part of The Great Game of Technology series.

Next: Networks and Communication Infrastructure in Ghana


File under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 18, 2006

The Low End Theory of Networks

Ethan Zuckerman has been pondering generativity and aggregation, prompted by Jonathan Zittrain's paper, The Generative Internet and its implications. Many of these themes have been stewing in my head for quite some time so I thought I'd finally join in the conversation with some of my armchair punditry. As seems to be my custom, a one paragraph comment somehow turned into this note. Sadly I don't quite have a toli code to contribute to the fun, and I've already narrated a couple of gospels recently. Thus I'll switch tack and change the frame. This time I give you a theory: the Low End Theory.

Control versus Participation in Networks


It's interesting that the lawyers, from Lawrence Lessig on, are weighing in on these network things and it's about time... Generativity huh? Zittrain argues a legal case built on abundant economic evidence (and one hopes the linguists would also weigh in). It's a nice restatement of the End-to-End principle in terms palatable to lobbyists. And the argument is much like Lawrence Solum and Minn Chung's paper The Layers Principle: Internet Architecture and the Law from a few years ago.

Reed, Saltzer and Clark described the End-to-End principle quite simply in terms of systems design. The heart of the matter is this oft-overlooked sentence
Functions placed at low levels of a system may be redundant or of little value when compared with the cost of providing them at that low level.
They knew when they were writing that this notion had wider applicability than the telecommunication networks that were their initial focus hence they labeled their work "end-to-end arguments in system design". The costs that are borne by the "system" are a generativity tax if we use Zittrain's terminology.

In economic terms, if you read the system as a market, restating this principle turns it into a matter of preserving options value. Black and Scholes have a lot to say on this front.

I see this same notion everywhere in the software engineering that I practice. The most successful system in distributed computing has been the web which, by design (pdf) and to a fault, falls back on minimalist protocols and data formats to handle coordination costs and the human factor.

But there are also tensions at work in the design of any system, and hidden assumptions or vested interests at work.

There will always be a difference between the value of a system to its users and its value to its operators and this is perfectly expressed in networks. At issue in this discussion is who gets to see their utility maximized. As Martin Geddes puts it
If there’s one lesson of the Stupid Network, it’s that there’s a massive increase in consumer surplus. The value to users diverges from that to owners. You can’t measure user value by looking at industry revenue.
A priori you have no idea what options are possible at the edge of your market. This means that the design of the core of your system is a political decision. Like an options trader you are gambling on outcomes in the marketplace and attempting to manage risk. Your design decision is anything but neutral despite what the so-called "network neutrality" proponents say (even if I do agree with their endpoint market outcome).

We know that price discrimination is an optimal pricing strategy from many standpoints and, in market utility terms, it makes sense to optimize system design to enable some modicum of price discrimination. The evidence throughout history, however, is that participants in a market hate price discrimination and favour uniform or predictable pricing. For example, flat rate pricing made the fortunes of AOL, and block pricing is remaking the cell-phone industry. By analogy, Paris Metro pricing is not widespread in transportation systems and on the internet because of these explicit user preferences.

Part of the challenges the US airline companies currently face is that we aren't sympathetic to them. One major reason for our disdain is the pricing games that are played with plane tickets. We value fairness even though we are creatures of a rough jungle and there's likely an anthropological basis for our sense of indignation at price discrimination. Perhaps our past ancestors were optimistic planners by nature. However the presence of price discrimination in a market, coupled with flexibility of pricing, and the liquidity of relative transparency allows for the existence of middlemen and the possibility of arbitrage and disintermediation. On the whole, these are good market outcomes but, like many "options", they can't be characterized up front.

Where there are networks, we will find power laws that apply. Similarly where there are markets, we will have sharp elbows and monopolistic temptations as we scramble for the loot. There are echoes of F. Scott-Fitzgerald's notion that "the rich are very different from you and me". These factors are found in every part of the technology industry and, when combined, they play out in the Great Game of consolidation and lobbying. The big network operators will happily oblige in their strategies since lots of advantages accrue to the early movers and great powers, and they can leverage consumer inertia. In the internet we have many intermediaries at the network level; firewalls, middleboxes and the domain name system are potential, and actual, Great Powers (see the Verisign Tax ® we all pay and the "offers you can't refuse" that content delivery networks like Akamai make).

Moving up a level, intermediaries are acknowledged up front in the web architecture as design constraints. I have cast the web's embrace of visibility to intermediaries as Caesar's Tax Collector Principle and I think it is fitting, taxes are good, on the whole, and especially estate taxes - they keep the trains running and the streets clean at least in my neck of the woods.

The Rumsfeld Taxonomy of Networks


If we take Donald Rumsfeld's taxonomy of knowledge as the starting point for our analysis of networks, we find the following.

Unknown Unknowns


Legislators and vested interests tend to worry about "unknown unknowns" and, like Rumsfeld, will focus on threat models and such. This is a matter of governance and regulation; among the core competencies of most governments are the management of information and regulation. Excessive focus on these leads almost inevitably to data mining, intimidation, the co-option of a complaisant although ostensibly independent press, spying by the NSA , movie-plot security and the like, your basic Global Wars on Everyone.

Unknown Knowns


The "unknown knowns" are our unconscious biases that frame of the discussion of networks. The metaphors that different sides use are instructive and perhaps even my casting the conversation in terms of "sides" betrays my viewing this arena as a game of sorts (hopefully not Mortal Kombat or something). Others may view the networks scene as a Clash of Civilizations which would lead to apocalyptic wars and the End of History if one follows Manifest Destiny.

Known Knowns


The "known knowns" in networks have been visibly demonstrated in the economic verve and activity that is taking place on the internet. Even if the four horsemen of the internet ™ were oversold, we can still point to the ongoing transformation wrought by the Four Horsemen of the Web. As an engineer, I tend to think in terms of protocol, hence my nomination of The HUHXtable Quartet (HTTP, URI, HTML, XML) towards that designation. Your mileage may vary and various prognosticators seem to be weighing in with speculations about the identity of these horsemen. With corporations being legal humans, they have assembled an intriguing cast of characters to liven up the debate.

These same historical forces were at work in the history of communication and transportation networks (pdf) and, although we celebrate the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford, who is really celebrating Samuel Homfray, Richard Trevithick, and the various others who played a role in the history of railroads or even, more recently, the extraordinary innovation brought about by the lowly shipping container?

Known Unknowns


The sweet spots in our analysis are the "known unknowns". These are the things that make venture capitalists salivate, and monopolists turn to paranoia and worse. It's that seductive notion of the startup in the garage that can change the world, of the eBay or Craigslist economy, of the manufactured serendipity and furious and creative energy that has been on display in the past decade or so on the web. This is where that Long Tail notion comes into play, to shamelessly mine another meme. There is the sense that all you need is an idea, and good connections. The fully leveraged network can be a great leveler and promoter of the innovative forces in a system.

Sidenote: This bit about manufacturing serendipity on the road to riches meshes well with the American Dream ™ and it is worth commenting on a little. Paul Graham, in his hermetically-sealed world, apparently believes that a start-up culture is a particularism of the United States (or condensation as he puts it). What a peculiar notion. While he's sleeping soundly at night, after a lullaby of unshakable Manifest Destiny, I'm sure that some Teutonic engineering will suddenly emerge (and he misreads the German economy so completely that he's a front runner for the huhudious awards 2006), or would it be an easterly wind that blows in from Korea or thereabouts that will give him fits early in the morning. I would have thought that the lesson was that the unknowns by definition are unknowable and, if you go ahead, following the Rumsfeld example, and discount even the knowns, you end up traveling in a lightly-armored Humvee on the road from Baghdad airport with a convoy of outsourced mercenaries. Good luck on that front.

The Low End Theory of Networks


But back to my topic... I'll quote Martin Geddes again since he is, as ever, eminently quotable
the end-to-end principle is really an appeal to preserve option value in a world of rapid technology change and innovation. By resisting this force, you’re either betting you can suppress rival distribution channels for competing innovation, or you can yourself be a lead innovator.
Thus Zittrain's pitch about generativity versus responsibility boils down to a tension between architectures of control and architectures of participation (using a much broader sense of participation than the current buzzword).

Stated another way, and since I traffic in coinages, indulge me if you will with Koranteng's first postulate of networks:
The End-to-End Principle in networks is another incarnation of the Low End Theory.
Recall if you will the core tenets of the Low End Theory which follows the Rule of Four as any good code should. Such is the mantra that schoolgirls the world over are reciting as they study Technology Adoption and System Design 101, and it is worth dwelling on:
  • Ruthlessly leverage disruptions in the system
  • Lower coordination costs through layer stripping
  • Favour participation over control
  • Temper the human factor to encourage adoption
As should be clear, each tenet of the Low End Theory encourages externalities to accrue in the system in support of preserving options value. Combined, they harness the collective energies of participants and harness innovation. We see these building blocks at work in hardware, in distributed computing and in the various Great Games that are taking place in the technology world. In this respect, I've suggested previously that REST, the web style, was the Low End Theory of Distributed Computing and have also written about The Low End Theory in Hardware. I don't see any reason why networks shouldn't be able to join in the fun, hence my current synthesis.

I like that Ethan is shrewdly focusing on the question of aggregation - that is also a restatement of the examples of eBay and Amazon. A good marketplace will surely allow for middlemen and aggregators, that's the bit about favouring participation. Aggregation however is only one of the styles that are likely to prevail in the market. Astute participants can focus on different areas and make hay.

As an example, it pays to identify the disruptions that underlie the evolution of the system, if you can hitch a ride at the right point, you can build mansions in Redmond. As to the second plank of our game theory, layer stripping restates the end-to-end notion of overlay systems, intelligence at the ends, and the daily reality of leaky abstractions. Similarly the human factor is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there is the incoherence of the Tower of Babel which is the bit about coordination costs. On the other hand there are network effects to be gained in communication and group forming that argue for emphasizing community features in the system. From hunter-gatherers on, anything that enabled collaboration has given selective advantages in our evolutionary systems. We want to encourage the sharing of knowledge and information but encounter considerable costs in doing so. The ongoing dilemma we face is about how to build systems recognize the people along with the processes.

Operational efficiency is something that companies like Wal-Mart and Dell are good at, and operational efficiency at the margins is all the rage in the staid banking sector. As Willie Sutton quipped about robbing banks, it's "Cause that’s where the money is". Thus there are other ways to prevail in this marketplace. Rather than optimizing your processes around innovation you can optimize around operations, billing, search, storage, creating markets, or lubricating whatever friction there is in the system. To take an obvious example, the economics of peering is an interesting problem to tackle. Briefly stated it's Animal Farm all over again: some peers are more equal than others. Or call it real estate: location, location, location.

Similarly we are only beginning to realize the social implications of mobility in networks, of intermittent connectivity, of periodic synchronization and of the fluidity of our communal relations. Mobility is thus another of the major disruptions at work in the network marketplace and one that many users have voted on with cold cash all over the world. I'll note anecdotally that many colleagues of mine who were working on desktop collaboration software just years ago are now firmly ensconced at Nokia.

Where there is the realm of the social, there is the realm of conversation and its corollary, the market. To raise the tenor of this conversation, I'll repeat the insight of those 20th century philosophers, the Pet Shop Boys, and their master treatise:
There's lots of opportunities

You've got the brawn
I've got the brains
Let's make lot of money
Thus there is room in the network game for the innovation of Juniper and Skype and all the companies weighing in on the disruption of the internet protocols, and the operational effectiveness of say equipment manufacturers like Nokia and Samsung, and the more astute network operators. Everyone has their own exemplars on this last front: phone, cable, cell, fiber, copper, fixed wireless, wi-fi, ethernet... The TCP/IP suite that is the core of the internet has succeeded and scaled because the abstractions used embraced transparency and existing systems. The incredible ascendancy of ethernet over three decades (and of late wi-fi) is a testament to the value of simplicity and uniformity in network system design, and the concomitant scale and leverage that the low end mass market provides. Like the personal computer, these technologies are canonical disruptions and those who embrace their Fung Wah Bus aesthetic are inexorably moving up-market.

Some have suggested that good starting points for determining strategy are tomes like The Gorilla Game or The Innovator's Dilemma, I believe the jury is still out and the MBA types are best positioned to expound on their merit. I would point to Jim Gray's Distributed Computing Economics as my favourite starting point in determining to the best strategy. In any case, the game is on. In the interim, we are simply picking and choosing which of the hard problems we want to address. Still game theory remains theory; in real life games we have that nagging human factor.

Engineers are currently hobbled in our advocacy of the internet because we don't have good instruments for determining metrics for things like resilience and adaptability that could inform the decisions of policy makers, lawyers, economists, and those who really matter: Mr. and Mrs. Big Money. Politicians everywhere like statistics and large numbers in what passes for their policy debates, especially in this current silly season of nostalgia. We do have large numbers in the internet, the users, but unfortunately we only have waffly options pricing to throw around as statistics. I would hazard that muttering "options value pricing for networks" doesn't quite cut it when compared to the red meat of the corn and sugar lobbies or the pork of the military industrial complex.

Sonny Rollins Way Out West


One needs to dangle some glitter when we talk to congressmen, or votes or something. Thus I'm an alchemist searching for Black Gold. They told me it was a goldfield; it turns out that it's an abandoned coal mine in Pennsylvania, a dud concession. Still I've heard there are good things Out West on the frontier, that area called the internet, that web style I need to adopt. Thus the Low End Theory is a work in progress and one could easily get taken to the cleaners by the loaded dice of the other players.

Deadwood


Everybody wants their cut and, if you can tilt the playing field at whatever level you reside at in the network ecosystem, it makes sense to do so, especially if you are judged every quarter by the baying hounds of Wall Street. If you take the market view, the lobbying capabilities of large corporations, a long history of regulation in this sector, and governments' existential need to pass laws or exercise control or compliance of some sort (whether in the name of security, expedience or getting things done) are going to weigh heavily.

We engineers have been lucky to have built enough of the internet and web infrastructure before the lawyers, lobbyists and governments realized what was there. The underlying architecture has proven sound enough to have scaled several orders of magnitude and looks set for several more as the next few billions of humanity come on board. The fact that the internet (after three decades) and the web (in its second decade) are now treated as infrastructure says it all, and this is a Good Thing ®.

The language is also important, and I continue to wince at George Gilder's revolutionary talk although he is now (slightly) chastened. My reading is that we need to emphasize a sedate, gray-suited discourse to keep the bankers and traders happy and the loud "content" industry at bay. Infrastructure should be boring despite the breathless prose we see in the business rags. Technology was made prematurely sexy in the dot com era; the implications of technology are what are important, not the technology itself. The markets for cement and most other commodities don't raise eyebrows and nor should networks. The logical lesson of the end-to-end principle is that communication networks are about connectivity, everything else is gravy.

I'll suggest then that normalcy is what engineers should aim for in this discussion. The Generative Internet is a good contribution to the debate as it is rooted in an understanding of the engineering insight of the end-to-end principle and the way platforms are developed and evolve. The dissection of the personal computer industry is instructive too as an argument by analogy in the technology world. The exploitation of Moore's Law and the black gold of silicon, the sweet spot of the mass-market where Intel and now AMD have been able to make hay, the platform effects that Microsoft has been able to leverage in the mass market etc., all these continue to drive that Great Game.

The weakest part of Zittrain's paper is where he declares that the end-to-end argument needs to be superseded and that "end-to-end does not fully capture the overall project of maintaining generativity". The primary reason for this postulate is the rhetorical strawman he constructs of end-to-end neutrality. Those advocating what they call "network neutrality" are simply being cute. They are implying, for quite pragmatic and rhetorical reasons (read effectiveness of lobbying), that there are no costs to neutrality; that neutrality is value neutral. It's a nice trick as far as framing a debate goes, but it is a trick nevertheless and it should be discounted accordingly.

Odlyzko has noted that spending on communication services (and especially the connectivity component) is huge, dwarfing many other segments of the economy (and before Rumsfeld's folly it was even trending towards the amount spent on national defense in the United States). Those vested interests and a $300 billion dollar sector will buy lots of slick rhetoric and astute framing. Zittrain carries on to suggest that the inevitable endpoint of the end-to-end argument is a network teeming with, on the one hand, viruses and spam and, on the other, silos and walled gardens. Having raised the spectre of these undoubted bogeymen that obviously need regulation, we then require new paradigms and frameworks.

This is either misguided or flawed, depending on where you stand. The end-to-end argument, as restated in the low-end theory, stands up well to these charges. It is an argument about lowering coordination costs. Nowhere is it acknowledged in the original paper that there are no costs to be borne, or that there is any such thing as end-to-end neutrality. To take a concrete example of engineering expediency at work consider the implementation of congestion control in the TCP/IP suite of protocols. This is characterized by some purists as a layering hack. The upshot of current practice is that we have repeated injunctions for other network applications to be "TCP friendly" in order to preserve the commons and the kind of congestion collapse that was observed as the internet began to see increased usage in the 1980s. We can and do embed functions inside of the network systems that we develop and sometimes we even cross layers if necessary, this is simply pragmatism at work.

Thus the very premise of the end-to-end argument is that this is a matter of tradeoffs and decisions about who bears costs. Engineering decisions are never neutral, the low end theory is political and is competing with different styles in the marketplace. Its emphasis on favouring participation over control simply aims to tilt the marketplace in a direction that encourages externalities to accrue to the end rather than the core. Similarly layer stripping as a design principle in the core is about reducing complexity. In other words, it suggests a strategy for those who run the network about how they can reduce their operating costs and accrue their value in the marketplace.

Lastly I'll note that everybody has to deal with gremlins and parasites and, as Cory Doctorow has noted, "all complex ecosystems have parasites"; they are transaction costs in every marketplace. Things always fall off the back of a lorry, the banking sector tolerates a certain level of fraud etc. Further, these transactions costs are acknowledged upfront in the end-to-end argument. Also, the empirical evidence throughout human history is that silos and walled gardens (from the Berlin Wall to CompuServe) are unsustainable in the long run and that it is shrewd to bet on participation over control (and I hope Burma and North Korea don't give the lie to my optimistic outlook). Still this prognostication is only a small part of Zittrain's remit and perhaps detracts from his wider argument.

I'll acknowledge here that linguistically the generative internet is a good coinage, and perhaps it even works better than End-to-End when pitched to the average congressman. This suggests to me that the enduring value of Zittrain's analysis is likely to be in the branding of the debate. Still as the lawyers and economists gear up and build up their legal frameworks and paraphernalia of economic models to throw at us about the design of networks, we engineers should confront them with prosaic notions of building communities and enabling conversations and marketplaces. I hope the Low End Theory can similarly enrich our vocabulary in this light.

We do have secret weapons in this debate... My grandmother is a surprisingly fierce and effective lobbyist when she puts her mind to it, on topics that sometimes mystify me. Her desire to interact with her progeny and to get on the web to converse with us should not be underestimated. The evidence is clear that she'll even tolerate any amount of spam and the ever-present gremlins and parasites that prevail - in moderation of course. More generally there is the desire to reconnect with old friends (and perhaps old flames), the socialization impulse that lurks in all of us. This is why I try at every opportunity to advocate pragmatism and that we strive to build Sexy Mom Factor Software. Where soccer moms are the demographic the politicians go after, in networks we need to encourage the Grandma Lobby like those cunning financial folks who went after Scottish Widows.

To conclude, participation is winning out over control for the moment, but it is the eternal struggle and I am hoping that the current ascendancy on the internet is not a temporary respite. As with democracy in the Great Game of Politics, eternal vigilance must be our watchword. And to paraphrase he of blood, sweat and tears
End-to-End systems, or Stupid Networks if you like, are the worst form of networks except for all those others that have been tried.
The story is the same as it ever was in the Great Game of Networks and I argue here that the Low End Theory is King, or President, if like me you are a republican (with the lowercase r).

Postscript


I've decided that I like the freedom I've found living within the constraints of a series hence I'll cast this note as part 1 of The Great Game of Networks Series which itself is an offshoot of The Great Game of Technology Series which I hereby retroactively announce. The latter series started last year with some musings on The Great Game of Chips.

Soundtrack


The Low End Theory soundtrack once again comes courtesy of A Tribe Called Quest's 1991 album.

The Low End Theory by A Tribe Called Quest


This time we'll hum along to Jazz (We've Got) and nod our head's to Ron Carter's bass:
Stern firm and young with a laid-back tongue
The aim is to succeed and achieve at the age of 21...

[The internet hit the prime time around the age of 21 with the arrival of the web]

So push it, along, trails, we blaze
Don't deserve the gong, don't deserve the praise...

[innovation and manufactured serendipity continues]

A brand new twist with the homie-alistic
So low-key that ya probably missed it...

[low end should be low key infrastructure]

Competition, dem Phifer come sideway
But competition, dem must come straightway

[violators need not apply, we can see you coming]

I take off my hat to other crews that intend to rock
But the Low End Theory's here, it's time to wreck shop

We've got the Jazz (x4)


So peace to that crew, and peace to this crew
Bring on the tour, we'll see you at a theatre nearest you


Next: Disruptions in Networks. Ergo, what's there to leverage?

Print version

File under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,