Robert Cringely writes about Google's possible plans:

Google's strengths are searching, development of Open Source Internet services, and running clusters of tens of thousands of servers. Notice on this list there is nothing about operating systems.
...
The same follows for the rumor that Google, as a dark fiber buyer, will turn itself into some kind of super ISP. Won't happen. And WHY it won't happen is because ISPs are lousy businesses and building one as anything more than an experiment (as they are doing in San Francisco with wireless) would only hurt Google's earnings.

So why buy-up all that fiber, then?

The probable answer lies in one of Google's underground parking garages in Mountain View. There, in a secret area off-limits even to regular GoogleFolk, is a shipping container. But it isn't just any shipping container. This shipping container is a prototype data center. Google hired a pair of very bright industrial designers to figure out how to cram the greatest number of CPUs, the most storage, memory and power support into a 20- or 40-foot box. We're talking about 5000 Opteron processors and 3.5 petabytes of disk storage that can be dropped-off overnight by a tractor-trailer rig. The idea is to plant one of these puppies anywhere Google owns access to fiber, basically turning the entire Internet into a giant processing and storage grid.

Don Dodge writes: "GYMA (Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL) will be important players in the next generation of the web, sometimes referred to as Web2.0. It really is a whole new thing. The idea of SaaS (Software as a Service) is to move computing resources off individual PCs and onto the network. To do this you need high bandwidth connections. Nearly everyone has that. But, if you can get data storage near the network access points and a computing infrastructure there as well...Wow! This changes the dynamics significantly."

The New York Times has a commentary by John Battelle on how things are different this time:

First, this time the Web is ready for the dreams of both its innovators and its public. The first version of the Internet - call it Web 1.0 - was long on vision but short on execution and audience. The technology was rudimentary, precious few had broadband connections and starting a business that "scaled" - one that could deal with success and the traffic it brought - was extremely expensive.

The Web has since become a platform, and building new businesses on that platform is no longer a multimillion-dollar proposition. Most new Web businesses nowadays are started with less than half a million dollars, and it's rare to find one that wants to use money from an initial public offering to get to profitability.

Om Malik writes about Cisco's purchase of Scientific Atlanta: "Cisco had data, Cisco had voice, and what it needed was video to complete the triple play. So they bought Scientific Atlanta for $6.9 billion....From a strategic point of view, Cisco needed to fill out its cable portfolio with customer premise gear. Scientific Atlanta with its set-top boxes is a good way to get deeper into cable networks. The company has supplied head-end gear and routers to companies like Comcast for a while now. The set-top box is turning out to be the trojan into digital homes. Combine this with Linksys, and things can certainly get interesting!"

[via VC Circle] Ed Sim writes: "I admire entrepreneurs for the risk they take and the unerring confidence they have in their product and market opportunity. However, what separates some of the great entrepreneurs from the average ones is an ability to acknowledge your weaknesses. As we all know, being an entrepreneur is a difficult job that is 24/7. Creating a new product or service can be draining but also quite rewarding emotionally and financially. Obviously, the last thing you want to hear when you get your initial first customers is to hear that your product has faults. For some entrepreneurs, it is akin to saying 'your baby is ugly.; Well, I have to tell you, I have seen a number of times where companies and entrepreneurs can drink too much of their own Kool-Aid and go quickly from product innovator and market leader to second place."

Umair Haque writes: "Across consumer markets, attention is becoming the scarcest - and so most strategically vital - resource in the value chain. Attention scarcity is fundamentally reshaping the economics of most industries it touches; beginning with the media industry...Why does attention become relatively scarce in a Media 2.0 world? Fundamentally, because 2.0 technologies create a Cambrian Explosion in number and kind of media – a micromedia explosion. Since its birth, media has been limited in number and in kind. But cheaply networked digital technologies, on the other hand, are producing vast amounts of entirely new kinds of media – more than have ever concurrently been seen before."

Poverty is one of India’s (and the world’s) biggest challenges. What can be done about it? Can we get to a world where we can ensure that everyone has a decent life? This is what Jeffrey Sachs’ book “The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time” discusses.

The Amazon review provides an introduction: “Celebrated economist Jeffrey Sachs has a plan to eliminate extreme poverty around the world by 2025. If you think that is too ambitious or wildly unrealistic, you need to read this book. His focus is on the one billion poorest individuals around the world who are caught in a poverty trap of disease, physical isolation, environmental stress, political instability, and lack of access to capital, technology, medicine, and education. The goal is to help these people reach the first rung on the ‘ladder of economic development’ so they can rise above mere subsistence level and achieve some control over their economic futures and their lives. To do this, Sachs proposes nine specific steps, which he explains in great detail in The End of Poverty. Though his plan certainly requires the help of rich nations, the financial assistance Sachs calls for is surprisingly modest--more than is now provided, but within the bounds of what has been promised in the past. For the U.S., for instance, it would mean raising foreign aid from just 0.14 percent of GNP to 0.7 percent. Sachs does not view such help as a handout but rather an investment in global economic growth that will add to the security of all nations. In presenting his argument, he offers a comprehensive education on global economics, including why globalization should be embraced rather than fought, why international institutions such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank need to play a strong role in this effort, and the reasons why extreme poverty exists in the midst of great wealth. He also shatters some persistent myths about poor people and shows how developing nations can do more to help themselves.”

Here is an excerpt from an interview of Sachs in Mother Jones:

MJ: What do you say to critics who argue that it's a waste to put more money into a development system that hasn't used that money very effectively thus far?

JS: Well, we have to be smart about whatever we're doing. But I'm quite convinced that, broadly speaking, economic development works. The main arguments of the Millennium Project Report, and the main argument of my book is that there are certain places on the planet that, because of various circumstances—geographical isolation, burden of disease, climate, or soil—these countries just can't quite get started. So it's a matter of helping them get started, whether to grow more food or to fight malaria or to handle recurring droughts. Then, once they're on the first rung of the ladder of development, they'll start climbing just like the rest of the world.
…
MJ: What about aid being sent to countries that have a serious problem with corruption? Some have argued that large amounts of aid will merely prop up those regimes. Can poverty be eradicated while corrupt politicians are in office?

JS: My experience is that there's corruption everywhere: in the U.S., in Europe, in Asia, and in Africa. It's a bit like infectious disease—you can control it, but it's very hard to eradicate it….But, let me note that the world successfully eradicated small pox, and not just in countries that scored high on a governance index but in all parts of the world. This was an international effort which targeted a specific outcome undertaken by professionals using a proven technology and a very extensive monitoring system. And that's the general model for our aid proposals. Nothing is done on trust. Everything should be done on a basis of measurement and monitoring. When you really focus, there are so many ways to be clever about how to do this to make it work better. Don't just send money; send bed nets, send in auditors, make targets quantitative. There are a lot of tricks, a lot of ways, that if one is practical about this, one can get results.

Tomorrow: Collapse