Profile

Cover photo
Amir Efrati
Lives in San Francisco
361,861 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Amir Efrati

Shared publicly  - 
 
This is the real story on why #YouTube  is launching a music subscription service (and why it matters), and we include previously undisclosed revenue figures for Google's music initiatives on +Google Play and YouTube:
A forthcoming YouTube music service could be a turning point in the fraught relationship between Google and the major record labels over how consumers get access to digital music and how music creators get paid. The new subscription service, expected to be launched later this quarter, is designed to offer record companies a way to generate more revenue from the massive amount of copyrighted music on YouTube. The offering also could enable Google ...
2
2
Yitzchak Baruch Fishel's profile photoTonya Hall's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
This is important -- Comcast will try to be your wireless carrier in the future. Huge implications for the industry, and for people everywhere, especially if the Time Warner Cable merger goes through.
Google isn’t the only technology giant ;thinking of offering new mobile phone plans to unseat wireless giants. The country’s largest cable operator, Comcast, is laying the groundwork for Wi-Fi-based wireless services just a few years after it abandoned plans to launch conventional mobile phone services over cellular airwaves. Comcast officials recently told people outside the company that it was considering a mobile phone service, which would rel...
1
paul campagna's profile photoAmir Efrati's profile photo
3 comments
 
Already stopped following.

If you are going to post paid content, i suggest you label it as such, so
people like me do not waste their time.

Information needs to be labeled as paid information. Period. Otherwise it
feels like a bait and switch tactic. Do you really want people to feel like
that?

Have a good day, but i'm not going to waste time and see your post because
of this.
Add a comment...

Amir Efrati

Shared publicly  - 
 
A scooplet with your Sunday coffee: +Google recently looked at possibly buying +Square. We have the exclusive and context here:
2
Add a comment...

Amir Efrati

Shared publicly  - 
 
Smart take by +Jessica E. Lessin on why Amazon is promoting services, not apps. A small thing with big implications.
Amazon.com’s new television box provides yet another way to watch TV shows, movies and Web videos from the comfort of your living room. But it also reinforces a paradigm shift that’s already affecting the entire digital content industry. The so-called Amazon Fire TV supports apps from Hulu, Netflix, MLB.tv and others, just as the Apple TV and Roku do. But the e-commerce giant doesn’t promote them as “apps,” a word that’s barely used in the compan...
1
1
Yitzchak Baruch Fishel's profile photo
Add a comment...

Amir Efrati

Shared publicly  - 
 
This is a smart column about fuzzy valuations like that of Uber. We should treat valuations for what they really are.
It is time for the technology industry to change how it discusses company valuations. The press, investors and entrepreneurs have been fixated on some eye-popping numbers. $10 billion for Dropbox. $10 billion for Airbnb. Larger than some large hotel chains! Approaching American Airlines! But those numbers don’t represent the actual value of a company. Rather, they’re an extrapolation based on what a specific investor was willing to pay for a smal...
1
Add a comment...
 
"A single programmer, supported by a few part-time volunteers, is responsible for managing the widely used OpenSSL encryption technology that was recently found to have a major security hole in it—a shocking illustration of the Internet industry’s heavy reliance on poorly funded, open-source Web technology."
A single programmer, supported by a few part-time volunteers, is responsible for managing the widely used OpenSSL encryption technology that was recently found to have a major security hole in it—a shocking illustration of the Internet industry’s heavy reliance on poorly funded, open-source Web technology. The discovery of the so-called Heartbleed security flaw also revived long-standing concerns that the Internet has become an unhealthy “monocul...
4
1
John Collins's profile photoYitzchak Baruch Fishel's profile photo
 
I have been in the software field for decades.  This is not really the result of open-source-is-too-under-resourced.

Throughout the 1990s, Microsoft execs/spokesmen loudly declared the commercial software giant loved to use very small teams to develop their products.  While they raked in many billions of dollars per year, they spent not as much money or people on their major products' programming teams.

In 2001, their CEO was quoted in many articles as saying they would export their programming projects that make/update software products to the cheapest labor corners to continue to decrease their software funding expenditures.  0.0  And their products got hacked by criminals.  Badly.

It's not just a circumstance of open source software by any means.  Huge corporations are unwilling to shower large numbers of top-notch programmers with money.  They do want large numbers of bodies on software teams.  [Why?  Two reasons; one, tons of software development is just renting out labor to a client at an hourly wage x markup rate, and managers are compensated based on how many people they are in charge of not how much money they are paying the people — assuming the managers are not working for free.  Cough.]

Unlike open source teams which can most of the time move at the pace the work demands, big companies are wont to spend much calendar time not just labor time on big projects. [Unless someone else is picking up the tab.]

Of course, their moods swing this way and that.  Microsoft happily announced around 2002-2003 it was not going to be updating/modernizing IE much anymore .  And indeed it didn't.

Firefox came out.  Safari came out.  They soared ahead.  Users switched their ride on the information highway.  Suddenly, Microsoft was feeling by 2007 or so that it was not so cool to be the sole tortoise in a race against vivacious hares.  By 2010, its IE team had gotten dramatically prolific.

So you really cannot even generalize about one company or even one particular software product of one company.  Constants aren't [and variables don't, the saying goes].  Sigh.

Heartbeat is a security issue because that's where the impact is.  But there are axioms across all software and each type of software, and a number of common aspects of most software.

Hiring the wrong QA staff can lead to QA problems. Those could be security problems, but in general that is just one concern among many; gotta tackle them all, not just the flavor of the month.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/13/AR2010071302840.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program

If a crucial flaw in something exists that can lead to great harm, you don't want the already programmed fix for that languishing in your QA department for four to six months — or more — whether that happens by surreptitious intent or sluggish accidents.

That goes whether it is a security issue that someone can exploit, or can do great harm anyway without someone profiting from it and intentionally actualizing it into a manifest disaster.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/22/aurora_exploit_known_months/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Even a one off, one time tactical decision can create a disaster, despite abundant good engineers/engineering/products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_explosion#Thiokol-NASA_conference_call

Sometimes the engineers get the flack instead of kudos they deserve.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_Colloquium1012.html

Sometimes execs take flack for others' mistakes, and get little attention for their own brilliant coups which produce series of what appear as "very lucky" events but took brains, time and effort — even if they didn't build or design the thing everyone buys/uses.

I think you can't really say all open source product projects fly in one flock, and commercial closed source projects fly together in a separate flock.

It really comes down to the team of the moment, those calling the shots, the external pressures/drivers, how they are internally handled, and what resources are available to get put into it at the time that goes into it.

I don't know that in this case, what really disappoints people is that a mistake was made.

I think what brings a shudder and hopefully some thoughtful reflection to software engineers is that the Heartbleed flaw was not caught for two years after it was made, instead of "being caught" sometime before it came out in the initial+subsequent non-beta production releases.  "Not caught" is a problem, something that can be fixed, and not a red-herring.

We kind of need to cultivate predators to hunt these overlooked technical faults ["faults" means technical flaws/impairments not social blame], instead of being gatherers that just collect a lot of the bad stuff but not being remotely sure how much there is or how much has been left unexamined.

Just having something that barked the problem was there — or hadn't been checked for yet, would have been a big help.

Look how many billion+ dollar companies and nations were relying on this software.  If there was a list they were shown and told, "we haven't checked for these things yet against the latest changes" could they have put forth some eyes to look?

Probably.

It's open source, after all — so outside volunteer help would have been allowed to do so too; formally open to look-sees.

To do that for a closed source, proprietary, commercial product would mean getting ensnarled [ironically] in NDAs [NON-disclosure agreements] and made it costly, bureaucratic, cumbersome, and complicated.  Maybe a nation-state would give up and walk away.

If I can volunteer a little observation, the computer industry tends to typecast programmers.

Once they have a little experience and demonstrated aptitude in one area they get pigeonholed as "the guy" to do that.

But what goes to waste, and overlooked, is the guys who have the knowledge/aptitude to do a great job at that "specialty," but are left untried like a good but disused tool in the shed that people do not look around in very often, paying attention to only the few tools they are familiar with and ignoring the rest. [I'm not saying you only need raw talent and no knowledge to be productive in "specialized" areas but having the precursor knowledge and knowing how things look from examining/thinking about it gets you way closer than someone who has not tried or cared.]

Here's another SSL flaw that Apple copped to having in its products just a couple of months ago, back in February.
https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-444.htm
http://www.zdnet.com/major-apple-security-flaw-patch-issued-users-open-to-mitm-attacks-7000026624/

Oh, and not a lot of time separated that Apple SSL problem from an utter breakdown of Microsoft's Azure web service "cloud" caused by a third party software's digital certificate expiring, bringing down Azure Storage which relied upon it for its implementation [so much for the "you don't have to worry how things are implemented in the cloud if you are an end user" marketing tag line], which in turn brought down other crucial Azure services that relied on Azure Storage.

Reminds one of the old Ben Franklin parable about how for want of a nail, a horse's shoe was lost, then it stumbled and broke its leg, and its rider fell and was lost too.  And Ben Franklin never saw a computer or anything electronic in the precise "current" sense of the word today.

Pretty cool that Ben Franklin understood fault=>error=>failure chain of circumstances and could put that aspect of QA [or disaster analysis] in such clear terms.

That broad failure in Azure services brought down a lot of commercial end user services that relied directly on Azure, and perhaps some that relied indirectly upon it and didn't even know it.  They were down for more than a day.

People were told to turn off certificate-checking in their web browsers as a "work around," thought that kind of creates other problems — like the reason we have digital certificates and private keys in the first place!

Starting to see a glimmer of a pattern emerging?

This boring, scary, dry protocol technology that supposedly only experts would want to work on — so supposedly only very few people really should/could read/check it — had glaring flaws that tearing into it with tests, a debugger session, instrumented code, unit tests, or maybe just reading through the source code carefully looking for that thing, probably would have caught.

Should this be only the province of malicious hackers and overworked, pigeonholed experts?  I don't think so.

SSL is not boring this week, thanks to the widely used OpenSSL software.  And SSL was not a dry topic in the press coverage of Apple a mere two months ago either.

Instead of pillorying open source, which basically boils down to a communal or individual charitable effort on behalf of society more often than not, we probably need to draw a bead on what we are missing with our current QA practices.  We are leaving some things out, or not doing them enough.

Checking out big, complicated, behemoths of software packages/modules is a huge job.  But a lot of good techniques out there are not used because so many decision-makers believe they need to find "the best" tool out there and use only it, or "the best" technique and mainly just that.  In chemistry or medical arts, they don't just use one or two kinds of tests or instruments.

There are mountains of great tools, techniques, approaches, to seek out technical faults/errors at QA time in software. There are good techniques to enumerate what you have to, have, and haven't tested too.

Too much focus in recent years has been to only look for failures and only notice failures; gross, impossible-to-overlook, far-from-obscure, immediate, external consequences based on a spec; as opposed to subtle failures at that violate the fundamental principles.  But it is the tiny, hard to see cracks that pests get into — as they are specialized to do so, and primed to thrive in that environment.

Things can go wrong internally or externally that don't get caught when comparing the user instruction manual to the actual behavior of the system.  That's important.  But that's not all that is important.

This is that sort of thing.  Not leaking info is a fundamental rule of a security/privacy thing but it's not a step in the instruction manual, or a display in the end user interface.  It's an intrinsic quality, not a readily visible blemish.

The problem is reductionism; reducing things to as simple as they can be regarded, and then going even further, getting the big picture actually pretty wrong.

Look around on the web right now.  You can already see human intelligence swarming around the notion that you just need to check to see if the web server you connect to for the web page your portal web sites use — so all you need to do is find a magic bullet "tester" program out there that tests for the flawed version of OpenSSL vs. the good version of OpenSSL.  And a notion [180 degrees wrong] that you should  change your password right now [terrible idea, since that means you're giving away your password to anyone able to glimpse the data traffic as the broken SSL will be providing a lot less of a veil then after it is fixed; just don't login let alone change password till its fixed, to be safe].

Being afraid of SSL, or protocols, or open source is falling prey to the same principle Mark Twain warned about a century ago.
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_cat-having_sat_upon_a_hot_stove_lid-will_not/262047.html

Rather than giving the OpenSSL team a hard time, it seems like a great time to give them some help, some tools, some fruits of efforts, etc.

Oh, and the closed source, commercial, proprietary companies doing SSL could use some help too.  Even if their model limits how much of the help you can give the OpenSSL team can be given to these other guys.  But at least they can learn from what OpenSSL gets and does.

Those are the real lessons from all this.

This is a messy problem, and its not just or maybe a mess in the terms of something you clean up.  It's a mess in that you don't know how much dirt has spilled, where it's going to go, or if you're going to be swallowing whatever came about from the spill in the future.

Lay people aren't picking that up, and most of the press is not "getting" that implication either.  There's probably not going to be a decisive, signature moment when we categorically know what did happen either.  We know the 'fault'.  But the 'errors' are out in the world, and we know not how many or how bad or what from.  The failures that are most worrisome might come from there.
Add a comment...

Amir Efrati

Shared publicly  - 
 
Google's M&A train keeps rolling along, scouting for targets. Yesterday it was +Square. Today: +TitanAerospace and +Skybox Imaging.  
Google is looking to the skies. The search giant has been in early talks to buy Skybox Imaging, one of several startups launching small satellites to sell high-resolution imagery to businesses, according to three people familiar with the talks. Google in recent weeks also expressed interest in drone company Titan Aerospace, according to people briefed on the overture, although it is unclear how far the talks have gone. Titan had also been in disc...
4
Nicholas Rumas's profile photo
 
Square would certainly be interesting. The payments space is such a mess right now. I've long loved using Wallet, but its reach is so small that it's just not very useful.
Add a comment...

Amir Efrati

Shared publicly  - 
 
There's nothing Google won't consider. Its transformation into a full-fledged Telco is nearly complete! Check out our in-depth exclusive.
After thrusting itself into competition with U.S. cable operators, Google is inching closer to competing with wireless carriers, too. Google executives in recent months discussed their hope to offer a full-fledged wireless service in markets where it offers Google Fiber Internet and TV service, according to two people who have discussed the matter with Google. Such an offering would mean Google customers in places like Kansas City, Mo. could get ...
4
Add a comment...

Amir Efrati

Shared publicly  - 
 
If you've ever been curious about app preloads, we have oodles of data on where big developers are preloaded/zero-rated around the world.
For mobile app developers, there is one good way to avoid costly ad campaigns ;and still gain the attention of millions of customers: Persuade handset vendors and wireless carriers to preload the app on their phones. More often than not, developers pay for that privilege, though some say it isn’t worth it. And as competition among developers intensifies, even preloads may not be enough to win over users. Developers are pushing to get in front of ...
1
Jacob Hammond's profile photoAmir Efrati's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Jacob Hammond not sure i understand the question. We run TheInformation.com 
Add a comment...
 
We take a stroll through +Marissa Mayer's push to get preload deals for Yahoo apps. It's tough, but AT&T talks may be promising.
As CEO Marissa Mayer labors to revive Yahoo, the inability to get Yahoo apps onto more smartphones has become one of her biggest problems. After revamping the company’s suite of mobile apps, from Web search and email to weather, sports and Flickr, Ms. Mayer has focused on striking deals with handset manufacturers and wireless carriers to pre-install the apps. Customers are more likely to use an app that comes with their phone, and preloaded apps ...
1
Add a comment...
Story
Tagline
Senior reporter at The Information, formerly at Wall Street Journal. Read me at www.theinformation.com.
Introduction
I report. And I like the Internet. Read some of my coverage here: www.theinformation.com
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
San Francisco
Contact Information
Work
Email
Work
Occupation
Senior reporter
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Links
Other profiles
Contributor to