Y.Z.'s Profile

Very accurate description of how SFDC changed the way companies operate.
In my former job, I was fortunate enough to see that, as we move ahead, the new challenge SFDC is considering tackling the IoT revolution.
By leveraging the internet of things (dubbed the SFDC IoT Cloud), SFDC offers storing and analyzing real-time data, and then integrating it with the company’s core customer relationship management product, hence making its data more valuable (think all kinds of connected devices, mobile apps, and websites).

Great article ! I admire how India is tackling this issue, and in my opinion doing so with way more challenges to overcome that Kenya or other Africans countries ever faced. (principally due to scale)
One thing comes to mind though, on which I would love to get your perspective. As is the case in other emerging countries, governments had to set up a handful of processes and countermeasures to address a large number of potential threats. One of these threats is money laundering.

How does the Indian government make sure that mobile payments don’t become the global money-laundering machine that criminals have dreamed about (as tended to be the case in Latin America a few years ago) ?

Ross, this article is a great way to capture one of the most significant digital disruptions out there.
If you’ll allow me, I would be curious to get your take on a serendipity of the small revolution Netflix started by becoming a content creator.
It used to be that TV shows were all written to accomodate what is called “mini cliff hangers” every 10 minutes or so. All Hollywood writers used this as a technique to have the end user sit through the commercial break dying to see what is next to happen on the show, once the break is over.

Netflix by becoming its own content provider to some extent, shattered this constraint and by doing so, allowed for a more “linear” writing in the shows it produced. TV/Streaming commercials represent a huge business, as future TV shows evolve to follow more a linear plot as in House of Cards, this is another business Netflix might be destroying without even noticing it.

Ellyn,
I think your blogpost is covering a topic that will become more and more important in the years to come, as we constantly face the risks of infringement on our rights vs. the expected reward of safety and security.
However, as showcased by the likes of Edward Snowden, “we the people” have never really been given a choice by our governments.
The so called war on terror has taken us astray and shifted our attention towards “protection” at all costs. Ironically, this same path is the one leading us to less freedom; freedom which modern societies have spent hundreds of years to achieve.
The sinister state attempts to keep close watch on citizens will unequivocally put a strain on that. Whether it will actually keep us “safe”, however, we can only hope.

As a tech-passionate myself this does indeed sound like an alluring future of air travel.
However, LCY and other airports around the globe still face a significant challenge before we can expect a full implementation.
One main reason for that would be that IoT still involves questions we don’t have answers too yet.
As the FTC recently uncovered in its report about IoT (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/ftc-report-internet-things-urges-companies-adopt-best-practices) each of the electronic devices and relating softwares represents a potential entry point for a network attack by either insiders, hackers or criminals.

Furthermore, according to these recent studies, more than two thirds of the most commonly used IoT devices face significant security vulnerabilities. It seems then that before allowing this technological leap-frog, we ought to ascertain that users and countries hosting these airports are not handing away the keys of the castle to any ill-intentioned group out there.

I am appalled about the fact that Africa only hosts one single hub.
Provided, the continent is by far the largest continent most in need of such disaster relief programs should they be needed ; I am seriously concerned about the way the UN is going to address any potential drawback as it is.

Very interesting topic to cover, and especially troubling since the system the DoD is trying to protect can be the very hurdle that stops it from implementing a fitting policy. As stated by mmd, Senior officials and congress can very much hinder this process as they so please.
I would even go as far as saying that the ripple effets of a mismanaged climate change in some regions (the Middle East for instance), could very well end up worsening what is felt today as a more “real” threat the Pentagon should be focused on.

Very insightful article. As I pause a second, to reflect on what I have just read, I do however reckon that this is not just about data centers.
Google is certainly using renewable energy to its advantage and to address the issues you accurately outlined; but when I read about their other projects around the globe – for instance testing solar-powered drones to beam 5G Internet in poorly covered countries – I see this as a potential game changer for the industry as a whole.

Google and the likes stand to gain from being available to and used by everybody, hence their new mastery in renewable energy could be leveraged to address emerging countries with poor internet and/or technological access.

Following up on Mary’s comment, as much as I can understand the strong interest your proposed solution sparks, I remain very dubious as to how such an endeavor could be achieved.

Let me draw a comparison with a similar company, for instance french TOTAL. Over the last couple of years, Total acquired stakes in solar energy and energy storage services. It also showed some strong interest in a battery company. The idea was that, eventually, this approach would create a vertically integrated renewable energy giant of the future, replacing big oil. But that’s just it, the emphasis is on “replacing”. Total is initiating a radical shift for its future. It decided to change its core business over time. The company brings to the table what most renewable energy companies lack : capital. By doing so, it establishes itself not anymore as an O&G company, but as a broader energy provider.

Going from black to green, is a long, arduous process. But it seems to me highly to be able to mix the two under the same roof indefinitely. At the end of the day, the company needs to know where it stands and which “path” it chooses to follow.

A few years ago, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook publicly declared to investors caring only about profits to “get out of the stock.” This was in reaction to a dissident comment about Apple’s new strategy regarding renewable energy, that you accurately outlined.
However, Apple is not investing in solar energy merely as a gift to humanity. At the end of the day, Apple is doing it because it’s still a good business deal. As the company officially declared, it is expected that they would make “very significant savings”.
To that regard, last summer, Apple has been allowed by US federal regulators to sell excess electricity generated by three of its major solar projects. This could suggest that Apple has bigger ambitions than expected. Imagine, a world where Apple provides electricity to regular individuals, who can pay their bills in the same place they check out the latest iPhone.

If history serves as any example, Apple always had a card up its sleeve. I am curious to see this one through. Whatever the outcome, however, one needs to recognize that Apple just demonstrated to all the pundits that it can be achieve both purpose and profit at the same time.