JouleX, based in Atlanta, is a closely held provider of energy-management products for enterprise networks and data center infrastructures.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

One of the great pleasures of producing D is that every year the discussion is different, because the technology, Internet and media businesses are so dynamic. But, as we convene this, the 11th edition of our conference, the digital world is indisputably at an inflection point: The PC has peaked, and it’s all about post-PC mobile devices, software and services. That means smartphones and tablets, for now, with wearable devices coming on strong.

Our D speakers and attendees have been talking about this trend for years, long before Apple’s Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in January of 2007. But this year, we gather just about six weeks after the report of the worst quarterly decline in PC sales ever recorded, while sales of smartphones and tablets continue to surge. Android devices, which didn’t exist until late 2008, cover the earth, and Apple alone has sold more than 140 million tablets since April of 2010. And Samsung seems to be everywhere.

It’s no surprise, then, that everyone’s new slogan is “mobile first!”

This change has staggering implications for companies ranging from unknown software startups to the “Gang of Four” platform giants identified by Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt at D9 — Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google — and the giant he didn’t list, Microsoft.

What happens to huge companies like Dell and Hewlett-Packard that lack much of a post-PC or mobile presence? Can the company that kicked off the new era, Apple, maintain its reputation for innovation in the post-Jobs era under the onslaught of the Android juggernaut?

Can Google maintain control of its Android platform in the face of Samsung’s power and Amazon’s refusal to use Google’s apps? Can Facebook’s aggressive new mobile strategy succeed? Will Amazon do as well at phones and other devices as it appears to have done at tablets? And can Microsoft become the third big platform player with Windows 8 and Windows Phone? If not, does BlackBerry have a shot?

And more: Will wearable devices that go beyond fitness bands, such as Google Glass, be the next historic game-changers? Or will they remain niche products?

Most of all, how does the mobile surge and the wearable promise change user behavior, entertainment and productivity? What will be the impact on society?

Finally, given all these sweeping changes, can anybody other than a few big companies make real money in mobile?

We’ll discuss these questions and more with a stellar lineup of speakers, one that we’re especially proud to have sit in our signature red chairs this year.

Leading off will be Apple CEO Tim Cook, leader of arguably still the most influential tech giant, but one that faces the challenges of high expectations and its fiercest competition in years. Has Apple lost its cool, or is it just secretly readying its next big surprise to take the world by storm?

Apple’s nemesis, Google, will be represented by Sundar Pichai, who recently took over the Android platform in addition to his longtime leadership of Chrome and Google’s apps. Will he combine the two platforms? How can he balance Android’s open-source roots with the need for Google to make money off the platform?

We’ll also welcome back Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who is not only helping to steer a hugely important company trying to conquer mobile, but also inspiring millions of women with her “Lean In” book and larger project.

Twitter’s smart and funny CEO, Dick Costolo, will also return to the D stage to talk about the future of his iconic service, especially on mobile. And Ben Silbermann, the co-founder of Pinterest, another social networking success story, will make his D debut.

Elon Musk, who is merely a pioneer of both the electric car and private space-flight industries, will take our stage for the first time. We wonder: What has he done for us lately?

And to answer the question of what’s up at Google’s hardware arm, Motorola, we’ll have its CEO, Dennis Woodside, and his advanced research chief, Regina Dugan, who wowed the crowd at D9 when she appeared as the head of DARPA, the Pentagon’s futuristic research arm.

Since speech is a core, vital technology in the mobile era, we’ll welcome Paul Ricci, CEO of speech giant Nuance. Will he recognize our accents?

The CEO of General Electric, Jeff Immelt, will talk about how the digital revolution affects traditional corporate giants. And Tom Staggs, who heads Disney’s theme parks, will show off the latest technology being used by visitors to navigate the iconic destinations.

Recently departed Windows chief Steven Sinfosky, who also ran Microsoft’s Office division, will share his thoughtful views on the new post-PC landscape.

For another look at the overall landscape, we’ll have Kleiner Perkins partner Mary Meeker walk us through her famous annual Internet report. And PayPal co-founder Max Levchin will show off his latest project, which links technology and anatomy.

This year, we’ll also have some pairings of speakers we think will yield interesting insights. Aaron Levie, the CEO of Box, the well-known enterprise cloud-storage firm, will appear jointly with John Chambers, CEO of enterprise tech giant Cisco.

The CEO of Sony, Kazuo Hirai, will be joined by Jed York, the boss of the San Francisco 49ers, to talk about the intersection of tech and sports. From the entertainment world, we’ll have a trio of managers of famous stars, who have been investing in tech in a big way: Troy Carter, chairman and CEO of the Atom Factory; Guy Oseary, partner of A-Grade Investments; and Scooter Braun, founder of SB Projects. Respectively, the three manage Lady Gaga, Madonna and Justin Bieber.

The witty and sharp Barry Diller, who knows the traditional entertainment and Internet businesses inside and out, will be back, no doubt to defend his right, via his latest venture Aereo, to stream broadcast television. And new CNN boss Jeff Zucker will join him to discuss the future of all TV.

We’ll have Anne Sweeney, co-chair of Disney Media Networks and president of the Disney/ABC Television Group, paired with I. Marlene King, creator and executive producer of ABC’s tech-savvy hit show “Pretty Little Liars.”

Finally, we have a fascinating lineup of demos, including not one, but two companies that focus on another emerging post-PC segment: The Internet of Things.

So buckle up and get ready to enjoy, learn and network. It’s time for D once again.

In case you missed anything, here’s a quick roundup of the news that powered AllThingsD this week:

1. As AllThingsD’s Kara Swisher and Peter Kafka were first to report this week, Yahoo is seriously thinking about buying hipster blogging service Tumblr. In fact, Yahoo’s board is scheduled to consider a $1.1 billion all-cash deal on Sunday.
2. Google wanted to dominate the headlines this week during the company’s annual I/O conference … just maybe not like this. By sending Microsoft a cease-and-desist, they helped promote that rival’s anti-Google campaign.
3. That little drama didn’t come up during the official proceedings of I/O, but a lot else did. Here’s a rundown of all the news Google announced in its three-and-a-half-hour opening keynote.
4. Watch this: An interview with Bill Gates, in which the Microsoft founder talks about his longtime relationship with Steve Jobs, on “60 Minutes.”
5. Can productivity apps for the iPad make it as useful as a traditional work PC? Walt Mossberg puts them to the test.
6. Speaking of the iPad, the Justice Department is closing in on Apple with an e-book price fixing case … but one of the seemingly most damning pieces of evidence, a line from a letter from Steve Jobs to James Murdoch, is a little less damning in context.
7. Web video services like Amazon, HBO and Hulu all say they’re seeing significant growth. But is anyone cutting into Netflix’s lead? A new report says: Nope!
8. BlackBerry is bringing its messenger application, BBM, to iPhones and Android phones this summer. But is it too late?
9. Cisco’s earnings only barely beat analysts’ expectations this week, but that beat sent the company’s stock up 9 percent in after-hours trading. Arik Hesseldahl got CEO John Chambers on the phone to talk about where Cisco is and where it’s going.
10. And lastly, if you want more battery life out of your iPhone on the go, you may have considered a special re-juicing case. Product reviewer Lauren Goode tries the battery boosters before you buy.

To stay on top of the latest, follow AllThingsD on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to our daily email newsletter.

Earnings on a per-share basis were 51 cents on sales of $12.2 billion. Both numbers beat the consensus of Wall Street analysts, who had expected earnings of 49 cents on sales of $12.18 billion.

Gross margins were 63 percent, which is about flat from the year-ago quarter. Sales in the Americas grew the most and were flat or slightly down in EMEA and Asia. Chambers said on the conference call with analysts, which is just getting under way, that sales in emerging countries showed “double digit” growth on a percentage basis.

Overall sales grew 5 percent. Here’s a snapshot from Cisco’s presentation slides, showing sales in various segments. As you can see, the data center business continues to grow like crazy, but it’s still a relatively small segment within Cisco. Service provider video grew nicely as well, as did the wireless segment. Switching, a key segment, was down. Chambers said that was because of weaknesses in Europe and in public sector spending generally.

CFO Frank Calderoni said the company expects fourth-quarter sales to grow year on year in the range of 4 percent to 7 percent, which works out to about $12.2 billion to $12.5 billion in sales, which is more or less in line with what the Street expects. He said gross margins will be 61 percent to 62 percent. He said he sees per-share earnings to come in between 50 cents and 52 cents versus a consensus view of 51 cents.

Cisco shares are rising in after-hours trading. They’re at $22.04, up nearly 4 percent, having closed at $21.21 during the regular session.

Here’s Cisco’s original announcement.

Cisco Reports Third Quarter Earnings
SAN JOSE, CA — May 15, 2013 – Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO)

Q3 Net Sales: $12.2 billion (increase of 5% year over year)
Q3 Earnings per Share: $0.46 GAAP; $0.51 non-GAAP

Cisco, the worldwide leader in networking that transforms how people connect, communicate and collaborate, today reported its third quarter results for the period ended April 27, 2013. Cisco reported third quarter net sales of $12.2 billion, net income on a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis of $2.5 billion or $0.46 per share, and non-GAAP net income of $2.7 billion or $0.51 per share.

“Cisco is executing at a very high level in a slow, but steady economic environment. We are especially pleased with our ninth consecutive record revenue quarter. We are starting to see some good signs in the US and other parts of the world which are encouraging,” stated Cisco Chairman and CEO John Chambers. “We have the right products, the right solutions and our customers are coming to us to solve their biggest business problems. The pace of change is increasing and Cisco is well positioned.”

Chambers continued, “We have always believed that the Internet will revolutionize the way we work, live, play, and learn. This has never been truer than it is today, with cloud, mobility and video all coming together to deliver the Internet of Everything and unprecedented new opportunities for businesses and consumers. We’re excited about the future.”

GAAP Results

Q3 2013 Q3 2012 Vs. Q3 2012
Net Sales $ 12.2 billion $ 11.6 billion 5.4 %
Net Income $ 2.5 billion $ 2.2 billion 14.5 %
Earnings per Share $ 0.46 $ 0.40 15.0 %

Non-GAAP Results

Q3 2013 Q3 2012 Vs. Q3 2012
Net Income $ 2.7 billion $ 2.6 billion 4.7 %
Earnings per Share $ 0.51 $ 0.48 6.3 %

Net sales for the first nine months of fiscal 2013 were $36.2 billion, compared with $34.4 billion for the first nine months of fiscal 2012. Net income for the first nine months of fiscal 2013, on a GAAP basis, was $7.7 billion or $1.44 per share, compared with $6.1 billion or $1.13 per share for the first nine months of fiscal 2012. Non-GAAP net income for the first nine months of fiscal 2013 was $8.0 billion or $1.50 per share, compared with $7.5 billion or $1.38 per share for the first nine months of fiscal 2012.

A reconciliation between net income on a GAAP basis and non-GAAP net income is provided in the table on page 6.

Cisco will discuss third quarter results and business outlook on a conference call and webcast at 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time today. Call information and related charts are available at http://investor.cisco.com.

Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments

Cash flows from operations were $3.1 billion for the third quarter of fiscal 2013, compared with $3.3 billion for the second quarter of fiscal 2013, and compared with $3.0 billion for the third quarter of fiscal 2012.

Cash and cash equivalents and investments were $47.4 billion at the end of the third quarter of fiscal 2013, compared with $46.4 billion at the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2013, and compared with $48.7 billion at the end of fiscal 2012.

Dividends and Stock Repurchase Program

During the third quarter of fiscal 2013:

The combination of cash used for dividends and common stock repurchases under the stock repurchase program totaled approximately $1.8 billion.

Cisco paid a cash dividend of $0.17 per common share, or $905 million.

Cisco repurchased approximately 41 million shares of common stock under the stock repurchase program at an average price of $20.85 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $860 million. As of April 27, 2013, Cisco had repurchased and retired 3.8 billion shares of Cisco common stock at an average price of $20.35 per share for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $77.7 billion since the inception of the stock repurchase program. The remaining authorized amount for stock repurchases under this program is approximately $4.3 billion with no termination date.

“We executed as we said we would, achieving our revenue and profitability objectives,” stated Frank Calderoni, executive vice president and chief financial officer. “We are moving the business forward by executing on our strategy of driving long-term value to our shareholders.”

Select Global Business Highlights

Cisco completed the acquisition of privately held Intucell, Ltd., a provider of advanced self-optimizing network (SON) software solutions that enable mobile carriers to plan, configure, manage, optimize, and heal cellular networks automatically, according to changing network demands.
Cisco announced and completed the acquisition of Cognitive Security, a privately-held company headquartered in Prague, Czech Republic. Cognitive Security’s solution integrates a range of sophisticated software technologies to identify and analyze key IT security threats through advanced behavioral analysis of real-time data.
Cisco announced its intent to acquire SolveDirect, a privately held company headquartered in Vienna, Austria that provides innovative, cloud-delivered services management integration software and services.
Cisco announced its intent to acquire privately held Ubiquisys, a leading provider of intelligent 3G and long-term evolution (LTE) small-cell technologies that provide seamless connectivity across mobile heterogeneous networks for service providers.

Cisco Innovation

Cisco unveiled its new IP Interoperability and Collaboration System (IPICS) solution, a new set of multivendor, interoperable communications capabilities for operations and dispatch centers across government and enterprise industries.
Cisco announced its Cisco Integrated Services Router with Application Experience (ISR-AX), which converges routing, security technologies and a comprehensive suite of application-level services into a single-box solution designed to deliver the essential services needed at branch offices.
Cisco introduced its next-generation 100 Gigabit CMOS-based transceiver, Cisco CPAK™, the industry’s most compact and power-efficient 100 Gps transceiver technology, designed to reduce space and power requirements by more than 70 percent compared with alternative transceiver form factors, such as CFP.
Cisco introduced product innovations for data center and cloud environments including the following: highest-density 40-gigabit Layer 2/3 fixed switch; simplest hybrid cloud solution; and expansion of the Cisco® Open Network Environment with the most extensible controller.
Cisco announced new Cisco Unified Access™ solutions that simplify network design by converging wired and wireless networks.

Select Customer Announcements

Vodafone Netherlands, the second largest telecom service provider in the Netherlands, deployed the Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) Service Manager — enabling it to increase scalability and service velocity for its enterprise customers.
Cisco announced that MetroPCS Communications began a commercial launch of its Cisco Carrier-Grade Internet Protocol Version 6 Solution as a first step in the transition of its mobile Internet network to Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6).
Cisco announced that GET, a leading cable operator in Norway, selected the Cisco Videoscape™ Unity video services delivery platform to transform its TV service and enable the deployment of next-generation entertainment experiences, including personalized and synchronized TV across multiple devices.
Cisco announced that SFR, a leading mobile telecommunications provider in France, selected Cisco to expand and enhance its mobile Internet network in order to accelerate the deployment of advanced 4G LTE services to its customers.
Cisco announced that Turkcell, the leading communications and technology company in Turkey with more than 35 million subscribers, has deployed the Cisco ASR 5000 Series as the foundation for its advanced mobile Internet network.

A wide range of companies — from Cisco rival Juniper Networks Inc. to tech juggernaut International Business Machines Corp. — have caught investors off guard in recent weeks as corporate belt-tightening saps their growth.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

VMware is perhaps the best example of this phenomenon. No longer is the company positioning itself as simply a pioneer of server virtualization, but rather it is now betting its future on the broader software-defined data center. VMware dominates the server-virtualization market (its technology lets a company run hundreds of virtual servers on one physical server). It’s no surprise, then, to see VMware accelerate its R&D schedules and M&A activity to extend its technology portfolio to also seize the infrastructure and storage markets that are up for grabs in the new software-defined data center.

In a major bid to own the leading infrastructure play in the new software-defined data center, VMware last summer acquired software-defined networking pioneer Nicira for $1.26 billion. That is a staggering sum that becomes even more impressive when one considers that, by most estimates, Nicira was generating less than $10M in sales. As part of its strategy to bite off a small piece of the emerging software-defined storage space, VMware also recently acquired Virsto for an undisclosed sum.

The rationale behind these acquisitions comes into clearer focus when you consider the larger opportunity posed by the software-defined data center. As data center workloads increasingly become virtualized, it makes sense that VMware, which already enjoys a market cap of more than $30 billion, look for ways to increase its role in managing the broader data center infrastructure.

So, with all of this in mind, what actually makes up the Software-Defined Data Center — and which companies stand to gain the most in each area?

Components of the Software-Defined Data Center

The concept of the software-defined data center revolves around making the three major infrastructure components of a data center (compute/server, networking and storage) more flexible, more automated and less dependent on the underlying physical hardware. The idea is to create a pool of available resources that can automatically adapt to changing workloads and ensure that the right resources are available whenever and wherever needed. When you look at the compute/server space, virtualization forever changed the way applications are deployed, and the dominant force behind this is VMware. While VMware has established itself as the market leader in server virtualization, offerings from Microsoft, Citrix and Red Hat are beginning to carve out sizable market share, as well. With almost 70 percent of workloads today running on virtualized servers according to IDC, this is certainly the most evolved component of the software-defined data center to date.

Networking

In the wake of the Nicira deal, along with major announcements from Cisco, Juniper and other networking giants, software-defined networking has become perhaps the next focal point of the software-defined data center discussion today. While not as mature as the server/compute side, the software-defined networking market is expected to grow; IDC predicts from $360 million in 2013 annual sales to $3.7 billion by 2016.

Cisco, which has long dominated the networking market and has a valuation of over $111 billion, has started to face new competition from startup companies like Nicira and Big Switch Networks, which designed their products for today’s virtualized IT environment. To go after this market, Cisco has invested $100M in a “spin-in” company called Insieme Networks. Cisco clearly views software-defined networking as one of the most significant technologies to emerge in decades.

Storage

The last component of the software-defined data center is storage, which is not coincidentally the trickiest part of the equation. The storage layer has traditionally been the laggard of the data center, and most venture capital firms have feared investing in startup storage companies due to the stronghold on the market enjoyed by technology giants like EMC, NetApp, HP and IBM. This has changed in recent years, however. The rise of virtualization and, more recently, cost-effective flash technology, has spurred a storage renaissance — today, storage is one of the hottest markets for venture investors.

The increased investment sexiness of storage helps explain the success of Fusion-io, which created a new memory tier based on flash technology. The company went public in June 2011, and is valued at more than $1.5 billion. Because of the huge impact of flash technology, some of the big legacy storage vendors have been looking for acquisitions to help modernize their product portfolio. Last summer, EMC acquired XtremIO for $400 million dollars to add flash to its own storage portfolio. However, flash is just one component of software-defined storage.

Flash is a very disruptive technology that has paved the way for dozens of new entrants into the storage market, but flash by itself doesn’t address the complexity and data management issues created in virtual environments. Most major storage vendors created their product architectures before virtualization even existed, meaning they were originally built for a physical world where application workloads were discrete, known and predictable. Indeed, many of the new storage startups have continued using the same architectures, albeit with faster flash storage rather than spinning disks. The problem is that the software-defined data center is possible only with virtualization. And adding new layers of software on top of these legacy architectures is an inefficient way to deal with the problem.

The move to the software-defined data center is the major technology shift of this decade, just as virtualization was in the 2000s and the Internet was in the 1990s. Like those previous shifts, there is a wealth of new opportunities for companies both new and old. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out — and, rest assured, this race has a long way to go.

Dr. Kieran Harty is a co-founder of Tintri Inc. and serves as its chairman and chief executive officer. Harty served as an executive vice president of engineering and R&D at VMware, and has more than 15 years of engineering and management experience with high tech companies. Before VMware, he was vice president of R&D at Visigenic/Borland and chief scientist at TIBCO. Harty has a PhD in electrical engineering from Stanford University and a master’s degree in computer science from Trinity College Dublin.

Hewlett-Packard made a big move in that direction today, announcing a series of switches that support OpenFlow, open source software that makes routers and switches programmable and thus a lot more flexible.

The news gave me an opportunity to catch up with Bethany Mayer, HP’s senior vice president and general manager for networking. We talked about HP’s plans around SDN:

AllThingsD: Bethany, put simply, what is SDN all about, as HP sees it?

Mayer: The idea is that we’re trying to create more automation, less constraint, and have the network be more abstracted so that there are few manual processes in the data center. It’s meant to bring more simplification and flexibility to the data center. In all of these products we have enabled OpenFlow. We now have 40 platforms that are OpenFlow-enabled. And we have about 20 million ports out there in the marketplace today that are OpenFlow-ready.

How is the state of HP’s networking business, generally?

Backward-looking, we now have 13 quarters of year-over-year growth under our belt. So we’ve continued to grow the business. Our SDN strategy is getting a lot of interest in the industry. I just recently spoke at the Open Networking Summit. The amount of interest has been very high. We had about 60 customers in our SDN beta, and they’re really excited about the applications we’ve created. No one else has created a security application, a load-balancing application, so things have been very good.

And how do you see the competitive landscape? HP is a distant No. 2, but a solid N0. 2 to Cisco Systems. Do you see yourself taking business away from Cisco, or is it more complicated than that?

We’ve continued to take market share in the industry over the last several quarters, and we’ve also maintained our No. 1 position as an enterprise networking vendor in China.

And HP tends to play mostly in the enterprise networking space, but you don’t play in the carrier-class and telecom networking market where Cisco tends to dominate, correct?

That’s correct, however I would say that with this virtual services router that we just announced, that offers us some inroads in the service provider market, because there are new capabilities they are looking for, something called network services virtualization, where they are trying to virtualize functions like routing and switching, security and load balancing. The capabilities that we’re bringing to the table with this announcement makes them very interested. This allows them the ability to move toward virtualizing their networks, and avoid the amounts of money they pay for their expensive proprietary switches and routers. Our focus for disrupting the networking industry is via open standards and simplification. That’s generating strong interest from the service providers. They don’t want to spend the money on the more expensive switches and routers. The point is to help these customers break the proprietary lock, help them make their networks more agile, and meet the new needs of their networks.

Greenpeace praised Google and SoftBank for their energy investments (Google has funded $1 billion in clean energy projects since 2010) and legislative advocacy. Cisco won praise for its long-term commitments to move away from coal.

Meanwhile, Wipro and Sprint worked on behalf of renewable energy legislation in India and the U.S. over the past year.

Hewlett-Packard is credited for increasing its products’ energy efficiency by 50 percent since 2005. And way down in 12th place, Microsoft is described as “most improved” for its work on wind energy tax incentives, though it was dinged for giving money to fossil fuel lobbying groups.

Greenpeace’s scoring system is somewhat opaque (it’s explained in detail here), but it evaluates operations, products and pro-green advocacy. With a total possible score of 100, Google and Cisco tied, with 58 points each.

But, um, aren’t there a few tech companies missing here? Greenpeace said it did not include Apple, Facebook and Amazon in the report “because their operations are not broad enough to be compared to companies who offer energy solutions to climate change as core aspects of their business models” — though that seems a bit arbitrary, especially if Google is being counted. Apple, especially, has tussled with Greenpeace in the past over descriptions of its energy usage.

There is but one remedy for the Glass wearer — a bucket of ice water in the face whenever you suspect he has taken you unawares

With the public beta launch of Google Glass, there has been a lot of discussion on why it will or won’t fail. The ultimate benchmark for success is high: After someone has tried Glass, can they imagine life without it?

It’s the wrong question.

Glass is Google’s unintentional public service announcement on the future of privacy. Our traditional bogeyman for privacy was Big Brother and its physical manifestation — closed-circuit TV — but the reality today is closer to what I call Little Sister, and she is socially active, curious, sufficiently tech-savvy, growing up in the land of “free,” getting on with life and creating a digital exhaust that is there for the taking. The sustained conversation around Glass will be sufficient to lead to a societal shift in how we think about the ownership of data, and to extrapolate a bit, the kind of cities we want to live in. For me, the argument that Glass is somehow inherently nefarious misses a more interesting point: It is a physical and obvious manifestation of things that already exist and are widely deployed today, whose lack of physical, obvious presence has limited a mainstream critical discourse.

As a product that is both on-your-face and in-your-face, Glass is set to become a lightning rod for a wider discussion around what constitutes acceptable behavior in public and private spaces. The Glass debate has already started, but these are early days; each new iteration of hardware and functionality will trigger fresh convulsions. In the short term, Glass will trigger anger, name-calling, ridicule and the occasional bucket of thrown water (whether it’s ice water, I don’t know). In the medium term, as societal interaction with the product broadens, signs will appear in public spaces guiding mis/use¹ and lawsuits will fly, while over the longer term, legislation will create boundaries that reflect some form of im/balance between individual, corporate and societal wants, needs and concerns.

So Shoot Me

Of all of the companies and organisations that could bring Glass to market, I’m pleased that Google is the one making a significant investment: A company with a recent record of genuine innovation that stretches/defines social and behavioral norms² with a strong revenue stream and deep enough pockets to have a fighting chance of medium to long-term success. It also helps that the project is considered of strategic importance, and has key executive sponsorship. Less obvious, but no less relevant in this equation, is that the company has a lot to lose, is no longer the media darling, has fucked up enough times in public to know it can do so again (and again), has been humbled by more nimble competitors, has experienced talent drain and understands the impact of this on its culture and its bottom line. Of course, Google can financially afford to fail again: Experimentation and failure is a critical part of its DNA, but while privacy-snafu fines are low, the internal and external cultural costs of Glass failing are high.

All technology challenges the status quo, and if a technology is noticed by consumers/users/constituents at all, it presents for some an opportunity and for others a threat. The perceived and actual threat from Glass comes not from crimes against taste. (Many have commented on the perceived inelegance of the design.) Google’s design team appears to have done a sterling job, if you assume that particular design direction and constraints. Our sense of what is tasteful succeeds or fails as part of a far broader narrative, which they, too, are exploring. Yes, you can find a hundred and one designs of “wearable computing” from the past decade that look similar, but very few are packing the same experience into the same form factor. However, as a connected, sensing object, it is capable of recording and transmitting photos, video and sound directly through content analysis or indirectly through proximate connected devices, other data such as location, temperature, trajectory and so on. In other words, in a worst/best case scenario it could record and measure “everything,” and associate that data to a person. How will this play out?

I want you to try a little experiment. Find somewhere where you can sit and observe people interact with one another. Pick somewhere just out of the throng — the edge of a cafe looking in, a park bench, a doorway close to a market. It’s easier if you choose somewhere you don’t know so well, you’ll have less to unlearn.

Give yourself 30 minutes to view and reflect upon the scene in front of you: Who visits that space, and why; the differences in ritual greetings, and indeed whether or not a person is greeted; how people project who they are; things that signify status and social hierarchy; where objects are placed; the level of interaction with those objects when not in use. What can you see being documented online or off? What can you imagine being documented? Pay particular attention to things that fit your definition of “technology” and reflect upon the things in front of you that once fit this definition but no longer do (my list of were-once-technologies includes the pencil, the wristwatch and the smartphone).

If you’re close enough to other people, you’ll overhear conversations plus bits of conversations that the speakers will allow you to hear, raised, projected, sotto voce and in whispers, combined with body language all serving to emphasize what is said, and the intent of what is communicated. How much of that conversation is directed at the “listener” and how much of it is directed at others in proximity, including you? This rich social choreography is playing out hundreds of billions of times a day across our planet, and is as subtle and delicate as anything appearing in a BBC2 nature documentary.

Of course, people and systems are already capturing (and channeling) content and data in this space in the form of photos, video, background noise on phone or video calls, who is connected to what, and what they are doing. It is likely that Google, Microsoft and Nokia’s Navteq (to name but three) have already systematically mapped this space and are serving up street views online. The difference with Glass is that it threatens surreptitious, unexpected or continuous recording from the perspective of the human-eye/ear view. At this point, it doesn’t matter whether it can support sustained recording for long periods or not; what matters is that the form factor supports this, that it could at some point, and that we all know Google is in the business of selling ads against insight drawn from large volume of data. Continuous, indiscriminate recording in this space is the dragnet fishing of data collection — it’s a destructive technology, a conversation- and privacy-killer.³

Back to our experiment. Take in the scene in front of you. Who owns this space, both legally and figuratively? Who has the rights to do what? By what authority? Who enforces that authority? How do these rights differ for regulars or a first-time visitor? What are the ways people signal the beginning or the end of an activity? And how does that signalling make something more or less acceptable? The obvious clue to activities people have deemed socially unacceptable are often found on hand-scribbled “do not” signs, as in “staff will refuse to serve customers who are on their mobile phone,” or “do not ask for credit.” The more sustained the infringement, the more official-looking the sign.

Today, we falsely assume that our conversations and our images are not by default recorded by other people in proximity.⁴ Not having a persistent record allows us to present a nuanced identity to different people, or groups of people; it provides the space to experiment with what we could be. The risk that what we say will be broadcast, or narrowcasted, to people we don’t know, or may bubble up at some point in the future in the hands of someone serving up ads, fundamentally changes what we want to talk about. The challenge for Glass is that the costs of ownership fall on people in proximity of the wearer, and that its benefits have yet to be proven.

Social Interaction

A number of years ago, while I was working at Nokia, I was asked to explore use cases using an appearance model (a non-working prototype) of a form factor similar to Glass, but clunkier and definitely less refined.⁵ In the first phase of this make-it-up-as-you-go-along-and-see-what-works study, we hired students in Tokyo to act out various scenarios, including content browsing, viewing and game-play using gestures and voice commands, in a range of contexts: At home, on a commuter train, on a long-distance train, in a hotel lobby, in a park, a cafe, and while walking along. The research team then noted interaction issues with the glasses, carefully observing social reactions from people in proximity before finally interviewing the actors/actresses for their own experience.⁶

Fans of Milgram’s New York subway experiment will be happy to note that our actors and actresses felt extremely self-conscious about wearing nonstandard glasses, and awkward about acting out the scenarios, particularly in contexts where there were others in close proximity. A number of the things we learned from this study surprised us:

• Most of what we “see” at any time is out of focus in the periphery where as long as the things going on in peripheral vision don’t trigger a threat response will probably pass the glance test. It will be interesting to see whether Glass is perceived as a threatening object and thus may force others in proximity of a wearer to maintain a hyperawareness of the wearer and their own actions — whereas today they are currently able to relax. This would be, in effect, like a blanket tax on the collective attention of society.⁷
• Spoken interaction is awkward for almost everyone in confined spaces on systems with less than 100 percent accuracy. An interface built around short responses to contextually understood events will be the dominant form of interaction.
• Gesture interaction is just as awkward in close spaces, and in many instances will restrict regular use and/or in a vocabulary of “quiet gestures.” To get a sense of how this plays out, the next time you are on the subway and have people sitting on either side, raise your hands in front of your face or look down and move your hands in your field of vision. Even simple gestures require upper-arm/shoulder movements, which, when you are sitting shoulder to shoulder, impact fellow passengers. A Glass wearer who wants to maintain the social cohesion in that context (and not all will be that self-aware or considerate) can mitigate this by pausing interactions for the moment when they are appropriate, or more likely by avoiding interactions in that context.
• In contexts where social interaction is required — sitting with friends around a table in a cafe, say — Glass will create a situation where people are not sure whether they or the contents of the display are engaging the wearer.
• In-ear or close-to-ear (inductive) audio changes the wearer’s enjoyment of food and drink — a problem for an otherwise prime use case: Watching movies at home, where snacks and beverages might naturally be consumed.
• Humans tend to fall asleep in contexts where they are seated, safe, and there is minimal physical movement — providing opportunities to design for disengagement.
• Humans have a vested interest in tracking changing emotional states of the people around them. This will introduce “Are you lookin’ at me?” moments where others in proximity assume that a smile, tear or frown is triggered by their own presence, and will spur people to send inappropriate content to their Glass-wearing peers, with a weary inevitability that will include this but is far less likely to include this (or is it the other way around?). In some contexts, these moments will lead to confrontation. Read the footnote in this article in the Atlantic, by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and imagine introducing erratic behavior into the equation. Amplify to billions of social interactions a day.

What starts out as a fairly broad set of use cases rapidly starts to narrow.

Tooling Up

I’ve got a confession to make. Frog, the design and innovation consultancy where I work, has recorded thousands of conversations around the world, videotaped many more, tailed people around town and nosed around people’s homes — opening cupboards and drawers, asking personal questions where there were none. All with their permission, and all in the name of research. There are a few things we’ve learned that relate to the broader discussion of what is collected by whom, how and why, and how it is used; you’ll see why these are relevant in a moment.

Any idiot can collect data. The real issue is how to collect data in such a way that meets both moral and legal obligations and still delivers some form of value.

• Ownership. People are naturally suspicious of what they don’t know. The simple act of giving them control over the process or the objects/technologies we carry defuses initial suspicion. A few simple field-research techniques can rapidly build trust. These include handing someone you’ve just met on the street a $5,000 camera and then ignoring them to concentrate on a conversation with their friends. This shows we trust them. And then they trust us.
• Clear On/Off States. Most people have (at least initial) concerns about being recorded. There are numerous effective ways that we in Frog’s design research team emphasize the transition between on and off: From how a camera or other recording device is held when not in use. It is useful to think of a camera as a gun: Understand the impact that bringing it out can have on any given context; only take it out if you’re prepared to use it and be careful where you point it.
• Reciprocity. Today it is easy to maintain a persistent connection between the researcher and the participant — often in the form of a social media account or email address. You’ve asked something of them, and they have the right and now have a channel through which to ask something of you.
• Full circle: We give participants the opportunity to review, delete or own any of the data collected on them by the research team. This is normally carried out at the end of the session, after any reward is handed over (so they are not pressured into letting us keep data) and before any data consent form is signed (so they better understand the implications of what they are signing). A team that knows the data will be reviewed by the participant changes what they collect in the first place; it becomes self-policing. More than any training, this simple principle helps keep teams honest and operating within social norms.

A few simple steps lower the more obviously anti-social aspects of Glass. The evolution of body language that helps communicate Glass’s current state, e.g. pushed above the head to show that it is not in use; a literacy around the spoken commands that communicate the current task that the user is engaged in “take panorama” or “grindr lookup”; and showing whether the camera and other recording mechanisms are in use or disabled.

Glass has four design principles for developers that focus on the Glass wearer’s user experience: “design for Glass,” “don’t get in the way,” “keep it timely,” and “avoid the unexpected.”⁸ As challenging as it is to find a compelling use-case (beyond porn), these principles are aimed at the wrong people — Glass wearers, rather than those in proximity.

Two complementary principles will go some way toward accommodating the concerns of people in proximity and lower social barriers to adoption:

• Proximate Transparency: Allow anyone in proximity to access the same feed that the wearer is recording or seeing and view it through a device of their choosing. Make it easy to identify the Glasses themselves and to trace them back to the wearer. This simple act can help demystify the technology, create a broader sense of ownership of its inclusion in any given space. The reality is that very few people would be interested in jacking in and the act of having an open stream will change the behavior of what is watched. For many this won’t be enough of a step; it is after all an opt-out measure for people who have the technological know how and literacy to — forcing people in proximity to do something for dubious gain.
• Remote Control: allow identifiable people in proximity to control Glass’s recording functionality and have access to the output of what was recorded. Allowing others to demonstrably benefit from the utility of Glass will make it part of the social landscape.

Pedestal or a Pauper’s Grave?

One could argue that the form taken by Glass offers up a lazy futurist’s vision of what might be — take the trajectory of one product (displays becoming smaller/cheaper/more efficient over time) and integrate it with another (eyeglasses), sprinkle in connectivity and real-time access to content and big-data-analytics. Our expectations of what it could be are raised in part because this join-the-dots vision of the future fits neatly into Western un/popular young-male culture, from “The Terminator” through to Halo. Glass has a certain inevitability about it, like the weight of expectation on of child born to a great composer or, if you will, to a middle-aged suicide. As any visitor to Yodobashi camera over the past decade will tell you, the hardware technologies that make Glass hardly feel novel (and for recent competitors, see Sony, Golden-i, or this Telepathy device prototype) but neither do they need to be, because this is all about how they are brought together into a holistic experience.

There are of course alternative visions of this connected future that are far more discrete, taking connected, sensing things and embedding them in the world around us to inform, guide, direct, cajole, tax, enrich us and the things around us. It’s an area worthy of an essay in its own right, but for now, here are a few pointers to people, places and things that have helped inform my sense of this space: Dan Hill at City of Sound; the MIT Senseable City Lab; Design Interactions at the Royal College of Art; Tisch ITP; BERG, Nicholas Nova and Julian Bleecker at the Near Future Laboratory help stretch our understanding of what could be; Curious Rituals in conjuction with students at the Arts Center College of Design in particular is a lovely piece of work; living for more than a decade in Tokyo, Shanghai and frequent trips to the cities that define this century’s urban experience — the Seoul/Nairobi/Mumbai/Rio/Chongqings of this world; products like Nike+, FitBit, Moves (to take one narrow category) through to less well known but arguably more impactful services that for me are at the very center of the internet of things — services like Kilimo Salama and Sarvajal;⁹ through to business units/activities in large corporations such as Cisco, IBM, Disney, and Ericsson with more of a how to make money/make a difference at scale.¹⁰

That Moment in Time

I started this essay by paraphrasing a quote — here is the original in full: “There is but one remedy for the amateur photographer. Put a brick through his camera whenever you suspect he has taken you unawares.” It could be written about Glass today, but is in fact taken from an 1885 edition of “Amateur Photographer”¹¹ magazine, seven years after the introduction of dry plates, a technology that supported more surreptitious photography. (The essay by Bill Jay is worth reading in full.)

The same essay contains another quote from “Amateur Photographer,” twenty five years later, when cameras were becoming smaller, less noticeable: “Our moral character dwindles as our instruments get smaller.” In due course, the technologies to deliver Glass’s emerging functionality will truly disappear from view — this is a window of opportunity for discussion, debate and a reflection.

I’m thankful to Google for putting so much effort into Glass at this moment in time.

That passion? Channel it.

That anger? Channel it.

Jan Chipchase is Executive Creative Director of Global Insights at Frog, a design and innovation consultancy. He has not tried Google Glass, and has no idea whether he has been recorded through one. His first book, “Hidden in Plain Sight,” available from HarperCollins on April 16, explores issues around technology adoption, use and abuse.

¹ This sign did the rounds but is closer to advertising for a pleasantly seedy bar than a warning sign. The suspicion can be real, but the true test comes from reactions to a wider deployment.
² Eric Schmidt’s quote, “Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it,” is an interesting reflection of company culture. It’s refreshing to have a CEO that is this frank about the business they are in and the way they operate, and it’s an interesting assumption that the best way to institutionalize an understanding of creepy is to measure it and place it on a line.
³ If you want to extrapolate the argument around wholesale recording through Glass, it’s actually highly inefficient, particularly once much of that space and context is known. There are other, emerging technologies with far more processing power and unlimited power supply that are in a better position to continuously record.
⁴ There are many examples of what we say and do being recorded: From the obvious conversations in an interrogation room through to corporations tracking employee emails and IM chats, all the way to state agencies. When conducting research in Iran and making a call to the U.S., I assume it is being recorded by both Iranian and U.S. agencies. The only question is who else is listening and what is their motivation, today and at some point in the future.
⁵ I’ve not done a full write up of the research, but it was shared publicly a few years back.
⁶ After the Tokyo study, my then colleague Raphael Grignani ran a comparable study in New York City, with broadly analogous findings.
⁷ The physical toll of having to maintain a state of hyper-awareness is touched on here and here, and while these are extreme examples it is an interesting topic to further explore.
⁸ As Bruce Sterling pointed out, take each of those design principles and flip them to understand the actual experience.
⁹ We are running a study around water consumption and Sarvajal and will be sharing more on the project in due course.
¹⁰ Full disclosure: This list includes both personal and Frog clients.
¹¹ “The Amateur Photographer,” 18 September 1885, p. 871.

On Tuesday, Cisco sacked about 500 workers in one of those occasional “realignment” efforts. The company confirmed the cuts to AllThingsD.

“We routinely review our business to determine where we need to align investments based on growth opportunities,” Cisco spokeswoman Karen Tillman said. “This week, Cisco performed a limited restructuring that will impact approximately 500 employees, less than 1 percent of our population globally.”

It’s not clear where exactly Cisco swung the axe, but Networkworld, which first reported the layoffs, suggests that the employees most affected were involved with data center business development.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg might still be trying to figure out the social networking giant’s mobile monetization strategy, but there’s one thing she has locked: The top spot on two of the most important bestseller lists at the same time.

This week, for the first time, her “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead” ranked No. 1 on the influential New York Times list for hardcover nonfiction, as well as for combined print and e-book nonfiction. The list, which appears in this coming Sunday’s issue of the New York Times Book Review, actually reflects sales for the week ending March 16, 2013.

“Lean In” has been on Amazon’s top 100 list of all books for much longer — in fact, for 32 days. The tome on the many difficulties faced by women in the workforce reached No. 1 status several weeks ago.

The official release date of the book was March 11, which was followed by a publicity blitz of massive proportions, including the cover of Time magazine, huge takeouts in innumerable newspapers, and laudatory television pieces on “60 Minutes” and with Oprah Winfrey.

“Lean In” has also attracted a huge dollop of controversy, with everyone and their mother (and my mother, Lucky, too) arguing over its merits, as well as its message — including whether Sandberg blamed women too much for the lack of advancement in the executive ranks.

She doesn’t, actually — if you read it, which many pundits appear to not have done. But that has not stopped the rigorous and welcome debate over the important issue, which seems to be exactly what Sandberg was aiming for.

Sales appear to have been widespread, but seem to also be helped by big purchases by companies such as Cisco, which are encouraging employees to read it.

Zynga CIO Debra Chrapaty, who has also done high-ranking stints at other big companies such as Cisco and Microsoft, has been named CEO of enterprise cloud storage company Nirvanix.

She replaces Dru Borden, who will remain at the San Diego-based company as SVP of planning and development and who will also remain a director. Chrapaty will also remain executive chairwoman of the board of Nirvanix, which has investments from Khosla Ventures and Intel Capital.

Chrapaty has most recently been CIO of Zynga, but was also SVP of Cisco’s collaboration software unit and was a corporate VP at Microsoft. She was also president and COO of E*Trade Technologies.

In an email to me, Chrapaty wrote: “I had a great run at Zynga, wish the company and the team the best. But this is a really unique opportunity to leverage a company that is at the center of unstoppable trends (to cloud which hasn’t really affected Fortune 1000 storage yet) and a company that already has some great existing people and customers and investors you have known for decades.”

Zynga has seen a number of high-level departures and top management reorgs in recent months, as it seeks to turn around its recent rocky performance.

Zynga said that Chrapaty, who was hired from Cisco in 2011, will be replaced by Zynga exec Dorion Carroll.

“We thank Debra for her leadership and contributions to Zynga over the past years and wish her luck in her future endeavors,” said Zynga COO David Ko in a statement. “As one of our Zynga Fellows, Dorion has provided direction, leadership and management across numerous technology and products teams at Zynga over the past three years as well as being one of our most senior technology leaders.”

The jury found the networking company guilty of “fraud by concealment” in its dealings with XpertUniverse. It also found that Cisco violated two of the smaller company’s patents, awarding additional damages to XpertUniverse of about $34,000.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

1.) Samsung Galaxy S4: Bigger Display and Bolder Software — But Is It Better Enough?

2.) How Apple Gets All the Good Apps

3.) Telling Employees He Hasn’t “Walked the Talk,” Cisco’s John Chambers Leans In on Women in the Workplace Issue

4.) LinkedIn to Buy Pulse Newsreader for More Than $50M (and here’s what they could do with Pulse)

5.) How One Boring Company Pulled Off the Perfect SXSW Troll

6.) Crowdfunding for a Cause: Nonprofits Can Now Hold Fundraisers on Crowdtilt

7.) IBM Makes a Big Bet on OpenStack in the Cloud

8.) Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Gets a Million-Dollar Bonus After Six Months on the Job

9.) Nokia: A Microsoft Surface Phone Could Screw Us

10.) Outbox: Yahoo Mail Head Sharma Leaves Company (Update: And he has now joined Disney’s online parks division)

For more of the week in review, please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

The verdict from a jury in the U.S. court for Texas’ Eastern District dealt a serious blow to VirnetX, a Zephyr Cove, Nev., company that uses its patent portfolio to seek revenue from licensing fees or court judgments. Most of VirnetX’s revenue has come from a $200 million settlement reached with Microsoft Corp. in 2010, according to research firm ISI Group.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Basically, it comes down to subbing out all the proprietary hardware that’s used to build up a network and instead setting all the parameters for how you run a network in software that’s running on commodity hardware.

Well, as the networking industry starts to get its head around all this, the time has come to set some standards. Standards-setting is a kind of nuanced, political process that can take years and requires the patience of a diplomat.

Today we heard an interesting shout in all this from Dell. The computing giant, which also has a small networking business, said it has aligned itself with the Object Management Group, a.k.a. OMG, and has proposed a working committee that would set standards around software-defined networking. The committee’s first meeting will be in April.

So, what does OMG do? It’s a nonprofit organization whose task forces set out to get everyone working on the same page, so that different systems from multiple vendors can work together. Dell is a member, as is Hewlett-Packard, which has its own sizable networking business. IBM is a member, too, though there’s no word on whether or not it will join this task force.

One company that probably won’t: Cisco Systems. And there’s a reason for that. Cisco has its own standards-setting effort under way. It’s code-named Daylight, and is supposedly going to be announced at the Open Networking Summit in Santa Clara in April. Some critics say Cisco is trying to make its proprietary technology central to it.

I may be wrong, but it seems that a cold war is breaking out over software-defined networking. It may not matter. Dell’s networking business is relatively small, and this could turn out to be something of an insurgent effort. Then again, there are a lot of people who think the whole idea behind software-defined networking is intended specifically to go against the idea that networking gear should be proprietary, which is exactly what Cisco has specialized in for years.

Anyway, the politics of setting standards are always confusing and deeply technical. But the fact that this process is getting under way at all is an interesting development around the whole SDN trend, and bears watching.

As most of the free world knows by now — from the ubiquitous media coverage that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and her new book, “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead,” has gotten of late — there are some nagging issues of women in the workplace.

That was also underscored by the huge debate that arose over Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s new rule for the Silicon Valley Internet giant that eliminated work-from-home employees.

Now, Cisco CEO John Chambers is weighing in, after a meeting with Sandberg last week, ordering each of his top managers to come up with new women-focused initiatives and put them into their development plans.

More interestingly, in an internal email I obtained, he also noted that his own leadership in the area had been lacking.

“While I have always considered myself sensitive to and effective on gender issues in the workplace, my eyes were opened in new ways and I feel a renewed sense of urgency to make the progress we haven’t made in the last decade,” wrote Chambers.

He pointed out that only one-fourth of the networking giant’s employees and top execs are women, and only 20 percent out of one million networking academy students are women. Currently, Cisco’s highest-ranking woman is Padmasree Warrior, its CTO and strategy officer, and it has three women board members.

Still, wrote Chambers:

“After reading Lean In and listening to Sheryl, I realize that, while I believe I am relatively enlightened, I have not consistently walked the talk … What we have been doing hasn’t worked, and it is time to adjust.”

Here’s the whole memo:

From: John Chambers
Date: March 8, 2013, 6:21:49 PM PST
To: John Chambers
Subject: International Working Women’s Day … Cisco Resolution

To my leaders:

I had the opportunity yesterday to discuss Sheryl Sandberg’s new book Lean In with Sheryl and a group of my CEO peers. While I have always considered myself sensitive to and effective on gender issues in the workplace, my eyes were opened in new ways and I feel a renewed sense of urgency to make the progress we haven’t made in the last decade.

The data is startling. Women hold less than 14% of CEO positions, 17% of board seats globally, and 18% of congressional officials … and these numbers have not changed in a decade. At Cisco, less than 25% of our employees — and our leaders — are women. Only 20% of our current one-million networking academy students are women.

Today is International Working Women’s Day, and I want us, the leaders of Cisco, to see this as a leadership moment. Without realizing it, we operate every day with gender stereotypes and biases, many of which we do not realize. After reading Lean In and listening to Sheryl, I realize that, while I believe I am relatively enlightened, I have not consistently walked the talk. I think each of you, on reflection, will identify opportunities to operate at a new level with your women employees, leaders, customers, partners, and peers. I believe we — together — need to drive a fundamental culture change and it is up to us as leaders to make this change happen. What we have been doing hasn’t worked, and it is time to adjust.

I have two specific asks for each of you: 1) please read the copy of Lean In you will be receiving shortly, before we get to the SVP/VP off-site and 2) determine 3-4 specific things you will do differently and detail those commitments in your development plan and if you need help, please contact Sandy Hoffman, Chief Diversity Officer.

I know each of us will have a different explanation and a different solution, and there is power in the diversity of those ideas in driving change. I am asking two champions — Chuck Robbins and Kelly Kramer — to take a leadership role in moving us forward. I will ask them to report to the Operating Committee every quarter on the progress we have made and the action plans in place.

I think Sheryl says it best: “We can no longer pretend that biases don’t exist, nor can we talk around them … the result of creating a more equal environment will not just be better performance for our organizations, but quite likely greater happiness for all.”

Kath Weslock, Chief Human Resources Officer and I look forward to discussing this topic with many of you. We believe we have an opportunity to make a tremendous difference, and in so doing benefit our people, our culture, our company and, just maybe, the world.

John

The latest market data from research firm Gartner found worldwide server sales declined by 0.2 percent, even as revenue from sales of those servers increased by more than 5 percent. For the full year though, sales increased by 1.5 percent on a unit basis, while revenue declined slightly.

Budget worries caused many companies to hold back on replacing older x86 machines, Gartner said, especially in the enterprise and in some mid-tier data centers. That no doubt factored into some worries around Intel’s outlook when it reported Q4 earnings last month. The only ones really buying were big players like Google, Facebook and China’s Baidu. Sales of RISC-based machines running Unix, as well as specialized hardware like Hewlett-Packard’s Itanium servers, were also weak.

IBM made the most on a revenue basis, clocking in sales worth north of $5 billion, while HP sold the most on a unit basis, with a little less than 664,000 units.

On a regional basis, North America saw unit shipments grow 5.5 percent, followed by Asia/Pacific at 3.4 percent, and Latin America, which was essentially flat.

Europe, on the other hand, declined substantially, and that’s where a lot of the pain was. As sovereign debt and economic concerns continued to take much of the oxygen out of the room in those countries, server sales declined by more than 10 percent on a unit basis, Gartner said. Most companies there saw their unit sales decline except for Japan’s Fujitsu and Cisco Systems. In Cisco’s case, its unit sales grew by nearly 20 percent, but that was off a low base relative to the other vendors. By comparison, Cisco sold about 14,000 servers in the region, versus HP which sold nearly 248,000.

Looking ahead to the rest of 2013, Gartner said to expect modest growth, offset a little by a boost in the use of virtualization, which allows one physical machine to run as if it’s many virtual machines. Virtualization logically tends to eat into the overall volume of machines needed. Simply put, where you once needed two or four or eight servers, it’s pretty likely you can now, given the improvement in processing power plus virtualization, replace them with one or two or three.

Here’s the worldwide breakdown for the top five vendors in the quarter, revenue first.

Just because it’s big business doesn’t mean it’s not progressive. (At least, not this time.)

Nearly 300 businesses — including Silicon Valley mainstays like Facebook, Oracle, Qualcomm, Apple and dozens of others — filed a brief with the Supreme Court expressing support for same-sex marriage.

The brief, first reported by Fortune, opposes arguments made in bills such as Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act, the two initiatives that most stridently argue against same-sex marriage in California.

Much of the amicus brief’s argument echoes that put forth by Proposition 8’s main bill of opposition (filed last week), which maintains that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. President Obama has publicly echoed these sentiments in stump speeches, though he has yet to formally file an amicus brief in opposition, as many gay rights activists have urged him to do.

But the companies’ collective amicus brief takes a different tack, arguing for the business reasons that bills like DOMA and Prop 8 aren’t desirable.

“The capital of modern enterprises is in many ways a human capital. Success depends on the talent, morale and motivation of the workforce for private and public employers alike,” the document states. “To attract the best employees and colleagues, amici must offer robust workplace benefits and a workplace ethos of transparent fairness.”

It is a decidedly different approach to an argument often championed as a civil rights issue, making an economic case for what ultimately amounts to a morass of HR problems for prospective LGBT employees and the enterprises who hire them.

Another bill, in opposition to Proposition 8, will be filed on Thursday, arguing much the same thing as Wednesday’s amicus brief.

For some major tech companies, the pro-LGBT stand is not entirely foreign. Companies like Facebook, Google and Apple have openly come out in support of equal rights for LGBT employees, and many of these corporations are home to programs that support gay employees, sometimes hosting pro-LGBT events that span company (and competitor) lines. (Facebook, for instance, held the Out for Undergraduates in Technology Conference last month.)

Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, who was a vocal supporter of the Prop 8 ballot initiative when she ran unsuccessfully for governor in California, recently switched her stance on the issue, joining dozens of prominent Republicans in signing a legal document saying that gay people have a constitutional right to be married.

Last week, a fierce debate erupted over a range of social networks and in the media about a story we posted on Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s new decree that employees at the Silicon Valley Internet company would no longer be able to work from home.

In a sometimes awkwardly worded internal memo I posted from Yahoo HR head Jackie Reses, the company rolled out the new rule — pushed through by Mayer — which requires that Yahoo employees who work remotely relocate to company facilities by June 1.

“Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home,” read the memo to employees. “We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.”

The goal of Mayer to cure what ails Yahoo: Reviving a moribund and enervated workforce that has struggled to innovate and excel over many years. One of the many problems has been the liberal use of work-from-home policies that have been woefully mismanaged to create a culture that is simply not energized.

But, unless I am reading the memo wrong, the ban is not just limited to those who have arrangements to work from home full time — which number in the hundreds — but also employees who take one or two days a week at home.

Top sources told me that Mayer has been particularly irked about Yahoo parking lots that are slow to fill in the morning and quick to empty by 5 pm — which is atypical at other tech companies such as Google. (Mayer was a longtime exec at the search giant.)

At first, she tried to change culture in ways that rained down tasty perks on employees — such as free food and smartphones. Mayer has also been practical, instituting please-be-here Friday afternoon FYI weekly meetings and stricter performance reviews.

But she is now inevitably doling out more unpleasant medicine to the troops, starting with the banning of work from home, which has caused a big ruckus both internally and externally.

Some inside the company are clearly appalled, especially since it might more severely impact working mothers.

“When a working mother is standing behind this, you know we are a long way from a culture that will honor the thankless sacrifices that women too often make,” read one email I got from an internal source, referring to the recent birth of Mayer’s baby.

Many others at Yahoo’s Sunnyvale, Calif., HQ pointed to the nursery Mayer had built — for which she paid personally — next to her office as a perk others at Yahoo do not get.

“I wonder what would happen if my wife brought our kids and nanny to work and set em up in the cube next door?” joked a husband of another employee who will be losing her work-from-home privileges.

Yahoo employees, as far as I can see from its company careers page, offers the typical Dependent Day Care Flexible Spending Account, where staff can pay “dependent care expenses, such as day care or after-school care, with pre-tax dollars.”

While it is fair to raise the issue of how employees will cope given the sudden change in HR policy, others also think that limiting work at home is a good idea because it galvanizes culture and creates a spirit of collaboration that has been missing at Yahoo for far too long.

“Marissa is doing what good leaders do,” wrote one person on Twitter. “Making sure her Yahoo team is communicating & working TOGETHER.”

That is actually a sentiment expressed by Google CFO Patrick Pichette at a recent talk in Australia, when asked about telecommuting at Google:

“The surprising question we get is: ‘How many people telecommute at Google?’ And our answer is: ‘As few as possible’ … There is something magical about sharing meals. There is something magical about spending the time together, about noodling on ideas, about asking at the computer ‘What do you think of this?’ These are [the] magical moments that we think at Google are immensely important in the development of your company, of your own personal development and [of] building much stronger communities.”

That said, officially, many Googlers are allowed and even encouraged to work at home. The company told me when asked about work-from-home policies: “We do not have a formal policy and leave Googlers to use good judgment.”

It is the same for Facebook, which confirmed a “policy to provide flexibility as work permits.” In fact, one exec at the social network giant noted to me that its entire camera app was built from an engineer’s garage, with the group staying away from the office as long as they wanted to build it from home.

Business networking site LinkedIn also said it had “no formal policy at present,” but noted that many employees work from home full-time and part-time as the situation warrants and in consultation with managers.

It goes on and on like that throughout the tech scene, part of an ethos of letting tech talent make its own rules — from what they wear to when and where they work — that is deeply ingrained in the culture.

A Hewlett-Packard spokesperson said of the tech giant: “We do not ban [work from home] and many HP people do it … it is not at all an issue at HP and hasn’t been for years. Some folks have a regular schedule, while others can do it from time to time with the okay of their supervisors.”

An AOL spokesperson said the company doesn’t ban work from home.

A Netflix spokesperson referenced a well-known premium video company’s job deck, which stressed a “freedom and responsibility culture” and notes, “We don’t measure people by how many hours they work or how much they are in the office. We do care about accomplishing great work.”

Twitter had a different twist, but still supports working from home. Said a spokesperson: “We believe there are significant tangible and intangible benefits when employees are working under the same roof. We also recognize that every so often it’s important to be able to work remotely, and we allow for that flexibility.”

A Cisco spokesperson said the networking company also allows it, but it has to be approved by a direct manager: “It is certainly utilized by those employees who earn it. And, of course, with our collaborative suite of technologies like Webex (with video) and telepresence it is the next best thing to being there in person.”

A Microsoft spokesman said that the software company “offers flexible work schedules for all employees.”

Perhaps one of the best companies for a long time in the telecommuting space has been IBM. From its corporate Web page, also touting the environmental benefits:

“IBM was one of the first global companies to pioneer programs to reduce employee commuting. It has sustained these programs for nearly two decades. Two key aspects are its (a) work-at-home program and (b) mobile employees program. Today, more than 128,000 (29 percent) of employees globally participate in one of these programs. In 2011, in just the U.S. alone, IBM’s work-at-home program conserved approximately 6.4 million gallons of fuel and avoided more than 50,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions.”

Startups are much the same.

Said an Airbnb spokesperson of the online housing rentals site: “It’s a flexible policy and managers determine what’s appropriate on a case-by-case basis.”

At location startup Foursquare, a spokesperson said, “Our policy is to allow for ‘flexible work hours’ — and that applies to both the hours you work, and where you work from. While we don’t have any dedicated remote employees, our folks do work from home on occasion and we’re fine with that.”

Private social networking company Path is much the same, according to a spokesperson: “Path has a work-from-home policy. The manager and employee work out the details together.”

The only company I queried that did not respond immediately is Apple, which has been known for a long time to have much tighter rules with its employees. I will update when I hear from the company.

I also have emails in to Amazon, which is already known for flexible working policies.

But, overall, Mayer is forging new ground with her work-from-home ban. Whether that is enough to turbocharge the Yahoo culture is anybody’s guess.

While the initial results beat expectations slightly, Chambers’s comments about a “slow start with steady improvement through the year,” made on CNBC, pushed the shares down by more than 2 percent in after-hours trading. He also said he expects market conditions to improve “at a much slower pace than we would like.” (See the video below.)

Cisco has often argued that its purchasing patterns tend to serve as an early warning sign of the health of the global economy, especially given its exposure to government spending both in the U.S. and around the world.

Cisco said it expects to earn between 48 cents and 50 cents per share in the next quarter and that it expects sales to grow by about 4 percent to 6 percent. It also said it expects gross margins, an important indicator of profitability, to be in the range of 61 percent to 62 percent.

Here’s the CNBC video.

And this is the point at which I pick a song that characterizes Cisco’s earnings. Given Chambers’s language earlier about a “slow start” to the year, and combined with Cisco’s new marketing campaign with the tag line “Tomorrow Starts Here,” I mashed up those two things and came across the song “Future Starts Slow” by The Kills. Enjoy.