Cloud computing ahead

I read today two extensive articles on the The New York Times and Business Week about cloud computing: that thing we all wish existed when our hard drive just dies.

Its funny how this open computing philosophy has seemed to gain some significant momentum thanks to Google over 10 years after I started hearing about Star Office, which Sun bought and lead to Open Office.

Openness and privacy

In the last MobileMonday Barcelona, Rudy and Fabien conned me into starting a blog once and for all. My gratitude for your final push.

One dinner discussion that night was about the growing power of some communication companies as they exponentially increase the amount of data they have about us, the users. And I agree that we are right to be concerned: Google knows practically everything you have searched on the web for the last 18 months. Also you mobile company knows everyone you talked to and, increasingly, where you are at any moment…whether you are calling or not!

So, should we resist? Let’s say, support companies who offer privacy-driven solutions? We could, but we are not and least of all those who spend most time in the web.

Younger generations are sharing now more than ever, unconcerned with what seem like obsolete worries about privacy. One could argue their open doors attitude is mainly due to that teenage compulsion to communicate and to show off, which I amusingly see that also applies to some waaay past their teens. But, let’s face it, tools like myspace, facebook and youtube will mature with their audiences.

This leads me to two thoughts:

ONE: Adult individuals have traditionally had several social spheres: intimate, family, friends, work, neighbors, etc. I agree with Mike that as we become more open, these spheres “merge” somehow? In practical terms, I wonder if I should share in my social networks the same to friends, co-workers, old school mates and recent acquaintances? If we do merge them, doesn’t what we share become meaningless in its content? Powerful socializers that extend but do not deepen our relationships, kind of like an endless string of after dinner jokes?

TWO: As long as companies provide value with the data they collect, users will be willing to give it. Dealing with social and information enablers is very much like going to the doctor or to your bank. You tell them all the information they request because you information (a) enables them to you the best diagnosis, treatment or loan for your financial needs and (b) because there are very stiff rules protecting those personal records.

So, I am for sharing my precious privacy so companies can provide me with personalized high value services, but with very tough rules on disclosure. In an open society, violating trust should equal social death…or close to it.

An open world

Lately I am thinking a lot about openness in our society, about how we are moving into a way of life which demands us that we are open and share to levels that have not been seen before.

The last few years have made us realize that sharing is not an ideological or moral option but rather a core attribute or reality a sudden realization of our role in our environment. At the most obvious point, we all share a planet and all its potential and limitations. If you just landed from any other planet and want to know how to live here, you can learn by playing consumer consequences.

In this shared world, openness seems to be a beneficial attribute, as societies more open to trade and exchange seem to fare better than closed ones. Just compare the two Koreas. The same applies to cities and neighborhoods, where open and rich multicultural environments with open labour markets also fair better.

Just as well corporations are also opening up to relationships with unlikely partners far beyond suppliers and general outsourcing. Where has vertical integration gone? Currently, the most dynamic enterprises are opening its innovation process to include anything from technology to business models. Hear about open innovation from Henry Chessbrough himself.

I would further argue that families are also opening up. In my corner of the world immigration is changing our cities and our families. From the arranged marriages with distant cousins no so uncommon a century ago, today hard to pronounce last names are perking up in families everywhere. And if you include the all time high international adoptions, the most traditional nucleus of the family is also open to the world.

So, here’s my question: If all this opening up is taking place at all kinds of levels, what does that mean for individuals? Should we also be more open? What does being “more open” mean?