Securosis

Menu

Research

Friday Summary – June 19, 2009

Adrian Lane June 19, 2009 No Comments

I’ve spent way too much time surfing the Internet over the last few evenings. I have read just about everything I can on AT&T pricing, new iPhone features, 3.0 software updates, SIM cards, jailbreaking, smart phone reliability & customer satisfaction surveys, SIM card compatibility, different cellular technologies, cellular service provider customer satisfaction in different regions of the country, Skype on the iPod, and just about every other thing I could find. I have spent more time online researching calling options in the last week than I have spent using my cell phone in the last 6 months. I don’t even own one of the damned things, so yeah, I am a little obsessive when it comes to research. All this was motivated by the question of whether or not I wanted to get up early this morning and join Rich in line at the Apple store to get the new iPhone 3G S. I am sure that is where he is right now. If I am going to make the switch, now would be a good time. Plus, a really well-written article on Ars Technica summed up the differences between the major smartphones and clarified why I want an iPhone. But in all the material I read, a couple things really stuck with me: $30.00 a month for a “data plan” in perpetuity. Forever. Competition be damned. No option for month-to-month with any smart phone, which used to be there, then was not. Which was supposedly changed again, but will it change back? The vast sea of negative comments on blogs that sing a unanimous chorus of “We don’t like AT&T service” was not offset by similar dissatisfaction with T-Mobile or Verizon. Consumer Reports and J.D. Power surveys are in line with this as well. The Coverage Viewer for my area shows I am awash with strongest signal strength possible. Looking at the map you get the impression I need to worry about radiation poisoning, the signal appears to be so strong. Yet, when I speak with neighbors about their iPhones’ coverage, they need to move to the south-west side of their homes in order to get ‘reasonable’ call reception or any data services. So what comes to mind with the 3G S release? The Neo quote from The Matrix: “Yeah. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about, I give you the finger” …. and wait for someone else to support the iPhone. Yep, that is the way I am voting on this one. While I feel slightly guilty at letting Rich fly solo, I probably would have walked out with an AirBook, which my wife would have promptly appropriated. I have waited two years thus far and, despite my fear of being labeled a gasp late majority adopter, I am going to have patience and wait. And the more I read, the more I think there are a few hundred thousand like me out there, and both Verizon and T-Mobile know it. I am going to bet that come next year the iPhone will be available through other carriers. I am also willing to bet that Apple is savvy enough to know, especially if their product marketing and sales teams are reading the same blogs I am, that there is a very large contingent of buyers waiting for better service. What they lose in what will (probably) be a sweet deal offered by AT&T for an exclusive, they more than make up for in the huge numbers of people who want the highest rated mobile computing device on the market with better coverage. Not that I am totally bashing AT&T: In their defense I know they are dumping a bunch of money into their network to not only improve coverage but also bring in new technologies and capabilities. And that they did alter the upgrade pricing in response to the iPhone upgrade pricing furor. Still, AT&T is negotiating with Apple to retain the exclusive deal because they know they cannot compete head to head in the marketplace and are worried about losing 2-3 million customers in 12 months. The exclusive deal is certainly not in the consumers’ best interest, and does not provide the competitive forces needed to alter AT&T’s service record or pricing structures. I am not entirely sure what prompted this, but I am willing to guess it has to do with the iPhone. Love Apple products, but I am sitting on the sidelines until I have a choice of providers. And one more time, in case you wanted to take the Project Quant survey and just have not had time: Stop what you are doing and hit the SurveyMonkey. You’ll be glad you did! (And thanks to Qualys, Tenable, and BigFix for promoting it). And now for the week in review: Webcasts, Podcasts, Outside Writing, and Conferences Rich was quoted in the Dark Reading report on Database Security: No Magic Bullet For Database, Server Security. Rich was an invited speaker at the Juniper Distinguished Lecturer series. Rich & Martin interview Jeff Moss on the Network Security Podcast #154. Favorite Securosis Posts Rich: Adrian’s Virtual Identities post. Our notions of identity and trust are being challenged like never before in our history. It’s a fascinating transition, and I can’t wait to see how we’ve adapted once the first generation growing up on the Internet takes charge. Adrian: The most recent installment in our Database Encryption Series, Part 4: Credentialed User Protection. Other Securosis Posts Virtual Identities Database Encryption, Part 3: Transparent Encryption Database Encryption, Part 4: Credentialed User Protection Project Quant Posts Project Quant: Prioritize and Schedule Phase Patch Management: Fixed (Non-Process) Costs Favorite Outside Posts Adrian: Errata’s Asynchronicity and Internet Scale post. Rich: Shrdlu breaks out some serious security humor on a more-regular basis again. But I feel a little left out. Top News and Posts 46 Security Fixes in iPhone 3.0 software. MasterCard requires on-site assessment for Level 2 merchants. T-Mobile Confirms data

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

“Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.”

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.