It's not often I think "librarians are way out in front of this trend!"
We've been crazy about privacy and "digital ethics" (though I'm not sure we've ever used that phrase) forever, or at least as long as I've been a librarian.
Attorney General John Ashcroft actually picked a fight with the ALA years ago over this kind of thing because of the PATRIOT act.
Really? In my country libraries did audiobooks before everyone except for audible. They did movie streaming before everyone, including Netflix. They digitised the way you order, rent and pick up books in a way that'd put most digital retail to shame, and they did it before 2010.
They're almost exclusively open source, and they corporate across their sector to build and use the same standards, even though their management is as split up as everything else. I mean, I work in a muniplacity and we can't even agree to buy a standard component for our intranet even tough we're mainly looking for a new intranet because the old non-standardised component can't be upgraded, and meanwhile, the libraries across the country have developed and adopted universal standards for almost everything they do...
Libraries did service design and user based fail fast methods before anyone else, and I think they're still one of the few business to actually succeed at it.
They're really, really bad at marketing their successes though. Remember that movie streaming thing I talked about in the beginning? Well, almost nobody knows it exists. I bet, that none of the Danes who read this post will have ever heard about http://biblioteket.filmstriben.dk .
That's really fucking cool! Does it work by "checking out" the movie while it's being watched, then "checking in" when it's done?
I could see a system like this working in the US if there was the funding for it. The library systems in the US have made pretty great strides in modernizing their offerings lately, lots of ebooks, lots of downloadable audiobooks. Unfortunately, much of it is closed source and driven by a company called OverDrive. It would be really cool to see a digital library revolution in the US.
Anyway, libraries are dope. They need more support.
My first job was in a library (shelving books), and I gained a huge appreciation for what they do and what they offer. I suspect a lot of people don't even realize what a good library system makes possible.
In my town, our library buys upwards of 25 copies of major new movies, it might not be available as quickly as Redbox when the demand is high, but it's free. Our libraries have 3D printers that residents can use, and even workspaces intended for startups to be able to work on launching their business from. A huge perk is that any resident can use these resources, regardless of income level, libraries are a huge balancing factor for people who can't afford to buy their own movies and books.
There's access to online rental/streaming of books, music, movies, comics, etc. They even have a program which gets you discounts in various local stores and restaurants from presenting your library card.
As you said, libraries have always been on the forefront of privacy, I recall many a time hearing about how checkout history simply wasn't kept, and how hard libraries fought to avoid disclosing to law enforcement even what materials people currently had checked out. I think their site now does have a feature where you can track history, because it was a really common patron request, but it's distinctly opt-in, you have to want it and actually go in and enable it yourself.
The irony of Gartner commenting and appraising 'digital ethics' is rather delicious...a common criticism of the company is that they are market makers with their business model that both takes money from the companies they appraise (who often also buy the rights to use the resulting glowing 'reports' as marketing) and also from people who want to research a market segment.
There are lots of talented, perceptive people at Gartner but their business model sails very close to the wind ethically.
Gideon Gartner never intended the notorious 'magic quadrant' to be so central to their offerings but boy has it been a money spinner via marketing buys and for exec powerpoint cut and paste graph proof points.
I'm afraid of this because I don't think the execution matches the marketing. Sites like Ars Technica are wooing users into their subscriptions by promising that they will not track you and they will not show you ads, but then if you read their actual privacy policy they state very clearly that they sell their subscriber list to 3rd parties, including any advertising company that wants it.
I do own an iphone and I think they're 10x better (or more) than google at privacy but it's clear that they still do slurp way too much data. I get it, they're not intentionally selling it to 3rd parties but I'd rather they didn't take it in the first place. Do they really need to record all my app store searches? All my "news app" views? Can I please just opt out of that altogether?
Does this mean I can include "have had strong opinions on the Internet; 25 years experience" on my résumé now?
While that sounds flippant, I'd actually love to have some input in this area; it's long been an area of passion for me, but I don't have a law degree. Which I suspect is true of a lot of people around these parts.
Gartner has been sued about ranking companies that buy hefty consulting services from them higher on its magic quadrant rankings than other companies that don't. The case got dismissed[1] on other grounds, but the general sense I've gotten anecdotally is that it kind of is a payola scheme.
Gartner is one of those companies that executives hire to provide backing for their big decisions, so that if they don't work out there is someone to blame. Gartner makes a lot of money to be the scapegoat-in-waiting.
While I wouldn't ignore the original poster, these research companies do have a good reputation amongst their primary customer bases. Many HN commentators have opinions, occasionally an understanding of a technology/market, and infrequently have any large enterprise experience, so they don't see the need for services like Gartner.
In the enterprise you can never get a decision wrong which is why these services have value. Stuff goes wrong all the time, but the culture is very much to cover your ass, which is why Gartner have such value.
You'll get most value out of Gartner, Forrester, etc. if you are researching technology in an enterprise scenario and have done a lot of the basics yourself. You can use their write-ups as references to support decisions you are making, but if you have the option you are better submitting an analyst request and having them review your findings or add additional suggestions.
On the vendor side it is a mixed bag. You have a IBM's and other entrenched players in the up quadrant for any market. It's hard to make the leap from being seen as a niche player because their analyses take into account all of the supporting services they offer. Unless you going really deep or plan to offer consulting services etc. then there doesn't seem much point to trying to get onto the Gartner Quadrant. You might be better off the radar completely because then a potential customer can't hear a detailed Gartner comparison which may be too generic to hold you in good light.
IT people outside of the decision-making arena don't see the point in Gartner et al because they know enough about the business area to find and implement the solution. The problem is that they are often not trusted within the enterprise to make these decisions because of the culture and structure of the organisation.
1) If you're a business manager who doesn't live and breathe IT, then their opinion is a good sign-post.
2) If you need "proof" to backup your purchase position, then it can serve as ammunition.
3) If you're a marketer, their blessing is priceless.
However, if you're an IT expert, then their reports may be missing subtle nuances.
Note that the public reports are not necessarily their most valuable products.
For example, I saw a presentation by the 451 Group that literally predicted the future of smartphones 2 years in advance. Still weirds me out how accurate they were.
Not quite, but it does mean that there is now "board level" justification for investing in these technologies. If Gartner says it, then it is important to not be "left behind".
The Spanish Inquisition would disagree with you. This is an area where society has slipped backwards before. I'd posit that the modern concept of privacy has only been a thinkable thought for a handful of centuries.
We've been crazy about privacy and "digital ethics" (though I'm not sure we've ever used that phrase) forever, or at least as long as I've been a librarian.
Attorney General John Ashcroft actually picked a fight with the ALA years ago over this kind of thing because of the PATRIOT act.