Welcome!

IBM Cloud Authors: Elizabeth White, AppDynamics Blog, Liz McMillan, Jason Bloomberg, Pat Romanski

Related Topics: IBM Cloud, Java IoT, Industrial IoT, Microservices Expo, Linux Containers, IT SOLUTIONS GUIDE, Eclipse

IBM Cloud: Article

Breaking News: New Internal IBM Report Says "Another Flawed Study"

IBM Response to Study "Comparing Microsoft .NET and IBM WebSphere/J2EE?"

IBM Response to the study entitled

"Comparing Microsoft .NET and IBM WebSphere/J2EE"

by The Middleware Company

 

October 2004

IBM Competitive Technology Lab 

 

Another Flawed Study

 

The latest Middleware Company study is flawed and does not accurately reflect the capability of WebSphere J2EE vs. Microsoft .NET. Like two previous discredited Middleware Company studies, this study was funded by Microsoft. While expert Microsoft programmers were allowed to contribute to the .NET side, neither IBM nor other WebSphere J2EE product experts were invited to contribute to the testing.

 

The Middleware Company publicly retracted the results of its previous J2EE vs. .NET study because of serious errors in its testing methodologies and its failure to invite J2EE vendors to participate. [1] This study has similar problems. The products and toolsets compared in the testing were mismatched, and relatively crude WebSphere J2EE programming techniques were used rather than the most optimal tools and programming methodologies. Statements made within the study show that the choice of tools and methodologies were purposeful.

 

The cost comparison between IBM and Microsoft also is inaccurate and does not represent a real-world environment. In addition, there were important cost considerations missing on the Microsoft side.

 

The Middleware Company's WebSphere J2EE programmers failed to use development practices that would have yielded more favorable results for WebSphere J2EE - for example, practices that would enable software reuse across enterprise architectures. The study also did not attempt to measure the advantages of team development across a business with multiple team members involved. Rather, the study timed the work of three relatively inexperienced WebSphere developers. The results are misleading in each of the categories the tests aimed to measure--Development Productivity, Tuning Productivity, Performance, Manageability, and Reliability.

 

In its apology and retraction letter for its last J2EE vs. .NET test, The Middleware Company wrote: "We also admit to having made an error in process judgment by inviting Microsoft to participate in this benchmark, but not inviting the J2EE vendors to participate in this benchmark." [2]

 

Inviting an expert Microsoft partner to participate while not inviting IBM or an IBM partner to participate was once again a fatal flaw. Using outside experts for the Microsoft .NET programming team while using its own employees for the WebSphere J2EE programming team is an obvious conflict of interest in a study funded by Microsoft.

 

We believe that if J2EE development best practices had been used, the developer productivity would have exceeded that of Visual Studio.NET. The performance and manageability of the WebSphere J2EE application also would have exceeded the published numbers.

 

Microsoft's track record on these types of studies is not good, and users should generally approach them with caution. Besides two previous Middleware Company studies that were retracted, [3] Forrester Research issued a disclaimer of its Microsoft-sponsored study on the cost of ownership of Linux vs. Windows, [4] and a similar IDC Linux/Windows study was discredited in Business Week by one of its authors. [5]

 

A closer look at how the tests were conducted and the results framed reveals why The Middleware Company study is without merit. 


[1] In the Appendix is the complete text of The Middleware Company retraction letter published in November 2002.

[2] The Middleware Company, "A Message to the J2EE and .NET Communities," November 8, 2002.

 

[3] The initial Middleware Company Pet Shop study and the J2EE vs. .NET study cited in the retraction in the Appendix.

[4] "Forrester Alters Integrity Policy," CNET News.com, October 7, 2003. "Forrester published a new policy that forbids vendors that commission studies from publicizing their results. The new policy follows the release last month of a study that concluded that companies spent less when developing certain programs with the Windows operating system than with Linux. Giga polled just 12 companies for the study, which led some critics to question the report's statistical relevance."

[5] "Pecked by Penguins," Business Week, March 3, 2003. Says the report: "One of the study's authors accuses Microsoft of stacking the deck. IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky says the company selected scenarios that would inevitably be more costly using Linux."


Wrong "WebSphere" Tool

 

One of the largest faults of the study is the focus on Rational Rapid Developer (RRD) as the primary J2EE development tool from IBM. The results for RRD are represented as "WebSphere" and RRD is characterized as the main WebSphere development tool. However, IBM has never marketed RRD as a full-blown WebSphere toolset with all the functionality of WebSphere Studio Application Developer (WSAD). WSAD is the tool intended specifically for building integrated enterprise J2EE applications.

 

Comparing VS.NET to RRD is not a fair comparison, nor is it the comparison IBM would have recommended. Why then did The Middleware Company characterize Rational Rapid Developer as the primary tool for WebSphere J2EE environment? The choice is particularly odd in light of the fact that they were aware that WSAD was the "mainstream" tool for WebSphere development (and that they achieved better results with WSAD). Articles in the trade press reported that the WSAD results were "unofficial" because they were not as controlled as the RRD measurements. This explanation was provided by The Middleware Company and Microsoft.

 

The WSAD results in this study were comparable to VS.NET in developer time spent on the project. The approach to application development in RRD is very different from WSAD, so the theory postulated in the study that the WSAD results were boosted by the experience the team gained using RRD are not credible.

 

The bottom line is that The Middleware Company chose to emphasize and give more weight to a tool that would not be recommended by IBM as the primary tool for WebSphere J2EE development. By focusing on RRD, the study draws attention away from the more favorable results posted by WSAD, which is IBM's premier application development tool and the direct competitor to VS.NET. Representing RRD in this way is inaccurate and misleading.

 

The table below summarizes the development tool comparisons made in the study:

________________________

Development Productivity            .NET beats RRD            .NET  = WSAD              WSAD beats RRD

Tuning Productivity                     .NET beats RRD            .NET  = WSAD              - uncertain -

Performance                              .NET beats RRD            .NET  = WSAD              WSAD beats RRD        

Manageability                            .NET beats RRD            .NET beats WSAD         RRD beats WSAD

 

RRD = Rational Rapid Developer

WSAD = WebSphere Studio Application Developer

_______________________

 

In order to have a fair comparison, you should make more of an attempt at having a level playing field. Here are the specific problems in this study which invalidate the results.

 

Unequal Programming Teams

 

Among the most questionable claims made in the study were that the .NET and J2EE programming teams were equal in programming experience and knowledge of their respective platforms. Having programming teams of equal skills is critical to the credibility of the end results.

 

The report states that three Microsoft "senior developers" were sourced from a Microsoft Solution Provider (Vertigo Software). The J2EE developers were sourced from The Middleware Company. Why were the J2EE developers not sourced from an IBM business partner that would have had some knowledge about IBM products?

 

There is an obvious disparity in the skill level of the .NET and WebSphere team exhibited during the actual development work. The Microsoft team exhibits amazing experience and depth of knowledge. An example is the Microsoft team's decision to code distributed transactions using "ServiceDomain classes" instead of  the "COM+ catalog." ServiceDomain classes are very new, very complex, and not that well understood and documented.

 

Another example of the high skill level of the .NET developers was their use of "Data Access Application Block" (DAAB) for enhancement of performance. This is not a standard part of .NET and one must go out explicitly and download and install it. To decide to code the distributed transactions with ServiceDomain classes and to add DAAB for performance enhancement, and to have it work the first time, shows a deep amount of technical skill.

 

The WebSphere team, on the other hand, exhibited little or no experience with WebSphere Studio Application Developer. Their inexperience is obvious and is easily traced throughout the study.

  • The study reports (pg.37) that "the .NET team was undoubtedly more experienced with their tool than the J2EE team with theirs."
  • The J2EE team decided to install the Sun JVM rather than the IBM-supplied JVM 1.4.1. WebSphere Studio product requirements state to use the IBM JVM or unpredictable results can occur. The unpredictable results that occurred later (pg. 59-60) were an unrecognized parameter during garbage collection. The time it took to troubleshoot and fix the problem counted against the J2EE team. The substitution of the Sun JVM can only be explained lack of experience with WebSphere Studio. If the intent was to test how WebSphere Studio performed, why would you introduce a non-IBM JVM?
  •  The J2EE team decided not to do any source code management (pg. 32), even though ClearCase LT and CVS were available. "Instead they divided their work carefully and copied changed source files between their machines." The .NET team used Visual SourceSafe for source control. Does the J2EE decision indicate experienced developers?  Problems resulted (pg. 45) for the J2EE developers that increased their development time. It appears again that lack of experience played a role in this poor decision.
  •  The J2EE team decided to use the Sun J2ME wireless toolkit in Sun One Studio to create an application for a mobile device that was part of the specification. The code generated from the Sun wireless toolkit did not work with the RRD-generated application. Again, this displays a lack of experience in not using the WebSphere Studio tools to interface with the mobile device.

  • It took the J2EE team extra time to discover that they had a SIMPLE rights (SELECT rights) user error when they went to access the Oracle database. This counted as developer productivity time and again showed lack of  experience.
  • The J2EE developer team used POJO (Plain Old Java Object) instead of what best practice might have indicated here - EJBs. It was noted later in the report that the team created a "framework" to handle the JDBC access. If they had used EJB's, they would have had the container handle the pooled requests and it can be argued that the performance would have been better. In the POJO scenario, a new connection had to be created for EVERY call to the database which is very expensive. In addition, they spent extra time developing a "crude" framework to handle the requests, which counted against them.
  • The J2EE team chose not to use (or did not seem aware of) the more productive tools available such as Java Server Faces and Service Data Objects.
  • The J2EE team specifically chose not to use the Model View Controler approach such as STRUTS technology.

 

Despite the fact that the three J2EE assigned developers from The Middleware Company had little or no experience with WebSphere Studio, and did not use recommended best practices, WebSphere Studio was still robust enough to allow the J2EE team to equal the results of the expert Microsoft team using VS.NET in the areas of developer productivity, configuration, tuning and performance.

 

Software Platform Disparity

 

For a fair performance comparison, the software platforms being tested should be equal. However, in addition to the lack of J2EE developer experience, different databases and operating systems were used in this test. Consider the following:

  •  Although an attempt was made to make the hardware equivalent, that did not hold true for the base development systems. The Microsoft development team's system consisted of Windows XP and a pre-loaded SQL Server database. The J2EE team's system had Windows XP and a pre-loaded Oracle database. These two different databases were used in the production environment as well. Why were two different databases used by the two teams? At the very least, the databases should have been tuned, optimized, tested, and certified that they were performing equally. We have no information or data to indicate how they compared.                   

This flaw by itself should be enough to call the entire performance results into question. Before a single line of code was written, the entire study was suspect.

  • Linux was mandated to run the performance tests. A real performance test should compare one competitor to another with as much commonality as possible. The WebSphere J2EE tests should have been run on the same platform (Windows Server 2003) as the .NET tests.

 

Single-Tier Restrictions

 

The configurations in The Middleware Company study were restricted, which benefited Microsoft in performance vs. the J2EE application. The study did not allow for multiple-tier implementations - configurations that would mirror real-world usage. Customers like to separate physical tiers of Web applications because it gives them more flexibility for allocation of resources on a tier-by-tier basis and the ability to separate tiers for security and/or geographical concerns.

 

There were a number of other factors in The Middleware Company study that impeded the J2EE application's performance:

 

  • The Edge server is not needed and adds another layer that is not required. Using the IBM HTTP Server where the Edge Server is, and deleting the two IBM HTTP Servers from the Application Server machine would suffice. This would decrease the complexity and total path length of the application, and allow more processing power for the application servers.

  • The teams used different patterns to design the applications. The Microsoft team used a stored procedures pattern while the J2EE team did not. It is quite possible that better performance had been achieved on the J2EE side if it had had the same playing field.

  • Heap size affects the amount of memory allocated to the Java Virtual Machine. One would want to dedicate as much memory as possible to the heap size. The heap sizes were allocated stating that the servers had 1 GB of memory each. This appears to be incorrect. The diagram on page 26 states the servers are 2 GB each, as does the CN2 Technology auditor report. A higher heap size should have been used, something like a minimum heap size of 1,256 MB and a maximum of 1,536 MB.

  • The standard method of storing data in the HTTP sessions was not used. The standard method of storing session data for both should been used.

  • The use of two datasources in the J2EE case affects performance negatively. The two datasources allocated were one, an XA compliant for two-phase commit; the other one was not XA compliant. Their claim was that by splitting the requests to each of the data sources, performance would improve. In theory that might be true; however, it basically precludes sharing of data connections between the two datasourses, and all the database requests going through the XA datasource would lock the tables for other transactions. If they had a single XA datasource, they could satisfy the two-phase commit and the connection pooling. Performance might have improved because of the ability to cache the connection pools.

  • In general, the performance runs were done based on achieving a maximum response time of one second. The servers were not driven to maximum capacity.  It is never stated what the limiting resource was on the system. A more realistic view of performance and stability is a stress run, where there is no "think time" or wait time between interactions, and the only constrained resource is the application server under test.

  • On the integrated scenario, the testers conveniently chose to implement 75% of the application where Microsoft is slightly better than IBM, and only 25% of the application where IBM is better than Microsoft on a 2 to 1 ratio, when run together. If one does the math on the separate scenarios, IBM should have been 650 vs. 550 for Microsoft, yet with integrated scenario IBM is 482 vs. 855 for Microsoft.  There are no details on the throughput for each application in the integrated scenario, and there is no attempt to ascertain the limiting resource(s) during the runs, yet we are expected to believe that the applications themselves ran slower because they were run concurrently on separate servers. 

Cost Manipulations

 

The study's cost assessment is inaccurate -adding costs to the IBM side while excluding costs that should have been associated to Microsoft. One such extraneous cost was the use of high-end 4-way servers, which was unnecessary and raised the WebSphere configuration cost significantly.  For example, a typical configuration like the one in the study could have been deployed on three 2-way servers instead of the 4-way servers that were used.

 

The Middleware Company's J2EE team initially used a three-node configuration (pg. 28) but added a fourth server to run WebSphere MQ Series.  The developers' lack of experience added unnecessary cost to the configuration because a JMS server ships native with the WebSphere Application server at no extra cost.  This unnecessary use of hardware and software increased the cost of the WebSphere configuration by more than $200,000.

 

While IBM's costs were inflated, we believe the Microsoft configuration costs were understated.  The Microsoft configuration was missing an extra year of Software Assurance for the Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Server license.  This was due to The Middleware Company's misinterpretation of the terms of the Open Value Agreement, which is three years, not two.  The Microsoft configuration should be increased by $595 per server to cover the cost of an extra year of software assurance.

 

 

In a typical configuration, users are required to authenticate before gaining access to Web applications. Each client device would require a Microsoft client access license (CAL).  Client access licenses are fees Microsoft charges customers for each user or device that accesses a Microsoft Windows server and Microsoft's middleware server. These fees are costly and are in addition to the base server pricing.  In Microsoft's Software Assurance licensing scheme, users pay an additional 25% of the CAL cost per year for three years.  The WebSphere configuration doesn't require users to pay an extra cost for client access and also allows unlimited customer and external customer access to the middleware servers. As shown in the charts below, the inclusion of CAL cost increases the overall price of the Microsoft configuration.

 

Another omission was the MSDN enterprise subscription cost that reflected only one year rather than the three-year terms of the Open Value Agreement.  This would add an additional $5,000 to the Microsoft pricing.

 

The study's assessment of pricing is skewed in other ways that favor Microsoft.  For example, the Microsoft configuration is based on a nonsecure environment that would be considered a security risk in a real-world deployment. The WebSphere architecture provides native reliability and security as a standard and does not require users to pay an extra cost for secure client access.

 

The Microsoft configuration does not require users to authenticate against Active Directory, allowing anonymous users access to the studies' Web applications. Not using authentication or security simplified the development of the .NET application and left the environment open to the types of security risks that dominate the news headlines.

 

The Middleware Company's cost model understated the full Microsoft costs required for the scenario.  A more thorough study of the total costs of ownership shows that Linux and WAS Express have costs slightly lower than the Microsoft solution.  This is in strong contrast to their claim that WebSphere would cost ten times more than the Microsoft solution. Below is our assessment of IBM and Microsoft pricing based on a typical customer deployment.

 

...continued on page 2

More Stories By Jeremy Geelan

Jeremy Geelan is Chairman & CEO of the 21st Century Internet Group, Inc. and an Executive Academy Member of the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences. Formerly he was President & COO at Cloud Expo, Inc. and Conference Chair of the worldwide Cloud Expo series. He appears regularly at conferences and trade shows, speaking to technology audiences across six continents. You can follow him on twitter: @jg21.

Comments (18) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
Tabby Rasah 11/03/04 12:04:37 AM EST

Is the Middleware Company really independent? I think they're a subsidiary of Veritas--not that they are a platform vendor, but you have to figure there's some cross-interests there.

Movie Lover 10/31/04 12:20:23 PM EST

What is TMC? The Movie Channel?

Al 10/28/04 11:43:58 PM EDT

This so-called "leaked" report is as questionable as the .NET/J2EE comparison including the claim that even with the inexperienced J2EE developers, they were still more productive than the experienced .NET developers using WebSphere. C'mon, SysCon, stop wasting our time and perpetuating this debate publishing this dribble. You might as well be publishing articles to pursuade people to change their political leanings.

Edu 10/28/04 04:36:52 PM EDT

Chris, it doesn't metter what 'staff' you like more. It metter what technology is more suitable for which task. I would like to see someone who had made Windows drivers with Java?

Mario, there isn't a question about Microsoft trying to strengthen .NET position in 'MS native' market. MS try to put .NET based solutions into J2EE market. This is why they participate in this study. This is a MS way marketing.

Consultant 10/28/04 11:27:15 AM EDT

I find it hard to believe that a J2EE developer worth their weight would design their own framework, not use struts, not use connection pooling, and not at least use session EJB's in the design for this application. There's no benchmarking of the databases, and you're telling me that the results are not based on stress tests? What industry do they work in? I've consulted and assisted with implementations at many Fortune 500 companies, and I can tell you that the tests were not anything like what happens in the real world.

Mario 10/27/04 03:25:31 PM EDT

It is amazing how Microsoft is so scared of J2EE that they have to cheapen themselves by taking part in the study. If .Net is as great as they profess it to be, I am sure that more companies would be using it.

It is just like politics - say anything to ruin your competitor and the common un-educated folks will believe it.

With the money that Microsoft has to throw around it is amazing that everything we use is not running some kind of Microsoft OS on it.

Software Architect 10/27/04 12:36:01 PM EDT

You cannot take any of these comparisons seriously. The fact that the J2EE project was developed by non-experts is a plus in my eyes since most projects do not have so called "experts" on it. I never take development time comparisons seriously either since that is always dependent on the team and the project. So which tools were used are almost irrelevant to me. In fact, any platform dependent on a specific tool for development is a poorly designed platform. More important is how the platform performs, so the fact that the IBM JVM was not used is probably the most valid complaint. The fact that the DAAB was used for the .NET and has to be downloaded is a petty complaint. IBM has tons of tools downloadable from their site to aid development as well. I'd like to see a test where two non-expert teams can pick whatever tools they like, use any generally available software from the vendors, and given a specific amount of time to attach the same problem.

WebSphere Lover 10/27/04 09:14:22 AM EDT

Sure Microsoft should sponsor the report like they did and the clowns at TMC should announce the results as an independent study. Way to go Chris

Chris 10/27/04 09:07:41 AM EDT

Sounds like the old, it's not the tools its the programmer who uses them issue. True enough in most circumstances I suppose. Then again, I have no doubt that an newbie coder could be productive with .Net in a much shorter time. I love the Java stuff tools and mindset, but the .Net stuff is by far much easier to develop with.

Mike Driver 10/27/04 07:38:55 AM EDT

The damage is done now, even if the report is discredited.
IBM could respond by sponsoring it's own impartial study using experts from both sides of the arguement. But that would probably end up being biased in favour of Websphere/J2EE.
It would take a truely impartial group to create a truely impartial study... but where is the incentive.

Ben 10/27/04 07:16:31 AM EDT

Cameron, this is in response to a *new* TMC study, not the original one in 2002.

malcolm davis 10/27/04 12:28:35 AM EDT

I read the Middleware report, and the details. After investing a great deal of time in both J2EE and .NET, I knew the report was serious flawed.

The TMC report also led you to believe that they had invited IBM developers. The Middleware had demonstrated that it is nothing more than a political hack. Unfortunately, damage is done when reports like TMC are published at legitimate sites.

What should happen now? Legitimate sites should ban printing anything from TMC, even if TMC has genuine news. The only way to kill a political hack is to cut its output venues.

Cameron 10/26/04 07:52:21 PM EDT

odd that it takes IBM two years to get a response out ..

Matthew Quinlan 10/26/04 06:26:03 PM EDT

Interesting. It is easy to throw stones at any benchmark or comparison study. However, it is a much more difficult task to actually design and conduct one. While the funding by Microsoft is clearly a conflict of interest, I would expect that even a truly independent comparison would generate many of the same inconsistencies. The fact is that these kinds of comparisons must take into account so many variables that have their own tradeoffs (and no clear corresponding variable on the competitor's platform) that the margin of error is larger than the absolute results.

This type of analysis is therefore relegated to for-hire companies (e.g. TMC) who provide fodder for customer executives who wish to defend their existing or upcoming technology decisions.

Alexander 10/26/04 06:16:11 PM EDT

The whole buzz in this article mainly shows one thing - it doesn't matter what tool and environment is used, the question is who is using it.
Use bad programmer and you get bad application.
However one more thing is also evident. The dot.com boom dropped to the market a lot of half baked programmers and most of them know the Java as their only tool.

Scott Simmons 10/26/04 11:13:54 AM EDT

I find it a very large concern when an "independent" group (The Middleware Company) professes vendor neautrality and then publishes a report which would not even qualify for an undergraduate Computer Science class homework assignment -- it is clear that they are not acting in the best interest of the market when they publish these types of reports. It could be said that they are only harming themselves (as per limiting their credibility) but I take exception as lead decision makers depend on these types of reports to make critical business decisions. Makes you wonder about how the report has been funded ... and brings to mind the ongoing LINUX versus Windows ramblings that Microsoft is pushing. You would think that Microsoft should be spending money on fixing the huge number of security glitches (that still remain after SP2) versus engaging it what looks like a well-funded attack campaign. It actually reminds me of the political election process we are witnessing across the US ...

Heath 10/26/04 05:11:09 AM EDT

Yes lets make sure all comparisons are actually equal. The Vendor interests must be taken into account in a way that enables true best practise and (as close as possible to) real-world deployment.

By the same token, vendor interests that unnecessarily bias against others must be avoided or, if that is not possible, clearly identified and 'costed' into the comparisons.

I wonder how TMC would feel about an orgainsation committing itself to a big project based on their 'test' results with open slather to sue them for each discovery that was contrary to their findings? That is the real test.

(I'm not troubled by the '3 fonts', but your link to Table 2 for the Microsoft costings is wrong - it points to the IBM Table. It is important to see the MS details as well)

sa 10/26/04 02:36:03 AM EDT

Completely ignoring the content of the article, why do you have to publish this with so many fonts?!?! There has to be at least 3 sizes and two faces in use throughout this article. I expected better....

@ThingsExpo Stories
The IoT has the potential to create a renaissance of manufacturing in the US and elsewhere. In his session at 18th Cloud Expo, Florent Solt, CTO and chief architect of Netvibes, will discuss how the expected exponential increase in the amount of data that will be processed, transported, stored, and accessed means there will be a huge demand for smart technologies to deliver it. Florent Solt is the CTO and chief architect of Netvibes. Prior to joining Netvibes in 2007, he co-founded Rift Technol...
Join IBM June 8 at 18th Cloud Expo at the Javits Center in New York City, NY, and learn how to innovate like a startup and scale for the enterprise. You need to deliver quality applications faster and cheaper, attract and retain customers with an engaging experience across devices, and seamlessly integrate your enterprise systems. And you can't take 12 months to do it.
This is not a small hotel event. It is also not a big vendor party where politicians and entertainers are more important than real content. This is Cloud Expo, the world's longest-running conference and exhibition focused on Cloud Computing and all that it entails. If you want serious presentations and valuable insight about Cloud Computing for three straight days, then register now for Cloud Expo.
IoT device adoption is growing at staggering rates, and with it comes opportunity for developers to meet consumer demand for an ever more connected world. Wireless communication is the key part of the encompassing components of any IoT device. Wireless connectivity enhances the device utility at the expense of ease of use and deployment challenges. Since connectivity is fundamental for IoT device development, engineers must understand how to overcome the hurdles inherent in incorporating multipl...
Machine Learning helps make complex systems more efficient. By applying advanced Machine Learning techniques such as Cognitive Fingerprinting, wind project operators can utilize these tools to learn from collected data, detect regular patterns, and optimize their own operations. In his session at 18th Cloud Expo, Stuart Gillen, Director of Business Development at SparkCognition, will discuss how research has demonstrated the value of Machine Learning in delivering next generation analytics to im...
Manufacturers are embracing the Industrial Internet the same way consumers are leveraging Fitbits – to improve overall health and wellness. Both can provide consistent measurement, visibility, and suggest performance improvements customized to help reach goals. Fitbit users can view real-time data and make adjustments to increase their activity. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Mark Bernardo Professional Services Leader, Americas, at GE Digital, will discuss how leveraging the Industrial Interne...
The paradigm has shifted. A Gartner survey shows that 43% of organizations are using or plan to implement the Internet of Things in 2016. However, not just a handful of companies are still using the old-style ad-hoc trial-and-error ways, unaware of the critical barriers, paint points, traps, and hidden roadblocks. How can you become a winner? In his session at @ThingsExpo, Tony Shan will present a methodical approach to guide the holistic adoption and enablement of IoT implementations. This ov...
SYS-CON Events announced today that Stratoscale, the software company developing the next generation data center operating system, will exhibit at SYS-CON's 18th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 7-9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. Stratoscale is revolutionizing the data center with a zero-to-cloud-in-minutes solution. With Stratoscale’s hardware-agnostic, Software Defined Data Center (SDDC) solution to store everything, run anything and scale everywhere...
Angular 2 is a complete re-write of the popular framework AngularJS. Programming in Angular 2 is greatly simplified – now it's a component-based well-performing framework. This immersive one-day workshop at 18th Cloud Expo, led by Yakov Fain, a Java Champion and a co-founder of the IT consultancy Farata Systems and the product company SuranceBay, will provide you with everything you wanted to know about Angular 2.
Digital payments using wearable devices such as smart watches, fitness trackers, and payment wristbands are an increasing area of focus for industry participants, and consumer acceptance from early trials and deployments has encouraged some of the biggest names in technology and banking to continue their push to drive growth in this nascent market. Wearable payment systems may utilize near field communication (NFC), radio frequency identification (RFID), or quick response (QR) codes and barcodes...
SYS-CON Events announced today that Men & Mice, the leading global provider of DNS, DHCP and IP address management overlay solutions, will exhibit at SYS-CON's 18th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 7-9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. The Men & Mice Suite overlay solution is already known for its powerful application in heterogeneous operating environments, enabling enterprises to scale without fuss. Building on a solid range of diverse platform support,...
You deployed your app with the Bluemix PaaS and it's gaining some serious traction, so it's time to make some tweaks. Did you design your application in a way that it can scale in the cloud? Were you even thinking about the cloud when you built the app? If not, chances are your app is going to break. Check out this webcast to learn various techniques for designing applications that will scale successfully in Bluemix, for the confidence you need to take your apps to the next level and beyond.
The increasing popularity of the Internet of Things necessitates that our physical and cognitive relationship with wearable technology will change rapidly in the near future. This advent means logging has become a thing of the past. Before, it was on us to track our own data, but now that data is automatically available. What does this mean for mHealth and the "connected" body? In her session at @ThingsExpo, Lisa Calkins, CEO and co-founder of Amadeus Consulting, will discuss the impact of wea...
Whether your IoT service is connecting cars, homes, appliances, wearable, cameras or other devices, one question hangs in the balance – how do you actually make money from this service? The ability to turn your IoT service into profit requires the ability to create a monetization strategy that is flexible, scalable and working for you in real-time. It must be a transparent, smoothly implemented strategy that all stakeholders – from customers to the board – will be able to understand and comprehe...
SYS-CON Events announced today that Ericsson has been named “Gold Sponsor” of SYS-CON's @ThingsExpo, which will take place on June 7-9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York, New York. Ericsson is a world leader in the rapidly changing environment of communications technology – providing equipment, software and services to enable transformation through mobility. Some 40 percent of global mobile traffic runs through networks we have supplied. More than 1 billion subscribers around the world re...
So, you bought into the current machine learning craze and went on to collect millions/billions of records from this promising new data source. Now, what do you do with them? Too often, the abundance of data quickly turns into an abundance of problems. How do you extract that "magic essence" from your data without falling into the common pitfalls? In her session at @ThingsExpo, Natalia Ponomareva, Software Engineer at Google, will provide tips on how to be successful in large scale machine lear...
SYS-CON Events announced today that Fusion, a leading provider of cloud services, will exhibit at SYS-CON's 18th International Cloud Expo®, which will take place on June 7-9, 2016, at the Javits Center in New York City, NY. Fusion, a leading provider of integrated cloud solutions to small, medium and large businesses, is the industry's single source for the cloud. Fusion's advanced, proprietary cloud service platform enables the integration of leading edge solutions in the cloud, including cloud...
There is an ever-growing explosion of new devices that are connected to the Internet using “cloud” solutions. This rapid growth is creating a massive new demand for efficient access to data. And it’s not just about connecting to that data anymore. This new demand is bringing new issues and challenges and it is important for companies to scale for the coming growth. And with that scaling comes the need for greater security, gathering and data analysis, storage, connectivity and, of course, the...
The IETF draft standard for M2M certificates is a security solution specifically designed for the demanding needs of IoT/M2M applications. In his session at @ThingsExpo, Brian Romansky, VP of Strategic Technology at TrustPoint Innovation, will explain how M2M certificates can efficiently enable confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity on highly constrained devices.
In his session at @ThingsExpo, Chris Klein, CEO and Co-founder of Rachio, will discuss next generation communities that are using IoT to create more sustainable, intelligent communities. One example is Sterling Ranch, a 10,000 home development that – with the help of Siemens – will integrate IoT technology into the community to provide residents with energy and water savings as well as intelligent security. Everything from stop lights to sprinkler systems to building infrastructures will run ef...