Tag Archive for Baidu

Follow the Open Source Money

 Matt Asay at Infoworld recently pointed out some interesting data on who really contributes to open source. Wikipedia, the most well-known open-source project, defines open-source software as software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees. Open-source code can evolve through community cooperation. These communities include individual programmers as well as large companies.

Open sourceAdobe developer Fil Maj used the GitHub REST API to pull public profile information from GitHub users. The REST API is a low-bandwidth protocol used on the internet that allows two software programs to communicate with each other. Using the API, Mr. Maj collected the company field from all 2,060,011 GitHub user profiles who were active in 2017 (“active” meaning ten or more commits to public projects). Using that data, Mr. Maj was able to pull the total number of corporate contributors to GitHub, with results that might surprise you.

Here are the ranking of GitHub contributors, with their total number of employees actively contributing to open source projects on GitHub:

RankCompanyEmployees Contributing
1Microsoft4,550
2Google2,267
3Red Hat2,027
4IBM1,813
5Intel1,314
6Amazon.com881
7SAP747
8ThoughtWorks739
9Alibaba694
10GitHub676
11Facebook619
12Tencent605
13Pivotal591
14EPAM Systems585
15Baidu584
16Mozilla469
17Oracle455
18Unity Technologies414
19Uber388
20Yandex351
21Shopify345
22LinkedIn343
23Suse325
24ESRI324
25Apple292
26Salesforce.com291
27VMware271
28Adobe Systems270
29Andela259
30Cisco Systems233

The author points out, this is not a perfect measure, but it is a much richer, more accurate data set for figuring out total contributors for any company. Even with that caveat in mind, we end up with many more corporate open source contributors than previous data suggested.

Microsoft’s contributions to open source

Microsoft's contributions to open sourceThe new data shows Microsoft (MSFT) is the number 1 open source contributor. Redmond has twice the number of contributors compared to its next nearest competitor. Remember Steve Ballmer‘s developers! developers! developers! meltdown?  For those of us that were around when Mr. Ballmer, the Microsoft CEO called open source as a “cancer” and “anti-American,” this is a remarkable change of heart for MSFT.

Red Hat

Red Hat (RHT) Mr. Maj’s data puts the open source leader among the top contributors. Red Hat has dramatically fewer engineers on its payroll than Google (GOOG) or Microsoft. As such, it’s doubly impressive that Red Hat would place so highly. Pretty much every engineer in the company works on open-source projects.

Amazon

 

Amazon logoAmazon (AMZN) Often considered an open source ne’er-do-well, Amazon comes in at No. 6 in the rankings. AMZN has nearly 900 open source contributors on staff. The article points out that Amazon has perhaps not publicly led the open source effort in the same way as Google and Microsoft have, but it remains a strong contributor to the projects that feed its developer community.

China is a net consumer of open source

Chinese companies like Baidu, Tencent, and Alibaba, which have long been perceived to be net consumers of open source, actually contribute quite a bit according to the new data.

Legacy firms

Legacy firms like Intel (INTC), Oracle (ORCL), Adobe (ADBE), and Cisco (CSCO) rank among the top 30 open source contributors reports InfoWorld.

rb-

Color me suspicious, but have these firms really embraced open source. Have they just adapted their business model to usurp elements of open source to lay their proprietary code on top of it? This saves them the bother of writing new code and yet they can charge proprietary costs for software where they have reduced their development costs.

Tom Brady hanging high fiveAfter all, numbers don’t lie. Stats say that in 2014, half of the companies said they use open source in their product. Just one year later, the number grew to 78%. Consequently, as long as open source continues to enjoy its place in the sun, we should expect the Microsoft-open source bromance to continue.

Related article

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Motor City v. Silicon Valley

– Updated 03-30-2018 – Business Insider reports that Silicon Valley darling Tesla shares have collapsed almost 6% since January 1 on a string of critical reports about the company’s ability to keep up healthy production levels and meet delivery expectations for its new mass-market Model 3 sedan.

Motor City v. Silicon ValleyBack in April, the tech sector was leaping for joy when Tesla’s stock market valuation passed Ford and GM. Rumors abound in Silicon Valley that Tesla is the future of transportation and Elon Musk is the king of cars because they took more orders for cars that did not burn up or crash out of control. In 2016 Tesla delivered only 76,000 vehicles. Ford sold nearly 1 million F-Series trucks in 2016.

Ford and GMDespite the happy dances in Silicon Valley, which fancy itself as the logical successor to Detroit as the capital of American innovation new research says not so fast. The west coast upstartsUber, Google (GOOG), and Tesla (TLSA) — still have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to outpacing Michigan manufacturers. The Verge points us to Navigant Research, whose newly released “leaderboard” report ranks autonomous vehicle players not just on their ability to make a car drive itself, but on their ability to bring that car to the mass market. 

Navigant Research scored 18 companies working on self-driving technology on 10 different criteria related to strategy, manufacturing, and execution. The report combined all that into an overall score to get a sense of who’s ahead and who’s not. General Motors (GM) and Ford (F) are currently leading the pack, with Daimler and Renault-Nissan close behind. Those four companies make up Navigant’s “leader” category. In other words, when you climb into your first self-driving car in 2021, it will almost certainly be built by one of those four companies.
Navigant Research Leaderboard: Automated Driving Vehicles

Most everyone else is in the “contender” category. This includes car companies like BMW, PSA, Hyundai, Toyota, Tesla, and Volkswagen; suppliers like Delphi and ZF; and tech firms like Alphabet’s Waymo. Further down the list, in the “challengers” category, are companies like Honda, nuTonomy, Baidu, and Uber.

Detroit is beating Silicon ValleyGM Assembly line

Sam Abuelsamid, a senior research analyst at Navigant and one of the authors of the report, told the Verge the reason Detroit beating Silicon Valley so badly in this all-too-crucial race to get autonomous vehicles on the road is because of experience. He says, Silicon Valley, “ …. will have to do deals with someone to get actual vehicles.”

Alphabet’s Waymo, scores top marks for technology but drags in the production strategy and sales, marketing, and distribution buckets. The company plans to work with legacy automakers to put its tech in cars, but has not yet struck any major deals. Mr. Abuelsamid detailed on an email with the Verge that Waymo is in the best position of the contenders.

Waymo logoThey have almost every piece of this—except the product strategy … Waymo has what is arguably the best technology right now, although they probably aren’t that far ahead of the leading [original equipment manufacturers] but they will have to do deals with someone to get actual vehicles”

Despite Uber’s high profile, a recent study showed that only 15% of U.S. consumers have tried a ride-hailing app like Uber. Uber also has a safety problem – Uber drivers have been charged with murder and violent crimes against their customers.  In the Navigant research, Uber wallows near last place thanks to low grades for distribution, product portfolio, and staying power—and because makes Uber makes neither cars nor money. In fact, its key strength—that it already operates a global fleet of shared vehicles—may not be enough here. “It’s a lot easier for the company that actually has the infrastructure to create vehicles to recreate what Uber’s done, than the other way around,” Mr. Abuelsamid says.

Scale matters in the auto industry.

The Navigant analyst explained scale matters in the auto industry.

All the little [Silicon Valley] startups may have some interesting ideas, but they don’t have the resources to produce something sufficiently robust to be commercially viable. If they have something good to offer, their best bet is an acquisition

Mergers and acquistionsThe “legacy automakers” have engaged in mergers and acquisitions and early maneuvering in the autonomous vehicle arena as Mr. Abuelsamid stated. The report predicts that big companies will buy little startups to leverage their technology and expertise to round out the much larger-scale enterprise of developing, testing, validating, producing, and distributing self-driving cars.

Wired says Ford and GM both score in the low to mid 80s on the technology front; it’s their old-school skills that float them to first and second place. They’ve each spent more than a century developing, testing, producing, marketing, distributing, and selling cars. Plus, each has made strategic moves to bolster weak points.

Chevy BoltGM recently acquired Cruise Automation, a San Francisco-based autonomous vehicle technology maker in a deal valued at more than $1 billion. GM said the acquisition will allow it to “accelerate” its autonomous vehicle development efforts.

Ford has announced an investment of $1 billion over the next five years in Argo AI, a startup run by Carnegie Mellon roboticists and engineers who really know their artificial intelligence stuff.

Waymo Chryslet PacificaFiat Chrysler has partnered with Alphabet to jointly test autonomous technology in Pacifica minivans, and Alphabet is opening a 53,000 square foot self-driving car development center near Detroit in Novi, MI.

GM has invested $500 million in ride-sharing provider Lyft to beef up its ridesharing service. In the “long-term strategic alliance,” the companies will work on what they call “on-demand autonomous vehicles.” For now, the deal means GM cars will be the “preferred” vehicle used by Lyft drivers who rent their cars in various U.S. cities. Those vehicles will tap into GM’s OnStar service, while GM and Lyft promised “personalized mobility services and experiences,” but did not elaborate.

Ford invested $75 million iin LiDAR maker VelodyneFord, meanwhile, recently announced a $75 million investment in LiDAR maker Velodyne, to “quickly mass-produce a more affordable automotive LiDAR sensor” so the company can launch a fleet of self-driving ride-sharing cars by 2021

Ford has also acquired SAIPS, an Israeli machine learning firm to further strengthen its ability in artificial intelligence and computer vision. SAIPS has developed algorithmic solutions in image and video processing, deep learning, signal processing and classification. This expertise will help Ford autonomous vehicles learn and adapt to the surroundings of their environment

Ford announced that it would take part in a $6.6 million seed funding round for Civil Maps to further develop high-resolution 3D mapping capabilities. This provides Ford another way to develop high-resolution 3D maps of autonomous vehicle environments. Ford has also agreed to acquire Chariot, an on-demand shuttle service based in San Francisco.

Mr. Abuelsamid predicts that early on,  you probably won’t be buying a self-driving car at a dealership, but rather riding in one that you hail through an app-based service like Uber or Lyft. These vehicles will be part of a fleet owned by a manufacturer, like Ford or GM. Fleet ownership will help manufacturers manage the issues self-driving vehicles are likely to encounter early on, like insurance for the inevitable accidents. Navigant’s Abuelsamid says

With all of that in mind, it’s far easier for a manufacturer to replicate the sort of logistics platform that Uber or Lyft have than it is for those companies to invest in and create the development, manufacturing, and service infrastructure that [original equipment manufacturers] have

Mr. Abuelsamid noted that Tesla ranked pretty far down the “contender” because Elon Musk’s company is “lacking in quality, distribution, financial stability, and their [Autopilot] 2.0 hardware will never be more than limited Level 4-capable (PDF) at best.” In other words, Musk would be advised not to start gloating about his company being valued higher than the OG’s Ford and GM quite yet.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.

Chinas Internet Giants are Massive

Chinas Internet Giants are MassiveDerrick Harris, writer for GigaOM recently gave us a peek inside China’s Internet giants and their massive scale. The author describes China’s big four internet companies as huge, but not technological innovators like their American counterparts – yet.

China’s Internet market

Great China FirewallThe Chinese Internet market is very, very big despite the Great Firewall that cuts Chinese citizens off from many popular U.S. web services. The article states there are more Chinese netizens than all the citizens of the United States and European Union combined. And they use social media and e-commerce just like the rest of us. The author gives some examples of the scale of the companies providing social media, e-commerce, and information-discovery needs to China’s 1.3 billion people.

TaobaoAlibaba Group

Taobao, the eBay-like e-commerce line of business from Chinese internet giant Alibaba Group, does a lot of business. On a single day — Nov. 11, 2011 — the company did a whopping 19 billion yuan (about $3.05 billion) in sales. According to Alibaba Group CTO and Alibaba Cloud Computing President Wang Jian, the company site surpassed the 1 trillion yuan (about $160 billion) mark for 2012 revenue at the end of November. Alipay, the company’s version of PayPal, handles about 3 billion yuan (about $480 million) in transactions every day.

AlibabaBy comparison, eBay (EBAY) posted $3.4 billion in revenue for the entire third quarter this year. Amazon (AMZN), with which Taobao also competes (although Alibaba also has a business-to-consumer division called Tmall), closed its third quarter with $13.8 billion in revenue. Of course, Taobao and Alipay are just two of Alibaba’s expansive portfolio of services, which includes a troubled partnership with Yahoo (YHOO).

That type of business means Alibaba needs a lot of servers. In a single year not too long ago, Jian told the author, the company bought more servers than it had in the previous five years combined. If you charted Alibaba’s server count now versus five years ago, he added, the previous number would look like zero. How big is its database? Enough to store data for more than 800 million items for sale.

Baidu

Baidu logoThe Chinese search giant is ranked fifth in the Alexa internet rankings, which is evidence of its popularity. All those users, I’m told, result in an annual server growth about equal to the previous three years combined. It is reported that Baidu (BIDU) is planning possibly the world’s largest data center — spanning 120,000 square meters, costing $1.6 billion, housing 100,000 servers (totaling 700,000 CPUs and 3 million cores), and storing 4,000 petabytes of data.

Tencent logoTencent

Sometimes compared with Facebook (FB), Tencent (TCEHY) boasted more than 717 million users for its popular QQ messaging service as of September 2011. That number has surely grown. The company says its highest-ever number of concurrent users was more than 176 million, although there are often tens of millions (if not more than 100 million people) using it at any given time. An individual with some knowledge of the company’s infrastructure told me Tencent adds about 100,000 servers per year.

Weibo

Weibo logoThe Twitter-like platform from internet new-school internet company Sina had more than 400 million users as of April 2012. That’s about twice the number Twitter claims. And the Chinese use Weibo a lot, for everything from micro-blogging to self-publishing. It might actually be a more important tool in China than Twitter is in the United States, sources told the author, because while the government can censor official news outlets, it can’t possibly control the stream of information coming off Weibo. And that will mean even more growth.

Mr. Harris concludes that, despite their sheer scale, Chinese internet companies are, by most accounts, less technologically inclined than their American counterparts. The biggest reason, the author says is that these companies tend to view themselves as traditional businesses and not technology companies. Another factor mentioned is that employees often strive to work up the management ladder not remain career engineers. This inevitably affects R&D budgets, makes companies less willing to take risks, and reduces the pool of employees that really, deeply understand complex systems.

10,000 webscale serversThe blog cites the server situation within China’s big four internet companies. Alibaba’s Jian told the author that although his company is running all white boxes in its data centers now, it had a lot of legacy IBM (IBM) gear in its data centers five years ago. The same thing is reported about Baidu. Tencent, had 10,000 webscale servers fail in six months last year and is considering a move back to traditional boxes.

Open Compute Project

The article speculates that these companies are coming around on innovation beyond just buying more efficient gear. Tencent, Baidu, and Alibaba, for example, are all members of the Facebook-led Open Compute Project for designing webscale hardware. Tencent and Baidu actually created their own rack-design specification, called Project Scorpio, which is being merged into Open Compute’s Open Rack design in 2013. They still don’t build their own servers like Google and Facebook do, preferring instead to push their custom specs on server makers, but many innovative American companies, including eBay, do the same thing.

Open ComputeFacebook VP Frank Frankovsky told PCWorld, “We compete with those guys, but on the infrastructure side, if we can make our infrastructure more efficient, it makes everyone that much better. Where we differentiate our business is in the service we provide to our end users.

That differentiation comes in large part from an incredible investment in research and technology. If they want to be considered thought leaders in their field — and if they want to expand significantly into cloud computing (as Alibaba and Sina clearly want to do) — China’s internet companies will have to start matching their immense scale with demonstrated technology.

Related articles

 

Ralph Bach has been in IT long enough to know better and has blogged from his Bach Seat about IT, careers, and anything else that catches his attention since 2005. You can follow him on LinkedInFacebook, and Twitter. Email the Bach Seat here.