Skip to main content

Numeroom.com compared to Google Wave , how are they different?

In a post from several months back I mentioned the Google "Wave" server technology that had been announced by many of the IT media shops. Google provided many tech. videos on the service on youtube and after watching a few of them I got the gist of the service as being basically an open source collaboration server for a more real time collaboration experience between users on the server. Shortly afterward I was asked by Juliette Powell what the main differences were between the numeroom.com service and google wave were. I explained some of the architectural differences based on what I knew of them at the time in this post which had some great input in the comments for that post but on the business end, numeroom.com collaboration provides a solution for small businesses that makes it more efficient than going with any server based system for several important reasons as indicated in the list below:

  1. No need to host the collaboration server and services yourself. This is a huge win for small to medium sized businesses that are not capable or interested in hosting their own collaboration solutions on site. The additional management headache exceeds the monthly cost of just licensing the service from numeroom.com these businesses will not see any advantage to going with google wave as they would have to host the server on site to keep their business processes and content secure from prying eyes, making a subscription service ideal for their particular needs.
  2. No need to hire a manager for the server. Google Wave servers have to be managed, though Google touts the ease of use of management the fact that they need to be managed means that some one has to be paid to do it or delegated to do it for any stand alone servers. The numeroom.com service enables easy delegation of functions most critical to the business to enable collaboration, creating users, creating categories and workflows can be delegated to users very easily, the core complexities of the service are managed by Apriority LLC and thus there is no need for the business to hire experts to mediate these aspects of the server they can simply delegate them up to Apriority LLC.
  3. No need to pay for the costs associated with maintaining or upgrading the server. Any hosting of a server will require costs of a machine to host the service, possible need to ensure redundancy should that machine go down, need to license operating systems to run the server (s) and then hire individuals to manage the service. All these actions can incur costs that many small to medium sized businesses are not interested in dealing with, numeroom.com subscriptions eliminate these hassles by hiding the service away in a secure data center, where service is distributed across a cluster of AgilEntity servers and management is distributed between the physical machines of the hosting provider and the management team of Apriority LLC reducing the over all costs for the subscription service.

So in addition to the architectural changes mentioned in the previous post, these front end considerations highlight the advantage of having a subscription collaboration server service with branding and security have over installing your own Google Wave server and dealing with the required managements hassles that might entail particularly when you are a small to medium sized business trying to run the business as efficiently as possible in tough economic times. I am excited about Google Wave's attempt to address the need for a collaboration server and service that I saw several years ago, it makes me confident that my solution is primed to allow businesses and individuals to conduct their business or social collaboration activities in the hyper efficient ways that will be a hallmark of the years to come.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

the attributes of web 3.0...

As the US economy continues to suffer the doldrums of stagnant investment in many industries, belt tightening budgets in many of the largest cities and continuous rounds of lay offs at some of the oldest of corporations, it is little comfort to those suffering through economic problems that what is happening now, has happened before. True, the severity of the downturn might have been different but the common factors of people and businesses being forced to do more with less is the theme of the times. Like environmental shocks to an ecosystem, stresses to the economic system lead to people hunkering down to last the storm, but it is instructive to realize that during the storm, all that idle time in the shelter affords people the ability to solve previous or existing problems. Likewise, economic downturns enable enterprising individuals and corporations the ability to make bold decisions with regard to marketing , sales or product focus that can lead to incredible gains as the economic

How many cofactors for inducing expression of every cell type?

Another revolution in iPSC technology announced: "Also known as iPS cells, these cells can become virtually any cell type in the human body -- just like embryonic stem cells. Then last year, Gladstone Senior Investigator Sheng Ding, PhD, announced that he had used a combination of small molecules and genetic factors to transform skin cells directly into neural stem cells. Today, Dr. Huang takes a new tack by using one genetic factor -- Sox2 -- to directly reprogram one cell type into another without reverting to the pluripotent state." -- So the method invented by Yamanaka is now refined to rely only 1 cofactor and b) directly generate the target cell type from the source cell type (skin to neuron) without the stem like intermediate stage.  It also mentions that oncogenic triggering was eliminated in their testing. Now comparative methods can be used to discover other types...the question is..is Sox2 critical for all types? It may be that skin to neuron relies on Sox2

AgilEntity Architecture: Action Oriented Workflow

Permissions, fine grained versus management headache The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform cert