Rick Rant

This is the fifth in a series of videos taken by Parrish Reinhoel of Pathfinder Networks as he documented the process involved in setting up a new computer store. This video was taken the night before he opened the store. Parrish provided a complete narrative during the walkthrough.

 

This is the fourth in a series of videos taken by Parrish Reinhoel of Pathfinder Networks as he documented the process involved in setting up a new computer store. He started the move the evening he shot this and his old location was now closed at this point. They opened the new store the following Monday morning. Parrish provided a complete narrative during the walkthrough.

 

This is the third in a series of videos taken by Parrish Reinhoel of Pathfinder Networks as he documented the process involved in setting up a new computer store. Parrish provided a complete narrative during the walkthrough.

 

This is the second in a series of videos taken by Parrish Reinhoel of Pathfinder Networks as he documented the process involved in setting up a new computer store. Parrish provided a complete narrative during the walkthrough.

 

This is the first in a series of videos taken by Parrish Reinhoel of Pathfinder Networks as he documented the process involved in setting up a new computer store.

 

This week, cloud computing experienced a major disruption – Amazon’s datacenter went down for about 12 hours on Thursday, taking major web sites and web-based services down with it. For those who don’t utilize the cloud for much, there was little effect, but for those who rely on the cloud for much of what they do, they were pretty much grounded for the better part of a day.

The outage sparked a very spirited discussion in The Force Field Forums about cloud computing in general. In the forum thread “The Cloud Bites the dust…” , IT service providers, some of whom also offer cloud-based solutions to their customers, reflected on the long-term negative effects of the outage and discussed why the cloud is hyped as much as it is. Overall, there was agreement that the outage would likely be a setback for proponents of cloud computing.

For Amazon, this was certainly a setback. Their business is based in the cloud. For those IT companies who hype the cloud as the greatest thing since sliced bread, this was a return to reality. The reality is this: cloud computing just one tool for IT, not the entire toolbox. It isn’t a panacea for IT providers and it isn’t the solution for everyone.

Some seem to think The Cloud is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I disagree. From a practical standpoint I think toilet paper is still the greatest invention.

Think I’m wrong? Wait until you go to the restroom with an unsliced loaf of bread, no internet access and no toilet paper and then tell me which one you need more.

I’m not dismissing the cloud. Like other technologies available to us, there is definitely a place for it. In fact, it can be a very important tool for IT, a technology that can complement or enhance the desktop computing experience. But it gets hyped as a replacement for the desktop, especially by pro-cloud service providers and industry trade publications. The idea that the cloud will destroy the desktop is a presumptuous claim made by industry pundits who have their heads stuck too far up in it and their feet too far from the ground.

A lot of these trade publications also oversell Managed Services. I subscribe to several trades and just about all they promote these days are Cloud Computing and Managed Services. It is as if these two technologies, either by themselves or together, are now the ultimate solutions for everything in IT. They aren’t. Personally, I think the current capabilities of both managed services and the cloud are overrated, oversold and certainly overhyped.

Like managed services, cloud computing is here to stay, but there are applications and solutions that are and will continue to be better suited for the desktop for a long time to come. I’ve watched the hype surrounding the cloud grow considerably during the last three years, just as the hype for Managed Services (another industry buzz word that is annoyingly over-used) has grown. Like the cloud, there is also certainly a place for managed services in IT, but it isn’t the end-all solution for everything, either.

Until man devises a way to repair all desktop issues remotely and for even the smallest customer, there will continue to be a need for the independent on site technician. Managed services is best suited to complement personalized onsite service – not replace it. Likewise, the cloud can certainly complement the desktop – but until man devises a way to connect all solid state devices with omnipresent connections and with complete stability, reliability and free, full accessibility anytime, anywhere, there will still be a need for the desktop.

I think the reason the cloud is overhyped and oversold is because those who sell and promote it consider it a cash cow of free money. It is perceived as an easy path to riches for many companies in the field who view it as a product with minimal investment, little overhead, low maintenance and disproportionately high yield. So they set out to sell it as a solution for everything.

While the cloud can be used for a lot of different services in theory, in reality using the cloud for all of them is clouded judgement; while certainly possible, isn’t always practical and in some situations can even be too risky in the long term.

Yes, I think there is an important place in IT for the cloud, But I also think there is way too much emphasis placed on it and I think it is way oversold. I believe the Amazon datacenter outage this week proves that point. The outage served up a dose of reality to bring IT back down to earth a little and clear the clouded mind.

I came across the Barrister blog on Blogger this morning. Apparently someone connected with Barrister Global Services is so upset with all the complaints posted on the Internet from frustrated and angry techs, they launched an all out frontal assault on them, claiming the complaints against them are all fake and the complainers are – scammers?

The word scam is used so loosely throughout the blog and the grammer is so poor, it was difficult to determine if the blog was simply talking about complaints that claim Barrister was a scam or if they were calling the complainers themselves scammers for calling Barrister a scam. In short, the blog is just weird. But I digress.

The blog was purportedly created and maintained by someone named “Jessica”, who, according to her own profile, seems to be employed by Barrister.

The Barrister blog, called Barrister Global Services Network Complaints Scam, was apparently set up on the popular blogging service Blogger sometime last August. The last entry in the blog appears to be as recent as last month.

The blog is devoted to “debunking” the “myth” put forth by complaints posted on various blogs, forums and complaints boards across the Internet (mostly by techs who previously performed work for the company and were not paid or were not paid on time) that Barrister Global Services is a “scam”, and claims that any and all such complaints about Barrister posted on the Internet are fake.

Unfortunately, due to the poor grammar used in the blog posts, the blog itself comes across as somewhat questionable. With all of the grammatical errors, it is difficult to take the blogger seriously. Add to that the assertion that all the complaints made by their detractors who call Barrister Global Services a “scam” are fake (without any real explanation as to how the blogger arrived at that conclusion), well, that comes across as unprofessional at the very least.

For instance, in one of her early blog entries in August, 2010, Jessica said this: “After going through internet I found that most of these scam posts are made by Barrister critisizer and competitors.”

Well, yeah, most of them do criticize Barrister. That part is obvious. As for whether or not they are competitors, technically speaking, everyone in this business is a potential competitor or partner, depending on your relationship with that entity.

Also, technically speaking, Barrister can compete directly against their own techs at times. That’s the risk of working with a national as a contractor – particularly a middleman national, as Barrister itself is in some ways. If you perform work for Barrister you may potentially find one of your own customers serviced by Barrister on a warranty call sometime. In such a scenario, are you the competition, or is Barrister? Well, if the customer was originally yours, technically, it’s Barrister.

In a September 2010 entry, Jessica wrote this: “Barrister Global Services complaints are not based on any truth these are all of not fact based. Any type of such complaint which had been been posted any where on internet are of no use.”

However, she provides no evidence whatsoever to back up her statement or explain how she determined that the complaints against Barrister were fake. Without such evidence to corroborate her statement, how do we know she is right? Do we simply take her at her word?

On the other hand, a number of techs, many of whom are members of The Force Field, have done business with Barrister Global Services and have proved themselves to be reputable sources of information. Ask any of those techs if they would do business with Barrister today, and, with very few exceptions, they would probably answer almost unanimously with a very emphatic “NO”.

Like I said earlier, the blog is just plain weird.

This is an excellent lesson to every tech business regarding the use of blogs to promote their company or improve poor customer relationships. Blogs can be very powerful tools in the management of public relations, if handled competently. To do so, you first need to know who your audience is and how to talk to them rationally in order to establish yourself as a thought leader and win their trust and confidence in you.

Now, if I were Barrister and I wanted to create a blog for my business to address the complaints of my detractors and do “damage control”, I would first make an effort to acknowledge the issue, engage in real dialogue to find out why the complaints exist and then commit myself to doing whatever I could to rectify the cause of the complaints and improve my relationship with those techs who are unhappy in a genuine, honest attempt to set things right.

That’s how you fix a PR problem. Many companies have done it, and have often turned a detractor into a loyal defender. It’s all about respect for the customer, attitude and approach.

But the person who created this blog thought it best to take the low road instead and went after the techs who complained about them, engaging in an online smear campaign in an obvious attempt to paint the detractors as some sort of organized effort to take down Barrister.

Instead of trying to fix a PR problem by communicating with techs thoughtfully, rationally, and changing the way they treat techs in general, they are trying to make themselves look like the victims and discredit their detractors. This may work in some political arenas, but in business it is a very bad move. It just makes Barrister look very unprofessional, and worse, serves to only confirm the claims made about the company by their detractors.

The real question is this. Is the Barrister blog just a defensive response created independently by a frustrated Barrister employee, or is it a real blog founded and sanctioned by Barrister Global Services itself? If it is the former, Barrister may need to check into it to ensure that it does not damage their already questionable reputation further. If it is the latter, well, I think the blog only makes matters worse for their image.

If Barrister Global Services wants to come across as an intelligent, professional company, so far this blog isn’t working in their favor.

My very first computer was a Commodore. A Commodore PET, to be exact. It had a chicklet keyboard, a small monchrome CRT monitor, a cassette tape drive and a whopping 8k of memory.

It propelled me into the world – and the business – of computer technology.

That was early 1982. A few months later I was the proud owner of a Commodore VIC-20 and after its launch in autumn of that year, A Commodore 64.

The Commodore 64 opened a whole new world for me. I published newletters, owned and SYSOP’d local bulletin board systems (BBS), and started two businesses with it. And, of course, I played a few games. The Commodore 64 also introduced me to CompuServe and Quantumlink, the latter being the online service that would later become AOL.

I opened the first online shopping mall in Florida – Zeta Software – on a Commodore 64. It was a dial-up BBS based virtual shopping mall and it existed between 1985 and 1986, before the Internet was public. I also used my C-64 computer to publish a newsletter for the Association of Cinematic and Video Arts, an organization for film and video production based in Orlando, Florida, for nearly seven years.

I was a big Commodore fan. I joined the Central Florida Commodore User Group (CFCUG), served as an officer and librarian of its huge software archive and wrote applications for the C-64 and C128 using Commodore Basic.

I used my Commodore 64 computer to listen to and create musical compositions – SIDS, as they were called. I created low-res graphics and animation using the Commodore Graphics keys on the keyboard.

My Commodore 64 computer was relied on for both personal and business use. It opened doors for me that previously were not within reach and considering that, in some ways it even changed my life.

But as I made the most of it, the company that made it didn’t. It went away. And I moved on.

But now- it’s back!

Yes, the Commodore 64 is back, and, according to Commodore, (which is, amazingly, still around) better than ever. This nostalgic classic even sports its original shell in its original color. But it isn’t the same computer. It’s better. It’s been brought up to speed with today’s PC technology.

Inside the new C64 is a Dual Core 525 Atom processor on a mini-ITX PC motherboard with an Nvidia Ion2 graphics chipset, 2GB  DDR RAM (expandable to 4 GB) and your choice of a Blu-Ray or DVD-RW drive. It also runs a version of Linux – Ubuntu 10.04 LTS.

The keyboard? It uses Cherry brand key switches for a classic IBM touch and click sound. The keys are the same color and shape as the original.

In spite of its modern upgrades, however, Commodore did not leave its history behind. The new Commodore 64 will also run 8-bit programs – including ALL of its library of 1980’s era programs written for the original C-64.

The basic version is now available for pre-order and sells for $595.

But that’s only the beginning.

The Amiga will also return. If that’s not enough, check out these concept images for future models on the slate for 2011. For a closer look at the new Commodore 64, visit commodoreusa.net.

 

Welcome back, Commodore. What took you so long?

Beginning today, OnForce, a web based IT service platform. will now require service technicians (or “Pros” as they are now called) to carry liablity insurance, Errors and Omissions insurance, and Worker’s Compensation to accept and complete work orders on their platform.

 

Pros who have their own insurance will be required to submit a Certificate of Insurance to the company in order to perform work. Those who do not have insurance will be charged a percentage based fee for each type of insurance needed, totaling up to 4.7% of the total amount of the work order, including parts and taxes. This 4.7% increase is added to the 10% fee the company already takes off the top of the total work order payment due to the Pros for services performed for an Onforce client or “Buyer”.

OnForce initially claimed the new insurance policy was necessary to please its Buyers, and was instituted at the Buyers’ request. However, after further clarification the company admitted no Buyers specifically pressed the company for such a requirement and the new policy was enacted to entice more Buyers to join OnForce and use the service.

The new policy was not received well by OnForce techs and many voiced their objections online in the OnForce forums and Facebook group, questioning both the integrity and the legality of the new policy and fees. Some techs who were outraged by the new fees are refusing to accept the new terms and said they planned to stop accepting work orders altogether. A few Pros threatened to close their OnForce accounts permanently and move to other platforms, such as Work Market.

 

Discussions and objections about the new policy have sinced moved off the OnForce platform altogether and spilled into other venues, such as The Force Field Forums, publicly viewable tech blogs and at least one web site for consumer complaints. There are currently more than a half dozen very active discussions taking place now in the private member areas of The Force Field Forums discussing the new policy fees from both Pro and Buyer sides of the issue.

 

The dissention in the forums, blog comments and Facebook posts reflect an increased level of frustration among service technicians with the OnForce service platform. A growing number of Pros are beginning to feel disenfranchised and believe OnForce is treating them more like employees than independent contractors. Indeed, OnForce management has since clarified its relationship with Pros by no longer referring to them as Independent Contractors, but as sub-contractors, which changes the entire game for many techs.

 

Although it is still too early to tell whether or not the company’s new strategy will work in their favor and bring them new business, it is clear that more than a few Pros do not consider the new contract, fees and relationship with OnForce as beneficial or profitable for them or their businesses in the short and the long term.

 

If you’re an OnForce Pro, will you accept the new contract? How do you think the new policy and sub-contractor relationship will affect the way you do business through OnForce?

 

Today OnForce suddenly, and without prior warning, removed a number of Force Field members from the OnForce forums, platform or both, myself included.

I originally composed this Saturday, November 27, 2010 for release early next year. In light of recent events, I am compelled to officially post it now. It will also be posted in the Force Field Forums.

 

 

---

 

 

I’ve kept my promise to them [OnForce] about not using my media outlet against them, but it is becoming more and more difficult to remain silent outside the “force field” of the inner circle of OnForce only techs simply because what they are doing IS having a direct effect on the industry as a whole and when that happens it becomes publicly debatable.

It is my responsibility as a news source for tech businesses to report responsibly on everything that goes on in the industry. The whole FF concept is designed to be “pro tech”, to educate and inform for their protection and success.

At this point I need to make an honest, open confession here.

I have, since the beginning, reported on the good and bad of EVERY other company out there, including various nationals. Everyone, that is, except OnForce.

There has been plenty to write about them, both good and bad, but I only blogged or promoted the good. When they sent out a press release, I posted it, blogged about it or mentioned it on the show. When they released an OSMI report each quarter, I promoted it. All of my personal comments or concerns in disagreement or protest were kept in private areas only, either in the OF forums or in the private OF User Group area in the FF forums. I did NOT disparage them publicly.

It has been brought to my attention that this isn’t fair. Some of OnForce’s competitors seemed to notice this. How could I say that I am reporting without bias when I treat OnForce differently from the competition?

The truth is, they are right. No matter what OnForce thinks (and from what I’ve been told they don’t think very well of me) I have favored them and protected them while reporting on the less popular activities of others, including their rivals.

For instance, I have been somewhat critical of ServiceLive at times, yet they were willing and did come on the show to answer some very tough questions (and they answered them well, I might add). This was the interview I tried to have with OF but in the end they wouldn’t talk to me. The result was something rather interesting. Although SL is not considered the “top tier” from the techs’ perspective, they actually gained a little respect among listeners for their willingness to communicate with them and be upfront about where they stood at a time when OF remained silent on so many hot button issues.

OnForce could have a strong ally here, disagreements and all, if they would only choose to communicate. Even if they view me as an enemy, which is not how I view myself, It would serve them better to adopt a more tried and true strategy. There is an old saying: “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”. There is a lot to be said for that. It just isn’t their way.

I’ve written about Microsoft, Apple, Time Warner, SCO, Service Magic, ServiceLive, Barrister, Endeavor, Dell, HP, AOL, Robin Robins, and many other companies, organizations and national service providers, both news and comment that often put them in negative light. I have also written about OF. The difference is that, of all those entities, I never reported anything other than what OnForce officially released themselves. In other words, I never actually reported or commented publicly on anything OnForce said or did that did anything less than to promote them.

That, of course, is bias. In the role of a media outlet, I am favoring one company over others. It’s wrong, and it’s not fair to the other companies or the techs who listen to and read what I write and say.

I didn’t really think that I was biased. In the beginning there wasn’t anything really at issue that anyone would be that concerned about. My commitment to OnForce when I started The Force Field podcast was that I would not use it as a soap box to rant publicly about internal issues. This commitment I kept. I kept it on the belief that eventually OnForce would collaborate with me to use FF as a way to communicate with and help the techs on their platform work with the platform for the benefit of both parties. If you read back through my posts in these forums, you will note a common and reoccurring theme about communication and collaboration.

Unfortunately, as the years have rolled by, OnForce seems to have shied away from this concept. Communication with us has never really been great since Jeff Leventhal stepped down as CEO and it seems with every new feature we ask for, two are altered or taken away to prevent us from having an “unfair advantage” over the marketplace (or something like that). It also seemed as though they were less and less interested in collaborating with me. Now we are at a point where events dictate techs be informed about real concerns and risks of using the platform without some protection and that is something that needs to be communicated.

If it were, say, Barrister I would be blogging about it immediately, because it is news and the techs need to know. Yet with OnForce I was still silent, because I wanted to be professional and responsible.

All this time I thought I was doing the right thing. Then something happened that made me realize the truth. I was wrong.

About a week ago a long time tech and member of the OnForce forums was banned. He mentioned this in a private area of the FF forums and asked if anyone else was banned or if he was the only one. As part of a new system for promoting the FF forums the title and a short description of the thread topic was relayed on Twitter.

Now, keep in mind that this particular thread was in a private area, so it was not publicly accessible. However, someone from OnForce replied to the tweet and expressed disappointment as they “expect more from me”, apparently meaning that by simply reporting the incident (Just the fact someone was banned, but no name and no opinion), I was somehow not handling my position responsibly.

Upon checking the tweet, I noticed there wasn’t even a link to the post anyway, since the title and thread description exceeded the 140 character limit.

At first I thought I just needed to be more careful about the forum tweets. But something about that whole exchange with the individual from OnForce really bothered me. Yes, I was being lectured, but why? What did I do that was wrong and irresponsible?

Then it hit me. I did nothing wrong. All the tweet did was report facts. Sure, there was more to the story. Yes, the facts  painted OnForce in a less than positive light. But everything posted was true. There was dissent, someone was banned for it and a question was asked if that individual was the only person to be banned (nothing to say why or that anyone agreed or disagreed with their decision to ban the individual). So, why was OnForce upset? Why, because it was negative publicity.

Suddenly it dawned on me. I’ve been looking at this all wrong. I have a responsibility to report the facts and treat everyone fairly. Yet I’ve been reporting and commenting on other companies while OnForce was given a free pass. I am protecting them from the same public reporting and scrutiny I give everyone else. What is worse, After all the snubbing and the cold shoulder I keep doing it!

I have been doing a great disservice to the techs who trust me to provide them with the information they need to utilize platforms like OnForce profitably without getting burned. OnForce is for some but isn’t for everyone and everyone needs to know how it works and how it doesn’t so the ones who need it can use it and those who don’t won’t be disappointed or learn the hard way, like I did.

I made a commitment to OnForce when I started this project, but they never kept any of their commitments to me when I joined this platform. This has been a one-sided relationship from the day the original OF staff left, and frankly I am tired of towing the line. I realize that my responsibility is not to OnForce, it is to YOU, my fellow techs in the field. All my private rants aside, by censoring myself publicly to favor them I have not been reporting responsibly.

The Force Field was a name carefully chosen to refer to both the “field force” of service techs and a “force field”, or shield to empower those techs in the business of field service and to educate and inform them for their protection from the elements in the industry that can hurt or destroy their profitability and their businesses.

There will come a time in which I will have to make the choice to openly and honestly report what OnForce says and does, positive and otherwise, as I do with all other companies and I will have to decide where my loyalties are. As OnForce becomes more influential in the industry and as their initiatives unfold and begin to impact techs in positive or negative ways, it will need to be openly discussed within the IT community. I won’t be able to ignore that much longer.

If I don’t do it, someone else will. For OnForce’s sake, better me than them. When that does happen, I will still keep the core commitment not to use my resources to personally attack them in a hateful or spiteful way. That was always the intention of the commitment I made and I intend to keep my word. I don’t, and never have, hated the platform, in spite of their past slights against me as a Buyer and a Provider. (I will say, however, that because of poor experiences in the past I will likely never accept another work order and due to poor performance of the last tech and the way their Market Support handled the issue it is doubtful I will ever route another one as a Buyer).

However, my loyalties are with my peers, not the platform, so when that time comes I will not censor myself any longer. I will present the facts, report my own experiences and offer comments and opinion as I deem necessary, albeit respectfully and responsibly so.

I know that when the time comes, it is highly likely OnForce will remove me from the platform. It is something they have wanted to do for a long time now, but since I abide by the rules and have done nothing wrong, there is no justification for it, so they are somewhat stuck at the moment. When the time comes they will take advantage of the opportunity and they will ban me permanently – even though I will have done nothing wrong.  I understand this and, when they do, that is their right. It is also my right to speak the truth, so when they ban me from the forums it will not profit them. It will be a decision they will make in haste, as such decisions often are. After they ban me there will no longer be a relationship. Then my commitment to them will end.

 

 

---

 

As of today, my commitment to them has ended.

Rick