Microsoft Vine could save your hide
Microsoft Vine looks like an odd social experiment. It's designed to help users send notifications to the people they need to reach in emergencies. I tried the product and found it very un-Microsoft-like. It's useless as a single-user app, and it's also oddly specific in its functionality. From Microsoft, I expect broad platforms and wide-open productivity tools. Vine is neither.
Or is it? I took my questions to Microsoft, and was routed to a person whose title made it clear that there's more going on with Vine than the product initially reveals. I ended up talking with Tammy Savage, general manager of the Microsoft Public Safety Initiative.
Tammy Savage, general manager of the Microsoft Public Safety Initiative.
(Credit: Microsoft)At its core, Vine is based on a new Microsoft platform for routing communications between different systems. The platform is built to know the various ways there are to reach anyone using it, and it tries multiple methods until it gets its message through.
For example, some emergency messages might go to users' e-mail accounts or be sent as text messages. Some may go to regular telephones, and will get converted from text to speech if necessary. If one communication method goes down (if calls can't go through after a big disaster, for instance) the platform routes messages over another until they reach enough people to satisfy the requirements of the message.
Rules dictate to whom a message goes. An emergency message to check on a child when a parent is unable to after an earthquake, for example, might only require one person who gets the message to reply to it in the affirmative to satisfy the rule. A note about a kids' soccer game being canceled due to a muddy field would keep bouncing through the system until all the parents got it.
To keep the product in front of users, so they don't forget about when they need it, Vine also lets you track local news, and it can be used it to "check in" when you're traveling, even if you're not in the middle of an emergency. (See Meet Vine for more.)
Vine reaches deep
Vine lets you send ordinary updates as well as emergency alerts.
(Credit: Screenshot by Rafe Needleman/CNET)The current private beta version requires that all users download an app, which is a pretty serious limitation for a product that's supposed to reach emergency contacts, some of whom might not be Vine users. Savage said there won't be a download requirement when the product hits Version 1.
However, the app itself could have an important purpose. It might become a node in a mesh network enabling messages to hop between users' computers as the platform tries to deliver emergency notifications. That's an ambitious goal, but it's something an operating system vendor could potentially do. (On September 14, 2001, writing for Red Herring, I proposed a peer-to-peer emergency communications network that could be used when Web news sites were overloaded, as they were on September 11.)
"Our intent," Savage says, "is to create something that will hold up in an emergency, but getting to that point is a process, and a long-term play." Microsoft is a good place to build this, she says: "You can't design a system that survives in a long-term scenario with a small investment."
So the Vine app, as it is today, is the tip of the iceberg. "We consider ourselves an integration layer," Savage says. Vine will be a "service of services," a switchboard to intelligently connect communication systems to each other, to connect people when it's critical to do so. It'll connect e-mail, IM, Twitter, SMS, landline phones, cars using OnStar, satellite phones, you name it.
Off balance
Savage also says Vine is built on a new model of understanding emergency communications. As she says, "The old model is, you sound an alarm to get people off balance. Then you provide them with a path to get on balance. This top-down model works well when the threat is understood, the authority is trusted, and peoples' behavior is visceral."
But today that's not the case. Emergencies take new forms, people often don't trust authority, and there's so much communication noise that it's hard for an authoritarian message to break through. Savage says the way people react to emergency alerts when the reaction isn't visceral is to see what people around them are doing.
Her example: You're in a hotel and the fire alarm goes off. What do you do? Most people poke their head out of their door. If other people are running for the exits, they will too. But if nobody's reacting, or people are just slowly ambling out, they'll imitate that behavior. Vine, Savage says, "will give people the proverbial door that can be opened to look around. We're building infrastructure that can be bottom-up and sideways, so messages get through, so we can create nonlinear information sharing in a time of crisis."
I suggested to Savage that Twitter is becoming this non-linear emergency communication channel. She agreed in principle, but said, "We want to include it. But we need more advanced capabilities. We want to know what's circular reporting and what's original."
Ultimately, this is a business for Microsoft, not just a public service. There are budgets for emergency response programs at all levels of government and in many businesses. Savage says Microsoft's first business effort with Vine is "bottoms-up" --local churches, schools, police stations. "Because those are the entities that citizens really trust." She says it's harder to build the business this way (although have you tried getting federal grant dollars?) but she thinks the technology will be more useful than if it's implemented top-down. "Grassroots is where this has to happen," says the Microsoft chief of emergency response platforms.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe. 
My knee jerk reaction to this example is not good: It strikes me that a system that allows you to see what others are doing around you to form the basis for making a decision about your response could lead to mass panic when it is unwarranted or inaction when it is.
With the amount of patches they also make the answer would be a no as well.
Microsoft have a history of things working only on Windows compatibile products.
I would rather use a service that was open to any device, such as what Google might do or already have done.
No, your point does not remain. It's been suggested that you review the article. It answers all your concerns.
"would rather use a service that was open to any device, such as what Google might do or already have done. "
Consindering I don't use Windows for my mail, telephone, cell phone, text messagng, or my PDA, and all of those services are such that MSFT is targeting and would be compatible with my systems, it would appea that they are indeed open to any device.
Give me Google any day.
Thanks for listening.
Because Microsoft is out to get you right?
Tinhats people tinhats.
Best not to give them a chance. Best for everyone.
I hate to break this to you but any company who's design is around a profit architecture will try and do it in a way that will make them money. That said. Can you say hotmail is designed around making money? How about messenger? What about their Live suite? Yes its just for Windows, but so is iPhoto, Garage Band, iMovie, etc.
Microsoft is no worse then Apple or Google. Actually watching their behavior over the last 3 years I would say its getting better. Much better then the BS they pulled back in the early XP days.
"I don't trust Microsoft.
Give me Google any day."
Now if you only simply posted that in the first place, it would have been so much simpler. :)
By the way, Google wants your money too. Those search results are supported through ads and those advertising companies want your money as well. The money you pay for a product may partially go back to Google to pay for those search ad results. Add to that the crazy EULA's that Google had tried to slip by earlier stating that any and all content you post using their services (GoogleDocks, gmail, etc) could be harvested and used by Google for their own advertising purposes or shared/rented/sold to other companies for their own use... yeah, you really want to put your trust in that sort of company? Granted, they have backed down on those claims, but only after the public got wind of it and was outraged.
No sir, I don't trust Google. At least Apple and Microsoft haven't tried to lay claim to anyone's data like that. What's next for Google to try and slip in?
====================
No way would I even consider twitter for an emergency system. Serious drawbacks, no guarantee, goes down at the drop of a hat....... Using it for emergencies where people depend on it is a lawsuit just waiting to happen.
I always get concerned when the explanation of a service is top heavy in buzzwords. The fact is that there are already a bunch of companies involved in notification tech and business continuity that is extremely flexible. This just appears to be "safety according to Microsoft".
Anyone remember gps tracking on your phones? After all, you want to know where your children are, right? Yes, and now we have everyone from relatives and bosses tracking us if they have any tenet into our lives, to marketing agencies spewing location-based advertisements to our phones...
Push through marketing agenda technology without regulation under false pretense, and open up our lives to corporate bugging. Given that positions with a pension are almost unheard of these days and retirement is on the path to extinction because more legislation is being pushed to benefit corporations over consumers, I guess I have a huge problem with yet another major technology company (Micro$oft) wanting to sink its tendrils into my life as part of a national security standard....
I recognize technology has its benefits, but personal information is a huge asset in today's world, and a huge liability - I shouldn't have to open my life up to General Mills marketing department if I need to reach the police.
Faster delivery of wrong information is just more efficient GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). We see that with any major breaking event, even from sources that are supposed to be connected, credible authorities.
There is a difference between information, knowledge, and wisdom. This is just faster transmission of information. There is nothing here that improves knowledge (which take time: careful reflection of all the facts and research into what's legit and correctly reported, and what's not legit and/or improperly interpreted, etc.).
More information, faster delivery is not necessarily the best prescription for the planet's needs.
Heck, even with all the tools of instantaneous scrutiny (e.g., instant replay in sports), we still have an imperfect vision of what just happened. If you want to see how witnesses poorly report what's truly happening, just watch some 9/11 coverage.
In a real regional emergency, that is a crtiical failure. It's one that is being addressed in the emergency responders area with some consolidtation finally happening, but it is still a mix of incompatible systems. In the public sector, there is nothing at all, and that's very scary.
Next.
This isn't a software beta program where you hope people might turn in a survey for results.
It isn't in and of itself. The interoperability problem you are referring to was mainly radios. ROIP is the way to solve that. See Critical RF. This has been solved.
One commenter has it right: companies and products already do what Vine does better for public safety. Organizations such as the CDC already grant funds to the state health departments to obtain and certify systems that do this. See UAI uaOneLink. A vanilla message won't do the job, BTW.
MS has been trying to get a foothold in the public safety market for eight years now. Things that get in their way are
a) they are notoriously bad at building applications for mission critical systems (sorry, MS, you really are terrible at this mainly because you have a culture that dictates and will therefore never understand RFP-driven procurement. Not in your blood)
b) they can't stay focused for the amount of time it takes to get through a bid (approx 24 month cycle now for a 12 year application life) where the technology has to be guaranteed and indeminified for the entire period.
c) They partner with companies who think like they do and therefore tend to be behind the technology curve just as it accelerates leaving them flat footed.
That said, good luck with this. Subscription based notification systems (really simply Wide Area Notification) are very useful. Hopefully you have studied the California fires and know you have an ISP problem (supersaturated networks during emergencies that by law can't prefer one packet over another).
The concept and plan has been resolved- but it isn't implemented fully yet. I know that as of last year when I was with a police department as a volunteer, we could not directly communicater with fire crews at the same scene. To contact a fire crew meant contacting dispatch who would then call the other dispatch center (physically separated by requirement now to minimize exposure / liability in case of disaster), have them then radio that fire crew. That meant instead of two people talking, you had four people involved and mistakes were rampant in the translation. It was so bad that Nextel phones were the faster solution for the city.
It's getting better, but the budget simply isn't there to roll out those approved solutions. The money that was originally made available has since largely been rescinded by the federal government. You can't buy stuff unless your department has the budget and it's just not there. :/
Considering the funds squandered on some pretty dicey tech (see MTA), it may be a good thing they've been rescinding. The first part went exactly as predicted: massive funding swallowed inside the Beltway setting up institutes, feathering nests, etc. Some good work was done. The CDC has decent specs in place (except possibly the cascading which most knew was a bad idea when CAP released it). We can put these systems on the street at reasonable costs. I don't think EBXML was a great contribution and in fact, the XML gets in the way (Verbosity Matters). If we put all the stuff in that's been discussed, the belt weight would kill more officers than disgruntled housewives.
I haven't had to look at the public safety specs for a couple of years. It seemed to me they were trying to wrap too many different agency operations under the same umbrella and were beguiled by the "We can automate all operations" banshee instead of getting some fundamental messaging strategies in place. IOW the specs were going in the direction of "we can control everything", the meme favored by dispatch center managers and away from the "we can enable fast reliable communications" which the officers favored.
Don't like then don't buy.
I bought Windows Media Center Edition because it was way way better than that turd AppleTV.
I bought a few iPods as well.
Speak with your money and all will be well (eventually)
- by simorf June 2, 2009 12:40 AM PDT
- Seems like a rehash of Clickatell's multimode product that has been around for a couple of years. See http://www.clickatell.com/products/multimodal.php. It does multimodal messaging with user defined escalation and is used in goverments and organisations for emergency notifcation delivery (amongst other uses)
- Reply to this comment
-
(38 Comments)