<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The End of Corporate Computing &#8211; Rubbish!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://steves.seasidelife.com/2005/05/10/the-end-of-corporate-computing-rubbish/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://steves.seasidelife.com/2005/05/10/the-end-of-corporate-computing-rubbish/</link>
	<description>I'm Steve Richards a strategist and all round tech enthusiast working on enterprise desktop, application delivery and collaboration solutions. I work from home by the coast in the North West of England.  All the views expressed in this blog are my own.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:58:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://steves.seasidelife.com/2005/05/10/the-end-of-corporate-computing-rubbish/comment-page-1/#comment-156</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steves.seasidelife.com/2005/05/10/the-end-of-corporate-computing-rubbish/#comment-156</guid>
		<description>I agree that Nick Carr has, as with his earlier article &lt;em&gt;IT Doesn&#039;t Matter&lt;/em&gt;, overstated his case here too. Business software often automates complex and firm-specific business processes, and does not easily lend itself to centralization with a utility supplier. It is difficult to imagine a car factory carrying out its manufacturing planning or control thru a subscribed utility, or an investment bank performing securities analysis on a vendor&#039;s computer sitting hundreds of miles away.

The author&#039;s vision may, however be seen as providing a general direction in which computing will evolve. Utility computing may gain traction over the next few years for applications that are not highly firm-specific, where business-criticality and security requirements are low, and where speed of response is not highly material.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that Nick Carr has, as with his earlier article <em>IT Doesn&#8217;t Matter</em>, overstated his case here too. Business software often automates complex and firm-specific business processes, and does not easily lend itself to centralization with a utility supplier. It is difficult to imagine a car factory carrying out its manufacturing planning or control thru a subscribed utility, or an investment bank performing securities analysis on a vendor&#8217;s computer sitting hundreds of miles away.</p>
<p>The author&#8217;s vision may, however be seen as providing a general direction in which computing will evolve. Utility computing may gain traction over the next few years for applications that are not highly firm-specific, where business-criticality and security requirements are low, and where speed of response is not highly material.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
