Business Technology     Integration Sevices

Managed IT Services Technology System Integrator provides managed IT services to businesses that have grown to a point where reliable technology services and system uptime are essential to day-today operations. Technology System Integrator specializes in providing these services to upper-small to medium-sized businesses. These businesses are generally located in commercial office space, have one or more servers, ten or more workstations, but no budget for full time IT staff to support their network, much less provide strategic direction. Benefits of Technology System Integrator Managed IT Services: Unlimited Helpdesk Support: We can support any user, anywhere with our special remote control software. We can even control Windows-based PocketPC phones! Maximize Productivity by Maximizing System Uptime with intelligent systems monitoring and self-healing automation Speed Up System Performance with automated, recurring systems maintenance and real time monitoring and performance reports Simplify & Understand The State of Your Network with robust reporting on everything from overall network health to license compliance FREE 3 Months Marketing powered by TSI FREE Anti-Virus Software powered by AVG (no more annual renewal fees) FREE Anti-Spyware Software powered by AVG (enterprise class anti-spyware defense) FREE Anti-Spam Service and Email Security powered by MXLogic (powerful anti-spam service with triple virus filtering of messages) FREE Email Continuity Services powered by MX Logic (never lose an email when your Exchange server goes down) Comparing Managed IT Services to Other Service Models:    Managed Services  vs  Your " IT Guy" (No Support Contract very risky) Faster Response Times Faster Resolutions Times Additional Resources and tools such as remote control software, helpdesk systems to track issues, reporting systems, asset inventory, etc.   Much slower response times, especially as the "IT Guy" gets more clients Much slower resolution times No additional tools provided Network is not managed, support is reactive. IT Guy is called only when needed Highly variable invoices due to hourly billing       Managed Services  vs  Hourly or Block Hour Contracts (the old school way) Flat fees allow you to stay within budget without having to count hours Flat fees allow any end user to request support without having to go through a gate keeper who is tracking hours used More value is able to be packed into the contract such as including anti-virus software, anti-spam services, etc. Support is proactive and flat fee. Technology System Integrator assumes the risk financially for network and system downtime. If it takes us 5 hours to fix, or 500, you don't pay a penny more than your standard monthly contract rate.   Paying for time makes about as much sense as paying an attorney by the hour All support requests are funnelled through a single point of contact who is worried about counting hours Billing surprises whenever you go over your hourly quota Losing hours that were paid for but unused Support is still generally reactive. Major incidents can eat away hours very quickly        Managed Services   vs  In House Technician Does not get sick or take vacations Does not charge overtime Won't leave your company for a better paying job Broader range of technology skills sets and experience Does not need medical insurance or any other benefits Costs 1/3 to 1/2 of the salary of a full time network administrator Our insurance (not yours) protects you and us from mess ups Positioned to grow as you grow We provide our own laptops, cell phones, office furniture, etc. Strong accountability for technician training and personal growth   Can get sick. Takes vacations Could cost you over time Will leave your company for a better paying job or when they simply become bored Limited range of technology skill sets and experience Cost of benefits provided Salary costs 100-200% higher than outsourcing to a managed services firm If the technician messes up, your insurance pays for it and your premiums also go up. Not positioned for growth. New technicians will need a ramp up period. Expenses related to equiping the technician such as laptop, cell phone and office furniture Generally no accountability for skill set development

252 West 38 Street New York, NY 10018   Technology System Integrator is a registered trademark.

Technology System Integrator 252 West 38 Street, Suite 505, New York, NY 10018 • 800.214-1874

 

Maximize Your IT Investment

If you are responsible for the IT planning and purchasing of your company, how many times have you asked yourself:

• How much should we spend on information technology?
• What issues should be considered while the budget develops?
• How can each and every dollar be maximized?
• What are other companies doing to stretch their IT dollars?
• How do we demonstrate a solid return-on-investment (ROI) number?

 

At TSI Tech Support, we've looked at several strategies to make the most of every IT dollar, such as:

• Reducing the IT Budget
• Phone Services
• Hosting Costs
• Preventative Maintenance to reduce down dime If any
• A Full Year's Budget and Recommendation

  Call us at 800.214-1874 or visit us on the web at www.tsitechsupport.com

TSI Tech Support 252 West 38 Street, Suite 505, New York, NY 10018 • 800.214-1874

By Mary Kay Roberto, E-Commerce Times

For years, IT departments have had full control over their own infrastructure -- for better and worse -- and are naturally uncomfortable with anything that prevents them from being the sole resource for their own infrastructure. They have been trained to maintain tight control because of the complexity of their own environment -- a positive trait that has helped to assure timely and accurate delivery, but limits their ability to accept change.

It should come as no surprise, then, that IT often views data leaving its network as a negative rather than a positive. However, Software as a Service cost-savings and the ability to help companies foster innovation within their own infrastructure is too strong a value proposition for most enterprises to ignore. Although management may be pushing cloud initiatives on reticent IT staff, many chief information security officers (CISOs) and chief technology officers (CTOs) are wary of the hype and have nagging fears about the loss of infrastructure control, loss of ownership of data, vendor lock-in and data security.

These fears are largely rooted in false perceptions about loss of control and security -- and in false beliefs in the flexibility and strength of on-premise solutions. The key to avoiding these potential pitfalls is to thoroughly evaluate your SaaS partner. Like any other industry that achieved popularity quickly, there are many companies that are slapping "cloud computing" stickers on their products and positioning them as brand new.

Enterprises need to delve into the details of their partners' operations, software and license agreements to ensure they are aligning themselves with a company taking advantage of modern technology and protocols, so none of their fears come to pass.

1. Loss of infrastructure control

This is a problem perpetuated by managed service providers during the 1990s, when businesses would move from on-premise solutions to managed services. Back then, some managed service providers could not provide an environment in which they could deliver timely or reactive support or functionality, thus frustrating the end-users.

The sophistication of technology today has allowed the industry to move away from this unwanted scenario and provide the best of both worlds: The administrator retains the granularity and control that is provided by an on-premise solution while still getting timely support.

That said, all vendor infrastructures are not equal. Enterprises should fully understand the infrastructure of a vendor's SaaS-based solution and ensure there are no single points of failure, such as those found in the recent T-Mobile data fiasco.

A key attribute enterprises can look for in cloud partners is whether or not they use a grid computing system and, if so, how they define "grid computing." Grid computing is a proven method for achieving 99.999 percent reliability. That's because in the event of an outage or corruption, these networks are able to shift data burdens to alternate locations or across shared multiple locations rather than creating single points of failure.

Instead of causing an informational bottleneck, data is simply accessed from another part of the grid until the problem is fixed. Rich SaaS implementations are every bit as powerful as on-premise solutions and allow the administrator to maintain control of the application without dealing with the environmental requirements.

2. Loss of ownership of data

This ties into the first fear because it deals with IT being uncomfortable with data that is not on its own infrastructure. This fear is a valid concern, as data is generally processed or held offsite by cloud vendors; however, on-premise providers often lock customers into solutions by making any migration or upgrade path both cost-prohibitive and technically undoable.

Enterprises need to ensure that data ownership is addressed in detail in the cloud licensing agreement or terms and conditions. Reputable SaaS vendors will ensure that companies always own their data, that it is not provided to anyone else or used for the benefit of the service provider, and that companies are able to easily access their information whenever they need it and get it back, however large the volume, should the partnership not work out.

Systems based on modern technology provide enterprises with a robust administration console that allows you to set all data policies, review access information, control data users and freely interact with data. If a SaaS company cannot guarantee these types of capabilities, enterprises should be wary of partnering with them. Also, enterprises should research the company's partners, press clippings and case studies to get an idea of what industries its solutions are best suited for and how it works with clients.

3. Vendor lock-in

SaaS solutions can lock customers into their products by using proprietary formats for encryption and data storage that make future migration difficult. But guess what? So do on-premise vendors.

This is a long-standing IT problem that goes back well before the cloud. The reality is that cloud vendors make access to data easier and allow customers to export data as is, and when required.

4: Data security

Data security is an excuse that has underpinned the cloud skeptic's position since the introduction of cloud computing or SaaS solutions. Issues such as the potential for multitenant systems to cross-contaminate data and allow a breach have made the rounds -- but have no grounds in reality.

This mindset does not take into account that a cloud vendor is a security provider. Cloud vendors can build security and resilience into their solutions from the ground up and are able to provide massively more security and resilience to their customers than would ever be possible with an on-premise solution.

Encryption and data loss prevention capabilities are a given for SaaS vendors, but there are a few additional areas companies can look into to ensure their potential partners are secure:

• the security policies for data in flight, in use and at rest;
• the physical security practices the company employs for its servers; and,
• the process by which data is shared with separate clients (to learn more about cross-contamination possibilities).

 

In reality, it is the CTOs and CISOs that are generally pushing for the adoption of cloud-based solutions because they are technical users and decision makers who understand the concepts and architecture of the cloud. As with any technology with a ton of hype, sometimes they are not able to filter through the rhetoric generated by skeptics and those afraid to make a change to the status quo.

Methodical evaluations of SaaS vendors can go a long way toward alleviating these fears and ensuring their cloud computing projects are successful.

These four fears often overshadow the one true SaaS benefit for CISOs and CTOs: namely, transforming the IT department from a help desk to a competitive differentiator.

 

This story was originally published on E-Commerce Times.

Technology System Integrator. 2009

 

By Scott M. Fulton, III, Betanews

 

---

Click here to listen to What Are We Learning Today? Betanews podcast (MP3 format, approx. 20:00 min.)

---

 

On our second edition of the Betanews podcast, we take a look at the ongoing effort to keep stuff that we share on the Internet from not being shared so much. The Transportation Safety Administration and the American citizen are very much in the same bucket today, as both are being faced with a new and intriguing privacy and sensitivity debacle...essentially the same one, just in two different respects.

Here's links to the source information referenced in the podcast:

• "TSA manual misstep leads to discipline" by Spencer S. Hsu, from the Washington Post, December 10, 2009.
• "Redacting PDFs" - a December 16, 2005 blog post by Adobe product manager Rick Borstein showing users of current versions of Adobe Acrobat at that time how to make text look like it's redacted, when it's really not.
• The PDF redaction problem: TSA may have been using old software, by Scott Fulton.
• Not the first, not the last, technology predictions for 2010, by Carmi Levy.
• "New Tools to Control Your Experience" by Ruchi Sanghvi, product manager for privacy at Facebook. Here Sanghvi introduces the new privacy controls unveiled today. The video excerpted in today's podcast also appears here.
• "Facebook's New Privacy Changes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" by Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston.

 

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Microsoft advertising has people claiming that "Windows 7 was my idea." I'd like to make "my idea" more real for Betanews readers, by offering a soapbox to give Microsoft a piece of your mind (be polite, but firm); first some context on why do it now.

For Microsoft, the New Year really is a new beginning. January 1 marks the half-way point in the company's fiscal year and the period leading into the annual review process. Employee reviews can't be good this year, with Microsoft morale low (or so I've been hearing) following calendar 2009 layoffs.

I've been collecting stories from laid-off Microsofties, which I had planned to post on my (languishing) Oddly Together Website but have decided to put at Betanews instead, assuming I can get permission for the site switch from everyone who shared a story. I'll be in touch with the story sharers this week and expect to put together composite stories into two or three different posts really soon. Another, separate post will reveal the trends the former employees' stories reveal about the firing -- eh, layoff -- process. Some advice to Microsoft employees who have long "length and level," now would be a good time to think advancement, unless "brutal" is a word you'd like applied to this year's review; or "pink slip," in worst-case scenario.

The new year also marks the start of Microsoft planning for the new fiscal year, beginning July 1. That's why I regard January 1 such a good time to be telling Microsoft what to do. Each year, rather than make predictions for the year ahead, I take a more arrogant approach: Offer unsolicited advice for the coming calendar year. This year, I am offering Betanews readers a chance to the join in the fun. If you ever wanted a say -- a voice -- you can have it. I will collect the best reader suggestions from this post's comments and put them together in a few weeks. This would be separate from my annual telling-Microsoft-what-to-do post.

Meantime, below I briefly review my 10 suggestions made for 2009, hoping they might be examples for Betanews readers. Did Microsoft listen to me? Here is the shortlist of recommendations with my assessment of Microsoft's response to them, with response ranked low-to-high 1 to 10:

10. Chuck Windows' Software Assurance requirements. Like Vista, Windows 7 requires enterprises to pay extra for Software Assurance upgrade protection to get the Enterprise version. I wrote: "Be sensible, Microsoft. If enterprises have less to spend, do you really think they'll spend more on Windows 7 Enterprise because of Software Assurance?"

Microsoft Response: 0. Microsoft kept the Software Assurance requirement, which is good for the company's bottom line but bad for cash-strapped IT departments.

9. Advertise everywhere. I recommended: "Recession is opportunity for smart companies with strong brands and loads of cash to maximize marketing effectiveness. Less ad chatter means your message will be better heard, and you don't want people to forget your brand."

Microsoft Response: 9. The company's 2009 marketing was outstanding, simply a remarkable turnaround.

8. Fire your ad agency. I contended that ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky had squandered first chunk of the $300 marketing budget. Those Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and comedian Jerry Seinfeld TV commercials had about as much appeal as Elaine Benes dancing.

Microsoft Response: 0 -- and good thing. By spring 2009, Microsoft marketing hit its stride, with a series of great campaigns: "The Rookies" and "Laptop Hunters," later followed by the absolutely great "Bing" and "Windows 7 was my idea" campaigns. I was wrong, Microsoft.

7. Expand emerging market programs like "Unlimited Potential." I warned Microsoft: "People will be more likely to steal than buy your software. You've got to make the stuff easier to buy than to steal." The global economic crisis presented Microsoft chance to be the good guy, by offering low-cost solutions and gaining legitimate share in emerging markets.

Microsoft Response: 5. Unlimited Potential wasn't as lively in 2009 as the previous couple of years. Microsoft is still working with local governments, but there is more emphasis on hawking something, such as Microsoft's OneApp or MultiPoint Server.

6. Be real to people. Microsoft has no charismatic leader like Steve Jobs, but the company needs one. I chided Microsoft: "You must choose someone -- and pretty much anyone would be better than the no one you've got now."

Microsoft Response: 6. There still is no charismatic leader, but really great product marketing did make Microsoft more real to people in 2009.

5. Clean up your branding. It's a mess. Microsoft has long defied good branding conventions, by using too many similar brands, having too many sub-brands and by repeatedly changing brand names.

Microsoft Response: 6. New brands like Bing are excellent. Even Windows Phone and Windows 7 are good improvements. But Windows Live/Bing services branding is a mess.

4. Become the world's Web hoster. Economic crisis should be a sales opportunity to bring more businesses to hosted services, and I told Microsoft to ramp them up.

Microsoft Response: 4. Microsoft Online Services execution is OK at best, and pricing could be better, even after recent cost cutting. More importantly, Azure cloud computing platform didn't even make a 2009 debut. Microsoft will launch the service on January 1, but Azure now feels more like an older version of Amazon Web Services than the revolutionary cloud OS promised in October 2008.

3. Make incubation projects the top development priority. Some of Microsoft's best new or emerging products came from incubation projects the previous two years. I contended that these internal startups "engage enthusiasts"; "create positive buzz"; and "show how Microsoft can truly innovate."

Microsoft's Response: 0 -- total fail. During layoffs and cutbacks, Microsoft eliminated most of its best incubation projects and laid off key innovating employees.

2. Open Microsoft retail stores. For the second year in a row, I asked Microsoft to open its own stores -- in 12 cities: "Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, New York, Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, Sydney and Tokyo (or Seoul)."

Microsoft Response: 7. The company opened two stores, in Arizona and California, and a café in France. Microsoft made a good start, but two stores simply aren't enough.

1. Launch an application store. I strongly recommended: "Your application store should start with development tools for offering Silverlight apps to most any platform: mobile, desktop or Web. Suggestion: Use your Xbox Live/Zune Marketplace infrastructure to get up an initial store fast. Within six months, you'll need a real store, built with Silverlight, that can run on any platform."

Microsoft Response: 4. Microsoft did launch a Windows Mobile app store and combined some Xbox Live/Zune Marketplace features. But integration is scant among the three app stores, and Silverlight looks like a calendar 2010 story.

Now, with that, I once again ask you to offer up your suggestions for Microsoft during calendar 2010. Comments are open.

By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

Apple's apparent acquisition of music streaming service Lala is about improving iTunes music discovery and competitively combating Google search as a music discovery tool tied to free music streaming services. I say apparent acquisition because there is no official confirmation from Apple, although I'd be shocked if All Things Digital's Peter Kafka got it wrong. He has confirmation of a done deal, and Kafka's reporting record is outstandingly excellent.

Apple gets two major assets from Lala, some technology and the development team. While the development team is likely more important, the technology is valuable, too -- and both lead to the same place: Apple improving iTunes music discovery.

Apple also diminishes one of the most credible threats to the iTunes Music Store that has come along in years. Lala streaming costs loads less than buying music from iTunes -- 10 cents a stream, which can be applied to purchase of the track. But there is a glaringly free option, too, with Google music searches; that's something new (late October) and quite threatening to what has long given iTunes Music Store edge: The aforementioned music discovery.

The Google deal hugely raised Lala's profile and made a catalog of 8 million streaming tracks easily available to anyone typing "All American Rejects, "Lady Gaga," "Jason Mraz" or some other musician or band into Google search. Search for band All American Rejects brings up four tracks -- "Gives You Hell," "I Wanna," "It Ends Tonight" and "Dirty Little Secret" -- all available for immediate, free streaming in a Lala pop-up window; there is also an option to purchase the tracks. Lala charges 89 cents for "Dirty Little Secret" -- Apple a buck twenty-nine. You do the math, whether free or 89 cents, Apple loses.

Apple nabbed Lala, for which the power of Google search and its reaching free business model extends, before it could become a real competitor. But Google has other music partners, so Apple still faces competition from easily discovered -- hey, what's better than Google search -- and consumed music for nominal price, if any at all.

The Google-Lala deal also exposed a potential new business model for Apple, again, by making iTunes music discovery easier. But for Apple directly, Microsoft demonstrates the real power of streaming as a music discovery tool, as I explained in my Zune 4.0 software and Zune HD reviews. I described Zune's new Smart DJ feature as "music discovery on steroids, but without those nasty side effects." The feature plays music, based on style and genre, related to the currently playing track. Smart DJ uses the user's music library but can do much more. For consumers paying for a $14.95 Zune Pass -- a monthly music subscription service -- Microsoft's entire catalog is available to Smart DJ, whether by stream or subscription download to the PC. The feature beats the hell out of iTunes' Genius feature, which is a great discovery tool for finding new stuff to buy, not music to immediately listen to.

There are several ways Apple could incorporate streaming into the music discovery process, starting with full-song samples rather than 30-second ones. Apple could also incorporate a Smart DJ-like feature into iTunes Genius, where songs play streamed or locally in similar fashion but with only one play for unpurchased content; that would be equivalent to sampling, but provided through Genius with option to purchase track or album. Upsell would be Apple's primary motivation for offering streaming.

This weekend, there were numerous blogs or commentaries speculating iTunes streaming is coming and is likely reason for Apple buying Lala. I don't see streaming as a viable music business model for Apple; there's more revenue to lose than to gain. But streaming incorporated into iTunes as a discovery and sales mechanism makes loads of sense. That said, I could see Apple offering streaming for a substantial fee -- not free or near it -- on a subscription basis.

Apple's plans for Lala's team are bigger than most pundits are speculating. There is something about this deal that reminds me of late 2000. That summer, Apple released new iMacs missing something: CD-RW drives. Windows PC manufacturers were going CD-RW, but not Apple, which stuck with DVD drives. In August 2000, I wrote for CNET News.com: "Apple misses the tune on CD-RW drives." The Mac community flamed me. I got more than 200 e-mails (CNET didn't have comments back that), most of which essentially called me an idiot for not understanding that Apple was about movies not music.

Presumably, someone at Apple saw something in music, too; I wasn't wrong as Mac defenders claimed then (and many times since). Not long after my story posted, Apple bought SoundJam, which technology became the core of iTunes. Apple announced iTunes in January 2001. Suddenly Apple got music, and in a big way. The company launched iPod in October 2001 and opened the iTunes Music Store in spring 2003. The rest, as they say, is history.

My intuition is that Lala could be as big for Apple as SoundJam was. What do you think of Apple acquiring Lala? Please respond in comments.

A regulatory filing today by Orange-based web security tool developer M86 Security indicates that the firm has raised or issued $19.245M in stock, in connection with a merger or acquisition--most likely the firm's acquisition of San Jose-based Finjan, a developer of secure web gateway products. The filing indicates the equity was issued on November 2nd, the day before the firm announced that it had acquired Finjan.