Re: [projectvrm] Can I tell you a story ....

[Iain Henderson < >]

Yes, there are helpful standards and pseudo standards in quite a few areas; 
what i’m suggesting is missing is the VRM oriented personal cloud standard.

Cheers

Iain


> On 16 Mar 2015, at 11:31, 
> 
 
>  wrote:
> 
> In health, detailed clinical models help solve this.
> 
> Luk
> 
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Iain Henderson" 
> <
 >
> To: "Julian Ranger" 
> <
 >
> Cc: "Adrian Gropper" 
> <
 >,
>  "ProjectVRM list" 
> <
 >,
>  "T.Rob" 
> <
 >
> Subject: [projectvrm] Can I tell you a story ....
> Date: Mon, Mar 16, 2015 09:25
> 
> Hi Julian,
> 
> I understand the point you are making on the data standards/ ontology 
> issue, and it makes sense from an individual organisational stand point. 
> The problem is, multiple other entities are pursuing the same approach, 
> dating way back to at least the Higgins project which was (is) open and 
> used best of breed available wherever possible.
> 
> With my CRM Manager hat on, this makes it almost impossible to engage with 
> a VRM solution/ bring my customer base to the party prior to it gaining 
> large scale. The lack of an open standard schema/ ontology around personal 
> clouds is, in my view, pretty much the only thing now holding back the 
> personal cloud model from large scale adoption. XDI promises to help in 
> this area, but in practice is some time away from being able to meet that 
> need globally and at scale; sufficiently far away that we can’t wait for it.
> 
> The upsides to opening up and working on a cross-industry collaboration 
> would likely far outweigh the downsides; and if there is a mind to 
> collaborate, the actual task itself is not that difficult. Without it we 
> just create more silos on the VRM side as well as the CRM side.
> 
> Doc - we could host such a standard at Customer Commons?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Iain
> 
> 
> > On 14 Mar 2015, at 11:41, Julian Ranger 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Ah all these marriage proposals – makes me wish I was back in my 20s and 
> > 30s!
> >  
> > The standards issue you raise is a good one and could be used to start a 
> > long train of thought.  I should firstly state that I am totally in 
> > favour of standards before I bring my BUT into play.  I spent 19 years 
> > building a business in the military internet arena (which I eventually 
> > sold to Lockheed Martin) that was based predominately around standards; 
> > however, to achieve interoperability across systems, all of which had 
> > implemented standards but different ones for different purposes and to 
> > different levels of completeness and competence, it was necessary to 
> > create a new process (iSMART) that borrowed from these standards, 
> > incorporated them, but ultimately was itself a new standard that had to 
> > be implemented first by some, then by more, before it ultimately became 
> > the gold standard.
> >  
> > What we are doing in digi.me is analogous to the approach we took for the 
> > military problem.  We are incorporating and using data standards in our 
> > own normalised ontology, but that ontology is itself new.  We will 
> > publish that ontology when we open the Permission Access API and hope 
> > through its use, and because we are not perverse and have based it on 
> > strong standards (and pseudo standards by which I mean ontologies which 
> > are commonly used but are not necessarily standards in themselves), that 
> > it will become a de facto standard – and we wouldn’t stand in the way of 
> > it being made an open standard.  Why are we doing this and not using a 
> > standard today? – because no standard today covers everything, or even 
> > most of, what we need to cover, so we have to do something new.
> >  
> > Carrying on the marriage theme “something old, something new, something 
> > borrowed, something blue” our answer  incorporates the old and the 
> > borrowed with the new – not sure we’ve got blue covered though yet!
> >  
> > I am not in a position yet to release our ontology and normalisation 
> > processes because of commercial reasons.  Not only will they make it 
> > easier for businesses to use digi.me data, but the process also makes our 
> > software easier to implement and scalable and that is a competitive 
> > advantage that we cannot forgo until we are close to releasing the open 
> > API.  That said I default to as much openness about what we’re doing, why 
> > and with whom as I can and I am therefore happy to answer further 
> > questions and discuss the principles, etc but please excuse me if I have 
> > to stay silent on some aspects.
> >  
> > Cheers, Jules
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > From: 
> > 
 
> >  
> > [mailto:
 ]
> >  On Behalf Of Adrian Gropper
> > Sent: 14 March 2015 02:12
> > To: Julian Ranger
> > Cc: ProjectVRM list; T.Rob
> > Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Can I tell you a story ....
> >  
> > I watched the video and share T.Rob's love. Maybe digi.me will move to 
> > Utah so we can all marry you. 
> >  
> > The logic of what you're doing is impeccable but it raises the question 
> > of standards. An authorization service would need to be substitutable in 
> > order to compete with the likes of Apple at doing the same job by 
> > extending HealthKit and ResearchKit where they say: "Apple will not see 
> > your data." (But Apple controls the apps.) The UMA standard is meant to 
> > address some of what you're doing, for example. 
> >  
> > What is the role of standards in your service and your business model as 
> > post office?
> >  
> > Adrian
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Julian Ranger 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> > T.Rob,
> >  
> > Thank you for your kind words – all offers of marriage gratefully 
> > considered (but unfortunately my wife has final say!).  More seriously we 
> > will of course work with anyone who wants to further the progress of 
> > personal data.
> >  
> > Answering your questions as follows:
> > Q1:  You mention the ability to choose a cloud storage provider but do 
> > not mention that the data is encrypted.  After the discussion of how we 
> > would not trust any one vendor with all that data, I assume that it is 
> > encrypted locally before transmission to the cloud storage provider, yes?
> > 
> > A1:  Yes the data is encrypted.
> > 
> > Q2:  The video mentions Amazon, FitBit and others but the Pricing page 
> > lists only "social network accounts."  Are the vendor accounts free, 
> > counted as social media accounts, or are they not there yet?  Have you 
> > considered collaborating (or merging) with FileThis who already fetch  
> > tons of utility bills and bank account statements?
> > 
> > A2: As of today we have implemented only social media accounts (which 
> > have massive amounts of data I might add) – because they are the most 
> > evocative.  As we progress through 2015 and into 2016 we will add the 
> > other accounts we mention.  For example we are working on getting step 
> > data and Transport for London data for a particular application we are 
> > working with a health provider in London on – over 2,000 people in London 
> > die each year because they do not walk enough!
> > 
> > Q3:  Is there an open API to develop our own apps against the data?  One 
> > of the biggest issues with Internet of Things is that proprietary devices 
> > interface only with whatever other devices the vendor thinks have a 
> > possibility of strong ROI for the development costs.  As cool as Digi.me 
> > sounds, the idea of waiting endlessly for the company to clear off the 
> > high priority interfaces and get to the niche integrations is a total 
> > turn-off.  (For those who haven't realized it yet, the long tail *is* the 
> > tail.  If your Internet biz doesn't scale to handle niche cases, it isn't 
> > an Internet biz, or if it is it won't be for long.)
> > 
> > A3: You won’t be surprised to know that we are constrained by funding as 
> > to what we can do when.  Clearly, distribution is key – no one will want 
> > to access data (with user Permission of course!) if there aren’t many 
> > users.  Cost of acquisition with a direct acquisition model gets 
> > expensive quickly, so we have a partnership model as our main user 
> > acquisition channel initially.  Therefore in 2015 Permission Access is 
> > being worked on for our main partners only – those who can strategically 
> > get us lots of users (Telcos, FMSCG, banks, insurers – all whilst 
> > following our strict Permission Access principles) and who can gives us 
> > some money as well.  We expect to have an anyone can access your data API 
> > (again with Permission of course) by mid 2016 at the latest.  If anyone 
> > wants earlier access then just email me and we’ll see what we can do – 
> > we’re moving as fast as we can.
> > 
> > Q4:  Can I route my email receipts through Digi.me?  For example my bank, 
> > department store, sporting goods store, and most online stores will send 
> > me an email receipt.  These are almost all text so they can be dropped 
> > as-is into a DB and become instantly searchable.
> > 
> > A4:Not on the plan for 2015 nor 2016.  Others may do this and move the 
> > data when we have the general purpose API available in 2016, but for now 
> > we are concentrating on direct access to data via APIs only.  (I’d love 
> > to buy one of the companies that does a lot of this already, but 
> > strategically it’s not the most important think we can do – I think.)
> > 
> > Q5:  Is the pricing structure scalable?  At some point do you stop 
> > counting accounts and just go by bandwidth?  Because I hit 20 social 
> > media accounts before I even start counting the vendor accounts and I 
> > probably have way more than 20 of those.  Thinking of the Long Tail 
> > again, I'm not worried that Digi.me will capture my Duke Power 
> > interactions, it's the appliance repair guy or the tree surgeon I used a 
> > couple of years ago that I *really* need help remembering.  If Digi.me 
> > believes per-account pricing is the way to go, there's a natural 
> > incentive to *not* load up data from occasional vendors, which would by 
> > design omit large swathes of useful info, thereby crippling the app to 
> > some extent.  I'm the CEO of my family and I want an enterprise license, 
> > dammit!
> > 
> > A5:  Taking the pricing answer from my email to JP:
> > 
> > “The video doesn’t really explain our charging model, so as you mention 
> > the “The Free is the Lie” syndrome I’ll address it.  Today we DO charge 
> > for the basic software – at a low $7 a year for basic premium features; 
> > however, in time the software functionality of digi.me will be free.  Our 
> > main revenue will be from postal charges – when you Permission Access to 
> > some element(s) of your data and your digi.me app ”posts” that data to 
> > another app/web page/etc then a postal fee is charged by digi.me to the 
> > receiving entity.  This postal fee will only be cents/tens of cents each 
> > time (or for a regular “subscription”) but will add to $20 or so per user 
> > per year (roughly)and when you consider we don’t hold data, process it or 
> > have bandwidth then that makes us profitable without the need to take 
> > commission, sell your data or anything else.  Our mission is to be 
> > dreadfully boring – be your Librarian and Postman and nothing else”
> >  So you won’t in the medium term pay per channel at all – only when you 
> > Permission Access to your data, and then you won’t pay, but the receiver 
> > will.  Yes, we charge now, but that is because until our Permission 
> > Access API is up and running we have to make some money – and we have 
> > partners who do get many customers for us by selling our software.  For 
> > example FNAC in France sell our software as part of a security pack.
> > I hope that gives you further detail and responds to your questions 
> > adequately, but do fire in my thoughts questions, comments.
> >  
> > Cheers Jules
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: T.Rob 
> > <
 >
> > Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:51 PM
> > Subject: RE: [projectvrm] Can I tell you a story ....
> > To: Julian Ranger 
> > <
 >,
> >  ProjectVRM list 
> > <
 >
> > 
> > I'm in love!  Can I marry Digi.me?
> >  
> > Seriously though, I do have a couple of questions from the video.
> >  
> > ·       You mention the ability to choose a cloud storage provider but do 
> > not mention that the data is encrypted.  After the discussion of how we 
> > would not trust any one vendor with all that data, I assume that it is 
> > encrypted locally before transmission to the cloud storage provider, yes?
> > 
> > ·       The video mentions Amazon, FitBit and others but the Pricing page 
> > lists only "social network accounts."  Are the vendor accounts free, 
> > counted as social media accounts, or are they not there yet?  Have you 
> > considered collaborating (or merging) with FileThis who already fetch  
> > tons of utility bills and bank account statements?
> > 
> > ·       Is there an open API to develop our own apps against the data?  
> > One of the biggest issues with Internet of Things is that proprietary 
> > devices interface only with whatever other devices the vendor thinks have 
> > a possibility of strong ROI for the development costs.  As cool as 
> > Digi.me sounds, the idea of waiting endlessly for the company to clear 
> > off the high priority interfaces and get to the niche integrations is a 
> > total turn-off.  (For those who haven't realized it yet, the long tail 
> > *is* the tail.  If your Internet biz doesn't scale to handle niche cases, 
> > it isn't an Internet biz, or if it is it won't be for long.)
> > 
> > ·       Can I route my email receipts through Digi.me?  For example my 
> > bank, department store, sporting goods store, and most online stores will 
> > send me an email receipt.  These are almost all text so they can be 
> > dropped as-is into a DB and become instantly searchable.
> > 
> > ·       Is the pricing structure scalable?  At some point do you stop 
> > counting accounts and just go by bandwidth?  Because I hit 20 social 
> > media accounts before I even start counting the vendor accounts and I 
> > probably have way more than 20 of those.  Thinking of the Long Tail 
> > again, I'm not worried that Digi.me will capture my Duke Power 
> > interactions, it's the appliance repair guy or the tree surgeon I used a 
> > couple of years ago that I *really* need help remembering.  If Digi.me 
> > believes per-account pricing is the way to go, there's a natural 
> > incentive to *not* load up data from occasional vendors, which would by 
> > design omit large swathes of useful info, thereby crippling the app to 
> > some extent.  I'm the CEO of my family and I want an enterprise license, 
> > dammit!  J
> > 
> >  
> > I'll go sign up later.  Tonight I'm in charge of dinner and, as I posted 
> > earlier to Facebook, my soup has that "new crock pot smell."  I think 
> > I'll have to run to the store for something to grill real fast. 
> >  
> > Kind regards,
> > -- T.Rob
> >  
> > I have availability! For a good time (with IBM MQ) call:
> > T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner
> > IoPT Consulting, LLC
> > +1 704-443-TROB (8762) Voice/Text
> > +44 (0) 8714 089 546  Voice
> > 
> https://ioptconsulting.com
> 
> > 
> https://twitter.com/tdotrob
> 
> >  
> > From: Julian Ranger 
> > [mailto:
 
> > ]
> > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:34 PM
> > To: ProjectVRM list
> > Subject: [projectvrm] Can I tell you a story ....
> >  
> > …. using a pack of cards?
> >  
> > Time for me to tell you all what we’re really up to at digi.me – please 
> > look at 
> http://digi.me/video
> 
> >  
> > We’re over 270K licences out there now, growing fast, and expect some 
> > major partnerships we have in final stages to take us beyond first 
> > million this year – moving.  The personal cloud and iOS mobile versions 
> > mentioned in the video all get released this month; the PC/Mac versions 
> > have been around for a long time and are now at a true V7. Permission 
> > Access will be open to select partners this year and to the world from 
> > mid-2016.
> >  
> > Comments, questions, thoughts all very welcome.
> >  
> > Cheers, Jules
> >  
> > Julian Ranger
> > Founder & Chairman, digi.me (formerly SocialSafe)
> >  
> > 
 
> >  
> > 
> http://digi.me
>  – It’s your life
> >  
> > Mobile: +44 7802 207470
> >  
> > @rangerj
> > uk.linkedin.com/in/julianranger/
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > -- 
> > Adrian Gropper MD
> > Ensure Health Information Privacy. Support Patient Privacy Rights.
> > 
> http://patientprivacyrights.org/donate-2/
> 
> 
> This email and any attachment contains information which is private and 
> confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an 
> addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any 
> attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
> sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
> 
> 

This email and any attachment contains information which is private and 
confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an 
addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any 
attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the 
sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.