2012 Predictions – Technology Will Shape Who We Are As People And Businesses

In the first phase of the information age, technology helped us achieve new levels of productivity. In the next phase, technology will shape who we are. Why? Because technology is everywhere – and savvy businesses are paying attention. I did a check on a recent trip and noticed that, on average, 80% of the people around me were nose down in their technology. That’s amazing if you stop and think about it….(pause for thinking)…When you spend that much time using something, it ceases to be a helper and starts to shape who you are.

I think 2012 will be a watershed year for the global business environment as technology moves from being “out there” to “part of us.” In 2020, we will look back on 2012 not as the year the world ended but as the year it changed for good. Check out the TED video We Are All Cyborgs Now. Here are four predictions about business in 2012 that all start with the fusion of business and technology and the impact that it will have on shaping business. I hope will add some new thought food to your mental garden:

  • “Big IT” continues its vanishing act. In 2010, we wrote about the crumbling of IT in our report “BT 2020: IT's Future In The Empowered Era,” and I drew some sharp criticism earlier in the 2011 when I blogged “What Happens When Central 'IT' No Longer Exists?” It would be interesting to see if anybody has changed their mind over the year. With so many choices for acquiring technology, this vanishing act should come as no surprise. Consider: Many SMBs I talk to are adopting a cloud-first policy and eschewing investment in big enterprise systems, while larger enterprises look around them and scratch their heads trying to figure out how they can do the same. I predicted in “The Top 10 Technology Trends EA Should Watch: 2012 To 2014” that leading IT shops will become service brokers, and 2012 will see that become reality.
  • Data hype turns to focus. More than half of the trends in “The Top 10 Business Technology Trends EA Should Watch: 2012 To 2014” were directly or indirectly about data. Why? We all know it is “exploding.” What’s new is that we can finally do something about it. Our answer through 2010 was to deal with the data explosion by “managing it better.” Big data, massive parallel processing, advanced analytics, eventually consistent NoSQL databases, etc. are arriving that recognize that the chaos will never be managed. Leading firms in 2012 will let go and learn to live in the chaos, focusing on what they can control. The data hype will continue, but enterprise deployments of big data systems will lead to focused results for the front-runners.
  • Social and mobile converge on local. SoLoMo is a new, catchy buzzword that I’ve been tweeting about lately, and it has been blogged about on both NY Times and Forbes. The term indicates that the future of mobile computing is to connect users socially in a local context – that is, without needing to go through some big social software in a data center somewhere. I read about a great example just yesterday in which a college professor designed an iPad app that let his students collaborate visually on his lecture notes there in the classroom. The applications of this concept outside the classroom are limitless. We call this the App Internet (see our founder’s August 2010 blog post). In 2012, leading companies will really figure out how to exploit this to: 1) disrupt how products and services are sold, and 2) empower their workforce to meet consumers where they are.
  • Cloud migration begins in earnest. Last, I had to say something about the cloud, because it was THE HOT TOPIC of our July emerging technology tweet Jam. I think cloud hype reached a crescendo in 2011 and will significantly subside in 2012 as reality sets in and enterprises get down to the hard work of making it real. I say this because in the many reports, blogs, articles, and tweets I’ve read, a few themes stick – it’s not always cheaper, you have to know when it’s appropriate, and your environment must be ready for it (that’s a really squishy way of saying application architectures must be elastic, security issues must be resolved, policies must be in place, skills must be present, etc.). My prediction for 2012 is that we will see far less media hype about cloud as some real solutions hit the market and clients get their cloud plans off the ground. What does this have to do with my theme? Cloud is a platform that further's the proliferation of technology into business and our lives.

Comments

Brian, I was disturbed by the

Brian, I was disturbed by the headline. If technology defines who we are then "we" are not anything - as individuals. The headline was not really reflected in the content. I'm glad of that but I wouldn't mind some clarification on what your actually intent was with the headline.
Thanks.

Hmmm...agree and disagree

I agree that "define who we are" is not correct. I've changed it to "shape" based on your feedback...thanks for pointing that out.

To larger point, however, please watch Amber Case's video on our becoming cyborgs (and not the terminator kind). The underlying "megatheme" in all my predictions is the penetration of technology into everything we do as 1) people, and 2) businesses, and the impact its having on who we are. Guess I didn't make that as obvious as it probably should have been, but if you ponder about each point it becomes clear.

To your broader point "If technology defines who we are then "we" are not anything - as individuals" - here's why I disagree. Today, I'm hyperconnected - I give and receive information from hundreds of people that I don't really even know, even though they are virtual colleagues and part of my life (such as you.) This shapes how I think about things and makes me a very different person than I was and would be if I didn't do this. The flow of information and the bread of social connections brought about by technology make me a different person (and I hope better, because I understand more of the world). You can apply this same logic to businesses, even though the results are not as dramatic...yet.

The essence of my blog is that business of the future, because technology continues to become part of all businesses DNA, will be fundamentally different than they were in the past. And because it represents a change in the DNA, it will be a transformative, disruptive evolution vice an incremental one.

Identity

Thanks Brian. I agree that "shapes" is much better. I certainly won't deny that technology and specifically social technology has an affect on the total me. To the extent that one is a person capable of learning and, more importantly adapting, technology is a more significant element in that than it was even 10 years ago. I think we're in agreement about that.
Beyond that, I wonder if we don't need some discussion around the concept of identity. That might rather distract from the fundamental point of your blog, so I'm going to think about it for a while before going any further.
cheers

Fair enough

IMO, identity is the right word, because it really does shape how I perceive the world, which makes me who I am, which is my identity. Cheers.

Identity and persona

Would agree with both of you that 'shape' is a better term for this: technology is _a_ force, but not the only one.

Have been having a long offline conversation today with Stuart on this. You'd have to bring Stuart more into the conversation, but the key point was a distinction between 'identity' versus 'persona'.

Identity is unitary: I recognise you as 'You', regardless of what form or persona you may wear at this time. I can recognise you as 'You' even after twenty years' absence or so, despite aging and the rest. This isn't just a human matter: a dog would likewise recognise you as 'You' by all manner of subtle cues, though obviously over a somewhat shorter timeframe (given the lifespan of a dog).

Sure, someone could simulate that identity, in what's popularly called 'identity theft' - but it doesn't take over the identity _itself_, it just provides a simulation for the purpose of deception.

The same is true of organisations: they have legal identities, and are recognisable as such. That's part of what causes so much trauma in company takeovers and mergers: the identity is lost, and has to be recreated in some form.

We then have an infinity of personas that are _overlays_ on top of that identity - literally a Mask "through which we sound" ('per-sona'). An 'identifier' is actually associated with a persona - _not_ with the identity itself.

The next catch is that a persona is not necessarily passive: it can _actively_ filter the identity as it acts through the persona. This is part of the role of a uniform, for example, or engagement in an organisational culture: it changes the person's behaviour. There's a lot of study on this in the improvisational-theatre field which we could usefully learn from here: for example, see Keith Johnstone's classic book "Impro".

I'll admit that there's probably a long, long conversation that's needed here before some of this will make sense - but it _is_ all there. As again the improv disciplines make clear, we need to be very careful what Masks (personas) we take on, and how they're used - and in an organisational context, that's definitely a concern for enterprise-architecture.

Framing digital identity

I like Tom Graves' careful analysis, especially the point that role shapes our behaviour. I certainly feel like a different person when I am at the bank depositing a $50,000 cheque for my company, than when I am cashing a $1,000 cheque for me.
I advocate going a little further though. My view is that I am exercising truly different identities and not just different roles or personae. It's a semantic point, and of course I acknowledge that at the core of the matter there is a singular biological person. I just don't think it's useful to force the singular person to the surface all the time.
The engineer's orthodox Identity Management frame is to specify one singular identity (an act they call "authentication") and to associate one or more secondary roles ("authorizations"). There's nothing inherently wrong with that except that it has unintended adverse consequences for privacy and security. A logically equivalent but kinder framing is to specify a *Digital* Identity in place of each (natural) identity-role pair. Each Digital Identity is a proxy for a relationship in a specific context; hence each of us exercises multiple Digital Identities. This is consistent with the much admired Laws of Identity which hold that a Digital Identity is a set of assertions.
There are many avoidable downsides in the orthodox separation of authentication and authorization. See http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2011/01/22/forget-authentication.html. It tends to be expensive, for it encourages people to seek a multi-purpose, context-independent 'core' identity to which all manner of secondary roles can attach. In banking, things are different. After we establish a number of accounts, each stands alone. My separate identities as a business banking customer and as a retail customer are manifest in distinct plastic key cards, even if both accounts originate at the same branch! The total cost of operating as though retail customer Steve Wilson is a different person from Stephen Wilson, Lockstep Company Officer, is lower (and total cost includes the legal apparatus of corporation law that leads to business banking rules; see http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2011/02/02/tco-multiple-ids.html).
It's better for privacy too that we operate distinct Digital Identities.
I think what's happened with Internet engineering is that sound computer network security practices of the 1970s, where a singular authentication underpins multiple roles in an access control list, have carried across by default to the way that e-business systems treat users. Big PKI sought to provide us with a single digital passport and bunches of Attribute Certificates, and it failed because it's just so costly and complex to re-jig diverse transaction contexts to a small number of central authorities. And look at the "intuitive" idea of Single Sign On. It has its roots in computer science, but is actually quite novel in real life. For instance, there is no call to rekey all the locks on my car, my office door, my filing cabinet and so on to match my house key. That would be crazy. In general, "Federated Identity" comes from an engineer's frame and intuitions, and is actually a poor fit for real world business processes and liability arrangements, which are geared towards distinct and often sovereign relationships.
So the singular-identity-plus-personae frame is true, but an equally true and more serviceable perspective is that we each exercise a set of separable Digital Identities.

Framing not-so-digital identity

Stephen - my instant response to this was "Ooohh, _nice_!" - you've really made my day with this. :-)

I'll say straight off that you have a far better understanding than I do of Digital Identity and the practical issues that arise from that: I've a lot to learn from you there. Yet I wonder whether there's a risk here that we've jumped in too far into the (necessary) pragmatics of 'solution-space before we have enough of a grasp of what identity _is_ in the first place - the kind of deep-identity that Brian implies when talking about "identity shaped by technology" etc.

As I read it, what you seem to be describing is 'identifiers for identity', the tokens that we pass around to confirm that we are who we claim to be and - to use the US paradigm - that we have the 'rights' to access the respective resources and so on. For example, I definitely take your point about the metaphor or intent of Single Sign-On being carried too far into impracticability.

What I'd like to do is take step or two back from that, and really explore identity _itself_, and how personae and identifiers interact with that. There's somewhat of a risk that some of this could be interpreted as 'semantic quibble', but that's definitely not the intent: what I'm after is that we use a particular type of precision to help us dig deeper. The exact words we use here don't matter that much: it's precision about the underlying concepts that I'm really after.

If I may, I'd like to deconstruct this quote from above:

"My view is that I am exercising truly different identities and not just different roles or personae. It's a semantic point, and of course I acknowledge that at the core of the matter there is a singular biological person. I just don't think it's useful to force the singular person to the surface all the time."

So: each sentence:

-- "My view is that I am exercising truly different identities and not just different roles or personae."

What do _you_ mean by 'identity', by "truly different identities"? If there's a sense that you have a 'truly different identity' when cashing each of those two different checks, what is it that links those identities together. What is the 'I' that exercises those different identities? How would someone else recognise that continuing 'I' (or in their terms, 'you'), despite those "truly different identities"?

How does this 'I' express itself and interact with the different roles and personae that it takes on and drops over time? What changes in each? What remains the same? And if something remains the same, what is that 'I'?

What _is_ a persona? How do we interact with it? How do we retain the 'I' when using a persona as a literal 'per-sona', "that through which I sound"? In what ways does the persona filter our identity, impose its _own_ imperatives on what we think of as 'I'? With a powerful persona - a strong company-culture, for example - how do we avoid being swamped by that persona, such that we would literally lose our own voice?

What _is_ a role? How does persona differ from role? How does a role itself also become a kind of 'per-sona', a 'that through which I sound'?

What is the 'I' that squirms with embarrassment when it realises it's used the 'wrong' persona in a given context - when meeting up with work-colleagues when on family-vacation, for example, or accidentally posting last-night's club-dancing pictures on the company Facebook page?

What personae do others impose on 'I', assume apply to 'I', use to filter their understanding of our 'I'?

-- "I acknowledge that at the core of the matter there is a singular biological person."

Is there? The identity of that 'single biological person' will often extend beyond death - in some cases for millennia, in the case of Plato or Lao Tsu, for example. The identity can extend before birth, both as an unborn child - plenty of law etc about that... - and even beyond, as the focus of hopes and desires of the parent. The identity may apply to any animal - for example, your dog's own awareness of itself _as_ itself, and also the identity you assign to it. The identity may apply to a collective: one of the key points of an enterprise - and hence often the organisation that enacts it - is that it retains a collective sense of identity that may continue beyond the effective working-lifetime of any of its individual members, and is in some senses an emergent property that is in part independent of its members. The same applies to 'things', to places, to cultures, to languages, even to periods of time: and although for the most part we assign those identities, there's also a real sense that "there is an interaction between people and place, yet the place itself has choices too.

Then we have another whole layer of complexity around deep-changes in identity in relation to biological person. If we were to extend the Single Sign-On concept to everything, what happens for someone who needs to change their identity in a witness-protection scheme? For someone who's trying to escape domestic abuse, or an obsessive/possessive stalker? Or for anyone else who, for any legitimate reason (or even non-legitimate reason) needs to 'cover their tracks', to disconnect their past identity from the present biological self?

Look at the impact on identity when people change their name - which happens a lot, even as a 'rite of passage' for many women in Western cultures. Look at the whole concept and impact of _naming_, of cultural traditions such as 'christening'; look at spiritual traditions where a completely new name is assigned at a point of transition.

And explore those cases where there's a fragmentation of the link between deep-identity and the 'singular biological person' - as in multiple-personality syndromes, for example, or dementia (literally, the loss of mind') in some types of ageing.

So to get a deep handle on identity, we need to acknowledge and explore all of these complications and complexities - and then, _somehow_, bring it back to enough simplicity to be able to create workable concepts such as Digital Identity. If we don't do that deep-exploration, we end up with something that doesn't actually work - as we can see all around us...

-- "I just don't think it's useful to force the singular person to the surface all the time."

In my experience it's more like the other way round: the hard part is being able to find 'the singular person' at all. :-)

Layer upon layer of intersecting-sets of personae, in that sense of 'that through which I sound', many if not most of them barely visible within conscious awareness - and without awareness of how those personae act upon us, there's a high risk that it will in effect dictate our choices, leaving us thinking that those _are_ our choices.

So what _are_ these personae? How _do_ they influence 'how we sound'? To come back to Brian's theme, how does technology, and our interaction with technology _as_ personae, shape our sense of identity?

That's the kind of theme I'm looking at here. Concerns about Digital Identity tend to come a bit later down the track. :-)

Hope that makes some degree of sense, anyway? Or would you just assign me the identity (or persona?) of 'crazy'? :-)

Identity is a deep well

Great stuff Tom.
I'm feel intellectually conflicted in this. On the one hand, I too like the philosophy and humanity of identity, very much. On the other hand, I urge Internet engineers to seek simplifying assumptions and to side-step the deep questions. Only because I think the pressing problems in online identity management can be solved without re-examining the social side. It's not that the social side isn't interesting or even relevant, it's just that the great majority of identity management online is actually a tech problem, and engineers aren't ideally qualified to treat the social-scientific ground. And so some of the results of engineers reviewing identity have frankly been unhelpful. For practical purposes, identity is "how I am known in a circle". We can design systems and business processes around that practical perspective.
But back to the philosophy, some insights might come from what I think of as the School Reunion Effect. Most of us know how unnerving it is to hook up after decades with people we knew well as teenagers, only to find everyone has "moved on", and that trying to relate to these people as we all are now is seriously messed up. I always experience a distinct split personality. What's really going on there I wonder?

Stephen - very much

Stephen - very much understand/agree with the point about "the pressing problems in online identity management". Yet a little more detail:

"On the other hand, I urge Internet engineers to seek simplifying assumptions and to side-step the deep questions. ... It's not that the social side isn't interesting or even relevant, it's just that the great majority of identity management online is actually a tech problem, and engineers aren't ideally qualified to treat the social-scientific ground."

I'd agree that this isn't a topic that would engage most engineers: getting the job done is hard enough without getting tangled in 'social-scientific' stuff! :-) Yet as architects (wearing our 'architect' persona?) we _do_ need to be aware of and engaged in these issues, otherwise the simplifications that we pass on the the engineers risk missing the point.

Again, wearing your 'architect-hat' rather than your 'engineer-hat', re-read this and see what it implies:

"For practical purposes, identity is "how I am known in a circle". We can design systems and business processes around that practical perspective."

What you've just done there is used 'identity' as a synonym for 'persona': "how I am known in a circle" is about how I'm seen, how I present myself, 'the Mask through which I sound' - not who I _am_. You've also blurred identity _and_ persona with 'identifier' - that which is used to identify my persona (in this case) as a surface identifier for 'who I am'. If you let that kind of imprecision through to engineering, you've left yourself wide-open to 'identity-theft' in quite a wide variety of senses - along with real risks of 'identity-confusion' amongst the system's users and participants.

I know I'm being pedantic here, yet can you see the confusion that this kind of imprecision is going to cause? - especially when you take that blurriness into the engineering-realm where things _must_ be unambiguous and certain? The kind of precision I'm taking about here, about precision in the 'social-scientific' space as well as the technical space, really does matter.

"[S]ome insights might come from what I think of as the School Reunion Effect. Most of us know how unnerving it is to hook up after decades with people we knew well as teenagers, only to find everyone has "moved on", and that trying to relate to these people as we all are now is seriously messed up. I always experience a distinct split personality. What's really going on there I wonder?"

Yes, exactly - it's what I sometimes term a 'mythquake' (see http://weblog.tetradian.com/tag/mythquake/ ).

Two further points:
-- notice what happens when the same kind of mythquake occurs in the digital realms, such as when distinct avatars or Digital Identities turn up in a different context? (example: Google ID and a separate Twitter ID both used for commenting on this website)
-- notice how you are still able to recognise each person at that School Reunion, despite the, uh, damage of the passing years? (the timid nerd now a hyperconfident salesman, the college-beauty now looking like someone's stuck an air-hose into her...) - the _identity_ is still there, despite the layer upon layer of surface changes and surface/subsurface Masks

Your last sentence again:

" I always experience a distinct split personality. What's really going on there I wonder?"

Again, yes, exactly: so perhaps wonder a bit more? :-) - given how much you already do know and understand about identity, I think you'll it really _is_ worth the deep-dive. If a little disorienting at times, of course...? :-)

KISS

Tom, you need not accuse me of using 'identity' as a synonym for 'persona'. I said at the outset that these terms are practically the same, but it is more useful to adopt the frame that we each have a number of separate personae/identities, or whatever we chose to call them. You are perturbed by my focus on "how I am known in a circle" because it doesn't touch "who I _am_". This is deliberate (you might call it Information Hiding!). It is rare that any service provider needs to know who I "really" am. A great deal of cost and complexity and harm to both security and privacy is done when identity management frameworks bring users' "true" identities to the front. We should remember at every turn that privacy is improved when designers and service providers purposefully limit what they know about users.
In engineering we need simplifying assumptions, not complicating generalisations and earnest re-examination of social patterns; see http://lockstep.com.au/blog/2011/02/16/simplifying-assumptions.html. I don't see simplification as "imprecision" and I don't see where it leaves us "wide-open to 'identity-theft' in quite a wide variety of senses". Most identity theft is a technologically straightforward problem relating to the easy replayability of plaintext alphanumeric personal data (we probably agree that the more accurate term would be "identifier theft"). The solution is simple (digital signing and personal hardware key media). I put it to you that greater dangers of identity fraud lie in complexity (the enemy of security). In particular, I fear that complex federated identity arrangements based on the radically re-architecting the way "identity" is "provided" and "consumed" will lead to new forms of fraud and privacy invasion (if only because we'll see a bunch of new identity players churning about and cutting corners in an artificial ICT and services marketplace).
Again, I love the philosphy as much as the next guy, and I have no essential objection to any of your points. But it's a conversation that should sit apart from practical identity management. When engineers venture into identity philosophy, it doesn't often help. Frankly, despite all the intellectual goodness of the Laws of Identity, they haven't effected much useful change on the identity management scene. Microsoft themselves have even dropped Cardspace which was almost the reference implementation of the Laws. If there's some fresh academic work that needs to be done, I reckon it's around the mystery of why Cardspace failed, along with a number of intuitively very worthwhile ventures. It would be good to get a better handle on the inherent difficulty of identity federation before programs like NSTIC venture too much further. My main contribution to that question is a new ecological theory of digital identity, at http://lockstep.com.au/library/identity_authentication/an-ecological-the...

Oops... sorry...

Oops... "accuse", "perturbed" - that wasn't what I meant at all... many apologies if you feel that... :-(

"A great deal of cost and complexity and harm to both security and privacy is done when identity management frameworks bring users' "true" identities to the front."

That's a really good point.

"Most identity theft is a technologically straightforward problem ... The solution is simple ... I fear that complex federated identity arrangements ..."

That's detail that's way outside of my technical competence, so I'll be careful (I hope respectful?) to not comment on that.

"When engineers venture into identity philosophy, it doesn't often help."

Exactly - that's why I said that the 'philosophy' discussion needs to be distinct and separate from the engineering discussion: that separation was what I described as 'simplification'.

(I wouldn't describe it as a 'philisophy', discussion, by the way: it's actually intensely practical, but somewhat sideways from engineering, more in the user-experience [UX] space.)

"Frankly, despite all the intellectual goodness of the Laws of Identity, they haven't effected much useful change on the identity management scene."

I will admit my ignorance on this: what are/is the 'Laws of Identity'? (For that matter, what is Cardspace?) Reference/link, please? I kind of presume it's specific to the IT-oriented identity-management space? - which I'll again admit I barely know at all, because it's kind of sideways to my area of 'big-picture'-oriented enterprise-architecture, much more on the people-side than the tech side.

Different lens, different view - tends to create 'lost in translation' if we're not careful, and looks like I haven't been careful enough. Again, my apologies if I've been too much 'flatfoot' on this?

Cardspace and The laws

Tom,
The "Laws of Identity" were developed by Microsoft's chief identity architect Kim Cameron. He worked and blogged diligently over a long period of time, to come up with seven statements that set the scene for most federated identity work in the past 5-10 years. See www.identityblog.com.
The Laws spawned the idea of an "Identity Metasystem" and Microsoft then implemented an identity management layer called "Cardspace". It comprised an "Information Card" selector (I think a beautiful UX), plus a lot of Web Services libraries and the like which interfaced users' client machines through to IdPs and RPs. Microsoft gifted the Cardspace code to the open source community, and several parallel initiatives like Higgins arose, some generalising from "Info Cards" to "Relationship Cards".
All good stuff but in practice it came to little. So little that Microsoft dropped support for Cardspace last year.
In my view, the Laws of Identity are very interesting and useful, but they're too complicated, they're not Laws, and because they're not really about "Identity" in the sense that you Tom and many others use the term, they are confusing. A more accurare but less catchy title would have been "Theorems for Digital Relationship Management"!
Cardspace was Microsoft's flagship identity offering. It still beats the hell out of me that the IdM industry isn't more shocked it flopped. Remember the old joke about the cub reporter sent to cover a celebrity wedding who comes back to the paper office early? The editor asks what's up? and the cub says "well there's no story coz the bride didn't turn up". Well what we have here is analysts covering identity management seeming to lose interest coz Microsoft dropped the premier product.

Thanks for that, on 'Laws of

Thanks for that, on 'Laws of Identity' - that helps a lot, because I don't know that stuff, and I probably should. (Also like the joke about the cub-reporter... :-) )

Though yeah, we do seem to be talking somewhat at cross-purposes, though - or rather, from very different perspectives. You seem to be focussed specifically on digital-identity, which is one part of Brian's themes; I'm looking more at how technology (and other concerns) impact on identity in a much broader sense, around Brian's headline theme of being 'shaped' by technology. They're not the same, hence apologies if I've confused things a bit too much.

Great conversation, though. :-)

Identity and Persona (and other things)

Stephen (and anyone else who's interested). Having started this discussion, I suppose I should get involved again. Not too much time right now, so may I suggest you take a look at the Jericho Forum Identity Commandments http://www.opengroup.org/jericho/Jericho%20Forum%20Identity%20Commandmen...
It's not a bible, just a very well thought out exposition and in my view directly relevant to practical identity, entitlement and access management.
More later. Promise.

Could you provide a little

Could you provide a little more details on the iPad app that you read about?

Sure

You mean this one "Professor’s Classroom iPad App Debuts at Consumer Electronics Show" - http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/professors-classroom-ipad-app-deb... ?