Vendors across the board are building tools to add context-driven personalization features to mobile apps. Specifically, we see new offerings from vendors in personalization, mobile analytics, API management, predictive analytics, artificial intelligence, and the digital agencies for product and content recommendations, in-app messages, and voice-driven digital assistance.
Marketers and developers are jumping at these solutions because creating more personalized digital experiences will be critical to remaining competitive. And as CIOs rationalize a larger software platform strategy, these solutions will plug specific mobile engagement gaps along the way.
Want to hear more? In our new brief, Vendors Scramble To Enable Contextual Mobile Moments,we examine how different groups of vendors extend their capabilities to compete in the arms race to deliver contextual mobile apps and provide guidance for CIOs on managing the myriad solutions entering their organization.
As I move about the industry talking about APIs (application programming interfaces) and the API economy — which hold important and transformative business opportunities — I’m frequently confronted with disparaging remarks about SOA (service-oriented architecture), as if it’s passé, gone, finito. It’s often in the way of (uninformed) assumptions about SOA. I hear things like, “SOA failed because it was too difficult” or “People do REST APIs now, they don’t do SOA” or other such bunk.
I’ll be the first to extol the importance and benefits of APIs, but the tales of SOA’s failure and demise are simply wrong (I really do like APIs; see this report). I had a powerful reminder of all this while attending IBM’s IMPACT conference this week. First off, I arrived late to one customer’s plain-vanilla “this is our enterprise SOA journey” session only to be refused entry because the room was over capacity. Glancing over the conference program, there were at least eight such sessions representing four continents and at least five vertical industries. I attended five of them and also had lunch with another SOA leader. The stories could all be summarized by the following plot line:
We saw the value in SOA. Whether the need was multichannel customer engagement, faster time-to-market, retiring legacy, getting past complex and costly point-to-point integration, dealing with duplicate applications, or some other business-technology problem, a core team recognized that SOA could make things better.
Many of us in the information security space have a proud legacy of only purchasing best in breed point solutions. In my early days as an information security practitioner, I only wanted to deploy these types of standalone solutions. One of the problems with this approach is that it results in a bloated security portfolio with little integration between security controls. This bloat adds unneeded friction to the infosec team’s operational responsibilities. We talk about adding friction to make the attacker’s job more difficult, what about this self-imposed friction? S&R pros jobs are hard enough. I’m not suggesting that you eliminate best in breed solutions from consideration, I’m suggesting that any “point solution” that functions in isolation and adds unneeded operational friction shouldn’t be considered.
Open Web developers tend to use a variation of the façade pattern for their applications but refine the pattern to focus on standard web formats and protocols and services delivered via the Web — so we refer to it as the open Web façade. Developers draw on three bodies of de jure and de facto standards to implement the open Web façade pattern:
Client standards. Application clients based on a body of emerging standards collectively labeled HTML5.
Service plane standards. A service plane that exposes interfaces using the REST pattern and resource-oriented architecture principles. These services are often called RESTful web services.
Virtual infrastructure standards. A highly virtualized server tier (often a public cloud service) that is easy to deploy initial solutions to but that is also able to scale up or down on demand to meet surges in capacity.