docs/diploma: thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex comparison

comparison thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex @ 212:bbbaf7b328f8

improved swot analysis texts

author	meillo@marmaro.de
date	Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:22:21 +0100
parents	f2b8481789f6
children	9f30e6625164

comparison

equal deleted inserted replaced

-:f2b8481789f6
+:bbbaf7b328f8
 \subsection{SWOT analysis}
 \label{sec:swot-analysis}
 A \NAME{SWOT} analysis regards the strengths and weaknesses of a subject against the opportunities and threats of its market. The slightly altered form called \name{Dialectical {\smaller SWOT} analysis}, which is used here, is described in \cite{powerof2x2}. \NAME{SWOT} analysis should always focus on a specific specific goal to reach with the product. In this case, the main goal is to make email future-safe.
+The two dimension---a subject and the market---are regarded in relation to each other by the analysis. Here the analysis shall be driven by the market's dimension. Thus first opportunities of the market are identified and split into being stengths or weaknesses of email. Then the same is done for threats of the market.
+\subsubsection*{Threats}
 The market's main threat is \emph{spam}, also named \name{junk mail} or \name{unsolicited commercial email} (\NAME{UCE}). Panda Security and Commtouch state in their \name{Email Threats Trend Report} for the second Quarter of 2008: ``Spam levels throughout the second quarter averaged 77\%, ranging from a low of 64\% to a peak of 94\% of all email [...]''\cite[page 4]{panda:email-threats}. The report sees the main reason in the bot nets consisting of zombie computers: ``Spam and malware levels remain high for yet another quarter, powered by the brawny yet agile networks of zombie \NAME{IP}s.''\cite[page 1]{panda:email-threats} This is supported by IronPort Systems: ``More than 80 percent of spam now comes from a `zombie'---an infected \NAME{PC}, typically in a consumer broadband network, that has been hijacked by spammers.''\cite{ironport:zombie-computers}. Positive for \MTA{}s is, that they are not the main source for spam, but it is only a small delight. Spam is a general weakness of the email system, because it can not prevent it.
-\begin{quote}
-Since receivers pay the bulk of the costs for spam (including most obviously their time to delete all that incoming spam), spam use will continue to rise until effective technical and legal countermeasures are deployed, or until people can no longer use email.
+\subsubsection*{Opportunities}
-\url{http://www.dwheeler.com/guarded-email/guarded-email.html}
-\end{quote}
+Opportunities of the market are large data transfers, coming from multimedia content, which becomes popular. If email is used as basis for unified messaging, lots of voice and video mail will need to be transferred. Email is weak related to that kind of data: the data needs to be encoded to \NAME{ASCII} and stresses mail servers a lot.
----
+The use of various hardware to access mail is another opportunity of the market. But more hardware gets involved and the networks get more complex. Thus the software and infrastructure needed to transfer mail within the growing network might be a weakness of the email system. %fixme: think about that
-Spam is a major threat nowadays and the goal is to reduce it to a bearable level (see section \ref{sec:swot-analysis}). Spam fighting is a war are where the good guys tend to lose. Putting too much effort there will result in few gain. Real success will only be possible with new---better---protocols and abandonning the weak legacy technologies. Hence \masqmail\ should be able to provide state-of-the-art spam protection, but not more.
-Spam is a major threat to email, as described in section \ref{sec:swot-analysis}. The two main problems are forgable sender addresses and that it is cheap to send hundreds of thousands of messages. Hence, spam senders can operate in disguise and have minimal cost.
----
-% fixme: hashcash
-Opportunities of the market are large data transfers, coming from multimedia content, which becomes popular. If email is used as basis for unified messaging, lots of voice and video mail will need to be transferred. Email is weak related to that kind of data: the data needs to be encoded to \NAME{ASCII} and and stresses mail servers a lot.
-The use of various hardware to access mail is another opportunity of the market. The software and infrastructure needed to transfer mail within this network might be a weakness of the email system. %fixme: think about that
 An opportunity of the market and at the same time a strength of electronic mail is its standardization. Few other communication technologies are standardized and thus freely available in a similar way. %fixme: ref
 Another opportunity and strength is the modular and extensible structure of electronic mail; it can easily evolve to new requirements. %fixme: ref
-The increasing integration of communication channels, is an opportunity for the market. But deciding weather it is a weakness or strength of email is not so easy. It is a weakness because the not possible integration of stream data and the not good integration of large binary data. It is also a strength, because arbitrary asynchronous communication data already can be integrated. On the other hand, the integration might be a threat too, because it easily leads to complexity of software. Complex software is more error prone and thus less reliable. This could be a strength of electronic mail because of its modular design that decreases complexity, but real integration is harder to do than in monolithic systems.
+The increasing integration of communication channels, is an opportunity for the market. But deciding whether it is a weakness or strength of email is difficult. It is a weakness because the impossible integration of synchronous stream data and the bad integration of large binary data. But it is also a strength, because arbitrary asynchronous communication data already can be integrated. On the other hand, the integration might be a threat too, because it often leads to complexity of software. Complex software is more error prone and thus less reliable. This however could again be a strength of electronic mail because of its modular design that decreases complexity.
-Figure \ref{fig:email-swot} displays the \NAME{SWOT} analysis in a handy overview. It is easy to see, that the opportunities outweigh. This indicates a still increasing technology. %fixme: ref
+Figure \ref{fig:email-swot} displays the \NAME{SWOT} analysis in a handy overview. It is obvious to see, that the opportunities outweigh. This is an indicator for a still increasing market. %fixme: ref
 \begin{figure}
 	\begin{center}
-		%\input{input/email-swot.tex}
 		\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{img/email-swot.eps}
 	\end{center}
 	\caption{\NAME{SWOT} analysis for email}
 	\label{fig:email-swot}
 \end{figure}
-The analysis shows what should be done to achieve the goal (Making email future-safe). Spam mail should be reduced as good as possible. Solutions for large data transfers and infrastructures with more nodes moving within the net should be developed, there is a lot of potential. Standardization, modularity and extendability should be used to go even further, these are the key advantages of email.
+\subsubsection*{Conclusion}
-%fixme: a bit more concrete, see description of swot analysis
+The result of a \NAME{SWOT} analysis are strategies to react on the identified opportunities and threats, dependent on whether they are strengths or weaknesses of the subject. These strategies are what should be done to achieve the overall goal---here making email future-safe.
+Threats of the market that are weaknesses of the subject should be avoided if possible, or one should prepare against them if they are impossible to avoid. As spam is unavoidable, email must prepare against them. The goal is to reduce spam to a bearable level. Spam fighting is a war where the good guys tend to lose. Putting too much effort there will result in few gain. Hence sufficient spam protection should be provided, but not more.
+Threats that are strengths of the subject should be confronted. Here non were identified.
+For opportunities of the market that are weaknesses of the subject, solutions should be searched. Large data transfers and infrastructures with nodes moving within the network, range here. As a lot of potential is present, it should be used by developing solutions to remove the weaknesses.
+Finally, opportunities that are strengths of the subject. These are standardization, modularity, and extendability. They should be exploited to go even further, these are the key advantages of email.
 \subsection{Trends for electronic mail}
 \name{Mail transfer agent}s are still important in this mail architecture, but in a slightly different way. Their job is not transferring mail anymore---this makes the name misleading---they are used to transport the notifications about new mail to the destinations. This is a quite similar job as they do in the \NAME{SMTP} model. The real transfer of the mail can be done in any way, for example via \NAME{FTP} or \NAME{SCP}.
 %FIXME: add references for IM2000
+---
 %add ``guarded email'' by dwheeler
+\begin{quote}
+Since receivers pay the bulk of the costs for spam (including most obviously their time to delete all that incoming spam), spam use will continue to rise until effective technical and legal countermeasures are deployed, or until people can no longer use email.
+\url{http://www.dwheeler.com/guarded-email/guarded-email.html}
+\end{quote}
 %maybe add a third one
+<< hashcash >>
 \subsection{Future-safety of email}
 %fixme: rework
 It seems as if electronic mail or a similar technology has good chances to survive the next decades. This bases on the assumption that it always will be important to send information messages. These can be notes from other people, or notifications from systems (like a broken or full hard drive in the home server, or the coffee machine ran out of coffee beans). Other communication technologies are not as suitable for this kind of messages, as email, short message service, voice mail, and the like. Telephone talks are more focused on dialog and normally interrupt people. These kind of messages should not interrupt people, unless urgent, and they do not need two-way information exchange. The second argument applies to instant messaging too. If only one message is to be send, one does not need instant messaging. Thus, one type of one-way message sending technology will survive.

Mercurial > docs > diploma

comparison thesis/tex/2-MarketAnalysis.tex @ 212:bbbaf7b328f8