I’ve had a difficult time with job titles throughout my career because it seems that few of the people who are not in my industry understand what it is that I do for a living. That may seem trite and unimportant, but I’ve found that it’s quite the contrary.

Today I had a brief discussion with an individual who read the title I had written down — “software engineer” — and said, “Cool. Do you build websites?” That followed with a more lengthy description of my specialties in the software field, which only drew a puzzled look. I finally said that I don’t generally build web sites — rather I build the servers that those web sites run on.

Although that’s not entirely true of late, it’s a much closer description to the sort of thing I build that a web site would be. As more of a hard core software engineer, I work on system, server and application level software, but I don’t do web sites for a living. My languages are C and C++, not HTML and JavaScript.

Perhaps there is no good job title that separates what I do from the web site builders, but I’d like to think that there must be a good way to draw the distinction. I no more have the graphic design and layout skills that the best web designers have than they do the multi-process, multi-threaded development skills that I have.

It would seem that this is a minor problem, but I’ve struggled with it throughout my career, carefully explaining the differences. Computer Scientist never really cut it for me as a title — I view software as an engineering exercise not as a science experiment. Similarly, Software Designer or Software Architect are too abstract and generally indicate that the holder of one of those titles doesn’t actually code anymore — I still do. I use the title Chief Technology Officer now and in my previous job, but that title says even less about what I do. (Personally I think CTO is a cool title, but the longer I’ve had it, the less it means to me.)

Once I claimed the title Cryptolope Architect, when I was developing IBM’s Cryptolope DRM technology. Again a cool title, but functionally useless. I’ve seen cute titles like Software Gardener, but in these post dot.com crash days that title sounds really silly.

It would be nice to have a distinction drawn between the software developers who write complex applications and system software and those who build web sites. It would be a huge plus if the title were actually functionally descriptive. The world seems to understand “Attorney At Law”, “President and CEO”, “VP of Business Development”, “Sales Executive”, and “Bank Teller”. It would be nice if there was a corresponding title that everyone would understand for those of us in the software profession.

It’s been a while, so I thought I’d hit the mailbag … (apologies to Tony Kornheiser)

Our first question comes from Mr. W. Gates of Redmond. He writes, “I really like my Tablet PC, but sales seem to be sluggish. What’s up with that?”

Well, Mr. Gates, having seen and touched several of the units, my opinion is that they are close, but no cigar. Trying to go after the masses is probably the wrong approach. Instead, the Tablet PC and Windows XP tablet edition should be targeted for the beefier computers, like the IBM T30 series — the 6 pound notebooks that serve as desktop replacements. These folks would probably be willing to use the additional Tablet PC capabilities while not losing any of the power of their laptops.

Creating a unit that is essentially a big PDA is probably the wrong idea for this. We already are flooded with small PDAs and are buying laptops that have more power than most desktops — it’s these laptops that need the Tablet capabilities.

The second question comes from Mr J. Valenti. “How about that battle against Napster?”

Yes Mr. Valenti, you and the MPAA and your kindred spirits at the RIAA are making absolutely no progress in the protection of digital content. In fact, I think people are downloading more than ever. I recently walked by a local CD store where all of their $9.99 CDs were on sale for $6.99. Now I know that those CDs aren’t representative of the top artists, but please — this is an indicator of things to come. Yes, times are a-changing. It’s time for $3 CDs and $5 movies, because it doesn’t take that long to burn a DVD and we all have more time than money.

Our third question is on the subject of e-mail chain letters. Why do people continue to forward them without checking for hoaxes first?

I can’t remember if I’ve written on this before, but one of the most irritating things to me is to get an e-mail from a friend or relative that contains a chain letter or some similar hoax. I think it’s because of the number of years that I’ve been doing Internet things that I get more irritated than most people, but it strikes me how gullible people are. The latest one to drop in my e-mail was one on Bonsai Kittens, a site that is admittedly in bad taste, but is totally a hoax.

Okay, enough venting. Anything else?

Of course. 2002 was a fascinating year for me. I’ve started a new venture in the area of data synchronization and have been working with some of the most interesting people that I’ve ever met. I generally keep my k2.com stuff separated from my other work, so I’m not going to go into the new venture on this site, at least not yet. But it’s been a fun 2002 and I look forward to a terrific 2003!

That’s what the Universal Music Group, a division of Vivendi would have us believe. According to Reuters, a new music service making available 43,000 songs on the web via Liquid Audio is a “direct blow to the peer to peer services”.

I’m sorry, but these guys really ought to share whatever it is that they are smoking. This is just stupid. Why pay for a download when you can get it for free on Kazaa or Morpheus? 99 cents per song, or $9.99 per album, is still too high to attract the average music listener. If the songs were a quarter a pop, or maybe $2 to $3 per album, you might see some change in behavior, but otherwise it’s just plain dumb to think that downloaders are going to pay at prices that barely drop below what a CD costs in the store.

Your thoughts?

Take a look at this article on CNet. Sean Parker, one of the founders of Napster, started a company called Plaxo to help people keep their Outlook contacts up to date. I’ve been sent a couple of contact updates already by friends using products similar to Plaxo. I’m fascinated by the fact that they got $2M from Sequoia. How do you think they intend to make money on this?

"Parker's company is backed in large part by a $2 million round of venture funding last February, led by Sequoia Capital. The product will go live Tuesday and will be distributed freely. He declined to discuss the company's potential plans to generate revenue, but did say Plaxo would not sell or otherwise use any member's contact information without permission."

This is a pretty interesting idea, already done by at least two other companies. Given the fact that they don’t intend to sell contact information without permission, my guess would be that they will use a bait and switch. The service is free for now. Once they have your contacts, they will ask you to pay for privacy or get your agreement to sell your contacts if you choose to keep the service free. If this is really the case, then essentially you would be asked for your permission to sell information about your clients, friends, relatives, whatever that you keep in your contact list. So technically you don’t have to rat out on your own information, just everyone you know.

Let me be the first to state that if Plaxo, GoodContacts, or other companies do this, I think that they deserve scorn like never before seen. Many people now go to some effort to keep their names off of lists by clicking on the checkboxes to prevent it. How would you feel if someone else gave a company permission to read information about you that they kept? This would seem be in violation of some of the new privacy regulations that have been put in place recently. The person who gave Plaxo or GoodContacts would have to get your agreement to give them your contact information.

Any bets that they won’t be doing that? Anyone have other thoughts on where they will make money if not from this?