5 ms·

Well, nobody would have built another search engine either, but google did it. Part of the problem is the legacy mindset of the higher ups at financial institut

Well, nobody would have built another search engine either, but google did it. Part of the problem is the legacy mindset of the higher ups at financial institutions combined with their extremely conservative nature. I currently work in a fairly large financial institution, giving them a web presence for various services and the backend system is no longer a mainframe but an AS/400. Though it still runs COBOL-based apps, so it's really no different than the standard mainframe.

jacquesm 16y ago
I'm not sure I follow you on the google link here. Google built another search engine, which ran on a cluster of PCs and did so more efficiently than the big competitor at the time, AltaVista, which ran (afaik) on a cluster of Dec Alphas. Because google needed lot of horsepower and had a tight budget they came up with some pretty clever packaging ideas for their cluster. In that sense both these companies took the best route to a solution. Now a search engine is materially different from a bank in that if something goes wrong in a bank the potential damage (not just to the bank, but also to the customers of the bank) is enormous. A search engine that spits out 'wrong' results is still a search engine. A bank that doesn't know where your money went is no longer a bank (at least, not for very long). Financial institutions rely heavily on their image of reliability, much more so than any web company.
- logicalmind 16y ago
  I was speaking more about the mentality that led to the business opportunity that google exploited. More so than the technology. The mentality at that time was that "nobody would build another search engine". Any time I hear someone say "nobody would..." I think about how that mentality allows you to exploit that opportunity. In this case, I'm referring to banking. You've got an industry that is based almost entirely on legacy systems that has not evolved with the progress of technology. As correctly pointed out, you would not want to modify an existing legacy system to move it to a new technology, which is why nobody has done so. What I'm referring to is a new, from scratch, bank with new technology. One that would allow you to disconnect from the current banking model and allow you to offer services that nobody could provide with today's legacy systems. This combined with the fact that if you ask any bank customer they will tell you how much they hate their bank and hate the service. Sounds like it's ripe for the pickings with the right investment, investors and people.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I don't think the mentality was that 'nobody would build another search engine', it may have been around where you were at the time but I know plenty of people - myself included - that were wondering about building another search engine. Also, altavista definitely wasn't the only player. Even today, with google as established as it is I'm pretty sure there are at least several hundred people involved in building new search engines. Whether one of them replaces google at any point in time remains to be seen, but it's definitely not classed as a 'hopeless problem'. As for the banking bit. You are missing my point, nobody builds a bank because of the technology, people found new banks because of the money. If that means adapting old, tried and true technology to jump trough new hoops then that's a cost of business. Bankers are conservative by nature, not because they like it but because it makes very good business sense when you're a bank. It's no coincidence that banks, insurance companies and governments are the areas where the mainframe is still dominant. I'm really not sure what kind of services you could offer with a 'new' software stack that you could not offer with the old one. Bank transfers are routinely done in seconds between banks, you can pay with everything from credit cards to mobile phones and computers, they seem to have done a remarkable job at adapting to new tech while remaining conservative at heart. People hate their banks mostly for the costs and for the lack of human interest, rarely if ever because of the lack of technology. In fact, I could do with less technology and better human interaction.
    - logicalmind 16y ago
      I can think of a lot of new products and services a bank could offer. You would have the opportunity to rethink the standard checking/savings account world and hybridize cd's and savings accounts. There has been so little innovation in banking (some would say that it's because of how banks are tied to legacy infrastructure) that a re-think of what exists and what customers want would be very refreshing. I think the best part would be that because of the legacy technology in place at existing banks, they would have a very hard time making changes to adapt to anything new that would be offered. Just imagine adding a new account type that isn't checking or savings and has new rules. How long would it take for a bank to re-write their backend system to incorporate that change? A long time. If a disruptor entered banking and did offer this kind of change, I think you'd have banks banging down your door to buy you out, if nothing else.

jacquesm 16y ago

I'm not sure I follow you on the google link here. Google built another search engine, which ran on a cluster of PCs and did so more efficiently than the big competitor at the time, AltaVista, which ran (afaik) on a cluster of Dec Alphas. Because google needed lot of horsepower and had a tight budget they came up with some pretty clever packaging ideas for their cluster. In that sense both these companies took the best route to a solution. Now a search engine is materially different from a bank in that if something goes wrong in a bank the potential damage (not just to the bank, but also to the customers of the bank) is enormous. A search engine that spits out 'wrong' results is still a search engine. A bank that doesn't know where your money went is no longer a bank (at least, not for very long). Financial institutions rely heavily on their image of reliability, much more so than any web company.

logicalmind 16y ago
I was speaking more about the mentality that led to the business opportunity that google exploited. More so than the technology. The mentality at that time was that "nobody would build another search engine". Any time I hear someone say "nobody would..." I think about how that mentality allows you to exploit that opportunity. In this case, I'm referring to banking. You've got an industry that is based almost entirely on legacy systems that has not evolved with the progress of technology. As correctly pointed out, you would not want to modify an existing legacy system to move it to a new technology, which is why nobody has done so. What I'm referring to is a new, from scratch, bank with new technology. One that would allow you to disconnect from the current banking model and allow you to offer services that nobody could provide with today's legacy systems. This combined with the fact that if you ask any bank customer they will tell you how much they hate their bank and hate the service. Sounds like it's ripe for the pickings with the right investment, investors and people.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I don't think the mentality was that 'nobody would build another search engine', it may have been around where you were at the time but I know plenty of people - myself included - that were wondering about building another search engine. Also, altavista definitely wasn't the only player. Even today, with google as established as it is I'm pretty sure there are at least several hundred people involved in building new search engines. Whether one of them replaces google at any point in time remains to be seen, but it's definitely not classed as a 'hopeless problem'. As for the banking bit. You are missing my point, nobody builds a bank because of the technology, people found new banks because of the money. If that means adapting old, tried and true technology to jump trough new hoops then that's a cost of business. Bankers are conservative by nature, not because they like it but because it makes very good business sense when you're a bank. It's no coincidence that banks, insurance companies and governments are the areas where the mainframe is still dominant. I'm really not sure what kind of services you could offer with a 'new' software stack that you could not offer with the old one. Bank transfers are routinely done in seconds between banks, you can pay with everything from credit cards to mobile phones and computers, they seem to have done a remarkable job at adapting to new tech while remaining conservative at heart. People hate their banks mostly for the costs and for the lack of human interest, rarely if ever because of the lack of technology. In fact, I could do with less technology and better human interaction.
  - logicalmind 16y ago
    I can think of a lot of new products and services a bank could offer. You would have the opportunity to rethink the standard checking/savings account world and hybridize cd's and savings accounts. There has been so little innovation in banking (some would say that it's because of how banks are tied to legacy infrastructure) that a re-think of what exists and what customers want would be very refreshing. I think the best part would be that because of the legacy technology in place at existing banks, they would have a very hard time making changes to adapt to anything new that would be offered. Just imagine adding a new account type that isn't checking or savings and has new rules. How long would it take for a bank to re-write their backend system to incorporate that change? A long time. If a disruptor entered banking and did offer this kind of change, I think you'd have banks banging down your door to buy you out, if nothing else.