Category: API

  • The API Life Cycle Mixer’s Manual: What Goes Into a Single Source of Truth?

    The API Life Cycle Mixer’s Manual: What Goes Into a Single Source of Truth?

    In bartending, the mixer’s manual is a trusted source of information. These books can contain hundreds of recipes for classic cocktails, some of which might be 100 years old, while others might be for drinks that only recently arrived on the scene. Mixer’s manuals also can be great sources of inspiration for new, yet-to-be-tested recipes for exciting additions to a bar’s or restaurant’s offerings. This balancing act of preserving the old while encouraging exploration into the new can provide a valuable lesson for API development in the software world. An API’s “single source of truth” is, in many ways, the software organization’s own mixer’s manual. This is especially true when the right approach is taken to ensure that software remains functional and performant and serves up experiences that delight customers and keep them coming back for more.

    The Rise of APIs and Mixology

    While we might think of mixology and the mixologists who practice this craft as relatively new terms, the first recorded use of the word “mixologist” dates back to 1852 and “mixology” followed shortly after.

    Just how similar are the work, mindsets and passions of mixologists and API developers and designers? Check out this definition of a mixologist and count the similarities for yourself:

    “The term ‘mixologist’ refers to someone who studies the history of mixed drinks, has a rich appreciation of the ingredients and techniques used and regularly creates new and innovative mixed drinks … their job title implies that they do a significant portion of their job behind the scenes, creating new craft cocktails and putting their signature twist on existing favorites.”

    The best API developers, designers and architects of the world should recognize a lot of the above in their own work. They have deep respect for their craft and are always honing it further. They seek to understand the tastes and palates of their consumers. They factor in other stakeholders’ inputs, they test, iterate and test their creations again before “serving” those APIs to production.

    Like mixologists and bartenders (if you see them as two different roles), every professional along the API life cycle should understand the needs of consumers, customers and the business–and then design and develop their APIs accordingly. An essential part of this process is continuous validation and adaptation to market requirements.

    Maintaining Confidence in Ever-Changing Recipes

    Changes to APIs, even minor ones, can have significant downstream effects. And the same can be said for tweaks made to an age-old cocktail recipe, where adding or removing a single dash of this or that can completely change the flavor of a drink … as well as people’s interest in it.

    While there’s no “standard” rate of change to APIs to plan for, you can expect changes to be needed with each new software release. This could mean changes are being made (and need to be tested against and validated) every few weeks, every month or even every day, depending on your release cadence. There also can be as-needed, ad-hoc changes.

    What’s crucial for teams to ensure is that these changes do not disrupt an API’s functionality or performance. To make this possible, teams are increasingly leveraging API contract testing to provide a safety net of sorts. This comes in the form of testing that validates changes against a “contract” that details an API’s original, agreed upon and, therefore, required functionality.

    The ability to foresee the impacts of changes to APIs can depend on the maturity of an engineering team and its ability to collaborate across departments, time zones and varying levels of technical expertise. Tools and guidelines that promote standardization and collaboration can prevent mishaps from overlooking or being blind to negative downstream effects.

    Documentation is Key

    Whether we’re talking about being able to trust a single source of truth for the most up-to-date version of a published API or the latest edition of a mixer’s manual for tried-and-true drink recipes, clear and concise documentation is key. But it’s also not enough for this documentation to simply exist.

    It seems like common sense—although you’ve probably worked somewhere where it wasn’t—that your API documentation also needs to be easily accessible, understandable and usable. Ensuring all of these things leads to smoother onboarding and a positive developer experience and, ultimately, to wider adoption of a functional, performant API that meets or even exceeds expectations.

    API documentation is often the first point of contact a developer has with an API. It serves as a guide, walking developers through the API’s features, endpoints, request/response models and error messages. It also provides insight into the underlying business logic and unique characteristics of an API.

    Good API documentation follows the principle of a single source of truth, meaning that it should be comprehensive, up-to-date, and consistent. It should always mirror the actual behavior of the API, reducing the guesswork for developers and minimizing the potential for misunderstandings and errors.

    Just as a mixologist relies on a detailed and accurate cocktail recipe to deliver a pleasing experience to a patron, API developers depend on good documentation to create and deliver useful, value-add APIs and powerful applications.

    Continuous Improvement = Continuous Education

    Like a mixologist who meticulously adjusts the ingredients of a cocktail or who creates new cocktails to meet the evolving tastes of customers, developers must constantly adapt their APIs to meet changing market demands, business needs and industry standards.

    This is achieved through a potent blend of market research, collaboration, adherence to standards and governance and meticulous testing. However, as software development, testing and deployment technologies and processes continue to evolve, the tech industry must continue educating itself and refining its practices.

    With a mindset focused on constant learning and continuous improvement and a dependable single source of truth as their guide, development teams can confidently serve up exceptional API experiences in every release. In the end, the aim is to create APIs that are reliable and easy to consume and that meet the unique needs of the moment–much like a mixologist’s perfect beverage.

  • The Role of SBOMs in Software Supply Chain Security

    The Role of SBOMs in Software Supply Chain Security

    The software supply chain has become increasingly complex and dynamic with the rise of cloud computing, open source software and third-party software components and APIs. Widespread damage can occur if third-party APIs, cloud services, SDKs and open source software have security flaws. As a result, software supply chain security has emerged as a critical concern for organizations across industries. Supply chain attacks have become more frequent, sophisticated and devastating, as evidenced by high-profile incidents such as SUNBURST, Kaseya and Apache Log4j.

    To address the growing challenge of software supply chain security, organizations have turned to leveraging software bills of materials (SBOMs). SBOMs are a standardized inventory of software components used in a particular product or system, including their versions, dependencies and sources. SBOMs provide transparency and visibility into the software supply chain. They can be an effective approach for identifying and mitigating security risks, compliance issues and operational challenges – assuming organizations have the right tools to fully benefit from SBOMs, including runtime discovery, in place.

    SBOMs are not a new concept, but their adoption has accelerated in recent years due to a number of important factors, including the following.

    First, regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), have been advocating for SBOMs as a best practice for software supply chain security. NIST has released a draft guidance document on SBOMs, and CISA has mandated SBOMs for federal contractors and subcontractors.

    Second, industry initiatives, such as the Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) and the Software Assurance Forum for Excellence in Code (SAFECode), have promoted SBOMs as a key element of software security. OpenSSF has launched a working group on SBOMs and published the Open Source Software Security Mobilization Plan to improve the resiliency and security of open source software (OSS), including guidelines for SBOM management; SAFECode published a whitepaper on SBOMs.

    Third, supply chain attacks have highlighted the need for SBOMs as a proactive and preventive measure. SBOMs can help organizations detect and respond to vulnerabilities, malicious code and unauthorized changes in the software supply chain. SBOMs can also support incident response and recovery efforts by providing accurate and comprehensive information about the affected software components.

    Fourth, customer demands and market pressures have influenced the adoption of SBOMs. Customers are increasingly aware of software supply chain risks and are asking for SBOMs as part of their procurement and evaluation processes. Some industries, such as health care and automotive, have mandated SBOMs for safety and liability reasons. SBOMs can also enhance brand reputation, customer trust and competitive advantage for software vendors.

    Fifth, technological advancements have facilitated the creation and consumption of SBOMs. The emergence of open standards, such as CycloneDX and SPDX, has enabled interoperability and integration of SBOMs across different tools and platforms. The development of automated tools, such as software composition analysis (SCA) and vulnerability scanners, has enabled the generation and validation of SBOMs in a timely and accurate manner. The integration of SBOMs with other security measures, such as identity and access management (IAM) and security information and event management (SIEM), has enabled an effective view of software supply chain security.

    However, SBOMs are not a silver bullet for software supply chain security. They are only as good as the data they contain, and the quality of data can vary depending on the source and the method of collection, particularly around the application software stack of APIs, cloud services and SDKs. SBOM inventory is constantly changing, and being able to leverage their up-to-date data requires more than a snapshot from traditional source code static analysis approaches, but rather continuous runtime analysis and dynamic inventory.

    For example, common vendor management and software composition analysis (SCA) approaches often lack source code access for mobile, web, cloud and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software, as well as third-party API services.

    For a more effective approach, organizations can benefit from a full-stack attack surface management (ASM) software supply chain solution that delivers continuous third-party application asset discovery and dynamic tracking of third-party vendors. These newer approaches automatically categorize assets under known vendors, allow customers to add additional new vendors, curate individual assets under any vendor, and alert on increases in policy violations and high embed rates of third-party vendors within key applications. These automated capabilities allow vendor management teams to remedy supply chain security problems more quickly and easily and much more accurately than older approaches.

    It is important to note that SBOMs also require collaboration and communication among multiple stakeholders, including software vendors, suppliers, customers and regulators. They may also pose some privacy and intellectual property concerns since they can reveal information about the software components and their relationships.

    Overall, organizations need to adopt a comprehensive and risk-based approach to software supply chain security, of which SBOMs and tools to best leverage their information are an important component. Organizations should establish policies and procedures for SBOM creation, management and sharing, as well as for validation and verification. Organizations should also integrate SBOMs with other security measures and practices, such as threat modeling, penetration testing and code review to best ensure the security of their software supply chains.

  • Despite DevOps, Software Supply Chain Security Challenges Persist

    Despite DevOps, Software Supply Chain Security Challenges Persist

    A survey of 397 IT, cybersecurity and application development professionals conducted by Enterprise Strategy Group (ESG) found that while most respondents work for organizations that have adopted DevOps practices, multiple software supply chain security issues and DevSecOps concerns have yet to be addressed.

    The survey, conducted on behalf of Data Theorem, a provider of a platform for securing application programming interfaces (APIs), the survey also found 82% of respondents have adopted DevOps, with 51% reporting they make extensive use of DevOps workflows (51%). Nearly three-quarters (73%) are deploying code weekly and 31% are deploying code daily.

    However, securing DevOps workflows remains a work in progress, with 41% reporting security teams lack visibility and control of development processes. Other issues include new builds deployed to production with misconfigurations, vulnerabilities and other security issues (40%), developers skipping security processes (39%), software released without going through security checks and/or testing (38%), lack of security process consistency across different development teams (38%), security team can’t keep pace with release cadences (34%) and developers’ reluctance to work with security (29%).

    API security is also becoming especially challenging, with 92% of respondents dealing with at least one API security incident in the last 12 months. Well over half (57%) have dealt with multiple API security issues in the last 12 months.

    On the plus side, the survey also found that more than half (54%) of teams responsible for securing APIs are involved with development as soon as or before the APIs are published. A full 97% said developers either have a good (22%) or high level (71%) of API security knowledge. A total of 89% reported their organization provides formal API security training to their development teams. More than three-quarters (78%) can remediate an API vulnerability within a day, and 39% reported they can do so within hours. A total of 60% reported a dedicated budget has been specifically allocated to API security, with another 30% identifying it as a discrete item within their cybersecurity budget. Two-thirds (66%) said spending on API security would significantly increase in the next 12 to 18 months.

    The use of APIs is only going to increase in the months and years ahead. Well over one-third (36%) of respondents are using APIs across all their applications, with 50% expecting this to be the case in two years. Another 44% reported most of their applications are using APIs., with 32% expecting this to be the case in two years. More than three-quarters (76%) of organizations reported that they have an average of 26 APIs per application and 53% have more than a quarter of their APIs facing the internet.

    More than a third (35%) are updating APIs daily while another 40% do so weekly. A full 61% are using APIs to connect microservices.

    Data Theorem COO Doug Dooley said those APIs are now being targeted by cybercriminals that routinely test the weaknesses of every API after each deployment and update. The most common types of API attacks reported by survey respondents included exposure of data (32%), account takeover (31%), denial of service (DoS) attack (31%), attack on misconfigured API (30%), fake account creation (28%), API injection attack (28%), ransomware (27%), data breach (26%) and content scraping (26%).

    Despite these issues, however, nearly three-quarters (74%) of survey respondents said they believe their organizations have a robust API security program in place, with 22% reporting they have some process in place. Organizations are using a mix of approaches including API security tools (59%), web application firewalls (WAFs) (57%) and API gateways (50%), distributed DoS mitigation (48%) and bot management solutions (42%).

    Challenges included managing multiple tools (29%), visibility into and control of APIs (28%), inventorying APIs (27%), inconsistent adoption of APIs (27%), API security testing (27%), data governance/exposure (26%), discovering and remediating misconfigured APIs (26%), keeping pace with threats (26%) and accurately tracking API usage (25%).

    Significant API security concerns included API authentication issues (41%), account takeovers (39%), identifying and tracking third-party APIs (38%), using tools not purpose-built for security (38%), shadow/undiscovered APIs (38%), abusive behavior bypassing app security tools (38%), denial of service attacks (38%), data governance and/or data exposure issues as a result of insecure APIs (37%), abusive behavior bypassing bot management (37%) and outdated/unneeded APIs, also known as zombie APIs. (33%).

    The type of vulnerabilities that are of the greatest concern are sensitive data exposure (34%), access control vulnerabilities (31%), API business logic flaws (31%) and DDoS attacks (30%).

    More than 79% of respondents, however, are relying on manual testing and review processes to ensure APIs don’t expose sensitive data (79%), with 63% having automated alerting capability for when sensitive data is exposed.

    Overall, it’s apparent that more resources as being applied to securing software supply chains in general and APIs specifically. However, given the amount of software being built and deployed, it may be a while before organizations see the return on those investments.

  • Boomi Brings Generative AI to Integration Platform

    Boomi Brings Generative AI to Integration Platform

    Boomi announced today it is applying generative artificial intelligence (AI) to enable organizations to automate integrations via a natural language interface.

    Boomi CEO Steve Lucas said Boomi AI makes it much simpler for professional and citizen developers alike to create integrations at scale using generative AI platforms to invoke the low-code engine that Boomi already provides to create integrations between thousands of applications.

    Those generative AI capabilities will complement a wide range of AI capabilities based on machine learning algorithms that are already embedded in the Boomi platform, he added.

    Generative AI’s Impact on Integration and Automation – Steve Lucas, Boomi from Techstrong.TV on Vimeo.

    Boomi has been widely used to drive business process integration via an integration platform-as-a-service (iPaaS) environment it delivers as a managed service. The low-code platform the company created significantly reduces the need to rely on professional developers to write procedural code using Java, for example, to create those integrations.

    Generative AI capabilities make it possible for almost anyone of any skill level to create those integrations across multiple types of application programming interfaces (APIs), noted Lucas.

    That capability also makes it possible for Boomi to notify end users when, for example, a data attribute in an application has changed and ask them if they would like to apply that change across their entire application environment.

    In addition, Boomi AI can also interpret the intent of a prompt to better orchestrate processes in addition to providing an audit history in natural language that explains how decisions were made and what outcomes occurred as a result. As part of that effort, Boomi algorithms are also trained to avoid biases and unfairness with established ethical guidelines.

    Boomi’s AI engine is trained using anonymized data collected from approximately 20,000 customers that have created more than 200 million integrations using the Boomi platform. Those integrations have been exposed to third-party large language models (LLMs) that the company is using to train Boomi AI, said Lucas. Boomi is not storing any customer data to train its AI models.
    DevOps teams, of course, spend hours creating integrations that should be much simpler to create, test and validate with the rise of generative AI. In fact, the number of integrations being created to drive a wide range of digital business transformation initiatives should substantially increase.

    In the meantime, DevOps teams would be well-advised to start evaluating which tasks they manually perform today that could instead be automated by a generative AI platform. Many of the routine integrations that DevOps teams create today using low-level APIs will be increasingly automated by end users. The ultimate goal should be to identify more complex tasks that previously DevOps teams would not have attempted simply because there wasn’t enough time.

    It’s still too early to determine what impact generative AI will have on the way IT is managed, but DevOps teams that are typically committed to automating as many processes as possible should be at the forefront of adoption. The challenge is going to be simply keeping track of the rate of change that might soon be enabled by these platforms.

  • 4 Risk Factors Devs Should Consider for ChatGPT Integrations

    4 Risk Factors Devs Should Consider for ChatGPT Integrations

    It’s only been a couple of months since OpenAI introduced its latest low-cost API for developers to leverage ChatGPT in their applications and already many engineering teams have jumped headlong into new integrations. But developers experimenting with the possibilities of how ChatGPT can boost their software should temper that with some risk analysis and threat modeling before deployment. So say a range of cybersecurity and risk experts, who warn organizations that leverage the ChatGPT API in their software that they’ll need to navigate a minefield of privacy, data governance, and security operational risks.

    “I use ChatGPT Pro and think it’s an exciting tool for holiday cards, poems for my kid, writing inspiration, first drafts and search,” says Patrick Hall, data scientist and co-founder of BNH.AI, a boutique law firm focused on minimizing legal and technical risks of AI. He’s also the author of the upcoming book Machine Learning for High-Risk Applications. “I get concerned about generative AI used as a consumer product in high-risk domains, such as consumer finance or the law.”

    With that framing in mind, the following are a few of the areas that experts like Hall suggest that developers, DevOps teams and CTOs start thinking about to avoid some potentially costly unintended consequences of ChatGPT integration in their software.

    Data Privacy and Governance Concerns

    One of the most immediate and obvious risk concerns IT leadership, DevOps teams and privacy experts are worried about is what happens to sensitive data when users enter it into a ChatGPT-backed prompt—whether directly or through an app using the API. Be it a customer entering personally identifiable information (PII) into an external-facing app or an employee entering proprietary company information in an internal tool using ChatGPT’s API, these use patterns open up a world of data exposure and regulatory compliance concerns. The good news is that OpenAI does not use data submitted through the API to train its models, but this shouldn’t automatically give devs peace of mind. They’ll need to be sure that using generative AI in an app truly aligns with their company’s privacy policies and with any local, federal or international data privacy laws their firm is beholden to, said Hall.

    “Although OpenAI appears to maintain a robust security and privacy program and there are steps you can take on your own to limit data sharing, some people are still worried,” said Walter Haydock, founder and CEO of StackAware.

    Among Haydock’s side projects, he is currently developing a tool for sanitizing data before sending it to OpenAI. Called GPT-Guard, it’s still in beta and it would need to be run on a local machine or in the cloud to sanitize data before sending it via API. But it provides some rapid prototyping of the kind of methods and tools developers may need to think about as they design their applications to interact with ChatGPT.

    Intellectual Property Infringement

    Developers should also be thinking through intellectual property infringement concerns when it comes to the responses generated by an app tapping into ChatGPT, Hall said.

    “Devs need to consider whether a generative AI system may be coughing up other people’s licensed or copyrighted intellectual property as responses,” he said.

    This is likely going to be a tricky situation that will likely be tested by the courts in the coming years. For example, will applications using ChatGPT be required to compensate licensed copyright holders for certain kinds of responses using their material? These are the kinds of questions that developers and the organizations they work for should be asking themselves, said Frank Huerta, CEO of Curtail Security and a longtime DevOps expert.

    “For example, what’s the mechanism for resolving IP and copyright disputes?” he asked. “Is ChatGPT going to have its own IP? Is it going to generate it—and will it put that in the public domain? Who owns the copyright to a generated response? None of that has been considered yet, and it’s going to come up fast.”

    Adding New Cybersecurity Threat Vectors

    In addition to all of the concerns about the data, developers integrating ChatGPT into their applications also need to consider what that does to the software’s attack surface. ‘Never trust user input’ has always been a good rule of thumb for developers, and that advice is just as true for large language model (LLM) prompts as anything else.

    A recent example scenario laid out by a data scientist on Twitter showed one of the myriad ways that malicious actors could carry out prompt injections in the same way they’d carry out a SQL injection. In that scenario, if a recruiter used ChatGPT to crawl LinkedIn profiles for a certain keyword and send an email to the people whose profiles included that keyword, it’d be possible to add text to a profile that sends an email chiding the recruiter for using an automated tool to send out emails. That’s a fairly low-stakes example, but it shows the possibility for injection attacks, said Andy Patel, a security researcher for WithSecure who has been digging into AI risks.

    “So, if you are integrating it, you should think about things like that. You should think about the fact that people will determine that you are using a large language model to do something, to automate something, and then they’ll essentially SQL injection attack it,” he said.

    Problems With Bias

    Finally, developers and software design teams should be cognizant of the potential problems that AI bias can introduce into their software if they lean on the generated output from ChatGPT to trigger actions or to inform the user.

    “Generative AI systems continue to make wrong, offensive or otherwise problematic content. Being wrong can give rise to negligence issues and biased content can lead to discrimination issues,” Hall warned. “Don’t embarrass yourself, offend others or run afoul of the law by not testing and further protect yourself by screening the heck out of generated content.”

  • State of Developer Experience Report Finds Growing API Reliance

    State of Developer Experience Report Finds Growing API Reliance

    Web APIs continue to grow in interest among developer users. APIs can empower new customer experiences and help engineers avoid rebuilding common functions. The technology is also powering microservices and headless architectures that we’ve seen gain more traction in recent years as enterprises become more composable.

    On the provider side, a web API strategy can enable co-creation in partner ecosystems and even open new revenue opportunities for the business. Yet, like any software-as-a-service (SaaS), APIs require great developer experiences to create quick onboarding journeys and easy ongoing maintenance.

    Nylas recently released its inaugural State of Developer Experience Report, detailing the key trends, technologies and priorities that are molding the modern developer experience. The study found increasing reliance on APIs and hopes to increase investment in API-driven technologies. I also met with Isaac Nassimi, SVP of product, Nylas, to explore the reasons behind some of these findings and to get his perspective on the API economy at large.

    Rising Importance of APIs

    As I’ve covered before, the number of APIs in the market has ballooned as more development teams have come to rely upon APIs to power new application functions. The largest companies, those with 10,000 or more employees, have more than 250 internal APIs, according to Rapid’s 2022 State of APIs report.

    Similarly, the Nylas study underlined the growing reliance on APIs. A full 98% of developers said they view APIs as a key contributor to helping them and their team get their work done. And 86% of developers said they expected their use of APIs to increase in 2023.

    According to Nassimi, APIs are something that’s become more and more prevalent over time. For example, in 1998, setting up a web server was pretty cumbersome. But nowadays, a junior developer can accomplish the task (and much more) with a few lines of code, he said. APIs abstract complexity and help leverage external infrastructure so you aren’t constantly reinventing the wheel. “They add more functionality and help outsource labor, thought and cognitive load,” explained Nassimi.

    APIs Bring Developer Experience Benefits

    Another possible reason to shift toward APIs is to handle escalating tool usage. Almost half (48%) of developers said they are either always or often overwhelmed by the number of tools they use daily. Simultaneously, 98% of developers said APIs would lessen the number of workplace tools they use daily. The study indicates that investment in APIs can increase automation and reduce the manual headaches of crafting new features by hand.

    For example, Nassimi describes creating a video transcoding service from scratch in a previous company. The entire engineering team had to dedicate months and months to the process, using muscles they hadn’t ever exercised. After much effort, they ditched their work and ended up just using an API. “It was a really good feeling to delete 200 lines of code,” said Nassimi. “If you do that five times, you reduce all these esoteric things you have to learn how to do in your company by an order of magnitude.”

    In addition to reducing headaches, APIs can also enable speed. For example, it can take over a year for three senior engineers to build an email or calendar integration without the help of an API, the report found. With an API, this integration timeline can be minuscule, said Nassimi. As a result, 95% of all respondents said they would like to see their company invest more heavily in APIs within the next year.

    Developer Experience Improvements

    Developers find speed to be the number one benefit when working with APIs. And to grant this speed, API providers must create a streamlined developer experience (DX). The speed of implementation can make the difference between a good DX and one that is not so good, and a significant contributor to this speed is familiarity. One DX hangup is that the API you use must function like the code you use in your own environment, said Nassimi.

    Although solid documentation and naming conventions should exist in the background, Nassimi shared that forcing developers to learn terminology about the thing the technology is abstracting is a lousy developer experience. Instead, installing SDKs in the unique language of choice, like TypeScript bindings, and using autocompletes to understand the SDK can grant a much better experience.

    Workflow automation and AI can also enhance developer experience, as it frees up time for engineers to be more productive. In fact, two out of three developers would like their company to invest in AI for workflow automation and to curate better user and customer experiences. And 72% of developers said they or their organization are currently using AI for data analytics and making sense of their data.

    However, when it comes to generative AI like ChatGPT and Bard, developers are less enthused—only 14% of developers reported it as a useful area that their companies should invest in over the next year. Although the headlines proclaim that generative AI will disrupt most aspects of modern work, the technology is still new and can produce errors and introduce potential security repercussions.

    Looking Through the Micro Lens

    Developers integrating with APIs will have various backgrounds and priorities. And although speed is an important consideration, providers should also understand where their workloads lie and what particular features they should be driving, said Nassimi. “You want to show off all endpoints and features, but if you narrow down to show users what they need to get started, you will close more deals,” he said.

    For more details, you can download a copy of Nylas’ State of Developer Experience 2023 behind an email gate here.

  • FIDO/WebAuthn Passkeys is Inevitable: Get on the Train ¦ IBM CEO Hates WFH

    FIDO/WebAuthn Passkeys is Inevitable: Get on the Train ¦ IBM CEO Hates WFH

    Welcome to The Long View—where we peruse the news of the week and strip it to the essentials. Let’s work out what really matters.

    This week: The Passkeys authentication standard gets a huge boost, and IBM’s Arvind Krishna wants workers back in the office. (more…)

  • Linux 6.3: What’s New ¦ AWS Layoffs are a Worry

    Linux 6.3: What’s New ¦ AWS Layoffs are a Worry

    Welcome to The Long View—where we peruse the news of the week and strip it to the essentials. Let’s work out what really matters.

    This week: A new Linux kernel drops and layoffs at Amazon Web Services point to trouble. (more…)

  • Sendbird Adds API to Invoke ChatGPT From Mobile Apps

    Sendbird Adds API to Invoke ChatGPT From Mobile Apps

    Sendbird today added an application programming interface (API) to its low-code platform for building mobile applications that enables developers to add bots that communicate with OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

    Shailesh Nalawadi, head of product for Sendbird, said this API makes it possible to add the ability to communicate directly with the generative artificial intelligence (AI) platform from within both new and existing applications in just a few minutes.

    Most developers will add natural language processing (NLP) interfaces to complement the graphical user interfaces that most mobile applications today surface, added Nalawadi. It will be up to each development team to determine how best to employ that capability, but Sendbird envisions, for example, a health care application being able to invoke ChatGPT to answer queries, he noted.

    In the longer term, Sendbird will provide APIs to enable mobile app developers to invoke a wide range of large language models (LLMs). LLMs are increasingly being developed for generative AI platforms and are being optimized for a range of use cases.

    While OpenAI’s generative AI model is being widely used thanks mainly to Microsoft, there are already LLMs that are being created for a narrower range of use cases using much less data. DevOps teams should expect APIs invoking any number of generative AI platforms from within applications to become commonplace in the weeks and months ahead as more end user come to expect to be able to engage these platforms from within almost every application Sendbird’s chatbot API can now be invoked by more 1,300 existing mobile applications alone.

    In general, developers have tended to employ chatbots sparingly because they are often too scripted and inflexible. ChatGPT, conversely, provides a much more open-ended user experience. Organizations can also feed historical conversations or customer relationship management (CRM) data to ChatGPT to drive more personalized and accurate responses, given the veracity of some of the data used to train ChatGPT.

    A recent survey of digital quality testing professionals conducted by Applause, a provider of a platform for accessing a networking of independent testers, found nearly one-third (30%) of respondents are dissatisfied with their current chatbot, IVR and conversational assistant experiences, with wrong answers (29%) and a lack of understanding (24%) as the top two reasons cited. The results indicate there is plenty of opportunity for improvement.

    Nearly three-quarters (74%) said they had a positive experience with the ChatGPT generative artificial intelligence (AI) platform, with more than two-thirds (67%) reporting the platform provided helpful answers to questions. In terms of work-related tasks, most said ChatGPT would either be “very” (43%) or “somewhat” (37%) helpful.

    It’s apparent now that generative AI platforms are about to change the way humans engage with machines. Instead of always creating an abstraction to interface with a machine it’s now feasible for interactions to occur between them using language humans readily understand. As such, the way applications are built and employed is about to fundamentally change in ways that are difficult to predict.

  • Android Apps Must Let Users Delete Data ¦ RISC-V in the Data Center

    Android Apps Must Let Users Delete Data ¦ RISC-V in the Data Center

    Welcome to The Long View—where we peruse the news of the week and strip it to the essentials. Let’s work out what really matters.

    This week: Google forces apps to make deleting users’ data easier, and the RISC-V drumbeat grows louder. (more…)