One year on, I reran the analysis on forum participation, and to my regret, not much has changed with a continued fall in user form posts. Forum contribution numbers have now in March 2011 reached the level of mid-2006. 2006 of course marked the release of  Manifold 7.0, which first introduced significant entreprise level features into the product, and which the graph reflected in an impressive spike in forum participation numbers.

Apart from the near stasis in which Manifold 8.0 now is, with some intermittent bug fix updates still provided, other developments have also impacted community participation. Significantly, after a period in January 2011 of intense discussion on the forum, Manifold introduced a new set of forum posting rules that effectively now limit the discussion on technical issues, precluding any discussion of Manifold’s business practices and company developments. Also, copyright infringement claims were logged against various individuals that set up independent Manifold community hubs on sites such as Facebook or LinkedIn (disclosure: I am the administrator of the LinkedIn Manifold user group), resulting in the closure of the Facebook page.

These tightening of business practices interestingly coincided with the apparent transferral of Manifold’s business address from CDA International, based in Carson City, Nevada, to a new company, Manifold Software Limited, with headquarters in Hong-Kong.

What can be a conclusion from all this? As it stands, not much has changed, and although Manifold 8.0 is still as good a product as four years ago, one can only wonder if there will ever be another significant update? Manifold’s competitors are also catching up, and significantly offering new developments in web-based services, an area which Manifold has left to third-party developers to further develop so far. Also some of the key technical advantages of Manifold are eroding, for example true 64bit operation in ESRI’s ArcGIS 10.1, weakening Manifold’s claims of technical superiority.

First a disclaimer, my motivation for this post is not to discredit Manifold the software package or CDA International Ltd. I hesitated for a long time before finally deciding to post this very brief and probably flawed “analysis” based on many assumptions, with the aim to start an earnest discussion on the commercial development of Manifold GIS in a wider market context, based on more than just this starting point of analysis.

For the past 6 years the web forum Georeference has been the hub of the Manifold GIS user community, providing a virtual gathering place for users, enabling the development of a vibrant online community of expert users, sharing knowledge, discussing wider issues and helping novice users on a level that is very rarely encountered in other support forums. I believe it is fair to think that for many users of Manifold GIS, it is the first port  of call when looking for information, help and advice with the software, before making use of paid support from Manifold directly. So as more licenses of Manifold are being sold and used , the number of forum users, posts and threads should increase in parallel. Given this premise, forum activity levels then act as a very imperfect proxy for the market penetration rate of the Manifold GIS software package. There are of course several caveats* to this theory.

The forum thankfully records and shares usage statistics (number of posts/threads per month). I assembled and visualised the growth in terms of forum threads and posts over the past 6 years in the graph attached below. In order to give some context, I also included the release dates of significant versions of Manifold on the graph.

One very fundamental observation from this graph is that since  Manifold v8 has been released, there has been a decline of activity on the forum. Whereas in the preceding years, there was almost uninterrupted growth in user forum activity, right now, over two years after the release of v8, the forum contributions have returned to the level of mid 2006, and trend doesn’t imply a return to growth.Also notable has been the gap between the software release cycle prior to v8, and after. Whereas Manifold used to bring out a major revision each year (2004,2005, 2006,2007), for the past two years, users have been waiting for Manifold v9.

Given the caveats detailed below, what conclusions can the graph give us on the general business development context of Manifold?

I believe it is fair to say that CDA, the company developing Manifold GIS, are a high-tech software company (i hesitate to use the term start up, as they have been on the market for 8-10 years), which have a disruptive product, challenging the established GIS market in terms of pricing structure (and some may argue in terms of software quality/features). The study of disruptive technology innovations has been formalised in a number of theories, one very prominent one being the “Crossing the Chasm” model. This model aims to explain the specifics of marketing of high-tech products, and distinguishes two crucial stages: First, the product is marketed to and adopted by “visionaries”, a small set of users which form a small base of early adopters of the product. In order to gain mass market adoption though, the company crucially needs to gain enough momentum to jump the proverbial “Chasm” towards the pragmatists (early majority). A step at which many high-tech companies ultimately fail!

Manifold certainly has achieved a core basis of highly motivated early adopters which act as voluntary technology evangelists, as evidenced by the very supportive online community, as well as a number of user initiated meetings. From this basis, Manifold has over the past 4 years been working to gain momentum to cross the chasm towards the early majority in the GIS market, rapidly issuing improved software versions, opening a partner centre in Silicon Valley, starting to issue press releases and other media related activities. The success of these measures though lies in the continued rapid pace of updates being sold, given that Manifold do not levy annual maintenance fees from its existing user base.

In my opinion, as of right now, CDA Int. Ltd. are stuck in a limbo between an established early adopters user base, and the early majority user base they are trying to reach in order to significantly advance their market penetration. While they seem to be struggling to finish version 9, their existing user base seems to be eroding, increasingly frustrated by a lack of updates and activation issues, while many of the early majority users, more technically conservative, are holding back from buying in to Manifold, waiting to see what v9 brings to the table.

*Important caveats complicating the estimation of the number of users/licenses from forum activity levels :

1. Not every user of Manifold is an active participant to the forum. Most likely only a very small percentage of Manifold users ever contribute to the forum.
2. Most users will only participate when they have a problem/question they need advice for.
   
3. A given person might be responsible for a varying number of Manifold licenses. This can range from one user with one license, to one administrator who is responsible for hundreds of licenses installed across a company, or embedded as a software component invisible to end users.

First, Dimitri goes into a lot of detail about the fundamental software development challenges for GPU programming, much of which is over my head in terms of technical detail. Sadly, all the examples in this presentation refer to raster processing, which is already present in Manifold v8.

The second half of the talk is clearly more interesting, as he presents fundamental architectural work developing a lightweight processing scheduler. This scheduler seems to be the key infrastructure element enabling efficient workload paralellisation, enabling Manifold to optimally leverage a heterogeneous environment of multiple CPU’s and GPU’s. One thing that seems to be clear from this presentation is that Manifold over the past two years have been very busy rewriting large parts of their core code to enable the paralellisation of almost all GIS tasks inside Manifold. Particularly interesting is the mention at the end that they are in a position to take advantage of any GPGPU platform (Nvidia and AMD), which implies the adoption of OpenCL by Manifold for their next release.

The invitation is also available in PDF format with a detailed agenda

The Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering, University College London, will be hosting an Introduction to Geographical Information Systems and Cartography Course on the 18^th and 19^th of February 2010. This course is aimed at novice or potential GIS Users interested in key concepts of geographical data capture, storage and analysis. After course completion participants will be able to generate, manipulate and analyse geographic information confidently and create high-quality cartographic outputs.

The course is organised into modules containing comprehensive overviews of fundamental topics relating to Geographical Information Systems, databases and cartography, alongside hands-on tutorials teaching participants the most important functionalities of GIS.

The course will introduce users to and use Open Street Map (OSM) data and Manifold GIS software. Participants will be tutored by leading GIS lecturers and researchers with extensive GIS expertise in a commercial and academic context.

Participants will receive a comprehensive training manual containing all of the course content such as presentation slides, tutorial worksheets, project files and datasets used. This training manual will act as a valuable reference guide after the course is completed.

Each participant can expect:

• Experienced academic tutors
• A workstation preloaded with all software and data for the tutorials
• State-of-the-art air-conditioned computer room
• Comprehensive course documentation folder
• Course Certificate from UCL on completion
• Lunch and refreshments provided

The course fee is £650 (incl. VAT) per participant. Please note that we have arranged a discount for organisations sending two or more participants. The course will be held on UCL’s main campus in Bloomsbury, Central London.

For booking and any further enquiries, please email Patrick Weber at p.weber@ucl.ac.uk or you can phone +44 (0)20 7679 2745 .

Even so, it is when working with other Manifold users, and specifically teaching Manifold to new users, that one can often find basic usability issues at hand that go unnoticed by more seasoned Manifold users like myself. In this post, I do not want to address larger and more complicated issues, but instead focus on providing a small list of low hanging fruit that could easily be fixed by the Manifold development team:

1) Setting Area of Interest in Layouts

During our training course, almost all new users needed help to understand how to set the area of interestof a layout. The way to change the AOI of a map component in a layout might be powerful, but is complex and well hidden from the user in multiple steps. Most users will upon the creation of a layout from a map, expect the zoom extent of the layout to be the same as what they see in the map component. Confusion sets in when the whole component, or worse a blank page, greets them when they open their newly created layout. “Hey where’s my nice map gone?”

The process then is less than straighforward and involves in total 8 steps and at least as many mouseclicks : right-click on the layout (1) and choose properties (2), set the Scope to Locked Rectangle (3), go back to the map component (4), goto View -> Panes -> Layers (5) (as that pane is hidden by default!), using the Layers Pane, enable the Layout Component extent rectangle (6), resize to the AOI the extent rectangle (7), finally go back to the Layout (8).

Ideally, users would expect after selecting a layout map component that it would behave like a regular map component where users can pan and zoom to set a AOI for the layout.

2) Formatting toolbar

Most new users will stumble over one of the more fundamental idiosyncrasies the Manifold user interface has to offer. The concept of the formatting toolbar relies on the fact that, as opposed to other GIS packages, one drawing can contain different geometry types (points, lines, areas). This is reflected in the formatting toolbar, which always offers the user formatting options for all three geometry types. Because the formatting options look very similar to one another, new users are often deeply confused and unshure which icon they need to click to influence for example the line foreground color.

One straightforward solution would be to blank out formatting options for geometry types not currently present in a specific drawing, thus simplifying the toolbar considerably (for a lines only drawing, this would reduce the number of icons from 17 icons down to 4!).

Another possible solution would be to indicate through a small text box what geometry type a set of formatting icons refers to, instead of relying on users to find the right option by hovering over an icon or trial and error.

3) Label Display Options

When working with labels, users are often at a loss on where to change advanced options such as callouts, label overlap conflicts and line label placement. Users in general will look first in the component specific menu, i.e. the Labels Menu, where they wont find a entry for such advanced display options. Instead, Label display options are “hidden from the user” in the generic View Menu. The same applies to for the display options of surfaces and images.

IMHO it would make much more sense to group all options relating to a specific component type in the specific Menu for that component, i.e. the “Labels” Menu or “Surfaces” Menu.

4) Queries in Layouts

A table dragged into a layout results in the creation of a layout component displaying table records. This makes sense to the user and he is pleased to be able to include tabular data into his layout to generate reports.

Unfortunately, the same doesn’t happen for queries dragged into a layout. From Manifold’s perspective, the software sticks to its principles and generates a layout component containing the SQL Query text. 99% of the time, this isn’t the most useful behaviour, and a user would rather expect the query results table to be generated and placed into the layout.

It would be much better if users were given a choice if they wanted the query text, or the query results to be included in the layout. (The workaround I currently employ in this situation is to run a query which generates a table which in turn is included in a layout, which is fine except you can’t update the table easily without deleting it and rerunning the query, thus loosing the layout position).

5) The Query Toolbar

Finally, this one was already touched upon by Muki on his blog,  but it is worth repeating his comment here, as the change is the most straightforward to implement on this list:

The way the query toolbar works is that you select a field in the left drop-down list, an operator at the central drop-down and a value in the text box on the right and click on select to see the result. For example, if you enter 5 in the toolbar in the picture, it will lead to a selection of the 5 polygons on the map with the smallest area.
The confusing part of the interface is the ‘not’ between the left drop-down and the central one. For a new user, the interface reads ‘find objects on the map where the field Area (I) are not the bottom X’. The ‘not’ in this case is a toggle button that can be activated to negate the operation that was selected in the central drop-down. Clearly, it would be better if, when not activated, it had the word ‘is’ (Area is the bottom 5) and ‘not’ appeared only when it was active. This is one of the cases where usability enhancement could be carried out in less than a minute of a programmer’s time – and surely makes life less confusing to many novice users…

As you might have guessed, these are only some of the usability issues one can find in Manifold, and I would appreciate any comments here if you can think of others. I have already send in suggestions to Manifold for most of these issues, and I would urge you to do the same if you can agree with my analysis.

Given that in the short to medium term, we most probably won’t see the integration of significant spatial analysis functionality into Manifold, a pragmatic approach is the integration of external software packages with Manifold. There are a number of software packages that offer spatial analysis and statistics capabilities such as for example Crimestat, Geoda and the R project. R, an open source project benefits from a wide support in academia as a platform for the implementation of statistical computing, and thus provides a very rich environment for the analysis of spatial data through a combination of free packages. R is a command-line environment, and although the syntax is relatively accessible, it does present a significant learning curve for any beginners.

Recently, my research project led me to investigate the spatial distribution of foreign investors into London. I needed to do a density analysis of historic investment patterns to identify likely agglomeration or dispersion processes between investors. Although Manifold doesn’t offer any relevant density estimation algorithms, R, and specifically the spatstat package, allows for the creation of Kernel Density Estimation (for the estimation of density) grids.

I took the opportunity to write a script that gives users a point and click front-end to both the kernel smoothed intensity function from a point pattern (KDE), and spatial smoothing (interpolation) of numeric values observed at a set of irregular locations (GKS) from inside Manifold.  The script takes care of building and maintaining the interface between Manifold and R, running the analysis in the background and creating a result surface component. I must acknowledge here the help and inspiration of numerous users on the forum which have been working with R.

Screenshot example of interface and output

Although R is completely hidden from the user of the script once installed, the successful installation relies on a basic understanding of the concepts of R and the installation of a few prerequisite software tools and R packages. Along with R , you need to have installed R(D)Com A all in one package for R and R(D)Com can be found at statconn. You also need a C:\temp\ directory (temporary files are stored there). You also need to have the following R packages installed:

• spatstat, the main analysis package
• maptools, helper package for the conversion of data to a spatstat compatible format
• rgdal, package allowing the import and export of data from R to Manifold

I strongly advise anyone wanting to use this script to first read and understand the algorithms and outputs involved by consulting the relevant help pages from the spatstat package.  I also include two datasets that are suitable for experimentation with the script, one each for KDE and GKS.

Finally, there are some caveats to this script. I do not make any guarantees as to the output of the script, and I have to repeat that you need to have an understanding of what the algorithms do to fully comprehend the analysis.  Also, the script at the moment doesn’t take account of projections at all. I have personally only tested the script with projected point patterns (British National Grid). In the case of BNG, assigning the BNG projection to the created Image (Preserve Local Values ticked) should be sufficient. Your mileage may vary when using other projections.

You can find the download of the Manifold .map file with the script here!

As you may have guessed, this is only a first stab at the integration of Manifold with R, and it is still an unlikely couple which sometimes can have communication difficulties. Clearly is a lot of work left in integrating other most basic functionality, a few examples of functionalities being other interpolators such as IDW, Geographically Weighted Regression, LISA and Moran’s I … .

But this proof of concept shows the potential for added functionality to boost Manifold’s power from a pure GIS to an exploratory spatial statistics toolset.

Carson City, NV USA — 16 March 2009 — Manifold.net today announced a new world record for the number of processors used in a personal computer for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) processing. At the company’s 2009 European User Meeting in London, Manifold demonstrated an upcoming new software product that simultaneously utilized over 1440 processor cores to perform a remote sensing image computation at supercomputer speed with over 3.5 teraflops of performance. Manifold demonstrated the new software on a desktop 64-bit Windows PC equipped with three NVIDIA GTX 295 GPU cards costing less than $500 each. (Illustration at right shows the demonstration hardware.)

Wow, I didnt know that we witnessed a world record at the User Meeting back in February here at UCL! Well I am glad that Manifold came and did their demo of Release 9.0, even though they did so in their usual hyberbole style.

Also, good to see that they are showing commitment to a release date around June. This should imply a beta starting in the next weeks…!!!