OK, there’s nothing to do about software updates and I already give up.

Global package delivery, on the other hand… UPS was founded in 1907. That’s right, gentlemen & ladies, it is over ONE ZERO ZERO (purposefully emphasised) years old! That means that people have been carrying UPS parcels around on horses, then on Fords, on ships, on aeroplanes, and will most likely carry them to space also. Unlike regular mail, the Package Industry is here to stay as well, ladies and gentlemen, all thanks to you for ordering from places like Amazon every single day.

Now, I don’t mean to pick on UPS. I actually have a problem with FEDEX (founded 1973) this week and with DHL (a German company, founded 1969), both of which like telling me things on their website that aren’t true, or are true, but so incredibly late to publish that truth that it’s just a false truth.

Dear companies that I just mentioned: we are in the age of real-time. When my best friends go to the bathroom, I know about it 5 min. before they even think about it, that’s how quick Twitter is. Sadly, that doesn’t bring a hot new gadget into my life, like your great service does. I appreciate your service, it allows me to be lazy and order to Visa’s delight. But it’s meant to be a service of convenience, and I don’t consider having to drool over my doorbell-phone by any kind of definition, “a convenience.”

Here’s what happened with DHL: Package shipped on the 6th out of Germany. On the 7th, at 4:30 a.m., package left Germany heading for the Netherlands. I sent them a mail asking whether if it doesn’t arrive today, they ship on the weekends. No reply! At 20:00, I found out, that package has arrived for sorting at a sorting centre at 17:42. I decide to call the next day to ask whether they ship on the weekends. The kind person at DHL the Netherlands informs me that a. he has no idea where my package is and b. they do not ship on the weekends. 2 hours later, the doorbell rings. It’s the mailman, who works for TNT (the Dutch equivalent to DHL) with the package from DHL. Status on the website on the 8th: “7th of May, package has arrived for sorting at a sorting centre at 17:42.”

Here’s what happened with FEDEX: Package shipped on the 5th from the US. Paris then somewhere in the Netherlands on the 6th. Estimated delivery: on the 7th at 6 p,m. I’m home at 3:30 p.m. At 20:00 I get a message that FEDEX passed by my house at 14:55 p.m. and no one was home. Status: sadly FEDEX does not receive phone-calls on the weekend.

We need a change, we need that thing you do with the tracing, not to be restricted to when it arrives in parcel sorting centre 42. We need it to have an RFID chip in the parcel, which is connected to a GPS device in the truck, which at all times tells a satellite to send me a tweet of where exactly you are at what given time. And when I’m not home, I can tweet back to said truck to give notice, to save fuel, to save the planet, and/or to change the address to my work-address. Saves your time and mine and the planet’s.

This is not rocket-science. GPS exists (globally since 2000), RFID exists (required by Wal-Mart since 2005), real-time web exists (Twitter since 2006). Yet for some reason, in 2010, I still have to wait 10 hours for an update about something REAL & RELEVANT that happened 10 hours ago. Sigh.

OK, all ranted out now. Now go fix.

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. The value of Twitter vs. the value of Facebook vs. the value of having Neither [weekend ramblings]
2. The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers
3. What would an Always-On Device look like? Do we even want it?
4. Please welcome Anand Kishore Raju, a new blogger on Tech IT Easy !!!
5. Thoughts about Tech IT Easy, inspired by my time in Paris

I am extremely happy to start off this new year by introducing a fresh face on Tech IT Easy, Anand Kishore Raju, who will be blogging with us in 2010. His main areas of focus as a blogger will be greening the internet, carbon footprints, energy and power figures of the internet and web2.0.

Anand is currently working as a Research Engineer at Telecom ParisTech (ENST). His area of research focuses on the Energy aspects of the Internet, what the scientific community calls “Green Networking”. His efforts are directed towards making Computer Network Science aware that processing, moving and storing bits has a cost in terms of energy and in terms of the Carbon Emission Footprint.

In the past, Anand had also worked at Collaborative Systems Group (ColSys) at Bilkent University, Turkey, where he developed a taxonomy for user properties, influence factors for feedback quality in web 2.0, existing and novel models for deviation types and their detection. He also holds a degree in Computer Science and Engineering and aspires to join HEC in near future.

Anand joins a smart team of collaborators, some of which also work in green computing and many of which share an interest in this important topic for sure. As such, please join us in welcoming Anand to the team and I hope you enjoy reading his words on Tech IT Easy!

Happy New Year,

The Tech IT Easy team

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Introducing Raj Sheelvant, a new blogger on Tech IT Easy!
2. Kari Silvennoinen is joining as a guest blogger: excellent news for Tech IT Easy
3. Understanding The Green Future!
4. Poll: Decide the future of Tech IT Easy (my part in it, at least)
5. The Euro vs. Dollar double gambetto for high tech corporations

PC OSs are in the same boat. As much as I like Mac OS X, if it didn’t run the apps that I needed to be productive or unproductive (you know, media & games…), then the chances of me getting a Mac are zero. Any new OS maker is in the same boat, having to think about both their OS and the apps that run on it. A hardware maker designing an OS would have to think about all three dimensions (+ all the other stuff: consumers, partners, etc.).

I think I was fairly down on Android as an OS and fairly up on Chrome OS (COS), long before it either came out. I’m still sort of down on Android and very much up on COS. The reason is for once not hardware or software, it’s the changing world of telecommunication.

I haven’t been silent about my feelings about mobile operators. They’re not good, mostly for people in Europe that travel internationally a lot. And just when some positive movement is happening in terms of mobile and sms roaming charges, we now get Internet roaming, where operators still find plenty of opportunities to gouge consumers. It’s not unusual to pay several Euros/dollars/pounds per MB for instance, which is o.u.t.r.a.g.e.o.u.s.

As such, when I saw the ASUS EEE and all the other Netbook models being offered with subscriptions, I was skeptical. But what I didn’t think much about, because I wasn’t a user at the time, was the opportunities that ubiquitous internet (within roaming reality) offered: by buying a subscription with a laptop you are in fact instantly online, which makes any argument against a NetOS moot. It completely opens up the road for a NetOS maker, like Google, but also like Nokia, RIM, Palm, Apple, Microsoft, etc. to build an OS that entirely operates on a connected backbone. This is the opportunity that I see Chrome OS exploiting and why I think it, as well as the iPhone netbook/tablet if it comes out, will be massively successful.

I still don’t like the idea of hardware enslaving itself to telecom-operators. But I think we really can start thinking about a cable-less world a few years from now, with all the implications (no more offices, augmented shopping, etc.) that it can bring.

Yay mobile net. Yay Net OS.

/ Vincent

(Picture: city in clouds, courtesy of www.crestock.com)

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. iPhone's app strategy and its implications for other smart phones
2. With Virtualization, does hardware simply no longer matter?
3. Why Android will suck
4. OK you cheapskates, what do you think of the iPhone now?
5. The state of media 2.0 – challenges and opportunities

Finnish boxy architecture, now on Google Earth.

The one thing that reminds me that we do live in a future foretold by all the great 80′s sci-fi movies is Google Earth on iPhone and especially it’s useless feature where you can change the view by tilting the phone. It serves no purpose whatsoever, but it’s cool and feels like “future”. I think Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash really showed the vision what Google Maps/Earth ultimately could become (think real-time satellite feeds).

A while back magical elves -generated buildings started appear in selected cities in Google Earth, which was also pretty cool. Unfortunately these magical elves were somewhat sloppy about the finer architectural points of our human buildings so most of them look like boxes – and, well, some of the 60-70′s era concrete buildings are in fact (ugly) boxes.

So, when Google revealed their new Building Maker, I was pretty much hooked. It allows you to easily model buildings out of aerial photography. And if you’re good enough, those models might just end up on Google Earth.

This tool reminded me of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which was also interesting in how it allowed to harness the human processing capability to tasks unsuited to computers (or magical elves, who don’t grasp our architectural styles). Some might remember how it was used (unsuccessfully) to search for the remains of Steve Fosset’s plane. Google does have some experience in this fields as well, they did something similar with their Google Image Labeler, which paired random people in a game of labeling images. Unlike Mechanical Turk, Image Labeler was mostly harmless fun and a game to kill time for participants. It is this fun part that I find really important in these things. I think Google accidentally or on purpose have also some fun elements in Building Maker, in addition to it’s crack-like addictiveness level.

The best thing about the Building Maker is that it runs in your browser and is dead simple to use. It’s fun. It’s like a small flash game, but instead of just wasting time you waste time in benefit of a commercial, listed company.

So, now I have 25 models worthy of Google’s acceptance criteria. It’s these accomplishments that keep me coming back to model things. Unfortunately, many models were rejected by Google and that of course isn’t fun. The main reasons for rejections so far have been “Incomplete texturing” and “Floating”. The frustrating thing about this is there’s very little I can do about these two problems. It’s a bit frustrating to notice that Google doesn’t have imagery for all sides of the building after you have started to model a building and short of renting a plane and taking pictures yourself there’s not much you can do. Floating is even more frustrating, because there’s very little hinting you can do to tell the modeling software that the box you’re trying to make should, in fact, be on ground level instead of floating couple of meters in the air.

Yes, if you want, you can import the model from Google’s servers into SketchUp and refine the model there, but that’s both extremely difficult and requires a lot of effort. Not fun, but maybe, just maybe, that refining could get your model listed…

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Cracking phpBB passwords for fun and, well, just for fun
2. Google Chrome and when vertical integration rocks
3. Google: the dream of a universal advertising network
4. Is Facebook the next Google ?
5. A lot of fun @ Gymglish, a Paris-based startup

My Macbook’s fans are running like crazy.

Apart from the obvious, that there needs to be better memory / processor management for tabs—optimally, unused tabs should use minimal percent of both—another big problem is the lack of visibility of what you have open in your browser. As soon as I have 10+ tabs open and a number disappear of the page or are in different browser-windows, I have no overview, not to mention little idea of what little flash- and other widgets are being opened in each page.

Some innovations, I’d like, are:

1. Grouping of tabs by domain-names, similarly to how Windows allows you to group windows by app.
2. The ability to control whether Flash is being loaded, what kind of flash, and what kind of other apps. Yes, I know about flash- and ad-blocking, but something more elaborate.
3. Better than 2, a common webpage standard for how much memory / processing a web-page should typically take. And perhaps a browser-imposed limit as to what pages get loaded or not.
4. An indication of where a tab is when I’m trying to load the same webpage or domain-page. E.g. I use Netvibes often, each of which has 5-15 widgets in each tab and thus consumes a fair amount of power. When I can’t find the right tab, I open multiple instances, which obviously slows down the browser some more.

All of this is relevant, I feel, both because of the “shift” we are seeing towards “Browser-OSs,” but also because there is a trend towards buying less powerful single-purpose machines often for use on the road. A bloated browser can use as much battery as running a game, the difference being that most mobile travellers know better than to run a game on the road.

Rant over. Would love to hear about Firefox extensions or Browser innovations that overcome some of these problems.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Single Purpose Browsing & Why Tabbed Browsing Makes for a Pretty BAD User Experience
2. Choosy [Mac app] does what I want, when I want it
3. Firefox 3.0 is getting real serious
4. Google Chrome and when vertical integration rocks
5. Cue the scary music

The second consequence is that I’ve been thinking a lot about the implications of virtual OSs. With Google OS recently having been announced, which is supposed to integrate flawlessly with Macs and Windows, assumably Android, as well as being designed for Netbooks, I wonder if Intel, with it’s multi-core processors, has not created a situation where nothing else matters, hardware-wise, except to have a powerful enough processor? In other words, have hardware-manufacturers like Sony, Samsung, and to some extent, Apple simply become irrelevant?

Take Sony for instance, which has just announced its first “Netbook.” It’s one selling point?

“Like other netbooks the Vaio W has a 10-inch screen, but its display has a resolution of 1,366 by 768 pixels rather than the more common 1,024 by 600 pixels. That means more of a Web site can be fitted onto the screen, and the user will have to scroll less, the company said at a launch event in Tokyo on Tuesday.” (emphasis my own)

Not much to write home about, except if you absolutely need to use a Sony, and bear in mind that that company was at some point a premium manufacturer of technology. The PC market has long been commoditised of course, ever since IBM opened its hardware up to the world, but with the rise of ultra-cheap PCs & laptops, I think they are digging their own grave.

I think that, as I wrote in a comment to a recent post, Netbooks are a failed experiment and, to add to that, unless either drastic changes in the cost-structure can be made to increase profit-margins, or new business models can be found (e.g. a similar hardware-service bundling to what has been happening in the mobile phone space), I think that we won’t be hearing from netbooks after 2010 onwards.

What also seems clear is that software companies, with their much more favourable profit margins, are winning this war, and, pretty soon, they won’t have to think about hardware at all any more. Instead of writing for a “spec,” you just need to write for a virtual space, which can run anywhere or everywhere.

Arguably, hardware has always been enslaved to software (except for one company), but I see the Sony’s & Samsung’s of today becoming the Nokia’s & Motorola’s of the future.

Since I’m not a technologist (more of a technology philosopher), I may be drastically oversimplifying. What do you think?
P.S. going to stop signing my name for a while. I’ll see if that makes a difference. V.

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Hardware giants to software BU: "thank you!"
2. iPhone's app strategy and its implications for other smart phones
3. Battles in the Virtualization Space
4. Is software high-tech? Take II
5. Changing markets – OS opportunities in retrospect

In Alan Moore’s & Neil Gaiman’s graphic novel, Warhol’s existence is not painted in a very colourful light (pun intended). He has been resurrected as a machine into a society where money no longer plays a role and is very depressed. So his ability to record everything is really not very meaningful to him. Having only read this part of the comic last night, already my sentiments about Always-On are changing towards… and what would it accomplish?

I recently visited an Art Exhibition of independent artists in Maastricht and tested out a little what an Always-On Device would look like to me. I used my camera, a Canon 870 IS, as a recording device, which I held in front of me while walking through the crowd.

I managed to capture the people experiencing an exhibition, a piano player who was adding atmosphere to a room full of art, just hypnotically playing a few notes over and over. What actually intrigued me the most, I captured maybe two dozen miniature sets for the Maastricht Opera house. It was very surreal, the sets which were made out of cardboard and wood mostly, were 3-dimensional, and I was floating with my camera device around it and through it even, capturing it all at angles never deemed possible to me before. As if I was my own film-director.

Of course, apart from the disappointing battery-life on my camera, clearly not designed for video-recording, and the occasionally funny looks that I got, the real challenge is to make that data actionable—a big priority in everything I do. It is a matter of transforming the raw footage into a tight package that can be consumed by others, and the question is really, should this be the responsibility of the creator or of the consumer…?

With us having reached and surpassed the age of the mashup, it makes less and less sense to continue to try and re-invent the wheel, rather delegating that task across far more… interested people (in the area of video-editing at least), of which there is no shortage, as long as the tools and the specific community exists. Clearly, that kind of methodology requires a lax attitude about copyright.

To recap, so that it doesn’t seem like I’m entirely floating in thoughts, an Always-On Device would need:

1. A willing human recorder
2. A recording device designed for capturing experiences
3. A way to process that information into “usable bits”
4. A favourable legal environment
5. And a willing consumer

I’ll leave the question of “do we even want it?” for smarter people than me to decide. In the mean time, I will continue my search for point 2 and 3 on that list (more on this blog, if successful).

Until after Paris,
Vincent

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Theory: Why No One Cares about Video on the Internet
2. A (Sci-Fi inspired) vision of Facebook's (or equivalent) future
3. The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers
4. iPhone's app strategy and its implications for other smart phones
5. Bubble or not bubble?

What made the G4 special was that there was no going back to Windows. You could emulate it, v e r y  s l o w l y , but you really had to make due with what Mac OS X offered you and I loved that idea of being stranded on an island and having to make the best of it. As a result, I learned a lot about my Mac and it also spawned plenty of blog posts on better Mac productivity here.

But now that I am on a Macbook and have been logging on to Windows via Bootcamp regularly, my reality has somewhat changed.

H A R D W A R E !!!

Macs vs. PCs… I was always aware of the hardware differences, particularly quality-wise. If you do the simple math, my 2004 iBook, now 5 years old and expected to last at least 2 years longer. I don’t know what it’s like in PC-world (not the mag), but I imagine you won’t get this kind of return on investment (ROI) under EUR 1000 ($1500). And by ROI, I mean, on the road ROI, as my laptop was constantly with me travelling. If you have a dusty EUR 200 ($300) PC server lying around somewhere, I expect that will probably last you half a decade as well.

I’m pretty certain that today, if I were to choose either Windows or OS X, I would still buy Apple, simply because they build their machines so damn well. Dvorak, when the Macbook Pros were just launched, called them the Bentleys of computers, and I whole-heartedly agree.

S O F T W A R E !!!

My post today is really about the software-war, which is what most Apple (and Windows) fanboys seem to focus on. And I’m here to tell you that there is no more software-war! Apart from a few (somewhat important) design-flaws in Windows (unfortunately I haven’t tested Vista or 7 yet), the migration between both platforms is fairly flawless.

All the major applications exist on both platforms: Office, programming, designing, picture- and video-manipulation. I don’t want to step on anyone’s territory, I know that, for some of those, Macs are better and for others, PCs are. But for the everyday-consumer like me, you can use both platforms as a tool.

Where I was mostly worried, ironically, was not anything that was inherent to the Mac platform, though I did argue partially that it was some time ago. It’s a free software called  Quicksilver, which allows you to launch apps, find and manipulate files more quickly than using shortcuts and the mouse, or even Spotlight. It has taken over my day-to-day so much, that I no longer have files lying around on my desktop, the Dock, and rarely use the Finder either. The reason is that, for launching stuff, using the keyboard together with search, is much much faster than going somewhere “manually.” Imagine doing the same on the internet and browsing to every address individually, instead of having Google and predictive text…

But even that has no longer become a problem on Windows due to a number of alternatives that exist and of which I chose SlickRun as my number 1 replacement.

I will not go into the Design aspects of the Mac OS, which are without a doubt superior to Windows (XP at least). But where software as a tool is concerned, the war is over! I can survive just as well on Windows as I have on OS X.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps marks an end to my pro-Mac posts (though, let’s wait for Snow Leopard to be sure). Who knows, I may eventually even (gasp!) post a review of a Windows software here soon.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. What is the frustration-cost of Windows?
2. This June: Apple will start selling software for Windows
3. What I'd like: a project management front-end for the Explorer and Finder
4. A short guide for surviving Windows [aimed at Mac-users]
5. Parallels allows direct switching between Mac OS & Windows!

Men can’t get away with this !!

Jason Kottke pointed me towards an anti-fashion-industry trend lead by some women: the wearing-one-dress-slightly-altered-day-in-day-out-trend. Somewhat jealous, because it seems so efficient (and thus manly), but I don’t think men can get away with doing something like that, do you? Then again, men also don’t look quite as attractive…

Factors influencing the ‘virtual office’

I’ve heard several stories of entrepreneurs setting up their companies that they can operate it independently from a location, and if you’ve read some of my posts on “designing companies” and mobility, you know that I feel very strongly about doing something similar. In VAT-law, there’s the rule that you can’t locate your VAT-payments to a VAT-friendly country if you’re doing significant business in the VAT-unfriendly country. I’m guessing it’s quite similar with virtual offices. If your business activities tie you to a particular location, than that is a ‘tax’ that you have to pay.

Since there are plenty of smart tax-lawyers around who know their way around the loop-holes, perhaps it’s time for some ‘expert-consultants’ that help entrepreneurs become location-free?? The 4-hour workweek guy comes to mind.

On building (corporate) Knowledge Centres

I grew up in a library, one which my father built, so I may have a different perspective from people growing up in the more digital, paper-free world. But, to me, libraries are magical and comforting. One of the first things I did, moving to Luxembourg, was to move many of my books here (with more on the way) and asking my boss whether we can set up a library.

More broadly, a library to me stands for building and storing knowledge, whether for individuals or groups, and is a source of creativity, innovation, and also trust. Large consultancies are most famous for doing such things and if you saw the virtual universities some of them have train their staff, you’d be amazed.

No great point to this story, except that I hope that as an entrepreneur/manager/CEO you’ll also consider how to improve the lives of your employees sometimes, as well as consider that your company, which is essentially a living organism, will only benefit from having more knowledge inside of it.

On that philosophical note, I.. am.. out.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Some thoughts on Services-orientated Architecture (SOA)
2. "The knowledge-creating company" — does it work in practice?
3. Thoughts about Tech IT Easy, inspired by my time in Paris
4. The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers
5. Political & Commercial World Powers and the Dynamics of Education

When the iPhone arrived, there were NO apps; App-support was basically web-coded widgets with limited functionality. The reason for this was, I believe, that there was no competition to speak of + perhaps the complexity of setting up such a venture. Apps for other phones existed, ok, but it was either in a decentralised fashion (Java for instance), or very centralised and very limited in its offering (e.g. Blackberry & Palm), at least compared to the current iTunes store.

It took pressure from the market [jail-breaking & media] and perhaps already the idea in the back of Apple’s heads to release the app-store a little over a year after the initial device was launched. When it did launch, there was lot’s of hype, lot’s of love, and good news for Apple iPhone numbers both on the device-sales side and that of app-sales.

How the other device makers reacted was two-fold and really quite half-heartedly. Most hardware makers focussed on what they did best: hardware. Touch-screen after touch-screen device entered the market. The most interesting software-based strategy came from Google, which, I guess, realised the potential of mobiles as computing platforms and, more importantly, as search/internet/”revenue for Google” enabled devices in everyone’s pocket.

The current app-store offerings are still lacking with many big parties attempting to launch one for their platforms. The key-factors in terms of adoption seem to be having a critical mass of both users and developers, both of which represent a chicken & egg problem for many, something that the initial iPhone circumvented quite elegantly.

The most promising devices today are Google-/Android-powered phones and the, still somewhat vapoury Palm Pre. The latter seems to be the most competitive, hardware-wise, with much ex-Apple talent having contributed to the Pre’s development. On the App-store front, it’s still very early days, but reports are disappointing.

So, the question is, what can phone-makers and software-makers do to compete with the new “Microsoft” (=Apple) of the mobile space? The choice, to me, appears two-fold:

1. Emulate Apple in whatever way possible: create a great device and create an app-store with a sufficient supply of apps.
2. Or, create a great device and find a way to elegantly get apps onto it, without all this centralising nonsense.

By the wording, it’s obvious that I prefer the second option. As good as the iTunes store is, it isn’t amazing for developers and it isn’t as profitable for Apple as one would think either. The biggest problem for competitors is similar to the music-situation, that Apple has critical mass, which attracts the greatest amounts of customers and is a nearly insurmountable challenge for new entrants.

Where Apple clearly leads is in its developer-support, which isn’t quite as apparent from other software/hardware makers, except perhaps Microsoft (but mainly on the PC-side) and perhaps Google. Palm, as yet, does not offer a comparable service to developers, or to put it in another way, Palm developer conferences are not yet sold out in the way Apple’s WWDC is each year.

Final thoughts:

• I think that developer support is key in any smart phone strategy these days, as mobile devices continue to become computers in your pocket.
• I don’t think that centralised app stores are necessarily the way to go, except (and I suspect this) if the mobile carriers are demanding it.
• The simplest thing would be to create a web-based categorised list of a apps that developers can add to;
• implement mechanisms that vote and demote apps according to their usefulness and other attributes;
• and create / implement mechanisms that prevent abuse (e.g. P2P apps or VOIP apps, though I think the latter can no longer be considered this)
• And continue to innovate on the hardware, because I think there is plenty of innovation left. What makes the iPhone so desirable is the app-support, but the hardware is really nothing to write home about.

Note: I purposefully left the links towards the end, because it allows for a more time-efficient, easier to write (and, maybe, read) article. Links with additional info are included in below list:

• Mossberg on Palm Pre
• Apple App store numbers
• The incredible app store hype (one of many developer complaints)
• Palm developer network

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Changing markets – OS opportunities in retrospect
2. Does the Palm Pre have a Case with iTunes?
3. "Smart Products"
4. When analogies don't work
5. Thoughts on the (iTablet) iPad – connectivity, apps, multitasking, integrating with Macs

Har har,

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers
2. Random thoughts on: Men's vs. Women's fashion statements, 'Virtual' Offices, and (corporate) Centres of Knowledge
3. Best Newsletters
4. A brief review of "Valuation" — A Strategy Book
5. Why you should invest your time & money into space technolology

The reason being that Friendfeed has become very forum-like with people forming relationships, writing how Friendfeed changed their life, how they just had triplets, etc. etc.… all stuff an a**h*le like me doesn’t care about.

Other “thoughts” were about the super-spammy #spymaster tag…

Apparently this spymaster is the new hot techcrunch-worthy thing on the internet…

…and about the problem of avoiding spoilers about movies when the inter-continental release-date are so drastically different:

I hate, hate, hate it when people spoil movies or books or anything really.

What all of these problems have in common that the web is a fairly unfiltered mess of vocal thoughts, opinions, and of course spam. With user-generated content far surpassing regulated media (you know, the kind where you need a degree and sources to write an article…), it’s nearly impossible not to come across something annoying.

What I’d like:
Simply: an extension for Firefox (I guess…) that prevents you from seeing things that you put on a block-list. It has to be a little intelligent. For instance, if before seeing the Star Trek movie, I’d like to not read about it, it should be able to identify whole paragraphs or blog posts that deal with this topic.

More simply, banning any tweet that mentions the #spymaster tag or otherwise, etc. etc. And more complex, the ability to ban content about babies and all things that evil people like me don’t want polluting their rss-feeds.

Too much to ask? I don’t know. Too rude to ask? Probably… Logical? Definitely.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Is it time for a more responsible internet?
2. Favourite Web Tools to start 2009 with
3. Looking towards a new naming-convention for the wave of web/software-services
4. Meet Friendbook, FaceFeed, or whatever… I can't tell the difference anymore
5. Theory: Why No One Cares about Video on the Internet

One of my first priorities in my new position was to orientate myself in the “order” of things, or rather to have a good view on what the process from customer generation to customer acquisition is (my interpretation of the lifeblood of every company).

So my questions, very formal, covered following three elements:

• what is the profile of a customer most valuable to our company?
• what are the USPs of our company for these customers?
• what is the process of converting potential customers into actual customers?

The answer was that there is no simple answer to the question, except that over time I would learn to understand what was possible or not.

It kind of follows the paradigm that the famous Harvard Business Review article called “The Knowledge-Creating Company” introduces, where experts possess a lot of tacit knowledge, which they use to do their job (Incidentally, the HBR-article is authored by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, who are the original protagonists of the Scrum approach).

In other words, over time, by accumulating experience, I would be able to develop a type of instinct regarding stuff like what a good customer is, what optimal solution is for him, and how the internal process works of customer conversion.

But the article takes it further (and is also my inspiration) in that from tacit or implicit you move to explicit knowledge, meaning that processes are documented and standardised. A kind of spiral forms, indicated in the picture below. This also reminds of Gerber’s franchise methodology in the E-Myth Revisited.

The question is what internal and environmental conditions have to exist for this spiral to function properly, and whether it can be applied universally to all company processes. I do not think so and would ague that in environments that are constantly changing, like global finance or when starting a company, making things too explicit undermines the speed-advantage that the tacit approach brings.

A little academic perhaps (you know me… ), but what do you think? What company processes typically need to be made explicit, and which are not served by this?

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. The Dynamics of Blogging and the Dynamics of Doing Business
2. Company-strategy: answering the 'process-coding' riddle
3. Random thoughts on: Men's vs. Women's fashion statements, 'Virtual' Offices, and (corporate) Centres of Knowledge
4. What are the ingredients to launching a company?
5. The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers

The problem with the Finder / Explorer is that, while they are perfectly suitable for storing and organising files, they are painfully lacking in presenting files in a way that a human or group of humans can understand. The problem / opportunity is also that Explorer/Finder is the standard in as far that every organisation uses it to organise their files. Replacing it by a information system that uses its own proprietary structure to organise files, people, and activities just adds to the learning curve, particularly if, as most experience shows, the software ends up not being that great and the company has to switch.

So, what I’m looking for is the following. An application that:

• works on Macs and PCs (The first is not an absolute prerequisite, it’s only because I work on a Mac)
• Better: is either web- or LAN-based (solves the cross-platform problem)
• acts as a front-end for the explorer, without actually changing the locations of files (except if a user wants it)
• allows users to:
  • sort files into “playlists,” again without changing the location of the files;
  • give long descriptions to files, not just available in a hidden “info” section;
  • assign files and tasks to groups and group-members;
  • assign due dates / sync with calendars;
  • etc. etc., you get the idea.
• Can certainly cost money, must be licensable on a company-basis, and must have a trial period of at least 3 months (it takes at least that long to deploy, adopt, and adapt it on an organisational level).

It’s such an obvious thing that such a software probably already exists. If you know of a good one, please let me know in the comments or per mail.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. [Mac] SizeUp makes window management on the Mac… a dream
2. 7 good software project management videocasts
3. E’ship diary part 5: project management and vision development in the face of ambiguity, technology and market risks
4. CartoRéso: a turnkey project for an entrepreneur without an idea (software or network engineer preferred)
5. A short guide for surviving Windows [aimed at Mac-users]

Apart from it being a smart picture, what I found more interesting is how the effect was achieved. Note the amount of people that Mr. sampotts is following, ca. 50. Having previously followed over 200 (now shrunk down to ca. 35), it was impossible for me to “listen” to a single word people were saying. My only two pieces of salvation were if you @vincentvw’d me (in which case an rss-feed would catch it) or if I added you to Friendfeed, where you can set up friendlists and place (imaginary) friends from Twitter inside.

Twitter is badly designed for this kind of collaborative effort, unless you minimise the amount of people you follow or find workarounds. Even so, those workarounds mean that you cheat 80% of your “friends” as you just push them into a corner where you listen to them less or not at all. E.g. on Friendfeed, I “follow” ca. 300 people, but really only read about 5. I’m sure 90% of Friendfeed users do the same.

My method, for now, is to restrict myself to people whose blog I read or with whom I chat (hopefully) on a regular basis. In the future, perhaps I’ll add a few people that I want to talk to, we’ll see. But the ultimate aim is to get the same effect that sampotts has, that I can ask a question and get answers from the hive mind.

If you remember, that was my vision of Twitter the first time I wrote about it on Tech IT Easy, nearly two years ago. I hope I can regain some of that innocent utopian vision.

For now, the best way to get me to follow you, is to say (smart) things to me, via Twitter, mail, this blog, or in real life!

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Why people "UnFollow" me on Twitter
2. Is Search the key to Twitter's Business-model?
3. Join me on Blellow!
4. FriendFeed vs. Plaxo (vs. Twitter) part 2 – perhaps words aren't necessary?
5. What I'd like: a spoiler-and annoyance-free web

Phase 1, five years from now: Real-time

Imagine Google talk’s new innovation, video chat through the webplayer. Also imagine perhaps the most annoying internet-phenomenon of all: “voyeur TV,” made most famous (to geeks) by the likes of Justin TV and other Lifecasters, not to mention Survivor and Big Brother.

Where I see Facebook going in just a few years, is that you tune into a profile and if your friend allows it, you see a live feed instead of a static picture. Already, when I met old friends in Maastricht a few weeks ago, I thought how cool it would be to track a person’s physicial changes real-time on Facebook, instead of seeing what they *want me to see*.

The flaw: most people aren’t that comfortable showing unfiltered feeds. The opportunity: everyday, we’re becoming more accepting of the lack of privacy that the internet provides. The reality: probably a mix of both, where users give consent and only operate the camera when they feel like it.

Phase 2, ten years from now: in your living room

Picture the two innovations that Apple has essentially made mainstream. One, a camera in every electronic device. Two, training users to abandon the keyboard, through the iPhone and now multi-touch gestures. Repeating something I wrote before: this video-review, where a journalist compares typing on the EEE PC vs. the iPhone, at insane speeds in an all-terain vehicle, was really eye-opening how well that “virtual” keyboard works on the iPhone. So much for my first post on the iPhone app-store, that “the iPhone is just for games“…

My vision of a connected society in 10+ years is not that we all become experts at typing. The PC has always been designed by and for geeky engineers and we’ve had to put up with it because there was simply no other choice. Instead, I see every TV, every device perhaps, internet-enabled, in which we manipulate by simple gestures, a shake perhaps, the push of a single button…

In the future, I see people turning on their TV and tuning into Facebook and chatting with their friends as if they came for afternoon tea.

Phase 3, twenty years later: holofriends

In “Avatar,” the new movie by James Cameron, 13 years in the waiting, the story is that people use avatars to explore strange new worlds. In the real world, James Cameron is developing technologies that can capture actors’ facial expressions to the nth degree, and offer a real time preview into how that would look like post-production. Take that together with ca. 2000 cinema screens in the US that have been converted to 3D and perhaps you see where my thinking is going. In a few decades, both the motion-capture technology and the 3D one will become affordable, already 3D filming is a matter of tying two HD-cameras together, and eventually 3D screens will come to our living rooms,… perhaps enabling us to see and interact with hologram friends from Facebook?

Imagine, jogging with a Facebook friend, having your mom “virtual hug” you after you were dumped, having virtual se… ok, now I’m going to far!

Phase 4, fifty years into the future: I’m alive, I’m alive!!!

In the future we will be able to speak to dead friends and family members. Morbid? Perhaps it’s better expressed as, in the future we will live forever, at least digital versions of us.

But perhaps the 300 MB sized data encompassing our brain, as envisioned in the Battlestar Galactica sequel, Caprica, isn’t quite so realistic. Instead, a $100 million Paul Allen foundation, called the Allen Institute for Brain Science, is using digital technology to slice, dice, and capture what our brains are made of. It’s quite sad, because so far they are finding that the data is so excessive and so “personal” (every brain is different!!!), that they don’t yet know when, if ever, they will have finished capturing the brain.

But what is certain is that, eventually, we will develop an understanding of what makes us tick, and perhaps, perhaps, develop technology to transfer our memories to a machine. And when that happens, what’s to stop people from signing up to live forever? And imagine the pressure then coming from friends and family members to experience those memories one last time, and again, and again. It would be the rebirth of a more morbid social network, finally.

Final thoughts

None of this has to be Facebook-powered of course. But there’s no denying that wherever the internet is going, it will be built on more interactions between people, between real people, not these quasi-friendships strangers make on Twitter, mostly for selling and customer support purposes. And right now, as far as those *real* relationships are concerned, Facebook is king.

The end… or the beginning?

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. The Future of Television, Facebook it isn’t.
2. What would an Always-On Device look like? Do we even want it?
3. Why Facebook will eventually fail
4. 7 reasons why I'm stopping using Last.fm for music & 4 reasons why I'm starting to use Drop.io + Facebook Connect
5. The value of Twitter vs. the value of Facebook vs. the value of having Neither [weekend ramblings]

But before I start it off, I’d like to briefly discuss the elements that should be contained within such posts. For me, entrepreneurial ideas evolve in 4+ stages (the + referring to the technology side, which also has its own phases of development). Following graph illustrates how I see it:

Not all ideas start with “pain” probably, but for obvious reasons (if you feel it, someone else may too), I think it’s beneficial. The idea is the pitch which I think should be a core-element to entrepreneurial brainstorming sessions. The business-model is the “how to make money” part, which should also optimally be contained within. Business development is the executive part, which is already beyond the scope of these post, though any market data is relevant.

Prototype development is both the most interesting and, for me, the most abstract element in entrepreneurial projects. I think there are variables which affect the timing of prototype development, namely technology risk vs. market risk, and technology cost, which is also a factor influencing technology risk. Technologies which are cheap to develop, e.g. the web, are better to develop earlier, also because the market risk is higher (many other entrepreneurs could be working on the same idea). Expensive technologies, with a significant technology risk also, e.g. biotech or medical tech, require more business development at an early stage, to find funding, etc., though they are also often developed within universities, where there is more freedom to take such risks. OK, I digress.

Entrepreneurial brainstorming sessions, I propose, contain the pain, pitch, and possibly business model as well. Since my ideas range from small ones, like barbers on trains, to complex ones, like e-learning or legal sandboxes (more on that later), I’m not sure how well each can be executed.

Most of all, I’d like the chance to engage in an interesting discussion with both positive and negative feedback, and I hope you do too. That’s it from me, for today! Next post sometime this week, next entrepreneurial brainstorming session next week!

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. An (informal) Entrepreneurial Brainstorming Session No. 1: Book summaries that are stories
2. The (pre-) entrepreneurial process
3. Where do Good Ideas come from?
4. Entrepreneurial brainstorming session #14: an online party planning software
5. Entrepreneurial brainstorming session #15: an online payment feature for bloggers (eCommerce)

So what makes Macs so cool. Rather than discuss the superficial, the hardware, I just want to briefly write about why I like the Mac OS “interface,” and then leave the floor to you, answering the question: “What makes OS X so damn great?”

My impression: I don’t know how to explain it exactly, maybe it’s because OS X is Unix based. But what I really dig about OS X (Tiger & Leopard) is that every menu-function, every possible action you’d want to undertake, can somehow be translated into a script or service, and thus entered in Quicksilver or another “launcher.” That means that my hands rarely have to leave the keyboard, which I think saves me a few seconds vs. going for the mouse/trackpad, point & clicking. It also means that my Dock [Apple's application launcher] and desktop are clean most of the time, as I don’t need a “visible” shortcut to get to the destination I want.

I could never get that same workflow going on Windows, and perhaps it’s because of the architecture, that it just isn’t written to be that open. Sure, things like SizeUp and Fresh, both of which I discussed last week, are not part of the Leopard interface, but the fact that they exist, the fact that Quicksilver exists, is actually what makes OS X 10 times as effective an OS to me. Once again, I don’t know why exactly this is the case, I attribute it to the open architecture of Unix.

So, now it’s your turn: why makes OS X so damn great (or not, if that’s where you want to take it)?

Have a nice Easter weekend!
Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Awakening from the OS X vs. Windows War
2. The 'free software on a Mac' developer paradox
3. Is Microsoft doing right with the "I'm a PC" ads?
4. [Mac] SizeUp makes window management on the Mac… a dream
5. What is the frustration-cost of Windows?

First you have to be aware that, much like in any city, public transport is an umbrella-term that describes busses, trams, trains, and metros (or subways). The RFID cards don’t yet work on trains, you have to check and uncheck yourself for any of the other options. You cannot get into or out of the subway station without doing that, while that is not the case on busses and trams, where you do have to check yourself in, but nobody prevents you from not checking out. Confused? Good, so are plenty of other people.

When you check yourself in, the machine automatically takes of 4 euro from your card. When you check yourself out, the amount that you haven’t used is deposited back. So if you forget… you just lost a few euro, because most trips don’t exceed the 1.50 euro mark. You can’t forget this in the subway, as you can’t enter without checking in, and you can’t leave without checking out—there are human height gates that prevent this (see pic). And the system works fine. On busses and trams, on the other hand, you have to check yourself in, and you have to remember to check yourself out, as there is no one to stop you from leaving without doing so. Confused? Good, so are plenty of other people.

I’m not sure why this system was put in place in such a way:

• one reason might be practicality: instead of giving a destination at the beginning, the check-out machine decides what your destination ends up being. That way, there’s no confusion and no long queue at the beginning of people entering their destination into a machine.
• a second reason might be technical / a privacy issue: it would be optimal if I got on a bus and, without touching the machine, the money would be taken from my card, and vice versa when I leave the bus. It’s more than likely a privacy concern as RFID-chips can have a maximum range of ca. 320 feet (=100 m).
• a third reason might be that subways are the no. 1 way to travel in Rotterdam: I don’t believe this is the case, especially since this system will be rolled out to cities where there aren’t any subways.

I very much dig the idea of RFID, as I like its efficiency, both from a user and a supply chain perspective. The flaw in this system is contextual design. While it works perfectly in subways due to the gate system (as well as in trains, where they are installing similar gates), there is too great a chance of forgetting to check out on other means of public transport. Last night at 11 pm in Amsterdam, the tram was filled with people that where “on something,” and how many of those are very likely to forget to check out? A 4 euro a pop, you’re entering London tube tariffs, which, everyone agrees, are astronomical, especially if you have to pay for that every day.

The only practical solution I see for this problem, is for there to be gates installed in busses and trams, so that people don’t forget to check out. So far, this has not happened and it comes at the expense of travellers who, while being trained to be stupid (don’t worry, the card takes care of everything), now have to be aware of their actions at the beginning and at the end of the journey. And believe me, when this system is rolled out across the Netherlands and perhaps even your country, there’s going to be an exponential increase in complaints, as tons of people will have forgotten to check out and will have lost 3 euros in the process. Good for the government’s short-term cashflow, but definitely creating more overhead in terms of support-costs.

Build those damn gates!

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Amazon.co.jp makes of RFID and Internet-Telco synergy a reality
2. Next up on Tech IT Easy!
3. On making Global Package Delivery a little better [Weekend Ramblings]
4. My computing context and what I think about the iPad
5. The iPhone as Human-World Interface

Just working it out logically, you could say several things about user-generated content:

1. there’s a lot of it, but attention is limited to a few leading sites
2. not all users are equal, there are demographic, emotional, intelligence, and other factors that affect how users vote.
3. users are cheap, which also sometimes means that you get what you paid for.

I’m personally not a fan of user-generated content, at least on a massive scale, because of some of the things in that list.

Alternative is the expert-based method, which means that expert-critics analyse a product and give it a rating. It is not often used in a collaborative setting, meaning that it makes suggestions for other products, i.e. Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic would be sites collect expert input, but don’t, afaik, suggest other matching movies.

The most famous example of an expert-based collaborative filtering system is Pandora Radio, which is built on top of the Music Genome Project, a collection of 50-or-so music-experts that analyse music and assign attributes to it. Those attributes can then be used to match songs. Users’ input isn’t ignored, they can vote on songs, which affects their future track-lists.

A few characteristics of expert-based systems are:

1. They entail significant wage-costs for employees that have invested in their expertise. Counter this against the possible income of a service like Pandora—advertising & referral-fees—and there could be a discrepancy.
2. They cannot rate as much content, as quickly, as a more user-generated system could.
3. They, on the other hand, maintain a consistent quality, that is unmatched by the varying quality that comes out of user-input.

I’m personally much more of a fan of an expert-based system, but sceptical of its economic merit, looking just at point 1.

Most systems seem to be orientated at users mainly, which, if you have a dataset like Netflix’s, is a smart way to go about things. There are some limitations that that entails, as the Netflix prize has revealed, namely that it cannot account for “strange” films like “Napoleon Dynamite,” and that it doesn’t take into account any user-based information, such as demographics or mood.

What do you think, audience? Knowing that users are cheap but a-plenty (but also overwhelmed with competing attention-buckets), and experts are few and expensive, is the solution to still go the user-generated route and try to make that work? In my opinion, expert-based systems require different business models than are popular online these days. You cannot get away with charging nothing, expecting users to magically click your advert, and hope to pay those university-educated experts. That, or, the margins for your products have to be so high (e.g. insurance & travel), to make such a system work (not that I think collaborative filtering and insurance really make that much sense—”give me the insurance radio-station please!“… eh no.)

Enjoy the weekend!
Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Challenges of Collaborative Filtering
2. User-archetypes for web-apps?
3. The future of online music: not just about access, but about continuous entertainment
4. Creating relevance in a complex world
5. The power of statistics and why the “why” doesn't matter

I’m certainly not a typical user, but browsers hijack my time in a number of ways. For one, I tend to have a lot of tabs open in them. If the browser is running, that means that I don’t want to close it; if it is closed and a tab-saving feature is enabled, I’m hesitant to open it. Not closing a browser with many tabs, means that your browser gets heavier and heavier. Having many saved tabs, means that opening a browser will be slower and slower. Another, less prevalent thing, is extensions. I no longer use Firefox on a day-to-day basis, but when I did, the more extensions I had installed (and they can be so addictive), the slower that browser would get.

The consequence of the many-tabs problem is that I tend to use different browsers at different times. On the Mac, my no. 1 browser is Safari, because it’s the fastest to start. Camino is no. 2, because it’s faster (to start) than Firefox. Firefox is no. 3, and was, until recently, browser non grata (Firefox 3 has been a massive improvement). And I now use them interchangeably, according to which has the least tabs in it.

Quicksilver is a big aid in browser-management for me; having each browser attached to a keyboard-trigger, means that I can quickly launch one of them as needed. But it didn’t solve one problem for me, which is the default-setting in OS X. You can only set one browser as your default, which means that when you click a link in any other app, it will open my default, Safari (even if that is currently browser non grata).

And that is the problem that Choosy solves for me and perhaps for you too. And even cooler perhaps, you can set it up to open the link in the browser you are currently running. It’s still in beta (there are actually some bugs), and will eventually be be pay-ware, but test it out and you can get a discount.

This isn’t the end-all-problems solution for me, but it’s definitely a good step forward.
Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Single Purpose Browsing & Why Tabbed Browsing Makes for a Pretty BAD User Experience
2. How to make the Browser a more Efficient OS
3. One reason I don’t like Google Chrome on the Mac
4. Favourite official & unofficial Mac-plugins
5. Google Chrome and when vertical integration rocks

More banally, should we be paying 50% of our income to regulators in the form of taxes, as it is common in my country, the Netherlands, and several more, or should we minimise that spending to a much lower figure, again betting that everything will sort itself out without expensive regulation? I think that anyone who’s ever had to fork out 30% or more of their hard-earned cash, wished that there was no government at one time or other.

The fallacy of “freedom”
Getting back to free markets and the perfect distribution of information required to make rational decisions. I think it is clear that the latter is not the case. For information to be available to all, there should be no barriers to entry, everyone should be sufficiently sound of mind to process information and everyone should have access to it, either because it is “free” (paid for by taxes), or because they are wealthy enough to afford commercially collected information.

In other words, we are talking about at least middle-class income levels on a massive scale here, which correlates with education and job-prospects. We are also talking about basic education for everyone, the ability to make decisions based on accumulated intelligence. This is not the case in the US, nor any other country that endorses the “free market w/o government intervention” philosophy.

The Credit Crunch and aftermath
More complex is the matter of the credit crunch, which hasn’t been happening on a level that you and me typically frequent; it has been going on between businesses, banks, and ultimately those taking out mortgages and those being shareholders of one of the companies involved. What happened here is 100% a free market problem on a global scale; the belief that investing in housing is a safe bet and the laissez-faire attitude of regulators towards the businesses involved. And the aftermath, which is that banks are being quasi-nationalised on a massive scale.

We are seeing the return of Rhine Capitalism, which has been waging a losing war since the Second World War.

Rhine Capitalism automatically comes with higher taxes. It comes with a re-empowerment of the government and the popular belief that, once again, the government is our parent with all the answers. Both the increase in taxes and the added income from the acquired banks also has another effect, that governments will be richer, will be able to, once again, afford to better provide for the general population, something that we have left to commercial parties in the last years, some of which has been good and some of which bad. This will hopefully lead to better education and perhaps even an alternative solution towards the masses of greying populations that we’ve all be told to fear.

Will it be good for business, the strongest voice opposed to Rhine Capitalism? No, certainly not.

Rhine Capitalism isn’t the solution either
Yes, as my words show, I’m a firm believer in education for everyone, in lowering the barriers to entry for those of low income. I believe in empowerment of people and hope that it will lead to better decision-making on all sides. But I think that going back to the government being daddy is devolution, not evolution.

These last decades, we have seen plenty of progress, particularly on a technological scale, but also accompanied by plenty of others, facilitated by technology. We’ve seen massive developments in science, in logistics, in productivity. We’ve seen a greater awareness in people of global issues and the exchange of information, which has exploded. We’re half-way towards a world, where regulation is an automatic consequence of the fact that everything is becoming transparent.

Eventually, we will also see that issues like the credit crunch will no longer arise, because barriers to national data, to local data, to individual data will fall, allowing individuals and businesses managing their money, to make truly rational decisions.

What happened these last 15 months or so (perhaps even longer) is a warning shot, telling us that we’re not there yet. What happened this last week and the coming weeks is a consequence of exponential decisions based on negative emotions (mainly greed, fear, and ignorance). What should happen today and tomorrow is for people to use this as a lesson to shape our future world and build technology and systems that are designed to overcome these problems and replace the need for the current devolution towards an inefficient, but necessary system of regulation.

There is still a place for the government, as long as large portions of the global population are being suppressed. But, hopefully, it will actually do what it’s meant to meant to do, which is taking care of the people, instead of markets and businesses. But that is certainly something that will have to wait for several more years, until this current mess sorts itself out.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. The Poor Man’s Business Model—How Out-of-the-Box thinking can generate tremendous value for customers
2. Catching up on software and entrepreneurship books
3. My call: software companies can't take off well in financial centers
4. Best Newsletters
5. Is the internet recession-proof?

Yet, when I opened my Economist from two weeks ago (I’m always a few weeks behind), an article mentioned that with this credit crunch, mergers and acquisitions are going down, and with that a major cash-cow for consultants: IT systems consolidation.

I guess I’m wondering why companies, particularly those young babies being acquired, are still working with proprietary systems? Is there some kind of competitive advantage to doing it “your own way?” Or is that simply a myth that people believe in?

For myself, I’ve whined a-plenty about how Excel sucks and Powerpoint sucks, and how I’d like to have software work in my “right-brained way.” But I still believe that Excel and Powerpoint works fine for 95% of the population and for 95% of the time, and that there is no need for a custom-built solution on that—the administrative—end.

There is of course multiple sides to IT, particularly if you are an IT-company or one where IT plays a leading role. Let’s take Amazon, which won’t be acquired anytime soon, which relies heavily on its proprietary technologies, being so specialised that it decided to become an IT-service-provider. Or Lucas Arts, which develops effects for films, also 3rd party, and will certainly use custom-built software.

But when I think IT-consolidation, I think databases, and I’m wondering if one database is better than the other. And I’m wondering, why there isn’t a standard for this yet, as the Amazon’s of this world are clearly pushing for it.

What am I missing here? Why do we need consultants again? Why aren’t we doing everything in the cloud?

Vincent
(give me smart answers, and I may write a smarter post about it )

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Entrepreneurial brainstorming session N.10: software for the consulting industry
2. Some thoughts on Services-orientated Architecture (SOA)
3. My call: software companies can't take off well in financial centers
4. Software business models
5. Risk Sharing Partnerships, solutioning offshore quality issues?

People make for an intriguing topic, partially because we all have opinions on what makes a good friend or partner, but we aren’t always able to translate it to practice. As someone who is a partial introvert, I’ve always liked to observe people around me and note things about them. And I like asking people what they think about things like people, and I like to read books about the subject, and I like to write about it. In the end, you build up a nice library of pseudo-science (which I define as a collection of anecdotes).

Is there such a thing as archetypes and (why) should we care?

Yes, I think there is. One of the oldest pseudo-sciences about people in human history, Astrology, classifies people into four main elements: air, water, earth, and fire, each saying something about the core-ego of that person. Most simply put, air-signs are strong socially; water-signs are creative; earth-signs are grounded; and fire-signs can burn you. No, just kidding, I’m fire, but they are passionate. If you don’t believe in Astrology, I recommend picking up a serious book about it and forgetting about the newspaper-”predictions.” Also understand that we all are actually have 12 star-signs or houses, describing different attitudes in different areas of life.

Less pseudo (perhaps), there is a bunch of literature on archetypes in teams, Jeremy and me even wrote an essay about it many years ago. In my opinion, or rather what I like best, is when three characteristics are present in teams: the social, the detailed, and the integrator. The social part is the one that makes the initial contacts (there are certain people that are great at that). The detailed person watches the bottom-line and makes for a great project-manager. And the integrator has the vision and closes the sale. Not necessarily three different people, but three archetypes or traits I consider important to getting things done. Opinions vary on this and are probably more scientific than mine.

You can also classify people by age, education, culture, gender, and other traits, which affect their ability to work together, as does, the size of the team. Educational and cultural diversity affect teams negatively, and studies have shown that teams larger than 9 don’t work as well.

I personally like the idea of 5 people in a team. It’s just small enough not to lose the overview, there’s (hopefully) some duplication of skills, it’s an uneven number during a vote, they all fit in a car, and you can call them the A-Team.

Should you care about archetypes? It’s very hard to build a good team, but what matters in the end is not that all archetypes are represented, but that team-members complement each other.

Teams and startups

In an entrepreneurial context, there’s a couple of contexts in which archetypes matter. One is the initial network, which you use to develop your idea. Part of that network may initially evolve into a board of directors and investors, that will also likely be on the board. Important here are at least two traits:

• Advisors (pre- and post-startups) should add valuable knowledge in a field relevant to the startup: this can be the industry, but also the underlying tech, as well as more practical matters like running the startup. They should also complement you.
• Advisors should be critical, but constructively so. I mean, you can hammer a guy to the ground, but at least do it for a good reason.

I’m sure there’s a hidden rule somewhere that advisors should also be investors as well—put your money where your mouth is.

The other area where teams matter is of course the development of the company. We talked about the e-myth several times on this blog already, and it’s a pretty formative part of my thinking about teams: there are those that manage and there are those that execute, and each role should be clearly defined, even if the management and the execution is done by that same person.

It’s kind of why I believe in area-champions, by which I mean people that are responsible for a certain area in the company. In a software-development-company, you’d need a chief architect to be responsible for the tech part of things. You’ll also need other champions for the marketing and sales function(s), for the operational and financial side of things, etc., etc. Here, archetypes matter and are both defined by personality, as well as experience and skill-set.

I should add that, while I asked about the relevance of process-coding before, I don’t actually believe that you should have to spell out every task for a person, unless that person works in a McDonalds-kitchen or you’re writing a franchisees manual.

In conclusion: Your value matters most

People are building blocks, just like anything else in life, but the one thing I learned from people like my father and other networkers that I respect, is that you don’t get help by treating people as simple building blocks.

If you are a good person and treat people in a fair manner, if you are smart and add value to other people’s lives, then people will automatically come to you. If you’re none of these things, you can still hand out 100s of business-cards, spam your name a 1000 times through social networks, blogs, and other means, you’ll still not be successful. Because you forgot the essential lesson, that a network is only as strong as its individual nodes. And that networks are self-selecting.

Vincent out

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. 10 Traits of Great Teams
2. People First! – learning from Ratatouille and Pixar
3. The (pre-) entrepreneurial process
4. Marketing survey: what people do on a train
5. The attraction of (online) fashion

I’m not going to go into the problem here, but I’ll just say that we tried to run the Windows system restore disks, which crashed half-way through, in the midst of formatting the drive. Vista PCs have, as you know, not been sold with the actual installation-CDs, though I understand that this is a right right now and the owner will go to the store and ask for them. After which, I will install Vista (my first time), as well as all the apps she needs for her productive day.

I’m angered that things like this are still happening! Having been a Windows user since 3.1, the only version that I’ve never had problems with was 2000, and XP now runs fairly good too. Vista, I’ve never tried, but I understand there were some driver-related problems, much like the 64-bit version of XP.

Typically, diagnosing and repairing a system like my friends will cost several hundred euros, if not more. And that is… if the store actually knew what it was doing! The error-codes, as mentioned, don’t point to a specific problem, and they previously suggested replacing the hard-drive, which she did and which didn’t fix the problem. Right now, the way I see it, I’m going to be installing a new Vista on it, the drivers, and the software. I’ll see if that holds. If it doesn’t, I’ll assume it’s a hardware-problem, and one piece of hardware will have to be removed after the other, to diagnose the cause.

Total time used to fix: 1 hour last night, 2 hours Vista CD pick-up, 2-3 hours installation & restore. And that isn’t counting that there’s 3 people involved, some gasoline, not to mention the months of trauma that she’s been experiencing through this problem. As well as whatever store-time + hardware-replacement-costs may be involved.

But why does it have to be so hard????!!!!! It really mystifies me how much of mess the open PC-architecure, in combination a fairly open ecosystem of hardware & software, is. You literarily have no idea, if there’s a piece of dust on a RAM-stick, if there’s a faulty driver, if an app is causing the mayhem, or if the problem is a Windows-update that went wrong. And, in case you are wondering, this is a HP-machine.

So, I ask once again, what the frustration-cost of Windows is? In my estimation, it’s pretty damn high, and I already suggested to them to get a Mac. It may be 50% more expensive and non-upgradeable, but the fact that I don’t have to worry about things like BSODs, is priceless.

I should disclose that I’ve been a Mac-user for 3 years now, which was both a hardware- and software-based decision.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

The opinions expressed within this blog are those of the authors alone. ©2011 Tech IT Easy. All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Awakening from the OS X vs. Windows War
2. With Virtualization, does hardware simply no longer matter?
3. Parallels allows direct switching between Mac OS & Windows!
4. Just hacked my first gadget on Windows Vista
5. A short guide for surviving Windows [aimed at Mac-users]