Zuckerberg and Jobs
5-2-2012
Mark Zuckerberg has moved quickly from being a little bit awkward and a little bit weird to being an extremely focused and very capable CEO. He is also in tune with the zeitgeist of an America still coming to terms with the Great Recession: an urge to direct our creativity and reformist impulses through the private sector. I just noticed a passage in his letter on the Hacker Way that strikes me as especially perceptive:
"Most great people care primarily about building and being a part of great things, but they also want to make money. Through the process of building a team — and also building a developer community, advertising market and investor base — I’ve developed a deep appreciation for how building a strong company with a strong economic engine and strong growth can be the best way to align many people to solve important problems."
I came of age in an environment where there was some disillusionment with the idea of all things profit-seeking, and this generalized anti-corporate sentiment still pervades leftwing politics. I think that idea helped drive me and many other people in an idealistic direction: continuing into academics or going to work for non-profits, governments or other forms of public service. But that tide is turning for a number of reasons.
The Great Recession has made it clear that the US can no longer rely on a fortune built up decades ago. The wealth and power that we took for granted -- that seemed the inviolable right of being American -- now seems suddenly fragile. Nothing is certain or automatic, nothing can be expected. We have exhausted the inheritance. In the next century, we will have to work for and earn whatever we can get.
A few years ago, it genuinely seemed (to many a liberal arts graduate) that America's wealth was automatic, and our focus naturally turned to the many faults in our society and how to correct them. But today's hero is not the environmentalist or the advocate-- after all, by now most of us are environmentalists and advocates. Instead, the idealists among us are feeling pangs of patriotism and an urge to join those most lauded heroes of the day: the job-creators.
The national mourning about Steve Jobs was about more than just the white and silver gadgets-- it was about a country wondering if it could still do things better than China. Those gadgets became a source of national pride, in the way that GM and Ford were for another generation. The extraordinarily creative work of Zuckerberg and his cohort remind us that the US economy is not done yet. And those of us who, to extend an analogy, were snowboarding and taking improv classes during the last decade are eager to join them in creating a bright future for our country.
I expect a small flood of people in their 30s who started in the non-profit, government or academic world will soon be trying get in on the new patriotism and public service of the private sector. NGOs will be conveners, advisors and critics; governments will (one day) focus on providing high-quality services; but companies will increasingly be the most exciting avenue for the creators, achievers and doers in society. If Zuckerberg's right, they just might be the best way to solve the world's important problems, while creating a few jobs in the process.
Out to Lunch
5-1-2012
You may not agree with the findings of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, but it would be hard to find fault with their passionate argument for the urgency of reducing America's debt. Unfortunately, these two elder statement notwithstanding, it is not at all clear how our current political system can create the national will to solve this, or any, major problem.
3 Words, 200 Employees, and $100 million
2-23-2012
Anyone who's ever dreamed of starting a business can find inspiration in the story of Bert and John Jacobs, the purveyors of the Life is Good t-shirts... and hats, and mugs, etc. This has got to be something like the pure essence of capitalism: they have taken a three-letter phrase (which they didn't even come up with!), put it on a t-shirt and brought in hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no creativity, no technology, no craftsmanship to speak of here-- other than the work of connecting the idea with the market. An idea transformed into money.
The Apple TV is All About 4K
2-16-2012
Anybody with an interest in technology has heard the rumors about the imminent Apple TV (or iTV?). Recently, those rumors have crystallized into expectations, with Walter Isaacson's revelation of Jobs' interest in the product line, and reports of Canadian companies testing out the system. At first glance, the TV market seems a strange one for Apple to enter. Sony and Panasonic, two of the premium players in this market, are losing millions on their TV business. Indeed, flat panel displays, both plasma and LCD, seem largely commoditized, with little room for differentiation beyond obscure features like black levels and refresh rates, and gimmicky ones like 3D capability. Why would Apple want to enter a market where everyone who makes a premium product is struggling to make any money?
The first thing you might think about is the interface and integration. Apple is justly famous for its design, both inside and out, which enables them to create products that function more like a tool and less like, well... a PC running Windows 95. To be sure, Apple will find a way to make a new TV user-friendly while making all kinds of content (iTunes, Netflix, cable, OTA) quickly accessible. We can already see what I hope is just an early version of this on the current AppleTV box, and hopefully the new interface will be taken to the next level.
Apple is also likely to take advantage of its long tradition of integrating different product lines so that they all work together seamlessly. You can be sure that you'll easily be able to continue watching a movie on your iPad when you need to catch the train to work, or find all the games that you downloaded to your iPhone playable on your new TV. Maybe the AppleTV would even have DVR functionality so that you could record a program that you could then watch on other devices.
But I don't think that a great interface and seamless integration alone make the business case for an Apple TV. After all, this puts Apple in a situation that is not hugely differentiated from Sony or Samsung, and that differentiation, at least when it comes to the interface, could be quickly eroded. I think Apple sees a much bigger opportunity here, and that opportunity is the 4K revolution.
Just as processors get faster and hard drives more capacious, so screen resolution marches inevitably forward. Yes, that means your new 1080p TV is already outdated. Sharp and others have already released 4K sets with something like 4 times the resolution of today's high end televisions and a level of detail comparable to a 35mm negative or an IMAX screen.
There's just one problem with these gorgeous 4K TVs: there is no content available and no way to distribute that content to the TV. There's no disc that holds 4K (although that could be solved eventually) and nobody is broadcasting in this format. That means that the current owners of this latest and greatest technology can only see lower resolution content scaled up to what their 4K set is capable of (although that apparently still looks amazing).
That puts both content producers and distributors and TV manufactures in a pickle. After spending billions on making the transition to HDTV, you can bet that OTA and cable companies are not eager to start building the necessary infrastructure to transmit content that only a handful of people can consume. And manufacturers can certainly build these sets for the high-end market, but they have to try to sweep that little issue of there being nothing to watch under the rug. It's a classic chicken and egg: the content and distribution system is unlikely to produce and transmit in 4K until there is a critical mass of customers who can actually consume in this format. And the manufacturers are unlikely to produce large numbers of 4K sets until there is content that can be distributed to them. Eventually the distribution will catch up with the 4K technology that's already here, but there's certainly going to be a significant lag.
This is where Apple sees opportunity, and one that draws on their strengths. Apple focuses on the whole widget, integrated into a single user-experience. For many years, the iOS system (as well as MacOS X) have had content, distribution, and manufacturing integrated into a single product. In other words, Apple manages all of these elements so that when you want to watch a movie, all you have to do is find it and click.
For a 4K product, Apple already has the content licensing and the distribution in place-- the resolution of the content and the horsepower of the distribution would merely need to be upgraded. iTunes has already increased its resolution at least twice, going from QVGA to VGA, and from VGA to 720p with barely anyone taking note. An eventual upgrade to 4K could be similarly smooth, although it would of course demand a fast connection and require that Apple upgrade its data centers to handle what would be at least 4 times the storage needs for video. Still, this is nothing beyond what a company with $100 billion in the bank can do.
Only Apple can provide a beautiful 4K TV with a wide range of content easily available. This would put Apple in exactly the spot it likes best: a hugely differentiated product, with competitors scrambling to catch up. Of the manufacturers, Sony, Sharp, and Samsung would be able to turn out displays of equivalent quality (they might even be building the displays for Apple), but they would have to piece together content from Hulu, Netflix, etc. for their customers to have anything to watch. Google is in a better position on the content side (YouTube can store and distribute 4K today), but they have a long road in front of them to develop the types of licensing relationships for the best content that Apple has in place. And judging by the recent reviews of the Google TV, integrating content, software and hardware into a solid product is much easier said than done.
In one master-stroke Apple could offer the content, distribution and product that no competitor could match. It solves the chicken and egg problem by delivering the chicken and the egg in one. Now, I fully expect that the first of these new Apple TVs will be 1080p, too expensive and greeted with quite a few yawns. But the real reason why Apple is interested in TV is the 4K upgrade, just a year or so down the road, that only they can offer.
Wise Guy
2-16-2012
"Actually I have one secret. It's a very easy secret. You get up early in the morning and you work all day. That's the only secret. Is there another one?" - Philip Glass
Design Is How It Works
2-6-2012
It's becoming clear that the most lasting contribution of Steve Jobs won't be the Macintosh, the iPhone, or any particular product. Yes, those products will stand the test of time, but they are ultimately just manifestations of an idea that will have a much greater impact. Nor will his greatest legacy be Apple itself, as Jobs suggested in his final days. Apple is healthy for the near term and has a skilled, creative, and disciplined team. But I think Apple, sadly, will slowly go the way of all other once-great companies, and falter without the peculiar genius of its founder-philosopher-king.
Instead, when cultural historians look back to see what was Jobs's greatest contribution to society, I think it is most likely to be an attention to design, a high standard for design, and the ability to engage so much of the world in thinking about, talking about and debating design. His most important legacy is embodied in a single quote:
"Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like... People think it's this veneer -- that the designers are handed this box and told, 'Make it look good!' That's not what we think design is. It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works."
To be sure, there have been other popular design movements in the recent past, but none has left quite as large of a dent in the universe as Jobs has. The designers to have come closest to the Jobs effect might have been Charles and Ray Eames and their contemporaries, the Danish Modern movement of mid-century. The Eames's and the Danes also focused on people-centered, customer-focused design, and incorporated simplicity, humanity and elegance into everyday objects that were accessible, useable, and affordable. But most of their efforts were wrapped up in the faddish world of furniture design, where basic function is easily achieved, giving form most of the attention. Although Charles and Ray Eames were genuine design celebrities, they never mixed the same level of drama and charisma with the dynamism of technology that enabled Jobs to mesmerize a worldwide audience.
Jobs did the world a great favor by being so brash, cryptic, prophetic... and interesting. The mythic struggle with Microsoft, the storied exodus and return to Apple, the sheer spectacle of a keynote... all served to broaden the audience and amplify Jobs's message, repeated again and again in different ways: design is how it works.
We are already seeing some examples of his lasting influence, what Gruber has called Apple-ification. But I think this phenomenon will be bigger than brushed metal and black glass thermostats, just as it was bigger than bondi blue steam irons. Jobs engaged and taught a whole generation to be discriminating about design, and to not settle for anything less than insanely great. Like the old story about teaching a man to fish, Jobs taught us how to think about design, a lesson that will last longer than any of the products he helped create.
(Not Everything Is) Made Better in Japan
2-4-2012
The WSJ recently had an interesting article about the fanatical perfectionism endemic to Japanese culture. Profiled in the article was a Kyoto tapas restaurant that imports its napkins from Spain, a magazine that devoted 42 pages to determine what is the world's most perfect navy blazer, and a coffee shop where, due to the owner's extraordinary standards, a barista claims:
"I'll need another whole year of practice... if I want to be able to froth milk for cappuccinos."
While the Japanese obsession with quality and craftsmanship is well known, isn't it curious that you don't see these same principles applied to Japanese automobiles? Certainly there is no question that Japanese cars are perhaps the most reliable and well-engineered on the market, but there aren't very many that seem... classic.
Instead, the prototypical Japanese car might be the Toyota Camry: agreeable, reliable, and a little bit boring-- the Tom Hanks of automobiles. I can think of only a handful of Japanese cars that reach iconic status in my mind: the second-generation Prius, the Acura NSX, the original Rav4, the beloved Honda Civic hatchback, and perhaps one or two of the 1960s and 70s Datsuns. Certainly there are few cars from Japan that have reached the aesthetic heights of those from Germany and Italy.
I wonder why Japanese companies don't recreate and improve upon some of the classics, the way they seem to be doing with denim, french cuisine, and espresso bars. Take a '69 Lamborghini Islero or a '98 BMW 328i, keep the colors, the proportions, the luxury and the attitude, but rework the car according to modern standards with japanese engineering. Those could be incredible products. Of course, they could always just make another Toyota Matrix.
Wise Guys
1-31-2012
"By 3 methods we may learn wisdom: first, by reflection which is noblest; second, by imitation which is easiest; and third, by experience which is the bitterest." - Confucius
"People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully." - Steve Jobs
"Chutzpah means pulling yourself up before anyone can drag you down." - Jahan Khalili
Total Design Failure
1-30-2012
What's something nice we could we say about the IKEA Solsta?
Well, the relatively low price should minimize the buyer's remorse that you'll inevitably feel after purchase.
Sized to children's proportions, the couch is built to the cheapest specifications, with fabric shifting unevenly around the arms and threads hanging free. The cushions are roughly the firmness of greek yogurt and the sagging and slipping will gradually chute you down to the floor. And the yellow plastic feet seem just, well... cheap -- couldn't they have wrapped them in a little of the fake wood veneer that covers everything else they sell?
But all of that might be fine-- it would just be an inexpensive couch. The reason this is a total design failure is because it is advertised as a sofa bed, but you'll unfold those yogurt-stuffed cushions to find a baffling surprise. Of the three panels that you are supposed to sleep on, one is IKEA's trademark particle board. That's right, you or your guests can look forward to snoozing on a bed of wood chips, sawmill shavings, and perhaps a touch of synthetic resin. Assuming you put your lower third on the wooden section, you might have circulatory issues: it's an uncomfortable inch taller than the squishy foam sections.
IKEA probably wouldn't deny this information to an informed consumer, but their website does disguise the true nature of this design failure by featuring a picture of an enticingly made-up and deceptively normal-looking bed. Surely there must have been a better design solution to making a sofa bed at this price point?
A bad couch with an unusable bed for $150: a total design failure.
Merchant Prince
1-26-2012
Mickey Drexler is the genius behind J. Crew's recent transformation from predictable prep store to dynamic trendsetter. Having grown up in the business, he was running household names like Ann Taylor and the Gap in his 30s. I really like the look of today's J. Crew but rarely shop there because prices are so often just beyond where I'm comfortable. They're also missing something critical to a convincing brand narrative-- the creation myth. I often like the look of one of their shirts or a pair of shoes, but then I see "Made in China" or "Made in Mauritius" and move on. Then I see the price tag and I really move on. No matter the quality of their clothes, without a Made in USA or Made in Italy tag they will never be able to command the same allure of the heritage brands that are scattered throughout their shops, and which often cost only a little bit more.
Still, I enjoy watching J. Crew's success because it reminds me a bit of the Apple story from the last 10 years, which is to say it is a masterful business performance that seizes every opportunity and fires on all cylinders. They are creating a uniformly high-quality and desirable product line-up, and their competitors seem flat-footed.
See this profile in the New Yorker and an interview on Charlie Rose (where as usual, Charlie does much of the talking).
Update: saw these Made in the USA belts the other day. Another good move.
Predictions I Might Soon Regret
1-25-2012
From the first time I heard about the possibility of Hillary Clinton joining Barack Obama as his vice-presidential candidate (back in 2007-2008), I have thought it would make for an unstoppable political ticket. Recently, rumors have again surfaced as the Obama administration has transitioned into campaign mode, this time focusing on the possibility that Hillary and Joe Biden could switch places. It is widely agreed that Joe, for one, would jump at the chance of taking his dream job. And despite protestations to the contrary, I have to think that Hillary would love the opportunity to punch through another glass ceiling, and get a break from what must be an extremely difficult travel schedule as Secretary of State. Besides, she already shares her backyard with the Vice President's residence, so it's not like moving would be much of a pain.
Even though I think both Joe and Hillary would be eager to trade places, it's not clear whether Obama will choose that kind of a shake-up. For one, Obama's brand is built around being cool, collected, and stable. Any kind of internal change, especially a very public one like replacing a chief of staff, puts a small dent in that image and sets the rumor-mill spinning. A second issue is simply that there is still a lot of Clinton-phobia out there -- enough to drive the right wing to the polls, and certainly enough to add some clouds of uncertainty to Obama's strategy and plans. But on the other hand, nothing else that Obama could do would rekindle the passion, excitement, and teary-eyed inspiration that brought him to the presidency. There isn't a woman in the country, no matter her political affiliation and no matter how old-fashioned, who wouldn't derive some deep satisfaction from seeing a female vice-president.
The very fact that this is a possibility means that Republican strategists must already be preparing their counter-offer. A proven, if controversial, mixed-race president, and a female vice-president would appeal to so many Americans on a visceral level, that -- barring some kind of unforeseen implosion -- the ticket could not be defeated. When pitted against the typical white-bred Republican fare (the same familiar combination of two old white men, whether Romney-Ryan, Gingrich-Portman, or some other mix), the contrast would make the choice between Republican and Democrat seem like a choice between a tired past and a dynamic future.
It is clear then that the Republicans need to dip into their not-very-deep pool of female and minority stars for their vice-presidential pick. Marco Rubio would check off the minority box, but he is very young and still relatively inexperienced. Bobby Jindal failed to get a callback after his audition in 2009. Sarah Palin would satisfy the female criteria, but I doubt the Republicans ever want to see her go near a debate stage again. Michelle Bachmann seems to fall off the list for similar reasons. Christie Todd-Whitman would be a more substantive choice, but might be too moderate to excite the base, and hasn't been in the public eye for many years besides.
The ideal candidate for the Republicans, strictly in terms of portraying the right image for the times, would be a female minority candidate, of which there are precious few. That leaves Nikki Haley, the South Carolina governor, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, and Condoleezza Rice. But Haley was already tainted by scandal in her campaign for the governorship, is quite young and lacking in experience, and the Indian community is not seen as an especially valuable political bloc (in terms of the number of votes they could deliver). New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez is new on the national stage and seems to have strictly domestic experience. And it is important to note that the current GOP frontrunners all have a deficit of foreign policy experience, so choosing a running mate with the same deficiencies would mean that Obama would only have to tell that tale about SEAL Team 6 to make them look quite out of their league. Rice, on the other hand, has a genuinely compelling story and can do a pretty good job of sweet-talking her way out of that… whole Iraq thing. Of the possibilities I've seen, only Condi offers experience, intelligence and foreign policy chops to compliment the domestic and private-sector strengths of the likely GOP presidential candidates.
You know where this is going… whether Romney, Gingrich, or even Daniels, the next Republican vice-presidential candidate will be Condoleezza Rice. As they say, you heard it here first.
First Principles
1-23-2012
In 1914, Gilbert Grosvenor developed guiding principles for National Geographic magazine -- already 27 years old at the time -- which are apparently still used today. Looking at these principles is a bit like looking at an X-ray of what the NYT called the "yellow-bordered aristocrat," and reveals a lot about the unique character of that publication. I would like to develop similar guidelines for this site, as it seems that every creative project benefits from rules, and I can't think of a better starting place than these 7 principles. Some of these seem downright incompatible with the very nature of most websites, so I expect that I'll be modifying these as this website gets started (and I'm already breaking #4).
Here are the 7 principles:
- The First principle is absolute accuracy. Nothing must be printed which is not strictly according to fact. The Magazine can point to many years in which not a single article has appeared which was not absolutely accurate.
- Abundance of beautiful, instructive, and artistic illustrations.
- Everything printed in The Magazine must have permanent value, and so be planned that each Magazine will be as valuable and pertinent one year or five or ten years after publication as it is on the day of publication. The result of this principle is that tens of thousands of back numbers of The Magazine are continually used in school rooms.
- All personalities and notes of a trivial character are avoided.
- Nothing of a partisan or controversial character is printed.
- Only what is of a kindly nature is printed about any country or people, everything unpleasant or unduly critical being avoided.
- The content of each number is planned with a view of being timely. Whenever any part of the world becomes prominent in public interest, by reason of war, earthquake, volcanic eruption, etc., the members of the National Geographic Society have to know that in the next issue of their magazine they will obtain the latest geographic, historical, and economic information about that region, presented in an interesting and absolutely non-partisan manner, and accompanied by photographs which in number and excellence can be equalled by no other publication.
