Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Testing of electric truck for Los Angeles port sparks enthusiasm

Testing of electric truck for Los Angeles port sparks enthusiasm:
Although electric truck tests are still underway, the port has already ordered 20 more of the vehicles at a cost of $208,000 each.
[...]
The electric truck, which takes about three hours to charge, has a range of about 30 miles while pulling a 60,000-pound cargo container, and about 60 miles empty. Although that distance may not sound useful, much of freight hauling within the port complex is from terminals to nearby train yards.

It costs about 20 cents a mile to operate, or about four to nine times less than a diesel truck, depending on fluctuating fuel costs and operating conditions.
You can watch a short puff piece on the truck too.

Despite the fact that Los Angeles Harbor Commission President S. David Freeman says, "With diesel fuel selling for nearly $5 a gallon, this is the cheapest truck on the road," that's not clear at all.

How does the $208,000 price tag compare to the price of an equivalent diesel truck? How long does the battery last, and how much does it cost to replace? Why don't those numbers ever make their way into an article about cost savings?

Anyway, I do believe that an electric truck makes perfect sense for moving cargo containers short distances across port facilities, and I know I'd rather work around electric trucks than diesels.

(Hat tip to FuturePundit.)

Labels: ,

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Acting Squirrelly

Cringely believes that SAP is acting squirrelly — which gives him an excuse to examine squirrel behavior in a bit too much depth:
You are driving down a street in your car and up ahead there is a squirrel at the side of the road eating a nut. You aren't on an intercept course, there is no way you are going to hit that squirrel. So what does the squirrel do? At the very last possible moment, rather than watching you drive by, THE SQUIRREL DARTS STRAIGHT FOR YOUR CAR, passing inches in front of or behind the front tires.

Why does he do that?

Obviously I'm a guy with too much time on my hands because I've given this quite a bit of thought.

From a purely metabolic perspective, whatever its motivation the physical advantage clearly lies with the squirrel. Sure, my car is bigger and faster, but the squirrel is smaller and quicker, with a heart that beats up to 700 times per minute. To the squirrel I seem to be driving by in slow motion, and whether he goes in front of the tires or behind or in front of one and behind another is strictly a matter of style: once the squirrel has my vector, Victor, he's in command.

But judging by the number of squirrels squished on the road, there must be some risk to this game, so why does he do it?

The answer has nothing to do with cars because squirrel psychology predates both cars and men. For the squirrel, in fact, there may be no difference between my car and an ice age saber-toothed tiger.

The squirrel doesn't trust me. Sure, it looks like I'm not even chasing him, but he's a tasty squirrel and I'm a saber-toothed tiger. By waiting until the last possible moment then running TOWARD me, the squirrel is rushing the net, moving the confrontation effectively forward in time in such a way that the squirrel is pushing his tactical advantage.

As a predator, I'm simply not supposed to expect this squirrel to be running toward me, rather than away. He's using the element of surprise to confuse me. And it works, because I've never hit a squirrel with my car.
So, what does this have to do with ERP giant SAP?
SAP and companies like it do something similar by making powerful software that is quite deliberately difficult to use. They could make it easier. Heck, the capability to make it easier is shipped right with the software, though never pointed out to the customer.
[...]
Unlike standardized financial statements, the most powerful ERP screens and reports will vary dramatically from company to company, so the ability to customize SAP is vital to obtaining the maximum possible benefit from the software.

That's why there are so many SAP consultants. And that's why SAP, itself, makes 40 percent of its revenue from providing consulting services -- revenue that would be significantly less if the software was easier to customize and easier to use.

If SAP software was easier to customize and use, SAP the company might get a few more customers but would have significantly less revenue. Or that's the fear.

There is a product called GuiXT that is an interface builder shipped for free with every copy of SAP R/3. Pronounced "gooey-x-t," this client-server application sits on top of R/3 and can be used with almost no programming to customize and integrate R/3 screens as well as add certain overlay functions that aren't readily available in R/3, itself. The point with GuiXT is to not mess with the underlying R/3 code, which means an SAP installation can be less customized on the back end, installed cheaper, and be up and running quicker.

So when you, as an SAP customer, call up your SAP consultant to ask for customization, that consultant will often show you the next day a GuiXT implementation that does exactly what you asked for but is presented as a mock-up. Once you've signed-off on the look and feel then the SAP consultants can dig into R/3 itself and spend a few weeks implementing what you asked for. OR they could simply run the GuiXT app that took them an hour to build.

Are you starting to see the picture?
[...]
The squirrel dives for your front tires because by ice age rules that's the thing to do, though at an obvious cost today in squished squirrels. Similarly, SAP deliberately hides the power of GuiXT thinking it could hurt consulting revenue when, in fact, it could INCREASE sales revenue by broadening the market and making R/3 less scary for companies to install and run.

Both the squirrel and SAP do what they do because it appears to work, though a safer and easier course was there all along.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, July 12, 2008

How to sell your software for $20,000

Bill — he only reveals his first name — has "gone from a one-man micro ISV selling shareware for a few hundred bucks a month on the side, to building up into a 5-employee, $2 million software company."

When he started his company, he saw a choice:
It really comes down to, would you rather make a new widget with 99% chance of making nothing and 1% chance of making $10 million; or a 50% chance of making $1 million for the same amount of time and effort (for a remake of some boring business-to-business product but done better)? The former is what everybody seems to do, but the latter is what I did making my very niche vertical market software. It took me over a decade to build, but the money keeps coming in and last year my sales were just under $2 million of which $800K was profit. Not bad for under 200K lines of code!
Once he had a little success, he quickly became cynical:
For some reason I got inundated with all kinds of companies wanting to be "strategic partners" or form a "strategic alliance." No, they never want to buy anything, in fact they all would in effect be suppliers to me. But they still want to fly out and meet with me, and get my brochures and specs, and see demos, and have telecons, and talk about "joint marketing opportunities," and sign this NDA and that exclusive teaming agreement, and oh yea, could I help pay for some ad or some trade show booth with them, or help them put together a proposal for some bid. Huh? Yet for some reason at first I couldn't say "no" if it was just talking with them or trading information. I was a nice guy. I wasn't about to spend anything or sign anything, but when they'd say "we'll be out there the 22nd, how's 3pm sound?" what was I supposed to say? So there I was giving demos all the time and sitting on telecons about nothing and writing up this and that.

Soon all the overhead phone calls and emails and visits and demos with these wanna-be "strategic partners" I realized were a complete waste. None of them would bring me any new business — they all just wanted a piece of my action.
He also became cynical about his friends who said they wanted to work with him on his new project:
So when it came down to it, no, my coworker couldn't quit and work with me for free for a year for a big chunk of the company if we hit it off, because he didn't want to spend his savings and 401K until we had income. Too risky for him and that was totally understandable.

What wasn't so understandable and was disappointing to me, was over the next several years as I took all the risk, finished the product, hit the road selling it, fretted over meeting delivery schedules, took out loans to pay for the equipment and hoped the customer would pay on time, after all that he finally wanted to join. [...] He seemed disappointed and finally said he expected he'd get a share of the company "since I'm one of the first employees." I asked how much were you thinking? He replied "I don't know, 30, 40 percent maybe."
Wow.

Anyway, Bill goes on to explain how to sell your software for $20,000:
  1. Find software out there that sells for $20,000 a copy
  2. Pick the products that are supporting a handful of million-dollar companies.
  3. Build the product but only with the core features
  4. Get your name out in the industry
  5. Present yourself as consultingware — it won't matter that it's you against big companies

Labels: ,

Friday, July 11, 2008

Project Management with Niel Robertson

The folks at the Devver Blog have posted a piece, called Project Management with Niel Robertson, summarizing Robertson's recent presentation on product management for start-ups:
In fact, he went as far as saying the number one thing that goes wrong at startups might be PM. Niel described PM as a process for delivering Kstrong>the right features at the right time. He went on to discuss why PM can become stale, be ignored, and is often hated because it is associated with excessive documentation, which it shouldn’t be. Mentioning more than once that the best feature requests, requirements, and specs are often just one sentence.
[...]
His basic points about why every project can benefit from PM are:
  • It takes 30 secs to write a requirement
  • 2 minutes to clarify in discussion
  • 5 min to for an engineer to spec
  • Hours or days to prototype, write code, integrate, or deploy it
[...]
As my notes are often just a list of key points that caught my attention, I will do as I often do and share some favorites.
  • How to write a good requirement… “The user should be able to…”
  • How to respond with a good spec… “The user can do that by… doing X… List the exceptions”
  • A spec is well written when QA can figure out how to test a feature based on the spec.
  • Doesn’t encourage people to shotgun tons of things to market. “When I make spaghetti, I try not to throw all of it against the wall.”
  • On gathering data, go out and talk to people getting more data points about the problem you are solving until you start hearing the same things and can’t learn more from talking. Then go work on it, knowing all this data.
  • Niel doesn’t recommend a developer also taking on the role of PM, as there needs to be a tension between who represents the user and who implements the product.
  • “The PM should be the most empowered employee in your company… Yes, even more than the CEO”
I've uploaded the actual presentation to Google Docs:

Labels: ,

Extravagant Pensions Are Killing General Motors

Roger Lowenstein, writing in the New York Times, argues that extravagant pensions are killing General Motors — which is fairly uncontentious — before veering into brazenly political and self-contradictory territory:
The sorry decline of General Motors has proved Reuther right: the government is the better provider of social insurance. Let industry worry about selling products.

Unhappily, however, the fate of many public-sector pension plans is even worse than G.M.’s. Responding to the same temptation to offload expenses into the future, public employers have committed to trillions of dollars in future liabilities. In New Jersey, a huge pension liability has created a budgetary nightmare for the state. The city of Vallejo, Calif., burdened by police pensions, recently filed for bankruptcy.

Just as G.M.’s shareholders bore the burdens of its pensions, states and cities will have to force taxpayers to sacrifice in the form of service cuts, tax increases or both.
(Emphasis mine.)

Labels: ,

Amazon Kindle Sales on the Rise?

Are Amazon Kindle sales on the rise?
According to a source at Amazon, "on a title-by-title basis, of the 130,000 titles available on Kindle and in physical form, Kindle sales now make up over 12% of sales for those titles." Amazon is notoriously tight lipped about sales data, and the new line of business that the Kindle represents for the online retail powerhouse has been especially frustrating for analysts and media to parse. At a technology trade conference in May, CEO Jeff Bezos said that Kindle sales accounted for 6% of book titles sold for the Kindle and in print. So Amazon appears to be selling more e-books.
[...]
A couple of things could explain the uptick. The Kindle quickly sold out shortly after it was unveiled on Amazon at the end of 2007. However, the company recently cranked up supply to meet demand, and cut the price at the end of May from $399 to $359. Some analysts estimate Kindle sales at around 55,000 a month.

Labels: ,

Monday, July 07, 2008

UFC 86 fighter paydays and salaries

I found the UFC 86 fighter paydays and salaries interesting:
Forrest Griffin — $250,000 ($100,000 to show, $150,000 to win)
Quinton “Rampage” Jackson — $225,000
Griffin defeated Jackson via unanimous decision

Patrick Cote — $32,000 ($16,000 to show, $16,000 to win)
Ricardo Almeida — $23,000
Cote defeated Almeida via split decision

Joe Stevenson — $60,000 ($30,000 to show, $30,000 to win)
Gleison Tibau — $11,000
Stevenson defeated Tibau via submission (guillotine choke) in round two

Josh Koscheck — $70,000 ($35,000 to show, $35,000 to win)
Chris Lytle — $14,000
Koscheck defeated Lytle via unanimous decision

Melvin Guillard — $20,000 ($10,000 to show, $10,000 to win)
Dennis Siver — $7,000
Guillard defeated Siver via technical knockout (strikes) in round one

Tyson Griffin — $40,000 ($20,000 to show, $20,000 to win)
Marcus Aurelio — $40,000
Griffin defeated Aurelio via unanimous decision

Cole Miller — $20,000 ($10,000 to show, $10,000 to win)
Jorge Gurgel — $10,000
Miller defeated Gurgel via submission (triangle choke) in round three

Justin Buchholz — $8,000 ($4,000 to show, $4,000 to win)
Corey Hill — $8,000
Buchholz defeated Hill via submission (rear naked choke) in round two

Gabriel Gonzaga — $100,000 ($50,000 to show, $50,000 to win)
Justin McCully — $5,000
Gonzaga defeated McCully via submission (kimura) in round one
Those numbers don't include bonuses:
Fight of the Night: Forrest Griffin vs. Rampage Jackson
Submission of the Night: Cole Miller
Knockout of the Night: Melvin Guillard

Each fighter received $60,000 for their efforts in addition to their respective base salaries.

Labels: ,

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Brilliant or a sham? Questions asked over Ingrid Betancourt rescue

Kidnapping is big business and has been for some time, but no one wants to admit that they pay off — and thus encourage — kidnappers.

It didn't take long for some to wonder, Was the Ingrid Betancourt rescue brilliant or a sham?
Swiss public radio cited an unidentified source “close to the events, reliable and tested many times in recent years" as saying the operation had in fact been staged to cover up the fact that the US and Colombians had paid $20 million for their freedom. [...]
French media have also raised questions about Ms Betancourt’s relatively healthy appearance after her release, compared with the gaunt and haggard look of her last video from captivity. French state radio suggested the hostages may have been given food and medicine to return them to health before their release. There was no suggestion that the hostages knew they were to be released.

Dominique Moisi, one of France's leading foreign policy experts, said that it was “probable” that the Farc had been paid money as part of the "infiltration" of their command. “They were bought in order to turn them around, like Mafia chiefs," he said on French state television, as Ms Betancourt's plane was taxiing up to the terminal in Paris.
This wouldn't be the first time a Latin American regime faked a rescue operation.

Labels: , ,

Can a freight train really move a ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of fuel?

American freight trains move a ton of freight 436 miles on a gallon of fuel:
According to our calculations, which match the [Association of American Railroads]'s tally exactly, the nation's seven major railroad companies reported the following for 2007:
  • Moving 1,770,545,245,000 ton-miles of freight

  • Consuming 4,062,025,082 gallons of diesel fuel (including freight trains and trains in switching yards, but excluding passenger trains)
The average works out to be 435.88 ton-miles per gallon of fuel.
[...]
The rail industry says its fuel efficiency has increased by 85 percent since 1980. It attributes that to factors that include using new and more efficient locomotives, training engineers to conserve fuel, using computers to assemble trains more efficiently in the yard and to plan trips more efficiently to avoid congestion, and reducing the amount of time engines are idling.

Labels: ,

Friday, July 04, 2008

BrandWeek on TapouT

I've been astonished over the past few years by just how mainstream MMA has become. I can remember seeing the TapouT crew in their buffoonish costumes years ago, at small King of the Cage fighting events on Indian reservations in California. They seemed like a joke. They still do, but BrandWeek looks at their amazing growth:
Sales
2005: $3 million
2006: $12 million
2007: $22.5 million
2008: $100 million (projected)
2009: $225 million (projected)
Oh, and they have negligible competition.

Like I said, I can remember the early days:
By 1997, the pair had quit their jobs to start TapouT, the first such apparel company for the MMA world. A Web-only business, its sales grew from a meager $29,000 to $3 million by 2005. In those days, before the sport had really taken off, the brand made a name for itself by sponsoring athletes with amazing ease. Caldwell remembers being able to outfit some early fighters in head-to-toe TapouT looks for a mere $500. But as the sport grew, so did TapouT, and it was time for the next phase.
Then they brought in marketer Marc Kreiner and got funding from PemGroup.

They now have an almost unwatchable reality show, which, of course, serves as one long commercial for their brand. It's not unwatchable to everybody though; 100 fans have sent in photos of their TapouT tattoos.

(Hat tip to Robert Joyner at MMAPayout.)

Labels: ,

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Rules to Keep Your Skin in a Wall Street Massacre

Michael Lewis (Liar's Poker, Moneyball) has written some amusing rules to keep your skin in Wall Street massacre:
The first thing you need to know about recessions is that they don't signal the end of anything on Wall Street.

They're more like a red flag during a Formula One race: The cars coast gently around the track until the wreckage is cleared whereupon they all roar off as if the accident never happened. The difference is that, on Wall Street, it's possible to make the disaster work for you.

You can inch your car quietly forward so, when the race recommences, you're its surprise leader.
Rule No. 1: Betray your employer before your employer betrays you.
Chances are, if you work on Wall Street, you work for some giant corporation. Citigroup Inc., say, or Merrill Lynch & Co. The sheer size of these firms may convince you that they are, essentially, secure, that there is no better place to ride out a storm than among the tens of thousands of fellow employees.

This is a mistake.

No Safety in Numbers

There's seldom any safety in numbers, and the more parlous the situation, the more dangerous it is to be in it with a lot of other people. London during an outbreak of the bubonic plague, the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina, the New Jersey suburbs: People are always clustering together precisely where and when they should not.

In World War I, hordes of men charged directly into machine- gun fire, no doubt reassured that they weren't alone.
The hole you should crawl into, he says, is a hedge fund.

Rule No. 2: Remember what you are selling.
No matter what you've told yourself in good times, to justify the huge paychecks you have received, you aren't selling actual money-making expertise. For decades, brokers and money managers as a group have underperformed the market. Yet ordinary investors continue to solicit their advice and pay them for their services. Why?

Greed, contrary to popular belief, isn't what keeps this strange wheel spinning. Greed eventually gropes its way to self- interest. In good times, the dominant psychological impulse can be mistaken for greed but what's really going on is that a lot of people are worried everyone else is getting rich and they aren't.

At the bottom of the Wall Street money machine isn't greed but anxiety. [...] A calm investor is one who might think twice before investing in your hedge fund.

You need to learn to talk to investors in new ways. To frighten them so terribly that they feel compelled to pay someone to hold their sweaty hands.
Rule No. 3: Hide your motives.
Or, specifically, minimize the appearance of financial interest.

Don't tell anyone how well you're doing for yourself, for example, not even women you have just met. Recessions blow in with them a general backlash against worldly pleasures and material obsessions.

You must reckon with this shift in public values, for it will occur even on Wall Street, and threaten to expose your ambition as freakish. A lot of people you thought you knew are about to rediscover what's important in life: wife, kids, the love of one's fellow man. But you are not.

Don't worry: it's temporary. This is still America.

Labels:

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The End-of-the-World Trade

Donald MacKenzie looks at the End-of-the-World Trade — which only really pays off if the economy totally collapses — and explains why it would become popular:
All this activity [in CDOs and credit indices] explains the attractiveness of the end-of-the-world trade. The trade is the buying and selling of protection on the safest, super-senior tranches of the investment-grade indices. No one buys protection on these tranches because they are looking for a big pay-out if capitalism crumbles: if nothing else, they have no reason to expect that the institution that sold them protection would survive the carnage and be able to make the pay-out. Instead, they are looking to hedge their exposure to movements in the credit market, especially in correlation. Traders need to demonstrate they’ve done this before they’re allowed to book the profits on their deals, so from their viewpoint it’s worth buying protection, for example from ‘monolines’ (bond insurers), even if the latter would almost certainly be insolvent well before any pay-out on the protection was due.
So many financial decisions are made for less-than-obvious reasons:
Processes of this kind [e.g., unwinding highly levered positions to avoid catastrophic losses] — changes internal to the world of credit derivatives, not in the level of the risks being insured against — have meant that investment-grade indices sometimes move by up to 20 per cent in a single day. At times, the price of end-of-the-world insurance has corresponded to utterly implausible correlation levels in excess of 90 per cent: meaning, in effect, that if one investment-grade corporation were to default, almost all of them would.

Why aren’t such mispricings being corrected by savvy investors, eager to seize the opportunities for profit they create? Why, for example, have people not been selling end-of-the-world insurance when the returns from doing so have jumped ten-fold while the risk of having to pay out remains small? A crucial part of the answer is that, paradoxically, a fact-generating mechanism is blocking the restoration of fact. The mechanism is ‘marking-to-market’, the compulsory revaluation of portfolios as market prices fluctuate. Its motivation is entirely sensible: for example, when regulators insist that banks mark-to-market, it should force them to disclose losses to their investors and creditors.

Unfortunately, however, marking-to-market makes market participants extremely sensitive to short-term price fluctuations. To sell end-of-the-world insurance, for example, is almost certainly an excellent long-term bet, but traders don’t do it because of the fear that in the short run its price may increase even further, causing a mark-to-market loss. Although it would be a paper loss, it would have real consequences, damaging your bank’s balance sheet and profits, threatening your bonus, and typically forcing you to transfer valuable collateral to the custody of the buyer of the insurance.

Labels:

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Devo is suing McDonald's

Post-punk pioneer band Devo is suing McDonald's over its New Wave Nigel Happy Meal doll, which sports the band's signature red flower pot hat:
In April the fast food chain released a series of American Idol Happy Meal toys in the US based on a range of music genres, including Disco Dave, Country Clay, Rockin' Riley and Soulful Selma.

Devo's complaint relates to New Wave Nigel, a toy kitted out in an orange jumpsuit, pink shades, and Devo's "energy dome" hat.
[...]
"This New Wave Nigel doll that they've created is just a complete Devo rip-off and the red hat is exactly the red hat that I designed, and it's copyrighted and trademarked.

"They didn't ask us anything. Plus, we don't like McDonald's, and we don't like American Idol, so we're doubly offended."
(Hat tip to BoingBoing.)

Labels: ,

Go Home, Bill

Cringely says, Go Home, Bill:
The last two executive actions on the part of Bill Gates that had singular effects on the future of Microsoft were: 1) his 1995 Think Week that resulted in Microsoft shifting course to flow with the "Internet Tidal Wave," ultimately destroying Netscape, and; 2) his 1988 decision to back Jeff Raikes' proposal to bundle most of Microsoft's productivity applications into what they called Microsoft Office, which effectively destroyed all Microsoft's competitors for shrink-wrapped applications. The first action was that of a strong chief executive operating at the very top of his game while the second was that of a major shareholder who was willing to accept lower earnings in the short term for the long-term success of his investment.

These were radical and dynamic positions to take that resulted in creating thousands of millionaires in the greatest peacetime transfer of wealth since OPEC. But they were also 13 and 20 years ago, respectively. If Gates took another Think Week and determined Microsoft's future lay in baked goods or virtualization, could he turn the entire company toward one or both of those product directions today? I don't think so.

No one person can control Microsoft today, which has been obvious to Gates for at least eight years, since that's how long ago he put Steve Ballmer in the CEO job. For at least eight years, then, these guys have known that their jobs are not so much to steer the Microsoft ship as to try and keep it from drifting onto the rocks. That's the way it is with huge and successful companies. At best you can trim the sails, because to come about (to significantly shift direction) is just too dangerous for the money machine.

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Glory Days

Joel Spolsky looks back at his time at Microsoft, during its glory days in the early 90s, when Bill Gates himself would read a spec and grill the designer:
He was flipping through my spec! (Calm down; what are you, a teenager?) And there were notes in all the margins! On every page! He had read the Whole Darn Thing!

As the conversation went on, Bill's questions got harder and more detailed. And they seemed a little bit random. But I didn't care. By now I was used to thinking of Bill as my buddy — a nice guy who had read my spec. In my head, I was already thinking of how I would address his comments, pronto.

Finally, the killer question. "I don't know, you guys," Bill said. "Is anyone really looking into all the details of how to do this? Like, all those date and time functions. Excel has so many date and time functions. Is BASIC going to have the same functions? Will they all work the same way?"

This was exactly the question I had spent the previous day investigating. And as I had discovered, there was a discrepancy. In both Excel and BASIC, each date was assigned a numeric code. The code for any day in 1992 that I looked up was the same in both. But when I looked up a date around the turn of the last century, Excel and BASIC were one digit apart. Huh?

When I went to find someone who might be able to help, I was directed to Ed Fries, a longtime Excel programmer famous for inventing those screen savers with the swimming fish. I hadn't had much contact with Ed, but I used to see him every Friday afternoon as he played miniature golf in the hallways outside my office.

"Check out February 28, 1900," he told me.

Its number in the Excel code was 59.

"Now try March 1."

Its number was 61.

"What happened to 60?" Ed asked.

"It's February 29!" I said proudly. "1900 was a leap year!"

"Nope," Ed said, and left me pondering the problem for a little while longer. I eventually figured out, with some more guidance from Ed, that a group of programmers at Lotus had skipped a day in 1900 because it created a mathematical shortcut for them, and they probably figured that nobody would care about a mistake buried in the software's internal calendar more than 90 years in the past. The people who made Excel hadn't cared at all and built the bug into the code that the spreadsheets ran on. But the people who had written the code for BASIC had apparently been offended by the shortcut, so they set the start of their internal calendar a day earlier. That way, it would accurately reflect the actual calendar, but the solution was also practical. Because BASIC started its count a day earlier, the number that BASIC assigned to March 1, 1900, was also 61, and from that point on its date and time functions were aligned with Excel's.

So were the date and time functions compatible?

"Yes," I told Bill. "The dates are exactly the same, except for January and February 1900."

Silence. The F Counter and my boss exchanged astonished glances. How did I know that?

"OK. Well, good work," said Bill. He took his marked-up copy of the spec…wait! I wanted that…and left.

"Four," announced the F Counter, and someone said, "Wow, that's the lowest I can remember. Bill is getting mellow in his old age." He was, at the time, 36. Later, I had it all explained to me. "Bill doesn't really want to review your spec," a colleague told me. "He just wants to make sure you've got it under control. His standard MO is to ask harder and harder questions until you admit that you don't know, and then he can yell at you for being unprepared. Nobody was really sure what happens if you answer the hardest question he can come up with, because it's never happened before."

What did I take from all this? Bill Gates was amazingly technical, and he knew more about the details of his company's software than most of the people who worked on those details day in and day out. He understood Variants and COM objects and IDispatch and why Automation is different than vtables -- and why this might lead to dual interfaces. He worried about date and time functions. He didn't meddle in software if he trusted the people who were working on it, but you couldn't bullshit him for a minute because he was a programmer. A real, actual programmer.

Watching nonprogrammers trying to run software companies is like watching someone who doesn't know how to surf trying to surf. Even if he has great advisers standing on the shore telling him what to do, he still falls off the board again and again. The cult of the M.B.A. likes to believe that you can run organizations that do things that you don't understand. But often, you can't.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Bulking Up: Japan's Drugmakers

When I saw the headline — Bulking Up: Japan's Drugmakers — I was expecting a story linking performance-enhancing drugs to Japan, but the story is about M&A:
On June 11 midsize Japanese drugmaker Daiichi Sankyo announced it would pay $4.6 billion for control of Ranbaxy Laboratories, India's largest maker of generic drugs. In doing so, Daiichi seems to have beat Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to the punch, gaining instant access to double-digit growth in India, China, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. If the deal goes forward, it will be a coup for the little-known Japanese company. "All the big pharmaceutical companies are talking about emerging markets as the next growth opportunities," says Stewart Adkins, head of London-based consultancy Stewart Adkins Advisors.

It looks like they'll have to get used to a more competitive field. The Ranbaxy deal is the third multibillion-dollar overseas acquisition by a Japanese drugmaker in the past seven months. Eisai paid $3.9 billion in December for MGI Pharma of Bloomington, Minn. And Takeda shelled out a hefty $8.8 billion for Cambridge (Mass.)-based biotech Millennium Pharmaceuticals in early April.
The regulatory environment is shifting in Japan, and that is prompting the change in behavior:
Coming regulatory changes in Japan's universal health-care system may further fuel the trend. For years, policymakers have protected the domestic drug industry. By setting medication prices relatively high and erecting clinical trial hurdles for foreign drug products, the government set the stage for one of the world's most crowded, least international markets. At last count, there were 1,200 drugmakers.

The government also has failed to encourage patients to enroll in clinical trials or to increase its number of drug reviewers. Getting a new drug approved often takes up to 22 months, vs. an average of 10 months in the U.S.

Regulatory reforms would allow more low-cost generic drugs into the market and make it easier for foreign drugmakers to get their products cleared. But that means Japan's domestic companies will have to work a lot harder—and for that, they will need some bulk. Takeda, the biggest in the group, ranked 17th in global sales last year, according to researcher IMS Health. Each of the world's Big Three—Pfizer, Glaxo, and Novartis—posted revenues that were more than double Takeda's. And all the Japanese drug companies combined account for just 10% of the $700 billion global industry. Ranbaxy won't level the field. But it won't be the last deal.

Labels: ,

Technology: It's Where the Jobs Are

The technology sector is where the jobs are:
The highest concentration of technology workers — 286 for every 1,000 workers — was in, no surprise, Silicon Valley. Boulder, Colo., came in second, with 230, and Huntsville, Ala.; Durham, N.C.; and Washington rounded out the top five in density.

Now for the answer to the question on everyone's mind: Where are the highest salaries? That would be Silicon Valley, where the average tech worker is paid $144,000 a year. That's nearly double the $80,000 national average for tech jobs. Runners up included San Francisco and Oakland, Calif. Austin, Tex., home of Dell came in fourth, and Seattle was fifth. San Juan, Puerto Rico, had the lowest salaries, with an average of $38,000 a year, but living expenses there are also considerably lower.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 20, 2008

Hustle & Flow

Every time I travel, I think to myself, Please let me redesign this system! Hustle & Flow looks at Alaska Airlines' Airport of the Future:
The carrier has spent more than a decade designing a better way to get customers through airport check-in, debuting the first iteration in its Anchorage terminal in 2004. Last October, the $3.3 billion carrier began rolling out its redesign in Seattle, where Alaska and its sister airline, Horizon, have almost 50% market share. The project, to be completed in May, has already reduced wait times and increased agent productivity. "People come to the airport expecting to stand in line," says Ed White, Alaska's VP of corporate real estate, who ran the project. "It's an indictment of our industry."

Alaska's embrace of the future came out of necessity. By the mid-1990s, it was running out of space to handle its Seattle passengers. "If you came here on a busy day, it was jammed," White says. A new terminal, though, would have cost around $500 million. Alaska tried self-serve kiosks, but technology alone wasn't the answer. Kiosks were pushed against the ticket counter, which only further stagnated the flow of passengers.

White assembled a team of employees from across the company to design a better system. It visited theme parks, hospitals, and retailers to see what it could learn. It found less confusion and shorter waits at places where employees were available to direct customers. "Disneyland is great at this," says Jeff Anderson, a member of White's skunk works. "They have their people in all the right places."

The team began brainstorming lobby ideas. At a Seattle warehouse, it built mock-ups, using cardboard boxes for podiums, kiosks, and belts. It tested a curved design, one resembling a fishbone, and one with counters placed at 90-degree angles to each other. It built a small prototype in Anchorage to test systems with real passengers and Alaska employees. The resulting minor changes, such as moving the button that sends a bag down the conveyor belt, "increased agents' efficiency and prevented them from straining themselves," says Gordon Edberg, a principal at ECH Architecture who helped implement the adjustments.

The Seattle design begins with a deep lobby where 50 kiosks are pushed to the front and concentrated in banks. "You need to cluster kiosks in the 'decision zones' where passengers decide what to do within 15 seconds," says airline technology expert Kevin Peterson. Alaska placed "lobby coordinators" out front, à la Disneyland, to help educate travelers. The 56 bag-drop stations are further back and arranged so that passengers can see security.

The results? During my two hours of observation in Seattle, an Alaska agent processed 46 passengers, while her counterpart at United managed just 22. United's agents lose precious time hauling bags and walking the length of the ticket counter to reach customers. Alaska agents stand at a station with belts on each side, assisting one passenger while a second traveler places luggage on the free belt. With just a slight turn, the agent can assist the next customer. "We considered having three belts," White says. "But then the agent has to take a step. That's wasted time."

The new design will create significant cost savings. Seventy-three percent of Alaska's Anchorage passengers now check in using kiosks or the Web, compared with just 50% across the airline industry. Forrester Research estimates that it costs airlines $3.02 to process a passenger using an agent but only between 14 and 32 cents for self-service. Alaska, then, is likely to save almost $8 million a year on the Seattle terminal if it converts customers the way it has in Anchorage. And the makeover cost just $28 million. "This design will take us to 2017, at least," White says.
It cost just $28 million to make over the Seattle terminal versus $500 million to build a new one.

The question is, Why does it take so long to bring in a bit of operations expertise when the problem is so glaring?

Labels:

Thursday, June 19, 2008

The Electric Car Lives

The Electric Car Lives, Matt Vella of BusinessWeek claims, in the form of Think Global's new Ox:
An electrified people's car for the 21st century, the Ox is a preview of Think's next-generation production vehicle, due out in 2011. Roughly the size of a Toyota Prius, the Ox can travel between 125 and 155 miles before needing a recharge, and zips from zero to 60 miles per hour in about 8.5 seconds. Its lithium-ion batteries can be charged to 80% capacity in less than an hour, and slender solar panels integrated into the roof power the onboard electronics. Inside, the hatchback includes a bevy of high-tech gizmos such as GPS navigation, a mobile Internet connection, and a key fob that lets drivers customize the car's all-digital dashboard. Pricing has yet to be announced, but the company's current vehicles cost less than $25,000.
What about the name Ox says zippy little town car?

By the way, this stat puts some things in perspective:
Still, the American market for electric vehicles "is virtually nonexistent," says John O'Dell, a senior editor specializing in green vehicles for car-buying site Edmunds.com. Even well-established gas-electric hybrids such as the Prius and Honda's Civic account for barely 3% of U.S. auto sales.

Labels: ,

Monday, June 09, 2008

What's Good for Apple Is Better for Everyone Else

What's Good for Apple Is Better for Everyone Else:
Sales show that what's been good for Apple has been verrrry good for smartphone makers. Retail sales of the BlackBerry, for example, are up 38 percent in the year since the iPhone's introduction.

It didn't initially look that way. When the iPhone 2 rumors first surfaced, nervous investors sold off shares of RIM under the assumption that the company would get creamed by Apple. Instead, RIM's market share of smartphones in the United States has actually swelled from 35 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007 to 45 percent in the first quarter of 2008.

Labels: ,

Friday, June 06, 2008

The Moral Life of Cubicles

The Moral Life of Cubicles looks at their "cybernetic" origins as a tool to create equality, creativity, and collaboration in the workplace:
The cubicle has its roots in the cybernetic school of thought that arose in the middle of the last century. The meaning of “cybernetics” has largely been swept up in the exuberant imagery of movies and commercials with their glowing rivers of ones and zeros flowing through the air. However, cybernetics has an older and deeper history, predating both the personal computer and the cubicle. Fred Turner’s recent book, From Counterculture to Cyberculture, shows how the cybernetic idea of seeing the world in terms of information flows grew out of government-sponsored World War II military research and into the information technology industry of Silicon Valley. In the 1960s and 1970s, cybernetic ideas brought groups of military-funded computer researchers together with Deadheads, radical environmentalists, and art communards in the San Francisco Bay area. This collection of long-haired eccentrics began to think of everything from bee behavior to dance parties to computer programming as information processes. In doing so, they liberated the images of information and the computer from the clutches of the military-industrial complex, joining them instead to a new cybernetic-counterculture vision of egalitarianism, communal networks, and democratic “people power.”

Architecture textbooks and journals in the 1960s and 1970s began to talk about a new “cybernetic” idea of the office. Starting with the assumption that offices were fundamentally places for the exchange of information, advocates of the cybernetic office aimed to eliminate walls that stop the “free flow of ideas,” replacing them with cubicle workstations. If the pictures in cubicle advertisements of the time are any indication, cubicles helped ideas flow quite freely indeed. Employees in these ads lack computers, to say nothing of e-mail and the Internet, yet they always seem caught in moments of frenzied, often low-tech, information exchange: pointing to each other across the room, handing papers over and around the burnt orange (“aesthetically pleasing and humanly satisfying”) partitions, all while talking on the phone and jotting down notes.

As California computer companies grew into large businesses, then, cubicles were their natural office form. It was through these companies that cubicles first entered the public imagination. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, business sections of newspapers and magazines described the radical work arrangements of Silicon Valley with curiosity and often breathless enthusiasm. Intel served as the chief example of the creative and egalitarian cubicle workplace. The company had no time cards, no dress codes, no assigned parking spots, no special cafeterias for executives, and above all, no offices, just a sea of half-wall partitions. The long, low buildings of Intel were fields of shared labor, like the communal farms that had so recently dotted the hills around Intel’s campus. CEO Andrew Grove, hip and casual in an open-necked wide-collar shirt and gold chains, was an unpretentious man of the people. He moved among the workers of Intel “empowering” them to do their jobs, and sat at a cubicle at one side of the vast work floor ready to help. Most incredible of all (and unlike the communal farms) this social experiment was economically viable. In a time when the great industrial giants were falling to Japanese competition, Intel was making money hand over fist. For some observers of American business, the Intel office model seemed like a savior. In The Atlantic, James Fallows asked the question on the minds of so many who dared to hope for the future of American industry, “Could the tire companies, the machine tool makers, the color TV industry, learn to work this way?”

Labels:

Sunday, June 01, 2008

A freelance lifestyle in a corporate workplace

Workers at Best Buy found out that you can have a freelance lifestyle in a corporate workplace:
Picture an office where no meeting is mandatory and employees can come and go as they please as long as they get the job done.

"Too good to be true," most cubicle occupants would probably say, but an upcoming book about this results-only work environment is not fiction. In fact, authors Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson pioneered the concept while working at consumer electronics chain Best Buy Co Inc, which now makes the option available to about 3,000 of its 4,000 corporate staffers.

In Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It (Portfolio, $23.95), Ressler and Thompson maintain that time — or control over it — heals many corporate wounds.

Too often, they say, a company will treat employees like children incapable of working without supervision, while promoting mediocre performers simply because they put in a lot of time at their desks. Meanwhile, the traditional work week of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday no longer serves the needs of many customers.

In a results-oriented work environment (ROWE), however, a company focuses exclusively on job performance, rather than work schedules or office politics. At Best Buy, productivity has increased, and fewer of the employees that the company wanted to retain have left, although "involuntary" turnover rates have increased as unsatisfactory workers were exposed.

Employees can do their jobs at home or in Starbucks, first thing in the morning or in the middle of the night. One of the hallmarks of a ROWE is that a person who goes home at 2 p.m. is not leaving early, while someone who arrives at that time is not late.

The book, which is set for publication on Monday, includes the story of an e-learning specialist who typically wakes up without an alarm and does at least some of his work at home in front of the television set. Meanwhile, a dot-com employee has been able to spend more time with her son.

The authors have gone on to apply the ROWE concept at a small financial services company in Wisconsin through CultureRx, the consulting firm they have founded.

Labels:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: the prophet of boom and doom

Bryan Appleyard, writing in the Times, calls Nassim Nicholas Taleb the prophet of boom and doom:
Last May, Taleb published The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. It said, among many other things, that most economists, and almost all bankers, are subhuman and very, very dangerous. They live in a fantasy world in which the future can be controlled by sophisticated mathematical models and elaborate risk-management systems. Bankers and economists scorned and raged at Taleb. He didn’t understand, they said. A few months later, the full global implications of the sub-prime-driven credit crunch became clear. The world banking system still teeters on the edge of meltdown. Taleb had been vindicated. “It was my greatest vindication. But to me that wasn’t a black swan; it was a white swan. I knew it would happen and I said so. It was a black swan to Ben Bernanke [the chairman of the Federal Reserve]. I wouldn’t use him to drive my car. These guys are dangerous. They’re not qualified in their own field.”

In December he lectured bankers at Société Générale, France’s second biggest bank. He told them they were sitting on a mountain of risks – a menagerie of black swans. They didn’t believe him. Six weeks later the rogue trader and black swan Jérôme Kerviel landed them with $7.2 billion of losses.

As a result, Taleb is now the hottest thinker in the world. He has a $4m advance on his next book. He gives about 30 presentations a year to bankers, economists, traders, even to Nasa, the US Fire Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. But he doesn’t tell them what to do – he doesn’t know. He just tells them how the world is. “I’m not a guru. I’m just describing a problem and saying, ‘You deal with it.’”
It seems he has embraced an important criticism of his work and presented it as a strength: he describes the hubris of quantitative analysts, but he doesn't suggest a better way to analyze the world.

Anyway, as much as I enjoyed The Black Swan, I can't say it added much to Fooled by Randomness, which leaves me wondering how much his next book — which has earned him a $4-million advance — will add to the previous two.

The writer, Appleyard, is clearly fascinated by Taleb's evolutionary fitness routine, which he picked up from Art De Vany:
But the biggest rule of all is his eccentric and punishing diet and exercise programme. He’s been on it for three months and he’s lost 20lb. He’s following the thinking of Arthur De Vany, an economist – of the acceptable type – turned fitness guru. The theory is that we eat and exercise according to our evolved natures. Early man did not eat carbs, so they’re out. He did not exercise regularly and he did not suffer long-term stress by having an annoying boss. Exercise must be irregular and ferocious – Taleb often does four hours in the gym or 360 press-ups and then nothing for 10 days. Jogging is useless; sprinting is good. He likes to knacker himself completely before a long flight. Stress should also be irregular and ferocious – early men did not have bad bosses, but they did occasionally run into lions.

He’s always hungry. At both lunches he orders three salads, which he makes me share. Our conversation swings from high philosophy and low economics back to dietary matters like mangoes – bad – and apples – good as long as they are of an old variety. New ones are bred for sugar content. His regime works. He looks great – springy and fit. He shows me an old identity card. He is fat and middle-aged in the photo. He looks 10 years younger than that. “Look at me! That photo was taken seven years ago. No carbs!”
I wouldn't describe an evolutionary fitness routine as "eccentric and punishing" — because it's not particularly punishing at all.

This is odd:
Startlingly, this great sceptic, this non-guru who believes in nothing, is still a practising Christian. He regards with some contempt the militant atheism movement led by Richard Dawkins.

“Scientists don’t know what they are talking about when they talk about religion. Religion has nothing to do with belief, and I don’t believe it has any negative impact on people’s lives outside of intolerance. Why do I go to church? It’s like asking, why did you marry that woman? You make up reasons, but it’s probably just smell. I love the smell of candles. It’s an aesthetic thing.”

Take away religion, he says, and people start believing in nationalism, which has killed far more people. Religion is also a good way of handling uncertainty. It lowers blood pressure. He’s convinced that religious people take fewer financial risks.
This parable is silly, almost trite, but instructive:
Let me introduce you to Brooklyn-born Fat Tony and academically inclined Dr John, two of Taleb’s creations. You toss a coin 40 times and it comes up heads every time. What is the chance of it coming up heads the 41st time? Dr John gives the answer drummed into the heads of every statistic student: 50/50. Fat Tony shakes his head and says the chances are no more than 1%. “You are either full of crap,” he says, “or a pure sucker to buy that 50% business. The coin gotta be loaded.”
Here's how Taleb stumbled into his millions:
In 1985, Taleb discovered how he could play Fat Tony in the markets. France, Germany, Japan, Britain and America signed an agreement to push down the value of the dollar. Taleb was working as an options trader at a French bank. He held options that had cost him almost nothing and that bet on the dollar’s decline. Suddenly they were worth a fortune. He became obsessed with buying “out of the money” options. He had realised that when markets rise they tend to rise by small amounts, but when they fall – usually hit by a black swan – they fall a long way.

The big payoff came on October 19, 1987 – Black Monday. It was the biggest market drop in modern history. “That had vastly more influence on my thought than any other event in history.”

It was a huge black swan – nobody had expected it, not even Taleb. But the point was, he was ready. He was sitting on a pile of out-of-the-money eurodollar options. So, while others were considering suicide, Taleb was sitting on profits of $35m to $40m. He had what he calls his “f***-off money”, money that would allow him to walk away from any job and support him in his long-term desire to be a writer and philosopher.
In the middle of a crisis, this certainly seems true:
“Complex systems don’t allow for slack and everybody protects that system. The banking system doesn’t have that slack. In a normal ecology, banks go bankrupt every day. But in a complex system there is a tendency to cluster around powerful units. Every bank becomes the same bank so they can all go bust together.”

He points out, chillingly, that banks make money from two sources. They take interest on our current accounts and charge us for services. This is easy, safe money. But they also take risks, big risks, with the whole panoply of loans, mortgages, derivatives and any other weird scam they can dream up. “Banks have never made a penny out of this, not a penny. They do well for a while and then lose it all in a big crash.”
[...]
“Governments and policy makers don’t understand the world in which we live, so if somebody is going to destroy the world, it is the Bank of England saving Northern Rock. The biggest danger to human society comes from civil servants in an environment like this. In their attempt to control the ecology, they don’t understand that the link between action and consequences can be more vicious. Civil servants say they need to make forecasts, but it’s totally irresponsible to make people rely on you without telling them you’re incompetent.”

Bear Stearns – the US Northern Rock – was another vindication for Taleb. He’s always said that whatever deal you do, you always end up dealing with J P Morgan. It was JPM that picked up Bear at a bargain-basement price. Banks should be more like New York restaurants. They come and go but the restaurant business as a whole survives and thrives and the food gets better. Banks fail but bankers still get millions in bonuses for applying their useless models. Restaurants tinker, they work by trial and error and watch real results in the real world. Taleb believes in tinkering – it was to be the title of his next book. Trial and error will save us from ourselves because they capture benign black swans. Look at the three big inventions of our time: lasers, computers and the internet. They were all produced by tinkering and none of them ended up doing what their inventors intended them to do. All were black swans. The big hope for the world is that, as we tinker, we have a capacity for choosing the best outcomes.
So, what does Taleb recommend?
Well, the good investment strategy is to put 90% of your money in the safest possible government securities and the remaining 10% in a large number of high-risk ventures. This insulates you from bad black swans and exposes you to the possibility of good ones. Your smallest investment could go “convex” – explode – and make you rich. High-tech companies are the best. The downside risk is low if you get in at the start and the upside very high. Banks are the worst – all the risk is downside. Don’t be tempted to play the stock market – “If people knew the risks they’d never invest.”
The article ends with Taleb's top life tips:
  1. Scepticism is effortful and costly. It is better to be sceptical about matters of large consequences, and be imperfect, foolish and human in the small and the aesthetic.

  2. Go to parties. You can’t even start to know what you may find on the envelope of serendipity. If you suffer from agoraphobia, send colleagues.

  3. It’s not a good idea to take a forecast from someone wearing a tie. If possible, tease people who take themselves and their knowledge too seriously.

  4. Wear your best for your execution and stand dignified. Your last recourse against randomness is how you act — if you can’t control outcomes, you can control the elegance of your behaviour. You will always have the last word.

  5. Don’t disturb complicated systems that have been around for a very long time. We don’t understand their logic. Don’t pollute the planet. Leave it the way we found it, regardless of scientific ‘evidence’.

  6. Learn to fail with pride — and do so fast and cleanly. Maximise trial and error — by mastering the error part.

  7. Avoid losers. If you hear someone use the words ‘impossible’, ‘never’, ‘too difficult’ too often, drop him or her from your social network. Never take ‘no’ for an answer (conversely, take most ‘yeses’ as ‘most probably’).

  8. Don’t read newspapers for the news (just for the gossip and, of course, profiles of authors). The best filter to know if the news matters is if you hear it in cafes, restaurants... or (again) parties.

  9. Hard work will get you a professorship or a BMW. You need both work and luck for a Booker, a Nobel or a private jet.

  10. Answer e-mails from junior people before more senior ones. Junior people have further to go and tend to remember who slighted them.
I find it mildly ironic that a man who rails against hubris asks us to "avoid losers" who say things are too difficult.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, May 31, 2008

What The F**k Is Dana White Fighting For?

What The F**k Is Dana White Fighting For? I'm not sure Erik Hedegaard, writing in Rolling Stone, answers the question, but I still find mainstream-media coverage of mixed martial arts interesting:
The way things are going, Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, may soon be hailed as the greatest sports promoter ever, of all time, bigger even than boxing's Don King, bigger even than pro wrestling's Vince McMahon.

He's taken mixed martial arts, a sport that was essentially moribund seven years ago — the bare-knuckle, anything-goes, kick-'em-in-the-kernels fights were outlawed in 36 states — and turned it into a moneymaking, crowd-frazzling sensation, a new heavyweight pay-per-view box-office champ. He accomplished this by using various business-savvy stratagems and dodges, but in a sense the inside mechanics are beside the point. How he did it really is by the force of his own multifaceted personality. At 38, he is profane, charming, ambitious, cunning, controlling, a whole lot of fun to hang around with, open like a book, closed like a fist. In fighters and fans, he inspires loyalty and fear, admiration and disgust. He has a shaved head. He wears skintight T-shirts. He looks badass, he talks badass, he is badass. In all respects, he has been the exact right guy to bring the UFC back from the dead.

Labels: ,

Games Girls Play

Brian Caulfield of Forbes discusses Games Girls Play — that is, the casual video games that adult women play:
Consumers paid $2.25 billion for such games last year, and the demand for titles like "Diner Dash" is growing 20% year-over-year, according to the Casual Gaming Association.

And while casual games appeal to everyone from pre-teens to old men (the world's richest man, Warren Buffet, 77, haunts online bridge parlors while using the handle "T-bone"), women over 35 are the most likely to pay for them; 75% percent of those who pay for casual games are women, and 72% are over 35 years old.

The result: The gaming industry is hustling to remake itself to please these paying customers.

Labels: ,

Dungeon Contraband

With Wizards of the Coast due to release the latest version of Dungeons & Dragons on June 6, Klaus Kneale of Forbes discusses Dungeon Contraband:
There have been blog entries about game prototypes, excerpts from the books, interviews with developers and sample adventures. Fans have devoured every morsel. ENWorld.org, a Web site that has covered everything about the release since it was announced August last year, is logging 10 million visits a month.

And fans have been taking notes. Careful notes. Andrew White, a 31-year-old in Calgary, Canada, compiled every rule and statistic mentioned in those tidbits and published his own "4th Edition Pre-Release Rules Compilation" reference. White's project turned into a massive engineering feat itself, going through 12 revisions involving 40 people, and consuming at least 150 hours of White's life. He released an 86-page final version on Thursday. In his spare time, White is working on a doctoral degree in archeology.

Even worse for Hasbro, just before midnight Wednesday, scans of the books appeared online, too. They weren't homebrewed rip-offs like the Chinese editions of Harry Potter — the muttering online is that they were stolen copies of the electronic printing proofs, grabbed when the manuscripts were sent to the printer in March. The clue: Some of the contraband pages have prepress design symbols and a notation that dates the files to 10 days before Wizards announced they had sent the final product off to the printer.

Wizards spokesperson Tolena Thorburn confirmed that the leaked online editions are real. "We are fairly confident that we’ve identified where the leak occurred, and are moving forward on handling it appropriately." The fairly specific nature of the material no doubt left a clear trail to this particular rogue.

Despite the free copies circulating, fans are buzzing on the Web about their plans to buy the books anyway. The purloined copies have even won a few new customers for Wizards: some bloggers who feigned disinterest in the fourth edition now say that the illegal copies have convinced them to buy the new version.

And then there are the slipups. Buy.com shipped out a chunk of the books pre-release. No more than 100 (less than 10% of Buy.com's total preorders for the books) shipped before the error was caught. But the lucky fans who got their copies early have been boasting about their treasure.

Buy.com’s vice president of marketing, Jeff Wisot, says his team is investigating whether there was a miscommunication over the publishing date. "The parties involved have been dealt with and there are consequences for breaking the street date," wrote Scott Rouse, senior brand manager for Dungeons & Dragons, in an online forum.

Labels: ,

Friday, May 30, 2008

Paul Van Riper's Recommended Reading

Monitor Talent presents a profile for retired Marine Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper — famous for his role as red team commanders in war games — in which he lists his recommended reading: He also lists web-sites:

Labels: ,

GooTube

Apparently GooTube is making money:
Google drew sneers when it paid $1.65 billion for YouTube in November 2006. Only 63 people worked at this little video distributor in San Bruno, Calif. It had minimal revenue but more clips, bigger buzz and a better user experience than Google.

Sneer no more. YouTube is bigger than ever. The Google people are taking over the place, and they've found the buttons on the cash register — vindication for YouTube's original crew, especially founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen. Or, rather, partial vindication, since the original managers have been largely replaced by Google apparatchiks.

The three-year-old YouTube site probably crossed a billion views per day worldwide a few months ago, exceeding even the lofty expectations by Google when it made the acquisition. (YouTube will only confirm it does hundreds of millions of views per day.) Thirty-eight percent of the video streamed on the Web now comes from YouTube, according to ComScore. No other player has more than 4%. Google owns the biggest television station on the planet. It will upload 600 years' worth of video this year.

"A studio declining to do business with YouTube would be like a cereal maker not dealing with Wal-Mart," says Bobby Tulsiani, a JupiterResearch analyst.

Google doesn't share numbers, but it appears that YouTube will generate $200 million this year and maybe $350 million the next. It's a mere 1% of Google's sales, but up from a minuscule amount last year. In YouTube's early days the main objective was to get eyeballs. Now it's to get ads. Web video ad spending will climb from $775 million last year to $1.35 billion this year, estimates Emarketer.
[...]
An ad on the YouTube home page, something Chad Hurley experimented with before Google bought YouTube, now costs $175,000 a day, plus a commitment to spend $50,000 more in ads on Google or YouTube.
[...]
Pricing for display advertising next to user-generated content has collapsed. Rates on sites such as Facebook, MySpace and YouTube have fallen 45% since February, to 18 cents per thousand page views, according to digital analytics outfit PubMatic. Most of the momentum now, says Chris B. Allen, director of video innovation at media buyer Starcom, is for ads within full episodes run on the TV networks' sites, such as NBC and Fox's Hulu, ABC.com and CBS.com. It's a format that advertisers understand.

That's why YouTube is pushing studios and networks for professionally produced content like movie trailers and TV clips. It also offers them branded channels, with customized backgrounds and well-selected video. Hundreds of channels are sold to advertisers such as Nestlé, Hanes, 3M, Procter & Gamble and Hewlett-Packard. These go for $200,000 apiece. Last December YouTube opened the program up to individuals, picking up a few thousand more places to run ads. MySpaceTV is building a similar branded arena where professionals can build channels with ads tucked in before, during or after their films roll.

YouTube has done a lot of experimenting with ad formats and found some surprises. Pre-roll video ads prior to the main video cause the audience to click away up to 70% of the time. Better: short banners that pop up from the bottom of the video window. The NBA channel runs rollover Patrón tequila ads that turn into a video how-to for making margaritas. "It's finally a way that advertisers can leverage the massive amount of video streams without the fear of being next to the soccer kid getting kicked in the nuts," says Davis Brewer, lead strategist for emerging channels for media planning firm Spark Communications. People click on those rollover ads 8 times as often as on standard display ads next to the video. The rollover ads are most effective if they appear 15 seconds into the video. Any earlier and people get turned off. When the rollover is run in tandem with a display ad next to the video box, the chance of someone clicking can be 46 times as good.

In March Google rolled out an analytic tool for users and advertisers called Insight that shows a video's daily traffic and demographic stats inside an interactive window copied from Google's stock quote pages. A dynamic map shows creators where their work is popular over time, so a movie studio planning a film opening can decide where to deploy its marketing budget. A rock band can plan its next tour route based on where the fans of its videos live. "They can't believe the data we have," says Hoffner.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Cities and Ambition

Paul Graham discusses Cities and Ambition. I enjoyed this footnote:
How many times have you read about startup founders who continued to live inexpensively as their companies took off? Who continued to dress in jeans and t-shirts, to drive the old car they had in grad school, and so on? If you did that in New York, people would treat you like shit. If you walk into a fancy restaurant in San Francisco wearing a jeans and a t-shirt, they're nice to you; who knows who you might be? Not in New York.

One sign of a city's potential as a technology center is the number of restaurants that still require jackets for men. According to Zagat's there are none in San Francisco, LA, Boston, or Seattle, 3 in DC, 7 in London, 11 in New York, and 20 in Paris.

(Zagat's lists the Ritz Carlton Dining Room in SF as requiring jackets but I couldn't believe it, so I called to check and in fact they don't. Apparently there's only one restaurant left on the entire West Coast that still requires jackets: The French Laundry in Napa Valley.)

Labels: , ,

Sunday, May 25, 2008

China: Why Western B-Schools Are Leaving

China: Why Western B-Schools Are Leaving:
All foreign schools have to collaborate with a Chinese university and contend with the local education authority and the Education Ministry, which exercise tight control over joint ventures. But the biggest problem is that relatively few Chinese have the requisite language skills to handle an all-English curriculum. And with the cost of these programs averaging $50,000, companies send only those with real potential. "I've done the math several different ways, and I always get the same result: It's a really small market," says Patrick Moreton, managing director of the program offered by Fudan University and the Olin School of Business of Washington University in St. Louis, one of the more successful ventures. The five top programs in Shanghai together have only 230 students enrolled.

Labels: ,

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Flat-pack accounting

IKEA's creative corporate structure and financing might be called flat-pack accounting:
What emerges is an outfit that ingeniously exploits the quirks of different jurisdictions to create a charity, dedicated to a somewhat banal cause, that is not only the world's richest foundation, but is at the moment also one of its least generous. The overall set-up of IKEA minimises tax and disclosure, handsomely rewards the founding Kamprad family and makes IKEA immune to a takeover. And if that seems too good to be true, it is: these arrangements are extremely hard to undo. The benefits from all this ingenuity come at the price of a huge constraint on the successors to Ingvar Kamprad, the store's founder, to do with IKEA as they see fit.
So IKEA is a Dutch non-profit?
The parent for all IKEA companies — the operator of 207 of the 235 worldwide IKEA stores — is Ingka Holding, a private Dutch-registered company. Ingka Holding, in turn, belongs entirely to Stichting Ingka Foundation. This is a Dutch-registered, tax-exempt, non-profit-making legal entity, which was given the shares of Mr Kamprad in 1982. Stichtingen, or foundations, are the most common form of not-for-profit organisation in the Netherlands; tens of thousands of them are registered.

Most Dutch stichtingen are tiny, but if Stichting Ingka Foundation were listed it would be one of the Netherlands' ten largest companies by market value. Its main asset is the Ingka Holding group, which is conservatively