Crastinate

Many times others say things much better than I can. In cases like this, I’ll post a “Read This. Watch This.” Here is the first of many.

A recession could be a great time for startups if done right.

Read This

Excellent Paul Graham blog post on why this is a great time to start a startup.

Watch This

Kevin Rose’s further insight into this article relating it to when he started Digg.

I’ve got plenty more to say on the subject but it’s going to get spread out over a few posts. I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to start something.

I just ran into one of my wife’s cousins at the supermarket. He told me he’s running for local state assemblyman this coming election. I asked him whether he thought he had a chance of winning. He told me it’s not so much about winning but about showing the current assemblyman that their is competition out there.

This comment resonated with me this morning as I came home and read about how Apple is not allowing Opera, a web browser, into the iPhone Application Store. Reasons being, it’s a competitor to Safari, Apple’s browser already included on each iPhone.

I can’t blame Apple for this decision…or can I? The iPhone is a locked operating system and anything that might potentially hurt Apple’s bottom line or existing relationships with partners is not allowed into the iPhone. But I think it’s a bad move on their part. The appeal of Android, Google’s mobile operating system, is that Google’s interest closely reflects the consumers. The consumer wants the entire web on their phone. Google wants the same. Apple wants to give you enough internet to make you happy so you’ll buy their product. At least that’s my opinion. And it seems, I’m right.

What should Apple do? They should manage the iPhone OS like they do their desktop OS. Anything that isn’t a virus or malicious program should be let in. No one can compete with the Apple’s UI design. They’re the best at it. But I could see myself, and many others, jumping the iPhone boat in a couple years if Apple doesn’t open up their system. Android will keep on  innovating based on the achievements of external programmers. How can Apple keep up if they don’t open the floodgates as well?

[polldaddy poll=1062349]

UPDATE: It seems that the initial story about Opera in the App store may be incorrect. John Gruber has a more in-depth look at the initial rumors. Thanks for the update Ricki.

The role of government intervention into the operations of businesses is always a heavily debated topic. To what right does, and to what extent shoud, the government get involved in the free market capitalistic business environment that we have built?

As someone who claims to be a consumer advocate, I’m not sure of the best approach here. Let’s take an issue that has become very significant over the past few years…enviromentalism. Some may say that the government needs to create laws that require companies to follow a minimum of standards regarding their environmental impact. This would be great for us consumers because we would be assured that the products we buy are meeting a certain quality standard. On the other hand, more government regulation means more expenses for the business (usually) which would trickle down to the consumer in the form of more expensive products. Where is the balance between what improvements I, the consumer, am willing to pay for and what I am not? And is the consumer trustworthy enough to make this decision?

The biggest problem is not the questions I just posed, but the fact that we have no measurement tools to find the answer. The current strategy is to have environmental groups lobby large corporations to change, and through the fear of bad PR, corporations start changing. I think that if this issue, or any issue, is seen as  largely important to the people of this country, than the government should get involved. Not to regulate operations, but to regulate transparency. I believe that government’s role in major social issues like this (global warming, obesity, etc…) is not to tell businesses how to act, but to require businesses to be transparent about their operations.

What if the government required that every product made must have a sticker that gives a number of that product’s carbon footprint on a regulated scale of 0 – 100. Companies wouldn’t have to change their operations (other than changing their label). Consumers would then be able to use their money to determine how important this issue is to them. The free market would stay as it is. There would just be another attribute of the product that the consumer would need to evaluate. We should have a slew of scales based on important social issues. In other words, government shouldn’t hinder businesses. They should empower consumers.

[polldaddy poll=1056197]

Pepsi announced that they will be redesigning their logo/brand in the coming months. The new logo can be seen on these new (supposed, didn’t get it off the official Pepsi site) bottles.

I like the new logo. It seems to portray a focus on giving the logo and the brand a lighter feel. I really like how the ‘lightness’ factor is portrayed by the thickness of the white in the logo. I find it odd, though, that soda is not light. It’s sugary. It’s not good for you. I don’t know if a lighter looking logo will help them sell more bottles. It might make the casual soda drinker, who is looking for that sugary substance, look towards a heftier looking brand. So while I like the approach for diet soda, I’m not sure if it’s the best approach for non-diet soda.

On the other hand, I’m sure Pepsi has done lots of market research and maybe they have found that consumers as a whole want to drink something healthier. By changing their logo and brand to look like a healthier drink, they might be keeping/gaining market share so I’m not going to judge them on that. All in all, it seems like a move in the positive direction.

[polldaddy poll=1051061]

There was an interesting article in Wired this week about the advancements in materials regarding the sport of bowling. Apparently the surfaces and balls have evolved to such a degree that there is a concern that the sport is getting too easy. The United State Bowling Congress have decided to start setting restrictions on these advancements to keep the challenge of the sport intact.

While I am not a big bowler, I think this story relates to everyone in the working world regarding our expertise. We spend decades refining our expertise in something so that our value to an organization is worthy of our hopefully increasing salary. With the advancement of technology, however, expertise could be replaced by improved programming and shifting industries. For example, I have heard that the role of actuary is being replaced in many instances by computer programs and other professions that can cover the actuarial responsibilities.

I’m quite worried about this. I’m so worried about this that I’ve built my career up to this point on not being an expert in one field, but knowledgeable in many fields and being an expert on overall strategy with that broad base of knowledge (well, I might not be an expert now, but I’d like to think I’m getting there).

Since I’m getting my MBA, I also relate many things to the educational system I currently find myself in. Many of the required courses I have taken are given because they were once relevant. A perfect example is Operations Management class where we learn how to create the most efficient operations process which is mainly used in manufacturing. How many MBA students from New York will be managing manufacturing facilities? The fact is, these classes are here because these professors are experts in a particular antiquated field, and they’re championing these courses to keep their jobs. It’s survival. I think this is happening to some degree in every industry. Eventually we’ll see the required courses change, and these professors will have find some way to stay relevant even if it doesn’t involve their expertise.

What do you think? As time progresses, will there be a need for real experts, or are the generalists more likely to succeed?

[polldaddy poll=1049929]