Here’s an article that talks about plug-in electric vehicles, including the Camry Hybrid, Volt, and Tesla. While Chevy looks good in specs, the article brings up a lot of good points about adoption of these vehicles. At an entry level price of $30,000, these vehicles aren’t cheap, and I’m suspecting that fuel efficient combustion engines will continue to be the norm for the next five to ten years.
Still, looking back at history, once these trends happen, they happen quickly. The age old Intel axiom that the number of transistors able to be fit on a chip doubles every two years, thus increasing the speed of the computer processor exponentially is a good example. As technology changes and is adopted in other parts of the industry, this technology will gain a wider acceptance and will more than likely have a stronger adoption rate by both consumers and corporations alike.
All things considered, with a shake up in the economy like we’re having right now, there are going to be a lot of changes in processes happening in the corporate workplace. Down turns in the economy always means big changes for corporations, and as technology adapts, we’re going to be seeing a lot of changes happening there as well. It may be that this is the beginning of a new technology boom, and while I’m not saying it’s going to happen tomorrow, there are some big things happening right now that make this look like a possibility. Stay tuned and I’ll see what I can dig up.
I caught a video on Yahoo! Finance that talks about our current financial crisis in relation to world trends over the past few years. They mention how a large percentage of the population has been making more money (in some cases billions of dollars), and they also talk a little bit about the stock drop a couple of days ago (Sept 29, 2008)…the one in which 499 of the 500 stocks in the S&P 500 fell except for Campbell Soup. They also break apart the economy a little bit and compare our current situation with historical events such as the great depression, an era in which the government was required to step in and mandate regulations on the economy…namely Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Some background on the great depression helps a little to get the full effect: …the New Deal merely introduced types of social and economic reform familiar to many Europeans for more than a generation. Moreover, the New Deal represented the culmination of a long-range trend toward abandonment of “laissez-faire” capitalism, going back to the regulation of the railroads in the 1880s, and the flood of state and national reform legislation…
What was truly novel about the New Deal, however, was the speed with which it accomplished what previously had taken generations. In fact, many of the reforms were hastily drawn and weakly administered; some actually contradicted others. And during the entire New Deal era, public criticism and debate were never interrupted or suspended; in fact, the New Deal brought to the individual citizen a sharp revival of interest in government.
When Roosevelt took the presidential oath, the banking and credit system of the nation was in a state of paralysis. With astonishing rapidity the nation’s banks were first closed — and then reopened only if they were solvent. The administration adopted a policy of moderate currency inflation to start an upward movement in commodity prices and to afford some relief to debtors. New governmental agencies brought generous credit facilities to industry and agriculture. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured savings-bank deposits up to $5,000, and severe regulations were imposed upon the sale of securities on the stock exchange.
It’s interesting to note that Campbells soup is the only stock to go up on Monday, and it seems to indicate that people are moving their money to safer ground. Staple goods always tend to do well even in a bad economy, since everyone needs to eat.
Government $25 billion dollar incentive loan for ailing car companies may be approved by Friday of this week. Detroit right now is holding their breath.
Right now the news and media is jumping up and down a lot about the $700 billion dollar bailout of the U.S. banking system. For most people, it seems like a crazy amount of money. To put it in perspective, according to CNN, the U.S. government could give every man woman and child $2300 dollars a piece, 2000 McDonalds apple pies, or buy 6.6 billion barrels of crude oil.
Where the whole thing gets complicated is that $700 billion may not even be enough to save the banking system. With the politicians arguing over whether to nationalize the banking system, it feels a little bit like we’re entering the twilight zone. Russia is supposed to have a nationalized banking system, not us. Which just goes to show how weighty this issue is in a real world context. These banks could litereally fail without continued government support.
As it is, these banks brought it on themselves by providing high risk loans and other services to a public that couldn’t hold up it’s end of the deal. As banks and lending institutions begin to take more risks, it seems like these sorts of problems continue to worsen. As important as banks are to the health of the nation, they need to make better decisions about their corporate lending policies…there just isn’t a better way to say it.
The purpose of the new site is about bringing a topical slant to how big business connects with the culture at large. The site is intended to grow and change over time, and my hope is to form a community there with both common and dissenting opinions.
The origin of the site owes a lot to the growth of this blog in the last few months, and I’m hoping to duplicate that success over their with a series of quick articles that lend themselves to discussion, with the focus of the site being somewhat larger than HenryPhish.
So let me know if you like it…or if you don’t…and we’ll see how it goes.
And commenting on the articles is greatly encouraged…you’ll be required to provide an email address and handle to post a comment, but as always, I don’t use the information except as part of site maintenance.
So after all the hype around Google and Chrome in the last couple of weeks, I got to thinking about Microsoft, and how they were chalking up these days. The funny thing is, they really aren’t that exciting.
A couple weeks ago they bought Bloomberg for a bunch of money just so they could get their hands on Ciao.com, which is essentially one of a thousand sites set up to drive web traffic to other peoples sites…in this case retailers, but why did Microsoft require, what amounts to a billboard on the side of a concrete wall, in order to make their brand more visible? I already know who Microsoft is…in news and media this is just another tiny mark on their earnings board.
The Less is More Philosophy at Large
Microsoft over the years has relied on quantity over quality in regards to their brand. More is better has always been their slogan. It’s a Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer tradition that has worked well for them, but with other companies entering the marketplace, such as Google, Apple, Firefox, and Blackberry; each with better brand identities and a more focused business plan, Microsoft is failing to compete.
The Perfect Example of the Microsoft Strategy…think of this as being applied whole company.
The other day I watched a news program on CNET or CNN, I can’t remember which, advertising the newest version of the Windows Mobile platform. The guy from Microsoft that introduced the product seemed uncomfortable, and honestly the interviewer wasn’t giving him much of a chance to speak, so I really can’t blame him. However, the whole interview just demonstrates the lack of esteem that Microsoft products are held in these days.
In the world of cell phones for example, the products Microsoft presents lack the luster of products such as the Blackberry with it’s proprietary OS, or Apple, with it’s scaled down version of OS X. In the Blackberry, we have a product that is ergonomic and sensible, something that makes people want to pick it up and play with it. In the IPhone, we have something that has a little flair, but is still practical enough to use from the very first moment you pick it up. What I would compare Microsoft’s products too, and honestly their marketing in general, is that hunch back with the lazy eye from Young Frankenstein; you just keep looking at it, but that eye never goes away.
Most of their products are a little ugly. A little too techie maybe. Not organic enough. Not intuitive enough. Just something isn’t right about them. It just screams, stay away from me, I don’t want you. If I saw one on the counter next to one of the other two phones, I dare say it would probably scream at me if I picked it up.
Thinking back to the monopoly lawsuits Microsoft has gone through over the years, their branching across categories and industries, strong arm tactics, guerrilla warfare tactics and the like, their products mirror their corporate philosophy. In fact, it was the simple act of Bill Gates quitting as CEO and moving into a philanthropic organization that really gave Microsoft any sympathy in the media. Let’s face it, Bill Gates is the founder, and the face of Microsoft, and what he does dictates how the company is perceived.
The Current Face Of Microsoft
Microsoft is pretty well cemented in the workplace with products such as Windows Vista and their Office line. Their real world media empire is fairly secure as well. Companies such as Bloomberg help add to this content, but the company as a whole has an image issue, and all the synergy in the world won’t change that unless the leadership at the top takes the necessary steps to kick this company into gear.
Their brand has to change with the times, and become something that people want, not just require. Microsoft has the resources to do it, but it’s going to take a lot of blood sweat and tears to change a company culture that has long been mired in making the market come to them instead of making products for the market. It’s about time they recognized that competition is good for them…it promotes innovation…and they need some.
A very good reverse history of Apple Inc using video to show how the companies product line has evolved as the company has grown. I’ll be posting a similar article about Microsoft next week. Pretty cool.
A Brief Reverse-Chronological YouTube History of Apple
An interesting, albeit short, news piece about Googles ten year run to becoming the worlds leading search engine. The piece also covers growing issues such as monopoly concerns with their Yahoo deals, growing competition among rivals and the like.
Like I mentioned last week in The Search For Google Alternatives, with the release of Chrome web browser, as well as the Android mobile operating system, Google has positioned itself as the dominant brand on the internet, well ahead of past contenders such as Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, etc. According to one statistic posted on a Microsoft blog, Google currently makes up 70% of all web searches on the web. With the addition of Yahoo to their advertising stable, this statistic grows considerably. So essencially what the news piece is saying is that Google has become a vertical advertising monopoly.
To be honest, Google doesn’t really control the internet. I can go to any site I want regardless of weather Google wants me there or not. I can pick any advertisers I want on my site including Amazon, Google, and currently Yahoo, and the only stipulation I have is that they provide relevant advertising and hopefully…and I said hopefully…some money. The thing that makes their advertising better than others is brand recognition, since people can advertise through any service they so choose. Technically it’s up to individual sites to choose whom they use as advertising, and if Firefox or Microsoft came up with a better system of advertising then I’d use that. If Cuil.com decides one day to make an advertising program based on onomatopoeia and fuzzy logic, then I’ll use them too. As far as Yahoo plastering their site with Google ads, so be it, they have the authority to do so. The case itself is kind of crazy, and the fact that everyone loves to hear about the Google success story, and the fact they do well enough at matching ads to content, are the only two reasons they don’t have much competition.
Just remember how it works though…if they ever do become evil, there will be ten companies trying to pick up the slack…and six of them will be run by former Google employees, two from Linux Redhat, one from Firefox, and one from some guy in a bar that wrote his idea on a napkin and someone gave him a bunch of money for it. Googles going to be screwed.
Der Bonker ist fantastich…and I’d write the rest of this article in german too if I could only find my highschool textbook. Though thinking back, I may have turned that back in to the school. Anyway, that’s how much I enjoyed Der Bonker as animated by Walter Moers. It’s a very cool music video about the greatest villian of all time and his final days in an underground bunker. You really don’t need to know german to understand the absurdity of it all, but here’s the translation if you really want to know.
This is an interesting video on the issue of internet neutrality. Perhaps you’ve seen in your local papers the bi-line “The Internet: Right or Privilege.” Basically, the gist of the argument is that certain groups want to control the internet and impose additional charges for its use. Personally, I don’t know why people are worried, I mean just look at all the companies that provide access to the internet: Comcast, AOL, Qwest, and look at all the different ways you can get access: digital cable, DSL, ISP, Satellite. If one of these companies tried to force a price change then all the other companies would counter. It’s not as if there is a lack of competition, and these companies are not known for working together. In the world of commerce, it’s all about survival. For instance, if digital cable decided to charge based on number of sites visited, then a lot of people would simply jump ship and switch to DSL…who by the way is losing the battle for net superiority anyway (due to Qwest’s aweful customer service, overpricing, and the increasing data transfer rate of digital cable)…or an alternate provider. I mean why would they want to jeapordize their customer relationship just to make a quick buck? The truth is that short of the federal government imposing an internet tax…which they have mentioned from time to time but will never impose…there really isn’t any call to be alarmed. Last I checked, in a capitalist country, companies still have to follow the laws of supply and demand. For them to try to impose something on consumers that they neither want nor need is simply folley…they will simply go somewhere else.
Anyway, take a look at the video, it’s kind of cool, and uses clips from Elephants Dream.