Andrew struggles to recall what his original post about MOOC's tried to say and produces this.Read More
There was a lot to digest and after a week of incubation I have finally completed this post.
I’m a fan of Richard Branson.
You're probably thinking, "wait, Richard Branson, what does he have to do with Solve Sleep?"
Well, nothing to my knowledge, but he does have an influence on how I want to approach my blog. Branson's approach to his blog and messages from my POV is substance over form and I love that.
First, let me thank the team from HealthXL for inviting me to participate as one of the curious. I had a great time and walked away with a completely different understanding of sleep. It had me asking questions about sleep and each member of my family, my son in particular. The Medical Innovation Summit that followed augmented that understanding, but that’s for another post.
For you insomniacs and others afflicted with a sleep ailment, let me apologize, we didn’t solve sleep.
However, I have some textbooks that I would wager could put anyone to sleep if falling asleep is your biggest challenge. Send me a message and I’ll be happy to forward them your way.
I don’t think the expectation was for 60 people to literally come up with a comprehensive approach or solution to sleep in one weekend.
Having said that, I thought we were going to do a little more, particularly since there were going to be design thinking gurus present.
I went in with a pretty open mind just trying to absorb everything and ask questions.
After 20-30 years of snoring and nagging, my dad recently went through the process and now sleeps with a CPAP machine, so I came in curious about the process and the options.
Finally, here are the key takeaways and some areas for improvement. The chaps from HealthXL specifically asked for such recommendations and I think that says a lot about them.
1. As I learned this weekend --- the process for diagnosis and treatment is long, arduously and unnecessarily long. For good measure it’s also inconvenient, potentially pricey and all for a result that doesn’t cure you or eliminate the problem. That last tidbit would be very discouraging to hear as patient.
2. As for the event itself, the format limited the outcome. We were probably never going to solve sleep in one weekend, but splitting up the problem into 3 phases (Diagnosis, Treatment and Monitoring) and 2 perspectives (Doctor v Patient) was a very analytical approach, which is fine for some problems, but sleep is not one of them. Its interconnectedness, which was alluded to throughout the weekend, makes it a prime candidate for a systems thinking based approach. The Medical Innovation Summit had an amazing panel on systems thinking and that cemented this in my mind.
3. Apnea gets most of the attention, but there’s a bigger story. Most people are sleep deprived and it has a huge impact in the aggregate, some staggering GDP figures were mentioned in respect to lost productivity and/or output; but a lack of concern, understanding and no easy way to tell how sleep deprived someone is stands in the way of any effort. These barriers will be difficult to overcome without a holistic approach.
4. Design Thinking works. The team from Azul 7 gave great presentations and we did some exercises that showed design thinking’s potential, but we were only scratching the surface without observing patients and doctors live through the problems. I wonder if Azul 7 had designed the event, what would it have looked like? Felt like? While this was a memorable experience, I bet it could have been life changing for many people.
5. Weight loss and the digeridoo are two of the most effective treatments. They won’t cure you (nothing will yet) and they don’t work for all patients, but combined they can reduce the number of episodes for some apnea patients nearly 60%.
Potential for Improvement
I see the event and the HealthXL team evolving. They want to make a difference and that was plain to see, so here are some thoughts that might help.
1. The environment or atmosphere was good, but I’m not sure enough was done to let everyone know it should be a safe place for bold ideas. Many of the ideas were safe, ordinary, and lacked the surprising insight that design thinking is known for.
2. Not going out to see what either the patients or clinicians go through was always going to limit the outcome. Where are the insights & surprises supposed to come from without observing the frustrations that they talk about firsthand? Maybe this will be part of the ongoing effort to address the challenge?
3. When individual teams focused on their respective POV, which was a great way to make it personal, the collective group lost some of the work that was done previously as the brainstorming focused on the one POV/problem.
Brainstorming was a painstaking process at our table and by the looks of other tables we weren’t alone. Participants too easily started asking too many questions about ideas. Explanations were too long and conversations that led nowhere were rampant.
I found myself just writing my own ideas down just to get some real progress. Looking back I probably should have just said, “hey, your line of questioning isn’t going to help us, the patients or doctors, so grab a pen, a sticky note and start writing!”
In the future I would recommend that the brainstorming session be almost completely silent for 30 minutes. Let people write ideas down and after the 30 minutes if there are any questions, they can be addressed and either another silent round can be done or a dialogue round can be done.
4. I mentioned this in the takeaways, but what would a design thinking approach to the weekend have looked like?
5. Something that seems trivial, but could have yielded better results is having the event AFTER the summit. Daniel Kraft’s talk alone would have made a difference as it quickly gave everyone a near complete view of the current cutting edge of health technology & innovation. As I mentioned before, many of the ideas were too safe. From what I’ve read breakthrough innovations are not safe or comfortable.
6. I would have liked to have seen a few high school, college and maybe even younger attendees. They would have asked the beginner’s mind questions. They would have been persistent and they would have challenged doctor and patient assumptions.
7. The experts could have recorded their presentations and posted them online. This could have streamlined questions and increased group knowledge before the event even started. This would make more time for the field and more value added activities. Perhaps, the experts themselves could have seen more design thinking in action and that would have changed their mindsets going forward.
Each team had an expert to answer questions, but our time with them was very limited and what about key findings? There didn’t seem to be a mechanism to communicate insights outside of selecting the top 3 challenges for each phase of the process.
All in all, it was a great event and I'm looking forward to making a contribution going forward. The HIMSS venue was fantastic and even inspiring.
So Michael Grothaus posted a great piece showcasing the thoughts of the incumbents in the auto industry. He also made a great point about infrastructure. The range of opinions vary quite a bit from no concern to excitement.
Grothaus starts with the more provocative comments starting with a retired exec from GM, Dan Akerson...I think you can see where this going. To sum up, he was quoted saying:
"They’d better think carefully if they want to get into the hard-core manufacturing. We take steel, raw steel, and turn it into car. They have no idea what they’re getting into if they get into that."
I'm sure he said some other more forward thinking things, but if we take this at face value as it's presented, then there are some obvious concerns. Apple is making their own blend of gold and patented it because it meets the requirements, but actually uses less gold. They have the world's most valuable brand, a cult following, and tons of cash.
More importantly, who says a car has to be made primarily of steel?
What automakers should be worried about is autonomous cars in general and its effect on the industry. We're still years away, but it's years, not decades.
How long will it take for consumers to adopt the product?
Will consumers still want to own vehicles if they don't need to drive them?
Are their preferences and tastes going to change? Does that give more freedom to designers?
Will the car become a mobile office or media center where consumers look to consume content and get things done while traveling?
With the number of traffic incidents dramatically plummeting with mass adoption, does the car need to be made of steel? How will this affect the insurance industry?
These are just some of the questions running through my head and I imagine many execs from the auto industry. Disruption is coming, but when and how?
Millenials and baby boomers are going to leave you with a huge mess. Below are some statements, not facts. You can ignore them or you can take some time to think about what it means. Each statement isn't necessarily that powerful by itself, but when you put them together...
Despite the amazing progress in technology we still have hunger, homelessness, and poverty...even in developed countries. (Is it better? Yes, but it really should no longer be an issue.)
People are going to live longer and there will be more of them. The population will be around 8 billion in roughly 10 years.
47% of jobs will be automated by 2034 (The Economist).
Less jobs, more people, even worse income inequality...
Key resources will only become more scarce and/or more unevenly distributed...UNLESS
You have the resiliency, creativity, wisdom, and courage to ask the right questions, challenge assumptions, learn, and collaborate at levels we haven't even imagined.
Without dramatic and systemic changes in education and the government worldwide, life is going to get a lot tougher. The current education system isn't preparing you for it and the government is even less prepared.
Sepp Blatter is a great example of how not to lead an organization. This is no secret, but how many like him are out there right now leading other powerful organizations?
For a rundown on his "leadership" abilities check out this Inc article. My interpretation was that the article is about how to gain and retain power, not to lead an organization.
One of my main takeaways was a quote, "I appreciate and love FIFA more than anything else, and I only want to do the best for FIFA."
Blatter should be talking about football, not about FIFA. It's about the beautiful game and its religious followers. Do what's best for them.
His words can mean so many things, but one thing it did not mean was improving the game itself. There have been countless opportunities to make improvements and little to no progress has been made.
For me - the most prominent example is the pervasive disease that has plagued the game for decades, diving and acting. It is now largely accepted as part of the game and culture, which is a huge shame because that will make it so much harder to address. Quite literally everyone is guilty of one or the other at some point for those who compete at the highest level. As a fan I expect to see a display of diving or acting at least once every game.
Diving and acting can be reduced, if not prevented. I don't have the answer, but I do have some thoughts that will come in a future post.
It will be fascinating to see how much damage was done and what effects it will have on the organization going forward. FIFA has traditionally had all the power at the bargaining table. Will that continue?
Let's examine FIFA's mission from their website:
To develop football everywhere and for all, to touch the world through its inspiring tournaments and to build a better future through the power of the game.
I think even during Sepp's reign FIFA managed to accomplish their mission with varying degrees of success. However, I would argue that so much more could have been done.
Would Brazil agree with the final part of the mission statement?
Would the rest of the world agree with Qatar winning a bid for the 2022 against all odds and common sense?
I am all for giving each region and country a chance to shine in hosting the cup, but they must be ready and certain standards must be met.
The first being that no one should die as a direct result of preparing for the tournament. Some estimates for deaths in Qatar are in the thousands.
Other standards should include plans for addressing any weather/safety concerns (it will be in the 120's) and reasonable construction.
Brazil is a perfect example of unreasonable construction plans. The Manaus stadium cost $300m for 4 games. No way the influx in the local economy from the stadium and tournament reaches anywhere near that amount.
Qatar is Manaus time 8 as the entire country isn't set up to host the tournament. Let alone use the facilities afterwards. The Olympics have a similar problem.
The question is what's it going to take before we do something about it?
Make no mistake Apple is going to make some serious money with its Apple Watch and by many definitions be successful.
But, in a few years we're not going to look at it the same way we look back at the iPhone or iPad. Those were truly game changing devices.
Will the Apple Watch get better? Stand alone? The answers are probably yes, but how long will it take?
Bigger things are in the works. Smartphones, wearables, and tablets are going to combine into one category. This is going to happen sooner than most think.
Almost everything is a precursor to something else and this has never been more evident than with wearables and the Apple Watch in particular. Unsurprisingly, most reviews so far have been positive in tone, but with one caveat…wait till the next iteration. This isn’t uncommon with many products, even Apple.
Back to the convergence.
We have seen it on a smaller and less impressive scale with phablets (large smartphones), but something way bigger and way better is coming. Samsung, Nokia, and LG are making strides and if some reports are to be believed we can be looking at foldable displays as early as 2016.
Motley Fool and a host of other analysts believe otherwise. It's simply cost prohibitive to produce right now and there are still hurdles to overcome such as applying foldable properties to the rest of the device such as the battery.
What are some other hurdles to making this possible?
1. The ability to stand alone. As more people start wearing smartwatches, the next logical step is to ask why does it need to be tethered or essentially paired with a smartphone?
2. Battery life – with kinetic and solar power technologies already used by other watchmakers this could actually be one of the easier challenges to overcome. Our body heat could be an option as well. If a 15 year old can figure out how to do it for a flashlight, then it would be reasonable for a company like Apple or Samsung to do better.
3. Heat - here's a good rundown on the problem. Most have experienced the heat that can be generated when your smartphone is at full tilt. Imagine that attached to your wrist. Not good.
However, there is another option that is being led by Magic Leap and Microsoft with their augmented reality technologies. Rony Abovitz, CEO of Magic Leap, in a recent Forbes article indicated that there will not be a need for screens.
That has huge implications and could render foldable/stretchable screens unnecessary or at the very least steal its thunder.
The question is how far away are we from Magic Leap's tech, but with a $542 million investment last year led by Google and a video released last month, perhaps we are not too far away (though we don't know if the video was an actual live feed of the tech or simply a mock up to illustrate the concept).
The device itself is a set of glasses that stream light directly onto the eyes rather than how Oculus' virtual reality works, which "tricks" your eyes by simultaneously showing the same image at different angles. Supposedly, Magic Leap's approach doesn't disrupt the way you normally see things.
There does seem to be one drawback currently and that is the fact that the glasses are wired to a square device. Time will tell if it's part of the final design.
Microsoft is pursuing similar technology with their HoloLens. This is going to happen folks and another question everyone will need to ask, "are we ready?"
I'll close with one last intriguing thought - what if foldable displays and augmented reality combine into one device?
Should Swiss watchmakers be worried?
My favorite musings come from two leaders in the (luxury) watch industry, the CEO of the Swatch Group, Nick Hayek, and the head of LMVH’s watch brands (Hublot, Tag Heuer, and Zenith), Jean-Claude Biver. Both see Apple’s entry as an opportunity, not a threat. This seems counter to their interests, but to sum up their thoughts “anything that encourages (young) people to wear watches is good.”
Basically, Apple’s entry into the industry may take some market share from the industry veterans or it may not, but its impact on the market as a whole may be even more important as it could increase the total size of the market.
How is this possible?
In their eyes the Apple Watch is not a direct competitor as their customers don’t wear watches just to tell time. They are status symbols focused on design, expensive materials, and long-term value, which is essentially what luxury is. Perhaps, scarcity needs to be added as an asterisk to long-term value.
Perhaps, Apple isn’t a luxury brand, but they are a premium brand. No matter what Apple product you are purchasing, you will always pay a premium to the alternative and that premium can be hefty. Now, consider that two editions of the Apple watch will sell for over $10,000. That is not a premium price. That is a luxury price. Add to that the fact that Apple created their own custom blend of gold in order for it to stand up to nicks and wear. Those are things that make you stop and think twice about whether Apple is premium or luxury or something else…maybe luxurium or premuxury. Sorry about that…but think about the luxury points above:
- Focus on design – check. Apple has always focused on design, so this is a no brainer.
- Use of expensive materials – check. Now that Apple is using its own patented gold blend, which most likely means it’s going to be part of an ongoing strategy I think we can say they have opened the door and this box can be checked. Gold lovers will protest as Apple has essentially found a way to make technically 18k gold by using less gold, but there’s still gold in it…the box is checked. Wait till they start using graphene.
- Long-term value – hmmm. This is interesting because it depends on what the people of tomorrow value. Would a first edition Apple Watch sell at an even higher price than it did before? For the low end the answer is no, but the high end watches beg the question. It will be interesting to see how many are sold. Tim Cook said there would be limited quantities...hmmm...how limited? After all, if it’s not scarce, then the chances of long-term value are marginal at best.
Let’s not forget that my first post on the Apple Watch included the fact that Apples is the world’s number one brand. They also have about $178 billion in cash, so they theoretically have money to burn if they trip up (a closer look according to the Guardian reveals that most of the cash is held overseas, so it's not as simple as just spending it. Some creative accounting needs to take place first unless they're comfortable with Uncle Sam taking a sizable portion of it). In any case the most powerful brand and tons of cash is something that every industry should be wary of, including the auto industry and the search industry.
Contrary to what many believe Apple does not always sell the best product or provide the most value. They are certainly always near the top, but it’s their brand that takes them the rest of the way. It is not as cut and dry as many Apple diehards would make you believe.
Getting back to the watchmakers’ view, they are making a long-term bet that young people will gravitate toward luxury status symbols as their disposable income rises like previous generations have done. They are also making a bet that they will want to wear anything on their wrist at all.
These are assumptions. They are very plausible as they maintain the status quo, which is easier for people to process, but...
What happens if they’re wrong? What happens if Generation Z or whatever they’re called don’t care as much about status symbols or wearing anything on their wrist? What if it starts happening sooner with Generation Y aka Millenials?
The world is changing at an increasing rate every day and so are its people and their mindset. The population is rising and so is the consumption of resources. Add to that the belief and likelihood that many jobs will be automated by 2034 without a corresponding increase elsewhere. All of this creates conflict and we have seen this on a small scale, but something on a bigger scale seems to be imminent…barring any future innovations that solve major problems at a reasonable price without creating new problems.
While it may be too early to say anything about generation z, one thing that can be said is that they are made up of anyone born after 1995. Also called “digital natives” because they have not lived life without the digital comforts of today they are educated, collaborative, and eager to build a better a planet. They are visual, truly global, and entrepreneurial.
That doesn't sound like the kind of people that are going to make buying a luxury item a priority, but it's definitely too early to tell. Mindsets and priorities shift as people and generations get older.
So, should Swiss watchmakers be worried?
Yes and no. In the short and mid-term I can see what Hayek and Biver said coming to fruition. While counterintuitive, it makes complete sense. If you’re young and never thought of wearing a watch before, the Apple Watch will at least make you think about it, which is probably more than you ever thought about it before.
But, in the long term I think they should be worried and my 3rd post will explain why, but to sum up: the Apple watch and current wearables market is a precursor to something else.
Side note: Here we are a little over a month from my first post on the Apple Watch and the only thing we know about Swatch’s answer is that “it will connect to the Internet without having to be charged.”
First, Jeremy Howard does a great job illustrating what machine learning is and what it's capable of. My only critique of Jeremy Howard's TED talk is that he leaves the big question till the end without pursuing any options of what the future should or may look like. He mentions changes in social and economic structure are necessary, but doesn't explore what kinds of changes these are and what it may look like. Nor does he offer any words of cautions or things to look out for. He leaves it to the audience, perhaps so people like me can speculate.
The only thing that is certain is that the future we imagine and the future that comes to pass are going to be different.
I take 2 things in particular from his talk.
One, it would seem that the only thing that cannot be automated at this point or in the very near future are disciplines rooted in creativity. While machines can generate text by analyzing images or some other input, it doesn't seem like they can write a poem, story, etc quite yet. This also seems like something that is only a matter of time. If machines can learn and start randomly putting unrelated ideas together, what's to stop them from eventually developing a creative capacity? Especially if they can experiment and iterate quicker than humans? What I mean is maybe it is difficult to try and tackle creativity for machines with a one-prong approach at the front end. What happens when that effort is combined with another learning algorithm that assesses other creative works on the back end? At some point they would learn what makes good writing, art, etc or they could even offer several alternatives based on different tastes and points of view.
Given that many service industries and functions can and will be automated over the next 2-3 decades, what do you do as a parent? What are considered "secure" industries or functions now, won't be by the time children come of age. And at that point, the current educational system is too rigid and narrow focused. Many may be completely unprepared to adapt.
Are schools asking these questions? Are enough parents asking these questions? Are schools even focusing on the right skills for their students in periods of only increasing uncertainty? Are they working together to design a more flexible approach to education?
We seem to be on the cusp of an educational revolution, at least when it comes to technology, and that is very exciting. This is great for extending the reach of quality education to those who would otherwise be hard pressed to find such an opportunity on their own. Quality courses are available online with absolutely no charge or very little cost in terms of what you receive, I'm thinking Coursera, edX, and NovoEd to name a few. Even the stakeholders who have the most to gain other than employees are getting involved through platforms like Udacity where companies like facebook and Google are offering courses directly to students/workers. This approach seems to validate that some thing is missing from higher education.
But, I wonder, is technology even the biggest problem?
As a parent of a toddler, these are just some of the questions always running in the back of my mind.
Rumors have it that Apple is pursuing entry into the automotive and search engine spaces. Is this a good thing?
Apple maps didn’t start well and one has to wonder if they are reaching too far from their core businesses. The search engine makes some sense to me. Siri seems to have the framework to make a project like that work. Plus, Mozilla changed their default browser to Yahoo recently, so now or soon may make sense to unleash their search engine given the perception that Google's dominant position isn't as impregnable as before.
The car does not make sense at first glance, but it doesn’t have to right now because we have no reliable information on what exactly is in store. I would welcome them to an industry, as I have said in other posts, that should be moving faster.
Is this a bad thing for Tesla?
My gut says no. Apple’s brand will give the electric car more attention which could lead to more acceptance, just like their watch will to luxury watches according to the watchmakers. I’m assuming they’re going to be electric or some special kind of hybrid. Apple and petroleum just don't go together...
They could be doing Tesla a favor if it’s electric and the cars are cross-compatible with charging stations. The infrastructure doesn’t exist in a lot of the US and having even a competitor start adding to it would be good. Nevertheless, what matters most is how Apple would position the car.
Tesla isn’t just an electric car, it’s a luxury performance electric car. The performance has been getting a lot of attention recently, but 0 to 60 in 3.2 silent seconds will do that. It's called insane mode for a reason...
How would Apple position their car?
Will they pursue another level of performance geared towards something different like driving range, charging time & method, connectivity & interface (cue iPhone or iPad), and something new that people don’t associate with real cars?
What could the something new be?
It’s an intriguing question. One I will be thinking about over the couple weeks.
The 2014 Luddite Award Winners - the states of Arizona, Michigan, Texas, and NJ (see here for the post) for blocking Tesla's attempts to sell directly to its customers. The award essentially calls out those who are opposed to new technologies.
The NRA took second place for their opposition to smart guns.
In both cases this is a matter of continuing the status quo. I have another musing on Tesla that very briefly explores both sides, here.
I will probably tackle the NRA issue in a later musing or blog post. Some research needs to be done on what the arguments are for the NRA's stance, but some questions that people, including myself, are asking include:
- how many school/public shootings need to occur before we do anything?
- what does the rest of the world think when they hear about these stories?
- what is it going to take to for change to happen?
- if smart guns (and diligent background checks) aren't part of the answer, then what is?
- is it possible to design a system that prevents the tragedies from ever occurring...without smart guns and background checks?
With Dish's Sling TV, which released today, have we finally started to see some real progress with TV? Up to this point live TV was primarily only available through illegal means or entering your log in info from your subscription. Live TV have been the main drawback from cord cutting for many sports, such as myself. With ESPN included among the channels this marks a step in the right direction, but even mighty ESPN only broadcasts so much content. Hopefully, the next steps are taken soon.
More importantly and perhaps optimistically will this effect local monopolies? Will we finally see better service and more competitive rates in an industry that isn't known for either?
I originally intended for these daily musings to be short, but…sometimes the topic warrants more.
Over the weekend I saw yet another saddening headline about a youth suicide. I will spare the details, but like so many others in recent times there was cyber-bullying involved.
Cyber or not, bullying of any kind has always bothered me. That’s not to say that I have never been guilty of bullying another person. I like to think that it wasn’t a big part of who I was during my youth, since I was so busy trying to get better at soccer, school, and video games. If anyone from my grade school days would like to comment otherwise, I invite you to leave a comment or get in contact with me.
I have been on the other side as well. Luckily, that was in the early to mid-90’s, so the internet was painfully slow and bullying was limited to analog. Since the bully was older and in a different class, it was also limited to recess. As I reflect on it, I was even luckier in that the bully was more of a 1-on-1 kind of bully rather than one who gets others to participate. I don’t know a whole lot about cyber-bullying, but I know a fair amount about social media and this is where I imagine cyber bullying can be dangerous.
Side-question: I’m curious if the cyber-bullying is an extension of in-person efforts or limited to the internet.
Once a post is out there, it must be very easy for others to jump in. Even more concerning, with the ubiquity of technology and social networking it’s probably very hard for the victim to ignore. It was this thought and my recent entrepreneurial awakening that made me wonder if there are any efforts to thwart cyber-bullying, particularly on a preventive scale.
This led to something amazing.
Given my affinity for the show @midnight on comedy central, I started my google search with the simple query, “anti-troll.”
Side-note: Before this post I thought trolls and bullies are one and same. However, I think there is a slight difference, not that it really matters since both behaviors are off-putting. Trolling is when one “makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.” Bullying on the other hand I think is more targeted and can stretch over an extended period of time.
Back to the matter at hand…one of the first results you will see is that a 13 year old, Trisha Prabhu, has developed an effective and preventive software for cyber-bullying. Her thought process, the scope of her research and testing, and execution is impressive. Prabhu determined that current solutions don’t address the issue until the damage has already been done, a particularly keen observation.
Here’s a link to her project, Rethink. It should come as no surprise that she’s interested in neuroscience and the brain.
To sum up, Prabhu developed a “Rethink” system that triggers an alert mechanism that gives the poster a second chance by offering an opportunity to re-think their words and the potential effects. Her research sourced from ikeepsafe.org explains that this process hasn't been fully developed in adolescent brains.
Her abilities don’t stop there. She recently gave a TEDxTeen talk this past October.
Well done Prabhu.
Hopefully, we see her efforts soon. Look out for her Chrome plug-in extension, app, and whatever else she comes up with.
My google alert has produced another gem, but this time it's more about my personal interests. Apparently some google users are voicing their distaste for the White Hart Lane faithful. Here's the post, but to sum up...
You can find the Spurs defense used in the examples to help explain the words "dodgy" and "lackadaisical." I checked it out and was amused to still see it there for lackadaisical. If you are Spurs fan, please contain your rage and read on. I am a reasonable fan and may have a take on this that surprises you. Moving on.
When you type a certain profanity on google maps when based in London, White Hart Lane is the first result. However after some very scientific research...ahem...I wouldn't put much stock into this as the same query for any city will bring up a variety of results. Surprisingly, many of the top results have good ratings.
LA - UCLA is one of two results.
NY - two 4 out of 5 rated restaurants appear.
Chicago - a theater and a very highly rated comic book store.
I tried a number of google image queries expecting to see something, but turned up with nothing unusual.
While I am a huge Arsenal fan and was admittedly amused, it didn't really matter which sports team was used. Though it does help ease the sting from today's loss.
I used to be one of those fans who took the game a bit too seriously, something common among younger males. Maybe it was the testosterone? Bad results would effect my mood for hours and sometimes the whole day, but fortunately that dissipated after some time or perhaps even maturity. Priorities and even values can change as you get older and that certainly was the case for me. There is simply so many much more important things to do and worry about.
If you disregard the google maps result, it makes me wonder if in fact this is anti-Spurs or simply a frustrated Spurs fan. I know I have joked about the Gunners defense over the years or the sometimes ineffective tiki taka style.
Enjoy the victory Spurs fans. The race for 3rd and 4th should be good. Cheers
Wow, completely forgot to post yesterday. The blog has not become second nature yet. I'll get there. Moving on!
Yesterday my google alert sent some results for Tesla and I noticed yet another state, Texas, has their dealerships fighting Tesla over direct selling (click here for the post). What was interesting was the dealer's take on monopolies, "Tesla itself is seeking a monopoly, since no other company could sell Tesla Motors’ product."
I have to admit my initial reaction was, "wait, what?!" Obviously, my gut is biased towards Tesla, but as I have become more aware of these preconceptions I try to keep an open mind and consider the other side. I read on and eventually understood how the dealerships may think this. They brought up a valid point about manufacturers being more concerned about shareholders and the dealerships' support of local schools and hospitals. However, I think this only has merit if other manufacturers follow suit. Otherwise, Tesla isn't really a huge threat...yet.
I totally get why Tesla wants to sell direct. I'm sure there's more going on, but to me the main thing they're trying to accomplish is controlling the Tesla experience from start to finish. If it was almost any other industry, there would be no story as most companies have the option to sell direct.
For an industry that I think could be moving much faster than it is, Tesla ruffling some feathers is good for both the industry and its customers. A new and unique (to the industry) business model was long overdue. Will the other companies get creative with theirs?
This will be a 3 part series on the Apple Watch. The first part will serve as an intro and provide some context to what follows...for those of you already salivating at the prospect of procuring an Apple Watch it may not be useful, but there may be a wrinkle you didn't expect or you took for granted. As Alfredo Linguini proclaimed, "so, let's do this thing!"
What You Need to Know
The Apple Watch will be available in the late March to April time frame. Since the watch’s announcement back in September, every pundit in the tech and fashion world has offered their opinion and many have speculated on its success. Below is a brief summary of thoughts from the meh, the lovers, and other.
Fred Wilson, Venture Capitalist (click here for his controversial post, see #5) - to be fair the media has done what it typically does and dramatized it. Wilson said it wouldn't be a home-run like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. He never used the term "flop." I am actually inclined to agree with him, but perhaps for another reason depending on what he means exactly by personal mesh. This will be the whole subject of the third part of this series.
Why they're meh:
- Shortcomings are glaring, hard to ignore, and the product hasn't even been released yet, but it's not unique to Apple Watch. It's a problem that plagues most of the wearables category.
- Battery life - for details see this great take on why it's not a big deal from macworld. Here is a summary according to rumors:
- 2.5 - 4 hours for active use
- 19 hours for combined use - this should be the baseline as the watch has a built-in feature that "knows" when you're looking at the watch, so it turns the display on. Then, it goes to sleep or standby when you're not using it.
- 3 days for standby
- 4 days in sleep mode
- Since the watch will be in sleep or standby most of the time, it's a blank black screen may look odd on a person's wrist
- Pairing - to get the most out of the watch it needs to be paired to an iPhone
- Battery life - for details see this great take on why it's not a big deal from macworld. Here is a summary according to rumors:
- Bug aversion - willing to wait for the 2nd generation, so the bugs can be worked out.
- Something bigger is coming later.
- Some people are simply anti-Apple.
Chris Slate, Techradar (click here for his post) - he offers 5 reasons, some I detail below
Trip Chowdhry, Global Equities Research (click here for a nice summary of his thoughts from MarketWatch ) - his main point is to not bet against a product that can cause or influence a behavioral shift.
Why they love
- It's Apple! Their brand power cannot ignored. According to Interbrand, Apple's brand is worth more than any other company and they were number one in 2013 too (click here for the full list for 2014). Just how much is it worth? Approx $119 billion.
- Google is #2 at $107 billion. However, I think when you hear Google, you think search, not hardware. Maybe this is one reason why the Motorola experiment ended early? Android is strong, but Google's brand gets diluted since Samsung, HTC, or whoever else is actually making the hardware and they put their spin on it. Samsung has a strong brand too (#7 in 2014), but the fragmentation seems hard to overcome.
- The iOS ecosystem is already preferred by developers in terms of priority and investment
- Features and experience
- Apple's selling hard on personalization, its design and easy to use interface (digital crown plus state of the art touch screen).
- The options and personalization are unprecedented even for Apple. Check out this post for all of the options (2 sizes, 3 editions, 6 strap types, 6 different finishes, and several color options for couple of the strap types)
- Behavior shift - don't have to pull out your phone and making health conscious living easier
- The potential plus spearing attention and acceptance to the wearable category
With all this hullabaloo over the Apple Watch one has to wonder if the watch industry stalwarts are concerned. Here is one good take on it:
Teresa Novellino, Upstart Business Journal Entrepreneurs & Enterprises Editor (click here for her post). Her main reasons for watchmakers not being concerned:
- The Apple Watch will get people, particularly the whippersnappers, thinking about watches again (this will be the subject of part 2)
- The watch industry has survived worse
- Swiss watch exports are up despite smartphones
- High end watches (at least for Rolex, Tag Heuer, etc.) are status symbols
- Because of #4 watches can be an investment
The next post will focus on #1 from Novellino with more detail on what the watchmakers said and if they should be concerned or perhaps even worried. Yesterday Swatch announced their intention to release their own smartwatch (see here), so we know there is some level of concern. Can't wait to see what their response is.
I was working on my next series of blog posts, which will focus on the Apple Watch, when I came across Fred Wilson. One 82 word post on his blog has caused quite a stir. More about that later, but if you can't wait, check out this CNBC video.
Wilson posts something to his blog every day. That was not something I considered possible when I first started this website last week, but that's exactly what I'm going to try to do on this page.
Today's goods will focus on Jet.com and their imminent launch. I received an email to join this afternoon and have been thinking about it since I joined...after vetting it of course. Their launch is simply fascinating and will make for an interesting case study in the future no matter the result.
- Jet will have the lowest price every time (see the link to the bloomberg article below for more on how)
- Jet is offering stock options to their Top 10 Insiders and lifetime membership to the Top 100 (Insiders are basically those who signed up and are actively referring others...without ever having tried the service...something to keep in mind)
- Jet is offering early access to their services for the Top 100k Insiders
The "insider" approach and sense of urgency has created something similar to what I've heard about Ello. Taking on Amazon and not being afraid to announce it to the world takes moxie and I like it.
Here's a bloomberg article about the company and its story. Stealing a page out of Amazon's logo playbook with the happy/wink face j. I'm guessing this is not an accident...fisticuffs.
Can't wait to see what their service and the customer experience is going to be like.
So, what would you write about when your only audience is essentially friends and family, if that? Would you even want people to start looking at your newborn site?
Those are the questions I’m trying to tackle as I write this post.
My answer is to write about one of the things I’m known for, resourcefulness. This is a very broad topic, so I’m going to break this up into an undetermined amount of posts. I use a lot of sites and tools and I think it's worth mentioning if even just one more person can add it to their repertoire.
Let’s start with what the word means according to Merriam-Webster, which is the ability to “deal well with new or difficult situations and to find solutions to problems.”
I have to be honest in that the definition is not exactly what I thought it would be. I was thinking something more like the ability to “make the most of current resources including finding new resources.”
I think my definition is a very narrow element of the much broader definition. Nevertheless, I think it’s still worthwhile to continue with the vision I had in my head for this series of posts, which is to list the resources I use to find valuable information and perhaps even how to use them, if that’s helpful.
One of the most popular resources in anyone’s arsenal is the power of the search engine, which is Google for most of the world with Baidu dominating in China, Yandex in Russia, and Yahoo in Japan (1).
While search engines are widely used, how they are used is pretty much the same. You enter the words related to your query and scan the results. For most queries this is probably all you need, but sometimes you need more.
For a detailed rundown on the different syntax (symbols, punctuation, or search operators) you can use, click on Google’s site here. Here are 3 that I find particularly useful:
Many times I’m faced with having to learn something new or the need to refresh my memory. Using these symbols or search operators has saved me a fair amount of time and frustration over the years.
Well, as it happens I encountered 2 challenges while writing this post.
Challenge #1 – Chrome makes my mouse cursor disappear
I like to use Chrome as my internet browser and while I was using it the mouse cursor disappeared. I moved the mouse around and could see a glimpse around the edges, but couldn't click on anything. Since I have been writing my posts in Word and the mouse works there, I know it’s not a problem with the pc or mouse. I opened Firefox just to make sure the problem was limited to Chrome and the mouse worked fine. With the challenge determined to be localized to the Chrome browser I set out to search for the solution on google search.
My first search was for: mouse not working on chrome. The results were not great. Most of them focused on the click or scrolling function of the mouse, but that doesn’t help a person like me who couldn’t even see where they would be clicking or scrolling!
Time to get specific or creative with the search. Finally, success! Using: can’t see mouse cursor chrome, the very first result yielded a forum where a very helpful user by the name of bostonoski posted a potential fix. I followed his/her instructions and the mouse is working again.
Challenge #2 - preview: Is Andrew going to get sued after only his second post?
A lack of images can make a blog post simply undesirable to review. It was that thought that made me think of America’s love affair with lawsuits and its absurd ubiquity. My bio page was in dire need of some eye candy and I pulled some images of products that I love, a book and 3 movies. Is this site doomed for a cease and desist order less than a week after birth?
Look for challenge #2 in my next post. I also plan to hit Google Alerts and its unaffiliated cousin on steroids, IFTTT.
This website was created today...literally it was. If you're reading this, I have no idea how you got here...but welcome!
This website will be the foremost authority on all things Andrew Ciszczon. Only the 3rd sentence in and he's already talking about himself? Well, it is andrewciszczon.com...However, to my surprise and probably yours, it turns out that there are at least 3 Andrew Ciszczon's, this page will only cover the yahoo from Cleveland, Ohio.
Going forward I will actually post things that could be useful to a fair amount of people. I'm a fairly resourceful and knowledgeable guy with an unhealthy relationship with technology, innovation, marketing, entrepreneurship, and Arsenal (the football club for 90% of the world, soccer for the rest) just to name a few.
I will try not to just reiterate news and information you could find somewhere else...my take on it will always be there.