By Peter Henderson and Poornima Gupta
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs when it comes to leading Apple Inc. As the debut of the new iPhone 5 just proved, that may not be a bad thing.
The taller, thinner and lighter phone prompted a rush on Wall Street to raise price targets for Apple stock, but the optimism was not because of a big technological advance or design breakthrough; the “wow” factor that was the trademark of the late Apple co-founder Jobs was decidedly absent.
Rather, it was the speed of the global launch that astounded, validating the new CEO’s much-touted wizardry at the essential but unglamorous task of managing a supply chain.
“We are positively surprised regarding the pace of the rollout, since we had expected a bigger impact from component constraints,” Barclays analyst Ben Reitzes said.
By next Friday, the iPhone 5 will be in 31 countries, and will be in 100 by the end of the calendar year. That would be 30 more than the rollout of the predecessor phone, the 4S, over a similar period, Jeffries analyst Peter Misek calculated.
That means Apple has worked out supply constraints and inked deals now with 240 carriers. It will get enough phones out the door in the next 10 days to have a material effect on earnings.
“His skills fit the time period and the flow of product,” said Raymond Miles, professor emeritus at Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, adding that Apple may be at a stage where it needs “someone with a production vision.”
The iPhone launch offers some other, subtler indications of how Apple is changing under Cook. In public events, Jobs stood out in his black turtleneck, and performed carefully crafted one-man stage shows. At the press event for the iPhone 5, Cook blended into a pack of executives all sporting a uniform of jeans and untucked casual dress shirt.
Indeed, one might say that practical, low-flash, but high-impact actions are emerging as the Cook trademark. He has introduced a dividend to pay out part of the more than $100 billion cash stockpile, raised salaries for a rabidly loyal but low-paid workforce in the Apple stories, and sped up product rollouts.
Under Cook, more Wall Street analysts have been invited to headquarters to talk to executives, particularly Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer and head of Internet services Eddy Cue. Cook himself addressed investors at a Goldman Sachs conference, a rarity for Apple executives, and initiated investigations into allegations of labor abuse in its supply chain.
APPLE MAPS PROBLEMS
Insiders say he is a refreshing presence after the prickly Jobs, who was admired but feared. Cook is also known for his ability to track vast amount of data and zero in on a critical parameter.
One person familiar with the CEO notes that under Cook, the company has continued to rapidly increase its revenue, retain all the senior executives, maintain its product rollout schedule and avoid huge blunders.
On the flip side, the imbroglio over the sub-par mapping software in the iPhone 5 suggests that Jobs’ obsessive perfectionism and attention to user experience is already being missed.
Apple Maps, which offers soaring ‘flyover’ views of major cities, has displaced Google Maps on the new iPhone software. But the new program has no public transit directions, limited traffic information, and flat-out mistakes, such as putting one city in the middle of the ocean.
“Apple made this maps change despite its shortcomings because they put their own priorities for corporate strategy ahead of user experience,” said Anil Dash, a widely followed technology pundit, reflecting widespread annoyance and consternation.
Jobs would have put the whole company to work on the problem, as each negative review of the widely used feature would have irked him, said the person familiar with Apple’s inner workings. The issue facing Cook now is how fast he reacts to the Maps problem and how quickly it gets fixed, the person said.
Jobs himself allowed email synchronization software MobileMe to launch in 2008, to deadly reviews. Fortune magazine reported Jobs telling the entire development group, “You should hate each other for having let each other down” and immediately replaced the group’s head.
“No CEO, not even Steve Jobs, would be able to catch all the problems in every new feature of a new complicated product, like the iPhone 5,” said Harvard Business School professor David Yoffie. “The big question is how will Tim respond now?”
More broadly, there is also the question of whether Apple under Cook can produce products that are revolutionary rather than evolutionary. His products thus far – the iPhone, the new iPod line and an expected iPad mini – represent improvements, rather than game changers.
In the meantime, Cook is topping Jobs’ sales record: IPhone 5 preorders hit 2 million in 24 hours, twice the level of the 4S, and analysts expect a smaller iPad mini in October.
Investors do not seem to need much more convincing about Cook’s ability to captain the ship: the average price target for Apple stock is now $763, up 6 percent from a month ago, thanks to analysts raising targets in the wake of the “wow-less” launch event.
(Editing by Jonathan Weber and Mary Milliken)
Tag Archives: Business
Andreas Bernström: 5 Things Every Business Needs to Know to Have a Successful Mobile Strategy
As use of smartphones and tablets continues to skyrocket, businesses as diverse as financial institutions, restaurants, news outlets, and software publishers are finding that their mobile strategy is often what can mean the difference between success and failure.
According to Canalys, global sales of smartphones overtook PCs for the first time last year, and in several markets, including China, more users access the web through smartphones than laptop and desktop computers
With smartphones and tablets more prevalent than ever, even traditional brick and mortars and web-based businesses stand to benefit from a mobile infusion. If your business needs a mobile strategy (and chances are that it does), here’s a list of five essential things to keep in mind if you want your business to succeed on the third screen:
1. Think cross platform
Potential users and customers are everywhere and the last thing you want to do is limit yourself by sticking to a single platform. That means you need to devote as many resources as possible to getting your product or service on to all major mobile platforms. This doesn’t just mean creating apps for iOS, Android, and Windows Phone, it also means making sure your website is optimized for mobile devices.
Furthermore, don’t lock your users into one ecosystem or device if your product is available on multiple platforms. A single customer could very well have a Windows PC, an Apple iPad, and a Google Nexus phone. A customer should be able to quickly and seamlessly use your service across multiple platforms, like how Netflix allows users watching through their TV to pick up a video right where they left off when watching on their phone, or how Amazon’s Kindle platform lets readers save their place in a book and continue reading on anything from a Kindle e-reader, to an iPhone, to a web browser. If you don’t give consumers a seamless and connected service, they might very well turn to a competitor who does.
2. Keep it simple
After getting your service in front of as wide an audience as possible, it’s just as important to make the use of your product on mobile devices accessible. Not only is a good user interface (UI) important, but if the nature of your app or site allows users to get a taste without registering, let them do so. People have very short attention spans and the window of opportunity to convey the value of your service is small.
Keep registration and payment flows as simple as possible. While virtual keyboards have improved greatly, there’s no getting around the fact that entering information on a phone is a slower and more cumbersome process than doing so with a mouse and keyboard (not to mention that mobile users are likely to be on the move when using their devices and not seated at a distraction-free desk.)
Therefore, keep the information users have to enter for payment and registration to the bare minimum. With Facebook more or less owning our identities online, leverage their Single Sign-On solution to reuse as much basic information as you can and only prompt new users for the absolute essentials not provided by Facebook’s APIs. First impressions are key, and if mobile users find a sea of registration fields as soon as they fire up your app, they’re going to be turned off and might just delete your app and go to the next one rather than jump through the hoops you’ve created.
3. Target and reward loyal users
Consumers who love your product or service will do more for you through word of mouth than any ad campaign ever will. Make sure they feel that their admiration for your product or service is being reciprocated and are incentivized to spread the word. Of course, this rule stands true for any business, but is especially important for businesses focusing on mobile, as the methods for broadcasting their loyalty are literally at users’ fingertips.
A couple options are to reward mobile users for preaching the merits of your product by handing out easy-to-redeem referral bonuses, or utilizing location-based technologies to target customers with promotions at “check-in” or when they mention your business in a positive light.
4. Add a social component
Similar to the last point: you want your fans broadcasting their use of your product, and they want ways to share their love of your product with others, so why not reach out to them on social networks that they know and love. It’s a win-win.
Great social integration means more than basic integration with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social networks. That’s well and good, but it’s been done before.
If you want to stand out, consider adding a gamification component to existing promotions or incentives that encourage user interaction, such as badges that award heavy users and achievements, or leaderboards that show who among their peers are most active.
Not only will users have more fun, but they’ll want to get their friends to use your product so they have more people to play with. Try to build the core of your app around the notion of Metcalfe’s Law with the value of your app increasing for every friend they convince to start using it.
5. Don’t treat mobile as an afterthought
Last but not least is the single the most important ingredient for a successful mobile strategy: give mobile the attention it deserves.
Mobile Internet use has been increasing rapidly for years, and a robust mobile strategy is doubly important if you hope to compete in emerging markets. Thanks to the increasingly low cost of internet-connected phones, many individuals in these markets are experiencing the Internet for the first time through a mobile device.
You can see a cautionary tale in companies that have treated mobile as a secondary focus. Look no further than Facebook and Zynga, which have failed to fully capitalize on mobile and have seen their stock price tumble partly due to this..
Chetan Sharma, a mobile industry analyst, makes an excellent case in his Global Mobile Market Update Report when he says, “In 3-5 years, with few exceptions, if a company is not doing a majority of its digital business on mobile, it is going to be irrelevant.”
I would take that even one step further and add if a company does not have a concrete strategy to target and engage mobile users, they will fall short of their competitors by a wide margin.
So no matter what your business is, you need to make sure that your mobile strategy isn’t relegated to a bullet point in your business plan. Now more than ever, it should be the centerpiece from which the rest of the plan is based.
Facebook’s Listening To Complaints About Security
DUBLIN (Reuters) – Facebook, the world’s biggest social network, has fully implemented most of the recommendations made by Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner, the watchdog responsible for regulating its European and Irish operations said on Friday.
Ireland is the headquarters of Facebook’s non-U.S. business and the data regulator there re-audited the company in July to test its progress in fulfilling recommendations made last December regarding policies on tagging photos, retaining and deleting data and on the level of user control.
The Irish regulator said most of those instructions had been adopted, particularly in the area of better transparency and controls for the user, but progress still had to be made on a number of other items within the next month.
(Reporting by Padraic Halpin and Lorraine Turner; Editing by David Holmes)
Mark Cuban: What Business Is Wall Street In?
Wall Street doesn’t know what business it is in. Regulators don’t know what the business of Wall Street is. Investor/shareholders don’t know what business Wall Street is in.
The only people who know what business Wall Street is in are the high frequency and automated traders. They know what business Wall Street is in better than everyone else. To traders, whether day traders or high frequency or somewhere in between, Wall Street has nothing to do with creating capital for businesses, its original goal. Wall Street is a platform. It’s a platform to be exploited by every technological and intellectual means possible.
The best analogy for traders? They are hackers. Just as hackers search for and exploit operating system and application shortcomings, high frequency traders do the same thing. A hacker wants to jump in front of your shopping cart and grab your credit card and then sell it. A high frequency trader wants to jump in front of your trade and then sell that stock to you. A hacker will tell you that they are serving a purpose by identifying the weak links in your system. A trader will tell you they deserve the pennies they are making on the trade or the rebate they are getting from the exchange because they provide liquidity to the market.
I recognize that one is illegal, the other is not. That isn’t the important issue.
The important issue is recognizing that Wall Street is no longer serving the purpose that it was designed to. Wall Street was designed to be a market to which companies provide securities (stocks/bonds), from which they received capital that would help them start/grow/sell businesses. Investors made their money by recognizing value where others did not, or by simply committing to a company and growing with it as a shareholder, receiving dividends or appreciation in their holdings. What percentage of the market is driven by investors these days?
I started actively trading stocks in 1992. I traded a lot. Over the years I’ve written quite a bit about the market. I have always thought I had a good handle on the market. Until recently.
Over just the past five years, the market has changed. It is getting increasingly difficult to just invest in companies you believe in. Discussion in the market place is not about the performance of specific companies and their returns. Discussion is about macro issues that impact all stocks. And those macro issues impact automated trading decisions, which impact any and every stock that is part of any and every index or ETF. Combine that with the leverage of derivatives tracking companies, indexes and other packages or the leveraged ETFs, and individual stocks become pawns in a much bigger game that I feel increasingly less comfortable playing. It is a game fraught with ever increasing risk.
So back to the original question. What business is Wall Street in?
Its primary business is no longer creating capital for business. Creating capital for business has to be less than one percent of the volume on Wall Street in any given period. (I would be curious if anyone out there knows what percentage of transactions actually return money to a company for any reason). It wouldn’t shock me that even in this environment that more money flows from companies to the market in the form of buybacks (which I think are always a mistake), than flows into companies in the form of equity.
My two cents is that it is important for this country to push Wall Street back to the business of creating capital for business. Whether it’s through a use of taxes on trades (hit every trade on a stock held less than one hour with a 10 cent tax and all these problems go away), or changing the capital gains tax structure so that there is no capital gains tax on any shares of stock (private or public company) held for one year or more, and no tax on dividends paid to shareholders who have held stock in the company for more than five years. However we need to do it, we need to get the smart money on Wall Street back to thinking about ways to use their capital to help start and grow companies. That is what will create jobs. That is where we will find the next big thing that will accelerate the world economy. It won’t come from traders trying to hack the financial system for a few pennies per trade.
And solutions won’t come from bureaucrats trying to prevent the traders from hacking the system. The only certainty when bureaucrats step in is that the law of unintended consequences will smack us all in the head and the trader/hackers will find new ways to exploit the system that makes them big money and even more money for the big institutions that develop products for the other institutions that are desperate to play the game.
Regulators have got to start to recognize that traders are not investors and vice versa and treat them differently. Different regulations. Different tax structure. Different oversight. Individual investors and the funds that just invest in stocks and bonds are not going to crash the market. Big traders who are always leveraging up and maximizing the number of trades/hacks they make will always put the system at risk. We need to recognize that they do not serve much of a purpose other than to add substantial risk to the global economy. That their stated value add of liquidity does not compensate the U.S. and world economy nearly enough for the risk of collapse they introduce into the system.
Wall Street as a whole needs to be in the business of creating capital for companies and selling shares to investors who believe they are shareholders. The government needs to create simple and obvious incentives for this business and extract compensation from the traders/hackers for the systemic failure risk they introduce.
There will be another flash crash, and probably a crash far worse than the May 2010 flash crash simply because there are too many players looking for the trillion dollar score. They can’t all win, yet how many do you think wouldn’t risk everything, even what is not theirs, for that remote chance to score big? Put another way, there is zero moral hazard attached to any trade. So why wouldn’t traders take the biggest risk possible?
There is value to trading automation. It is here to stay. There is absolutely NO VALUE to high frequency trading. None. We need to bring our markets back to their original goals of creating capital for business. It’s impossible to guess how many small to medium size companies have been held back from growing and creating jobs and wealth because of lack of access to capital from the stock market. It’s not impossible to know that our economy has suffered because Wall Street equity markets are no longer a source of equity for helping companies grow, it is not a platform for hackers and that needs to change. Quickly.
Cross-posted from
Sold Out In 1 Hour
If you want that shiny new iPhone 5 as soon as possible, then grab your folding chair and an umbrella, because you may have to wait in a long line outside the Apple Store.
According to Business Insider, about one hour after the iPhone 5 pre-orders were made available to the public (at 12:01 a.m. PT on September 14), the entire stock was sold out. Shipping estimates on the company’s site now currently say it will take at least two weeks to deliver phones in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and Germany.
While some lucky Apple enthusiasts quickly ordered their devices, this morning’s purchasing process had a few glitches. CNN reports that heavy traffic on Apple’s website led to the damning “We’ll be back” sign, which inevitably frustrated the sleepy internet and Twittersphere.
Some smartphone users found a loophole and were able to bypass Apple’s overwhelmed website and place orders via the Apple Store’s iOS app. According to CNET, “buying options went live immediately after midnight” via the app.
MacRumors suggests that customers “may still be able to receive launch-day delivery” (September 21) by ordering though AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint. But the Apple-obsessed site also gives one final caveat to expecting iPhone 5 owners: the 9/21 delivery date from listed on the carriers’ sites may not “immediately reflect available stock.”
Yikes.
So back to square one: If you weren’t one of the lucky few who could access the Apple Store last night, and you’re concerned cellphone carriers won’t make good on the promised release date, then prepare to wait a few weeks or camp in front of an Apple Store.
Never have pre-orders for a new iPhone sold out within one hour. TechCruch notes that the iPhone 4 pre-orders sold out in 20 hours, while the iPhone 4S pre-orders sold out in 22 hours, meaning the iPhone 5 sold out a whopping 20x faster than its predecessors.
Were you successfully able to pre-order the iPhone 5 last night? Let us know how it went for you in the comments section, or tweet us at [@HuffPostTech]. If you’re still on the fence about the new iPhone, take a look at our chart to see how it compares to top competitors like the Galaxy S3 and the Lumia 920; and view our gallery of the 7 things the iPhone 5 has that the iPhone 4S doesn’t.
Techonomy Detroit Organizer Says City Needs Less Talk, More Action
DETROIT — When David Kirkpatrick brought Techonomy to Detroit on Wednesday, he wasn’t just presenting a conference about business in the 21st century. With so many successful innovators speaking, the program offered a chance for Detroit to rebrand itself as a burgeoning tech hub and for the city’s entrepreneurs to learn from industry leaders.
Twitter creator Jack Dorsey, AOL founder Steve Case, Quicken Loans Chairman Dan Gilbert and Ford Chief Technology Officer Paul Mascarenas discussed American competitiveness, cities and economic growth — and the ways technology can jump-start all three.
They also praised local companies embracing technology, although it was clear to Techonomy’s founder that Detroit still has a lot to learn.
Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World,” hosted his first Techonomy event in 2010 in Arizona. Since then, the conferences have been held around the world, including a two-day gathering in Arizona this year.
“I have really enjoyed getting to know Detroit in the last nine months,” Kirkpatrick told The Huffington Post. “But I do think, as I’ve said before, there is a little tendency of patting yourself on the back here.”
Yes, Detroit has startup success stories, he acknowledged. “Wait until you have 500.”
Some speakers at the conference argued that national perception is a large part of the Motor City’s problem. “Detroit needs a marketing campaign,” said IndieGoGo co-founder Danae Ringelman, who suggested Nike as a possible inspiration. “You can do it.”
Kirkpatrick focused on deeper issues. “Frankly, there’s no money, there’s no money to keep teachers and firefighters. New analytic tools are not being deployed properly,” he said. Detroit must take advantage of technology to make its residents’ lives better, he said. “There’s no choice … degradation is the alternative.”
And he had harsh words for the city’s political leaders. “Government seems totally powerless to achieve much of anything here. I’m really, really disappointed with everything I hear about Detroit’s government.”
But other aspects of the city, Kirkpatrick said, make him optimistic, especially the low cost of living and the community of artists fashioning a “contemporary culture of creativity.” He mentioned Detroit Metropolitan Airport, which he calls “unbelievable — Detroit could become the de facto connector to Asia.” He was also intrigued by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s idea to welcome immigrants to the United States as long as they agree to settle in Detroit, an outside-the-box population plan that Kirkpatrick said would also address “the city’s serious problem with racial politics.”
“Maybe this whole thing could be addressed if there was more ethnic diversity, every single kind of person living within the city. It just becomes more healthy,” he said.
Speakers at Techonomy disagreed over whether the Motor City could ever regain its muscle in the manufacturing world.
Tim Draper, founder of both the venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson and a new school cultivating young entrepreneurs, was very blunt about Detroit’s prospects. “You’ve lived off this automotive tit enough,” he said. “It’s time to do something else.”
On a panel titled “Manufacturing’s Future, and the Impact on Jobs,” Stephen Hoover, CEO of the research-and-development company PARC, and other participants felt that Detroit could capitalize on its production legacy to create more jobs. But they also warned that the Motor City came to prominence at a time when less than half of the world was industrialized.
“The work will go to where the people can do the job,” Hoover said. “It’s hyper-competitive now … it’s a question of talent. Globally, there’s a shortage of high-quality talent in manufacturing.”
There is also a surplus in Detroit and around the world, he said, of workers who have been trained for the manufacturing jobs of yesterday, not tomorrow.
“The region that can solve that puzzle, it will be a big differentiator,” Hoover said.
Dorsey, the Twitter founder, closed out the Techonomy conference with a conversation about cities as inspiration and about Square, his new mobile credit card reader for entrepreneurs. In an interview, Dorsey said he realized when Twitter chose Detroit for a regional office that “the city has a lot of pride and a lot to be proud of. It is picking itself back up. Attracting this conference is a sure sign of that and a signal of that.”
The next challenge, said Dorsey, is convincing local entrepreneurs and politicians to move forward with these ideas.
“How do we keep this momentum going?” he asked. “How do we make this actionable?”
Dino Grandoni: Think Tech Companies Aren’t In It For The Money?
When you hand over your hard-earned cash for a Mac or iPhone or iPad, or when you log into Facebook.com to check up on your fourth-grade crush, you probably have no delusions about the nature of your relationship with the two tech giants: Apple and Facebook are trying to make a buck off you.
Yet to hear many tech companies tell it, they’re not after your money. Sure, Apple is the most valuable company in the world, Google is making money hand over fist, Instagram is cashing Facebook’s billion-dollar check, and Facebook is trying to do everything in its power to turn your information into revenue. But they’re only in business to create stunning devices or cool services to make the world a better place, Silicon Valley executives love to say — hinting that any profit is just, aw shucks, a coincidence.
A recent quote from Apple chief designer Jonathan Ive confirms that this do-gooder myth — we’re just here to make life better, business be damned — is alive and well. But remember, as Apple prepares to pull the sheet off its newest phone while Facebook tirelessly tries to keep you on its site, that this myth, like any public relations stunt, is really just meant to sell you more stuff.
“Our goal absolutely at Apple is not to make money,” Ive told a crowd at the British Embassy’s “Creative Summit” this summer. “This may sound a little flippant, but it’s the truth. Our goal and what gets us excited is to try to make great products.”
Here, Ive is parroting his old boss: The late Steve Jobs would claim he was more interested in making great products than in making great profits, even while recognizing one often leads to the other. Jobs would shun regular meetings with shareholders. Serving as interim CEO with $1 pay and no stock options after he returned to Apple in the late 1990s, he would joke, “I make 50 cents for showing up and another 50 cents for performance,” according to biographer Walter Isaacson.
Facebook co-founder (and fellow billionaire) Mark Zuckerberg seems to have a similar aversion to money. He raised eyebrows when, in the very document his company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to become a publicly traded corporation, he wrote, “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected.” Note the irony of a business signaling its disinterest in profit as it pitches itself to shareholders interested solely in profit.
Elsewhere, Zuckerberg has suggested the corporate model was just one that Facebook had to adopt. “The reason why we build a company is because I think a company is by far the best way to get the best people together and align their incentives around doing something great,” Zuck said in a human resources video.
The same idealistic streak trickles down to startups, where making money takes a backseat to developing good products — for the short term at least. For example, at the New York Tech Meetup, a monthly gathering of several hundred young tech enthusiasts, speakers have been booed when revenue was brought up.
In part, the do-gooder fib has persisted so long because there is true altruism online. Netizens edit pages on Wikipedia, submit links to Reddit and even engage in “hacktivism” through Anonymous not for money but for goodwill. Often, these folks are genuinely interested in helping humanity through their Internet activity — and aren’t paid to do it.
But as much as they’d like to pretend to be, Apple, Facebook and its ilk aren’t charities; they’re corporations. We can trust that Jobs did believe his business was good for the world and that Zuck does believe. But it’s also important for both companies’ carefully manicured mystique for us to think of them as more than just businesses. Facebook chooses such cozy words as “like” and “share” to cloud its relationship with advertisers, according to academic research. Apple happily encourages the idea, dear to its greatest fans, that it’s selling a philosophy, not products.
Even tech industry insiders sometimes take issue with the do-gooder myth. Larry Ellison, the unapologetic billionaire CEO of Oracle, is happy to put the wannabe saints of Silicon Valley in their place. Speaking with journalist Mark Leibovich in 2000 about tech titans who pass off their work as “Crusades for Good,” Ellison offered a sarcastic description of his company’s mission that poked fun at the being-good-matters-more-than-the-billions ethos.
“Oh, well, the reason we’re doing software here at Oracle is because someday children will use this software, and we wouldn’t want to leave a single child behind,” Ellison told Leibovich. “If I could just make the world a better place, what I really care about is making the world a better place, and that’s why I’m doing this.”
If they were entirely philanthropically inclined, Apple and Facebook could have taken an alternate route: Make like nonprofit Wikipedia, the Internet’s sixth most visited website, and get out of the money game altogether. If they really didn’t care about profit, wouldn’t they have done that?
Or they could keep making money and adopt Google’s more honest approach. In its published corporate philosophy, the company unambiguously states “Google is a business.” It also insists, “You can make money without doing evil.”
There’s nothing wrong with being a for-profit business. It’s what America does. But they should at least be forthright about it. Yes, your products are awesome, and thank you for them. But you’re not selling them out of the goodness of your hearts.
When $1-a-year Steve Jobs permanently re-signed on to run Apple in 2000, dropping the “interim” from his title, he was offered a jet and 14 million stock options. His response? He wanted 6 million more. Suddenly, profit mattered to Jobs again.
Dino Grandoni: Think Tech Companies Aren’t In It For The Money?
When you hand over your hard-earned cash for a Mac or iPhone or iPad, or when you log into Facebook.com to check up on your fourth-grade crush, you probably have no delusions about the nature of your relationship with the two tech giants: Apple and Facebook are trying to make a buck off you.
Yet to hear many tech companies tell it, they’re not after your money. Sure, Apple is the most valuable company in the world, Google is making money hand over fist, Instagram is cashing Facebook’s billion-dollar check, and Facebook is trying to do everything in its power to turn your information into revenue. But they’re only in business to create stunning devices or cool services to make the world a better place, Silicon Valley executives love to say — hinting that any profit is just, aw shucks, a coincidence.
A recent quote from Apple chief designer Jonathan Ive confirms that this do-gooder myth — we’re just here to make life better, business be damned — is alive and well. But remember, as Apple prepares to pull the sheet off its newest phone while Facebook tirelessly tries to keep you on its site, that this myth, like any public relations stunt, is really just meant to sell you more stuff.
“Our goal absolutely at Apple is not to make money,” Ive told a crowd at the British Embassy’s “Creative Summit” this summer. “This may sound a little flippant, but it’s the truth. Our goal and what gets us excited is to try to make great products.”
Here, Ive is parroting his old boss: The late Steve Jobs would claim he was more interested in making great products than in making great profits, even while recognizing one often leads to the other. Jobs would shun regular meetings with shareholders. Serving as interim CEO with $1 pay and no stock options after he returned to Apple in the late 1990s, he would joke, “I make 50 cents for showing up and another 50 cents for performance,” according to biographer Walter Isaacson.
Facebook co-founder (and fellow billionaire) Mark Zuckerberg seems to have a similar aversion to money. He raised eyebrows when, in the very document his company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to become a publicly traded corporation, he wrote, “Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected.” Note the irony of a business signaling its disinterest in profit as it pitches itself to shareholders interested solely in profit.
Elsewhere, Zuckerberg has suggested the corporate model was just one that Facebook had to adopt. “The reason why we build a company is because I think a company is by far the best way to get the best people together and align their incentives around doing something great,” Zuck said in a human resources video.
The same idealistic streak trickles down to startups, where making money takes a backseat to developing good products — for the short term at least. For example, at the New York Tech Meetup, a monthly gathering of several hundred young tech enthusiasts, speakers have been booed when revenue was brought up.
In part, the do-gooder fib has persisted so long because there is true altruism online. Netizens edit pages on Wikipedia, submit links to Reddit and even engage in “hacktivism” through Anonymous not for money but for goodwill. Often, these folks are genuinely interested in helping humanity through their Internet activity — and aren’t paid to do it.
But as much as they’d like to pretend to be, Apple, Facebook and its ilk aren’t charities; they’re corporations. We can trust that Jobs did believe his business was good for the world and that Zuck does believe. But it’s also important for both companies’ carefully manicured mystique for us to think of them as more than just businesses. Facebook chooses such cozy words as “like” and “share” to cloud its relationship with advertisers, according to academic research. Apple happily encourages the idea, dear to its greatest fans, that it’s selling a philosophy, not products.
Even tech industry insiders sometimes take issue with the do-gooder myth. Larry Ellison, the unapologetic billionaire CEO of Oracle, is happy to put the wannabe saints of Silicon Valley in their place. Speaking with journalist Mark Leibovich in 2000 about tech titans who pass off their work as “Crusades for Good,” Ellison offered a sarcastic description of his company’s mission that poked fun at the being-good-matters-more-than-the-billions ethos.
“Oh, well, the reason we’re doing software here at Oracle is because someday children will use this software, and we wouldn’t want to leave a single child behind,” Ellison told Leibovich. “If I could just make the world a better place, what I really care about is making the world a better place, and that’s why I’m doing this.”
If they were entirely philanthropically inclined, Apple and Facebook could have taken an alternate route: Make like nonprofit Wikipedia, the Internet’s sixth most visited website, and get out of the money game altogether. If they really didn’t care about profit, wouldn’t they have done that?
Or they could keep making money and adopt Google’s more honest approach. In its published corporate philosophy, the company unambiguously states “Google is a business.” It also insists, “You can make money without doing evil.”
There’s nothing wrong with being a for-profit business. It’s what America does. But they should at least be forthright about it. Yes, your products are awesome, and thank you for them. But you’re not selling them out of the goodness of your hearts.
When $1-a-year Steve Jobs permanently re-signed on to run Apple in 2000, dropping the “interim” from his title, he was offered a jet and 14 million stock options. His response? He wanted 6 million more. Suddenly, profit mattered to Jobs again.
Will This New Trend Change Restaurants Forever?
The online petition site Change.org could be seen as both a blessing and a curse for restaurants. On the one hand, it’s an easy way for customers to communicate to businesses what they want. On the other hand, it’s an easy way for customers to communicate to businesses what they want.
Restaurants, such as In-N-Out, Chick-fil-A, Sizzler, Chipotle, Wendy’s and others, are being targeted by Change.org petitions created by customers and other individuals with varying concerns including civil rights, animal rights, environmental sustainability and worker safety.
“Within the past year, we’ve seen a real uptick in all kinds of corporate accountability campaigns, including to food chains and individual restaurants,” Michael Jones, campaign director for Change.org, told The Huffington Post. “Petition victories have spawned people who want to want to take action and start new petitions.”
The latest such petition to get media attention is that of Los Angeles vegan Ari Solomon, which is calling on In-N-Out to add a veggie burger to its menu. Posted on Aug. 23, the petition currently has 6,846 signatures. Every time someone signs the petition, notification is sent to six individuals from In-N-Out, including COO Mark Taylor, Jones told to HuffPost.
The jury is still out on whether or not it will work, with In-N-Out officials saying that while they are aware of the petition, they have no official statement about it.
But according to Jones, the longer a business waits to respond to a petition — especially if it’s gaining signatures and media attention — the more damage can be done to the company’s reputation. He gave the example of Chick-fil-A, which recently came under criticism for its president’s anti-gay statements. Since July, more 50 Change.org petitions have been started by students urging colleges to remove Chick-fil-A franchises from their campuses, according to Jones.
“The more campaigns we see from various campuses, the bigger problem that’s going to be for the company in the long run in terms of its brand identity and how its perceived by the public,” Jones said. So far, only a petition targeting Northeastern University was successful in getting the school to quash plans to allow a Chick-fil-A store to open on campus.
At the same time, companies that do respond to campaigns stand to enjoy praise and an improved reputation among customers and petitioners. This was the case with 10-year-old Mia Hansen’s petition asking the smoothie chain Jamba Juice to stop using polystyrene cups. Jamba Juice was the Carlsbad, Calif., fifth-grader’s favorite treat to get with her mom after basketball practice, but she was disappointed that the company was using non-biodegradable cups.
While Jamba Juice said they had already decided to stop using the cups, the company announced it would complete the transition by the end of 2013 after Hansen’s petition gained attention. Jamba Juice clearly recognized the power of the petition, and Hansen was even asked to serve as a “healthy communities ambassador” for the company.
Petitions started by devoted customers and people with personal stories like Hansen’s have been among the most effective, Jones told HuffPost. “There’s an authentic voice there that is often lacking when an organization, company or a politician tries to weigh in.”
Similarly, Paul Kalinka started a petition urging Dunkin’ Donuts to stop using polystyrene coffee cups. Kalinka, too, started his petition not as an adversary, but as a loyal fan of the company’s products. “Believe me; I love the coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts. I get my coffee there every day,” he wrote on the petition, which now has 87,830 signatures. The company responded that its number-one sustainability priority is finding an alternative to its polystyrene cups, and that it’s currently researching a recyclable or compostable cup that will keep customers’ hands cool and coffee hot.
Other successful campaigns targeting restaurants include a petition that got Starbucks to stop using cochineal extract — a red dye made from dried insects — to color its strawberry-flavored drinks, a petition that got Taste-See Restaurant to cancel its lion meat dinner, and a petition that got Domino’s to stop its guaranteed thirty-minute delivery, which was resulting in worker deaths in South Korea.
However, not all companies have responded as positively, with some simply ignoring petitions and others even pushing back. In response to a petition to get Domino’s to stop buying from pig farmers who use gestation crates, company officials balked.
Jones said that, in some cases, business executives don’t take petitions seriously because they have no way of knowing how many signatories are actual customers.
But Jones said that approach is unwise. “There’s a brand awareness here that has much bigger impact than the 1,000 or 2,000 signatures on the petition. Especially if it spreads on media or social media,” he said.
This new kind of consumer-driven corporate accountability is showing no signs of slowing. There are 150,000 new petitions and 2 million new members at Change.org every month, according to Jones. And while it’s already available in nearly a dozen languages, the site is quickly adding more languages and spreading to more countries. “Internationally, this could be a whole other ball game in a couple years,” Jones said.
7 Tech Titans Who’ve Cozied Up To Politicians
As even the most out-of-the-loop, casual “Social Network” viewers know, you can make a lot of dough in tech. So much that you can give it away in giant fistfuls to the political cause of your choosing. And if you’re donating to a super PAC, you can give an unlimited amount of cash to support candidates.
Like any other business sector, titans of the tech industry prepared for the 2012 presidential election by forking over great sums to get closer to politicians from both parties. In previous presidential years, “[m]uch of the industry’s wealth has typically flowed toward Democrats, in part owing to its liberal locales and younger executives,” Reuters reported in 2011. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, lifting limits on money sent to independent groups running ads and other political outreach, Republicans got a lot more dollars from Silicon Valley in 2011 and 2012.
Which party are your favorite tech celebrities donating money to? And will you think any differently of them once you know? Click through the gallery below to find out.
HuffPost Live will be taking a comprehensive look at the corrupting influence of money on our politics on Sept. 6 from 12-4 p.m. EDT and 6-10 p.m. EDT. Click here to check it out — and join the conversation.
Galaxy Nexus and Nexus S 4G on Sprint are rumored to receive Android 4.1 tomorrow
With the Samsung Nexus S 4G and Galaxy Nexus being on Sprint, OS updates take typically longer than GSM devices. However, it appears the Android 4.1 Jelly Bean update for both devices on Sprint are expected to begin rolling out tomorrow. While the GSM counterpart for each Nexus smartphone is already running Android 4.1, the CDMA flavors (specifically Sprint’s variant) are slow to the party.
The tip comes from an email being sent to Sprint Business Sales today. The email in full can be read below:
To Sprint Business Sales
September 5, 2012
Software updates for the Samsung Galaxy Nexus (L700) and Nexus S 4G will be available beginning Thursday, 9.6.12. Galaxy Nexus Software Version: FH05 Nexus S Software Version: JRO03R Software updates will be pushed to all handsets via Google. Customers cannot initiate a download on their own.
Fixes/Enhancements:
Upgrades Device Operating System to Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean) Fastest and smoothest version of Android released Better search experience Expandable, actionable notifications A smarter keyboard And more!
The quick summary of the email is that the Sprint Nexus S 4G will be receiving an update titled JROo3R and the Galaxy Nexus will receive the FHo5 update.
Since this is still in rumor stage, we will have to wait until tomorrow to see if these handsets begin receiving the OTA update from Google. Hopefully, this rumor pans out and we will have good news for Nexus adopters on Sprint.
[AndroidCentral]
OneMorePallet’s Shipping Solution: ‘Useless Empty Space Into Revenue’
To help small businesses thrive in a struggling economy, Bill Cunningham found an opportunity not by cutting corners but by using them, specifically those in the back of a cargo truck.
For years, commercial trucking carriers have dispatched trucks onto the highway at less than capacity, due to an inability to find small shipments to fill the cracks. At the same time, small business owners across the U.S. face a similar problem in trying to find affordable shipping options for smaller orders.
Cunningham, 57, of Newport, Ky., has taken a step towards a solution to both problems. Cunningham is the CEO and co-founder of OneMorePallet, a start-up that aims to fill those trucks’ empty spaces while saving small businesses money. “Small shippers rarely get great rates from the carriers, and small- to medium-size carriers rarely have the marketing staff and IT capabilities to match the big guys in the market,” explained Cunningham. “Our product turns useless, empty space into revenue for the smaller carriers. So our product has a ripple effect of helping small businesses compete with the big guys both from a shipping and a trucking perspective.”
OneMorePallet allows small businesses to ship at a lower rate by using a model similar to Priceline. By going through a third party, carriers can charge lower rates to fill the empty space without compromising their standard rate. Cunningham said, “We’re like the Switzerland of the bunch: We keep everything secret.”
The trade-off is that the smaller shippers have to be flexible on their ship dates and trust OneMorePallet to ensure that a reliable carrier takes their load. “Not everyone can be a OneMorePallet trucking company,” Cunningham explained. “You have to have a great service record and a great safety record. We have to provide great credibility.”
The idea for OneMorePallet was the result of a conversation between Cunningham and co-founder Sandra Ambrose. Ambrose was working with Cunningham to develop a web presence for her freight company when she explained her idea to fill the empty cargo space, which was sometimes up to 30 percent of capacity. She eventually sold OneMorePallet to Cunningham, who turned the idea into a reality.
Though Cunningham’s entrepreneurial impulse dates back to the time he ran his own business in high school sealing driveways, he credits much of his success to his experience in sales and marketing. “Nothing happens until you sell something. If you start out with an idea and you think the idea is the coolest thing, you have to remember it’s just an idea,” he said.
In addition to getting the product to market, Cunningham believes keeping the customer happy is key. “We’re not making a huge amount of money on every transaction,” Cunningham explained. “If we’ve created a process where customers are saving money, they’re going to do it again. We want to make sure they are happy, that they feel good when they use our system, and we want it to be fun, because the shipping industry can be stressful and boring. Happy customers are viral customers.”
Cunningham believes OneMorePallet is doing its part to fight unemployment and improve the economy by empowering small businesses to drive in the same shipping lane as bigger corporations. “I might create 10 jobs myself, but on the other hand, I’m preserving and creating jobs for my companies because I’m making them money,” he said. “I’m making them more profitable so they can keep their employment.”
This bump in profitability is coming to a segment of the economy that Cunningham believes is critical to America’s success. “Small businesses can be more nimble, they can be fun places to work, and they can create incredible value in communities,” Cunningham said. “I want to get people thinking that there are 1,000 great things going on in very small pockets and together we’re moving the needle.”
This profile is part of a series featuring innovative small-business owners taking part in The Huffington Post’s Entrepreneurship Expo, in Tampa and Charlotte, in conjunction with the 2012 political conventions and HuffPost’s “Opportunity: What Is Working” initiative.
Biggest PC Makers In Desperate Need Of Reboot
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Hewlett-Packard Co. used to be known as a place where innovative thinkers flocked to work on great ideas that opened new frontiers in technology. These days, HP is looking behind the times.
Coming off a five-year stretch of miscalculations, HP is in such desperate need of a reboot that many investors have written off its chances of a comeback.
Consider this: Since Apple Inc. shifted the direction of computing with the release of the iPhone in June 2007, HP’s market value has plunged by 60 percent to $35 billion. During that time, HP has spent more than $40 billion on dozens of acquisitions that have largely turned out to be duds so far.
“Just think of all the value that they have destroyed,” ISI analyst Brian Marshall said. “It has been a case of just horrible management.”
Marshall traces the bungling to the reign of Carly Fiorina, who pushed through an acquisition of Compaq Computer a decade ago despite staunch resistance from many shareholders, including the heirs of HP’s co-founders. After HP ousted Fiorina in 2005, other questionable deals and investments were made by two subsequent CEOS, Mark Hurd and Leo Apotheker.
HP hired Meg Whitman 11 months ago in the latest effort to salvage what remains of one of the most hallowed names in Silicon Valley 73 years after its start in a Palo Alto, Calif., garage.
The latest reminder of HP’s ineptitude came last week when the company reported an $8.9 billion quarterly loss, the largest in the company’s history. Most of the loss stemmed from an accounting charge taken to acknowledge that HP paid far too much when it bought technology consultant Electronic Data Systems for $13 billion in 2008.
HP might have been unchallenged for the ignominious title as technology’s most troubled company if not for one its biggest rivals, Dell Inc.
Like HP, Dell missed the trends that have turned selling PCs into one of technology’s least profitable and slowest growing niches. As a result, Dell’s market value has also plummeted by 60 percent, to about $20 billion, since the iPhone’s release.
That means the combined market value of HP and Dell — the two largest PC makers in the U.S. — is less than the $63 billion in revenue Apple got from iPhones and various accessories during just the past nine months.
The handheld, touch-based computing revolution unleashed by the iPhone and Apple’s 2010 introduction of the iPad isn’t the only challenge facing HP and Dell.
They are also scrambling to catch up in two other rapidly growing fields — “cloud computing” and “Big Data.”
Cloud computing refers to the practice of distributing software applications over high-speed Internet connections from remote data centers so that customers can used them on any device with online access. Big Data is a broad term for hardware storage and other services that help navigate the sea of information flowing in from the increasing amount of work, play, shopping and social interaction happening online.
Both HP and Dell want a piece of the action because cloud computing and Big Data boast higher margins and growth opportunities than the PC business.
It’s not an impossible transition, as demonstrated by the once-slumping but now-thriving IBM Corp., a technology icon even older than HP. But IBM began its makeover during the 1990s under Louis Gerstner and went through its share of turmoil before selling its PC business to Lenovo Group in 2005. HP and Dell are now trying to emulate IBM, but they may be making their moves too late as they try to compete with IBM and Oracle Corp., as well as a crop of younger companies that focus exclusively on cloud computing or Big Data.
A revival at HP will take time, something that HP CEO Meg Whitman has repeatedly stressed during her first 11 months on the job.
“Make no mistake about it: We are still in the early stages of a turnaround,” Whitman told analysts during a conference call last week.
The problems Whitman is trying to fix were inherited from Apotheker and Hurd.
HP hired Apotheker after he was dumped by his previous employer. He lasted less than a year as HP’s CEO — just long enough to engineer an $11 billion acquisition of business software maker Autonomy, another poorly performing deal that is threatening to lump HP with another huge charge.
Before Apotheker, Hurd won praise for cutting costs during his five-year reign at HP, but Marshall believes HP was too slow to respond to the mobile computing, cloud computing and Big Data craze that began to unfold under Hurd’s watch. HP also started its costly shopping spree while Hurd was CEO.
How much further will HP and Dell fall before they hit bottom?
HP’s revenue has declined in each of the past four quarters, compared with the same period a year earlier, and analysts expect the trend to extend into next year. The most pessimistic scenarios envision HP’s annual revenue falling from about $120 billion this year to $90 billion toward the end of this decade.
The latest projections for PC sales also paint a grim picture. The research firm IDC now predicts PC shipments this year will increase by less than 1 percent, down from its earlier forecast of 5 percent.
Whitman is determined to offset the crumbling revenue by trimming expenses. She already is trying to lower annual costs by $3.5 billion during the next two years, mostly by eliminating 27,000 jobs, or 8 percent of HP’s work force.
Marshall expects Whitman’s austerity campaign to enable HP to maintain its annual earnings at about $4 per share, excluding accounting charges, for the foreseeable future.
If HP can do that, Marshall believes the stock will turn out to be a bargain investment at last week’s closing price of $17.58, even though he isn’t expecting the business to grow during the next few years.
One of the main reasons that Marshall still likes HP’s stock at these levels is because of the company’s quarterly dividend of 13.2 cents per share. That translates into a dividend yield of about 3 percent, an attractive return during these times of puny interest rates.
Dell’s stock looks less attractive, partly because its earnings appear to still be dropping. The company, which is based in Round Rock, Texas, signaled its weakness last week, when it lowered its earnings projection for the current fiscal year by 20 percent.
Dell executives also indicated that the company is unlikely to get a sales lift from the Oct. 26 release of Microsoft Corp.’s much-anticipated makeover of its Windows operating system. That’s because Dell focuses on selling PCs to companies, which typically take a long time before they decide to switch from one version of Windows to the next generation.
As PC sales languish, both HP and Dell are likely to spend more on cloud computing, data storage and technology consulting.
Although those look like prudent bets now, HP and Dell probably should be spending more money trying to develop products and services that turn into “the next new thing” in three or four years, said Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan law and business professor who has been tracking the troubles of both companies.
“It’s like they are both standing on the dock watching boats that have already sailed,” Gordon said. “They are going to have to swim very fast just to have chance to climb back on one of the boats.”
Craig Newmark: Infographic: Most Important Law Protecting Internet Speech
Folks, there’s this law called CDA 230 which is a major free speech protection on the Internet. It also protects much of the business on the Net, which involves engagement with regular people. It’s a really big deal. Maybe the most important law protecting Internet speech.
My team and I worked with the good folks at Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to create an infographic explaining how CDA 230 really protects Internet speech.
A general theme might be that we do need some law in some areas, but it’s really hard to get it done right in Washington, maybe just not possible during an election year. But it’s still important to let people know about important laws like CDA 230. This affects both individuals and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including bloggers — protecting them from liability for what their customers say while using their services.
“Congress got it fundamentally right in passing CDA 230,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “Speech should not be left vulnerable to collateral threats aimed at providers who allow millions of people to speak and obtain information online. Providing strong legal safeguards for Internet platforms ensures that as many people as possible have the opportunity to participate online.”
Here’s what it’s about, according to the hardworking folks at EFF: Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230). It was passed as part of the Communication Decency Act of 1996. Many aspects of the CDA were unconstitutional restrictions of freedom of speech (and, with EFF’s help, were struck down by the Supreme Court), but this section survived and has been a valuable defense for people who run websites ever since.
If we lost this law it would probably destroy the Web as we know it. CDA 230′s made a huge contribution to the explosion of innovation and expression online, and we need it.

Craig Newmark: Infographic: Most Important Law Protecting Internet Speech
Folks, there’s this law called CDA 230 which is a major free speech protection on the Internet. It also protects much of the business on the Net, which involves engagement with regular people. It’s a really big deal. Maybe the most important law protecting Internet speech.
My team and I worked with the good folks at Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to create an infographic explaining how CDA 230 really protects Internet speech.
A general theme might be that we do need some law in some areas, but it’s really hard to get it done right in Washington, maybe just not possible during an election year. But it’s still important to let people know about important laws like CDA 230. This affects both individuals and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including bloggers — protecting them from liability for what their customers say while using their services.
“Congress got it fundamentally right in passing CDA 230,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. “Speech should not be left vulnerable to collateral threats aimed at providers who allow millions of people to speak and obtain information online. Providing strong legal safeguards for Internet platforms ensures that as many people as possible have the opportunity to participate online.”
Here’s what it’s about, according to the hardworking folks at EFF: Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230). It was passed as part of the Communication Decency Act of 1996. Many aspects of the CDA were unconstitutional restrictions of freedom of speech (and, with EFF’s help, were struck down by the Supreme Court), but this section survived and has been a valuable defense for people who run websites ever since.
If we lost this law it would probably destroy the Web as we know it. CDA 230′s made a huge contribution to the explosion of innovation and expression online, and we need it.

Jessica Miller-Merrell: Tech Company Perks Make the Rest of Employers Look Bad
Work at a technology company in Silicon Valley, Austin, Texas, or another tech-savvy city, and as an employee you are sitting pretty.
If you don’t work at one of these highly-sought after high-tech organizations, you may suffer with less than stellar benefits. Corporate benefits are big business and are growing in importance to full-time and part-time employee populations.
The Society for Human Resource Management, or SHRM’s, 2012 Employee Benefits report is peppered with the usual benefit suspects of standard PPO and employee health benefit plans, prescription drug offerings and casual dress offered in the office at least one day a week for 55 percent of those companies surveyed.
A one-day a week dress code and standard health benefits program where the organization fronts 60 percent of costs can no longer compete with even the smallest technology organizations.
These small technology companies can act big by offering a variety of corporate perks like catered in-house meals, tuition reimbursement and even unlimited vacation.
Companies like TrackVia, a small 22-employee business software company located in Colorado are offering amazing benefits to lure in top talent.
Chief Executive Officer Charles Var says the rapid growth has been centered around their unique company culture and employees. TrackVia offers perks like unlimited vacation and 100 percent paid health, dental and vision insurance plans, as well as free access to public transport for those employees who commute via train, shuttle or bus.
“Our philosophy is to treat the employees like adults,” says Var. “We work in a growing, yet competitive industry. Our employees understand that and don’t abuse these privileges.”
TrackVia was recently named one of the Top 30 Best Places to Work by Outside Magazine. And their unlimited vacation offering was especially attractive to Jennifer Gargotto, who began working for the organization a few months ago, re-entering the traditional workplace after honing her skills in online marketing as an entrepreneur.
“The culture here isn’t that unlike life as an entrepreneur. The company culture is great, and their company philosophy is in line with my own,” she says. “The unlimited vacation and benefits factored in my decision to work here.”
When it comes to offering company perks that deliver, one company rises above all others.
Enter the Google.
Googlers are offered a number of benefits including free haircuts and gourmet food, but nothing comes close to their employee and family death benefits. Spouses of deceased Google employees or their domestic partners receive 50 percent of their salary for 10 years. The deceased employee’s stock vests immediately, and each child of the employee receives $1,000 a month until they reach age 19, or age 23 for full time students.
The impact of employee benefits is real with 75 percent of companies surveyed as part of Harvard Business Review’s Commitment to the Future: 10 Years of the Principal 10 Best Companies agreeing that employee benefits increase employee retention and 72 percent employee loyalty. Published in May 2012 as part of 10 Best Companies, the research produced case studies supporting the value of perks and other company benefit programs.
Outside of employee payroll, benefits are often the second-largest organizational expense, accounting for 30 percent or more of an employee’s annual salary. If the demographic, industry or region doesn’t typically warrant unlimited vacation or other coveted perks, those companies aren’t offering them. High-tech companies are laying roots in different regions, pushing you to possibly re-evaluate your corporate benefits packages. How are you or your organization responding to these interlopers poaching talent with their high-tech perks?
What Do The Chairman Of Google And Kim Kardashian Have In Common?
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt hasn’t been throwing many house parties lately.
Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, is the current owner of a beautiful Spanish-inspired mansion in Montecito, California. The house has previously been rented by celebrities and the elite for lavish weddings, per Business Insider. But recently, the hosting gigs have been a bit thin — and some blame one of America’s favorite/most hated celebrities: good ol’ Kim Kardashian.
In August 2011, Kardashian wed NBA basketball player Kris Humphries at Schmidt’s picturesque mansion. There were 450 guests present at the fairy-tale wedding; helicopters circled overhead, trying to snap bridal shots for expectant audiences around the world.
But these love birds didn’t last long. A mere 72 days later, news broke that the couple were splitting. And apparently their failed marriage has “jinxed” Schmidt’s once sought-after mansion.
“Before Kim, the home was often used in the Summer months as a place where the rich could hold their private weddings –- but now couples are shunning the estate because they think the place is jinxed,” a source told Radar. It was also mentioned that Kim’s reality TV fame and new money status has led perspective couples to think it would be “tacky to wed in the same place.”
According to Radar’s source, Schmidt has since considered selling the home.
Would you still tie the knot at Schmidt’s mansion? Are you even “keeping up with the Kardashians” these days? Let us know in the comments section below!
What Do The Chairman Of Google And Kim Kardashian Have In Common?
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt hasn’t been throwing many house parties lately.
Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, is the current owner of a beautiful Spanish-inspired mansion in Montecito, California. The house has previously been rented by celebrities and the elite for lavish weddings, per Business Insider. But recently, the hosting gigs have been a bit thin — and some blame one of America’s favorite/most hated celebrities: good ol’ Kim Kardashian.
In August 2011, Kardashian wed NBA basketball player Kris Humphries at Schmidt’s picturesque mansion. There were 450 guests present at the fairy-tale wedding; helicopters circled overhead, trying to snap bridal shots for expectant audiences around the world.
But these love birds didn’t last long. A mere 72 days later, news broke that the couple were splitting. And apparently their failed marriage has “jinxed” Schmidt’s once sought-after mansion.
“Before Kim, the home was often used in the Summer months as a place where the rich could hold their private weddings –- but now couples are shunning the estate because they think the place is jinxed,” a source told Radar. It was also mentioned that Kim’s reality TV fame and new money status has led perspective couples to think it would be “tacky to wed in the same place.”
According to Radar’s source, Schmidt has since considered selling the home.
Would you still tie the knot at Schmidt’s mansion? Are you even “keeping up with the Kardashians” these days? Let us know in the comments section below!
Christer Johnson: Advancing Analytics to Predict Specific Needs
Editor’s note: This article is by Christer Johnson, IBM Global Business Services’ Advanced Analytics Services Leader for North America. A member of Christer’s team, Ryan Hendricks, will participate in a panel “Big Data in the Sports Industry” at the IBM Research Colloquium “Box Office to Front Office: Winning with Big Data” on August 10, 2012. Watch over livestream beginning at 10 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time.
One of the many things I’ve learned from more than 19 years of using analytics to solve challenging business problems is that the word analytics means different things to different people. So before diving into numbers, I define analytics by the objectives they intend to achieve, and the decisions they intend to improve or accelerate. In that context, analytics falls into three categories: descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive.
Descriptive analytics, also referred to as business intelligence, provide a clear understanding of what has happened in the past, through visualization of key performance metrics or other data in a report or dashboard. Today, the past can be as recent as just a millisecond ago.
The sports world has long been a leader in the use of descriptive analytics to provide fans, coaches, and players with a wide range of statistical reports that help them understand what’s happening on the field — whether a coach wants to improve play, or fans want to win their fantasy league.
However, with descriptive analytics, fans and coaches alike must rely on their intuition and ability to interpret the data in order to gain any insight on the relationship or correlation between data inputs and data outputs.
That’s where predictive analytics, the second category of analytics, comes into play.
In predictive analytics, the objective is to use advanced mathematical techniques on that past data to understand the underlying relationship between data inputs, outputs and outcomes. Effective predictive models let us quickly understand and estimate outcomes across a wide array of scenarios and conditions. Commonly used for forecasting, simulation, root cause analysis, and data mining, predictive modeling techniques provide insight into complex data that we can’t manually interpret from a report or interactive dashboard.
Billy Beane of the Oakland A’s famously used predictive modeling techniques to uncover new data inputs that were highly correlated with the outcome of winning baseball games. In tennis, IBM recently began using predictive analytics to automatically sift through a multitude of factors from seven years of data about every point played in the Grand Slam tournaments — all to estimate the top three keys to each player’s match.
Predictive analytics still requires manual evaluation of the various scenarios and the predictive results of each scenario, in order to make a decision. This works well when a decision involves just a few options and the decision maker has time to interpret the predictive results from the various scenarios (for example, a coach using past game statistics to plan for the next game).
It does not work well, however, when a decision maker is faced with thousands or millions of options. Nor does it work well when a decision is needed just seconds after key data inputs are received. This is where prescriptive analytics comes into play.
This third category of analytics, prescriptive analytics, uses mathematical optimization to take into account a multitude of data inputs and constraints related to an objective. The formulas sift through potentially millions of possible decisions to prescribe the actions that will maximize the user’s objectives.
Major League Baseball now uses a complex collection of optimization models to create its schedule each year. And some of the most-common uses of optimization outside of sports include pricing optimization for airlines, hotels, and retail chains; transportation planning and scheduling for distribution companies; and the decisions around how to allocate marketing dollars across channels and product categories.
Analyzing Big Data
Today, even small companies are armed with the software and hardware platforms that can efficiently and effectively perform these three types of analytics on enormous volumes of data — Big Data.
Big Data is defined by the four Vs: Volume (terabytes, petabytes, or more), Velocity (streaming data), Variety (structured variables in a database, versus unstructured text, voice, or video), and Veracity (the degree to which data is accurate and can be trusted).
With the explosion of unstructured data on social media, companies are rushing to analyze this type of Big Data to better understand customers’ views, preferences, and behaviors. As exemplified during the Olympics, there are few industries that generate more excitement, discussion, and ultimately data than sports.
The key for sports franchises, as with any company needing to make the most of big data, is to start with the question to be answered, and the decision to be made. Once the question and decision are clear, you have a much higher chance of collecting the right data; using the most-appropriate analytical techniques; and producing insight that you can turn into value for your customers, your company, and yourself.
Watch “Winning with Big Data”
On August 10, my colleague, Ryan Hendricks, will join a panel with Dave Kaval, the club president of the San Jose Earthquakes, Mike Zoglio, the vice president of Marketing, Electronic Arts Sports, and Rory Brown, the director of content operations and analytics with the Bleacher Report as part of “Box Office to Front Office: Winning with Big Data.”
Christer Johnson: Advancing Analytics to Predict Specific Needs
Editor’s note: This article is by Christer Johnson, IBM Global Business Services’ Advanced Analytics Services Leader for North America. A member of Christer’s team, Ryan Hendricks, will participate in a panel “Big Data in the Sports Industry” at the IBM Research Colloquium “Box Office to Front Office: Winning with Big Data” on August 10, 2012. Watch over livestream beginning at 10 a.m. U.S. Pacific Time.
One of the many things I’ve learned from more than 19 years of using analytics to solve challenging business problems is that the word analytics means different things to different people. So before diving into numbers, I define analytics by the objectives they intend to achieve, and the decisions they intend to improve or accelerate. In that context, analytics falls into three categories: descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive.
Descriptive analytics, also referred to as business intelligence, provide a clear understanding of what has happened in the past, through visualization of key performance metrics or other data in a report or dashboard. Today, the past can be as recent as just a millisecond ago.
The sports world has long been a leader in the use of descriptive analytics to provide fans, coaches, and players with a wide range of statistical reports that help them understand what’s happening on the field — whether a coach wants to improve play, or fans want to win their fantasy league.
However, with descriptive analytics, fans and coaches alike must rely on their intuition and ability to interpret the data in order to gain any insight on the relationship or correlation between data inputs and data outputs.
That’s where predictive analytics, the second category of analytics, comes into play.
In predictive analytics, the objective is to use advanced mathematical techniques on that past data to understand the underlying relationship between data inputs, outputs and outcomes. Effective predictive models let us quickly understand and estimate outcomes across a wide array of scenarios and conditions. Commonly used for forecasting, simulation, root cause analysis, and data mining, predictive modeling techniques provide insight into complex data that we can’t manually interpret from a report or interactive dashboard.
Billy Beane of the Oakland A’s famously used predictive modeling techniques to uncover new data inputs that were highly correlated with the outcome of winning baseball games. In tennis, IBM recently began using predictive analytics to automatically sift through a multitude of factors from seven years of data about every point played in the Grand Slam tournaments — all to estimate the top three keys to each player’s match.
Predictive analytics still requires manual evaluation of the various scenarios and the predictive results of each scenario, in order to make a decision. This works well when a decision involves just a few options and the decision maker has time to interpret the predictive results from the various scenarios (for example, a coach using past game statistics to plan for the next game).
It does not work well, however, when a decision maker is faced with thousands or millions of options. Nor does it work well when a decision is needed just seconds after key data inputs are received. This is where prescriptive analytics comes into play.
This third category of analytics, prescriptive analytics, uses mathematical optimization to take into account a multitude of data inputs and constraints related to an objective. The formulas sift through potentially millions of possible decisions to prescribe the actions that will maximize the user’s objectives.
Major League Baseball now uses a complex collection of optimization models to create its schedule each year. And some of the most-common uses of optimization outside of sports include pricing optimization for airlines, hotels, and retail chains; transportation planning and scheduling for distribution companies; and the decisions around how to allocate marketing dollars across channels and product categories.
Analyzing Big Data
Today, even small companies are armed with the software and hardware platforms that can efficiently and effectively perform these three types of analytics on enormous volumes of data — Big Data.
Big Data is defined by the four Vs: Volume (terabytes, petabytes, or more), Velocity (streaming data), Variety (structured variables in a database, versus unstructured text, voice, or video), and Veracity (the degree to which data is accurate and can be trusted).
With the explosion of unstructured data on social media, companies are rushing to analyze this type of Big Data to better understand customers’ views, preferences, and behaviors. As exemplified during the Olympics, there are few industries that generate more excitement, discussion, and ultimately data than sports.
The key for sports franchises, as with any company needing to make the most of big data, is to start with the question to be answered, and the decision to be made. Once the question and decision are clear, you have a much higher chance of collecting the right data; using the most-appropriate analytical techniques; and producing insight that you can turn into value for your customers, your company, and yourself.
Watch “Winning with Big Data”
On August 10, my colleague, Ryan Hendricks, will join a panel with Dave Kaval, the club president of the San Jose Earthquakes, Mike Zoglio, the vice president of Marketing, Electronic Arts Sports, and Rory Brown, the director of content operations and analytics with the Bleacher Report as part of “Box Office to Front Office: Winning with Big Data.”