One of my New Years Resolutions was to use Facebook a bit more. My wife is a facebook junkie and whiles hours away on it sat in front of the TV. I just don't get it but each to their own. Having started to use Facebook a bit more my question for today is where is facebook's strategy for tablet computers. The mobile app is fine but is a cut down version of the browser experience so why no app for the iPad for example.
I was intrigued at Mark Zuckerberg's definition of mobile technology at their recent Mobile press event which simply failed in any way to acknowledge the tablet computer as a mobile device. So according to him PC's and smartphones are important but tablets are not.
Link that back to Steve Ballmer's quotes recently about everything being a PC (including tablets and smartphones) thereby all being candidates for Windows (God forbid) and also the recently cleared up confusion from Google about where Chrome and Android sit and we can see that the Cupertino tablet has really caught the competition on the back foot. It seems to me that Job's vision and strategy is the only complete one on the market today.
So back to Facebook. Not only should people be asking why there's no app for the iPad but more importantly is where is the Facephone or FacePad.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Monday, November 22, 2010
Is Mark Zuckerberg a genius?
I recently saw David Fincher's movie The Social Network and enjoyed the movie immensely. The question I feel that the movie didn't (and perhaps couldn't) answer was the title of this blog.
According to the movie the evidence for:
He turned down $2m from Microsoft for some music play-list software
He was at Harvard in the first place
He wrote Facemash in one night - when drunk!
He's the CEO of one of the most influential start-ups in Silicon Valley history
The evidence against:
He allegedly stole the idea for Facebook
The movie seems to suggest that because he was socially inept and a good hacker that he's a genius. Is that enough? Whatever the truth of the matter the fact remains that he is at the helm of one of the hottest companies in the world whilst still in his twenties. If not a genius then that is evidence of some exceptional talents. Genius or not? I'd say it doesn't really matter after the first billion.
According to the movie the evidence for:
He turned down $2m from Microsoft for some music play-list software
He was at Harvard in the first place
He wrote Facemash in one night - when drunk!
He's the CEO of one of the most influential start-ups in Silicon Valley history
The evidence against:
He allegedly stole the idea for Facebook
The movie seems to suggest that because he was socially inept and a good hacker that he's a genius. Is that enough? Whatever the truth of the matter the fact remains that he is at the helm of one of the hottest companies in the world whilst still in his twenties. If not a genius then that is evidence of some exceptional talents. Genius or not? I'd say it doesn't really matter after the first billion.
Why do people hate Skyline?
I saw Skyline a couple of weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was quite surprised to see the scathing reviews from critics and moviegoers alike.
OK the script isn't great but neither was it that bad either. The cast and characters were OK too but I found the story, direction and effects all above average. IMDB rates this movie at 4.7 (based upon 4000 ratings) when I last checked but I'd score it somewhere in the 7.xs and I'm a pretty harsh movie critic.
So why the discrepancy? Well maybe I had an off day and just enjoyed a crap movie too much, but the doubt at the back of my mind I suspect that there is something more sinister at work here.
It turns out that the Brothers Strausse (silly name I know) effects company Hydraulx Filmz is contracted to work on Sony's big budget alien invasion movie Battle: Los Angeles due for release in early 2011 and that the Strausse Brothers didn't declare their involvement in Skyline to Sony. From what I gather Sony wanted Skyline pulled until after the release of their film. All in all it sounds a bit hypocritical of Sony to me given the acknowledged dirty tricks they've employed in the past
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4741259.stm
but hey I wouldn't want to get on their bad side. Whatever the truth of the situation I figure that Skyline is a pretty good movie and when the budget is factored in it becomes a pretty amazing movie. Count me in for Skyline 2. And as for poor old Sony - don't worry - the trailers for Battle: Los Angeles look great too so I'm in for that movie too.
OK the script isn't great but neither was it that bad either. The cast and characters were OK too but I found the story, direction and effects all above average. IMDB rates this movie at 4.7 (based upon 4000 ratings) when I last checked but I'd score it somewhere in the 7.xs and I'm a pretty harsh movie critic.
So why the discrepancy? Well maybe I had an off day and just enjoyed a crap movie too much, but the doubt at the back of my mind I suspect that there is something more sinister at work here.
It turns out that the Brothers Strausse (silly name I know) effects company Hydraulx Filmz is contracted to work on Sony's big budget alien invasion movie Battle: Los Angeles due for release in early 2011 and that the Strausse Brothers didn't declare their involvement in Skyline to Sony. From what I gather Sony wanted Skyline pulled until after the release of their film. All in all it sounds a bit hypocritical of Sony to me given the acknowledged dirty tricks they've employed in the past
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4741259.stm
but hey I wouldn't want to get on their bad side. Whatever the truth of the situation I figure that Skyline is a pretty good movie and when the budget is factored in it becomes a pretty amazing movie. Count me in for Skyline 2. And as for poor old Sony - don't worry - the trailers for Battle: Los Angeles look great too so I'm in for that movie too.
RED One
I don't get the opportunity to go the cinema as often as I'd like so it's a minor miracle I've managed to see two movies over the last couple of weekends. One has been savaged by the critics and the other lauded. The tenuous connection between the movies - they were both shot digitally using RED One cameras.
The first is a sci-fi flick called 'Skyline' which has been savaged by critics and user reviews alike. The question I'm wondering is why? OK the script is a bit hammy here and there but I thought the cast, story, direction and special effects were all fine, even dare I say it good. There's no doubt that the film plagiarizes elements of a whole bunch of other sci-fi movies (War of the Worlds, Cloverfield, Independence Day in particular and to a lesser degree The Matrix and Predator) but then what alien invasion movie doesn't owe something to H.G. Wells original story War of the Worlds? Aside from The Matrix I enjoyed this film more than the others listed above and I think it's the movie that Cloverfield should have been. So why the scathing reviews? Maybe that's a question for Sony and the subject of another post.
The other interesting aspect is that this move allegedly cost $10-15m to make and that included 1000 effects shots. That's amazing as to me it looks like an $80-100m movie. Given that I'm currently working on a $10.5m IT project I find it amazing that a film that looks as good as Skyline can be made for the same money.
Best Scene: When the F22-Raptor takes out an alien.
Best Quote: Well there aren't any!
The second movie is 'The Social Network' and certainly nobody is complaining about Aaron Sorkin's wonderful script, David Fincher's direction of the fantastic cast. I found the movie interesting on a number of levels but mainly in its portrayal of life in a US Ivy League University (Harvard) - they have groupies? - and to a lesser extent the evolution of a tech startup in Palo Alto. What I felt the film didn't really address is a question that's burning in tech circles right now. Is Mark Zukerberg a genius or was he just lucky? Again that's a question for another post.
Best Scene: The Henley Rowing Montage
Best Quote:
Gage: Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: [stares out the window] No.
Gage: Do you think I deserve it?
Mark Zuckerberg: [looks at the lawyer] What?
Gage: Do you think I deserve your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: I had to swear an oath before we began this deposition, and I don't want to perjure myself, so I have a legal obligation to say no.
Gage: Okay - no. You don't think I deserve your attention.
Mark Zuckerberg: I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try - but there's no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention - you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.
[pauses]
Mark Zuckerberg: Did I adequately answer your condescending question?
The first is a sci-fi flick called 'Skyline' which has been savaged by critics and user reviews alike. The question I'm wondering is why? OK the script is a bit hammy here and there but I thought the cast, story, direction and special effects were all fine, even dare I say it good. There's no doubt that the film plagiarizes elements of a whole bunch of other sci-fi movies (War of the Worlds, Cloverfield, Independence Day in particular and to a lesser degree The Matrix and Predator) but then what alien invasion movie doesn't owe something to H.G. Wells original story War of the Worlds? Aside from The Matrix I enjoyed this film more than the others listed above and I think it's the movie that Cloverfield should have been. So why the scathing reviews? Maybe that's a question for Sony and the subject of another post.
The other interesting aspect is that this move allegedly cost $10-15m to make and that included 1000 effects shots. That's amazing as to me it looks like an $80-100m movie. Given that I'm currently working on a $10.5m IT project I find it amazing that a film that looks as good as Skyline can be made for the same money.
Best Scene: When the F22-Raptor takes out an alien.
Best Quote: Well there aren't any!
The second movie is 'The Social Network' and certainly nobody is complaining about Aaron Sorkin's wonderful script, David Fincher's direction of the fantastic cast. I found the movie interesting on a number of levels but mainly in its portrayal of life in a US Ivy League University (Harvard) - they have groupies? - and to a lesser extent the evolution of a tech startup in Palo Alto. What I felt the film didn't really address is a question that's burning in tech circles right now. Is Mark Zukerberg a genius or was he just lucky? Again that's a question for another post.
Best Scene: The Henley Rowing Montage
Best Quote:
Gage: Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: [stares out the window] No.
Gage: Do you think I deserve it?
Mark Zuckerberg: [looks at the lawyer] What?
Gage: Do you think I deserve your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: I had to swear an oath before we began this deposition, and I don't want to perjure myself, so I have a legal obligation to say no.
Gage: Okay - no. You don't think I deserve your attention.
Mark Zuckerberg: I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try - but there's no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention - you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.
[pauses]
Mark Zuckerberg: Did I adequately answer your condescending question?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
And the award goes to .... The Hurt Locker
OK I know the Oscars are long finished but I just saw 'The Hurt Locker' at the weekend and I've wanted to tie it into a post for ages.
My two cents worth - I desperately wanted 'The Hurt Locker' to be a worthy winner of six oscars, especially as it won out over 'Avatar'. However, I was disappointed. Whilst it is a good film, it certainly isn't a great one. Best Film and Best Director - I don't think so. But this just reaffirms what I've always believed about luck and timing playing their part in awards ceremonies.
At my last ever Oracle Consulting conference I was led to believe by my Practice Manager that the project team I had lead was up for an Outstanding Performance Award. We had just finished a difficult 4 month project that was a great success. The client was happy and referenceable, the systems integrator couldn't praise us highly enough and was lining us up for more work. And we had achieved all of this with the minimum of fuss. OK, we'd worked a few weekends and late nights but nothing out of the ordinary.
So there I sat at the dinner at the final night of the conference fully expecting my team to be one of those to pick up an award. You guessed it though - we didn't even get a mention. I have to admit I was desperately pee'd off. The project that claimed the prize we'd been promised, by contrast, had been classic car crash IT. Badly managed, poor quality, late, over budget, all hands to the pumps, client threats, the whole lot. Some hours later my Practice Manager came skulking over with some lame explanation that the award was given as recognition for all the 'above and beyond' efforts put in by the other project team.
So my advice to you. If you want to win awards and get recognition go ahead and fcuk up your project and then flog your staff for 18 hours a day to correct your mistakes. Don't, whatever you do, just run a successful project without drama. I left Oracle a few months after that and the irony was that I got a posthumous award for another penultimate project I'd been on. Too little, too late.
My two cents worth - I desperately wanted 'The Hurt Locker' to be a worthy winner of six oscars, especially as it won out over 'Avatar'. However, I was disappointed. Whilst it is a good film, it certainly isn't a great one. Best Film and Best Director - I don't think so. But this just reaffirms what I've always believed about luck and timing playing their part in awards ceremonies.
At my last ever Oracle Consulting conference I was led to believe by my Practice Manager that the project team I had lead was up for an Outstanding Performance Award. We had just finished a difficult 4 month project that was a great success. The client was happy and referenceable, the systems integrator couldn't praise us highly enough and was lining us up for more work. And we had achieved all of this with the minimum of fuss. OK, we'd worked a few weekends and late nights but nothing out of the ordinary.
So there I sat at the dinner at the final night of the conference fully expecting my team to be one of those to pick up an award. You guessed it though - we didn't even get a mention. I have to admit I was desperately pee'd off. The project that claimed the prize we'd been promised, by contrast, had been classic car crash IT. Badly managed, poor quality, late, over budget, all hands to the pumps, client threats, the whole lot. Some hours later my Practice Manager came skulking over with some lame explanation that the award was given as recognition for all the 'above and beyond' efforts put in by the other project team.
So my advice to you. If you want to win awards and get recognition go ahead and fcuk up your project and then flog your staff for 18 hours a day to correct your mistakes. Don't, whatever you do, just run a successful project without drama. I left Oracle a few months after that and the irony was that I got a posthumous award for another penultimate project I'd been on. Too little, too late.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Cheap at half the price
Here at the Depatment of Hopes and Dreams we're having a lovely spat with one of our software vendors at present. The issue is that my boss is questioning the need to pay a quarter of a million dollars in annual maintenance fees when he believes we only use about $40,000 worth of the product.
The interesting thing is that the software supplier has recalcuted the maintenance bill twice now using different breakdown structures. Both breakdowns don't help clarify exactly what it is that we're paying for. In fact the only figure that remains the same is the invoice amount - $250,000. Funny that.
The wider question is that once you've implemented something and it is successfully bedded in why bother paying maintenance ever again? The software vendor will say that you're our of support and that you original software licence will be revoked but if you do the cost benefit anaylsis you might find witholding the maintenance over say 5 years might pay for the replacement software further down the line. By that time the software might be half the price anyway. It's certainly worth some consideration.
The interesting thing is that the software supplier has recalcuted the maintenance bill twice now using different breakdown structures. Both breakdowns don't help clarify exactly what it is that we're paying for. In fact the only figure that remains the same is the invoice amount - $250,000. Funny that.
The wider question is that once you've implemented something and it is successfully bedded in why bother paying maintenance ever again? The software vendor will say that you're our of support and that you original software licence will be revoked but if you do the cost benefit anaylsis you might find witholding the maintenance over say 5 years might pay for the replacement software further down the line. By that time the software might be half the price anyway. It's certainly worth some consideration.
How much should you pay for software?
I've always had a problem paying lots of money for software, which is odd when you think about it. I'll happily pay for hardware, or to see a movie or to listen to a CD. In fact, the only software I think I pay without much hesitation is a computer game.
Out of the twenty or so apps I've downloaded onto my iPhone the only paid one is the very successful game Flight Control which cost me the princely sum of $1.19.
So at Oracle I was working with a sales rep who was trying to land a $10m deal with a large australian multinational company for a global license I was surpised, given that this account made up about one third of his territory, that he was chasing a deal that would probably limit what he could sell in future years.
We had a discussion about what software was worth and it was illuminating to me. As he pointed out - to him the software was worth the cost of the CD - a few cents and nothing more.
The funny thing is that a few years earlier I worked for a mainframe software house who when the annual results we're due and the numbers looked bad had a dodgy practice of cutting a few tapes bunging them in a storage cupboard and reporting the software as millions worth of assets. (They were later censured by the Stock Exchange for this practice).
I guess the old marketing saying is true - something is only worth what somebody else is prepared to pay for it.
Out of the twenty or so apps I've downloaded onto my iPhone the only paid one is the very successful game Flight Control which cost me the princely sum of $1.19.
So at Oracle I was working with a sales rep who was trying to land a $10m deal with a large australian multinational company for a global license I was surpised, given that this account made up about one third of his territory, that he was chasing a deal that would probably limit what he could sell in future years.
We had a discussion about what software was worth and it was illuminating to me. As he pointed out - to him the software was worth the cost of the CD - a few cents and nothing more.
The funny thing is that a few years earlier I worked for a mainframe software house who when the annual results we're due and the numbers looked bad had a dodgy practice of cutting a few tapes bunging them in a storage cupboard and reporting the software as millions worth of assets. (They were later censured by the Stock Exchange for this practice).
I guess the old marketing saying is true - something is only worth what somebody else is prepared to pay for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)