I'm in the market for a new car, and I've spoken to various car salespeople. Mostly as a normal person, thinking they'd 'get' me what I needed. Hasn't worked.
So, I changed approach with them, and spelled out exactly what my buying criteria were, down to the options I was looking for, colour choices and the like. I spelled out timing and so on. Still didn't help.
As an aside, I teach people (teach is an ugly word to me, as I don't actually teach them, I share best practices and as grown-ups they elect what to take onboard, and what to throw away from the interaction we have, and each individual is different.) how to sell. In a B2B sense - business to business. I don't dabble in retail sales, and don't claim to be an expert in that area in any sense.... but it galls me terribly when I have such amateur idiots pushing their junk on me and urging me act fast without ever asking me what it is I'm trying to do.
So, I'm protesting in my own way, and I've elected that they'll all starve a few days. I'm not buying anything. I know this will have no effect, and won't affect the behaviours I despise. But I'm feeling quite mean-spirited about it all actually, so there.
Beware the pissed-off buyer.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
The Mystery Continues
Let me begin by saying it's not possible to keep a secret in this world. That's becoming evident with the Malaysian government's seemingly lame attempts to dribble information out over the course of a week. I guess the fact that they have very little and/or poor military radar capabilities isn't something to be broadcast, but still ...where they really thinking this would remain confidential ?
The improbable answers to what has happened to MH370 that I wrote about last week are starting to look very credible. (See post below this one). The fact the aircraft hasn't been found suggests a few other things however, notwithstanding it's 6-7 hours in the air. A 777-200 is 209 feet long, and 200 feet wide. It's almost 61 feet tall. Hiding this thing, from the prying silent eyes of spy satellites if it's on land after touching down somewhere, would be REALLY HARD. Firstly, you need a runway at least 3500-4000 feet long, and that assumes a perfect landing, very little remaining fuel, dry conditions and no tailwind. Landing is a tricky business and in the normal commercial aviation world, the rule is the aircraft's stopping distance must be no more than 60% of the runway length, which translates to close to a 7000 foot runway (1.5miles / almost 2kms). How many of these are there within the flight range of MH370...not too high a number. Then you'd need a serious big hanger to hide the aircraft. The list whittles down again. The reason for the interest ? Those counties that own spy satellites notoriously distrust this region of the world, and will be keen to look for state involvement in this little caper.
What's more likely..? It splashed down somewhere where no one is looking today, on purpose, out of gas, or maybe as a result of a struggle for control.
Big conspiracy theories are always fun to discuss, but we do run into that core thing once more - no one can really keep a secret.
The improbable answers to what has happened to MH370 that I wrote about last week are starting to look very credible. (See post below this one). The fact the aircraft hasn't been found suggests a few other things however, notwithstanding it's 6-7 hours in the air. A 777-200 is 209 feet long, and 200 feet wide. It's almost 61 feet tall. Hiding this thing, from the prying silent eyes of spy satellites if it's on land after touching down somewhere, would be REALLY HARD. Firstly, you need a runway at least 3500-4000 feet long, and that assumes a perfect landing, very little remaining fuel, dry conditions and no tailwind. Landing is a tricky business and in the normal commercial aviation world, the rule is the aircraft's stopping distance must be no more than 60% of the runway length, which translates to close to a 7000 foot runway (1.5miles / almost 2kms). How many of these are there within the flight range of MH370...not too high a number. Then you'd need a serious big hanger to hide the aircraft. The list whittles down again. The reason for the interest ? Those counties that own spy satellites notoriously distrust this region of the world, and will be keen to look for state involvement in this little caper.
What's more likely..? It splashed down somewhere where no one is looking today, on purpose, out of gas, or maybe as a result of a struggle for control.
Big conspiracy theories are always fun to discuss, but we do run into that core thing once more - no one can really keep a secret.
Monday, March 10, 2014
The Mystery of MH370
This is starting to seem like something from the twilight zone. As I write this, there is no conclusion at all about the loss of the Boeing 777-200 that was owned by Malaysian Airlines and operated the overnight flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing this past Friday night.
The lack of information here is startling in this day and age, and the mystery is starting to out-weigh the tragedy.
Here's what is known:
The lack of information here is startling in this day and age, and the mystery is starting to out-weigh the tragedy.
Here's what is known:
- the aircraft took off at 12:30am local time and tracked as normal towards Beijing, a 6.5 hour flight. All weather is reported as fine en-route, and the crew and aircraft had no flags or issues around them - everything was supposed to be 'normal'
- at 01:30, about an hour into the flight when over the South China Sea having cleared peninsular Malaysia, the airplane cruising at and altitude of 35,000 feet, vanishes from radar
- there is no radio communication indicating an issue from the crew, there is no further communications from the aircraft systems, and the emergency beacons in various varieties do not go off.
What could have happened ?
Well, let's look for the most obvious answer first - the airplane crashed. When that happens, it falls from the sky and that takes about 2 minutes at that altitude. Lots of time for the crew to radio for help, lots of time for the telemetry interactions with ground stations to get info from the aircraft systems. So unless something cataclysmic happened, it didn't just fall. Add to that the lack of debris found. So - it didn't crash in a traditional sense.
If something cataclysmic happened, that would explain the sudden lack of communication, but not the lack of debris on the ocean. This is a chaotic event, and some larger pieces of the aircraft (those farthest from the explosion) would be sizeable enough to have survived the descent and would have been spotted. This remains the most likely of scenarios, but there are still issues with this explanation as the evidence isn't consistent with this outcome. As you think about other possible causes of an explosion, this one gets a little interesting again.
Let's begin looking at non-obvious answers too.
The airplane was abducted; hijacked (successfully or not) and or was the result of a suicide attempt. Each of these has at it's core human interaction which would have invoked unexpected actions to silence the still-flying aircraft. An abduction that took the aircraft silent, then below radar to some landing site isn't impossible to fathom, though a commercial 777 isn't easy to hide. A hijack may explain this. Alternatively, an unsuccessful hijack that results in a debris field far from where it was expected may be the case - we're looking in the wrong area. A crew member suicide could be possible here, but no personal profile information highlights this possibility. The other interesting non obvious answer could be the cause of the crash and an implicit cover-up - what if the Vietnamese government shot the aircraft down and now is charged with search & recovery and is sanitizing found debris to allow for a cover up..? That certainly explains the variables, but not motive. It would also be a hugely intricate task and many mouths to silence. So, highly unlikely.
This is an interesting mystery, and growing more-so with each passing day.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Looking up to Someone
I stumbled upon this phrase today in a quote from David Foster Wallace. It made me smile, and wonder and ask questions. I find the most eloquent amongst us have that ability - to make us consider things with their words and ideas that we either haven't previously, or haven't recently. It was really the underlying irony that struck me here as well.
When we are young, and small, we look up to those around us with more life experience, and height. I can't say whether that's the origin of the phrase, but it seem too obvious not to be true. We admire and respect those older than us for the simple fact that they are older, bigger, cooler or more powerful. I think the rationalizing choice as to 'why' we do it is dependant upon whether we're speaking about a parent, teacher, sports figure, senior child in the schoolyard and so on.
What happens when we're grown up though ? The phrase is still used. What are we looking up to.. does older, bigger, cooler or more powerful still carry the day ? Is the ingrained framework of seeking guidance still present. I think to some degree it is. So, let's test this a little.
Think back, who did you 'look up to' when you were in elementary school ? and why.. Think for a moment about your own answers. Now, who do you admire today, who is that person or persons today, and why do you 'look up to' them..? Is it the same reason...
Your answers, my answers.. they are interesting in what they say about us, aren't they.
When we are young, and small, we look up to those around us with more life experience, and height. I can't say whether that's the origin of the phrase, but it seem too obvious not to be true. We admire and respect those older than us for the simple fact that they are older, bigger, cooler or more powerful. I think the rationalizing choice as to 'why' we do it is dependant upon whether we're speaking about a parent, teacher, sports figure, senior child in the schoolyard and so on.
What happens when we're grown up though ? The phrase is still used. What are we looking up to.. does older, bigger, cooler or more powerful still carry the day ? Is the ingrained framework of seeking guidance still present. I think to some degree it is. So, let's test this a little.
Think back, who did you 'look up to' when you were in elementary school ? and why.. Think for a moment about your own answers. Now, who do you admire today, who is that person or persons today, and why do you 'look up to' them..? Is it the same reason...
Your answers, my answers.. they are interesting in what they say about us, aren't they.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Google, WhatsApp, Facebook and Becoming Microsoft
There is lots to be said or inferred from the $19B purchase of WhatsApp by Facebook last week. I particularly like Robert Reich's point about "this being everything that is wrong with this economy". Interesting perspective from a smart guy.
But I want to make another point, a related one perhaps, but it speaks to the shape of things to come. I saw a tweet today from Donal Daly of The TAS Group that said "..WhatsApp and other mobile-messaging services have cost phone carriers an estimated $32.5B in lost revenue from texting fees.". As always, Donal's insights gave me pause to think about a few things. Firstly, I believe technology evolution is a little like what they say about history - it repeats itself. In a business sense, few companies were as revered in the marketplace for what they were able to accomplish as much as Microsoft was when they owned the OS. The hardware folks fought to the death with slim margins as Redmond chugged along. I've always felt that was also Google's quiet corporate goal - own the middleware to own the customer. But if we're in a new era now where the phone is now the computer, and we're all connected, would you rather be the Telco, the hardware provider or the OS ?
Sure the Telco gets the glory sometimes, but they have the network infrastructure costs too and the share battles with one another. They're desperately trying to upgrade to maximize ARPU (average revenue per unit) while we all joyfully play Angry Birds and trade tweets, and Snapchats. The handset manufacturers crowd each other in low cost production centers to be phone flavour of the month, but that is fleeting at best. The crown isn't worn for very long in that arena. The OS folks on the other hand - they seem to have an interesting role - although to date it's been challenging to directly monetize. Google's android OS is the primary player, but they don't make trainloads of revenue from it.
So what's changed ? What if the joy to control and revenues with a completely scaleable model was to steal the Telco's customer attention (and funds) and do so in a hardware agnostic way ? What if the app is the new road to dominance ?
I've spoken here before about Amazon's cleverness in making consumption devices, and Apple's control of the OS as a means of fuelling via iTunes and the AppStore. What are the chances that the shortcut to the same intended outcome (for non integrated-platform owners) is the seizure of key applications..? If Facebook can't have their own OS, then they will try to own the means to interrelate via these platforms. It's both a relevance and business model extension.
What does this mean ? It means Twitter just quintupled in value as the other big players in this space won't be blind to this move, and the feeding frenzy is about to commence. Have network of users - will sell.
But I want to make another point, a related one perhaps, but it speaks to the shape of things to come. I saw a tweet today from Donal Daly of The TAS Group that said "..WhatsApp and other mobile-messaging services have cost phone carriers an estimated $32.5B in lost revenue from texting fees.". As always, Donal's insights gave me pause to think about a few things. Firstly, I believe technology evolution is a little like what they say about history - it repeats itself. In a business sense, few companies were as revered in the marketplace for what they were able to accomplish as much as Microsoft was when they owned the OS. The hardware folks fought to the death with slim margins as Redmond chugged along. I've always felt that was also Google's quiet corporate goal - own the middleware to own the customer. But if we're in a new era now where the phone is now the computer, and we're all connected, would you rather be the Telco, the hardware provider or the OS ?
Sure the Telco gets the glory sometimes, but they have the network infrastructure costs too and the share battles with one another. They're desperately trying to upgrade to maximize ARPU (average revenue per unit) while we all joyfully play Angry Birds and trade tweets, and Snapchats. The handset manufacturers crowd each other in low cost production centers to be phone flavour of the month, but that is fleeting at best. The crown isn't worn for very long in that arena. The OS folks on the other hand - they seem to have an interesting role - although to date it's been challenging to directly monetize. Google's android OS is the primary player, but they don't make trainloads of revenue from it.
So what's changed ? What if the joy to control and revenues with a completely scaleable model was to steal the Telco's customer attention (and funds) and do so in a hardware agnostic way ? What if the app is the new road to dominance ?
I've spoken here before about Amazon's cleverness in making consumption devices, and Apple's control of the OS as a means of fuelling via iTunes and the AppStore. What are the chances that the shortcut to the same intended outcome (for non integrated-platform owners) is the seizure of key applications..? If Facebook can't have their own OS, then they will try to own the means to interrelate via these platforms. It's both a relevance and business model extension.
What does this mean ? It means Twitter just quintupled in value as the other big players in this space won't be blind to this move, and the feeding frenzy is about to commence. Have network of users - will sell.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Olympics - Part 2
Kind of sad it's over.
The sporting highlights were superlative, and the games themselves fascinating. I got excited about sports I had previously little interest in, and cheered on young people I'd not known of before.
It's four years until Korea, two to Brazil.
The spirit will burn bright until then, in the hearts, minds and commitments of many. So when we watch in two or four years time - understand that the medals are really being won today and tomorrow - in a few years we will just get to see to final seconds of what each of these fine people have gone through.
The sporting highlights were superlative, and the games themselves fascinating. I got excited about sports I had previously little interest in, and cheered on young people I'd not known of before.
It's four years until Korea, two to Brazil.
The spirit will burn bright until then, in the hearts, minds and commitments of many. So when we watch in two or four years time - understand that the medals are really being won today and tomorrow - in a few years we will just get to see to final seconds of what each of these fine people have gone through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
