Apple is gay--and in good hands after all

Tim Cook invoking Steve's favourite postscript during the Apple Watch unveiling.

(In good hands? Let's get to that later.)

In a recent essay written for Businessweek, Tim Cook, CEO to the most valuable company in the world, gave a very moving read about his orientation.

"While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now. So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

Tim is gay.

To those paying close attention, the classic reaction of a great many is the rather slightly punitive "I knew it!" remark. Fine, that's not entirely a wrong rejoinder. I will argue, however, the response (among other variations/mutations of it) suggests we need to change more how we see things today.

Most of us heterosexuals have long accepted that the world's inhabitants include people vastly more colourful. Unlike them, I think we're terrible at identifying, for instance, a useful fuchsia between red and purple. (If this offends straight people, well, you may shove it.) (But yes, please forgive my not having a queer eye.) (For obvious reasons.) Anyhow, it already occurred to many of us over time to no longer be fazed in the face of mysterious acts manifesting in bizarre ways. Despite how the world has moved on though, old habits don't fade so easily. So much so that until today, truly, we remain utterly silly in how we view--and judge--the LGBT society.

This I believe is why Tim had to take his time. He was waiting for this planet to be ready. And I think we are now somewhat. Regardless of the reasons--and it shouldn't matter--this clearly caught my attention (if not yours too):

I don’t consider myself an activist, but I realize how much I’ve benefited from the sacrifice of others. So if hearing that the CEO of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it’s worth the trade-off with my own privacy.

I have criticized Mr. Cook for something else altogether and it's clear from a previous post. Leading a technology company requires geekiness and thought leadership more than an MBA degree and supply chain genius. After Steve's early death (which really hit me like a silver bullet), I felt so strongly about Apple taking on a leader (and not a manager) that will assure its momentum. Tim, I felt, wasn't that person. So today, that's changing.

Leadership after all may validate itself in various forms but the outcome is the same: inspiration. If someone can bring out the absolute best in people, the job is done. Tim's coming out is raw courage that will inspire not only Apple employees, but its partners, its competition, and everyone else. Oh yeah, we need more leaders like Starbucks CEO Schultz!

Inspiration will reach customers. Hell, I'm inspired! If this isn't leadership, then what on earth is? One thing I will never get tired of are leaders who'll go to the greatest length available to be very clear on where they stand.

Thank you for being gay, Tim. I was wrong before: Apple is indeed in good hands with you. As Steve would put it, "the world is a better place."

:)

How IBM's Apple bite just killed BlackBerry today

Just when BlackBerry couldn't possibly fall farther away from the tree (or shrub, bush or bramble?), it just did. Today, IBM decided it would partner with Apple on a massive enterprise initiative that will undoubtedly finish BlackBerry off.

What does that mean exactly? Before we get to that, here's a really nice introductory reference between Apple and IBM's colourful history together.

The Apple 1984 Super Bowl Commercial

The preceding clip is perhaps the most important advertisement in the history of consumer tech. To a lesser extent, but something fundamental to our topic, the Big Brother that Apple was alluding to wasn't a fictional villain. During Steve Jobs' 1983 Apple keynote address, he had this to say before playing the ad for the very first time--

"[...] It is now 1984. It appears IBM wants it all. Apple is perceived to be the only hope to offer IBM a run for its money. Dealers initially welcoming IBM with open arms now fear an IBM dominated and controlled future. They are increasingly turning back to Apple as the only force that can ensure their future freedom. IBM wants it all and is aiming its guns on its last obstacle to industry control: Apple. Will Big Blue dominate the entire computer industry? The entire information age? Was George Orwell right about 1984?"

Indeed, a lot has happened since the Ridley Scott's 1984 ad was published more than three decades ago. One culprit in how Apple and IBM got back together was, well, Microsoft, whom wasn't a clear contender at the time. Microsoft of course would enjoy utter domination of the entire PC industry for the next three decades alongside Intel's processors. The PowerPC line of CPUs developed in 1991 by the AIM alliance--Apple, IBM and Motorola (now owned by Google) was somewhat a response to that. Apple would then drop PowerPC in favor of Intel's "faster" chips in 2005. Ahh the art of choosing friend and foe.

Let's get back to BlackBerry's fall from the, uh, shrub.

IBM CEO Virginia Rometty and Apple CEO Tim Cook

What Apple and IBM decided to do is super clear: to win over enterprise customers with iPads and iPhones running enterprise software from IBM. This is a behemoth-sized collaboration effort between a respectable/profitable/leading device manufacturer and an enduring enterprise applications provider. The latter is not to be underestimated as they remain one of the largest enterprise vendors in existence. Here's a quick Wikipedia summary on IBM's legendary tech output--

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide and, as of 2013, has held the record for most patents generated by a company for 20 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology, and five National Medals of Science. Notable inventions by IBM include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the RDBMS and SQL, SABRE airline reservation system, DRAM, and Watson artificial intelligence.

And they both win I think. IBM needed the iOS vehicle to enter enterprises that have clear mobile intent. Apple, on the other hand, wanted to enter the enterprise but didn't want the herculean effort that would distract their consumer-first strategy. It'a an absolute win-win partnership similar to that of Google and Nestle on KitKat (although certainly at lesser scale with the looming Android L).

The prize is the massive enterprise business that continues to fuel BlackBerry, which some still argue will continue to make BBs relevant in the enterprise space for the longer term. Sorry BlackBerry, not for long. That last vestige of hope is going away as a direct effect of the Apple-IBM partnership.

No steering wheel: the promise for the road ahead

This first paragraph belongs to Maya Angelou, a precious gift from above who graced our personal desks, our bookshelves, our libraries and our classrooms with liberty, courage and sense of purpose. As an activist for the human condition, she was as relentless with her prose and poetry as her audacious fight for a virtuous life until the very end. We are far more creative because of Maya; she was 86.

You can’t use up creativity. The more you use, the more you have.

Maya Angelou

Google's new concept car doesn't have a steering wheel. "It"--in the absence of a name--drives people to places safely and securely whilst acting like a silent, professional chauffeur in invisible mode. Through bleeding edge location-aware technologies, motion sensors, and deep analytical thinking, "she"--allow me to designate a gender--makes live, intelligent decisions as the wheels turn. In summary, Google is at the forefront in building the vehicles of the future and no one else is even close.

Google built their own car. Wow.

But this isn't an homage to Google's driverless car project. Rather, this is a reflection of the rich history behind the human transport system and where (and how) we'll traverse towards usual/unusual places moving forward.

We all know that our feet aren't designed for heavy duty road marches. We've known it for so long that we also figured out along the way that creatures on all fours could do a better job. Horses suddenly were more useful than, uh, giraffes. (No, you really can't mount on wolves.) But like all biological legs, they are attached to biological lungs and likewise endure biological wear-and-tear.

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” This piece is generally attributed to Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company. While Henry didn't really invent the automobile (Karl Benz did), he did build something equally important: he made this invention desirable, universally accessible and affordable to the common person. Apart from this feat, Ford helped developed the assembly line that gave birth to modern manufacturing. Henry Ford's company was also the principal adopter of the forty hour work-week, the working time standard that's still practiced by a great majority today. Oh yeah, I'm a huge fan of this guy!

Henry Ford alongside the iconic Ford Model T.

My point with the preceding is that it's not just the inventors and their inventions that's changing the world. That distinction is and should be equally awarded to the enablers of that progress, like Henry Ford was to Karl Benz. The progress that Google brings to the table shall and must be complemented by more open software platforms, by better hard sensors, by bolder regulation, by stronger political will, by bigger leaders. These will make or break Google's attempt and it's important that we understand the significance of these forces.

Anyhow, I think the philosophical objective of cars is to make the world a smaller place. If everything was in reach, we wouldn't need self-driving cars at all. Google's attempt may not be answering that directly, but they're doing so with curious intent, creative persuasion and very alarming will. Imagine a class-action lawsuit if things go wrong on a massive scale. The prospect of this technology failing can cause Google ruin but that's not stopping them on this pursuit.

What's perhaps more important is that this project is a bold step that enables more champions to take their place in making it happen. Not too long, the step that follows is even closer to whatever it is that we really want. And who knows what that is? All I know is that this project screams courage through and through.

Without courage you can't practice any other virtue consistently. You can practice any virtue erratically, but nothing consistently without courage.

Maya Angelou

Newspapers are doomed (but you already know that) and who's really killing them

According to one recent daily chart from Statista, advertising revenue among U.S. newspapers continued its steady decline from last year. This suggests the sad fate of news in print and why less and less people would argue against Vader on the subject of destiny. (Sorry I had to plug Star Wars somewhere. May the 4th be with you transpires in three days!)

This is not at all a shocking development in the industry of news and current affairs. We have known for some time this trend would ensue given the rise of the Internet and its inhabitants (more on this later). And it's not a surprise either that digital advertising in news is stealing, albeit slowly, a bigger slice of the revenue pie. Compared to print, digital ads are still relatively small and it's pretty obvious that news organizations took plenty time in bring their content in digital format. Perhaps some thought this phenomenon would pass and therefore pretended it'll all be over soon. Too late for a great many, as this other chart from Statista suggests.

So who killed--is killing--newspapers?

Back to the so-called 'inhabitants.' In the information age, there are digital natives and there are digital immigrants. Digital natives are people born after the turn of the millenium. Put it another way, they grew up as the Internet grew in size and scale. Digital immigrants, on the hand, are people born before the Internet became mainstream. They also had more fun playing real games outside.

We 'immigrants,' including yours truly, were naturalized as the Internet became a persistent force in daily life. Majority of digital immigrants are members of Generation X, a period after the baby boomers of the last great war; 1960s up until the early 1980's. I'm a proud member of the generation that tinkered around with gargantuan computers, curiously experimented on vast amounts of software, and founded and nurtured the Internet to what it is now. We placed porn on the net, the biggest and best (okay fine, second best) content of our time before social networks took over. So yeah, let's give ourselves Gen Xers a break. These digital natives are living on land we built.

Clap! Clap!

Anyway, there appears to be no particular chart I could find that supports my argument. Point is, the Internet isn't the real killer. And neither are the digital natives of the world. Yes, millenials are happier getting their news fix from online portals. But no, they could not kill what they never enjoyed having from the start. They were born with a better, more efficient alternative to print; basking in a medium someone else built for them.

The builders were my generation, we, whom also founded and nurtured digital news. We did so because our collective curiosity kept leading us to something more than the morning paper landing daily on our doorstep. We proudly built the means to better expose the present, to more freely express opinion and sentiment, and to increase the bandwidth of exchanging live information.

Yes, we created the Internet. And yes, we murdered newspapers. You millenials are only really hammering the nails on the coffin.

No, we did not kill JFK, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Although I don't know why that's relevant.

Ryman Eco is the font that CAN save the world

Just when we thought there aren't that many more brilliant ideas that can be discovered out there, we prove ourselves wrong. Time and time again. In a world where everyone keeps reminding everyone about the need for out-of-the-box thinking, someone or something comes along and does exactly that.

(Out-of-the-box is one of those nice to hear jargons that makes me want to throw up every time someone uses it in the context of business. It's like collaboration or innovation. Everybody keeps uttering these corporate buzzwords but only a handful really practices them for real, let alone understand in its true form.)

Back to the topic.

Enterprises have long been told that the solution to high printing costs is investment in efficient multi-function mega printers. Small businesses on the other hand can't afford those monoliths and were pointed to the cheaper ink direction.

The ultimate solution of course is to stop majority of printing needs by investing in enterprise workflow solutions. In interactive dashboards and dynamic reports on iPads. In electronic documentation (i.e. invoices, receipts) using electronic approval/routing/signature. In smart people that can execute all of the above. (And in decisive leaders that will rally everyone.)

The preceding paragraph is a daunting task and most companies are simply overwhelmed to take action. Apparently, the size and scale alone of transformation projects creates a massive psychological blockade for getting things done.

Enter the sustainable font. It's not the ink. It's not the printer. It's...

Ryman Eco, a promising new font that claims to use 30% less ink than popular fonts like Times New Roman, Arial, Georgia and Verdana. Created by stationary brand Ryman and its creative agency Grey London, the world will save 490 million ink cartridges and 15 million gallons of oil annually if everyone used it.

Here's what "the world's most beautiful sustainable font" looks like:

Visually alone, it does make sense how we can save on print costs. A really, really great idea. But is it palatable to the reader, to the avid reader most specifically? It's pretty hard to tell since there aren't that much literature out there written on Ryman Eco. (As I was typing this piece, I did try to make use of Ryman Eco as the main font to better illustrate. Fifteen minutes later, I gave up. Too many steps that lead nowhere.)

Well, let's download the darn thing and start saving up on ink. (It is free!)

Need further convincing? This video is nice.

P.S. Sustainable fonts aren't exactly new. But it doesn't mean we can't convince more people this time!

Should Mozilla CEO Eich be fired because he's against gay marriage?

(Disclosure: I fully support the unrestrained and unbridled union of same-sex couples in the eyes of both church and state.)

Brendan Eich made a small $1,000 donation in favour of Proposition 8 back in 2008. The intention of Prop 8 was to make same-sex marriage illegal in California, which was ultimately declared unconstitutional a few years later.

While people knew about this then, Brendan's recent appointment as Mozilla CEO made this character firestorm worth talking about again, apparently. Case in point, OkCupid's bold display of disapproval today:

Mozilla's own employees--and what appears to be majority of the Internet community--are in agreement. Eich should be let go.

But should he be?

Let's get a few things straight. Certainly, a donation in favor of Prop 8 meant he was against gay marriage. It's a fact and there's no way around that. But if one is against gay marriage, does it equate to rejection of gays and the LGBT community? That's the thing, it does not.

Brendan Eich's religious beliefs are clear-cut in that marriage is a sacred union and exclusive between a man and a woman. And while not all of us agree with this particular belief, I'm certain we can agree at the least that a man's beliefs should not bar him from seeking the right of gainful employment. Especially if he can perform the functions of his office.

Speaking of performance and capability, Brendan Eich designed and created the JavaScript programming language. In other words, he is a legend in the craft and easily one of the founding fathers of the Internet we all share. If that is the case, why are we treating Eich as a person not fit to lead Mozilla?

JFK's decree in 1961 stated that we must "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

creed: a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

So far, Eich hasn't left. And I think he shouldn't. In a recent article, he was defiant:

"Mozilla has always worked according to principles of inclusiveness. It may be challenging for a CEO, but everyone in our community can have different beliefs about all sorts of things that may be in conflict. They leave them at the door when they come to work on the Mozilla mission."

How many of us can walk through the portals of profession every day and leave our beliefs at the door?

I believe same-sex couples must have the right to marry. And I completely disagree with Brendan Eich's opposition of that.

But I also believe that those who have beliefs we disagree with has equal right to get a job they've earned over a lifetime of passionate work.

Satya Nadella is Microsoft CEO because... he wears jeans!

From left: Chairman John Thompson, CEO Satya Nadella, Founder & Technology Advisor Bill Gates, Former CEO Steve Ballmer

Leadership got decided by clothing style. Think about it!

This is a serious piece I'm writing today about the very recent changes in Microsoft's senior leadership team. From left to right, let me share some thoughts about the significant personalities in this interesting photo.

First, we have the first ever black chairman in Microsoft's rich history, John Thompson. Put it another way, he is the second chairman in Microsoft's rich history--the first one being Mr. Bad Sweater (more on this later). Talk about a quick profile, let's move on to the next character.

(Alright, fine. This is not a totally serious piece I'm writing today. But keep reading and it will all make sense. Promise.)

Naming John Thompson as Chairman is a move that won't get much attention apart from the fact that he just replaced the one person we can rightfully credit to have put a PC in every home, Bill Gates. Basically, John was the committee head that went on in search of the leader that succeeds Ballmer. Well, I'll be candid in saying that I've never heard of him until recently. But it doesn't matter and here's why.

Naming Thompson chairman follows the right framework about how companies should be ran. The post "Chairman and CEO" belonging to one person should be avoided as much as possible to divide the role of leading the business towards the right future (Mr. CEO) from ensuring longterm shareholder value (Mr. Chairman). It also means that the chairman rightfully fades into obscurity to give full control to a CEO that can be scolded, suspended, replaced, and ultimately, fired. Bottom line, a chairman cannot fire himself as CEO. (Not that Ballmer was also chairman but the fact that he and Gates go way back is, well, let's just get to that later.) Anyone know who Apple's chairman of the board is? Exactly. It doesn't matter as much as knowing its CEO, Tim Cook. (For the record though, it's Arthur Levinson.)

The second guy in the photo is none other than the person selected to lead Microsoft for many years (hopefully) to come, Satya Nadella. He is youngest among the four gentlemen on the shot and in my understanding the only person not born in the United States. Does that matter? Absolutely not--leadership is not identified by age, by race, by gender, by sexual orientation, or by anything that's still normally discriminated against in corporate America.

But we can identify one thing that must be true about Nadella being picked as new CEO. And as the subject of this blog suggests, it's because of, well, those pair of jeans. Satya wears jeans!

Let me explain.

Bill Gates (the third guy) has a distinct fascination about a particular clothing item: sweaters. See for yourself.

As you can see, Mr. Gates loves wearing sweaters. He even wore one on his last day (our subject image above). Plain and simple, Bill uses those darn things on any occasion, wether or not it works (which in most cases, doesn't--IMHO). But wait, here's another guy who did the same much throughout his public life.

Hmmm that's not Steve Jobs. Here he is in traditional black and--for the first time ever--pearly white.

 

My point, ladies and gentlemen, is that clothes matter. The geeks of old--for the love of God--loved sweaters. The geeks of this age have chosen affection over jeans. Anyone who wears a full suit to work on a regular basis has got to be something else.

Wearing a suit is tradition. And if there's something I'm liking with Nadella is what he had to say about that.

"Our industry does not respect tradition - it only respects innovation."

Satya Nadella, Microsoft CEO

Does that make sense? Hey, feel free to disagree. But I won't stop wearing jeans and Chuck Taylors either!

Here's Nadella's first interview as Microsoft CEO. For more information about the man, Microsoft was generous enough to build a page in glorious detail.

Did we forget anyone in the photo? Sorry I'm not going to talk about Ballmer today.

:)