It's between the Kindle and iPad after all

Before anything, I wanted to honor Engr. Michael Valenzuela Tecson, father of my dear friend Jude, who passed away a few hours ago. Michael is the grandson of Pio Valenzuela, one of the founding leaders of the revolutionary effort that brought the Philippines independence. In his own way, Engr. Tecson served in public works with great integrity and ability. He passed along his wisdom and perseverance to his son Jude, a distinguished architect whose character and vision in the craft is unequalled in my view. Michael was 74.

The Avengers. There's tons of stuff to write about, i.e. the very satisfactory execution of balance despite the character-rich amalgamation of what I originally thought were too many superheroes in one flick. Without giving away anything, nothing could have prepared me for what--or should I say who--appeared at the credits (well, Marvel does have a reputation to uphold). To cut this short (as we have our main topic to talk about), The Avengers is the bar in Marvel film productions. And our simple wish is that all others after this is either as good or better. Yeah... Like Gauntlets.

...

In a recent report published by comScore, the Kindle Fire was declared the supreme victor in a platform where it has managed to capture 54% market share. The race we are referring to is the huge Android tablet market that has virtually exploded in the past year. It spans an incredible amount of "possibilities," permutations that include (of course) the most incredible, cheapest and utterly disappointing devices ever created by man. What's staggering about the Kindle Fire's market share is the time it took to get there--5 months since it was first released last November. Here below elaborates the report.

What's clear in the preceding figures is that there are other players that are clearly being eaten alive by Amazon's product, a device whose primary function (at least as advertised) is to be the perfect e-reader device. The other tablets, i.e. Samsung Galaxy Tab family, were supposedly (again, at least as advertised) superior in feature set capabilities. Another one that's quite obvious is the inability of certain brands to come out with anything near the meaning of success.

The Sony Tablet S (pictured above) is one of them; a shining example of a poorly defined product. The table below explains the mishap. Can anyone share their excitement over these Sony technologies: Clear Phase, xLoud, TruBlack, Exmor? Nah, no excitement whatsoever--we don't even know what they do! Also, are these mundane, petty and irrelevant feature comparisons affecting your purchasing tendencies any bit? Nope, they don't strike a tune at all! The fact remains that Sony keeps forgetting that the race is no longer about specs but user experiences. I think they fouled up what otherwise looks to be an impressive tablet design.

There's something brewing in the horizon against the Android OS: the Google-Motorola deal. Industry insights suggests that Google acquired it in order to compete with Apple. The realization goes that it must be deep in bed with the hardware that powers the OS in order to achieve a fully engaging product. Is this a great move? It's complicated. True, Google's acquisition of Motorola would secure the Android's future. The technology portfolio of Motorola would prove to be a monstrous arsenal against patent suits from the likes of Apple. While this transaction has good intentions, the hardware prowess of Motorola isn't sitting well with some. In fact, it is pissing off their handset partners. And who wouldn't be? It is quite logical that the best Android phones would eventually be the ones designed and integrated onto the Motorola chassis from the ground up.

But there's more. Developer interest in building Android apps is starting to decline according to a recent article. It also cites the Android OS being too fragmented to be even called a single platform; at least 10 different versions are running all over the place. (More than 90% of the Android base is still using Gingerbread or an earlier version given the barring of upgrades on most handsets.) On top of this are telecom partners looking to support an old friend in their upcoming mega-launch--Microsoft Windows 8.

But what of the Kindle? Well, the Kindle's success isn't really helping the Android's cause as we originally thought it would. Its operating system is an Android fork, a message to handset makers that you don't really have to use the default Android builds to be successful. The problem is it erodes the Android model ultimately. And as the previous article suggests, it means losing control over the mobile realm.

As our title suggests, the veil of time has been removed in favor of Amazon being the only tablet maker right now that stands a chance against Apple. As for the rest, it is never really too late to start thinking about bundling great marketing with great manufacturing. For real now guys! We're starting to get really tired of lousy products.

A single SKU versus the world

Our emerging technologies manager, David, shared this really interesting infographic about the ascendancy of both Apple and Samsung in the smartphone game. It shows how a single, meticulously crafted handset model can "rule them all" if executed well enough. It also shows how significantly complex manufacturers can get to realize a comfortable market share. Let's look at it further.

The general thought is that Samsung's strength in diversification is evident in most of their product lines. It is in their televisions, home appliances, digital cameras and other electronic gadgets. So much so that they are actually the reigning--and defending--consumer electronics champion in the world, a title they stole from the only company that taught them to be that way--Sony, once a true pioneer and idol.

When Apple entered the phones category with a singular product, Samsung completely ignored Steve's methodology. They thought, "there is absolutely no way that one product can sell more than an entire series of products." In short, no one believed that such strategy would work. Fast forward to now from the iPhone's launch in 2007, Apple's formula has clearly proven itself to work. In fact, it worked more that anyone expected. Can companies such as Samsung emulate Apple's principle in minimal SKU thinking?

I do not think they can do it. Here are a couple of reasons.

Samsung's organizational structure won't allow it. The fact that Samsung's passion in product development is diversity, it is very improbable to get to a point where they'll slash product teams in favor of one superphone. Their line of refrigerators, for example, show how much options are available to meet different consumer expectations. This method isn't exactly wrong or improper. In fact, everyone outside of the Apple universe--albeit a few notable ones here and there--continue to play by this manner. The immediate takeaway with having so many SKUs is cost. There's too much overhead running about on design, manufacturing, redesign, maintenance, restocking, retirement, et cetera--for one model! Consider 100. How about 1,000 or 5,000? Compare how many different final products Apple has versus Samsung's. The difference is massive.

Samsung wants to touch on all walks of life. As much as the preceding, Samsung is not alone in feeling the need to have different models for different consumer types. As market segments are defined, behaviors and characteristics must level with specific needs and expectations. The end result is a plethora of models that have been created to satisfy the sporty type, the professional, the chic and hip (which can actually be two different things), the pop and musically-inclined, the average adult, the average kid, the social media phenom--the list goes on. Interestingly, the iPhone seems to be answering all of these in one model.

Only a deep sense of belief in great products--the kind that Apple has--would work. Well let's go direct shall we? Samsung does not have this soul in their DNA, period. Apple lives and breathes in perfecting the human experience in a product that redefines a category. Note that difference versus building a category that defines products in meeting certain human experiences. This comparison is vast and one that puts Apple in its own class. Steve Jobs once said: "We do no market research... We just want to make great products." Challenging this piece is hard when a singular product brings dozens--hundreds even--of products to their knees.

Ultimately, both companies have their strengths. Only, Apple's is clearly on a stronger, more financially feasible, and less complicated path. Earlier this April, Apple met a valuation barrier they've never been to before--a monumental $600 billion market cap. (The record holder, Microsoft, capped at about $619 bilion last 1999.) With Apple's latest revenue report last quarter, it's harder to resist the truth about its value. In fact, one analyst hinted of the possibility of $1 trillion.

$1 trillion.

Okay. iPad, iPhone, iPod, Mac. That's a fairly small list of SKUs (apart from others of course). It works, doesn't it? This is a lesson every manufacturer ought to internalize really deeply.

Rule of two

I'm a Star Wars geek. You have to believe it. Otherwise, I shall find it disturbing enough to send you a remote-controlled choke hold.

But on a more serious note, most of us who have been alive long enough to have watched everything, either on film or home video, remember the characters and the lightsabers they wielded well enough. But the entire story of Star Wars isn't necessarily told in both the Trilogies only. There are other canons that are so significant in volume, the Star Wars expanded universe is easily one of the largest collections of galactic lore to be found anywhere. But no worries. We're not about to talk about Star Wars for hours on end. Well, just a bit.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -Darth Vader

Allow me to write about one Star Wars tenet that relates to things more important: Rule of Two. In the saga, the Rule of Two is a principle held by the Sith Lords which states that, at any given time, there shall only be two Sith in the whole galaxy--a master and an apprentice. Its creation, as instituted by Darth Bane, was an act to control unnecessary infighting among the brethren. (Well, part of the problem was that the Sith race are power-hungry by default.) Included in the rule is how the power transfer (also called succession plan in organizational dynamics) works by original design, which I must say is the coolest part of the lore. To be worthy of the title of Master, the apprentice must take the life of the former. The new master, in turn, must find a new student to repeat the process. Talk about a vicious cycle--the practice survived a thousand years.

Now to my point (yes, my introductions keep getting longer and longer, but hopefully not to your dismay).

As business organizations grow and mature into an industrial force, it becomes truly essential to have a leadership program that is fully supported by the business. We all know that a leader is a leader not because he is given the role to lead. On the contrary, a leader earns the role. In most respects even, this is earned everyday. There's also the fact that a good leader is (and should be) a good mentor, one who understands what it means to be a true role model, or better yet, one who is in a position to introduce significant change in a person's life forever.

A couple of days ago, we began putting together a mentoring program aimed at our leaders. The objective is to ensure that the individual expertise and experiences of our senior leads and managers are shared with everyone, particularly those whom we feel have what it takes to be a leader in the not so distant future. We've devised that the mentor must have a goal in the exercise, particularly on what he/she would like to have the protege learn, build or overcome during the period. We've agreed that the best way to do it is to have regular face time with their chosen telemachuses (another word for protege, from the name Telemachus, son of Odysseus, mentored by Mentor, and the origin of the word) and to talk more about personal principles alongside organizational interests. The program is our way of readying the persons we expect to step up, and perform what's necessary, when the circumstance shows itself. But more than that is a vital element of our everyday labors: push people growth.

Our own version of Rule of Two means that there are only two people in a mentoring relationship, a mentor and a protege (which unlike the Sith, we can have as many mentoring relationships existing simultaneously as necessary). Either the mentor chooses the protege or the protege chooses the mentor, we maintain the freedom--not counting the cool mysticism--akin to how Lucas penned it: finding someone is "the will of the Force."

We have to find ourselves in a position to "bring balance" and "restore order" in favor of the people we serve. The takeaway I want to make is that leaders do not necessarily need to inspire their subordinates all the time. Leaders need only show the way. From there, it is through our commitment to grow them that they begin to understand their ability to inspire others, including their own leaders. So that when the time comes, an apprentice who is ready will have the courage to eliminate his master. Wait, strike that. Again! So that when the time comes, an apprentice who is ready will be better equipped to handle all challenges--and opportunities--that lay ahead.

And as mentors, we never cease to learn "the way of the Force." Everyone never ceases learning. Everyone is a student.

Enduring memory: people and ships

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

The above piece is an excerpt from Four Quartets by T. S. Eliot. It's a dedication to Sherwin, our tech specialist whom last Friday bid his goodbye to begin his journey yet again to find new experiences in new places. He was one of our best consultants, full of vigor, zeal and passion in the realm of technology leadership. What Sherwin dreamt about, he made sure was translated into action.

Vaya con dios Sherwin! (Second from left.)

Yesterday, I sort of knew it would be necessary to invest some time to watch a blockbuster flick. With two people in tow, we saw Battleship, a Hasbro property that made film debut for the first time since creation in 1931 (originally published by the Milton Bradley Company). Perhaps the most annoying part about the film was the intense use of the technology of another Hasbro property, Transformers. The accusation goes that Hasbro exploited the current 'Transformers void' by introducing another property that had nothing to do with robots. It was after all a battle of ships, not human ships versus alien machines.

The movie's concept would not sit well with me throughout. And so did the choice of actors. But I won't dwell on those any further. Instead, let's talk about what we enjoyed about it.

(Spoiler alert.)

USS Missouri. As superior modern ships eventually replaced mighty battleships, the Missouri in its analog technology became the only ship that had the ability to finish the fight. The advanced ships had superior capabilities but were rendered useless. Guidance systems were in disarray, they were completely blind, and, well, they were utterly destroyed. The mechanical design of the Missouri would mean it would go to war with pure brawn. Put it another way, its technology was unadulterated strength. Historically, the Missouri is the last battleship of its class to be constructed. Before it was finally decommissioned, it went to war in many places, the last at the Persian Gulf in 1991. The most significant event in its history though would be a document that will be signed aboard the Missouri in 1945--the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, a two-page document that would end World War II.

Honoring veterans. The heartwarming part of this episode is that the Missouri couldn't be operated given its 'inferior' technology. This is where veterans came in. Even if this was simply a sci-fi rendition, seeing honorable warriors in their golden years take the helm of the ship was a great sight. I have personally not seen any film that honored their heroism. And I keep going back to the fact that Battleship didn't need to talk about it. But it did. It is a proud moment to any midshipman. And to anyone for that matter who understands how wars are won.

Wounded warriors. Battleship talked about so many things that are hard to ignore. This is another portion where, apart from showing how improvements in prosthetics enabled continuity with broken soldiers, it tackled the psychological elements of disability, depression and sense of purpose.

Old foes. The setting was Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the place where it all began. Initially, two officers belonging to the US and Japan were at odds with each other. To cut the long story short (and the usual cliche in movies), fighting together against a superior race while forgetting the past, was another of those subjects Battleship talked about. It is not greatly represented but I think it did it satisfactory.

Battleship gameplay. My favorite part. When I was a kid, I owned a Battleship board game. I cherished having one as I played it with anyone who was "man enough." What took me by complete surprise (when I've just about dismissed that this had nothing to do with the original game) is the intelligent use of the old gameplay in making you (if you've played the original Battleship) feel that they have not forgotten the game board after all. It was no less than orgasmic to see how the old gameplay unfolds as each side predicts the next move through buoys and water displacement. Brilliant.

At the end, this flick resonates well because it managed to respect two technologies, the obsolete and the modern. In the event of an alien attack--okay fine, let's be real--in the event of a catastrophic disaster, the obsolete things are the one that would continue to run, i.e. analog radio, old Morse code. Through this, we know that advancements in tech never truly replace their predecessors. More like enhancements if I may put it. And the enduring lesson that the most basic technology is the one that wins wars is always there because the basic, by default is designed to outwit the advanced (i.e. Game of the Generals).

Games can get enormously complicated as it can be, but like Battleship, it starts and ends with the same essence it began with.

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
-T. S. Eliot

The original pencil and paper game.

The tech milestone of Marshall, Porsche, Castro and the Christ

The past few days saw the death of a few distinguished people--among others of course--that helped shape industries in their own way. The last person in the title space is someone the world knows as the Son of an Almighty, whom arguably would create the largest of the industries this world has ever known.

Why would I talk about any of them in a technology blog you might ask? Well, apart from the fact that they are pillars of certain industries, they are, without a shadow of a doubt, heroes of technology. Doubtful? Let me state my case one-by-one for your appreciation. And let me know if it does, or does not satisfy.

First off, Jim Marshall. Nope, he is neither the person with the microphone nor the guy up in the air with a uniquely dark hat. The former, I'm not too sure who he is actually. The latter is Slash, the legendary guitarist of Guns N' Roses. But enough about them, we're talking about the insignia from the amp box in the background, a product made by a company founded by Jim Marshall a long time ago. It's such a long time that Jim is actually called The Father of Loud and enjoys to be part of a very short list of forefathers in the realm of rock music equipment, such as Leo Fender (the Stratocaster).

During the time, there were already amps around but nothing as loud as what The Who's Pete Townshend was looking for. Seeing the opportunity, Jim worked on a series of amps that would eventually be Marshall Amplification, a company that stands to this day. His amps were quite popular--quite. Hendrix, Clapton and Jimmy Page are known customers. Jim's signature would grow more in popularity as his amps would later establish itself as "the Marshall sound." Likewise a vertical arrangement of amps would be known as "the Marshall stack." The rest is really history; Jim was 88.

Ferdinand Alexander (F.A.) Porsche, the grandson of "the great engineer" and Porsche founder Ferdinand Porsche, is no ordinary scion of the renowned manufacturer. He wasn't exactly an engineer but more of a designer, a trade he didn't see himself in at first despite all his early successes. F.A. would be best known for designing one of the better automotive beasts of its time, the Porsche 911, an instant classic from the time it was unleashed in 1968 until the time of this writing. In a poll in 1999, the 911 was ranked 5th among other greats for Car of the Century (Ford's Model T, perhaps the most influential car in history, took the top spot).

F.A.'s talent in design would later inspire him to found a company, Porsche Design, which apart from automobile design would be in the business of chronographs (meticulously exact time pieces), a series of very interesting spectacles, and an impressive line of home furnishings and other personal devices. F.A. Porsche was a design legend, 'nuff said. He was 76.

When I was young, I loved watching the news. I loved it so much that I remember watching Angelo Castro Jr., a much-celebrated long-time broadcaster of ABS-CBN, at least two decades ago. Fast-forward to now, I still watch news as often as I could during weeknights. And since I hardly reach TV Patrol (which Angelo Castro created) in time, The World Tonight became the regular staple. But Angelo was nowhere to be found for a long time, leaving Tina Palma as the sole anchor for a long while. November 7, 2011, I was fortunate to watch Angelo Castro return to The World Tonight, finishing the show with his trademark, "and the final word tonight." It was a classic piece. Little did I know that he was dying, and a few days ago, his death would be announced. Angelo Castro is a pillar of Filipino broadcasting; he was 67.

And certainly not the least. Jesus of Nazareth, son of John the carpenter, was an industry giant. Not to malign or anything, I meant industry in a good way. His ministry would stretch from to the farthest regions of this sphere--and more. The Christ's words, after two millennia, still hold the greatest truth, a fact that continues to be certain even in the most trying times. In the events of the Holy Week, as practiced by Catholics, Christ would undergo death and resurrection, the latter event a culmination, a victory over death. Easter. His milestone is relatively simple, yet the most profound of them all: he loved you and me so much, that he would not mind dying to redeem our sins. By expert accounts, Christ was three decades old on his final milestone; he was (est.) 30.

And so, we have Marshall, an engineer by trade who ceased the opportunity to provide a technological upgrade to the most demanding audiophiles. His ingenuity shaped music tech. Porsche, a meticulous designer who would put his name in as many places as possible, and whose working designs proved the balance of form and function. His craftsmanship rattled the foundations of technology design. Castro, a broadcaster who was good in two things: spreading the word and being consistent about it. He would be instrumental in improving the structure in news programming during his time. His effect on broadcast technology cannot be underestimated.

And Christ, the most significant technological pioneer of his day, still teaches us a few tricks about how magnificent life can be. During his day, a few loaves of bread can feed thousands of people. His technology is magical. And today, even though we've all multiplied in significant numbers, His telephony can still take it. At the end, the best technology is the one that can't be seen. Because technology is an experience first and foremost. The same way that Marshall's experience was sound, or Porsche's excellent drive, or the memory of Castro's benevolence, we've all enjoyed being part of their show. The same way we continue to be believers in Christ's magnum opus.

That sounded nice.

The madness that is Yahoo! (for real now)

Before anything, let me declare one thing that we can all probably agree on. We, who during the early days of the Internet age had Yahoo as our home page, search engine, news portal, instant messaging service, personal website (GeoCities anyone?), and everything else that it helped advance at the time. To Yahoo!'s credit, they pretty much dominated the Internet boom. It is arguably the most important and most successful web destination of its time.

Of its time. That's the wickedly difficult part. It was the top website in rankings and had dominion over Internet traffic like no other. Now, that title is owned by Google, with Facebook trailing not very far behind. They're still there alright (No. 4 in Alexa as of this writing after YouTube, a Google-owned portal). But in their key markets, Yahoo is starting to lose its strength. In fact, it has bled global market share severely over time--Yahoo! search has less than 11% (even with Bing combined); Google has at least 75%.

A bit of history. Yahoo! was founded in 1994 by Jerry Yang and David Filo, both coming from Stanford U (interestingly, so did Google founders Sergey and Larry). Their first run was an Internet directory called "Jerry and Dave's Guide to the World Wide Web," which for some unknown, mysterious reason had to be changed in favor of Yahoo! eventually. Okay, I'm sarcastic. With its early successes, Yahoo!'s valuation rose all the way over $100 billion before the dot-com bubble burst. Around 2006, they peaked at about $43 billion, where Microsoft would offer to buy the company out for $44.6 two years later. Jerry Yang resisted it at utter disappointment of most Yahoo! shareholders. Yahoo!'s stock plummeted immediately afterwards; Jerry would be forced out before the end of the year. And in a move to rekindle the idea, Yahoo! would join forces with Microsoft over the Bing search engine in 2009. To compete with Google together. They have yet to make any significant dent in search.

After all the hullaballoo, including the short and disastrous term of CEO Carol Bartz, Yahoo!'s current valuation stands at just a little more than $18 billion, a far cry from its heyday. A few days ago, recently appointed CEO Scott Thompson announced the layoff of 2,000 employees (they have 14,000 worldwide), a move he says would generate "significant savings" and provide more focus in their core business. Wait. Does anyone know what that core business is?

By now, it's downright crystal that Yahoo! has lost its luster from its previous status as being the darling of the Internet. Now, it is an also-ran. And as much as a company can be revered for being a key player in shaping how the Internet is now, we have to admit the fact that Yahoo! is no longer a great company. Do you recall any big thing they've done in recent years? Have they excited you with anything lately? When was the last time you used Yahoo! Messenger? Do you have a Yahoo! app in your smartphone? The simplest questions are enough to say that they're just about done.

Unless Yahoo! finds their soul. The problem is, I can't for the life of me remember--what are they best at doing again? This question only confirms a looming disaster.

A failed merger that would not have worked anyway.


Co-founder Jerry Yang with the popular tagline.

The madness that is Yahoo! and why we won't talk about it yet

Before I talk about Yahoo!'s latest brouhaha, let's dwell on a few items here and there. This is important because it's not good to start with bad news. All the more, horrifying news. The stuff of 'whyyy?!?' But let's not prolong this one shall we?

Anyway, this first item of interest is nothing short of an "oh my god" realization. A realization that however irritated we've all been on Nokia's phone lineup in the past years, this one (below) is actually turning heads--my head included. Now, I am in absolute agony in having to admit something that I thought I'd never say in light of the iOS and Android revolutions that took platforms by complete surprise, i.e. BlackBerry. But did Nokia know what to do all along, merely playing dead? And why in the world would you do that, Stephen? (Nokia's CEO is formerly a Microsoft executive.) You're making me and Miguel, our insanely gifted technology specialist who has _________ machines, look like a fool.



I think the Nokia Lumia 900 is--here goes nothing--an excellent phone, one worthy enough to go toe-to-toe with the iPhone 4S and the latest Android flagship (which by the way keeps changing given the unholy amounts of Ice Cream Sandwiches that are about to hit the market). It sports the Windows 7.5 Mango, which in a recent preview blew away my un-fanboy status in anything that has a Microsoft product on it. And to think this is 7.5, not 8. Back to the phone (let's talk about Microsoft again in the future). It's a 4G/LTE device (which tethers up to 5 devices!) that's priced in the mid-range despite it being a mighty looking device. Every review site seems to be agreeing that the workmanship of this phone is outstanding. The entire casing is actually crafted from a single piece of durable material which makes it sturdy as hell. There's a few other items here and there: great battery, impressive camera. And with all that stuff, you'd ask if it is even heavy? You're absolutely right. One reviewer praised it for it being "built like a tank," except that "it weighs like one too." Oh well.



But enough with this one lest we be described as a product reviewer. (Though yes, this felt quite fun actually. Let's try this again one time.) There's always a takeaway whenever a new product is introduced. We can talk endlessly about how they changed certain elements in the device, but what's really important is what the manufacturer is doing right this time around, specifically, what they've learned. If there's one think we can agree on, Nokia is starting to do things right again. And that means trouble to those who think they are done.

In tech, you can be done but you can also be undone. A kindergarten student can answer how to get undone pretty easily. Stop being undone. Hence, Nokia strikes back.

(But whether Yahoo! can get back, well that's a different matter. And we'll take that up very soon. Promise.)

What's filling up our cabinets lately?

Early this morning, we were thinking about how we can grab more storage space for our amazingly eager team. The new guy heading our R&D section, David, thought we'd start with a cabinet I used to own. We opened it up and found a variety of documents of all forms that seemed infinite. It was ridiculously plentiful considering they were mostly brochures from trade shows and proposals of different lengths: one to two-pagers, ten-pagers, fifty-pagers and others that seemed to stretch endlessly in telling you about the history of their company and, regrettably, the rest of the universe.

The reality lately is that we're keeping so much stuff in our office drawers, filing cabinets, storage bins, document warehouses, etc. For the purposes of being absolutely clear, this includes tukadors and aparadors, perhaps the epitome of it all. And therefore, the first question is probably the most obvious. Followed by a lot more that nags even the most efficient companies.

How dare you (I'm asking myself here) keep so much unnecessary information? Aren't you, as an IT professional, supposed to be past the paper age? When is IT going to share what they know in dealing with all that archive? Is it paperless or paper-less? Why did you (asking myself again) bring home so much brochures from the expo? And at which century will you actually review them?

What's eating up enterprises lately is the sheer amount of paper that's being kept in--I would argue--expensive real estate, even if a huge chunk of it is clearly categorized as next to rubbish. Recordkeepers would argue there are things that need to be kept. The usual 201 file, historical papyrus and things necessary for internal revenue and documents for litigation, aptly identified as those under legal hold. Okay fine, let's keep that. But what about the rest? Things like resumes, proposal letters, company profiles, product brochures, contract drafts, and billions of duplicates of the same thing? There's an enterprise solution that fixes this problem. It's called a DMS, or a Document Management System.

Insurance companies were identified in a reading material I read a couple of years back (couldn't remember what it was). It says that no other industry can match the consumption these guys have, best described as "an historic devourer of trees." Insurance policies can go real fat depending on the coverage of an insured object, i.e. a house insured against every single event that can possibly happen. No less a Murphy's Law extravaganza. Coverage against lighting strike? Check!--here's an unlimited amount of paragraphs to sufficiently define what a lighting phenomena is to begin with. Against meatball fallout? Check!--here's them confirming they'll cover every kind of sauce flooding except the one with pesto on it. It messes up the wallpaper pretty badly. I reckon, more than your regular sauces!

Technology plays the most significant role in enacting change. With the right DMS solution, organizations can reduce complexity and have more time in things that matter. Not sure where to start? I'd recommend Google Apps as your backbone before anything. Let's talk about that again sometime. Cheers!

I will if you will: The next 60 minutes

Well first of all, Happy April Fools' Day to everyone. Every April 1st, it's been quite a practice for me to check on the official website of Blizzard Entertainment, the makers of Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo franchises. This years joke, apparently, is a new product called Blizzard Kidzz, a host of educational games for kids. Blizzard hasn't admitted this yet, but it's pretty clear this is them fooling their visitors. It's a once-a-year affair after all. But what I really find enjoying about how their 'Warlocks' do it is the attention to detail, as if they spent months building the whole product suite to impress. It even gets to a point that I have this nagging thought that maybe it is real. Ingenious. Go ahead and find out more about their "new"product right here http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/blizzkidzz/.

Now to our topic.

Yesterday isn't exactly a typical day when I grabbed a few racks of my favorite ribs and typical potato sides with some friends at RUB along Scout Rallos, T. Morato. I hadn't eaten much during the day other than a bowl of cereal in the morning. I was starving. Admittedly, it was a tough late dinner because something was amiss--we were consuming it in darkness. Heck, I couldn't distinguish bone from meat! This ribs place was one among a good number of food joints who closed their lights between 8:30 to 9:30pm. Despite the hassle, it is easily one of the eat outs that I'd remember, more than those with all the lights on. Don't you agree? Because it felt warm all over. Not just because of the candle light, but it was great being in the dark among friends. And while that sentence sounded awfully creepy, let me tell you more about what the fuss is all about.

Every year, there's this massive event that has participants joining to consider a cause: shut off your lights for a full 60 minutes and expect others do the same. The annual event, dubbed the Earth Hour, went live a couple of years back when Sydney toyed with the idea, the first city in the world to do so. Fast forward to now, 150 countries across 6500+ cities and towns joined the cause last night. It is a record. Despite this, some critics argue that this activity does not make any significant dent towards energy reduction. They say that it should be more than 60 minutes for it to matter. They are right. But they are also wrong. They are right that this isn't helping as much to save energy. They are wrong because I think they misunderstood the exercise. Earth Hour teaches us that a great idea can go far-reaching if we believed. It tells us that if we do things collectively, we can change things. It is an exercise of pure inspiration, that's what this is about.

Alongside this annual tradition is a new campaign organized by WWF called 'I Will If You Will.' The objective is simple: turn it into a personal advocacy by going beyond the 60 minutes. So here's my pledge.

1. I will never buy groceries without a tote bag. No exceptions.
2. I will no longer buy disposable bottled water, except if it is a life or death situation.
3. I will support, activate and lead causes within my circle of influence. I will start with my workplace.

If I do this, what will you do? State them in the comments section below.

I Will If You Will!

It was great to take part again, similar to the actions of about 1.3 billion other people.

The United Nations HQ in New York (center) switches off for the Earth Hour.