For the nth time, Microsoft needs a geek not a businessman

Newsflash! Ballmer's exit is fast approaching and the candidates Microsoft has lined up thus far are absolutely horrid. Now hold on just a diddly-darn minute. I'm not saying Alan Mulally (Ford's CEO) is devoid of any brilliance. On the contrary, I think Mulally is easily the most capable turnaround artist there is in corporate America. Nor am I saying that Satya Nadella (head of Microsoft's cloud and enterprise division) or Tony Bates (head of strategy and business development) are nincompoops. These guys are excellent business executives in their own right.

And then there's Stephen Elop, former Nokia CEO and now Microsoft head of devices and services. He is also in the running towards becoming America's top model. Well, I won't hide the fact that I dislike the guy nor would I sit idly by without being a fair critique towards his achievements (or lack of it). Elop, according to Homer's Iliad, was a trojan horse that Microsoft planted inside Nokia to perform a particular turnaround that was really all about replacing Symbian with Windows Phone OS. Never mind if that move was a success (it wasn't) or whether it saved Nokia from dying (it didn't), Ballmer was quick to reward Elop for accomplishing what I believe was a worthless mission. Nokia not only remains, to this day, a prominent and preeminent example of having ridiculously bad vision, it is also that company that bet everything on a platform that has yet to gain any significance in the market.

No offense, but I just can't understand how Microsoft is so far off from what the future ought to mean for such a storied company. And hey, I'm a big fan--perhaps one of the biggest fans locally. The fact that they are as much storied as Intel, IBM and Yahoo! during their heydays means they have a legacy to uphold (and certainly do the other names mentioned too.) This legacy is eroding like crazy and I'm not sure if they're getting it. 

More than a year ago, I outlined what was wrong with Microsoft and how it can fix itself. The first one was leadership: Ballmer had to go. My argument was that a businessman cannot possibly govern the future of a company that needs a moving vision of the future.

1. Steven Ballmer. As always, leadership has to go first. The issue that I'm most uncomfortable with is the fact that a geek isn't in charge of Microsoft anymore. And I find it so wrong for someone with a different specialty altogether (he holds an MBA) to be leading the affairs of a technology company. I'd argue that no amount of marketing, supply chain and operational ability can outdo technology leadership longterm. Microsoft is of course very lucrative still--revenues and profits are holding quite well year-on-year. The fundamental problem is they lack a person that defines Microsoft's vision and direction, both of which are core ingredients of companies that endure despite dramatic shifts in civilized progress.

Now that one of the items in our shared wish list has come true, I'm certainly not alone again in pushing for better prerequisites in favor of Microsoft's new chief executive. My favorite of these is geekiness. Geeks are great thinkers and experimenters. Bill Gates was a geek. Co-founder Paul Allen was, too, a geek. Geeks also share a solid foundation on evangelism and engineering. Steve Jobs was both although he was clearly stronger on the former. Apple co-founder Wozniak was a most gifted engineer who built insanely great things because it was fun. Tim Cook is neither in my view and I think the brightness of Apple will diminish over time. (But this is a different tale!)

Ray Ozzie, then Microsoft chief software architect and supposedly the successor of Gates, was my geek favorite. His memo to Microsoft employees several years ago, The Internet Services Disruption, should remain to be mandatory reading for anyone who's currently in (or about to enter) the tech industry. Too bad he bolted out. Another geek, though much inferior to Ozzie, was ex-Windows head Steven Sinosfky. Similar to Ozzie, word on the street is that Sinofsky left under the same reason. Ballmer.

If only Microsoft listened to Ozzie back then.

Mulally appears to be the top choice right now despite Ford claiming that he ain't quitting. Years from now after Microsoft has consummated its selection, I can see them looking back with a facepalm.

The future of Microsoft starts with getting a geek back at the helm. Geeks ruled the PC. Ruled silicon. Ruled music. Ruled phones and tablets. Ruled the Internet.

Hey Microsoft, you need a geek!

Amazon's turn for a moonshot

Let me first try to define a moonshot. Moonshots are a new way of thinking to discover brave new worlds. (For more on the subject of new worlds, refer to Peabo here.) Its elusive champion in our present dispensation, and best known for no-holds-barred application across its own culture, is of course Google. But no, Google is not exactly alone in 10X thinking. No siree!

And so, what if a strange unmanned aircraft landed with a package on your front lawn containing Stephen King's latest novel? What if you ordered the very same bestselling item no more than 30 minutes ago over Amazon.com? What if I told you that the cake is a lie?

...

Okay, forget that last question. Today, the world's largest online retailer announced a new delivery service that will eventually complement what Amazon.com is best known for--shopping. To a surprised Charlie Rose on CBS's 60 Minutes, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos promised half his fortune if Charlie could guess what their R&D center had recently cooked up.

Octocopters: Amazon Prime Air.

What it does is exactly what you can imagine from this image: an unmanned drone that delivers ordered goods for your mom directly to your doorstep in 30 minutes. Quick question! Is 30 minutes guaranteed? Well, if pizza delivery is any indicator, it would be a shame if they didn't tease it in the same way. (In anticipation of that promise, I managed to create one of those silly marketing claims intended to grab bragging rights over things not worth bragging: Amazon Prime Air is the first flying delivery service that delivers in 30-minutes or the next book is free!) Sorry I couldn't resist.

My next act, upon discovery of this new adventure (an apt word for a stellar adventurer that is Jeff Bezos), was to scour the web and find out what everyone has to say about this interesting contraption. As it turns out, just about everyone gave the effort a big fat F. I certainly thought otherwise. A grand effort such as this is exactly the brave new world that every company should push itself into. And those who worry about operational issues this early aren't getting it at all.

Which is really why I'm blogging about this right now.

Can I push that out at another time though? I really have to get going. But hey, here's an official video (that badly needs more oomph by the way) showing the Prime Air in action.

Pessimists beware.

What happens if they stay?

Here's a short note for those scared in developing their people. At the end, those you don't develop stick with you longer than you've earlier imagined. In the absence of vision, skill, and perspective, you will find it difficult to pull off great work worthy of any attention. Not for long, you end up with an ordinary company that has little to show for. This mediocrity is inevitable; a sickness that plagues companies everywhere.

The remedy is obvious. Invest in each promising soul and afford them your faithful guidance. If they leave at some point, it is because (1) they've done magical things for you and (2) they're ready for the next level. Sure, you've spent a great deal of time and resources getting them on prime time. But also look back and see how far you've gone alongside them and their brilliant work. You won't regret it.

People need to grow. If you're not intent in developing them, a sad fate awaits your company.

Mentoring is a good start. Feel free to read through one of my earlier posts, Rule of two.

Loyalty and the absence of thought

Seth Godin is making a whole lot of sense. It all started when I began reading up on his daily thoughts. Seth of course has been making sensible literature for many years now as a marketing genius badly needed in our time.

Well, I've most certainly read enough! And I... will finally help myself with a little inspiration from Seth's recent piece, Two kinds of loyalty.

The first kind of loyalty is the loyalty of convenience.

I'm going to look around, sure, but probably won't switch. Switching is risky, it's time consuming. Switching means a new account manager or moving my software or reprinting something. Switching means I might make a mistake or lose my miles or have to defend a new decision.

Corporations are getting ever better at building this sort of loyalty.

Whenever I look at enterprise software, an always perplexing thing is how they make it excruciatingly difficult to leave you. Whatever happened to getting customers to stay because you have the best means to deliver the demands of the present--and the great promise of the future?

Our biggest reason for staying with software makers who obviously forgot this simple truth has, lately, become the worst kind of logic. We can't leave because we fear for business continuity. And the cause of this guilt is because, apparently, our vendor didn't think about how you'll survive without them. But hey, they did think about it. That's why it's too difficult. And I say this as bluntly as I can. They made it so to "make" you loyal.

The problem with the loyalty of convenience is that the customer is always tempted to look and look some more, and the vendor is always working to build barriers, barriers that don't necessarily increase satisfaction, but merely build a wall of hassle around the (now) trapped customer.

We don't have a common marketing term for this sort of feeling, but 'stuck' comes to mind.

Seth is right. The loyalty of convenience exists indeed. And a good amount of the largest software makers globally are very good at such rampant customer betrayal. Building a "wall of hassle" to make your switch harder instead of focusing on building great user experiences is just plain ridiculous. It's almost like bondage. Talk about being candid.

Then there's the other kind of loyalty. This is the loyalty of, "I'm not even looking."

This is the loyalty of, "I'm the kind of person that sticks with people who stick with me." This is the loyalty of someone who doesn't even want to know that there's a better deal somewhere else, because, after all, he's in it for the long haul.

This second type of loyalty is where everyone ought to be. No one's interested in finding something else because the need just doesn't pop out. There's no sense in entertaining anything else because what you have meets everything you could possibly ask for.

Everything works and everyone's happy. It keeps improving whether or not customers are asking for anything new. And best of all, leave whenever you wish without the fear of not being able to bring your data with you.

The beauty of the second kind of loyalty, the loyalty of identity and satisfaction, is that the person who isn't even looking is committed, as committed to the relationship as the vendor is. You earn this sort of loyalty, you don't architect it.

You can only focus on creating one sort of loyalty at a time, true?

One of the things that has greatly enabled Loyalty #2 is the cloud. With it, you pay for only what you use, plus the freedom to stop any time. But not all clouds are created equal I'm afraid. Some of them are on the cloud but still do things in the same, unflinching way. It's absolutely horrid.

So how do you know which solutions are doing this to you? I'm not going to feed you cryptic things like "you don't find it, it finds you." Instead, follow the same logic Seth started. Are you starting to find frustration in what your company is using? Are your end users starting to demand better means to do things? Are you so deeply entrenched with what you have that the very thought of transitioning out is a nightmare in itself?

Then there you go. Start planning your way out and find solutions that are open for postmortem scenarios. But let me add more than that. Something totally off my wavelength. But hey, if this means getting through everyone, what the hell--

If someone loves you for real, they'll let you go. If you stay regardless, then it's mutual love.

Damn it, my blog will never be the same!

:)

Let there be iPhone

Today's piece is an insight from a very interesting article I came across in The New York Times written by Fred Vogelstein.

It recounts the inhuman toil of the team that produced the original iPhone in 2007. The person behind the tale is Andy Grignon, in charge of iPhone's internal radios during the time. Apple's smartphone market debut would be Steve's most important product since the original Macintosh. (Current annual revenues of the iPhone alone is larger than all of Microsoft's businesses combined.)

The massive effort that brought together the best engineers and designers in one highly secretive team can simply be described as phenomenal. Everyone who got offered a role pretty much accepted chronic sleeplessness, unnerving paranoia, and Steve's occasional cruel slander. All for a shot of greatness. They didn't even know what they were building at first!

And this presents in itself a predicament for us to ponder.

There is no debate that insane hard work is the most potent ingredient to perform the greatest magic. However, doing so will suck the life out of you. The iPhone team literally killed themselves to meet Steve's most fanatical demands. Then again, Apple had a solemn promise in return for all the hard sacrifice: Untold glory awaits those who will endure. But you have got to be brilliant the entire time or you're out.

Will you accept endless suffering if it meant taking part in the most promising magic trick yet?

Well, someone has to force everyone to drink when it's all over.

By the end, Grignon wasn’t just relieved; he was drunk. He’d brought a flask of Scotch to calm his nerves. “And so there we were in the fifth row or something — engineers, managers, all of us — doing shots of Scotch after every segment of the demo. There were about five or six of us, and after each piece of the demo, the person who was responsible for that portion did a shot. When the finale came — and it worked along with everything before it, we all just drained the flask. It was the best demo any of us had ever seen. And the rest of the day turned out to be just a [expletive] for the entire iPhone team. We just spent the entire rest of the day drinking in the city. It was just a mess, but it was great.” And Then Steve Said, ‘Let There Be an iPhone’

Scotch? Exactly.

Android: Literally just desserts

Android 4.4 KitKat.

In a way, this shows a whole new level of maturity for both brands to represent themselves differently by breaking common tradition. A mobile OS that will be be branded as a nice treat. And a nice treat that would be associated with a mobile OS. Well, at least, this is what's very clear at the onset.

But which company actually got the better end of the deal in this bizarre cross-promotion? Well, it cannot be argued that this is free raw publicity to Nestle's well known snack bar. But what will this do for Google exactly? That's the thing. I don't think Google cares as much: They just wanted to name the next OS with something they'd like to munch on back at the office (Android Engineering Head Hiroshi Lockheimer reportedly loves KitKat).

What's my point? To Nestle, this is a massive commercial milestone that will propel the KitKat brand to greater heights. It is so significant that it took the Nestle team no more than 60 minutes to say yes.

And to Google? This is nothing but clever naming by a bunch of geeks who thought it would be cool. And one billion Android devices activated globally--a milestone revealed today--says so. Heck, the next billion Android devices would still be sold at the same rate even if 4.5 was called 'Keyk.' Surely, you'd agree.

This is therefore not a cross-promotion in my view. Like all previous Android flavors, it's well established that they're all 'just' desserts. A colossus giving an awful amount of incentive, goodwill and glory to a snack bar for tasting, well, good.

Blame Google's pantry.

Dawn of a new day

Before you read through below, I bid you welcome to the new home of Singularity Now. Don't forget to Follow!

...

There exists many, many things I must write in this post. An attempt, perhaps, to make mention of everyone that I've had the pleasure of working with in Singularity. This being a public post, however, I shall be limited to only a 'few' things. I will try to be concise. What is certain is that the past week had been very dramatic for the people I deeply care about. And as more words are inscribed herein, this no doubt shall be a most painful exercise.

For the benefit of everyone, Singularity is a technology startup that has found much success as a proud Google Enterprise Partner. Two of its most recent enterprise transformation adventures--University of the Philippines and Globe Telecom--have cemented Singularity's place in Google's elite partner community in the region. I have no doubt that its best days are clearly ahead of them. (Singularity started operating in 2012 after running the IT affairs of Ramcar's KFC Food Group for over a decade and a half).

I have resigned as Chief Technology Evangelist of Singularity. Reluctantly, I shall leave behind a team that I have regarded as family and whom I've shared toil and shit with. For more than four years, they've proven countless times to be capable of 'magical things.' I will miss them so much that it saddens me every time my mind wanders about them. (Sheesh, I cannot believe I'm capable of so much drama!)

My reasons are both personal and professional although there is no need for a venue to illustrate them. At the end, I only have the highest respect and admiration to the senior leadership team who shall take Singularity forward. Our 'Singlers' are in very capable hands, especially with Monica Borje whom I've nominated to succeed me as interim leader.

I will miss how everyone puts up with each other. They are a real team and they share everything--both pain and gain. They're resilient; they don't take no for an answer easily. They're fun; they have an innate ability to entertain and delight whatever the weather. They're dedicated; they finish or no one's going home. What can I say, they love what they do!

I will miss the indomitable Google Enterprise Team. My favorite gang of evangelists of all time. They are, believe it or not, blessed with a football star from La Salle. Okay fine, Ateneo.
Indomitable (adj.) : Incapable of being overcome, subdued, or vanquished; unconquerable.

I will miss the uncanny Emerging Technologies Team, its progenitor Business Systems and its 'mutation' Business Technologies. The painstaking analysts and creative engineers behind Singularity's biggest hits. They operate with the father of Superman.
Uncanny (adj.) : Having or seeming to have a supernatural or inexplicable basis; extraordinary.

I will miss the indefatigable Infrastructure Services Team, its project arm Service Delivery and support arm Service Operations. They are the motivated architects and administrators that ran the nuts and bolts of everything, together with a relentless customer support crew that I totally enjoyed hanging out with. They got Gamie, 'nuff said!
Indefatigable (adj.) : Incapable or seemingly incapable of being fatigued; tireless.

I will miss the unwavering Asset and Accountability, IT Governance and Project Management Teams. These guys are the iron behind every action as they mend, reinforce and put together the collective efforts of Singularity. They even have a spiritual adviser.
Unwavering (adj.) : Marked by firm determination or resolution; not shakable.

Above all, I will miss the fabled Singularity, a company I've had the absolute pleasure of serving as its chief nagger. And they have Angelo, our chief cleanliness officer.
Fabled (adj.) : Well known for being of great quality or rarity; famous.

Where am I going 30 days from now? I'm honestly not very sure and I have yet to concretize my plans as of late. What I can promise you, my dear readers, is I'll be staying on as the most talkative technology evangelist this side of the world. So yeah, expect more of the usual stuff on the dialogue between man and machine.

What am I going to do between now and the 30th day? I was planning to work with the Singularity team until that last hour; we've got work to do!

My heart goes out to all Singlers everywhere for all the wonderful inspiration and imagination all these years.

From the very, very, very bottom: Thank you all very much.

#alwaysasingler

Twenty years later...

The subject of what I'm writing today is by way of an interesting image that Miguel Cocjin (our chief consumer tech evangelist) stumbled upon during his everyday research. This guy though refuses to work and only wallows away in nothingness. An officially dispensable personality who'd be an excellent re-definition of the word bum. And as I take back the preceding two sentences given the fact that they are false and misleading, Miguel, on the contrary, is a spectacular character in Singularity. If you happen to know him, you would agree that he is neither a bum nor is he unproductive. The last person in the world who could possibly be either.

See, those words didn't align at all to the subject matter. Fine. Here's the image.

Thinking about it, all of the technologies you would find above leads to one staggering thought: none of these items have yet to find a true replacement. Well Herald, there is that huge leap from analog to digital. There's also the Internet if you forgot. (...) Okay, okay. Ignore the preceding statement, would you? Let me try to prove my point again.

We can make the claim that a gazillion more transistors can be jammed into a processor every few years since Moore's Law became tech industry canon. We can state that the level of innovation in consumer tech manufacturing has led to major industry revolutions such as the iPod and iPhone. As you gaze on that image, again, what really happened all along is amalgamation. Repeat. What really happened all along is amalgamation. Last. What really happened all along is amalgamation.

Good. Now that you agree with me, allow me to delve deeper. (Promise, I'll be more serious too.)

Amalgamation is where things come together. No doubt, the smartphone in your pocket can perform all of these activities at far better performance and fidelity while running other things--simultaneously. But I believe that the engineering behind every ambitious creation owes more of its success to the genius poured into the form factor than the brains that power them. Technology is technology. And what we've learned from tech pioneers like Kodak, Xerox, Sony, Atari, and Apple is that fidelity, compactness, user experience, and, most importantly, user-centric design, have become the undisputed governing laws of what we end up liking and loving.

Whatever comes next will therefore be a continuous evolution of the previous generations' ideas. The tech race is now more important than ever because of this. Now that every tech manufacturer understands what Steve Jobs was pushing across for many decades, everyone will have their chance. And while it's true that most of the basic technologies that have existed long ago are merely being re-formulated with it, the point has always been about the end product and how it will surprise, excite and inspire.

What is it that we will want tomorrow?

"I don't know what that next big thing might be, but I have a few ideas." -Steve

What the tech are you wearing?

Hello everyone. It's been months since I've written anything on this blog. I, Herald Uy--one of the most talkative tech evangelists along Roces Avenue in Quezon City--have returned to set things right! And my first order of business is to nag about wearable tech. But why? Indeed, there's a good amount of juicy materials to talk about, i.e. BlackBerry 10 (don't worry we'll cover this soon--when it fails). But the subject of tech as a wearable accessory is hard to pass up. In fact, it's high time that we talk about it given all the right moves some groups are making. I'll prove my point in a long while--as usual. Oh well, welcome back guys.

...

In an era before smart devices came into light, any type of wristwatch was known to tell one thing: time. If you owned a more advanced model, i.e. a Patek Philippe, you'd get day and date too. (There are ones that even display the month you're in, as if you're so lost that you can't tell March from September. Angst.) Most wristwatches now though, especially digital in form, have these in relative commonality--and more. Hold on. And more? What else would those Casioses and Timexes of old do? Actually, and now that you've mentioned it, I don't really know. (Am I talking to myself in my writing? Yes. Haven't you noticed all this time?) Truth be told, I have personally ignored the watchmaking business for a long time. So much so that I don't remember the last time my wrist enjoyed the pleasure of a timepiece. (Well, save for the Breguets and Breitlings which I've admired on store windows for much of my life.) (And Game n' Watch!)

Enough with the pleasantries.

In the annual CES event in Las Vegas last January, the buzz is clearly around promising wearable gadgets. Smart watches from different startups promise to do a lot of fancy stuff. Keeping track of body movements, sleep patterns, temperature and heart rate are but a few of the things a new range of wrist pieces can do. There's also an apparent attempt on some that aims to supersede the function of phones, i.e. taking calls (via Bluetooth; like Dick Tracy) and receiving messages like email. It also displays, well, time. Impossible! What sorcery is this?!

Okay let's get to the point. I think the era of wearable tech has started. I also think this is a revolution in the making that would easily dwarf the smartphone or tablet revolutions--whether or not the main salesman is Steve Jobs.

The first question is, who's leading the way? That's the thing. No one has a clear lead. Here are some of the "smartwatch" players from the recent CES event.

Pebble
Martian Passport Watch
Fitbit Flex (Fitbit's answer to the Nike FuelBand)
Basis Band

The second question is one that has arisen lately. Is Apple making one too? Tech pundits are mixed with this new venture. Either being an ingenuously surprising move that would take everyone by storm. Or a massively miscalculated flop that will be the stupidity of our age. If it's true at all. I personally think it is. Apple rumors have been known to get stronger, not counting more factual, as the official unveiling draws near. My fearless guess is that after the iPhone in 2007 and the iPad in 2010, the new gadget would be the iWatch in 2013. (If Apple's naming methodology thus far is any indicator, it must be the iWatch regardless of how ridiculous it sounds.)

An iWatch mockup. There is a big consensus that Apple will be using Corning's flexible Willow Glass.

Will Apple be successful (supposing the rumor mill hits the tune yet again)? Honestly, it's a really difficult call. Apple has been known to exceed expectations on consumer adoption of new gadgets. And so I won't attempt to praise or drown the concept just yet. But I will say this. Wearable tech is no doubt a question of when, not if. As the mass consumer market bites the promise, a clear winner will emerge. Hence, if smart watches are widely adopted and Apple happens to be building one, Apple will dominate.

But wait. What about Google's Project X, aka Google Glass? This is wearable tech too right? And alas, another story for another time.

Sergey Brin, Google's co-founder, wearing a Google Glass prototype. Will these tech goggles bridge the natural gap?

Some people think this is too much technology overshadowing our humanity.

Most are inclined to find out how it would work in daily life. Soon says Google.