Google and Finance 2.0

Umair Haque has written an Open Letter to Google titled “Can Google take on Wall Street – and Win ?”

It starts with: “Dear Google,…”

and goes on with:

Every day, you handle more searches than the NYSE handles trades — and that difference, I’m guessing, is about to hit an order of magnitude more. Every day, you connect people, businesses, and communities in deeper and tighter ways than besuited beancounters do. From my tiny perspective, it seems that you just might be in the best position of any organization in the world to take on Finance 2.0.

Umair’s open letter is nothing more (or less) than

asking Google to implement

his Finance 2.0 Manifesto

written some months ago, and commented in this blog here. I strongly recommend to read the Manifesto.

And he continues:

What would a Googlier

finance industry resemble?

What would a more Googly set of capital markets look like? That’s the $12 trillion dollar question. After all, markets are just search engines — remember?

You still think you’re in the media business. You’re not. In the 21st century, everyone’s in the same business: the awesomeness business. It doesn’t matter what you make, as long as it offers maximum awesomeness. And right now, better finance would be pretty awesome.

Yesterday, you used to change the world. If you think a bit harder, a bit smarter, a bit more disruptively — you still can. If you don’t — well, the biggest catfish in a parched, dried up pond sure ain’t the smartest catfish.

And he gives some “leading” examples:

Tracked, ValueCruncher, StockTwits, and many more are the leading edge of a revolution — a revolution in what finance has been for the last several centuries, and what it must become in the 21st.

Something i don’t like in Umair’s post is the polarizing tone as if all in financials services is bad, and Google is “doing good” and Google being positioned as the solution to cure world hunger. Although i have already promoted many times on his blog that

polarization fosters innovation

Also, the “leading” examples offered above are putting Google in its traditional role of information manager, searcher of information.

I believe we could also look at Google as a utility. They have some great tools that could be applied in a big way to financial services. What if for example a neutral party would host a federated Google Wave as a SaaS solution for the financial market ? Running on a secure messaging platform like SWIFT ? Next generation person to person communication ? Or apply the same technology to do Collateral Margin calls for example ? Where every new call is a new Call “wave”. Think about it.

There is of course a lot i like in this article, especially the implicit push for extreme – even “impossible” innovation. Last week, i was attending the 11th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation. One of the keynotes came from Mark Raison, titled “The Power of Impossible”

Look at this presentation. Internalize it. And then let’s play-back Umair’s open letter with The Power of the Impossible in mind.

What would happen then ?

PS: Mark Raison is on my target speaker list for Innotribe @ Sibos 2010.

70,000 Feet

Via Nova Spivacks Twitter account: “See this video of flight in U2 to 70,000 feet. I went to nearly 90,000 in 1999. This gives a good feel for it. http://bit.ly/14WdGJ

Space flights will be quite ordinary in 2025. That’s a little more than 15 years from now. I may still live then.

For our think tank long term future.

Re-Inventing Wall Street: Finance 2.0

When Umair Hague posts something on his blog, i always take some extra quality time to read.

110-umair-haque

Umair Haque is Director of the Havas Media Lab, a new kind of strategic advisor that helps investors, entrepreneurs, and firms experiment with, craft, and drive radical management, business model, and strategic innovation.

Always sharp, and always in for a good controversy and/or polarizing opinion. I am a strong believer in polarization being a big driver for Innovation.

Have a look at his latest blog post titled “Reinventing Wall Street from the Bottom Up

Some super-quotes:

Welcome to the new trickle-down economics. Here’s how it works:

  1. Banks massively misallocate capital.
  2. The government uses money reserved for public goods — education, transportation, healthcare — to bail out banks instead.
  3. The bailout should trickle down, as lending to businesses and consumers alike sparks economic activity.
  4. No effort to settle bad debt is made; little reform of corporate governance, industry structure, or competition is necessary — because banks are too big to fail.
  5. Little oversight of steps 2, 3, or 4 are necessary, because markets are perfect resource allocators, and market actors are rational.

Result? In trade terms, a shock worse than the Great Depression, as Paul Krugman has noted.

In employment terms, a lost generation.

In monetary terms, a flight from the dollar.

In microeconomic terms, the stagnation of America’s industrial base.

If it weren’t for Apple, Google, and a handful of old-school companies pursuing dramatic reinvention, like Wal-Mart, we would be in a Great Depression.

In macroeconomic terms, value is transferred from you, me, and our grandchildren to Wall St — permanently.

And also:

The greatest transfer of wealth in history is taking place. It is already roughly worth a year’s output of the entire United States, or about 5% of the entire world’s output.

Or…

It’s is faith-based economics — and it’s Barack Obama’s biggest mistake. (Consider for a moment that 20+ per cent of hedge funds misrepresent info.) For years, George Bush hunted for phantom WMDs, while terrorist networks flourished under his nose. Now Barack Obama is hunting for a phantom prosperity, while the greatest robbery in the world is happening right under his nose.

In the same blog post, he is referring to his Finance 2.0 Manifesto, published back in April 2009, where he makes 9 recommendations for a better financial system. I have cut & pasted the whole lot, not because i am lazy, but because the context is worthwhile reading as well (orange/red highlighting by myself)

Edge funds. An edge fund is the opposite of a hedge fund. Where hedge funds are opaque, edge funds are transparent. Where hedge funds are closed, edge funds are open. Where hedge funds are run for near-term gains, edge funds are in it for the long run. Where hedge funds create artificial book value, edge funds create value that accrues to real people and society. Where hedge funds focus on long and short transactions, edge funds focus on relationships. Think Marketocracy on steroids.

Macro and microcurrencies. A currency tied to national interests determined by a political elite? That’s so 20th century 16th century. A better financial system needs better currencies. Finance 2,0 will be built on microcurrencies and macrocurrencies: currencies which operate hyperlocally and transnationally. Why? Because people shouldn’t have to bear collective responsibility for bankers looting or regulators cahooting. In the 21st century, the quiet tyranny of economic collective responsibility is intellectually bankrupt: it is fundamentally unjust, deeply inefficient, and vastly value-destructive.

Social banks. Despite what marketers tell you, banks do not exist to maximize profits. They exist to maximize the safety of deposits. We’ve been taken for a very expensive ride. Next-generation banks will be structured as social enterprises — because the incentives to safeguard deposits and reinvest profits for the common good perfectly converge to a dominant strategy for long-run value creation.

Fair markets. Markets are free like a shark is a fish. Anyone can play — but only at the risk of being manipulated, looted, and defrauded by the deepest-pocketed. The anonymous arms-length transactions orthodox economics lionizes are, in practice, just a hyperefficient mechanism for front-running, predatory trading, and bid rigging. Next-generation markets aren’t just free: they’re fair. They are markets where information about reputation, reliability, and relationship thickness are hardwired into the DNA.

Stakeholder communities. Institutional investors are so 20th century. Centralizing control over our biggest corporations in the hands of a bunch of old dudes asleep at the wheel was as good an idea as the spork: interesting in theory, useless in practice. Tomorrow’s radical innovators are already updating corporate governance for the 21st century, by letting communities of stakeholders shape managerial decision-making. Think mega-Etsy.

Whisper bullhorns. Why is trading such a great business? Because traders have access to info that you don’t. Why can’t everyone get in on the whisper circuit that powers prop desk profits? Because no radical innovator has taken on the challenge yet of amplifying the secretive whisper circuit into a blaring bullhorn. But imagine if the rumours that drive share prices up and down on trading desks were Twitterfied. The result would be a financial revolution: the market power Big Trading enjoys would vaporize faster than you can say "insider info."

Googlizing financial instruments. What business is Wall Street really in? The business of hoarding information: to seek a so-called informational edge. Of course, markets don’t work if everybody’s hiding info — they only work when people are revealing it. Google can help me find a tennis racquet, Match can help me find a date, and Last.fm can help me find some tracks to rip — but who can help me find a better place to put my cash that effortlessly? No one. And that’s a massive reason why we’re stuck with a 1.0 financial economy.

Anti-ratings. Your credit is rated mercilessly. But does anyone rate lenders — not to mention brokers, banks, and investors? Today’s crisis would have been far less severe if consumers had access to knowledge about who was a trustworthy lender — and who was going to sell them the financial equivalent of a roadside bomb. Credit ratings alone cannot create more efficient financial markets — doing so requires better information about both buyers and sellers of every kind of financial product.

Open source modeling. Every bank built the same models. Every bank built the same flawed models. Every bank built the same flawed models on similarly erroneous assumptions. How dumb is that? Incredibly. Unleashing the power of open source to vaporize this black hole of incompetence is going to be a tremendously powerful path to innovation. The peer review, voluntary contribution, and always-on negotiation at the heart of the open source model create powerful incentives for quality — which is exactly what the hare-brained quants at banks lacked.

Finance 1.0 cannot power growth 2.0. Yesterday’s finance cannot power tomorrow’s prosperity. Bailouts, taxes, nationalization, regulation are what your discussions this week are focused on. These can limit the depth and intensity of the crash. But what they cannot do is build a radically more efficient, productive, and effective financial system.

See also my previous post about Peter Thiel and the Singularity, where he said that credit only works in a growth society.

That requires a better kind of finance altogether — one designed not merely to make the worst among us richer, but

to make us all authentically, meaningfully wealthier.

That’s why finance 2.0 is the future.

This is the sort or personal and corporate values we want to discuss as underpinning for our Long Term Future. Hence the need for the Think Tank we are building from Flanders to gather like minded authentic people who do care about our next generations.

Droid vs. iPhone

droidlogo-1

The blogs are full these days of Android phones coming to the market. Especially on the Verizon-Motorola-Android phone that is being launches as we speak.

I just picked one of the articles: the one from Michael Arrington on TechMeme.

+++Update: very complete update by Scobleizer on 8 Nov 2009.

From a US perspective probably the key differentiators is that Droid comes with Verizon. Every time i meet folks in the US, they complain like hell about AT&T. In other regions this may be less relevant – as some countries do not allow packages deals – and many have hacked iPhones that use other providers.

I don’t think Apple cares a lot about the hacked iPhones. Sold is sold. For Apple it is about market share in highly profitable markets. They have already very successfully milked the iPhone profit/cash cow. They may be worried about marketshare competition with Android. But Apple will for sure come-up with something else that is completely disruptive – not necessarily in iPhone land – to reset the landscape once again. And who still talks about Windows Mobile, albeit the latest version was released only a couple of weeks ago with a lot of marketing dollars ?

Last i heard that iPhone in the US is on its own counting for 21% of all mobile internet browsing. That’s a really big part of the mobile pie. No wonder Google goes full steam ahead.

You probably all have read about Google being bullish during last weeks financial results: crisis is over, Android going to be very very big, and going to really spend money in innovation. What will that mean ? Already now, Google is cranking our one innovation after the other. At about one announcement per week. So, now they are going to really invest in innovation ? They sit on a cash-pile of more than 20 billion USD. It will be very interesting to see where they will put their money.

Next week, Microsoft in launching Windows 7. I just read that Apple has almost 10% of the “PC” market in the US. Looking at recent history, i would not be surprised that both Google and Apple will use the publicity momentum of Windows 7 to undercut Microsoft’s airspace with some of their own announcements.

My good friend Nick was already playing with one of the Android phones when we are at Sibos. As a matter of fact, Nick has something like seven (7 !) mobile devices in his backpack ! Anything from the iPhone and iTouch to the latest HTC (with our without Windows) and the latest Android.

He told me: “once you have touched the Android phone, you realize how outdated the iPhone is “. Wow.

The key question will be whether Google can build an as successfull application marketplace as Apple. Nick runs more than 350 iPhone apps on his iPhone and his iTouch.

So Nick knows what he talks about. Nick, feel free to jump into the comments and share your reflections on the iPhone vs. Android debate.

The Power of Choice

Great post on the confused of calcutta.

How consumerization of IT now really starts hitting the enterprise. Quite obvious, and i am sure you too use more and more external tools like Google Docs, iPhone Apps, Drop-It and other company external services to get your job done.

The article however is on something more profound that is emerging. The power of choice, and how companies need to plan to design services to be “choice-able”:

The more intriguing questions of choice come up when you look at how tasks and resources get allocated to each other within an enterprise. Firms exist at least partly because they serve to reduce transaction costs. They could borrow capital cheaply, obtain global reach and scale, attract and retain staff by the provision of pay and benefits. At least that was the theory; over the years those advantages have dwindled: enterprise credit ratings aren’t what they used to be, the internet lowers the barrier for global reach and scale, security of tenure is no longer to be assumed and benefits sometimes  become millstones around legacy operations. So yes, firms are changing.

Despite all that change, some things haven’t changed. Management structures exist to define and agree objectives, to prioritise activities in the context of those objectives, to allocate scarce resources to the completion of those objectives, to monitor feedback on performance and to intervene when and where appropriate, to fix problems, overcome obstacles, resolve conflicts.

and

People choosing what they do, when and how they do it, where they do it, what services and tools they need to do it, what devices they use. All possible. All being done now. But not holistically across the enterprise anywhere.

For that we need to architect our services differently. Which is where outside-in design comes in, designing for the customer, designing to provide that customer with choice. At a level of abstraction, everyone’s a customer. Your actual customers. Your trading partners. Your supply chain. And your staff.

Google Wave for Dummies

Apparently this video gets 1 billion hits per day ? Hardly can believe that. 1 billion is big number. Anyway, let me add 10-20 additional hits by linking to it from my blog 😉

This animation is cute, but does not add much to the content that was part of the May2009 Google IO Launch event.

Since Sep 30, 2009 Google has released 100,000 test accounts. The web is full these days of Wave enthusiasts.

There are believers and non-believers. I count myself to the believers. But there are some pretty solid non-believers. One of them is Robert Scoble. There an interesting discussion going on at Scobleizers blog.

His first blog “Google Wave crashes on beach of overhype” had a pretty hefty start.

But this service is way overhyped and as people start to use it they will realize it brings the worst of email and IM together: unproductivity.

Apparently his created such an avalanche of comments on his blog that he gave it a second try. He stays a non-believer. His Oct 3 post title is Google Wave’s unproductive email metaphors. His conclusion now is:

I took the day off and said “what if they are right?” and “is Google Wave a really great way to collaborate with other people?” On coming back to Google Wave with fresh eyes tonight and even after collaborating with people on a few things my answer is “no, they are not right” and “no, Google Wave is even less productive than email.”

What is really interesting is that Google Wave polarizes opinions. This is one of the key tenets of innovative things. They polarize.

You still can continue to use mail (one of Scobleizer’s arguments was “anyone can send mail”). It’s like one of the very nice Outlook add-ons i saw being demo’d at DEMO2009 from Liaise. Somewhere half-way the video, the presenter pauses for a second to point out that your counterparty does not need Liaise installed. But yourself, you benefit from the Liaise features.

Why i am a believer ? Besides all the cool features in the May2009 Google/IO video, for me the most important thing is that non only Google Wave will run a Google domain, but any enterprise can have Wave running in it’s own domain. It’s a paradox, but this is one of the reasons of success of e-mail. That an enterprise can run and manage its own email-server or domain. These days for small business more and more as a SaaS offering.

I believe the power of Google Wave is its potential for enterprise interoperability cross-domains. And why not have some vertical business anchors to run Google Wave as a SaaS offering for a vertical industry, even just to bootstrap that vertical community ?

It would probably offer a solution for the business problem of having secure and efficient collaboration processes, within and across the own corporate domain. And with a partner like Google that really can scale.

Scale, interoperability and open-API’s are for me the reasons why i believe Google Wave will be a big hit. Of course, in the current version there are plenty of bugs and inefficiencies as Scoble rightfully points out. But i am a believer that Google will fix these. And yes, me too I would like to get one of those beta accounts, please Google. Is the above good enough publicity to get one ?

Privacy is dead

This blog post is triggered by a start-up demonstration i saw at DEMOFall2009 some weeks ago.

The demo was about an iPhone application called “datecheck” aka “creepfinder”

You can find the video here.

Not that i am interested in on-line or real-life dating – i am happily married – but in essence the application allows me to do a check on my date. It basically crawls the internet, twitter, facebook, and  – in the US – public data such as your real-estate tax income and even criminal records.

The end-result is that i find data about criminal records about my future fiancée, full real-estate data about what house he/she lives in, family composition, real-estate tax-income etc

The US government also is getting quite open and transparent on its own data. Have a look at www.data.gov

image

And these days all these data are accessible via API’s to take data OUT of these systems. Some API’s like twitter, facebook etc also allow you to INPUT data via for example Tweetdeck, Seismic, and many others. I would love to have something that not only allows me to INPUT my Tweets, but also something that allows me to input and maintain my personal profile data, across services. See also at the end of this post.

For the US government data, you see start appearing end-consumer apps that let you search through this massive amount of for example government contractor’s data with quite advanced intelligence tools in the hand of the citizen.

In stead of FBI (Federal) it’s becoming

CBI (Citizen’s Bureau of Investigation).

It says “analysis for the people, by the people”. I would add “"about the people”

image

All this is sold as “transparency” and “democracy”, and those are of course very important values.

But – and I don’t know about you – I start more and more FEELING quite uncomfortable about all this. Not that i have to hide anything, or that i have a criminal record (at least not that I am aware of ;-), but I do FEEL all this is quite intrusive.

As most of you know, in my previous life i was quite close to the Belgian eID project (electronic identity card). The card also allows you to access the on-line government database, where I can look at my OWN data and check who in the government has accessed those data.

But i believe we should make a big plea for the appliance of Law #1 of Kim Cameron’s Laws of Identity:

image

That’s easy said, but how do you enforce that. I took the pain to look at the privacy policy of Twitter (see http://twitter.com/privacy). In essence – as a user – i have nothing to say. I have 2 choices: to use twitter and accept the privacy policy, or not use it. But how many of the many million Twitter users have ever read the privacy policy ? How many know what sort of deep intelligence engines are crawling all these data that i released to the net WITH A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ?

This is not Twitter specific. It applies to Facebook, Friendfeed, or any other form of social network or service.

In my opinion, i would like to have something where i can control what data about myself i want to release to what service and in what context. I update my information there once, and have also guarantee that my profile information is consistent across Twitter, Facebook or even event/conference sites that these days more and more use their own social media piece of technology.

Of course you would need a highly trusted party to deal with these data. I think i would even be prepared to pay a price for my privacy.

This concept of a central digital vault comes pretty close to eMe, the winner of the Innotribe idea-contest at Sibos 2009 some weeks ago. But they started from “mydata” and information and documents related to financial services. If you start thinking privacy and putting control of data back into the user’s hands, you get a much more powerful proposition.

I would like to hear the opinion of a number of identity and privacy experts that are following this blog

UPDATE: Can’t help it, but just at the same time as i published this post, Guy Kawasaki tweeted the following URL:

 http://holykaw.alltop.com/why-you-should-think-before-you-tweet

Peter Thiel and the Singularity

I am just back from the Singularity Summit that took place in NY during the week-end of 3-4 Oct 2009.

banner_125x125

I will make a separate report on the rest of the event, but i was completely blown away by the 30 min speech by Peter Thiel and following panel discussion with Venture Capitalists.

PeterThiel

Peter Thiel is president of Clarium, a global macro hedge fund. He is also the founder and chairman of Palantir Technologies, a national security software firm, and a founding investor and board member of Facebook, which serves more than 200 million active users. He helps launch many other new technology companies as a founder and partner of the Founders Fund. Previously, he was founder and CEO of PayPal, which manages more than 175 million financial accounts.

Peter Thiel has philosophy and law degrees from Stanford University, where he occasionally teaches on globalization and sovereignty and serves on the board of overseers of the Hoover Institution. He funds research in artificial intelligence and life extension technologies.

See for his other investments on the above link to Wikipedia. It also becomes very apparent what a fine crew must have been at the basis of PayPal. Many of the ex-PayPallers have created very successful companies.

Also his philanthropic endeavors in the Singularity Institute, the Methuselah Mouse Prize foundation (Michael Rose himself was also at the conference) and Dr. de Grey’s work on extending human life span are some examples where Thiel’s long term vision is. I will come back later in this blog post on “time horizons”

But back to his 30 min speech at the Singularity Summit.

First his appearance. He made me immediately think about Steve Ballmer: his eyes are hypnotizing. His body language shows "withhold energy”. His jaws and mouth tense. Ready to explode. Clearly fit and in top shape. Laser sharp attention when somebody asks a question. Always listening and answering with respect.

And he delivered his speech without any supporting slide, and – as far as i could see – without any notes nor an autocue or something like that. Wow !

The title of his speech last Sunday was “Macroeconomics and Singularity”.

He started his speech with letting the crowd choose between a number of catastrophe scenarios: from bio-terrorism, to nuclear war, global warming, and a couple more like that.

His thesis was that the biggest disaster that could happen would be that the Singularity does not happen quickly. It was the start of a staggering discourse on why innovation – and especially disruptive innovation – is key to the continuation of our society. And in a grandiose move, he interweaved the financial crisis in to all of this.

Credit only works against a background of growth. But if claims of the future (singularity is a good example) don’t realize, that has a big impact on credit, on to be expected returns (which he claims are way too high for non-risk taking investments), and on the basis (growth) of our society at large. Society would still be “functioning” by fixes such as working till the age of 80, or earn less, or have low returns on capital, but that’s not what we understand with progress.

Investing in “tech” firms like Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, and even Google is betting that they will churn their revenues and profits in the foreseeable future. In other words, this is betting that nothing disruptive is going to happen.

A lot of this is driven by short term return horizons. We seem to fix the short term problems, but are stuck with the chronic long term problems.

Having a longer time horizon may be the biggest Chinese advantage.

Some other interesting quotes from his speech and following panel discussion:

    • The short run becomes the long run
    • All experts are biased in a positive direction, especially when presenting their start-up to VC’s
    • The risk of the return of fascism is very underestimated (this is about the emergence of a totalitarian regime trying to control AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) in a (pre)-Singularity time-frame.
    • I tend to invest in companies that will loose money for a long time, and a look for disruption
    • For every dollar that the government invests in opera, art, etc i want to see a dollar go to technology
    • We need to dramatically re-invest in technology education, even at primary school
    • I don’t like Darwinism, i prefer guaranteed survival. I could not resist a smile as right after this panel discussion there was Dr. de Grey himself on the agenda.

And about companies to invest in:

    • I am mainly looking at the team. And the potential of the people in that team to stay together for the long run, before founders start to argue and have a “farm" shoot-out”
    • And whether this team is capable to attract excellence. (I personally love this one as a measure for running a successful company)
    • He took his investment in Palantir Technologies as an example for this, where hiring seems to be organized around these themes. Co-incidentally, i had a meeting with Palantir the day before the Singularity Summit. I have mentioned them already several times in my blog and i would like to get them to Innotribe at Sibos 2010.

The effect of his speech was obvious. Where all other speakers at the event got max 2 rows of 4 people queuing for asking questions, there was immediately a row of 15 people of the auditorium eager to ask questions. You could feel the electricity in the air with each response from Peter Thiel.

This guy is sharp. Has vision. Has cred. Has Clout. Is a super-entertaining speaker. Has a story to tell to the financial industry. Peter Thiel would be an ideal keynote speaker for next year’s Sibos in Amsterdam 25-29 Oct 2010. It’s the first thing on my list today: go and see the organizing committee for Sibos 2010.

Of course, he would be great as well for the first event next year of our little Think Tank on Long Term Future (see previous blog posts).

The age of the unthinkable

Some weeks ago, i had the opportunity to listen to a fantastic speech by Joshua Cooper Ramo, writer of the book “The Age of the Unthinkable: why the new world disorder constantly surprises us and what we can do about it”.

This is the sort of guy that when he takes the stage, you immediately know you’re in for something special.

Some personal notes on this great speech:

Our world has now more actors, more groupings. The unpredictability is part of the system. It will be a given part of our future. He talks about:

SHAPESHIFT

Our world offers more options. We have a spectrum choice between no options –> limited options –> unlimited options. You can’t predict what people are going to do with these unlimited options.

YOU CAN’T PREDICT

Our world is more networked. It also means it is easier to share and spread risk

So far the analysis. How can we manage this unpredictability ?

One eye-opener was a visual showing how differently western and eastern people look at a picture: western people mainly look at the object, eastern people mainly at the surrounding environment of that object. So, understanding of unpredictability has a lot to do with understanding the environment.

It will also require resilience. But not resilience as we know it from messaging networks like SWIFT. More a resilience deeply integrated in the ecosystem, a bit like Hezbollah integrates resilience in every little piece of its organization.

Periods of change are not the exception but the rule.

You have to surf the wave, not try to predict the wave, but

look at how the wave can help you.

It will be ever easier to disrupt. The question is how to empower people to disrupt for the good. This is really about innovation driven by a set of values. Oh boy, how close is all this to the ideas of our Think Tank on Long Term Future.

Innovation in big companies can NOT take the lead. They have NOT been instrumental in the shifts from magazines to online, from Microsoft desktops to web2.0 cloud, from Financial Institutions to… un-banked payment and financial solutions.

The speech was delivered as part of an Oracle conference. So, i found it a bit “cheap” to say that Oracle was innovative and Microsoft not. The rationale being that Oracle “buys and integrates” and Microsoft buys “tons” of innovation but does nothing with it, does not integrate. Was a bit too close to the Oracle conference message of acquire and integrate.

He then went further on the theme of personal responsibility (i am free to smoke) and the balance with a certain set of basic rights (for ex healthcare). And that in the USA, everything is about rights (and maintaining that state) not about personal responsibility and that that has to change.

About maintaining states: Twitter is all about maintaining state in a constant changing environment.

And that there is hope.

And that

FEAR is an easy commodity to sell when

people are confused

during disruptive change. And that in these circumstances simple answers are usually dangerous answers.

Or the closing topic: never invest in people older than 25 years, as they are not used to live in constant change.

The speech was great. The book reads “like a train”.


Just a pen and a camera

After all these weeks of technology extravaganza, time for some relaxation with a piece of music: “Doorways” by Dan Bull.

For those who like visualizations or have a role as Chief Executive Officer of Happiness, this will make your day 🙂

“Using a single sheet of paper and a bolex camera, Michel drew images a line at a time and photographed the progression so that when played back, the images looked like they were drawing themselves.”

Found via http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/09/28/dan-bull-safe/

Enjoy. Inspires to dream…