Showing posts with label should. Show all posts
Showing posts with label should. Show all posts

Friday, 3 August 2012

Apple exec: We should do a 7-inch tablet

Apple executive Scott Forstall was asked to read an email in court Friday sent to him, CEO Tim Cook and others by fellow Apple executive Eddy Cue in January 2011 in which Cue said he believed there was a market for a 7-inch iPad.

galaxy-tab-7-1

The courtroom drama surrounding the Apple-Samsung trial going on right now has resulted in a lot of legal theatrics and offered an interesting view into Apple’s product development of the original iPhone and iPad. Not much that has been said on the witness stand by Apple employees called to testify has been particularly revealing about Apple’s future plans. Until this afternoon. Apple’s SVP of iOS Software, Scott Forstall, just gave testimony that seemed to back up the recent reports that Apple is prepping a smaller iPad for sale.

Eddy Cue, Apple SVP of internet software and services

On the stand Forstall was asked to read an email sent to him, as well as CEO Tim Cook and others, by fellow Apple executive Eddy Cue in January 2011. AllThingsD, reporting from inside the San Jose, Calif. courtroom, recorded Forstall’s reading of the email:

“I believe there will be a 7-inch market and we should do one,” Cue wrote in the e-mail, which forwarded an article written by a reporter that switched from the iPad to a 7-inch Samsung tablet. “I tend to agree with man of the comments below,” Cue wrote.

CNBC reporter John Fortt, who was also present for the testimony, reports on Twitter that Steve Jobs (who was famously anti-7-inch tablets) “seemed receptive” to the idea.

This is obviously going to add to the speculation — backed up reports from Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal and others — that Apple is set to introduce a smaller iPad perhaps as early as next month.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Should your startup have mandatory “Work from home Wednesdays?”

ThredUP co-founder and CEO says prohibiting his employees from coming into work one day a week, allows his team to think big picture, and increases productivity. (Just make sure that work from home day isn’t Friday).

JAMES REINHART

It’s easy to get myopic at a startup and become too focused on results and milestones instead of taking a step back and thinking about the big picture. ThredUP co-founder and CEO, James Reinhart wanted to give his team a chance to take that breather, so the company initiated mandatory “work from home Wednesdays.” Employees are expected to put in a full day’s work, but they are not allowed to do it at the office. The results, said Reinhart, have been increased productivity and greater employee satisfaction.

In this episode of See Founders Run, Reinhart talks about the benefits of this policy, what to think about if you want to implement something similar, and why “work from home Fridays” is not a good idea.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Sunday, 29 July 2012

Why data should be our guiding light on public policy

There’s so much data available and such powerful tools for analyzing it that the world might be a lot better off if politicians listened to the data first, rather than their parties or constituents. Already, data is showing ways to limit everything from traffic to AIDS.

shutterstock_105515642

With the advent of open data and new, powerful methods for analyzing it, we’re learning a lot that could challenge longstanding beliefs on public policy. Politicians, social workers and other civil servants have always had data, of course; they just never had as much and could never do with it what they can today. They should listen to what the computers tell them.

Recent HIV research from Brown University is a great example of what’s possible. Researchers formulated a computer model based on numerous factors relating to drug use, sexual activity and the medical aspects of HIV infection. To ensure it was accurate, they calibrated the model until it could accurately reproduce known HIV infection rates in New York City from 1992 until 2002. They ran the model thousands of times on a supercomputer.

Credit: Brandon Marshall/Brown University

They found that the rate of of HIV infection among New York City injection drug users will be 2.1 in 1,000 by 2040 if current programs are left in place. Expanding needle exchange programs will decrease that rate by 34 percent; expanding HIV testing would only result in a 12 percent reduction. However, a comprehensive approach that includes these two programs as well as two others regarding the administration of medicine and antiretroviral therapy would drop the rate by more than 60 percent to .8 per 1,000.

Assuming their model is accurate, that’s a significant reduction — getting HIV rates among drug injectors near zero — and it’s all thanks to access to lots of data and lots of computing power. Recently, another group of researchers in Europe developed a computer model that found a strong correlation between web censorship and high violence rates during times of social unrest — a timely finding given the current state of world affairs.

Last week, I explained how Xerox is working to help Los Angeles and other cities get a better view of their traffic so they can try to make life more efficient and less congested for citizens, while simultaneously reducing pollution and optimizing budgetary resources. To achieve these goals, Xerox and other companies in this space are gathering data from everywhere — cars, mass-transit systems, traffic sensors, cell phones, weather databases — and developing complex machine learning models to determine how everything is connected.

Of course, these are just a handful of examples of what researchers and others are working on with regard to data. Pick an area of public concern — climate change, smart grid, crime rates, genetics, whatever –  and you’ll find someone with mountains of data running some seriously complex algorithms to make sense of it.

However, as anyone who reads GigaOM regularly probably knows, decision-makers don’t need in-house supercomputers or data scientists on staff to inform their policies with data (although the latter wouldn’t be a bad idea). All they really need is an internet connection. Data sets are available everywhere you look, including at data marketplaces such as Factual and Infochimps, at Data.gov, and even increasingly on news sites such as the Guardian (see disclosure). Thanks to cloud computing, the resources necessary to analyze this data are cheap and plentiful.

And with increasingly prevalent cloud services targeting low- to mid-level users who want to run some relatively simple analyses, there’s no excuse for politicians and others not to inform their decisions with — nay, base them on — data. Last week, with company at my house and two toddlers running around, I was able to sit down with my laptop and generate a predictive model for gun-related homicide rates using a service called BigML and data from the Guardian‘s Datablog. It’s nowhere near Brown’s model, but I was able to do it while sitting on my couch.

Lazy politicians need not even get their hands dirty with raw data because chances are some journalist or bureaucrat has already analyzed it for them. Data on gun ownership in the United States versus the rest of the world is everywhere this week, as is, already, data on the spike in gun sales after last week’s shootings in Colorado.

The Nevada state legislator I recently heard on the radio struggling to defend his proposed tax on junk food would have benefited from reading this study from the USDA. It’s the top result on Google when searching “junk food cheaper than healthy food.” There’s also this interesting study on the effectiveness of Mayor Bloomberg’s giant soda ban in New York.

Look at the state of the world right now. Droughts, deficits, civil wars, obesity epidemics. A skeptic would argue that the old methods of public policy decision-making, driven largely by political and economic concerns, haven’t worked out too well. Why not give data a chance to take the lead? In the wake of the great recession, smart businesses certainly have.

It’s a simple proposition: Choose an important issue, find relevant data on it, analyze the data (or trust someone else’s analysis), and go from there. It’s objective starting viewpoint about whether something might actually work, political pressures be damned. Who knows, a brave politician who plants a stake not on the left or the right, but with data analysis, might end up looking like a hero in the end.

Disclosure: Guardian News and Media Ltd., the parent company of the Guardian newspaper, is an investor in the parent company of this blog, Giga Omni Media.

Feature image courtesy of Shutterstock user MikeE.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Growth startup v/s lifestyle startup: why should there be a difference at all?


Again and again, people try to distinguish between two kinds of startups: growth and lifestyle. Broadly speaking, here’s how people categorize these startups:


Growth Startup



  • Raises VC or angel capital

  • Aggressive hockey-stick like growth

  • Laser focused on an “exit-event” (acquisition, IPO, etc.)

  • Focus on revenue (not profits) or other growth metrics


Lifestyle Startup



  • Bootstrapped of Self-funded

  • Slow growth or no growth at all

  • No exit strategy per se as the business is part of founders’ lifestyles

  • Focus on profits at all times (as they don’t have external capital)


With Visual Website Optimizer, many people have asked me to clarify whether it’s a growth business or a lifestyle business. I’m always baffled with this question because these two categories seem narrow and I don’t see my startup getting pigeon-holed into one of them. It is true that we haven’t yet raised any VC or angel funding. But does it really disqualify us from being a growth business? What if I tell you that our revenues (and profits) have been growing by 10-15% every month. We are actively hiring but we’re not in a rush to expand the team aggressively (sacrificing quality). We’re happy with the slow but quality growth in team and product features. Does it make us a lifestyle business?


Why should there be a difference at all?


Why can’t a business qualify both categories: lifestyle and growth? Growth businesses typically take years before an exit event happens (if at all). What does the founding team do during that time? Raise multiple rounds of funding to stay afloat hoping to find the elusive exit event. Wouldn’t it be much better if a business has profit mindset of a lifestyle business but an ambition to become a large company like a growth business?


I don’t see any incompatibility between these two ambitions and in fact most great non-Internet businesses had started that way (McDonald’s, Walmart, etc). These companies became behemoths not in 5-10 years but over course of many years while always keeping profitability in mind. You wouldn’t call McDonald’s as a lifestyle business, would you? With most Internet and technology startups, there is such a rush to grow big at expense of profitability. Why can’t it be a slow but steady growth over a period of many years?





Possibly related posts (automagically generated):


Generated by BlogIt

BlogIt - Auto Blogging Software for YOU!

BlogIt - autoblogging software for YOU

BlogIt - autoblogging software for YOU