Thursday, April 28, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
לקדש על הדברים הפשוטים
בערב שישי האחרון שמתי לב שהאורות הקדמיים ברכב לא מאירים כתמול שלשלום
הבוקר ניגשתי לחשמלאי הרכב יצחק וייס
מקום קטן, בלי יומרות, מעוצב פונקציונאלית לעבודה
חשבתי שבגלל ששני האורות הקדמיים לא עובדים נשרף פיוז
בבדיקה פשוטה התגלה שנשרפו דווקא הנורות
החלפנו נורות, הכל בסדר, בדקנו את כל שאר הנורות, הכל תקין
לבקשתי בדקנו את המגבים - אמנם ישנים אבל יצחק המליץ להחליף אחרי הקיץ, לפני הטסט
שילמתי בכרטיס אשראי - בלי שום טענות משום צד
פשוט
כמו שצריך
יצחק וייס - 039217528 - בזל 13 פתח תקוה
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Change in perception
Seth Godin, in his post The triumph of coal marketing (TB) says that "Vivid is not the same as true" and that "any time reality doesn't match your expectations, it means that marketing was involved."
 |
| The triumph of coal marketing |
The thing is that for making a new thing work you must break something old, even if the only thing you break is the old thing's marketing. Paradigm shifting is not limited to big revolutions. In the internet era, new and improved voids innovations that are just a few months old.
 |
| image by AxelBoldt |
For example, the android revolution (arguably) started with the launch of ADP1, google's developer phone, sometime in 2008. The phone was (is!) amazing, and was almost immediately made to seem obsolete by newer, better devices.
Marketers would like to have us believe that the state of the art thing we have is old so that they can sell us their new and improved.
So the thing that got damaged in the process is not a 2 weeks old innovation. It's our perception of change. A new and improved just doesn't cut it anymore. The new thing can (and should) be amazing, but we don't care as much. By trying to build a slicker marketing scheme, marketers dried up our river of attention.
So when we have something that's new - not newer - brand new, not improved - totally innovative, how do we make people care? Is (making it) vivid enough?
How do we promote a change in perception?
 |
| © Copyright Tony Peacock and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence |
So the thing that got damaged in the process is not a 2 weeks old innovation. It's our perception of change. A new and improved just doesn't cut it anymore. The new thing can (and should) be amazing, but we don't care as much. By trying to build a slicker marketing scheme, marketers dried up our river of attention.
 |
| photo by Dom Dada on Flickr |
How do we promote a change in perception?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Guest (=borrowed content) post by Seth Godin - Pick yourself!
When I started my recent entrepreneurial project I thought it would be straight-forward - build a good thing, go to a competition, get endorsements and work like crazy until I make it happen.
Not impossible, just didn't happen. So I had to take the scenic route instead.
Today I came across a post by Seth Godin titled Reject the tyranny of being picked: pick yourself (trackback).
Seth's bottom line is "No one is going to pick you. Pick yourself."
Not impossible, just didn't happen. So I had to take the scenic route instead.
 |
| © Copyright Kenneth Allen and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence. |
Seth's bottom line is "No one is going to pick you. Pick yourself."
 |
| © Copyright David Hawgood and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence. |
Not impossible, not necessarily an absolute truth, just a more sustainable state of mind.
I love the scenic route!
Friday, April 8, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
What are real problems?
We all know that one. Or do we?
It seems that the very definition of real problems is up for debate. The answers are often quite personal, transforming the question into what real problems are for me (i.e. what is my pain)?
When we get to analyze that, as we're often taught to do in our western world education, we try to get to the root of the the problem, find the atomic reason for our particular pain.
Conrad Wolfram, the world renowned mathematician, talks about his real problem in a fascinating TED talk titled "Teaching kids real math with computers". His frustration with the current state of math alienation is quite obvious. A subject near and dear to him is taught in arcane methods that drive people away. Too much emphasis is put on memorizing and performing manual calculations. The real world math - as he puts it - is neglected. He suggests reversing that balance - learning how to calculate as a necessary step - but then delegate it to something that's really good and fast with calculations - computers. This way the learner can focus on the "music" of math in the real world, rather than on the "mechanics" of it (my terminology - sorry Mr. Wolfram).
His arguments make perfect sense to me. After all - isn't that a quality of progress? Identify a problem, invent a solution, refine, streamline, mass produce, eliminate the pain?
Do we really need to gut a poor animal only to produce strings to put on our musical instruments? Seems like a silly question, obviated by the use of metal strings, mass produced and store bought. Do we mourn the fact that we've lost touch with the craft of producing gut strings (and the bloody mess involved)? Probably not. We may mourn the loss of art that was involved, but we deem that loss a necessary step in the route of progress.
We do not label Yo Yo Ma as ignorant, just because he (probably) cannot make his own gut strings. We choose to enjoy his art.
And yet, change is hard. The torrent of talkbacks on the TED talk page is amazing. seems like a real resistance: "What will happen when we do not have computers? We've become too dependent on gadgets!".
These claims are quite strong. Should a devastating force of nature render all computers into a distorted, useless mass, we'd probably be facing a harsh reality. But we'd be facing that reality in many more aspects of modern life.
Is there any one person that knows how to make, from start to finish, a working car? How to manufacture each of the materials, calculate all the chemical formulas, design the engine, refine the fuel? How about a simpler device - the ballpoint pen? A pencil?
Progress is based on delegation and trust.
Should we be vain enough to think that real problems stem from trust issues?
It seems that the very definition of real problems is up for debate. The answers are often quite personal, transforming the question into what real problems are for me (i.e. what is my pain)?
When we get to analyze that, as we're often taught to do in our western world education, we try to get to the root of the the problem, find the atomic reason for our particular pain.
 |
| Conrad Wolfram by Shervin Afshar |
Conrad Wolfram, the world renowned mathematician, talks about his real problem in a fascinating TED talk titled "Teaching kids real math with computers". His frustration with the current state of math alienation is quite obvious. A subject near and dear to him is taught in arcane methods that drive people away. Too much emphasis is put on memorizing and performing manual calculations. The real world math - as he puts it - is neglected. He suggests reversing that balance - learning how to calculate as a necessary step - but then delegate it to something that's really good and fast with calculations - computers. This way the learner can focus on the "music" of math in the real world, rather than on the "mechanics" of it (my terminology - sorry Mr. Wolfram).
His arguments make perfect sense to me. After all - isn't that a quality of progress? Identify a problem, invent a solution, refine, streamline, mass produce, eliminate the pain?
 |
| A cello gut string |
Do we really need to gut a poor animal only to produce strings to put on our musical instruments? Seems like a silly question, obviated by the use of metal strings, mass produced and store bought. Do we mourn the fact that we've lost touch with the craft of producing gut strings (and the bloody mess involved)? Probably not. We may mourn the loss of art that was involved, but we deem that loss a necessary step in the route of progress.
 | |
|
And yet, change is hard. The torrent of talkbacks on the TED talk page is amazing. seems like a real resistance: "What will happen when we do not have computers? We've become too dependent on gadgets!".
These claims are quite strong. Should a devastating force of nature render all computers into a distorted, useless mass, we'd probably be facing a harsh reality. But we'd be facing that reality in many more aspects of modern life.
Is there any one person that knows how to make, from start to finish, a working car? How to manufacture each of the materials, calculate all the chemical formulas, design the engine, refine the fuel? How about a simpler device - the ballpoint pen? A pencil?
Progress is based on delegation and trust.
Should we be vain enough to think that real problems stem from trust issues?
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Five Lessons in Uncommon Sense From Guy Kawasaki's "Enchantment"
(a super condensed mini summary)
The most important lessons contained in Enchantment according to fast company:
- Make business personal. Invest time to connect with the people you work with.
- Manage your audience's expectations. Whether it's your boss or your wife, understand what people want.
- Plan and prepare. Design what success looks like before you start.
- Be an amazing story teller. Make the stories you tell interesting, relevant and memorable.
- Be you. Above all else be authentic, passionate and engaged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)