[1] http://www.amazon.com/Scoring-Points-Winning-Customer-Loyalt...
67 karma · joined July 21, 2009
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Scoring-Points-Winning-Customer-Loyalt...
These kind of articles frustrate me, as someone who already has a tendency to work too much at the expense of all other aspects of my life. Everyone has tradeoffs to make. The business tradeoff that Treehouse makes means that people have a higher likelihood of personal success in ventures outside of work, at what Mr. Carson sees is a minimal impact to the likelihood of business/professional success.
Can a company of people working 70-80 hour weeks be more successful than Treehouse's model? Sure. But I'd argue they're just as likely to be less successful. More code doesn't always mean more success, whatever the measure may be.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34436730/ns/us_news-life/t/energ...
It's not an entirely obvious problem, but one that is being dealt with often in colder climates. Unintended consequences of design.
Once this catches on, any mistake won't be a crippling one or a business-critical error, just a little frustrating. Gradually promote the other cloud offerings afterward, even if they have been there the whole time. Tied in with Lion's auto-versioning options, this just means everything naturally goes to the cloud, and no one will ever think of it again.
As stated, this isn't to kill Windows, this is to kill the pain of buying more devices. This is the first step to build that confidence and show it off in something people will have fun with.
People don't understand the difficulties of having lots of data on a large-scale network across thousands of miles of cities, countrysides, and elevation differences. They do understand if a computer or phone is slow, though. This way, there are problems, but it's not because of Apple and their immaculate product. Why tarnish your brand with something people won't understand?
We can mirror this to programming, and IDEs. Visual Studio, for instance, takes a ton of the nitty-gritty details of programming out of the picture for a vast population of people looking to write software. The need for quality and very skilled programmers isn't any less relevant - they're just not needed for every piece of development like they used to be. This is how we're able to get way more software than before. The very skilled programmers are almost more important in order to facilitate more software to get pushed out, as there will require an increased expectation of quality from software and only a limited group who can produce or lead such a development effort.
None of this is a bad thing, but it's just a change in how things used to be done. As it used to be in the automotive world, not everyone has to be a full fledged mechanic to keep the car running - but for the big jobs, there is a definite demand for the higher skill. (Of course, computerization of the automobile is bringing this back around!)
This isn't an all-glamorous job. To portray it as such would be deceitful and would attract a different kind of individual, who would ultimately be let down.
It's sentences like this that I would imagine to be under a dictionary definition of "nostalgia." I read this, immediately look off into the distance in an oh-so-subtle way, and then wonder quickly how this type of thing could be changed... and if it would be changed.
Think of the last time the bus or the subway car stopped more suddenly than anyone expected. Most everyone will look up, look around, and make brief eye contact with another person to make sure that someone else felt it too. There's that initial panic that sets over a number of people, then, seeing how others have this same, shared experience, everyone is immediately partially comforted. Why wouldn't we be? Someone else is here, they know what's going on, we'll get through this together.
The instant connectivity means that this period of worry before we make the most fleeting of eye contact is even shorter - we're getting rid of that terrifying low in order to have a constant sense of stability. When we do this, we don't feel that euphoric positive delta of connection and of community. The internet, the tubes, the twitters, the facebooks, the pictures, everything is just a numbing agent so we don't have to fret for that initial period of time.
We've advanced as a society to avoid the great pains of life as much as possible - fighting to remove hunger, distance ourselves from war, medicine to cure the sick. Why do we think it unreasonable or unexpected for society to also inadvertently make progress towards avoiding the emotional pains of life?
But the one big thing that college offers that lee references here is the learning things you may not have thought of learning. You'll have to take some "fluff" classes, or classes that aren't related to your major, but they expand your appreciation for other topics.
More importantly, at least for me, was the idea that college was a sandbox in which to learn about myself and leadership. I went the fraternity route (of the "Greek" variety, at that), and I learned more about leadership than I would have thought possible at my age. When I first got to school, I never would have dreamed of joining a "frat", let alone running one.
Working my way to President and leading 60 men/fratboys to a higher calling than getting drunk on weekends - a Sisyphean task if there ever was one! - built up my ability to lead without authority, and focus on such nuanced topics like recruitment for business and attention to detail.
Not everyone will have the same experience, that's for sure. I can definitely say I learned a ton outside of the classroom, and the ability to have those experiences when the generally worst case scenarios is a few angry drunk guys and not salaries or a business was very unique.
If you're looking only for people who can put themselves in that position, then I'd bet you'd find a good number of them to be job-hoppers.
Really, though, we get the point. It's very similar in shape and looks, and doesn't have much in the way of new functionality. Let's hear something new.
Suddenly, it's Adobe who's coming out as the sympathetic market leader, and Apple has to turn and defend its stance as anti-Flash from a non-technical standpoint. As Apple is forced to make its pro-App Store stance official (even though all of us here understand it) they'll get looked by the masses as as a monopoly-maker or as a company that stifles outside development.
"When it seemed I would be writing about 'Midnite Madness Sale-abrations' for the rest of my life, a friend used to console me that cream always rises to the top. I used to think, so do people who throw themselves into the sea."
The iPhone didn't get the buzz or the acclaim because of the App Store - it became thought of as a gift from the heavens! Steve has blessed us with this new way to add our value to the closed product. Watch this happen in a different extent with the iPad - something new will come up that will open it up ever so slightly, adding new features where Apple doesn't have the creative or physical capacity to develop.