Blog

Ok, I’m starting to become one of those people who thinks Google+ might displace Facebook. It sounds insane, especially to me. Facebook is entrenched, and holding the definer’s perch. They are the dominant player, and have really set the stage in this arena. Others react to them. Until now.

Google is much more intuitive. Much slicker interface. Not so cluttered. These may or may not unseat Facebook, but they’re innovating and Facebook is in the position of reacting.

Now, I don’t expect a sudden exodus. First, many hardcore Facebook types spend hours with their Farmville, gang war, etc games. Until the the equivalents arise on Google+, all bets are off. But, even now, Google has established a place. Perhaps not as great as it could be. But still with a large affect. And who knows? They may just birth a whole new genre. Who knows…

The social media game is shifting under our feet. That’s what it does. Might even say that’s what it IS. It will be fun seeing how this flows from here.

This makes the me think of all the Bellevue gangstas, riding tough with the BMW their mom bought them for Christmas.

Just read & posted on Chris Brogan’s latest piece (sorry about the full link, the iPhone Blogger inability to insert links is a bit of an issue for me):

http://www.chrisbrogan.com/i-am-not-authentic/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+chrisbrogandotcom+%28%5Bchrisbrogan.com%5D%29#dsq-form-area

He talks about authenticity in the blogosphere, as it’s bandied around quite a bit. His key point is that it IS NOT simply unfiltered honesty. That authenticity still works within social norms. Good points. However, it doesn’t go over what authenticity IS.

I’ve long viewed it as anti-BS. The blogosphere is exceptional at BS detection. PR spin is flammable. In the Internet age, you can’t control the message. You must not twist verbiage in an attempt to mislead or bury an issue.

Anyway, that’s my basic notion. What about you?

Perhaps you’ve missed out. You may lack in geek cred, or awareness in all things cool…at least in a Disney/Cartoon sort of way. Yes, my friends, I’ve been introduced into the grandiose world of Phineas and Ferb. It’s weak to call it “the most un-annoying thing on Disney XD. At the risk of sounding like the arrogant adult that I am, most of their programming is annoying (at best). Yet, blessed “yet”, P&F are an actual delight. Well, in a geeky sort-of-way. Their joyous exploits and wondrous oblivion to their sister’s continuous plotting; they embrace the naive geek world-view exceptionally.

Come, scroll down and partake!

I’ve been thinking about money lately. Not just the considerations one would expect from the unemployed, but at a larger economic perspective. A couple of things brought this about. One, our school district added a charge for electronic additions to school lunch accounts. That prompted me to research the costs of electronic payments. This was expanded upon by chatting with the folks at Fabric of Life, a local store focusing on Fair Trade products.

As they encouraged me to pay with cash or check (sadly, neither of which I had), we got into a discussion of the effects of these myriad charges on small businesses. First, there’s a payment they make simply to be part of the network, providing access to the payment system. On top of that, we have a per transaction charge. Then there’s a percentage charge of the transaction. I’m left wondering what value these systems add. Well, besides convenience.

For me, convenience is the main benefit. I don’t need to go to an ATM, or wait in a bank line to make transactions. Nor do I need to hold up a line with check writing. Just whip out the debit card and go. I guess this is an element of our impatient society. Well, another piece is not having cash to lose or have stolen. I lose my debit card, I make a few phone calls and I have my cash restored. It may take a few days to process, but it’s better than losing cash, which will never be refunded by the bank.

However, are the costs worth the convenience? What’s the “value add”? It’s easy to lose sight of this as a consumer since we don’t see the costs up front. However, small businesses, operating under tighter margins, and unable to leverage large scale transactions, are the ones saddled with the costs. It’s hard from them to pass those along to the consumer; well, to do so and compete. These eat into their profitability and, thus, the sustainability of these businesses. As I have a fondness for them, I see that my continued electronic payments are damaging their ability to sustain. Gives me pause.

Added to this, one must consider all the activities of the banking sector the past few years. All the destructive practices of these lending institutions, which not only have gone unpunished, the main perpetuators have become well rewarded. It’s very frustrating to watch these people richly rewarded for acting in direct opposition to their customer’s interests. Then there are the continued addition of myriad fees, nickel-and-diming us to penury. With that, we, as thoughtful consumers, need to consider why we continue to engage with institutions that do not, by their very design, have our interests in mind.

So, I’m considering shifting my economic payment medium to cash. And my banking to a credit union. What’s more progressive than a co-op? Those institutions born out of last century’s progressive movement. Not perfect, perhaps, but more aligned with my values. My personal challenge in this is inertia. Shifting direct deposits, recurring payments, and all that sort of thing is a bit daunting to consider. And I’ve habituated to debit payments. That’ll be tough to change, too.

Into all this comes this piece, The Future of Money in Wired (it’s also a book). Will PayPal, and it’s related technologies, open this up and make these transactions sustainable? (It’s a meaty article…I highly recommend it) I think there’s great potential here. But it’s not quite here yet. However, I think it bears greater exploration for what’s out there already. Thus, more to come…

(Introductory Note: this will make little sense if you’re unfamiliar with the mythology of The Matrix trilogy…my apologies)


Morpheus is my favorite character from The Matrix. Smarter, and voluntarily committed, not the reluctant messiah of Neo. Which makes me wonder about messiahs…they either are reluctant, or unquestionably obedient to a vision. I’m more aligned with the reluctant, probably since I’m not inclined to a sense of moral certitude. Having heros who struggle with vision, with stretching themselves from ordinary to greatness feels much more sincere. 


So what’s the deal with Morpheus? A key piece of this character is his calm confidence in his vision, in who Neo is and what he will accomplish. He always works toward his vision, even (or especially) in the face of challenge and adversity. He is key as Neo’s mentor, yet there comes the point where he no longer impacts the story, becoming somewhat a passive recipient of Neo’s sacrifice. It’s interesting that the climax of the trilogy occurs between Neo and Smith, yet there is action for the rest of Zion. But they’re efforts are, really, empty. Their fight is utterly useless. If Neo fails, they die. If he succeeds, they life. And there’s nothing they can do but hold out until Neo can finish his task. Part of Morpheus’ willingness to fight a pointless battle is his desire to survive Neo’s quest’s completion. So, my attraction is based on his commitment and tranquility. His certitude of his pupil’s ability. And, probably, his faith in the continuance in the ability of humanity to persevere. For without this, what hope does a messiah offer? 

I’ve neglected my blog these past few weeks; my apologies. No malice, nor discontent; simply the fact that I’ve started a new role. Ramping up is always time consuming. So, though I’ve been absent, know that I miss you my dear little blog.

I have much to write about. I should get up my long delinquent post about my WinPhone7, and why I went back to my iPhone. And I, like so much of the Internet, have been fiddling with Google +. And this role I just started represents some significant changed, which excite me.

I’ll post again soon, rest assured. Until then…

While reading the latest post over at Liveside.net (looking at Windows Phone 7’s Mango release & Windows Live services…link below), I started thinking about Windows and the rest of Microsoft. Windows became strong by allowing a huge spread of machines to run it; particularly low cost ones. Even if you couldn’t afford a Mac, there is a Windows PC out there for you. Oddly, with Zune and WP7, they’ve focused on the premium market. Why isn’t there an entry priced Zune? Even Apple has lower priced iPods. Funny to think that price plays a role, I guess. Pundits tend to focus on features and innovation. Yet most consumers must deal with price, at least some point in the purchase process.

http://www.liveside.net/2011/05/28/windows-live-on-windows-phone-mango-the-past-present-and-future/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+liveside+%28LiveSide%29

The notion of transparency really fascinates me. First, how fluid the definition is. What does it mean to be “transparent”? One way to look at it is the opposite of secret. A commitment to transparency does not ensure there will not be any secrets. Many would say that there is need for secrecy, at least in certain areas. Defining those areas is, not too surprising, is also changeable. Everyone seems to have differing opinions. Certainly part of that stems from who benefits/who is harmed. For me, and this thread (at least), I clearly identify two macro-areas: security (keeping someone/people/things safe) and inhibiting distraction. The later is less about “secrecy” (and it’s assorted baggage) and rather, more gently, “limited transparency”. As a leader, having your team fully “in the know” about greater strategy, issues, etc, would first and foremost keep people from getting their “work” done. Or, closely related, is avoiding “boring to death with details”. Anyway, there are also larger issues of morality, et al. These are all interesting, and important, related topics. However, I’m focusing on the role trust plays.

Establishing trust is critical before the need for secrecy comes. For secrecy often entails, dare I say implies, deception. Especially if trust is damaged in any way, the assumption of a request for secrecy is deception. So many leaders assume/expect/demand the requisite trust without building relationship, with establishing respect and trust. They, of course, are then shocked with any absence of detail causes distraction and confusion.

Trust comes from relationship, from people living their principles and establishing a record of quality. Then holding back detail is tolerated, accepted.