Happy New Year Everyone!

So the end of the year is upon us, much faster than I think anyone was prepared for...

Whatever you're doing, here's to hoping for a new year filled with health and happiness to you and the ones you love.

For those who are still anxiously awaiting for a response from the school of your dreams-- there is still hope! I have already been dinged, waitlisted and have heard completely nothing after an interview from a third school. There is light at the end of the tunnel! Here are a couple songs that make me keep the hope alive!...Keep fighting the good fight everyone-- we're almost done.

Microsoft and MasterCard, a Melodious Match

Saw this article from Pymnts.com ("MasterCard and Microsoft: A Dream Team for Small Businesses") come across my computer screen today. At first glance, it's nothing paticularly revolutionary-- Microsoft will be offering cloud solutions for businesses and MasterCard is their chosen payment machine. In turn, MasterCard will provide a 10% discount for all business owners who enroll in cloud services by paying with their MasterCard.

I am intrigued though because this article shows:

• The financial services industry is slowly realizing that there is a lot of money to be had in the small business niche (and not just in the Square realms). In my experiences, small business is typically the majority or close to majority (depending on the exact line of service you're looking at, corporate vs consumer card, bank holding, loans, etc.) of the merchant segment. They typically don't produce more than $500,000 in revenue in a year, but there's a lot of them. So in this game, you're really making money a penny at a time, but you're making it off of millions of merchants simultaneously....the math works out. I'll be interested to see where else this exploration of small business leads us
• That there is an increasing focus on cloud services (duh), but also of providers of cloud services to be partnering with non-technology companies in order to make their offers richer and their reach wider. Amazon, for example, rolled out a gift organizer feature on their website with the sponsorship of Discover. Although this is not the exact same thing as what's happening with Microsoft and MasterCard, it is something that the Ms could do together in the future. Combine Microsoft's massive monstrosity of machinery, mechanisms and media (hahaha sorry I couldn't help myself) and MasterCard's large consumer base (which spans multiple business segments, whereas Microsoft makes most of their money from large corporations), and the benefits are great:
• Microsoft could expand into other market segments (mid market, small business)
• MasterCard increases their revenue from interchange charges across the board
• MasterCard gains increasingly visibilty to the "large fish"
• MasterCard and Microsoft together form a relationship that could morph into consumer products. I know, this sounds crazy, but hear me out. MasterCard is aggressively moving into the alternative payments/mobile payments area, backed with a lot of industry expertise, funds, and a focus on staying ahead of the regulatory curve with their launch of chip solutions, etc. Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems, extensive experience in producing consumer products and is moving into the mobile product space by offering their Windows7 phone. Match made in heaven for mobile payments? Maybe....

Culture + Business = Misunderstandings?

I read an interesting article in The Economist ("Tribal Japan") that reported the recent firing of Olympus CEO, Michael Woodford. For those of us who have missed it, Michael Woodford is a big deal because he's one of 4 non-Japanese, gaijin (means "outsider", but infers "foreigner") to run a Japanese company.

The controversy stems from the fact that Michael Woodford didn't get fired until he began asking some very awkward questions about approximately $1.3 billion dollars worth of "suspicious transactions" (silly gaijin), at which point the board fired him and literally told him to take a bus to the airport. The company's justification? His inability to adapt to the company culture.

Sure, on the service it looks like a pretty clear case of "Oh no, this guy is asking some bad questions that could potentially unveil the fact that we may have embezzled or covered up over a billion dollars in questionable things. Quick! Fire him!". If this is actually the case, then this should probably be used as a case study of poor corporate governance strategy (Really? You thought the best way to hide the fact that you were doing bad things was to fire one of the FOUR foreigners currently running a Japanese company? This being the guy who regularly gave interviews to small rags like Financial Times? Poor choices). I would like to caveat what I'm about to say by stating that I in no way approve of this behavior.

BUT. (You saw that one coming, right?) BUT. Let's just take a step back and try to see things from another's perspective. Olympus is a very well respected company in Japan (fun fact for the day: it enjoys an almost monopoly on the world's gastro-intestinal endoscopes, with approximately 70% of the world's market share, estimated at ~$2.5billion). It hit its ten year stock high in 2007, with a price of Y5070.00, and since then has had a couple bright spots, but has declined overall since then. More recently, there has been talk of downgrading Olympus to a BBB- status, potentially will be investigated for securities fraud (I'm sure especially in light of the information Woodford raised) and has been involved in a class action lawsuit (which it is now battling, citing that inflammatory and untrue information has been proliferated about the company). Two of its biggest investors, Harris Associates and Southeastern Asset Management Inc., recently lashed out at the company, offering strong suggestions on how to better manage the company and its recent accompanying scandals.

In light of this information, is it possible that the company had been looking for a method to oust their current CEO and replace him with new blood? That potentially they simply have the worst timing ever in making corporate decisions? Or, if it is a cultural thing, maybe it is an acclimation issue-- Woodford was very open in lashing out at his former company in the news, and maybe he potentially was not a fantastic leader. All I'm saying is that there probably are cultural misunderstandings and cultural tie-ins that led to this powder keg, but it could have been exacerbated by outside influences or could potentially be two-sided. Again, I don't approve of their management of the situation, because I'm sure there is a lot of "good old club" going on, but to be honest, that probably happens everywhere. Normally, companies don't make mistakes like this on such a grand scale or in such a fantastically sensationalized way, but it happens. Blowing this story out to be discriminatory move is probably a bit exaggerated.

Putting the Master Back in MasterCard

I couldn't help myself. I apologize for the terribly punny line.

But honestly, if I were MasterCard right now, I might be saying just that, strutting about among all the other issuers and preening a lot. (Apparently MasterCard is part frat boy and peacock. Or a peacock that belongs to a frat.)

MasterCard already owns the PayPass solution (which is their "tap and pay" method), which is already available at merchant locations nationwide. Most recently, they have:

• Signed an agreement with Google to be the issuer in the Google Wallet solution
• With the Citi MasterCard, Google Wallet-ers can begin using Google Wallet right away. If they don't have that card, they can use their Google prepaid card. By putting their name out there on one of the most talked about new products of this year, MasterCard is definitely making a statement. A statement along the lines of "Hey! Maybe Visa talked about it for a long time, but guess who got here first? Nyah nyah nyah."
• Formed a strategic partnership with mFoundry to make mobile payments more widely used by allowing easy integration through banks
• With this strategic partnership, MasterCard is getting a lot of exposure to the development community and making strong ties with one of the leading mobile banking providers in the US market today. mFoundry already provides mobile banking solutions for nearly 600 banks and credit unions, and together mFoundry and MasterCard are already planning on creating a mobile application that lets mobile phone operators to offer PayPass payments from their phones
• Announced an agreement with Western Union to provide electronic payments, prepaid cards and money transfers more efficient and convenient for consumers around the world.
• This is intriguing because it means two things: It means that MasterCard doesn't want to put all of their eggs in one mobile basket, and it also means that they have their sights strongly set on the emerging markets where there is a large potential market of underserved adults (from a financial services perspective--the article estimates that number to be around 2.5 billion adults worldwide)

I know I've been a hater in the past, because they had been so quiet for so long. But we all knew that there were two options for why they were so quiet--they either had absolutely nothing going on and were quietly ordering pizzas, pulling all nighters and fretting about what to do, stressing like a college kid the night before finals, OR they were quietly forging ahead with some pretty impressive deals. Maybe both. But based on the news we've seen so far, I can make a guess at their strategy:

• Do everything you can to ease/encourage adoption. No explanation necessary
• Forge into emerging markets where there is a large potential population open to convert from other banks or sign up for new financial services. This is two-fold: of course they want the name recognition of partnering with the leader of remittances and electronic fund transfers, but it's also because they know that it's only a matter of time before these "emerging" folks decide they want to step it up a notch and move into the credit card options. Especially for some of the emerging markets, like Brasil where credit is the most common form of currency (and they are legally allowed to offer discounts if you pay by credit!) this could be a significant move in capitalizing on new customers or cannibalizing exisitng card customers
• Play two ponies. Electronic fund transfers and mobile payments. Excellent double whammy. One is relatively accepted, especially in cross-border transactions and C2C payments (huge volume there), the other is causing a lot of buzz and getting a lot of consumer attention, particularly in the more developed (read: affluent) economies
• Play a whole herd of ponies when it comes to partners. Sure! Get mFoundry for some development, hook up with Western Union for some electronic funds transfers and go to Google for...well....for Google. What's next? A trusted service manager, a MNO (my bet's on Sprint or T-Mobile) and a hardware manufacturer
• Be quiet. And deadly. No flashy PR campaigns (*ahem* Google), no overpromising (*ahem* ISIS). Just results. I like it!

Let's see what happens....Let the games begin!

Women, Work, Weddings and the Southeast Asian Economy

Everywhere I turn nowadays, it seems like I'm seeing articles that are releasing "new findings" or yelling about "surprising analysis" about the state of women in the world today. Marketers are surprised that we make the majority of household purchase decisions, financial advisors are excited that we are more serious about our financial futures than previously thought (and more financially conservative/open to financial advising as well), social media gurus are aiming for us--knowing that we are the heaviest users of social media networks.

Some of the most interesting things that I've read recently though are more about the traditional values that women are transforming. I read an article called "Asia's Lonely Hearts", where recent (shocking!) findings show that Asian women are getting married later. The reason? Because they're enjoying their freedom, because the government allows them more financial independence when they're single than when they're married, and because they're beginning to see the value in putting their careers first before diving into the more traditional things that are expected of them after marriage (career pausing, babies, etc.).

What does this mean? Well, it means there is a whole generation of eligible bachelors (a lot of them the only children of their families) struggling to find a woman and start a family, a pursuit that is critical in Asian society. It also means that, because the pool is smaller, the demand is greater, and the competition is fiercer. A lot of the youth in Asia (I speak mostly from my knowledge of south east China specifically, mostly Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore) are typically migrating to the cities in search of jobs and ways to potentially better themselves through jobs or connections. In these cities, only the most influential, wealthy or well-established find mates. In the countryside, where the youths are already less educated, there is becoming less and less of an opportunity for them to progress to the levels where their families would make an investment in sending them to the cities. This pause leads to overall stagnation, and with a growing working-age demographic...the government should begin to worry about the potential future progress of their society.

Flash over to Japan, and I read this recent article ("Land of the Wasted Talent") about Japanese firms that have only now begun to realize the brain drain that is happening when they fail to appeal appropriately to women. The article claims that nearly half of Japanese university graduates are female but only 67% of these women have jobs, many of which are part-time or involve serving tea. The most worrying part of this article (in my opinion) is the following phrase: "Most companies have rules against sexual discrimination. But educated women are often shunted into dead-end jobs. Old-fashioned bosses see their role as prettifying the office and forming a pool of potential marriage partners for male employees."

Beyond my initial horror at the word "most" in the first sentence and the entire last sentence, I understand how this could happen. Old-fashioned bosses are not viewing women as their full potential as workers, and this probably manifests itself in other ways too-- inflexible work schedules, no concessions to ameliorate the life of a woman that potentially has to care for children and aging parents (caring for your parents, often in the same home, is very common in asian cultures)--which would drive women away. Where do these women go? Interestingly enough, a lot of them go to the more "westernized" locations-- some women in the article mentioned moving to Hong Kong, where "career women are admired and nannies are cheap", which is good to bolster the ecnonomic strength and progressive perceptions in southeast asia. However, not all women can go there, so where does the majority go? To foreign firms, where such concessions (nannies, flexible work schedules, maternity leave, etc.) are common or expected. This is primarily good for the United States and Europe, where there is a wealth of highly educated talent waiting to be wooed away, but this could spell disaster for an economy where the working force is quickly aging and there has already been signs of a changing "traditional" lifecycle (schooling, marriage, children).

Like Lycanthrophy, the nerd gene can skip a generation...

For a funny read to lighten up your Tuesday, check out Chris Hardwick's recent contribution in Wired--"Self-Help for Nerds". Although it is a pretty insightful look into his life (and its failures), with a lot of tangents that we can all probably relate to, it ends up being an endearing read about self-improvement.

Supercommittee Fail

It certainly seems like the stuff of comic books and super heroes (especially with this ultra-dramatic picture I found from the Washington Post above), but there were no heroes today from either side. $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will kick in the start of 2013.

Things That Go BRIC in the Night

It's sweeping the nation faster than the Bieber Fever (way to date myself in my antiquated pop culture references, everyone knows that the new hot reference is KKs failed marriage). I've mentioned it as a potentially passing phase before, but I think it's safe to say its never going away. Yup. We're scared of India. It's okay. Embrace that fear. To be clear, we are not afraid of Indians, those guys are our friends! We're scared of India as a country-- as an amalgamation of a heaving, growing beast, slightly unpredictable, widely rumored to be highly corrupt, perhaps untamed and slightly off balance, but barreling full-fledged toward our unknowing consciousness.

I am here to quell your fears though! For once, instead of throwing gasoline and household objects into the burning flames of worry, I am here to say, "Hey, maybe it won't be as scary as you think. Let's just think this through." I think one of the biggest worries that is generated from India is how, with all of its positive momentum, it will usurp America's number one spot. It's scary, I know. We'll get through this together. Just keep reading.

First of all, India will grow and India will most likely be a very successful country in the future. This does not meet our downfall. This means we will have new partners to work with. Also, let's keep in mind this will take time. In recent articles, it doesn't seem that India's path is all roses and kittens. They will need to work through some problems also before they're inevitable conquering can begin (take a breath), which will take time.  An easy comparison is to look at China, Brazil and India (the C, B and I from the BRIC countries--it surprises me how many people use that term but don't know what it stands for. To be completely clear, the R stands for Russia. Don't want to be a jerk, just want to make sure we're all on the same page.). They're growing economies, very intimidating.

Whereas China is growing out of control, it is currently in "copy-cat" mode for a lot of its machinery, and depends on more developed countries for a lot of its innovative hardware and know-how. Because of its size, its having a hard time getting everyone on the same page, trying to reconcile the explosive growth of business cities like Shanghai with its deserted, new and booming factory towns, and its wide stretches of remaining agricultural land. It has made significant moves forward in growth over the past couple of years, but, as we all know, those last couple of miles are the hardest. It's going to struggle with its own issues of balance, particularly as their middle class grows, demand for freer speech continues, the prince-ling generation struggles to reconcile its place in an increasingly lonely generation gap (prince-lings are how we know those that were born during the 1 child policy).

Brazil on the other hand, has a more stable population, with a population of working age that is growing quickly. It is rich in natural resources (like iron ore, timber, oil, etc.) and has a very long growing season thanks to its very favorable location (three harvests a year!). However, many of its problems are intangible. The flood of investments coming in has created a strong currency that hurts exporters outside the resource industries. Internally, they struggle in a mire of bureaucracy where hiring and firing can take years, the tax system is indecipherable, government corruption is commonplace and real interest rates are considered among the highest in the world. Its consumers, although growing and with a large percentage of growing affluence, have not fully embraced a saving mentality, so credit demand still outpaces supply. On a basic level, government entanglement has delayed basic building, like roads, for far too long, resulting in a stall simply because its hard to move stuff around!

India is very much a middle child in this situation. Like China, India has enjoyed a fantastic growth rate, but is poorer than China (bad in short term, means greater opportunity for growth in the future, which is good). Like Brazil, India also needs some infrastructure, and has significant corruption issues that need to be overcome. Additionally, India needs to educate its incoming worker-age population appropriately if they hope to be successful in the world market and internally within its own country. Anecdotally, I've heard that the red tape surrounding both the school and job placement process is mired in mystery and so many levels thick that it requires multiple stakeholders to navigate.

So. I tell these stories not to say that the US is still supreme and will be supreme forever. Already, we know that is not true, and that there are countries that we'll need to work with in order to share the prestige and the responsibility of being part of the developed world. My point here is that emerging countries, however scary, are also facing significant hurdles to define their own space. India is often the poster child because of their exponential growth, large English-speaking population and direct connections with our nervous centers here in the states (which, I think is safe to say, are located in New York, San Francisco/Silicon Valley and other major hubs of commerce) through brain drain (bidirectional) or investments (also bidirectional).

So...instead of worrying about this. Worry about narrowly missing a world where there could be even more procreating Kardashians (zing! Got it in there to prove my knowledge of US Weekly), that there is a new season of Teen Mom (WHY?!?!) and...oh yeah, that Euro Crisis thing. And bed bugs. Be ever vigilant my friends!

MDMs-- Managing Directly with Menace?

Movie-going Dwarves with Machinery? Mangled Dimes Manifesto? MDM actually stands for Mobile Device Management, but I wanted to see what other MDM acronyms I could make up. (It's surprisingly hard- not a lot of very fun M or D words were coming to mind. I'll blame it on my stomach virus.)

MDMs are the new "It" thing in town on the mobile scene. InformationWeek just released an article about how the changing mobility space is ushering on a whole new set of data risks beyond just encryption. And they're right. As mobility becomes more commonplace, people need to worry more about the various terrible things that can happen to their information beyond just the transmission part (getting from point A to point B).

BlackBerry was initially the poster child for security (and had a great headstart in the enterprise game, winning over many companies as the mobile device of choice for a long while) because it had its BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES), which not only made it easier for companies to integrate their mail systems onto employee devices, but also made company leadership feel a little bit comforted from a security standpoint. Then, iPhone and all these Android devices launched onto the scene.

They had a bit of a harder time because, although they were a hit with the consumers, they were a bit of a dud when it came to security (esp. Android with its open development stance...Apple at least could point to its very strict, "walled garden" approach). Then Good arrived. All hail Good! Good (aptly named) freed countless workers from the pain of carrying two phones for the sake of being chained to the BlackBerry (I know there are some of you out there that carry two any way for "privacy purposes", but I promise the company doesn't care about your booty call texting and you probably shouldn't be doing drug deals on your phones any way. Especially during business hours. I mean c'mon.).

Now we're in a brand new world. A Brave New World even. But mostly new. Let's just go with new, the other connotations are a bit creepy. Now Google has partnered with Motorola, thereby sharing its 3LM (three laws of mobility) service, which claims to have set a standard of security within the Android service itself. Exciting stuff. So why do people care about this so much right now? Because MDMs help control and protect. How? Well, Good is really mostly known for its email capabilities. Newer MDMs, like 3LM offer a suite of services including (but not limited to):

1. remote wipe
2. device tracking
3. app blocking/pushing
4. peripheral blocking/control
5. emergency lock

It'll be interesting to see how these trends in security evolve. It's really focused on functionality right now, I imagine in the future it will evolve to control data usage/content.

Miseducation and Misinformation

Your education has failed you. Commence panic immediately.

Especially now, when we're in the throes of Occupy Wall Street-ers (and their attempted and mostly botched dismantling-s), the question in our society has become intensely focused--What makes me different than the guy next to me? And who can blame us? We have college grads, experienced workers and leaders of industries with more acronyms after their names to count-- all still in the unemployment line. (See "The Miseducation of American Dreamers" for an interesting point of view on higher education.) According to the Occupy-ers, there are 1%-ers and 99%-ers. If you're part of the conservative middle, there's also 53%-ers. If you have a job, it's just the fact that you have a job while unemployment is still ripping apart traditional fantasies of American plenty (esp. in the rust belt). If you're well-traveled, well-read, experienced in your industry than those all count too. Whatever way you choose, one factor that keeps showing up in the mainstream consciousness is education. My question is why? Is it because of the inherent inequality there? The problems in our educational system? Just a widespread watching of Waiting for Superman?

Whether you say "I went to Famous College Prep (they don't call them high schools anymore--it's not as prestigious to do so). Then I went to Ivy League College." or "I went to Community College and then State University" the youth of America know that they're in a competitive market. A market where, one of the few options that you have to differentiate yourself from the guy next to you (and hopefully land a job post-shoveling money over to your alma mater) is to go to a good school. It's interesting to see though that "a good school" is now no longer defined as just university any longer though...in fact, there are very profitable businesses that specialize in preparing your pre-schooler for acceptance into some of the magnet schools that are so desired in metro areas like Chicago, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, etc. But what's wrong with our public system?

The Economist recently boiled down the public school crux to "three great excuses" for bad schools:

1. Skimpy government spending
2. Disparity between social classes
3. Culture

Unfortunately, the first two are not particularly compelling. Yes, the government has made significant cuts to educational spending over the past years, but the U.S. is still one of the the countries that has the highest spending in education, but still lags behind other countries on overall outcomes in secondary education. Additionally, in a study of countries between 1970-1994 found that countries that doubled or tripled their educational spending often stagnated or went backwards in terms of the quality of their educational performance. So. Social disparity?

Originally coined by the education trade unionist Martin Johnson, he pointed to the "inequality between classes, which is among the largest in the wealthiest nations" (he was referring to Britain at the time) as the reason why its pupils under-perform.This is partially true. Students who come from a hard background will struggle academically because a lot of their mental will is directed toward outside variables that are more directly related to their survival. However, we find that the link changes-- Australia, for example, has a large discrepancy in income, but still falls ninth in the most recent PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). (PS- The U.S. is 14th, after countries like South Korea, Canada, Estonia and Poland.)

So, culture then. It is true that many cultures, particularly Asian cultures place a lot of emphasis on the importance of education (the top 5 in the PISA are Shanghai, China (very interesting specific), South Korea, Finland, Hong Kong, China  (again very interesting specific) and Singapore). Some trace this back to its roots in Confucianism and its mindset of lifelong learning instead of education as a means to an end. Others will trace it back to the equally popular beliefs of Amy Chua-ism, also known as "Tiger Mom-ism".

So what do we do now? If it is a lot of culture, that will take a long time to change won't it? What should we do in the meantime? Excellent question. From a young-person's perspective, there's a couple things we can do immediately to encourage educational excellence:

1. Teach strong values. All the intelligence in the world means nothing if it used for evil. Take a cue from Spiderman kids...with great power comes great responsiblity.
2. Encourage reflection. A desire for learning should be born out of something more than just wanting to make money--encourage people to look beyond the immediate. Yes, I know money will buy you a boat which will make you happy, but why? Is it the freedom that you enjoy? The independence? Find your core driver and see where else it will take you--if independence is your thing, see if that parlays into helping women in third world countries gain their independence through micro-loans. Find ways to apply your personal interests and invest yourself so that it makes you want to keep learning
3. Outline the logistics. Sure, its easy to say that after a million years (that's an approximation) of medical school, you get to be a neurosurgeon. Begin saving lives. But let's break it down at an early age--at each step we should outline the next step while keeping the big goal in mind. Go to high school. Go to a good university. Study for your MCAT. Apply to medical school. Go to medical school. Breaking it down to manageable steps so that young people have a clear view of what the next milestone should be would help. I see a lot of people getting confused and disoriented around the college years and the medical school/residency years.
4. Bureaucracy/Tuition. Stop the mountains of paperwork, or at least give clear guidance as to what needs to be filled out, by whom, when, and what it will mean. Tuition. Stop raising it all the time. Especially when our families are struggling to pay bills. Please. Thank you.
5. This one is for parents. Stop coddling your kids. I'm not even kidding, my significant other did not have his own bank account until after he graduated college. He had never paid a bill in his life.He never had a real interview until a year after college. He didn't know how to apply for a credit card. Take the credit card with unlimited funds away.  Now slowly move away from your child. They will not implode. I promise.
6. And this one's for the kids. Finally, please stop filling your mind with trash. I know, I know. I'm super boring. Go ahead-- watch trash television if you really want to--CSI or Law and Order SVU, Millionaire Matchmaker, whatever. But let's put some limits on it. This means no Jersey Shore. Why? Because sentences like "Snooki wants a perfect guy--a juicehead gorilla with a tan. They frolick" (TRANSLATION: A randomly nicknamed girl who can't spell her own name consistently wants a new man to be around because she hasn't been physically attached to one in over 5 hours and this is reality television. She wants a 'roided-out monster with a tan because a tan is obviously super important. (Orange complexions are just part of that evolutionary programming...along with height and good teeth) She also learned the word "frolick" yesterday, so she doesn't know what that means, but she wants to do it) is not only the most ridiculous sentence ever and makes me want to cry, it's also a really bad example for our youngins. If we stop watching maybe they'll pull it off the air and the cast can fade into obscurity. *hope hope hope*

But...I Haven't Even Started Yet!

Alright. I've had enough. No more Nice-Guy (or Nice-Girl in my case). I'm sick of the increasingly depressing forecasts for America. Yes. We're in a financial mess right now. Yes, our politicians are behaving a bit ridiculously and focusing on partisan politics in a time when what we really need is a united mindset to find a solution to our problems (but honestly, is that so different than what happens normally?).

Everywhere I turn, there are "serious concern" articles about America now (sagging employment rates, a prolonged recession, etc.), but an equal if not greater number of "serious concern" articles about the levels of success in America's future. And what does it all come down to? People just aren't that convinced that the future of America will be as innovative or forward-thinking as generations past. To put it bluntly, they're really just not sure that my generation will be able to produce the types of success that America has enjoyed in the past--will we have the Thomas Edisons in my generation? Another Steve Jobs? Maybe someone that could be more like Bill Gates? They'll even settle for a John Pemberton (he invented Coca-Cola, I had to look that one up).

I know that this worry comes from a good place-- it's normal for our parental generation to be worried about the generations to come. Good even. But enough is enough. Let's call out this worry for what it is-- a projection of economic worry manifested into the physical and tangible that is currently represented by the youth. Is it possible that the American economy will falter a bit in comparison to international markets (after years and years of unbridled success) in the future? Maybe. Will that be due to the inability of my generation? Absolutely not!

To this, I say unto all of you nay-sayers: Seriously? Seriously?! You're worried that we can't acclimate in a global market? You're worried that we won't be as innovative as things in the past? You're worried we'll be out-shined (out-shone?) by our Indian and Chinese counterparts? Okay. Let's set the record straight.

First of all, we grew up in a global market. There's nothing that we need to acclimate to! We grew up in a world where there were more Kentucky Fried Chickens in China than the U.S., and where off-shoring is normal course of business. We don't recognize Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart or Microsoft to be American companies--in fact, we expect the brands we trust to be global (that means inclusive of places outside of the U.S.). Blame it on what you will-- the disregard of physical space due to the growth of instant communications, the widespread sharing of ideas due to the internet--but my generation simply has a different perspective on what the workplace looks like now, and for good reason.

So innovation. I get it. It's hard to compare to...the man who invented light bulbs. You're right, we probably won't be inventing the computer again. And you know, I really like Coke as it is, so that's probably out of the question too. But that doesn't mean that this is the swan's song for all innovation in general! Let me remind you that older generations might have invented the internet, but we invented Facebook, Groupon and yeah--I'll claim it--Google. They may have invented Windows and Linux, but we invented Android. They invented light bulbs, but we invented optical computing, 3D printing and pioneered artificial organ growth and bio-fuels with record numbers of start ups. Let's call it even.

Yup. Americans are bad at math, or so goes the stereotype. Our educational system is outdated and far too lax on our youth. We're just not learning enough when you compare us to India or China!So this, I will cede that there is a bit of truth. Our educational system is not stellar, and there is always room for improvement. However, this is due to our strange government funding distribution system (run by *ahem* older generations), inadequate educators who are incentivized by the wrong things (like money or test scores, whose sub-par work is currently being supplemented by programs like Teach for America and ACE that are powered by younger people, reaching out to those lower-paying "unteachable communities"). Frankly, performance issues are also being exaggerated. My generation does have some pockets where education really has no place (its the same dark hole where "Jersey Shore" rules and "16 and Pregnant" is considered quality television). However, there is also a much larger pocket that is beginning to realize that beyond the sheltered existence provided by mom and dad, there is a big world that demands only the best. Kids are going to college in record numbers, advanced degrees are also at an all-time high. We might not be good at math, but we're trying really damn hard to make up for it. We're hungry for it just as much as the next country.

To end my rant, just give us a little credit. We haven't even stepped on the field yet and nay-sayers are already calling the game. That's just unfair. Give us the benefit of a doubt--I think that my generation will surprise you.

Mobile Movements

So... the mobile hysteria keeps moving forward. I keep reading all these differing accounts about the potential mobile revenue that can be generated (whether it be from banking or payments), and now that the media has accepted this mobile medium a bit more, there's a huge amount of discrepancy between the viewpoints. There's one camp that keeps releasing "news stories" that say things like "mobile banking hitting the tipping point!"..."Cash On Its Deathbed!"...but they release them....every week. Nevertheless...Finextra estimated that there were over 4.6 billion mobile payments made in 2010 (and KPMG found through a survey that people believe mobile payments will be mainstream by 2014), and the big players are definitely marching forward to capitalize on that!

• Google Wallet finally launched to mixed reviews. (This is actually a real thing, contrary to the hysteria over Google getting into the credit card business earlier this year.) The pros seem to be that they've gotten a lot of huge merchants to sign up (Macy's, American Eagle, Jamba Juice, etc.) but currently their functionality is only rolled out to one phone and (probably because of the newness) is still causing a lot of confusion at point of sale. I had the opportunity to see it in action at the Macy's in Chicago at Water Tower, and it went something like this:

1. Customer goes up to counter with product. Notices reader
2. Customer fumbles around in (overly) gigantic purse, finds phone. Presents phone to cashier
3. Cashier looks confused, which results in a great moment where customer and sales person just blankly stare at each other (reminiscent of what I would imagine it was like when humans first tried to use the wheel--stare at device, stare at phone, stare at device, stare at each other, shift weight from foot to foot awkwardly)
4. Cashier realizes its a tapping thing...awkwardly pats the terminal
5. Customer initializes app. Tries to tap. Taps too fast. Terminal declines. Taps again, too slow. Terminal doesn't register. Taps again. Some error occurs
6. Cashier takes phone and tries to tap. Transaction goes through
7. Cashier and customer awkwardly laugh it off and customer is on their way

Yup. Sounds way faster. It's the wave of the future people! ...and the future is awkward and confused.

• PayPal is hanging tough in the game by releasing their plans for mobility--which spans beyond mobile payments and is focused more on in-aisle check out, ways to perform "mobile shopping" and other merchant capabilities
• ISIS....well...ISIS is still being ISIS. Originally started as mobile payment platform, its evolved to be essentially a white label solution for banks to develop mobile capabilities. It did announce some firm commitments though by partnering with some security companies (again the security issue we keep seeing popping up every where). I know that a lot of people have given ISIS a lot of grief, but the fact still stands it is the closest thing we currently have to a truly collaborative business model that offers a comprehensive mobile payment solution (issuer, bank, merchants, network, etc.). Can't hate 'em for trying...
• Visa is planning to kill two birds with one stone by integrating EMV (regulatory requirement) chips and mobile payment chips by accelerating their roll out of chip technology in the U.S. This is actually an ingenious strategy because saying "this chip is for compliance and security" is easier to sell than to say "this chip is for mobile payments which you're not sure you want to use due to security reasons any way". Overall, a strong move

There have also been some interesting partnerships:

• First Data (the largest processors in the industry) chose VeriFone to focus on the security of mobile payments (consistently ranked as the top concern of customers and merchants alike). This would enable VeriFone's PAYWare Mobile to enable secure mobile payment options. FirstData get a new product to increase their revenue from trxn fees, VeriFone gets an increased distribution network and increased sales in its product
• Motorola threw some pretty extensive funding behind Vivotech ($24 Million!). This is mostly interesting to me because Google just purchased Motorola, and in doing so acquired a ton of patents, a experienced workforce (they laid off 800 employees though) and a bunch of new, interesting functionalities that include mobile security software. In doing so, Google has really set itself up to take over the end-to-end value chain of mobile payments from hardware to payment process to merchants. Props. (Some claim though that Google still has more than enough competition coming from other alternative players like Facebook though)
• Verizon is countering with their partnerships too..they recently announced that they would partner with American Express' Serve, which would allow customers to buy things by typing in their phone number into their phone (which doubles as an authentication feature)

Phew. Glad I got that out of my system. I feel better now, don't you?

We're Angry! About....Stuff!

Old-Timey Protests

Current Protests

Let me be clear. I'm all for a good social uprising. Change the established practice! Shake things up! Push for critical social innovation! Show (fill in the blank organization) that they're doing something that makes you cranky! That being said, I'm a bit embarrassed about how low our forms of protest have fallen. 

I know. Things are pretty messed up right now. Esquire actually did a great about the value of the dollar, just one of the many things that people aren't particularly thrilled about right now, in their most recent issue. I highly recommend it. Back to protests. The Economist noted our (global, collective) failure to focus on our protest goals in a recent article titled "Not Quite Together". They made some good points about the global protesting spirit is alive in kicking (Occupy Wall Street in New York, austerity ruckus in Greece, unemployment marches in Spain, etc.), but that a lot of it is misguided. For the most poignant example, I don't think we need to look much farther than our own country though...So, for example:

• Movement: Occupy Wall Street- Although initially jump started as a protest of the 99% against the 1%, this particular movement has generated a lot of publicity, and because of its high visibility, has made very clear some of the problems in this outraged group. Even though this movement bills itself as the majority finally taking back what is due to them, underneath the Facebook groups and twittering, this is really not that different than the austerity movements in Greece. The American economy is turmoil. Undoubtedly, these banks hold a lot of that responsibility. The American public pays the price for their poor decisions. The "why do I have to pay for this?" mentality begins. Anger ensues.
• Interesting Facts:  
• There have actually been studies on the science and mathematics behind protests. For example, in a sample of European protests between 1980 and 1995, austerity-focused protests attracted over 700K people on average, whereas other protests attract less. Anti-war protests for example, only attract 15K on average
• Protests, especially the ones related to spending cuts during times of increasing expenditure, have no party preference. In another study of protests in Latin America between 1937 and 1995, researchers found that tight link cuts and instability that cuts across democracies and autocracies alike
• Researchers also found that a 1% increase in GDP results in a reduction of estimated protests per year by about 0.4 events (roughly half the impact of a similar increase in the government budget)
• What went wrong?  
• Misinformation and scattered agendas. It's supposed to be about the 99% against the 1%. In fact, it is clear based on financial data that approximately 58% of the real economic growth in America of the past 30 years was captured by the top 1% of earners. For obvious reasons, societies with a larger income disparity generally have more civil unrest. However, research on wage growth in the United States questions whether this polarization is really based on wealth capture or if it really is due to the dramatic segmentation of the labor force into high and low-skill segments (cannibalizing the middle-skill/middle-wage positions), which would result in social discomfort
• Most financial firms in New York have moved to midtown long ago, and although it is a symbolic space, the sheer numbers have begun to cause serious concerns for sanitation and public safety. As the signs above show, these protesters believe they're united, but its become a farce of itself- ultimately more trendy than impactful. The demographic in attendance is pretty young (mostly around college age/young professionals), but relatively well educated (most hold college degrees). By itself that makes me wonder-- how 'majority' can you be if you were educated at one of the best universities in the nation? (NYU, Columbia, etc are in the area) or if you have the means to be living near Manhattan? 
• Early splintering. We started with the chant of "I am the 99%", but then...wait... we got really mathematical about it and came up with some 53%-ers too. Although this is really just the conservative retort to the protest, some of their points do resonate (To feed my family, I'm working or trying to find a job, not camping out in Manhattan). I can't admit that I support them wholeheartedly though. I'm from California after all

 So. I'm torn. I keep thinking about a saying I heard in college, "If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no brain". The point is that your views will change as you move through your life depending on where you are socioeconomically. I know that I make more than your average 25 year-old. I know a lot of people who are struggling through this hard economic time, so I give thanks every day that I have a job and that I can save money for a rainy day. I live frugally and I believe in postponing current happiness for future security (that one is actually probably more cultural). I'm fiscally conservative and am a crazy savings account-er. But I still feel the need to support this protest. The financial system failed Americans. But many Americans also tried to "outsmart" the financial system by living outside their means. They're both at fault, but to fix this mess, I just have to think that there must be a better (more effective) way.

Too Big To Be Popular

Suffice it to say that Bank of America has had a rough go this year. I know, I know....all of us have had a rough couple years, and the FS industry will continue to feel it the worst, but I feel like our poor friends at BofA has had it particularly hard. After the financial melt down, they were met with throngs of angry consumers and a buffet of high visibility, embarrassing issues. In late August, they seemed to be entering an upswing when Warren Buffet invested $5M into the company, but was immediately thrown to a new round of questioning when the Wall Street Journal published that they might be taken over by JP Morgan. (Not that Buffet investing is particularly surprising since he's basically gone on record to say "Who doesn't like a fire sale? They're practically giving it away! Normal people buy extra socks when there's a sale, Buffet buys into giant financial companies. Different strokes I guess.) After multiple reports of behind-doors meetings between Geithner and JP Morgan's CEO (Jamie Dimon) and claims that this sort of transaction would be prohibited because BofA and JP Morgan would cumulatively control too much of the financial sector, reports just stopped coming, and the world began to focus more on BofA's embarrassing problems.

Most likely in an attempt to get their balance sheet back in order, Bank of America also announced in August that it would selling off its international international credit card businesses. In doing so, Bank of America was pretty much cannibalized by other companies, with TD Bank (Canada), Apollo Capital Management (Spain) and Barclays dismantled their existing portfolios and subsumed them into existing operations. After earnings calls or what people are now just calling "results", it was revealed that Bank of America finally fell behind JP Morgan (ouch) in being the largest American bank as measured by assets. To add insult to injury, this happened despite the fact that JP Morgan faced its own decreases in revenue this year. Bank of America did manage to sneak in some upbeat messages during their results calls, but these points were later revealed to be inflated by a more "creative" interpretation of one-time items and releases of loan-loss reserves. Buffet also went on record to say that Bank of America was "not properly integrating their systems or cutting unnecessary branches" at the same time that Bank of America announced that they planned to cut approximately 30,000 jobs over the next few years. Whether the intent was to justify or critique is questionable.

Finally, as one of the first banks to announce the debit card fee, Bank of America was the last major bank to eat their words and cancel their plans for this fee. (I mean, who can blame them? People were setting their cards on fire in protest in front of their offices...seems a bit extreme in this day and age when there's world hunger, etc. But hey! Find your cause and go for it. For the record though, the fee was $5/purchase, so it probably would've added up pretty quickly.) All in all, it is definitely hard to feel bad for these guys after all of this mess, but it could be important to keep in mind that we can't punish them forever. Yes, they definitely made choices in the management of their assets, but at the end of the day, the money to repair the damage they've done has to come from somewhere. They should take a more gradual approach to repairing (no $5 fees) but they will inevitably need to raise revenue if they want things ever to stabilize. That will be something that both Bank of America and American consumers will need to come to terms with.

A Tale of Three Islands...and 7 BILLION Mouths

I've been trying to catch up on my Economists recently, and I came across an article today called "A Tale of Three Islands" (pretty good coincidence actually) about how the world population is estimated to welcome its 7 billionth person to the world today. I guess there's nothing scarier than an exploding world population? Trick or treat?

So apparently the story goes something like this.... Back in 1968, a book entitled "Stand on Zanzibar" was published by a man named John Brunner. This was witty (I'm sure he took forever to think about this) because it was estimated that in 1968, the population of the world (3.5M) could stand shoulder to shoulder and fit onto the Isle of Man (572 square kms in the Irish sea). However, being the forward looking man that he was, John also estimated that by 2010, when the population would have reached 7 billion, we would need a bigger island. Hence, Zanzibar, (1,554 square kms off the coast of Africa). Although there are conflicting reports (the American Census Bureau reports that the 7 billionth person won't be born until March 2012), the United Nations population division estimates that the world will reach its 7 billionth person today! Hooray!

So a lot of people are probably freaking out at this point, imagining doom and gloom...Overpopulation leads to disease right? Wide-spread famine? Wars over resources? General discomfort because it means that many more people will sweat on you on the bus in the summer? Well "Nay!" says the Economist. They actually bring up a couple of very interesting points.

1. The rate of growth is actually declining. Contrary to popular belief, almost half of the world's population (3.2B) lives in countries with a fertility rate of 2.1 or less (that's the magical replacement number that we've identified and China got a little overexcited about...Think about it....think about it. Yup, it's because that's how many people it takes to replace your mom and your dad. Morbid but true). Worldwide, the fertility rate is 2.45, with most of weight being placed in Africa (4.64) and Oceania (aka Australia and related islands, with 2.49)
2. Pollution is very concentrated among a select few. And by a select few I mean mostly the U.S., Australia and China. Surprise! Most of the world's population growth in the next 20 years will occur in countries that make the smallest impact on the climate. While global pollution is more affected by economic growth as countries become more energy intensive, currently, most pollution occurs in U.S., Australia and China
3. But what about food? Well actually, this is one thing that population does impact, but improvements in farming could keep up with population...The argument here is that if we increased output by two-thirds, we would be in the clear. The Economist cites that between 1970-2010 we increased by much more than this, so how hard could it be?

So here's where I land...I know that population explosion is going to be much more gradual and probably less catastrophic than the sensationalist journalists would like me to believe, but I just can't buy this. Okay I buy that population rate is declining, but by absolute numbers (ah-ha! GMAT studying was good for something), 7 billion is more than 6 billion. Period. And you know what happens when there's more population? Countries have more manpower. You know what happens then? Crazy things. Demand for basic goods goes up, demand for employment increases, a middle class develops, before you know it, you might even have a developing society. And that's when the pollution comes in.
Alright so the food issue. Everyone wants it, usually every day. Although we could improve farming techniques to produce more food, you usually need more land to do that. Going back to my original theory that 7 billion is greater than 6 billion, this could be a problem, because people also take up space, leaving less room for farming. Even The Economist concedes that "The growth in agricultural yields seems to be slowing down. There is little new farmland available. Water shortages are chronic and fertilizers are over-used. All these-plus the yield-reductions that may come from climate change, and wastefulness in getting food to markets- mean that the big problems are to do with supply, not demand". Take that The Economist. FACE.

Bottom line? Population growth is pretty scary. But it's not really exploding. It's more of a slow expansion- the viscosity is different. Visually, think about is more like honey in a saucepan than the aftermath of stars colliding. Is it still scary though? Yes. Happy Halloween! (PS- Stars colliding is also a very scary, real thing that should stay in your mind if you plan on living for a few thousand more years because you'll get radiated to death)

The Kindle FIRE

How cool does that sound? Some marketing company somewhere made millions for their ingenious re-branding of the Kindle. They could have gone the lazy way and just called it "The Kindle 2", "The Kindle II" if they were feeling exotic or maybe "The Kindle Deux" if they were feeling pretentious and vaguely European. Anywho- I know that by now the Kindle Fire is old news and, some claim, a copy cat. They announced it almost a full month ago now, and even though devices aren't scheduled to start shipping until November 15th, you can certainly go and purchase one so that you can have one shipped to you immediately.

There are a couple of things that intrigue me about The Kindle Fire (capitalized just like that please, or, if you're feeling really caught up in the Amazon spirit, The Kindle FIRE).

What We Know: Magazines are actually charging MORE on the Kindle Fire for electronic copies than for physical, print copies. Some magazines, like The New Yorker, will be $60/year!
Why It's Interesting: Up until now, everyone had assumed that print media was going the way of the dinosaur, and that change was occurring so slowly in that industry that hose media companies wouldn't know what hit 'em until it was too late. Slow to innovate, slow to adapt. But, the magazines have impressed me with their business strategery-- in the new pricing model, they win if consumers decide to follow the masses and buy their media through this new-fangled thing called the internets, because their profit margins will sky-rocket! Their customers are paying more for a product that actually costs them less to produce. For those consumers who need their fix of Vanity Fair but are deterred by paying slightly higher prices, they'll be driven toward physical, print media-- buying the magazines a little bit of time as they downscale their print production facilities and migrate toward ....the future. Let's not underestimate these print media guys-- they know that it's time to get with the program, this move is not a desperate attempt to stay relevant, it's a strategy where they're trying to play two moves ahead--softening the blow of those moving away to print media, while also corralling customers into thinking physical media is relevant so that they can buy a bit of time to migrate. Genius.

What We Know: At $199, it's dramatically cheaper than the cheapest possible iPad ($499)
Why It's Interesting: Amazon assumes that any money is loses on hardware purchase costs will be made up through the purchase of software, which users must purchase through their channels (books through the Amazon E-Book Store for Kindle, music through their mp3 music store, streaming movies through the Amazon Prime store). It's interesting that the Kindle is seen as the iPad competitor, because the comparison here in unbeatable-- in the same way that Apple has drawn hurrahs and disgruntled mumbles because of its "walled garden" approach (if you use Apple products, you only use Apple products--iTunes, iPad, iPhone, Apple TV, etc.), Amazon is following the exact same methods. Albeit the Amazon approach is more focused on the software component, the strategy is strikingly similar.

What We Know: Amazon uses a customized, proprietary "Silk Browser", which, because of its cloud-based nature, tracks everything. And we mean everything.
Why It's Interesting: So remember awhile back, when I was wondering who would win in the battle of the giants between Google and Amazon? Well it looks like Amazon is really stepping up its game. By using this Silk browser, which tracks not only which websites its users are going to, but how frequently and how much they're buying along with allowing Amazon to instantly perform price comparisons across products, Amazon has positioned itself to gather more information on its customers from a single software application than any previous player. Undoubtedly, that data needs to go somewhere. Google better watch out.

A lot of additional chatter has happened to figure out if the Fire would ever be a candidate for the mobile payments hardware rush. I'm a bit torn so far. On one hand, the Fire is linked with Amazon, which has been integrated with Amazon's checkout, which was kind of groundbreaking in its offer of phrase-based secure check out. On the other hand, the Fire feels like a consumer device out and out-- I find it hard to think that a merchant could convert it into a mobile terminal. I will need to see if any additional work is done to secure the device, so time will tell!

Until then though.... the Kindle could be the next product that is en fuego! (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Feminine My$tique

I read a really interesting article today in the New York Times on how people perceive women with make-up on. Shockingly (this is sarcasm) they found that women who have more make-up on are perceived as more competent, better at their jobs and friendlier than those who do not. As a woman who is usually so sleepy in the morning that I consider it a success if I properly brush my hair, this makes me sad.

But this brings me to a bigger point- there seem to be two basic sides of this argument if you're a woman- those who find sexual appeal just another tool in a female's arsenal in the race to get ahead OR that the idea of using make-up to get ahead makes a mockery of women's lib and that any one who supports that must be a misogynistic pig.

I feel as though there must be a happy medium. I agree that looking presentable is important, especially if your everyday work revolves around customer-facing tasks. However, I'm not about to whip out my entire make up toolbox in the hopes that I would get an extra bonus this year. This whole conundrum does make me wonder though, what does it say about our society that this is even a legitimate thing to feature (and argue in favor of women wearing make up to work) in the New York Times?

Not With a Bang But A Whimper

So one of my favorite poets...probably one of my favorite artists....ever is T.S. Eliot. My favorite piece of his is The Four Quartets, but one of his more famous works is The Hollow Men. The Hollow Men is mostly about death, but its famous last sentences (probably more familiar to you from your high school lit days) goes a little like this:

Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
                                        For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
                                                    Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
                                        For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Don't get turned off by the weird references and children's nursery rhymes. I remember when we discussed this, back in high school, everyone argued that the poem was depressing, that T. S. Eliot was obsessed with death. It was true he probably wasn't in the best state of mind... his marriage was having its swan song at the time, but I made the argument then, and continue to make the argument now that his piece was really a warning about not fully enjoying life.


I thought of this poem the other day, when I learned about Steve Jobs. He was, undeniably, an amazing man. People thought that he was almost immortal the way that he carried himself- he was larger than life- the messenger of dreaming big, the poster child for innovation...He brought us iProducts damnit!

After the news of his death slowly began to infiltrate the web, I noticed a steady stream of commentary articles also flood the internet, questioning whether Apple would be able to survive without him, whether innovation itself would stall.I, as a member of the next generation of dreamers, schemers and innovators, am insulted, but I'll save that for another post. But overall, my reaction is: really? Really? You think that now that sans Steve Jobs, the world will fall into a innovation stall? Maybe even begin to devolve so that by 2025 we're chiseling on stone again? C'mon!

Even Steve Jobs would be angry about that insinuation. Jobs didn't give us innovation- he gave us reasons to dream. He gave us proof that sometimes the impossible is possible, that sometimes the unthinkable is what everyone had been thinking all along, and they just didn't know it. I think that, in general as a species, people are prone to be ego-centric. Things that affect them deeply must affect everything in profound, impactful ways! But the truth is, the exact opposite is true. The more meaningful something is to you, personally, the less likely it is to mean proportionally the same "amount of important" to someone else. Let me give you an example (a very morbid example). After 9/11, thousands of families banned together, and in an unprecedented time of uncertainty and loss, America witnessed that people, deep down, were good people. Everyone agrees that 9/11 has changed all of our lives in unimaginable ways. However, that little girl who lost her father on 9/11, really remembers 9/11 second to to the fact that she has lost her father. But, to an outsider, who knew nothing about Mr. Smith, little Jane's father, who doesn't know what he/she doesn't know- he/she doesn't know the type of man he was or the things they did together. So, in the grand scheme of things, mostly unaffected by the loss of Mr. Smith.

So please. Let's stop trivializing the important things and overemphasizing the (relatively) little things. Steve Jobs- the man- is gone, but the important things that Steve Jobs stood for- the essence of him, will never be gone. Although it is a sad thing to say good-bye to a great man, I think he would be insulted if we accepted that the end of innovation itself is here. That would mean that his life was a singularity- an existence that didn't result in future gains or have any self-sustaining properties. I think he deserves a bit more than that. Steve Jobs' death is not the end. It's the beginning. It's a warning against not fully living life.

...And Here Comes the Lashback

So after all of the exciting news about mobile payments stuff happening all over the place, there seems to have been a mini-lashback that happened this week with multiple sources all proclaiming the evils of mobile payments.

A recent study from Juniper Research indicated that in NFC mobile payments alone, there will be about ~$110 billion in opportunity because by 2014, they claim, one in every six mobile subscribers will have an NFC-enabled device. This latest forecasts basically amounts to at least 20% of the smartphones by 2014 supporting NFC, which equivalates (that's not a word, but it should be) to ~300 million phones.

Enter the doomsday seekers. An article was featured in NetworkWorld this week, entitled "Mobile Payments: Don't Buy Into It".In this article, they claim that security is their main issue, and that mobile payments "are a disaster waiting to happen". Moreover, they claim that from a merchant perspective, encouraging more people to use essentially what amounts to a credit/debit card isn't in the merchant's best interest because of interchange fees. As for evidence, they claim that hacking is now done by "organized gangs" and that Google's Android platform is particularly vulnerable due to the open source nature of their OS, they have less control over their platform than say Apple and the iOS. They also go on to site the dangers of downloading apps that may or may not be fully vetted for security/ apps that are falsely marketed as payment apps that actually aren't. Not buying their article- seems too fluffy to convince me.

MSN Money posted an article this week called "Mobile Payments: Convenience at a Cost?". In this article, they claim that there are a lot of risks that come along with the "magic" of mobile payments, only one of which is the very nascent stage that we are currently in with controlling/securitizing the NFC technology. They even brought up a Consumers Union report. Okay, I'm half-way convinced.

SFGate reprinted an article from Neural Technologies where they claim that "Mobile Payments- Fraud Waiting to Happen". (I would like to share that I am instantly skeptical of any source that can't properly use verbs in titles.) After the redirect, it takes you to their website where they ask you to give your information to request a "free (no obligation) copy of the report". Their page is filled with marketing information for their top of the line fraud management services. Not convinced.

Seems like a lot of people just wanting attention by saying something to incentivize outrage. Mobile payments does have some drawbacks, security is definitely going to be one of them, but why would you publish fluffy pieces just for web traffic? Bah! Waste of time...

In my mind, security will definitely be a concern because although there are PCI standards for processing, we are at the very beginning stages of some of these new technologies. Similar to any major invention (the car, mainstream drugs, the internet, etc.) the technology came first, and we didn't know what we didn't know- so the laws, the restrictions and the limits were created later. Similarly, no one fully knows yet what the value and the opportunities are for technologies like NFC, QR codes, radio waves and sound-based communication methods (no seriously, there is a way for some devices to emit high pitched beeps to communicate with a receiving device) or even light based methods (replacing electrons in computer processing with photons that can be encoded through different patterns or colors to "hold" more information-see University of Bristol new research). And, although it makes everyone uneasy, we won't know until we actually push those pilots out there. The good thing is, the industry is pretty good about hedging their bets by testing with internal hackers in cases like these because they don't want anything deterring them from making money! So, I rest (a bit) easier knowing that any new technologies I adopt have been tested as best as possible, and that any potential hacker is only a few hours ahead of an internal hacker at my favorite mega issuers/ mega banks.

PayPal Steps It Up Against Visa and MasterCard

Recently, PayPal held a mini-summit at Rancho Palos Verdes in CA to showcase some of their new offerings and their view of the mobile future. Branded "Shopping Utopia", PayPal presented nothing completely groundbreaking, but did bring up some very interesting concepts:

• A break away from the NFC-mania (some attribute it to our "gadget-driven culture". Whatever you call it, it's probably true that NFC is over-hyped right now. Esp. considering that forecasts estimate that it won't really take over for at least another 3 years due to infrastructure). With a software update (that's right- no new hardware) PayPal hopes to offer a way to check out using a phone number and a PIN. I think this is also very apt since they announced pretty recently that, "There will be no NFC at merchants any time soon..." I love that they're actually realistic about the things that need to happen before NFC can actually happen!
• A commitment to social networks. We've been talking about how mobile/social continue to move closer to being one and the same, but most of PayPal's new offerings will be connected to a social "check in" service like Foursquare. This could be a play for them to get in closer with merchants to start a loyalty/coupon play, or a way for them to get into the data analytics/advertising side by tracking their customers. For another funny article check out "Socially Awkward Teens May Drive Mobile Payments Adoption"
• Deepening an existing relationship. In a very streamlined way, if you are in a store and would like to charge a new TV to your card but don't have a high enough credit limit on your Visa, PayPal will actually offer you to immediately apply for credit. Not only does this make me want to use their service (no worries about big purchases), but as an existing PayPal customer, it makes me more likely to create a deeper connection with PayPal.

Also Finextra offered a new mobile forecast. They predict that mpayments will overcome plastic volumes within 10 years.

In related news The Post Office is also now blaming mpayments/e-payments as one of the reasons it's going out of business, claiming that because P2P and bill pay is so much easier now, not many people are using the post office any more. I blame it on the fact that the Post Office has terrible service.

I think it's interesting to note how mobile FS players are really trying for this in-aisle check out thing. It also has wide-ranging perks for all people along the value chain- hardware manufacturers, software manufacturers, app developers and the end financial service institution all benefit. Or, if you're Apple, you just sell Lowes a million iPhones.

Either way, we should all probably keep an eye on eBay/ PayPal, because although they've been a little quieter and less flashy about their predictions and plans for the future, they have amassed quite a collection of supportive technologies for The Mobile Revolution (it's like The Zombie Apocalypse, but more geeky).

Monitise Patents New Mobile Capabilities

Monitise announced today that they patented the a way for consumers to set up a single account and generate single-use card information on a mobile phone. This has huge meaning for those of us who are sick of the separation between the virtual wallets and the mobile wallets. I see this as a smaller step toward a fully mobile/virtual wallet because it seems to be an intermediary step- they're not trying to force a new method of payment that requires a dongle, activating a chip, gluing a sticker on your phone. They're not even doing anything particularly exciting! At the end of the day, you're still going to show up in the POS as a card- because that's exactly what you're doing- producing a card number on demand.

But maybe that's where the genius is- by getting customers to accept an intermediary step instead of a giant leap forward through QR or Bluetooth or NFC, they're just asking you to open up your mind to using your card a little differently.

I'll be interested to see how adoption ticks up for this one, my bet is it's going to be farmed out for multiple companies to use, and I bet it'll have a much larger impact, much faster, than other methods.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

In light of all the Jobs-related pandering that's floating around the news nowadays (if you missed it, Steve Jobs officially announced that he was going to step down from his position as CEO of Apple. He wrote a heartfelt letter that began: "I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come." Tim Cook will replace Jobs as CEO, per his request in his resignation letter). It seems that in the wake of Jobs' announcement, everyone is quick to take to the internet and post either their complete devotion to Jobs or to "analyze" him to conclude that he was an innovator and a genius (Newsflash! Steve Jobs is a very successful person!).

All of this though, made me start to wonder what exactly has made Steve Jobs so successful. From my perspective, growing up in the situation I did, many people always assumed that I would become an alcoholic, do drugs, drop out of school or be a candidate for Teenage Mom- and that's a hard stereotype to dispel. (Let me also be explicit, I am none of those things.) Even more difficult is to accept that this stereotype is largely true- many of my friends who grew up in similar situations are only now beginning to adapt how to live as an adult after such a hard childhood.

A little known fact about Steve is that he was adopted and he dropped out of college. Because of this, I kind of see him as a brother in arms of dispelling nasty stereotypes, and I do look to him as a source of inspiration in this crazy world of ours. So, in an intersection of my dreams, I re-read a commencement speech that Steve Jobs gave at the Stanford GSB in 2005.
In his speech he talks about his life and how he grew up. How he dropped out of college and how he has taken those small risks that brought him to here he is today. His main message, at its core, is really about self-worth. He argues that you owe it to yourself to never settle, and to constantly work toward what you believe your dreams to be, even if it does takes a less than direct path. In the midst of all of the bschool re-apps, it really does make me feel hopeful about the future- for me and (in a bigger sense) my generation. I hope that I can follow his advice.