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.

Mobile Keys- The Wave of the Future?

In a recent article in the NY Times ("Smartphones Could Make Keys Obsolete"), the spread of NFC seems to be heading toward our houses. With companies like Schlage and Apigy (with it's Lockitron system) entering the market hot on the heels of car companies like Mercedes and General Motors' (OnStar system), it seems like people are really beginning to embrace the idea of potentially having your phone unlock your home. The article profiled a man named Joey Mucha, who used the remote unlocking system to help with his mini-business of lending out his home for the weekends when he's out of town (airbnb.com). They also mentioned that this is being done even in the commercial space with Clarion Hotel in Stockholm being able to access their hotel rooms through a mobile key. The manager claimed that "Guests loved it".

The article did cite that this could be the wave of a future, but that there are still some hurdles to get over (What if your phone dies? How can people authenticate that you are a person that should have access to that room? How will multiple keys work? How can they stop someone from hacking in and creating a single super key?). Personally, I would need to see a lot more evidence that there is a compelling reason for me to switch from my current hotel key to a mobile key. I am more than happy to do mobile banking or make mobile payments, but potentially giving access to my home to a remote company that I have no control over makes me nervous. I think it's because in mobile payments or banking, you're usually only inviting risk on a transactional level, where if you were to use the Lockitron, Apigy maintains control over your door at all times, thereby entering you into a long-term agreement with that company. (It's also not cheap- approximately $250-300 to change to a remote lock.)

I'm still going to need additional proof that it's a.) more convenient or b.) safer somehow for me to use a mobile lock. (Will they also install some sort of security system with the lock? Can they give me any guarantees that someone can't hack into my phone and get my key? What am I supposed to do if someone steals/I lose my phone?)

This might be a good "bright and shiny" functionality for hotels, since people don't usually carry very many [valuable?] items with them when traveling and aren't in a single room for very long, but even then, I would need to see proof that it's more convenient than my little plastic key that I have now.

The Future of Cars

 

So cars have been on a bit of a down swing recently in my mind... After catching XXX on FX tonight (it's not a dirty movie, it's a really terrible moving starring Vin Diesel as an adrenaline junkie who saves the world from chemical warfare. Yup. You read that right.) I was thinking about the differences in the ways that we thought about cars back when I was a youngin' (read: 9 years ago). The movie vaguely centers around impressive sports and muscle cars- and, shocker, Vin Diesel never asked about the mpgs on that GTO once. Go figure.

Nowadays, things are a little different, which I think is actually a good thing. We're much more cognizant of the environmental impact than ever before, which I like. But, coupled with the economic struggles that we've had (as a country) recently, it seems as though the car industry is stuck in a bit of a conundrum...On one hand, they're under a lot of pressure to make cars cheaper than ever to compete with all of the foreign disruptors, yet, but on the other hand, they're not given a lot of credit for quality cars anymore- it is commonly accepted that "really nice" luxury cars will be foreign ones. It seems that the approach that they've taken is to emphasize the patriotism of buying "USA-made" (not going so well for them) and to continually try to innovate faster than the other guys to make sure that they're products get more miles per gallon, and that consumers have cooler navigation and safety features. 

Pinching pennies and trying to get more miles per gallon might not be very sexy, but it doesn't mean that there hasn't been some awesome things going on in this field. I recently was flipping through some backed issues of my Popular Sciences and I found a couple new engine designs that I thought were particularly interesting. 

The OPOC engine, for example, (short for the opposed-piston, opposed-cylinder) increases efficiency by decreasing the amount of wasted energy (heat and friction) from the combustion chamber. They borrow some know-how from diesel engines (diesel engines, contrary to popular misconception, are actually very fuel efficient. This is because diesel engines form a 16:1 combustion ratio instead of approximately a 8:1 ratio of a non-diesel engine....Oh the things you learn owning a diesel!) and build on the increased power by improving the gains per single engine cycle. This basically means that for every engine cycle, the engine will produce power twice instead of once. Funded by Bill Gates and VC God, Vinod Khosla (Stanford Grad, btw), OPOC producers expect to produce a car that could deliver a 100 mpg car that can generate up to 300 horsepower. Pretty cool!

So the moral of the story for me is that these innovations could be the path for America to shed its stereotype of producing sub-par cars, could be an opportunity for new industry, will produce more environmentally friendly machines and, more importantly, shows that the US is still in the game in terms of scientific R&D. I don't really see a downside here for the US to invest a little bit more in these types of projects. (My feelings on private investments vs. government funded projects for science is a completely different post.)

Oh. And if you've never watched XXX with Vin Diesel, it's worth it. Why not relive the early 2000s?

Amazon vs. California

As a former resident of California, I am saddened by how low my state has gone. Alright, I can accept that we elected the governator (this was kind of sad/awesome, to be honest), that we produced shows like The O.C. and (the infinitely sadder and more pathetic) Laguna Beach and The Hills. Yes, my state is the origin of "stars" like that blonde girl who started her own clothing line, that girl who is famous for her implants and that girl who moved to New York to "strike out on her own" in a new reality T.V. show- and yes, they all came from that Laguna Beach show. I'm sorry!

My state is now drowning in debt (can I blame that on the Laguna Beach-ers too? Somehow? No? Okay fine.),  forcing government employees to take mandatory furloughs (this means that going to the DMV on Fridays got even more annoying than before) and is currently (desperately) trying to collect backed taxes from all the people in fancy houses in Orange County and L.A. We are in dire straights people!

But apparently when it rains it pours, because now even Amazon has turned against us (for background see the article in The Economist "Interstate Sales Taxes: The Amazon War"). Don't get me wrong, I really love Amazon- not only has it revolutionized the choice and convenience that allows consumers to buy products online, it has generally changed the whole consumer system altogether- allowing for a digital storefront has increased competition, ultimately decreasing consumer costs. (In all fairness, I should also point out that this decreases overall profit margins, particularly for small businesses, but I think that's a topic for another day.) Moreover, Amazon is a fantasy for people who enjoy talking about operational logistics- moving beyond supply and demand, you can talk about regionalization, localization, market and merchant segmentation, warehouse location strategy, and now (wonders of wonders) as they move into digital music lockers (Amazon MP3) and more targeted customer experiences (which potentially one day could rival Google's- I mean they are one of the first to offer consumer reviews to "socialize" the buying experience and "suggest" new products based on buying history).

Back to the topic at hand. Enter California, America's largest consumer market. In the opposing corner, Amazon, the largest online retailer. California argues that because residents buy so much, Amazon (and the merchants that fall underneath it) should charge taxes. Amazon argues that it is unlawful for them to mandate out of state merchants to charge taxes to in-state residents. The law (from 1992) says that states cannot force retailers that do not have an in-state presence to collect sales tax. The argument centered around "where" Amazon was located, because although Amazon has no brick and mortar stores, they do have warehouses all over the place. Fearing that these warehouses would be counted as an "in-state presence" or "nexus" in legalese, they pulled many of their warehouses out of states on the east coast (like New York). They are currently taking this to the ballot boxes by getting Californians to "support mom and pop shops".

Here's where I'm sad about Amazon and California fighting each other- not only because I am deeply tied to both of them. The reason is this- at the end of the day, Amazon pulling out of states means that mom and pop stores have less leverage to sell their products. On the same note, states that have gotten Amazon to collect taxes, like Rhode Island, have openly admitted that they have raised no money from their efforts to increase tax revenues. So if it's really just hurting the little guys, the ones we want to protect, and the money at stake is not as large as we had hoped it would be (some predicted it could be up to $10B a year), is this a fight worth fighting? In the meantime, I would imagine that Amazon, long the defender of the little guys- the catalyst for those microbusinesses that are based out of someone's apartment- would want to continue to offer support. This means not pulling out. In all reality, Amazon will probably collect enough signatures to suspend the law until next year, in which case it really doesn't make sense to add all of that extra overhead by moving out of America's number 1 consumer state.

Please don't fight anymore Amazon and California. I feel like I'm watching my parents fight.

When Compliments Aren't Compliments

We've all heard them- they're somewhat snide remarks that are given as compliments. Sometimes they're given truly with a good intention, and sometimes they are given as snarky comments. Some of my favorite examples are "I love that dress! My grandmother had one just like it.", "You are such a hard worker! You look really tired." and, the most common, "I love that suggestion. Let's see if anyone has any feedback to make it better.." These are all hilariously funny, but I recently came across some cultural divides that made me think more about how the words that people say are often very different from what people mean.

So my mom just visited me in Chicago for a few days- she does this once a year or so to see how I'm doing and generally take a mini-vacation in Chicago. This time was a little bit different because she brought my aunt, Alice, and my aunt's friend, Helen. Alice and Helen are both from Hong Kong and have lived there their whole lives. Even though my aunt has visited the U.S. countless times during my childhood, my mini family reunion reminded me how different the U.S. and Chinese culture still are. Particularly from my perspective- someone who straddled both cultures my whole life- this difference sometimes makes everything a little bit awkward at times, but mostly pretty funny.

For example, my mom, who tries to remember my friends, referred to my vegetarian friend as "someone who is allergic to meat". And for her, there's also different expectations I think about what's appropriate to say- for example, telling me my male friend was always "feminine" (she didn't mean it in a "maybe he's gay" insinuation- she meant that he was sensitive, but used the word "feminine" instead), or explaining to my aunts that my friend was a "slow person" (she meant show person).

All of this got me thinking though. Sometimes, compliments really aren't compliments- and I began to think about the ways that I have been described. My friends that really know me tell me that I'm intimidating at first, but I'm too nice for my own good. (I blame this on Chinese guilt- I always feel guilty if I disappoint people, so I'm always the first person to say yes, or volunteer for things, etc.) People who know me only through work describe me as a "strong" woman, or "confident"- I can't help but wonder if these things are really just code "She's kind of a b!tch.".

Thinking like this has made me kind of crazy, trying to remember all the ways that people have described me. And it also made me begin to wonder how that has affected who I am- Do I become how people describe me? (See need to please, above.) Or do I actively try to show that other half of me in my personal life with my friends, because I know that my work personality is something completely different?

More interestingly, how do my co-workers mean it when they say those things to me? My friend once told me that being confident and strong is what you have to be in the consulting industry, because its a field largely ruled my A-Types, and mostly men. Being seen as strong means I'll be able to work with them and not be a push-over. Basically, it's better to be a b!tch than to be taken advantage of, but I'm not so sure those are the only two choices. But what does this mean? Obviously, when that friend calls me a "strong" person, she means it in a positive way. But someone else who uses the exact same adjective might not- and that could be indicative of the type of person they are or the type of relationship we have.

Overall, I don't see my work personality as anything that drastically different from my personal life, but from now on, when people "compliment" me, I think I'm going to be a little more paranoid-"when is a compliment not a compliment?"- because although it doesn't matter in the long run, it could offer a laugh.

Square Reaches $4M a Day

Square recently released some news that it was processing $4 Million dollars a day in transaction volume. When I first heard this statistic, I couldn't help but wonder why everyone was so excited about this number. When you compare it to the traditional players, its miniscule...hell, when you compare it even to non-volume services- let's say Groupon for example- it's not nearly as impressive. (Groupon currently claims that it processes 75K transactions a day, but this was at the end of 2010, so they're probably closer to 100K transactions a day by now.)

So why is Square impressive? It definitely indicates that mobile payment processing is becoming more mainstream, that there is a lot of potential in the small to mid-sized business range for mobile payment processing and that it Square's business model (basic processing offered for basic (pretty low) fees) has struck a chord with merchants. The parallel argument to all of this is, well if merchants like to have payment processing, maybe if we give them extra stuff- merchant analytics, loyalty programs and electronic receipting- they'll be more likely to want to pay more for a more specialized device.

If I'm a merchant, I don't know if I'm convinced yet- especially if I'm a small to mid-sized merchant- I don't really need those functionalities- I just need the basic ones, and the extra few dollars a day/month/year can really add up to impact my (relatively) smaller bottom line. Instead of bribing merchants with "special" services in the short term, it might make sense for processors and issuers to focus on doing basic things really well. Maybe once the merchants got used to paying for a processor to do basic things really well (ahem, Square), like accepting multiple forms of payment (credit, debit, gift cards, visualizing for the dinosaurs out there that still like to use paper checks).. THEN maybe they would be willing to pay for the other things as their business grows.

Until then though, I guess we'll wait and see, and Square will keep making money to the tune of $4M transactions a day.