SHOT = Society for the History of Technology. Some 300 members attended in Portland, Maine for four days, including the annual meeting of the SIGCIS (Special Interest Group for Compuers and Information in Society) with about 45 members.
Quick: what are the three reasons to have a conference in Portland, ME in October?
I would have said (1) Autumn color, (2) Lobster, and (3) a personal visit to L.L.Bean
I'd offhand say that 275+ of the attendees did not have any of these three in mind. These folk were amazingly single-minded, fixated on their professional interests. Which was, at one level, beautiful.
Too bad, since there is apparently a glut on lobster. $2/pound wholesale at the dock, $3/pound retail at the dock; $3.99/pound retail at the local supermarket. NOW THERE's A DEAL
Fall color was good, not great, in town, but 'upstate' even ten miles from the water, was classic New England brilliant reds and oranges. Sugar maple glowed, sour gum were radiant, oaks were tanning nicely, and birch, cottonwood, and alder added soft yellows.
I didn't go to L.L.Bean.
My paper was apparently well received, judging from comments afterward, and a request to consider printing it in the IEEE Annals. You can see it at www.researchgate.net/Chuck_House/
One of the clear questions that arose had to do with integrity and scholarly approach. You may recall some years back that Stephen Ambrose, among others, had a little difficulty when it was found that much of his material in his best-selling books was plagiarized. And then a spate of issues surrounding popular historians surfaced, including the prestigious and pious Doris Kearns Goodwin of Harvard, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes for works that were heavily plagiarized, it turned out.
What was impressive to me then during the controversy was how the eminent historians and journalists of the day--Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Walter Isaacson prominent among them--rose to her defense with piteous cries about how ethical she really is, and so forth, when in fact she was guilty, Guilty, GUILTY
So guilty in fact that she had paid off one woman in order to keep it quiet years before, but did not fix the book in subsequent re-printings. And then, the ultimate insult, according to Eric Weiner in the Huffington Post: Doris Kearns
Goodwin: World's Most Decorated Plagiarist Kudos to
the good people at the New York Historical Society for looking beyond the past
sins of plagiarism committed by Doris Kearns Goodwin and bestowing on the
prolific celebrity historian a prestigious award and $50,000 prize in honor of
her recent biography of Abe Lincoln, "Team of Rivals." On
Wednesday the society announced that it was naming Goodwin "American
History Laureate" and was giving her its inaugural book prize, which ... carries a price tag of fifty grand.
Why raise this now? Because I saw, firsthand, the enthusiasm that 'the academy' can muster to defend its own against charges of misguidance or worse. SHOT is supposed to appeal broadly to historians of science and technology, but also to practitioners across a multitude of disciplines where technology is impactful--economics, environment, business, labor, public policy, science and the arts.
What I experienced though, mostly, was that historians are favored and the viewpoints of others have a hard time getting on the floor, whether for difficulties of wording the abstract 'just so' or using the right citation index, or having less than complete historical context for observations made 'from the floor'
That didn't stop a good session one night on "how do we attract new members?" since we seem to be dwindling in numbers. And maybe it fueled the closing day, when one leader listed the top dozen or so books and papers and awards for SIG-CIS in the past decade, and asked what was common across all of the authors. The answer, which the group did not get, was that NOT ONE of the winners teaches History of anything to students. They're mostly all writers, many of them ex-practitioners. Hummn...
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Carl ICAHN vs ARGUS INSIGHTS
So, a few hours ago, Apple stock was at $525 per share. Now, after TWO PRESS ANNOUNCEMENTS, it is at $530.
Here's the Icahn story:
Here's the Icahn story:
Carl Icahn to Apple: Now's time for $150B stock buyback
The effect of that buyback could be dramatic, Icahn says in letter to CEO Tim Cook: in three years, Apple's share price could swell to $1,250
And the last post was about Argus Insights, estimating that the 3rd quarter sales will DISAPPOINT. Which would likely depress the stock, at least momentarily.
Think about it: 2 new iPhones, and a new iPad two days ago, and ARGUS says "they'll disappoint" Actually, haven't the intro's already disappointed? Is that baked into the price?
What is the Apple encore? TV on your phone? MobiTV offers that today; when Apple does it, the Android versions will likely prevail (Samsung builds both already, right?)
Is the Apple iPhone 'wristwatch' apt to be the winner? Boy, talk to HP about HP-01. HP was so proud of this years ago that they gave it their premier model number.
Either Icahn is right, or Argus is right? Or, both could be right. And, actually, both could be wrong.
Enough to make a share owner nervous?
I'm betting on Argus
Out on a limb--Argus Insights
We've been impressed by ARGUS INSIGHTS on several occasion. They have "CALLED IT" on 'future events' based on their (somewhat) unique forecasting methods. They broadly sample written customer feedback re products, features, performance, claiming to gather 'more reliable, more timely, and more accurate' info than most 'data scraper' companies (e.g. Attensity, Inxight, etc).
This time, their press release today could be either a bombshell or a bust. See it at:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/argus-insights/apple-q4-iphone-forecast/prweb11230398.htm
They are flatly calling the Apple iPhone 5S and 5C a disaster, predicting 3rd quarter sales will be flat versus Q2, even with both new Phones. They go further, anticipating a 4th Q falloff from a year ago of sizable proportions.
Their numbers are a full 10% lower than the average of analysis out there, and 15% lower than the last Apple guidance.
WHAT IF THEY'RE RIGHT?
A stock price of $530/share is going to be hard to support if ARGUS is right.
IF THEY'RE RIGHT, you might want to consider what ARGUS INSIGHTS could bring to your company???
We'll know on October 28th, won't we?
This time, their press release today could be either a bombshell or a bust. See it at:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/argus-insights/apple-q4-iphone-forecast/prweb11230398.htm
They are flatly calling the Apple iPhone 5S and 5C a disaster, predicting 3rd quarter sales will be flat versus Q2, even with both new Phones. They go further, anticipating a 4th Q falloff from a year ago of sizable proportions.
Their numbers are a full 10% lower than the average of analysis out there, and 15% lower than the last Apple guidance.
WHAT IF THEY'RE RIGHT?
A stock price of $530/share is going to be hard to support if ARGUS is right.
IF THEY'RE RIGHT, you might want to consider what ARGUS INSIGHTS could bring to your company???
We'll know on October 28th, won't we?
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
ResearchGate posting
In the last post, I mentioned my opportunity to talk to a historian's conference this next Friday--about how HP 'got into computers' and parenthetically, how Beckman failed to do so.
The paper and the 'dataset' (which means the PowerPoint slides) are entered in my ResearchGate file at
If you don't know about ResearchGate, don't be surprised. It is a fairly nice repository for papers and supporting documents (like PowerPoint Slides) 'over the years' for the 'bigger events;' like a conference or a publication.
I am using this ResearchGate for several papers that InnovaScapes has prepared or workshops that we have given.
You might find some of this interesting. Drop me a note of what matteres most to you
History time -- SHOT conference this week
SHOT stands for Society for the History of Technology. This group, mostly historians of science and technology (and increasingly of Computer Science and Technology), has their annual meeting in Portland, ME this week -- think autumn colors galore.
I've joined, partially because The HP Phenomenon was well received (and even reviewed) by some in this group. And, significantly, though I've had to learn some new jargon, they're allowing me to give a paper on the origins of HP in computing.
As I worked on the paper, though, and met one of my colleagues on our panel, I was startled to hear his view that Pasadena in the 1950's was a key hotbed for computing, nearly as much and maybe even more so than MIT. And as I wrestled with this new thought, it hit me that I myself was in Pasadena in the 1950's, and boy, I surely didn't remember any of this.
True, we did have a Boolean algebra session in 10th grade (1955) that I remember well, and I did tour Consolidated Electrodynamics in 1954 as the guest of a sponsor of an Eagle Scout dinner, but I never thought of computing arising there in any significant way.
Well, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. My colleague, it appears, is right. Fueled by the aircraft manufacturers in the area (far more important than Seattle at the time -- Douglas, North American, Northrup, Lockheed, and Convair, to name a few), analogic computation was the way to solve tons of partial differential equations, whereas the behemoths being done at UNIVAC, IBM and CDC were not.
And the irony is that Beckman Instruments was a major player, due to its need for the same kind of analogic computation for its spectrometry equipments. This led Arnold Beckman first to ask the exiled Wm Shockley if he'd consider trying to shrink the size of the backroom computer Beckman had built, using his newfangled transistor, and then when Arnold conceived the idea of using an 'instrument controller' to do industrial automation ala the Automation book by John Diebold in 1955, he funded Shockley in what was called the Beckman Shockley Laboratories. Whereupon Shockley's mother became quite ill, in Palo Alto, and Shockley asked to move the new lab to the Bay area. Beckman agreed, and the name 'Beckman' didn't make the move, although when the Traitorous Eight turned on Shockley a year later, they called Arnold first to get possible relief from their tormenting leader. It was only after he tried to be conciliatory and then stiffened that they left and set up Fairchild.
There's a great little story here about how small companies deal with large ones, but the bigger story, I think, is that Silicon Valley could well have been in West Los Angeles instead of the Bay area. And then I think about the old joke, "If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle?" Probably not....
I've joined, partially because The HP Phenomenon was well received (and even reviewed) by some in this group. And, significantly, though I've had to learn some new jargon, they're allowing me to give a paper on the origins of HP in computing.
As I worked on the paper, though, and met one of my colleagues on our panel, I was startled to hear his view that Pasadena in the 1950's was a key hotbed for computing, nearly as much and maybe even more so than MIT. And as I wrestled with this new thought, it hit me that I myself was in Pasadena in the 1950's, and boy, I surely didn't remember any of this.
True, we did have a Boolean algebra session in 10th grade (1955) that I remember well, and I did tour Consolidated Electrodynamics in 1954 as the guest of a sponsor of an Eagle Scout dinner, but I never thought of computing arising there in any significant way.
Well, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. My colleague, it appears, is right. Fueled by the aircraft manufacturers in the area (far more important than Seattle at the time -- Douglas, North American, Northrup, Lockheed, and Convair, to name a few), analogic computation was the way to solve tons of partial differential equations, whereas the behemoths being done at UNIVAC, IBM and CDC were not.
And the irony is that Beckman Instruments was a major player, due to its need for the same kind of analogic computation for its spectrometry equipments. This led Arnold Beckman first to ask the exiled Wm Shockley if he'd consider trying to shrink the size of the backroom computer Beckman had built, using his newfangled transistor, and then when Arnold conceived the idea of using an 'instrument controller' to do industrial automation ala the Automation book by John Diebold in 1955, he funded Shockley in what was called the Beckman Shockley Laboratories. Whereupon Shockley's mother became quite ill, in Palo Alto, and Shockley asked to move the new lab to the Bay area. Beckman agreed, and the name 'Beckman' didn't make the move, although when the Traitorous Eight turned on Shockley a year later, they called Arnold first to get possible relief from their tormenting leader. It was only after he tried to be conciliatory and then stiffened that they left and set up Fairchild.
There's a great little story here about how small companies deal with large ones, but the bigger story, I think, is that Silicon Valley could well have been in West Los Angeles instead of the Bay area. And then I think about the old joke, "If your aunt had balls, would she be your uncle?" Probably not....
Monday, September 23, 2013
Chasms sketched
I mentioned the several chasms in an earlier post. Here, built on the rubric of Geoffrey Moore's work at the tail end of "Dealing with Darwin," are two drawings that 'say a lot' in my view
This first one is adapted from Moore's book (which, by the way, is one of his better ones, built on a case study of Cisco from about 1995-2003)
We've mentioned before, both in this blog and in my INTRAPRENEURING INNOVATION blog, that this difference between Intrapreneurs and Entrepreneurs has been mostly ignored or misunderstood
And now, to the "CHASMS" in addition to the classic MARKETING CHASM that Moore so aptly described in "Crossing the Chasm"
I used these slides in a talk at the Stanford Graduate School of Business last week, part of one of their "get smart" workshops commissioned with key companies. The talk built on the historic success of HP and some of their transformations -- including the difficulty of some of those transitions. For that, they distributed copies of THE HP PHENOMENON, which is now close to being out of print since the first run is sold out, and the hue and cry hasn't been fully electric. Yes, it was Stanford's third best selling Biz Book ever when it hit the streets, but that is not a high bar. It would have been 719th or so at Harvard Biz Press. You can still get 'em at Amazon or thru Stanford Press if you hurry.
The more interesting -- i.e. more timely -- slides had to do with Apple's performance from 1997-2010, for which Professor Haim Mendelson has two great essays, and I have a 1 hour workshop that shows clearly that Jobs would NEVER have made it to the iPhone 5 if he'd had a normal Board of Directors. They'd have fired him certainly by the tenth year, if not a lot sooner. It is a dramatic example of these principles, exactly as no Business School in America would teach.
I wrapped up with this slide, which is key for the last sentence, that applies to Steve and Apple even more than to HP history
This first one is adapted from Moore's book (which, by the way, is one of his better ones, built on a case study of Cisco from about 1995-2003)
We've mentioned before, both in this blog and in my INTRAPRENEURING INNOVATION blog, that this difference between Intrapreneurs and Entrepreneurs has been mostly ignored or misunderstood
And now, to the "CHASMS" in addition to the classic MARKETING CHASM that Moore so aptly described in "Crossing the Chasm"
I used these slides in a talk at the Stanford Graduate School of Business last week, part of one of their "get smart" workshops commissioned with key companies. The talk built on the historic success of HP and some of their transformations -- including the difficulty of some of those transitions. For that, they distributed copies of THE HP PHENOMENON, which is now close to being out of print since the first run is sold out, and the hue and cry hasn't been fully electric. Yes, it was Stanford's third best selling Biz Book ever when it hit the streets, but that is not a high bar. It would have been 719th or so at Harvard Biz Press. You can still get 'em at Amazon or thru Stanford Press if you hurry.
The more interesting -- i.e. more timely -- slides had to do with Apple's performance from 1997-2010, for which Professor Haim Mendelson has two great essays, and I have a 1 hour workshop that shows clearly that Jobs would NEVER have made it to the iPhone 5 if he'd had a normal Board of Directors. They'd have fired him certainly by the tenth year, if not a lot sooner. It is a dramatic example of these principles, exactly as no Business School in America would teach.
I wrapped up with this slide, which is key for the last sentence, that applies to Steve and Apple even more than to HP history
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
CHASMS
We've been concerned lately about CHASMS or ABYSSES -- places that innovation 'gets stuck' for whatever reason.
Many are familiar with the Technology Adoption curve, built around Everett Rogers' famous S-curve. Geoffrey Moore, in Crossing the Chasm, popularized the notion that there is a large chasm between the Early Adopters and the Main-Line users -- a chasm that needs to be crossed in order to develop a large customer base for any new innovation.
Think Cisco with routers, vs. 3Com and bridges. Bridges connected users to a Local-Area-Network (LAN), and routers counnected LANs to each other to build a Wide-Area Network (WAN). Many companies emerged in the early 1980s to build LAN technology; very few emerged building WANs. Until the world had enough LANs, there was 'no need' for WANs.
Said differently, Cisco spent four years looking for commercial customers to little avail; academic institutions on the other hand loved their technology. Once enough LANs were built, the WAN became an essential link, but it took quite a while.
Analogously, the IBM PC didn't exactly ignite a firestorm at Intel; after three years of sales and a vote of "Man of the Year" for the PC by Time Magazine, IBM still did not make Intel's TOP FIFTY list.
What concerns me today though is the fact that this CHASM that Moore describes is but one of several that get 'in the way' of corporate transformation from fundamental innovation.
Moore's CHASM is a MARKETING or CUSTOMER CHASM. This one can be impacted by companies, to speed it up, or to ameliorate the issues, but it is seldom within full control of your company.
There are three others that could be titled:
1. A FUNDING CHASM
2. AN IMAGINATIVE CHASM
3. A CANNIBALISM CHASM
Each of these, by contrast with the CUSTOMER CHASM, are largely under your own control. We will elaborate on each of these in succeeding posts
Many are familiar with the Technology Adoption curve, built around Everett Rogers' famous S-curve. Geoffrey Moore, in Crossing the Chasm, popularized the notion that there is a large chasm between the Early Adopters and the Main-Line users -- a chasm that needs to be crossed in order to develop a large customer base for any new innovation.
Think Cisco with routers, vs. 3Com and bridges. Bridges connected users to a Local-Area-Network (LAN), and routers counnected LANs to each other to build a Wide-Area Network (WAN). Many companies emerged in the early 1980s to build LAN technology; very few emerged building WANs. Until the world had enough LANs, there was 'no need' for WANs.
Said differently, Cisco spent four years looking for commercial customers to little avail; academic institutions on the other hand loved their technology. Once enough LANs were built, the WAN became an essential link, but it took quite a while.
Analogously, the IBM PC didn't exactly ignite a firestorm at Intel; after three years of sales and a vote of "Man of the Year" for the PC by Time Magazine, IBM still did not make Intel's TOP FIFTY list.
What concerns me today though is the fact that this CHASM that Moore describes is but one of several that get 'in the way' of corporate transformation from fundamental innovation.
Moore's CHASM is a MARKETING or CUSTOMER CHASM. This one can be impacted by companies, to speed it up, or to ameliorate the issues, but it is seldom within full control of your company.
There are three others that could be titled:
1. A FUNDING CHASM
2. AN IMAGINATIVE CHASM
3. A CANNIBALISM CHASM
Each of these, by contrast with the CUSTOMER CHASM, are largely under your own control. We will elaborate on each of these in succeeding posts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)