I can’t stop thinking about google Wave, and what a compelling innovation case study it is.

I think Wave is a game-changer. Wave fundamentally redefines online communication (email and instant messaging) and document collaboration.

And, it was created by five people working together in a conference room.

By contrast, Microsoft Labs, the innovation lab for Microsoft has had more than 500 employees (there were recent cut backs).  The only memorable product they created was Photosynth, which is cool, but is not a competitive game-changer.

And, Microsoft Bing will be launched with a $100 million advertising campaign.  It looks like a good search engine, but it plays today’s game, and doesn’t invent the future.

I heard someone say that advertising is the price companies pay for unremarkable products.  Have you ever seen Google advertise any product on primetime television?

I guess the Apple ads are an exception, because Apple products are remarkable.  However, they need to compete with Microsoft and its huge advertising budget, so maybe the combination of advertising and a great product can provide a one-two punch, but a huge advertising budget can not in itself generate a sustainable competitive advantage.

Previous related posts:

plea to Microsoft.

The History of Microsoft.

My idea for an apple ad.

Myth # 1: The United States car industry is failing, because Americans are demanding small cars and not buying big cars.

Look at the sales data for April 2009:

609,024 SUV’s and Pickups sold

vs.

149,822 small cars sold

That’s a factor of 4x more SUV’s and pickups sold than small cars.

(by the way, the Toyota Prius, which is often used as the gold standard example for what American car companies are missing… isn’t even among the top 20 vehicles sold in the United States.)

Myth # 2:  Fiat has “small engine technology,” according to Obama, that Chrysler does not have, and needs in order to turn things around. (and, therefore, this justifies just giving away an American car company to a foreign company.)

In reality, Chrysler already has hybrid technology, and also has the capabilities to develop a compact car.

Chrysler is failing, because it is losing market share, and the company has no hits (and no hits in the pipeline).

The Chrysler brand does not have a single vehicle in the top 20 vehicles sold.

And, even in the SUV and pickup truck segments, the competition is killing them.

For example, The Chevy Silverado and Ford F series each outsell Dodge Ram by nearly a factor of 2x.

Chrysler lost the pulse of the American consumer, and focused on numbers (Cerberus is a hedge fund, after all), rather than on passion and design.

Fixing that focus will turn things around — not Fiat’s “small engine technology!”

Sales data source here (WSJ).

138,000 U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq within two years, according to Obama’s plan.

Will the U.S. and the rest of the civilized world be able to simply say: “Iraq is the problem of the Iraqis” when chaos and violence ensues after our departure, and thousands of thousands of additional innocent Iraqi lives are lost? I foresee this as extremely probable, and believe this scenario is unconscionable.

However, I also think the United States can not currently afford to police an entire nation, where the majority of people would like to see us leave.

So, let’s give them a clear choice.

Why don’t we set up fortified cities in the desert, where people who would like the benefits of living in a free, peaceful city with education, and job opportunities can have that chance? These would not simply be refugee camps, where conditions can be deplorable, but safe cities that the U.S. is strategically committed to building and maintaining. And, those who don’t want to live under U.S. protection and ideals can stay in their current homes, and live (or die) with the consequences.

The Masdar city, a state of the art planned city in Abu Dhabi that will be a zero-carbon, and zero waste city will be home to 50,000 people. Price tag: $22 billion. That’s less than two months of our current spending levels in Iraq of $12 billion a month. And, clearly we can provide clean, safe housing for significantly less than the luxurious Masdar City.

Or, we could build floating cities, which would not infringe on sovereign land.

We should be willing to defend those who want freedom and safety, rather than to write-off their slaughter from afar, as we did in the case of Rwanda and Darfur.

I believe there are absolutes.

Like gravity, time and space.

But, you say, “What if there’s another dimension outside of our awareness, where these rules don’t apply?” Then that dimension would be governed by its own absolutes.

Within nature, there is a hierarchy  But, among humans there is not.  All men are created equal.

But, you say, “I’m not good at math, and Henry is, so clearly we are not created equal.”  However, you do have equal value in God’s eyes.

So, you may kill innocent bugs, but not innocent humans.

But, you say, “A noble war may have innocent casualties.”  In this case, I believe it comes down to intention. Did you intend to kill innocent people, or not?

But, you say, “Innocence is subjective to perspective.”

If your endgame violates our fundamental rights as humans, then that is absolutely wrong.

The great firewall of China has blocked this blog.

What if we could deliver free, uncensored Internet to every human on the planet via satellites?

the United States Information Service was disbanded in 1999.

We are waging a war that simply can’t be won with conventional military might.

Its stated goals were:

To explain and advocate U.S. policies in terms that are credible and meaningful in foreign cultures;

To provide information about the official policies of the United States, and about the people, values, and institutions which influence those policies;

To bring the benefits of international engagement to American citizens and institutions by helping them build strong long-term relationships with their counterparts oversea;

To advise the President and U.S. government policy-makers on the ways in which foreign attitudes will have a direct bearing on the effectiveness of U.S. policies.

According to an article in the Atlantic Monthly, “The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth.”

Do you accept the assertion that there is no ultimate truth?

Scientists might say there is: science.

And, those of faith would say there is.

(and those two belief systems are not mutually exclusive, by the way.)

Is freedom not a universal ideal we should strive for?

If you say no, then do you believe there should not be a universal acceptance of what is right and what is wrong?

Under any circumstance, is genocide ok?

Is terrorism ok?

If you say no, then you are accepting a universal belief. And, this makes you are a supremacist, because you are unwilling to accept these things under any circumstance.

The logical rule as it relates to supremacy is not necessarily valid unless you believe the “universal belief” should apply to all people irrespective of their belief.  For instance, if “terrorism is not ok,” then that would mean your belief is superior to those who believe terrorism is ok, which is different than an “ultimate truth,” which you believe, but are willing to accept alternative beliefs, and don’t necessarily think your belief is superior to another person’s belief.  For example, I believe that Christianity is the “ultimate truth,” but not necessarily a “universal belief.” I do not feel my beliefs are superior to a Buddhist’s beliefs.

Where do you draw the line in accepting opposing points of view, in a free society, to use language consistent with George’s?

Is polygamy ok? Is the oppression of women ok? Is blowing people up in the name of allah, or chopping people’s heads off ok? Is it ok to have 23 babies?

this is an addendum to my previous post here.

Universities are basically walled gardens (and could easily make lecture videos available online for anyone, anywhere to view), and there is a lot of precedence for achieving greater success, as a result of opening up.  For example, when the NYT unleashed its archive content, revenue from advertising soared, and significantly surpassed its user pay revenue.

And, the TED conference is making most of its video content available for free, while demand to attend the TED conference has soared, and the amount people are willing to pay to attend has soared, as well.

Thanks to Steve Brown for inspiring these thoughts.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the experience of walking all around a store looking for things you need and rummaging through a pile of jeans or khakis or shirts trying to find your size.

Why are stores not segmented by size – rather than by style?

Imagine going to the section with your size and everything in that section fits?  And, I think it would increase store efficiency (often measured in sales per square foot) , because you can easily see an assortment of styles without having to walk around, which would inevitably result in missing things you may have otherwise bought.

And, it would free up sales people to help you rather than spend more than half their time re-folding clothes for display after people have rummaged through piles trying to find their size!

Also, in this scenario, why would mens’ sections need to be staffed – what do sales people do besides helping you find your size? (I’m assuming women probably shop differently).

The circumstances that led to the Argentine economic crises (1999-2002) seem to have a lot of correlation to our current state of affairs.

I wonder if it would be possible to develop a private, precious-metal backed currency, which people could hold as a hedge against government stupidity and hyper-inflation?

This new currency would be safer than holding precious metal securities (the government has the power to cease stock exchanges from trading), and securities are generally vulnerable to manipulation. Not to mention the vulnerability of 1’s and 0’s (electronic trading) to cyber-hacking.

It’s also a more practical solution than holding gold and other precious metals in a vault.

As part of the currency’s charter, an independent auditing firm would periodically affirm its legitimacy.

Counterfeiting may be an issue, but American Express is able to manage risk exposure with its Traveler’s Checks…