Blog
Why do people fail? Why do people who have great ideas, never follow through on them? Everyone knows the adage that if you never try you’ll never succeed, but how many follow this advice? Some will say it’s too risky to do, and may affect their family or career negatively. Others will use laziness or lack of motivation as excuses.
Its your own apprehension that makes you think something is not good because of the pressure to do it right and/or succeed. Same message, different words. The successful will take the chances. The unsuccessful will also take the chances. Then there are all those who are neither because they don’t take a chance. It’s the status quo. It’s people being complacent. It’s people fearing that they will fail. Failure is just the beginning of success. You need to fail to learn (and yes, there are those that will always fail because they don’t learn). In my book, A Rogue’s Guide, I do discuss a little of this in regards to information and how to use it. But this is beyond that. This is about anything you do in life. I took a risk by working with Jayesh, when I had always worked alone. I took a risk by actually publishing a book with my name and thoughts in it. Would I have been fine if I hadn’t done the book? Yes. I would still be doing the soap box thing, and would have been happy. But with this book, I can do something I haven’t been able to do before…reach a larger audience that is reading what I write, instead of trying to get some random person off the street to listen to me. Will I still soapbox? Absolutely, but now I have some credibility.
My advice to anyone and everyone who is reading this is to live your life, don’t second-guess yourself, and take that plunge. You will be more fulfilled, not just getting by!
R.Jones
Aug 21, 2012 | Categories: General, Ranak | Tags: Apprehension, book, failure, Jayesh, motivation, Ranak Jones, Risk, Rogue's Guide, soapbox | Comments Off on Apprehension by Ranak Jones
Rep. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney‘s pick as vice presidential running mate, has used his position as chairman of the House Budget Committee to become one of the Republican Party’s most influential policymakers.
As architect of the GOP budget plan, Ryan pushes for tax cuts for both corporations and individuals. He advocates turning Medicare into a voucher program, shrinking food stamps and turning Medicaid into a block grant program that would turn power over to states. Slashing federal spending is at the heart of the proposal. He was also a big fan of Ayn Rand, although he disputes it.
Ryan is quoted as saying to the Atlas Society (a group dedicated to promoting Rand’s beliefs) in 2005, “I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.”
He went on to say that “the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”
Sounds pretty pro-Ayn Rand to me. But in April, he gave an interview to National Review in which he repudiated Rand entirely. In the interview, he called reports of his adherence to Rand’s views an “urban legend” and said that he was more deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.
The problem for most regarding Ayn Rand is that her belief’s go against many Christian beliefs. In fact, her writing is more materialistic, greed-oriented, and decadent living. Not good for the conservative right and the Tea Party.
He has had other contradictory statements/beliefs, such as flip-flopping on the Stimulus bills, Medicare, and the budget to name a few. This, in my opinion, makes him dangerous if he were to ever ascend to Presidency. He seems to have a perverted need to appease, not uncommon to politicians, but seemingly not as adept at giving the appearance of not being contradictory. How is that bad? Well, that means he would be a push-over, go with party lines, tell people what they want to hear, including foreign dignitaries. He is not strong in his beliefs, and that would be bad for us.
Jayesh.
Aug 20, 2012 | Categories: Jayesh, Political | Tags: Atlas Society, Ayn Rand, Budget, Catholic, Christian, Dangerous, GOP, Jayesh Mehta, Medicare, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Republican, Stimulus, Tea Party, Thomas Aquinas | Comments Off on Paul Ryan: Dangerous? by Jayesh Mehta
2CD9KXQESKS8
Aug 17, 2012 | Categories: Uncategorized | Comments Off on
OK, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but the way people are reacting to the taxes levied on US Olympic medal winners it sounds about right. The “controversy” is whether the government should tax athletes who are representing our country. In a perfect world, where the athlete is sacrificing themselves for their country, I would agree. But let’s face it, they aren’t fighting a war for us, they aren’t giving up their lives for us, and it’s not like they are completely selfless in their pursuits. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t patriotic, or even bad people, it just means that when they win a medal, they still want their names to be in the history books and to get some adulation. They’re human, everyone wants recognition for a job well done. These same athletes will still train for and compete in other competitions besides the Olympics. Most of these “sports” (I use that term loosely, because all the events are not sports, some are skills competitions), have World Championships each year. Should the athletes who compete in these competitions also be tax-exempt?
Now let’s break the taxes down. One, the figure most people quote is the up to $9000 in taxes for a gold medal. Any accountant will tell you that this amount is high, and doesn’t include deductions that these athletes should and probably do take. These include training, lodging, etc. This number also is for a gold medal winner, who will receive a $25,000 bonus. So without deductions, they still would be taking home at least $16,000. Oh, and that’s if they already earned $380,000 or more (the 35% tax rate), and if they already make that much, what is anyone complaining about? Let’s just say that this is their only income for the year, then they would be paying closer to 15% or $3,851 before deductions and allowances. So they would be making $21,000 before deductions. Read this. Another thing to look at is that if they do win a gold medal, they probably will be hired to do endorsements (if they haven’t already), and even some of the silver medalists will get this benefit. These Games are a stepping stone for most.
A couple of other things to mention. One, they are not paid by the government, they are paid by the Olympic committee. Shouldn’t money that they give as essentially a bonus be taxable? Last time I checked, bonuses are taxed because they are income, just like any charitable organization’s employee’s bonuses are taxed. Secondly, most of these athletes are professionals who have income outside of the Olympics. Should Phelps not be taxed on the medals he’s won? He makes millions in competitions and endorsements (which incidentally he benefited by getting those medals). Will $9,000 per medal hurt him? I’d say not so much. 20 gold medals would cost him $180,000 before deductions, but he still made $320,000 (yeah, I know he has 18 golds, but I didn’t feel like doing that math). Another thing, most of these athletes have their lodging, training, food, etc. paid for by the Olympic committee. What about the athletes who don’t have other competitions to perform in, or are do not get endorsements because they compete in events that aren’t as marketable? Read this article in Forbes. Should athletes who get bonuses for winning medals have to pay taxes? Rubio and Obama don’t want them to pay taxes, and are trying to pass a bill to exempt them. This is just political, they’ve known they had to pay taxes, but now that there is an outcry, they try to garner favor by introducing a bill and terming it patriotic. My vote is yes they should pay taxes, and if the politicians want to exempt the athletes, then they should take some of their income and pay the taxes for the athletes…although $270,000 for 90 golds would just be a drop in the bucket for them.
Jayesh.
Aug 11, 2012 | Categories: General, Jayesh, Political | Tags: athletes, bonuses, Forbes, gold medals, Obama, Olympic committee, Olympics, patriotic, Phelps, Rubio, tax exempt, taxes | Comments Off on Olympic Medal Winners Taxed to Death by Jayesh Mehta
Oh, hell, here goes Ranak on one of his sexist rants. Well, yes and no. First, I’d like to clarify that I am not a sexist, although I will make jokes about women, and their stereotypical shortcomings, like being bad drivers (but, hey, so are the Chinese, right?). I make these comments in jest. Secondly, this will actually be an anti-sexist piece, with a few sexist comment thrown in.
The first female NFL referee will be officiating a pre-season game tomorrow, between the San Diego Chargers and Green Bay Packers. It’s only taken about 80 plus years. Or if we to be more fair, only 40 years after the first female umpire of the MLB. Granted, the MLB hasn’t had another female umpire since, but at least they tried it. Well good for the NFL for hiring Shannon Eastin, although I think they have ulterior motives (namely publicity and as a red herring). Let’s start with this, a woman can do almost anything a man can do. Almost, mainly because of anatomy and evolution. Don’t get me wrong, a woman can beat the hell out of man (they don’t fight fair, they fight to win), but they can’t write their names in the snow, and it’s pretty hard for them to impregnate a male, or another female (although they are welcome to try! That’s the letch in me). But they can ref, or umpire (is that a verb?), or whatever.
Some detractors will say that they are not strong enough to move these behemoth of men. I counter with, these behemoth of men will go out of their way to listen and obey the woman (like in marriage) so they don’t get negative publicity, even the ones that have no respect for women. Another argument is that it ruins the sanctity of the game. Really? The sanctity of the game was ruined the first time the League whored itself out for the big bucks, by protecting certain aspects of the game over others (i.e. offense over defense, using defensive big hits to show that the game is violent but then condemning the men who made those hits to protect the offensive player). Yet another argument is that they are passing over more worthy male candidates because of her sex. So? Haven’t women been passed over because of their sex historically? Also, how do we know if they were passed over? All the replacements were from the college ranks or semi-pro leagues. She reffed in college. What other criteria is there? What did she not do as well as another? She is probably more fit than most other refs (she won 6 national championships in Judo). So what’s the issue? Besides, she may not even ref a real game if the NFL and regular referees come to an agreement.
I mentioned red herring earlier, what could that be? Well the publicity keeps the focus off of the inexperience of the replacement refs. Having Shannon be the focus, also forces the regular refs to try to come to an agreement faster. How? One, some are going to be chauvinist. Two, if she and her fellow replacements do well, there will be a much larger focus on her, and they will probably have to give her a regular job, meaning one other regular ref is gone. The last red herring, I believe, is to take the focus off of the players off-field legal issues and Bounty Gate. Maybe I’m just paranoid, not that I’ve been accused of that before, but I’ll tell you one thing, I would not mess with this ref, Shannon, the F3 (Fast and Furious Feet), Eastin! (see Judo above)
Here I revert to my sexist self!
R.Jones
Aug 08, 2012 | Categories: General, Ranak | Tags: chauvinist, Green Bay Packers, Judo, MLB, NFL, Ranak Jones, ref, referee, San Diego Chargers, Shannon Eastin, women | Comments Off on There Is No Nail Polish in Football! by Ranak Jones
Chick-fil-A, the company that can’t spell, is in the news, and won’t seem to leave it. First it was Dan Cathy stating:
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that…we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
I do like how he clarifies that they are married to their first wives, as opposed to unmarried to their second and third wives. Apparently he believes that divorce or remarrying are also wrong, but I’ll leave that alone.
After Mr. Cathy’s (why am I getting an image of a drawing of a girl with low self-esteem and some kind of jittery disorder?) statement, the Jim Henson Company pulled out of its partnership with Chick-fil-A, stating:
The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.
Then gay and lesbian advocacy groups decided that they would call for a boycott of the franchise. So, now things should be done, and everyone can go back to their regularly scheduled lives…but, wait, what’s that over there? Oh, yeah, Chick-fil-A’s counter protest. Read Here A “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day”! Ok, good for them. But wait, a counter-counter protest?! Can it be?! Yes it is, “Kiss Mor Chiks”, where same-sex partners will kiss in front of various Chick-fil-A stores. No word on what divorcees and remarried couples will do yet.
All this because Mr. Cathy (feels weird to put a Mr. in front of Cathy) couldn’t keep his mouth shut. No, I’m not saying that he doesn’t have a right to his opinions; he absolutely does. The problem is, why say this at all? It’s your personal belief, but serves no benefit to your company. If he had read my book about giving out too much information (shameless plug, but it here), he wouldn’t be in this mess. Is he not going to serve a lesbian if she comes up to order? There’s no taint on their money. You can’t get cooties from it (although other germs are available regardless of sexual orientation). So why alienate them? I haven’t expressed my personal opinions on non-traditional marriages here, and I don’t plan to, although if you ask me, I may tell you, or you can infer. I am not giving anyone quotable statements. It doesn’t benefit me, or you to say anything, so why would I? And Mr. Cathy (is that short for Catherine?), eat less chiken, and by my buk (a gratuitous, shameless plug).
Jayesh.
Aug 02, 2012 | Categories: Business, Jayesh | Tags: Cathy, Chick-fil-A, chiken, Dan Cathy, gay, GLAAD, Jim Henson, Kiss Mor Chiks, lesbian, same-sex, sexual orientation, traditional | Comments Off on Chick-fil-A-ed by Jayesh Mehta
Most people have already read or heard about this. For those who haven’t, let me recap it. During the walk of countries, a non-Olympian, unauthorized person walked along with the Indian delegation, acting as if she belonged. London organizing chair, Sebastion Coe, confirmed the intruder as a participant of the Opening Ceremonies. He said she got over zealous. India’s Olympic chief, Muralidharan Raga, was upset. “She had no business to walk in with the Indian contingent and we are taking up the issue with the organizers,” he said. “We don’t know who she is and why she was allowed to walk in. It is a shame that she was with the athletes in the march past.”
Now my problem is not with what he said, or if he was right in feeling this way. No, my problem was with a writer who wrote this blog/story for Yahoo!: Click Here to Read. In this blog, he stated many facts, and was actually doing a good bit of article writing…until the end. He became smarmy and conceited. And he took a cheap shot at a man representing his country. Mr. Chris Chase everybody! Stand up please and take the boos! 
So what did this amateuristic Yahoo! blogger do to get me so riled up? Here’s a snippet:
“A shame,” though? A shame is the fact that India has been competing in the Olympics for 112 years and have only earned four more medals than Michael Phelps.
First, check your facts Chris. India has only been an independent country for about 65 years. And they haven’t competed in every Olympics, and when they did, especially when they were under British rule, barely sent 6 or more athletes, not including teams. Did 112 seem like a bigger number, so you conveniently omitted the other facts, Mr. Chase? Second, to take a cheap shot at a country, ridiculing their lack of medals in the Olympics, that’s your way of supporting your assertion that it is not a “shame”? Seems kind of childish. Chris, an FYI, not all countries can put the resources needed to develop athletes for all the different events. Also, not all countries put as much importance on the Olympics and it’s myriad of events. Some focus on certain events. The also don’t send 400+ athletes, as the US did this year. They, in more modern times, have sent less than 90 athletes, which includes a few in teams sports.
You want to take digs at other countries, Chris? Well that’s your prerogative, but you do know that you are the type of person people in other countries consider a douche bag of an American? Right? You know the type: loud, brash, arrogant? Thinks everyone should speak “American”, talk loud, and when you can’t (ie. won’t) understand someone with an accent, rudely say “What!” Let me put this scenario in front of you Chris: What if some unauthorized person was walking alongside the US Olympians? Do you think the US Olympic chair wouldn’t get upset? How about this scenario, Chris: What if this person turned around and started stabbing the Olympians? Would that be a big deal for you? Would that make it a shame? Yes this second scenario would be far-fetched, but it could have happened. If this person could elude security and get onto the track with Olympians, how hard would it have been to get a knife from catering, and do the same? It may not be a “shame” to you, Chris, but don’t make fun of a whole country just because a representative of that country does not share your view.
Chris Chase, I wish you success with your Yahoo! sports blog, and hopefully your ignorance will attract an audience. I wouldn’t hold my breath, and I hope you do have a backup plan.
Jayesh.
Jul 30, 2012 | Categories: General, Jayesh | Tags: British, Chris Chase, India, medals, Michael Phelps, mystery woman, Olympians, Olympics, Opening Ceremonies, Sebastian Coe, Yahoo | Comments Off on Indian Mystery Woman Intruder by Jayesh Mehta
Weapons are the downfall of civilizations. Guns will be the downfall of this current civilization. There are groups out there that say guns are for our protection. That it is our right. God-given or just in the constitution? If there is a God, I doubt that he/she/it would give the right to any human to be able to intimidate or kill another human. All religions claim that they are peaceful, if so, how then can they justify guns and other weaponry? Yeah, I know that religion has been the cause, or a cause, in almost every altercation since religions were thought up. We are supposed to be evolved (contradiction?) in our actions. Supposed to be better than forbearers. Yet we cling to old ideals. I agree, 200+ years ago, we needed all this protection, because of the lawlessness and scarcity of neighbors, but now? I’m all for less big brother, stay out of my business and my home type of government, but only if our society has become evolved enough where we don’t think of guns as toys or some collectible (unless they are actually antiques and not really being used anymore, like a true collectible). This doesn’t mean ban all weapons, but there has to be some limitations. You have people who have built up an arsenal of weapons, and they claim it is for their protection. Who you gonna be fighting jackass, you only got 2 arms. If you are firing 20 guns with 2000 rounds of ammo, what the hell are you fighting against? Zombies? The Government? Let me tell you something, zombies have no brains, try outsmarting them, and if you’re going up against the government with that much, you’re going to lose. Some say they use it for hunting. Where’s the sport in that? I can understand rifles, but semiautomatics for hunting? There’s no skill involved there! It’s overkill, literally. I will leave this rant alone, for now, before I get so mad I shoot someone!
R.Jones
Jul 28, 2012 | Categories: General, Political, Ranak | Tags: Civilization, Constitution, God, Guns, James Holmes, Ranak Jones, Zombies | Comments Off on Guns by Ranak Jones
R.Jones
Jul 26, 2012 | Categories: General, Jayesh, Ranak | Tags: Android, Apple, Jayesh Mehta, Ranak Jones, rebuttal | Comments Off on Rebuttal This! by Ranak Jones
I had to write this in rebuttal to Ranak’s piece regarding “Taking a Byte out of an Apple” post. While his analogies are unique, and could be applied in a broadly general sense, it is not entirely correct. In regards to Apple equaling Communism, the app store allows individuals to design new apps. Yes they control it, but from malicious or defective apps, that may hinder their product. They keep most of their coding a secret to prevent viruses, malware, hacks, etc. Sure, you can say that is Big Brother-esque, but the flip side is having others control how YOUR product (here, your symbolizes Apple) performs. I would have to say, that what Apple is doing is Capitalistic. If Apple out there was selling lotion, and allowed some unsupervised 3rd party to add ingredients that supposedly enhanced the lotion, but was untested by Apple, how would you feel about purchasing it? What if they added some Hydrochloric (HCL) acid to it? Wouldn’t most consumers start to shy away from it? Your brand image would be damaged in all of this. People would start associating your name with the HCL. This is just an example, albeit a very drastic one. Ranak argues that let the user/public decide what apps succeed or fail, and that is an option, just not the only one. There are other factors to this. If an app slows down your iPhone, most people’s perception is that the iPhone sucks. If an app slows down your Android, you blame the HTC or Samsung or whatever phone you have. Why? Because if you have an HTC and it lags, but your friend has a Samsung and is whizzing away, you blame the HTC. This impression stays; even if the friend did not download the malicious app. Apple has more to lose because it is their operating system (OS), and their phone. And let’s face it, most consumers don’t know when the OS is at fault or when the hardware is, but since hardware is physical, that is where we perceive the fault to be at.
As to the issue of forcing conformity upon the populous as Microsoft attempted, again there are some holes and fault by omission. Apple does attempt to have compatibility with Windows PCs, Office, etc. The only thing they have not tried to integrate with is Flash, and they may just want to get it right. And both Apple and Google can be considered the Evil Empire, since they’ve pretty much gotten rid of most of their competitors in the OS arena (yes, I know there’s Windows and Blackberry OS’s, but they are fading fast, and hold little of the current market). It is like the bookstores of old. You had Borders and Barnes & Nobles, and a few smaller brands…before Amazon tried to scourge them from the Earth. And, no, I don’t know who the “Amazon” of the phone OS world will be. I am trying to keep a neutral tone to this because I do not support either more than the other. In my family, we have both. I like them both, depending on the functionality I am using. Like Siri, Iris is ok. Like the larger screen of my Samsung, iPhone’s is ok. iPhone’s clarity is better, but Samsung’s takes better pictures. We can run this down, but in the end, it comes down to personal preferences.
Jayesh.
Jul 26, 2012 | Categories: Business, Jayesh, Ranak | Tags: Amazon, Android, Apple, Barnes & Nobles, Borders, Capitalistic, Communism, Google, HTC, iPhone, Microsoft, Ranak, Samsung | Comments Off on Apple vs. Android, the Rebuttal by Jayesh Mehta
In my last post, I took on Social Media as a whole and why they succeed and fail. Now I’m going to talk about how businesses can use the media. It is pretty simple, you have to be relevant on them, whatever your target market. If you want to get your name out there, with relatively little cost, without looking cheap, social media is your outlet. They may not get you as many impressions as a print ad, or TV ad, but they can cause massive word of mouth promotion. It can also reaffirm your brand’s image within the consumer’s thought process. Like search engine optimization, there is a lazy way, and an effective way. The lazy way was to buy key terms, so that you would show up within the first two or so pages in a search. The effective way was to create keyword relevance, and site relevance. Both can achieve the same results, but the former will cost you more in the long-term. With social media, you can buy ads, or followers, or you can create relevance of your brand. Via Facebook, you can create fan pages, and run some promotions, or give advice or information, to make the consumer feel exclusive or give them something to read and comment on. Or you could buy ads, to get “friends”, but after you have them, you need to create relevance. With Twitter, many buy “followers”, but this can backfire unless you have as many real followers, otherwise your tweets will fall on deaf ears. The typical users are more savvy than most give credit for. You can’t just tweet the same things. You need to “speak” with them. You need to follow some of the trending subjects, but also attempt to set a trend.
Businesses also need to know what stage the social media platforms are at. If you’re trying to sell to the tweens or under 22 crowd, Facebook is not going to be relevant to you. Twitter may be. This doesn’t mean you don’t promote via Facebook, but if you do, your market demographics need to be focused more on the over 30 to over 40 crowds. You will have some that are 16-29, but they aren’t using Facebook as much. They’re on Second Life, Twitter, etc. You need to know what your target market is before you start investing in any social media, and you must know who is on those social media.
As to how these social networks can stay relevant, they need to create a secondary social network when they see the older crowds coming in. They need to let their younger audience know about this other network, which should also have a different name. They need to implement some changes based on what the new tweens would find attractive. If Facebook had been smart, and focused on longevity, they would have tried to create something similar to Second Life (if they had tried to develop a Twitter at the time it came out, they would have already been behind). Most of these social networks rest on their laurels, or try to make minor changes to their existing products, never realizing that the product isn’t what needs changing, it’s the name. Social networks are built on fads. After so many years, people get tired of the name. Twitter is no more than Facebook with a couple of twists so that they aren’t copying. Facebook is no more than MySpace, with a few twists. The next social network will be no more than Twitter with a couple of twists. Complacency can kill any product, but in the social network world, it just kills faster.
Jayesh.
Jul 21, 2012 | Categories: Business, Jayesh | Tags: Facebook, Jayesh Mehta, MySpace, Second Life, Social Media, Social Network, Twitter | Comments Off on Social Media Pt. 2: The Business Side by Jayesh Mehta
I used to think Sarah Palin was the most ignorant politician, taking the title away from Dan Quayle and George W. Bush (known as Junior henceforth). But lo and behold, a new contender has risen, throwing haymakers around like her mouth was put on hyperdrive. With her latest blabber, she accuses Huma Abedin, Hilary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, of being a security risk. She claims, from an outside study, that Huma’s family has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood…because, essentially, they are Muslim. Oh, and their justification that Huma is compromised? The State Department’s “enormously favorable” policies regarding the Brotherhood. Well, I’ve noticed decidedly favorable policies regarding the Republican Party in favor of various militia. All that camouflage, and talk of gun rights, and anti-immigration, and religiosity, they have to be compromised! Even Bachmann’s own party is pissed off at her, and think she’s more a danger than a help to their image. Yet she still stands by her decision to accuse. Hail, hail, the Scarecrow is here! So now Sarah is just one of the flying monkeys, McCain is the Tin Man, Romney the Cowardly Lion, and let’s not forget Dorothy…the incessantly optimistic Obama. The really scary part of this whole story…she got four other Congressmen to sign this accusation with her. Proof that stupidity is contagious!
R.Jones
Jul 20, 2012 | Categories: Political, Ranak | Tags: camouflage, Cowardly Lion, Hilary Clinton, Huma Abedin, McCain, Michelle Bachmann, militia, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Republican Party, Romney, Sarah Palin, Scarecrow, State Department, Tin Man | Comments Off on Michelle Bachmann Needs a Brain…and a Muzzle by Ranak Jones
Recently, I have had debates with people regarding Apple i-whatever and Google’s Androids. First, let me say this, I could give a shit about either of them. Sure they have cool features, basically a PC (or at least a NetBook) in the palm (ah, the predecessor) or your hands. To me, it is just a phone. I am not making the differentiation between phone (iPhone) and OS (Android). I am talking whole package. Don’t get me wrong, there are some cool things that they can do, but I don’t cream my pants over them. Essentially, the differences are: iPhone is user-friendly, Droid is customizable; iPhone has fewer viruses, Droids are cheaper (most); iPhone has more control over its Apps to assure quality, Droid believes that quality will come through the Free Market System, where the public decides what is good and bad. Both have valid qualities and beliefs. I draw two analogies from this. The first one is Capitalism vs. Communism (the theoretical versions of both, not the bastardized versions that are claimed). Capitalism has very little control over the what is sold, Communism has strict controls. In Capitalism anyone can enter the market. In Communism only a select few. Apple=Communism, Android=Capitalism. I am not bashing Apple because it is more Communistic (technically it is more Socialist, semantics). Communism as an ideal is good. It means everyone is equal, and helps each other out. But we don’t live in that ideal world. Just the same, Capitalism gives everyone the chance to succeed. It also gives everyone the chance to fail. Anyway, this was just a very general analogy. The second one is Microsoft and Apple of the 80s. This time Apple takes the role of Microsoft, and Android that of Apple. Microsoft made everyone conform to their standards, just as Apple is doing today. This all has to do with market position. When you’re the top fruit you can dictate. When you’re not, then you try to appease the user by making yourself customizable. Apple did earn the right to be top fruit by marketing itself as the underdog for so many years. Now they still retain some of that status, the one where people want to be original. Great marketing by the company that sells uniformity to individuality-seeking consumers. You can make the case that this is more Microsoft vs. Linux since the Android is based on the customizability that Linux touts, and maybe I should, but I’m not willing yet to concede Android is only a niche product. They still can try to claim the underdog title. Oh, what about the Windows-based phones…simply, they are crap, only worth the time when you have a bowel movement. I have other point and examples, but I’m not writing a thesis paper here, so argue with me, tell me I’m wrong. Give me your justifications, and we’ll discuss.
Jul 14, 2012 | Categories: Business, General, Ranak | Tags: Android, Apple, Capitalism, Communism, Droids, Google, Linux, Microsoft | Comments Off on Taking a Byte Out of an Apple by Ranak Jones
WHICH ONE DO YOU LIKE BETTER?
VS.
Jul 13, 2012 | Categories: General, Jayesh, Ranak | Tags: Cover, eye, Jayesh Mehta, Ranak Jones, Rogue's Guide, Stephanie Meyer, Vote | Comments Off on Stephanie Meyer’s Host vs Mehta/Jones’ Rogue’s Guide
So what’s the big deal about Social Media? I know, it’s been around for over a decade, but what is its big appeal? I haven’t taken any surveys, or done a statistical analysis of it. I know there has to be a few out there, but I will go by what I’ve seen and what I can infer. First, let’s see why people initially join. What I have seen is that social networks, initially, was just for communication via distances, that didn’t take up too much time, or money. Think email, or texting. As it evolved, it has become more of location to gossip, except it was kind of open, so it didn’t feel like gossiping. Think about where the social networks have found their initial following. The tweens, the college kids. Social life is life to them. And here they have a voice after classes, and with newer technology, in between and during classes. It’s like hanging out in the cafeteria or after school with your friends all day. What’s not to like. After the sites get some traction, the older crowd starts filtering in.
Why do they come? This may be more psychological. The just out of college crowd and the young professionals don’t want to give up their college years, mainly because they found out once you leave, you have to work…all day. And the bosses won’t tolerate late assignments, and you can’t go out to the bar and pound a few everyday and show up to work hung over, or drunk. So many rules. So they gravitate to where the college kids are socializing. The bars on weekends. But now, social media let’s them “be at the bar” all day. Then, the death knell of most social media sites, the over 30 and over 40, and beyond crowd starts showing up. The 30’s and early 40’s don’t want to be considered old, and out of touch. They still feel like they are the young professionals. So they start getting all their friends onto this or that site. Then the “beyond” crowd comes in, as their younger friends are on it, and it’s a good way to socialize with them. And so on. While the 30’s and 40’s start coming in, the tweens and college kids find another site.
This was Friendster. This was MySpace. This is Facebook. Yes, it is happening. Many people think Facebook will be around for a long time. I give it a few years. Some Social Media sites will last longer because they target the older audiences, like the LinkedIns. What about Twitter? This a little bit more interesting. This isn’t just saying things to your friends, but to the (net) world. It’s a voice to the unheard. How poetic. It will also go away, although it has in my opinion, more years left than Facebook. I’d give it 5-10 years (less with better/new technological advances). Beyond the ageism, essentially the flaw is that the Social Media sites don’t advance/upgrade/innovate after their initial couple of years. Oh sure they try, but the users don’t want the change, and resist it, complain about it, and may leave because of it. It’s a conundrum. If they don’t change, users will leave in time for something new. If they do change, users complain, and may leave because they don’t want “change.” Inherently, all Social Media sites will fail. I’ll blog more about what the sites could do to prevent their own demise, and about the business side of Social Media in my next post.
Jayesh.
Jul 11, 2012 | Categories: Business, Jayesh | Tags: Facebook, Friendster, LinkedIns, MySpace, Social Media, Tweens | Comments Off on Social Media by Jayesh Mehta
