John Debay

Logitech CEO Guerrino De Luca, as reported from hip new techno land The Verge:

De Luca suggested that Google TV was far from ready at launch, going so far as to call it “beta” software on one presentation slide, and that the company made a massive misstep by believing that it would revolutionize television right out of the gate.

It’s fascinating to me that anyone would think Google TV would revolutionize television right out of the gate, much less a CEO of a major technology firm (yeah, yeah, I know it’s Logitech).

Anyone interested in how technology firms can disrupt the current TV market should begin and end with Steve Jobs’s discussion of the lack of a viable go to market strategy. As he explains, that’s the primary obstacle to overcome. It’s not the vision or the technology. It’s getting a product to consumers that they’re willing to pay for in an environment where set-top boxes are provided for free or at very low cost. Without fixing that, you’re just adding another box.

Brilliant essay by Zach Holman:

Some people still like shit work. They can spend an hour moving Twitter accounts to special Lists, and then at the end of it look back and say “Boy, I spent an hour doing this. I really accomplished a lot today!” You didn’t. You did shit work.

My favorite speech from Apple’s “Celebrating Steve” event last week was given by Jonathan Ive. He used personal stories to illustrate the qualities that made Jobs special, and he clearly spoke with emotion about the loss of his self-described best friend.

His remarks about the fragility of ideas were particularly good:

Hey Jony, here’s a dopey idea.“

And sometimes they were. Really dopey. Sometimes they were truly dreadful. But sometimes they took the air from the room and they left us both completely silent. Bold, crazy, magnificent ideas. Or quiet simple ones, which in their subtlety, their detail, they were utterly profound.

And just as Steve loved ideas, and loved making stuff, he treated the process of creativity with a rare and a wonderful reverence. You see, I think he better than anyone understood that while ideas ultimately can be so powerful, they begin as fragile, barely formed thoughts, so easily missed, so easily compromised, so easily just squished.

Here’s the full clip:

About two months ago, The New Yorker published an article surveying the latest crop of books foretelling American decline. (This isn’t a post about American decline.)

One section regarding people and their beliefs stood out to me:

The reason we don’t have beautiful new airports and efficient bullet trains is not that we have inadvertently stumbled upon stumbling blocks; it’s that there are considerable numbers of Americans for whom these things are simply symbols of a feared central government, and who would, when they travel, rather sweat in squalor than surrender the money to build a better terminal. They hate fast trains and efficient airports for the same reason that seventeenth-century Protestants hated the beautiful Baroque churches of Rome when they saw them: they were luxurious symbols of an earthly power they despised. Friedman and Mandelbaum wring their hands at “our” unwillingness to sacrifice our comforts on behalf of our principles, but Americans are perfectly willing to sacrifice their comforts for their ideological convictions. We don’t have better infrastructure or decent elementary education exactly because many people are willing to sacrifice faster movement between our great cities, or better informed children, in support of their belief that the government should always be given as little money as possible.

For most of my life I’ve tended to believe people can have their thinking straightened out. That there exists an objective truth, and if the facts can just be presented in the right way, almost everyone can be persuaded to understand that objective truth.

I’m not talking exclusively or even mainly about politics. Maybe you’re at work, and some people on your team just have completely different visions for your product. When I was younger, I felt like there was a better than average chance of convincing these people given the right arguments applied persistently.

Now that I’m a bit older, I don’t really believe that anymore. I believe that there’s such a thing as truth as I see it, but I don’t think most people who disagree can be persuaded to think the same way. Their truths are different.

It’s far more effective to simply surround yourself with the right people.