Archive for New Paradigms
Microsoft Versus Apple Market Cap Is Not Everything
Mark Twain once said that there were lies, damn lies, and statistics. The more you know about math, the more you understand that what he meant was that one can lie with statistics, NOT that all statistics are lies.
The trouble with statistics is two-fold. Number one, far too many Americans are math illiterate. High Schools and Colleges let students graduate with progressively less math. Not that it would matter, considering the staggering number of Americans who can’t remember much of anything that they learned in school anyway. (This suggests a problem of motivation and lack of respect for one’s own mind, but I’m not going there with this post.)
Number two, the critical component of valid statistical analysis is analyzing the RIGHT data. The only way to know whether or not it is the right data being analyzed is to look at the raw data behind the statistics. Unfortunately, that requires a basic understanding of math at a level above addition and subtraction. (See #1)
That being said, numbers don’t lie, as the other saying goes, and neither do statistics. As long as one understands what numbers are being analyzed and what is being said about them, there is no need to understand any complex advanced statistical formulas or concepts.
Apple Versus Microsoft Dollars Sales Value
Recently, the media made a big deal out of the fact that Apple passed Microsoft in market capitalization, theoretically making Apple a more valuable company than Microsoft. Of course, market cap is just one of many ways to measure a company’s value. To actually buy Microsoft or Apple you would have to pay more than the current share price.
Microsoft put up a post on the official Microsoft blog recently regarding some of the other numbers out there. In some ways it is a defense against the accelerating notion that Microsoft is a dying dinosaur while Apple is the future. In another way, it is nothing more than a different way of looking at the numbers.
For example, no one is disputing that Microsoft continues to dominate the enterprise and the personal computer markets. Those markets are far from small and despite plenty of pronouncements that the future does not include the computer as we know it, there is still the pesky problem of input. While the iPad may be a fun new way to view and interact with data, it is a terrible way to do data entry. Not even Apple claims that you should be able to type 80 words per minute on an iPad once you get used to it. That means the iPad for writers and other data creating professionals is a non-starter as a primary device.
The real dig in the numbers actually is in the past projections of Microsoft’s demise, such as the explosive growth of Linux displacing Microsoft in the server world. While Linux has enjoyed remarkable growth and Microsoft should not take too much pride in the fact that it has managed to “hold off” what it should have been able to crush, the so-called experts did miss by a large margin. The implication is that they are doing it again with their projections of huge growth for devices like the iPad.
The best part is that almost all of the numbers cited include a “source” so that an interested reader can verify the data for themselves, saving us all for wondering whether or not this is a bunch of lies, damn lies, or statistics.
But, even with the source links there is still plenty of wiggle room in these numbers. Consider the two statistics showing that less than ten percent of US netbooks were running Windows in 2008 and that 96 percent of US netbooks were running Windows in 2009. Sounds pretty good for Microsoft, right?
What the numbers are hoping you forgot is that in order to get that number in 2009, Microsoft had to re-authorize manufacturers to sell Windows XP because its bloated Windows Vista operating system couldn’t even be used. Furthermore, those sales also included cut-rate, bargain basement pricing of XP which made using Microsoft Windows cost effective. Without those two capitulations, that percentage might be single digits.
And those iPhone sales numbers are for Q1 2010, before the new iPhone 4.0 version came out, but after pretty much everyone guessed it was coming. In other words, those sales numbers represent the calm before the storm. Considering Apple says it sold 1.7 million iPhones in just three days. We will have to wait until Q3 to see real numbers because the new iPhone was only available for a few weeks of Q2.
Projected Sales for Apple Devices and Microsoft Software
- Projected iPad Sales in 2010: 7.1 million
- Projected PC sales in 2010: 355 million
- iPhone Sales in first 3 days: 1.7 million
No matter how you slice, it Microsoft has a bigger market. More importantly, Microsoft continues to have no serious competitive threat. On the other hand, Android devices may soon equal or surpass the iPhone and will be offered on more than one wireless carrier. Likewise, touch screen computers are reportedly on the boards from many manufacturers who can use the iPad as a starting point.
In the end, projections and numbers are worthless. What matters is execution. Microsoft has a long history of sloppy, unloved products that barely pass muster, yet its execution in the sales arena is unparalleled. Apple has a long history of beloved, widely praised products that never manage to reach an audience bigger than its fan base. If the outcome of this decades old battle is to change, then one of these two technology companies has to get better at the part of the equation it is no good at.
How the nofollow tag makes search results worse
A few years ago, Google used its muscle within the search engine world, and on the Internet in general to push through the acceptance of a new concept regarding links to webpages.
Google implemented, and the other major search engines followed, a system where any link tagged with the attribute “nofollow” would not count as an endorsement of the linked site.
To understand how this perverts the very search rankings that are the lifeblood of Google, a little background is required.
Google Power Juice and Links
In its crudest form, the concept behind Google’s search engine rankings is that a site with more links to it is considered to be a more important, or authoritative site than one with less links pointing to it. The idea is that the more people who think a webpage or site is worth reading, the more likely it is to be worthwhile.
To avoid an automated army of websites linking without regard to certain web pages for the sake of boosting their rankings, Google has a bit of a feedback loop. While the raw number of links matters, links from other important or authoritative sites carry more weight than those from less important sites.
Unfortunately, this loop of authority apparently wasn’t strong enough to stop those who were willing to collect huge numbers of raw links regardless of value from rising in Google’s search rankings. After all, you can’t assign too much weight to any one authority or else that site becomes the one who determines the rankings. But, if you can’t give good sites enough weight to outweigh the efforts of bad sites, then the ranking suffer.
Blogs are Google’s Achilles Heel
While the number of incoming links to a webpage or site is a large factor in determining its authority, there are many other factors as well. Things like how often a site is updated, or how certain words are used on that site, or which and how many pages of a site are heavily linked all play a major role as well.
This leads to blogs being overly weighted in the Google math that determines search engines. While blogs tend to be updated frequently, and each post is given its own page which can be directly linked to, such tactics are actually harmful to potentially more authoritative sites.
For example, consider a business or entity in a regulated industry like securities trading. A mutual fund company, for example, has strict regulations on what it can and cannot say in a forum like its website. Thus, content must be reviewed by its legal department and perhaps even be approved by a governing body like the SEC. And, for those that do visit the website the home page is the best place for them to first visit. After all, topics like investing can be complicated enough without being thrown in on a webpage that isn’t designed to be a first read.
And so, a blog about mutual funds has many more of the qualities that Google likes to see than an actual mutual fund company does. While this may or may not be a good thing, the truth is that blogs have a heavy influence in any non-obvious search.
The problem for Google is that most blogs allow readers to make comments on individual posts or the site in general. These comments are usually displayed at the bottom of a page of content and often ask the commenter to leave their name and their internet address, which in the original spirit of the Internet is liked automatically by the blogging software. And therein, lay the foundation for Google’s destruction.
By commenting on an enormous number of blogs, a web spammer could get a huge number of links to any site they wanted. And, unlike any phony site the sites the links were coming from were legitimate websites, often with great authority on their topic.
Of course, no one who cares about their website wants to see it spammed and so various tools were put in place to stop or slow such spam links. But, not everyone keeps going on their blogs even if they don’t take them down and the systems in place weren’t enough to overcome the spammer’s aggressiveness. So while good and legitimate sites kept comment spammers at bay, those that didn’t were causing too much ranking power to flow to spammer sites risking Google’s rankings.
The sledgehammer Google pushed through to kill the fly was not to fix its algorithm to somehow better account for “comments” but rather to implement the nofollow tag. Basically, and link that was tagged by the website as nofollow would work as a regular link for human beings, but would not “count” for search engine ranking purposes. Shortly thereafter, Google’s will was done when the major blogging platforms made comments to be nofollow by default, thus ensuring that even the least maintained of blogs would not pass their ranking power onto the comment spammer’s sites.
To mix some metaphors, the fly in the ointment is coming home to roost. While the nofollow tag was supposed to keep bad sites from receiving the endorsement of other websites, it has given so called SEO experts a new tool to use to manipulate Google’s rankings from within.
Now, a website can write an authoritative and highly informative article about credit card rewards programs, for example. In doing so, the author of the webpage can provide links to all the right places like, Citibank, CapitalOne, and even competing resources like creditcards.com . But then, just one little link on that page could point to another site, perhaps the author’s own credit card rewards program ranking site, or perhaps to a site that pays well for referrals.
Under the pre-nofollow system the power of that site to influence the authority of those to whom it linked would have been split between all of those links. This significantly lessens the power to manipulate where the so-called Google juice goes, because the author must link important sources or risk looking uninformed or devious. So, while the slipped in link still benefits from the page, so to do the real resources and since they will also get numerous similar links from other places, they will continue to earn their rightful place in the rankings.
But, now, thanks to the nofollow tag, the author can provide the links that readers expect, while funneling all of the ranking power to his desired link, all without the reader knowing unless they specifically install a special tool or look at the underlying code.
Already, SEO consultants, websites, and others are recommending that all links be nofollowed by default and only the links the author wants be manually set to be followed. So, Google has taken the ranking power out of its hands and put it where it doesn’t belong.
Another fix is, no doubt already in the making. But, will it be any better than the last fix, or is it time to admit the core algorithm has seen its best days?
Oh, and by the way, the comment spammers? Do a Google search for “blogs that do follow” and guess where they post their comments now?
The Atkins Paradigm
One of the biggest pop-culture phenomenons in recent memory is the Atkins Diet. With millions of devotees who consider it the perfect diet, the original book spawned dozens of additional books, web sites, and more. Even among non-dieters the words Atkins Diet are familiar as are the central tenants of the diet. What allowed for its huge success and how can that be duplicated for success elsewhere.
The Atkins Diet’s enormous success can be attributed not to the diet itself, but rather to a few carefully chosen appeals to the human mind, and to the American mind in particular. These attributes can be repeated in other arenas in order to provide similar success among the population at large, and more specifically among large populations of unsophisticated adopters. Each factor below provides a crucial entry point into the mind of a non-expert which by definition make up the largest population in any area.
Easy
First and foremost, the Atkins Diet is easy. Although released as an entire book, the vast majority of the book is spent not on the diet itself, but on the various thereoies behind the diet and subsequently the “proof” that those theroies are right. This is a common format for books of this nature. What separates the Atkins diets from others however is the total simplicity of the diet’s central tenant, namely, “Don’t Eat Carbohydrates.” That’s it. Everything else is simply a nuance to that point. Obviously, it is impossible to go through life without ingesting a single carbohydrate, so the diet does address a number, but that is the types of detail which are simply left behind by the massess as they move forward. “No Carbohydrates,” is all anyone remembers about the Atkins diet, and frankly it is all they need. This stunning simplicity allows not only for the least intellegent person to follow the diet, but also to evangilize it. Indeed, a half-witted monkey with a translator can tell another person that they will lose weight if they stop eating carbohydrates.
POSITIVE FOCUS – ELIMINATION OF NEGATIVES
There are no words to describe just how far the Atkins Diet goes in its positive focus. Every possible negative thought is banished by the diet itself. In fact, the diet somehow even compells those who describe it to add a BONUS posititve to their discussion. If you think back to the first time you heard about the Atkins Diet from another person I’m sure you can remember the second sentence uttered after they told you not to eat carbs. “You can even eat bacon!” became the rallying cry of many followers.
The Atkins Diet promoted its supremacy to the exclusion of all other lines of thought. Carbohydrates were not only the cause of obesity, but they were bad for dozens of other reasons as well including the fact that they were not a “natural” part of the human diet. Offered as proof for this statement was the noble caveman who as a hunter/gatherer ate meat, not carbohydrates. Carbohydrates also are the cause of diabetes, being tired, and numerous other troubles. By following the Atkins Diet one not only lost weight, they improved their life.
REPACKAGE
Upon re-examination, one sees not revolution in the Atkins Diet, but a startling similarity to all dieting conventional wisdom. Conventional dieting wisdom suggests the elimination of certain foods from one’s diet. These foods include, chips, cakes, candy, cookies, brownies, donuts, deserts, crackers, processed bread (particularly white bread), sodas, juices that are not 100% juice, cereals, candy bars, most toppings like butter, sour cream, dressing, fatty meats, and several other foods. Ironically, despite its adherents quickness to point out that they can eat bacon, virtually the entire list of banned foods is the same.
To wit, another way to describe the Atkins Diet would be to say: You will lose weight if you do not eat, cake, cookies, chips, candy, brownies, donuts, etc… The only difference between the Atkins Diet and the traditional dieting prohibitions is that meats are left in. Basically, by adding bacon back to the allowed menu, the diet created a “revolution.” The cleverness of using meat as the proverbial carrot is that meat is particularly difficult to eat as a snack or to munch on. Eliminating snacking and random “grazing” would ensure at least some weight loss for the vast majority of those who are overweight.
Indeed, during the Atkins craze a television reporter for the show Dateline did a whole segment on how he had lost weight on the Atkins diet. The story produced a moment of sureal hillarity when the reporter described his old eating habits in contrast to his current eating habits. While sitting in front of a plate of food, he said that for dinner he used to eat, “A bunch of bread, a salad, a baked potato, a steak, and desert.” Under the shocking brand-new unbelieveable Atkins diet he “Skipped the bread, did not eat the potato or desert, and he lost weight!” Really? You ate half the food you used to eat and you lost weight? Shocking!
CONSPIRACY
The Atkins Diet took advantage of one other powerful entry into the human psyche: the conspiracy. A revolutionary idea cannot be truly revolutionary without coming at the expense of the established elite who shamelessly promote the old idiom despite its flaws. In the Atkins Diet books the author is quick to point out that his diet will not meet with welcome from the established medical and weight loss establishments who, of course, are hiding the truth. For the Atkins diet, the conspiracy comes courtisy of years of mis-interpretation of data showing the trouble with carbohydrates. The cave man evidence is used repeatedly to back up this notion. In addition concepts such as “glycimic index” and other real concepts are introduced to the benefit of the diet’s methodology. The fact that the glycimic index is very real and easily found once looked for, only adds credibility to the diet.
CALL TO NIRVANA
No revolution can succeed without offering a path to the better life. The boldest suggest that their new idea is the end all be all idea that everyone has been waiting for. This allows for the proper zeal and insulates its participants from any outside criticism. The Atkins Diet proclaimed on its cover that it was the “Diet Revolution” boldly suggesting that it would be the force that finally swept out the flawed and failed methods of the past, and that those who read it would never need another diet book.
EXPLOITATION OF SUCCESS
The success of the Atkins Diet was quickly turned into more success via the launching of parallel or related ventures. Follow up books came quickly (especially to refute the early criticims launched by the establishment), followed by receipe books, licensed food items, licensed logos for restaraunt menus, web sites, and even food delivery plans. Each subsequent product launch not only provided more buzz, but gave adherents a new place to turn when their attention waivered from their current products. When the book no longer seemed shiny and new, one could simply read the web site for new and more amazing information.
USING THE ATKINS PARADIGM
Whether for business or politics, the Atkins Paradigm can be harnessed for success. By carefully crafting a positive message that is very easy to understand and articulate and then pumping up that message by offering rewards that are being denied by the establishment a business or message can succeed among the masses. When that occurs, one should be ready with follow up products or services which can exploit and continue that success.
