via thenextweb.com

I love it when we think out of the box and come up with new ideas that improve on inventions, but as great as this one is, I think - obviously others do too - that it should remain in the box. What do you think?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

You'll hear a lot about why company A won and company B lost in any market, and in my experience, a lot of the theories thrown about -- even or especially by the participants -- are utter crap. A domain name doesn't win you a market; launching second or fifth or tenth doesn't lose you a market. You can't blame your competitors or your board or the lack of or excess of investment.  Focus on what really matters: making users happy with your product as quickly as you can, and helping them as much as you can after that.  If you do those better than anyone else out there you'll win.

Nothing fails like success because we don't learn from it.  We learn only from failure." ~ Kenneth Boulding

I wish Marc better success in his future endeavors, and I'm sure he will be more successful, simply because he has learned from a failure that he was willing to accept the responsibility for.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In this week’s Tennis Mailbag, Michael from NZ asks Jon Wertheim…

Why can't Fedofiles and Rafaelites stop fighting over who's the best? Sit back and enjoy the fact that, combined, they're the greatest phenomenon in tennis history (21 of the past 23 and 25 of the past 30 Grant Slams)! They could potentially end their careers as the equal GOATs -- and we as fans should love them both for it! Look at the video of the two promoting their Credit Suisse exhibition -- they're clearly great mates and so we should stop creating a "hated rivalry" when it doesn't even exist!! I'm all RF, always have been, but RN has my 100% respect. Let's just enjoy the history, don't you think?

…and Jon responds with this…

One of the truly special components of the Federer-Nadal rivalry is the genuine affection that passes between the two. The Credit Suisse video is just one example of many. When "Fedofiles" (KADs as Pete Bodo calls them) skewer Nadal and "Rafaelites" are pronouncing Federer dead, it's wildly at odds with spirit of the rivalry. I get rooting for one over the other. But when the two principals are so fond of each other, isn't it hard to generate deep hatred for the other guy?

I would like to believe that most, if not all of the fans are accepting of the fact that these two guys are great in their own ways. As rabid a fan as I am of Roger Federer, I like Nadal for his competitive nature, his ability to learn fast, and of course, his humility. In my previous post, I had written this…

As fierce as these two rivals are on court, what impresses most people is the friendship they have between them. They are truly respectful of each other off the court, and genuinely happy about the others’ success. Can you imagine McEnroe & Connors being that way? How about McEnroe & Lendl? Together, Roger & Rafa have not just raised the bar for tennis, but also for sportsmanship.

Having said all this however, there is a reason why we root for one over the other. It’s not that one is less likeable than the other. As equally likeable as Roger and Rafa are, they are poles apart when it comes to almost everything else – playing styles, demeanor on court, strategies – that makes up this rivalry.

When you have two polar opposites like Roger and Rafa, despite them being great friends and all, there is bound to be a lot of friction, between the fans of the two players. There is a fine line between being a rabid fan of one player and being a vociferous hater of the other guy, and of course, there are people who cross that line.

Add journalists and self-proclaimed tennis experts, who drop unjustified and irresponsible comments that appear to put one down to elevate the other, all hell’s going to break loose. What else do you expect?

Jon Wertheim, IMO is one of the very few journalists/tennis experts who is unbiased – as you can see from his response to the question. Sadly, I can’t say the same about some of the other analysts/experts.

Take Brad Gilbert’s tweet for instance right after Rafa won the 2010 US Open to complete a career slam…

“There’s your GOAT – the best year I’ve seen in my lifetime”

Best in your lifetime Brad? Really? As expected, one of the Federer fans wanted to know how he justified that…

“hmmm how can u b GOAT if someone won 7 more slams than u?”

Gilbert’s reply?

“Because Rafa has absolutely owned you”

So, the fact that Roger has won 16 slams while dominating the tour during his peak years 2004-2007 amounts to nothing? Brad continues on…

“Healthy mindset, great water cooler talk, I just feel like Rafa's accomplished more & the fact that he's owned Fed H2H=big stat”

Rafa has accomplished more than Roger? Really Brad? Ummm, 16 slams, 5 straight titles at both Wimbledon and the US Open, just to name a couple, says otherwise. If you’ve watched ESPN, you’d know that Brad clearly knows his history and records, so he can’t feign ignorance about Federer’s accomplishments. So, to make a ridiculous statement that Rafa has accomplished more than Roger simply smacks of hate. It wasn’t just me. Most of the tennis twitterverse disagreed with Brad as well. Here’s one of the tweeps…

“If you really think 9 > 16, you're entitled to your opinion. Don't expect the Tennis Twitterverse to agree with you”

Probably realizing that he had set in motion events that riled up the Federer fan base, he wrote this, but refused to back down on the H2H…

“Fed Heads relax-he's an awesome player:the semi final record is off the charts, 16 majors is incredible but 2-5 against Rafa in major finals”

I’m pro-Roger rather than anti-Rafa, so, expect me to be more civilized than the haters, but don’t expect me to put up with anything and everything that passes for analysis. Obviously, Brad has some unresolved issues with Federer, probably stemming from him being outcoached by Roger at the 2006 Wimbledon finals? Or, perhaps because Roger could not find space on his book shelf for Gilbert’s book “Winning Ugly”. No ugly is not in Roger's tennis vocabulary!!!

The whole head-to-head thing that Brad and a few others are obsessed with, is never going to die down unless Roger can somehow fix that. Let’s face it, given that Roger is past his peak, and Rafa is at the top of his, it’s more than likely that’s never going to happen.

Does having a poor H2H against his rival somehow belittle Roger’s incredible achievements? Is it Roger’s fault that he showed up at all those finals of Roland Garros from ‘05 until ‘08? Is it Roger’s fault that Rafa never showed up at most of the other slam finals during Roger’s peak years from ‘04 to ‘07? Brad Gilbert seems to think so.

I could go on in much more detail as to why the H2H is as irrelevant as Brad Gilbert’s tennis career, but I won’t. Instead, I’ll stay classy(!) and point you to some excellent thoughts and analysis from TopSpin’s post about the topic…

“So that 5-2 H2H? Completely misleading - Rafa has never reached as many hard court Slam finals as Fed reached RG finals – if he did the score might have been very different. That’s just fact”

The New England Patriots in 2007 had the most successful season in NFL history at 18-1. Yet, it meant Jack S**t! Why? Because they failed to win the one game that mattered – the Super Bowl. So, as heady as their 18-1 record was, history will show that the NY Giants are Super Bowl 2007 champions, and nobody will care that the Patriots won 18 games, although that number might live on in infamy. The Super Bowl is the yardstick to measure how successful an NFL team is.

It’s no different in tennis either. There has been a yardstick established and, just like in golf, the measure of greatness is the number of total slams won. That’s exactly why we anointed Sampras the GOAT in 2000, and that’s exactly why Federer is the GOAT NOW! I don’t give a rodent’s backside that Andre Agassi or Brad Gilbert decided to change the yardstick for their own convenience.

Don’t get me wrong. I will accept Rafa as a contender for GOATdom (as will most Federer fans who are not Nadal haters), but I will not consider him GOAT just yet. Not until he has won more slams than the the guy who has the most right now…. Roger! Why? Simply because that is the standard by which tennis GOATs are measured.

Going back to the question posed by Michael…

“so we should stop creating a "hated rivalry" when it doesn't even exist!!”

I couldn’t agree more, but that responsibility lies not just with the fans, but more so with the journalists, analysts & experts as well.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It was the year 2000, and the great Pete Sampras, in winning his 7th Wimbledon and his 13th overall, had surpassed Roy Emerson’s long standing record of most ever Slams won by a male tennis player. At the US Open that year, Pete was looking for his fifth title at Flushing Meadows and his 14th overall.

Youth Is Served

As I watched the US Open coverage on TV that year, I vividly remember a quarter final match, between two scrawny 19 year olds, billed as the future of men’s tennis. One of them was a talented Spaniard – no, not that one – Juan Carlos Ferrero seeded #12, and the other was a kid from Switzerland, wearing a headband, a pony tail, and a goofy smile, who went by the name of Roger Federer.

True to its billing, these guys were playing some fantastic tennis, but what struck me most was the style of the Swiss kid. Unlike his opponent who seemed to be playing tennis the usual way – hitting the ball big from the baseline, this kid seemed to simply glide around the court, hitting his serve and ground strokes with barely any effort, making the game of tennis look deceptively, yet beautifully simple. “Boy, this kid is something else. He’s going to be in the top 10 soon”, I thought to myself. His game plan and his strategy on the other hand, was as terrible as his game was brilliant, and not surprisingly, he lost to his much “steadier” rival in four sets.

Sampras, despite poor results since his Wimbledon victory had made it to yet another US Open final. In his way stood Marat Safin, a tall lanky 20 year old from Moscow who, from what I’d seen and heard, was one of the most gifted players of his generations, alongside Lleyton Hewitt, Juan Carlos Ferrero & the afore mentioned Roger Federer. As gifted as he was, surely, he stood no chance against the most clutch player in a grand slam. Boy, was I wrong? What transpired over the next hour and a half left me, and everyone around me shell shocked. We had witnessed a brutal annihilation of arguably the greatest player of all time, as Safin, playing near perfect tennis, made Sampras look old, slow and inadequate.

Time Catches Up To Everyone

Asked what he thought of his conqueror, Sampras had this to say… “He passed and returned my serve better than anyone I've ever played. He reminded me of when I was 19 and came here and won it for the first time”. A year later, Sampras would lose in a blow out, to another one of the new generation, Lleyton Hewitt. While Sampras did manage to win another Grand Slam beating his old rival Andre Agassi the following year, the torch had been passed. It was time for the king to move on. The year 2000 marked the end of the Sampras era.

Sampras however, is not unique to this experience. In the 30+ years that I’ve been following tennis, I have seen other greats go through this as well. Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and Andre Agassi – all of them rose up the rankings, became great champions, dominated their competition for years, kept the younger generation at bay, before eventually fading away into the sunset.

Federer: The Champion

That 19 year old kid from Switzerland that I thought would make to the top ten, what happened to him? Unlike the other players of his generation – Marat Safin, Lleyton Hewitt, Juan Carlos Ferrero and even Andy Roddick – who matured fast and made their marks on the Grand Slam scene, Roger Federer was a late bloomer, likely because he had way more talent, and way more variety in his game that he needed time to pull it all together into a cohesive game plan. Reigning in his hot temper to go with his brilliant game, was the last piece of the puzzle. Beating Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 gave him the confidence that he belonged, as he won his first Grand Slam – Wimbledon 2003 – at the age of 22, meeting the expectations that were placed on his young shoulders.

Yeah, we all knew that this kid was capable of winning a few slams, but little did we know that he was about to go on a tear and become arguably the most dominant men’s player of all time, breaking records that we all thought could stand the test of time. It took 35 years for Roy Emerson’s record of 13 Grand Slams to fall. Nobody in their right minds would have thought that Pete’s new record would fall, leave alone in 7 years. 16 Grand Slams, a career slam winning all four Slams, reaching the finals of all four slams in back to back calendar years, 10 consecutive slam finals, 23 straight semi-finals, and a lot more. To say that his records are impressive would be an understatement by every stretch of the imagination. [...continue reading...]

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It was abundantly evident that Fernando Verdasco was going down in straight sets to his more famous and accomplished countryman, Rafael Nadal, yet again to make it 0-11. This time around, the conditions were tough, windy & tricky to add to his woes. It's not as if he didn't have his chances - Rafa had been broken for the first time this tournament - but he simply could not close out that VERY key first set. So, there was ample reason for Nando to be utterly disappointed, but I had no idea how bad.

I woke up this morning and my twitter feed was all about the post match interview where Fernando supposedly picked Roger Federer to beat Rafa, if they were to meet in the final. Here's what some of the tweeps had to say...

Verdasco tips Federer over Nadal for U.S. Open title http://dlvr.it/50skx

Don't miss: US Open final betting odds: Verdasco bets on Federer http://ow.ly/18X65o

Boy! I thought. That defeat stung so much, that despite being a compatriot and good friend, he picked that other guy, yeah the guy who's been to six straight finals here and won five of them. The twitterverse and the blogosphere was abuzz about this sacrilegeous prediction. "No, this can't be right. Something definitely got lost in the translation here", I thought to myself.

As I clicked through to the articles I realized that he did pick Roger to beat Rafa. And, Rafa in response said Fernando was free to think for himself, and believed it was a fair assessment that Roger is the favorite. So, I pitched in, with my own conspiracy theory about how Fernando was simply trying to lower the increasing pressure of expectations on his good friend. As a die-hard Roger Federer fan, that had to be the most plausible explanation ;)

To all the people who thinks that I said that rafa is going to loss again federer, that's not true! I just said that the conditions here are better for Federer because the ball and the court its fast! And federer likes this conditions more than rafa I think! But of course I prefer Rafa to win this us.open! He is my friend, he is spanish and he deserved so much! So never take the words of the news exactly like they say because they just say what they want!

Maybe he had realized that his words were taken out of context? One of the tweeps didn't think so...

Yo, Fernando. No one misconstrued what you said. You may have meant something different, but you said what you said. And, it's ok dude.

I wasn't so sure. I wanted to get to the bottom of this nonsense. Did he or did he not? All I had to do was "read" the transcripts of the interviews by Fernando and Rafa. So, here are two questions from Fernando's interview...

Q. With Rafa playing so well here at the US Open, how does somebody beat him?

FERNANDO VERDASCO: Well, I don't know. Everybody have better days than on others. He's playing good, but I think that he will have a tough if I am not wrong, I think that he will play the final against Roger. It's gonna be a tough match, because I think Roger play really good in these conditions. He gonna be a very tough final for Rafa if he plays against Roger in the final.

Q. So you think Roger's about the only one who has the game to beat Rafa right now?

FERNANDO VERDASCO: Well, Novak is a player that also on fast surface like this one, he already beat Rafa many times, and he have also the game to beat Rafa. But, I don't know. I think if I need to bet here, I will bet for Roger. I think that he won five times here and he like these conditions.

Pay close attention to the statements in bold, because this is going to get very interesting. Ready? Off to the transcript now of Rafa's interview...

Q. I understand you do not like to look ahead. You like to keep it from point to point, match to match. But Fernando was saying he thinks you'll get to the final and play Roger. He says if he had to bet, he'd put a bet on Roger to win because he says likes Roger likes these conditions. What do you think about that statement?

RAFAEL NADAL: Well, for sure Roger is the favorite of the tournament, especially because he won five times five times? And six finals in a row. No one doubt on that. And I am in semifinals, so I don't think about the final. Everybody free to think, and what Fernando says is completely fair. I hope keep playing well and have my chance in that match in semifinal.

Notice how this question to Rafa was twisted out of context to mean something other than the original meaning? Before you know, it's all over the interwebs that Fernando Verdasco dissed his friend Rafa and picked Roger to win it all. Now, there's a story that will get your site more hits and improve your SEO!

I'm not blaming any of my fellow tweeps or bloggers who are simply spreading the news that they hear or see. However, I will put the blame squarely on the irresponsible journalist who decided to throw honesty, fairness and integrity out the window just so he/she could manufacture a story and sensationalize it. Whatever happened to truth & fairness in journalism?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

It's the finals of Wimbledon 2010, between Rafael Nadal and Tomas Berdych, and my 6 year old son, an avid tennis fan is already working me... "Daddy, when is the US Open? Are we going this year?" he asks. It was 2008 when he had his first US Open experience. I had managed to snag a couple of luxury box seats right behind the court at Arthur Ashe. With the fantastic vantage point that we had, we couldn't have asked for anything more, but more is what we got, a lot more... food, drinks, desert, souveniers, and best of all two five set matches - The Djoker beat T-Rob in a controversial match, and Roger "the GOAT" Federer managed to scrape and claw his way past Igor Andreev - that bled into the night session.

The bar had been set high, my son was spoilt from that wonderful first experience that anything less was inadequate. Good luck trying to explain to a 6 yr old why we can't "buy" box seats, why we have to sit so far up in the stadium, while all the action is way down there, why you need something close to a hubble telescope if you wanna see what's going on down there, and, why the food outside of the luxury box simply sucks! Kids! Go figure!

So, this year, I scrounged around for a couple of box seats, but the effort did not quite pan out. So, backup plan... I had to get something for Labor Day Monday, before school started Tuesday. Court-side tickets for over $5000 each? No, thank you! I settled instead for the "decent" $225 tickets. No, these were nowhere near the luxury seats that my son was hoping for, but at least it wasn't at the very top of the stadium, in the nose-bleed section like the ones from last year. So, giant tennis ball in hand, with autographs from previous years scribbled on it, off we went on our annual pilgrimage to the US Open.

"Why don't you bring your camera with you to the Open?" asked my wife as I was stepping out the door. "I have my iPhone, don't I?" I said, but I quickly realized that my Canon EOS-10D with the 75-300 IS lens would come in handy. Boy, am I glad I brought the camera along? Thanks for the suggestion, honey!

The drive to Flushing Meadows usually takes an hour and a half on a good day, but since it was Labor Day Monday, there was hardly any traffic as we drove through the city. About 45 minutes later, there it was... the unmistakeable sight of the stadium named after the great Arthur Ashe.

Unlike the Australian Open Down Under, at the US Open the tickets are separated out for day and night sessions. The food, despite being prohibitively expensive is hardly epicurean. You can't bring your own water bottles, because the whole event is sponsored by Evian water, a bottle of which goes for $5? A decent experience at the US Open, for a family of four will easily set them back a good $1500. Wait, what??? I guess if you are a crazy, rabid fan like me, they figure you'd do it anyway ;) Okay, now that I have gotten that off my chest, let's get on with the actual experience, shall we?

I was trying to figure out where we should go first, but my son had no such problems. We went straight to the practice courts where Robin Soderling was already practicing for his match against Albert Montanes, and Robredo for his match against Youzhny.

See the full gallery on Posterous

As Robin left, in filed Maria Sharapova, Caroline Wozniacki and Francesca Schiavone to join Venus who had been on court 1 well before Robin. As my son and I waited outside the courts hoping to snag a few autographs, someone said that Rafa was up next on the court nearest to the fence. There ensued a mad scramble for seats to get a glimpse of the larger than life, world #1.

See the full gallery on Posterous

When Rafa actually shows up on court, everyone, women in particular, go gaga :) More than a few onlookers exclaimed "holy cow, did you see how hard he's hitting that ball?" While it may have surprised some people, I had seen big Jo Wilfried Tsonga and Juan Martin del Potro practice last year, and I'll tell you what... those boys could crush that ball, yet keep it within the lines. Within the hour, there were three more Spaniards on the courts - Verdasco, Lopez & Ferrer alongside Rafa.

My son and I waited for a little while to see if we could get Rafa's autograph, but pretty soon realized that we were too far back behind the barricade to have a decent shot at getting one. This is something that the USTA needs to fix. They have to realize that for most people, and most kids the draw is an opportunity to see their favorite players up close, and to possibly get their autographs.

See the full gallery on Posterous

As disappointed as he was, it was my 6 year old who actually said we should go on to Arthur Ashe. So, off we went, stood in line to grab something expensive that looked like food, before we went on to the event that I actually paid money for... Fish vs The Djoker. The view as you can see from the pictures wasn't too bad. Something else you don't quite fathom while watching tennis on TV is the spin, control & placement that these guys employ as they hit the ball. It is quite a skill, and a good reason why these guys are professionals.

Before long, we realized that Mardy was going to be in trouble as Nole slowly, but surely, dismantled his game. Any opportunities that Fish had, Novak quickly shut the door on him. "Wow, Novak is filleting Fish" commented someone in the crowd to laughter from the neighbors.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Next up was Maria Sharapova vs. Caroline Wozniacki, a match with a big billing. Masha was in fine form, and the pressure was all on Caz to prove that she was a legitimate #1 seed. Right out of the block, you could see that Caz's superior retreiving ability was going to be a big problem for Masha, as she committed one unforced error after another.

See the full gallery on Posterous

After some ice cream, chips and beer (for me, of course), we headed out to the practice courts once again, hoping to catch a glimpse of Roger Federer. The "I want to get Roger Federer's autograph" chant which had started on our drive into the USTA facility was getting louder. After all, what good is the giant tennis ball if you have everyone else's autograph but not the one that matters most? As we headed down, from way up at the top of Arthur Ashe stadium, we spotted giant slayer, Stan "the man" Wawrinka. Down by the courts, the crowd was nowhere near the one that hovered to get Rafa's autograph, and we were able to get Stan on his way back to the lockers.

See the full gallery on Posterous

See the full gallery on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I was never a huge fan of Andy Roddick during his younger days. I saw him as nothing more than a big forehand and an even bigger serve. He didn't possess skills like a Federer, Nadal, or for that matter Djokovic or Murray. Over the years however, what he has lacked in terms of skill, he has more than made up for, by putting in the hard work and showing a lot of heart - something a few players in the top 20 - Monfils, Gasquet & Berdych to name a few - could learn from.

His self-depricating sense of humor and funny post match comments have certainly been endearing to me over the years that I've been willing to overlook the "failings" in his game, and begun to root for the guy. Who can forget this brilliantly funny 2007 post match interview, after he was annihilated by a Federer who could do no wrong? Not too many people would have shown up for an interview after a beat down, let alone put it in perspective.

Let's face it, if it wasn't for Federer, Andy could very well have been a six-time grand slam champion, and I'm sure the world would've seen him in an entirely different light. Despite being a die-hard Federer fan, I would have been more than happy for Andy if had won last year's Wimbledon championship. It's safe to say he made a lot of new fans - I know a few of them myself - after losing yet another gut-wrenching final to his nemisis.

Fast forward to last night's second rounder against the Serbian, Janko Tipsarevic. Not unlike his famous countryman Novak Djokovic, Tipsy is awfully talented, and had beaten Roddick the last time they played at Wimbledon. So, this was by no means your run of the mill second round match that Andy was just expected to waltz through. To be honest, although Andy won the first set, I didn't think he was playing well enough. His normally powerful serve wasn't effective enough, and he was content on simply pushing the ball back, expecting his opponent to make the errors. Instead of obliging Roddick, tied one set a piece, Janko cranked it up a notch, played some brilliant passes that left his opponent stranded at the net, while breaking him.

Down 2-5 in the third, serving to stay in the set, Roddick got called for a foot fault, got rattled and went off on the lines-woman who called it and chair umpire Enric Molina. No, it wasn't even close to being on the same level as Serena's tirade last year, but it was enough to get the Bronx cheer from the pro American crowd. Watching it on TV, I tweeted that he was losing the plot, and worse, losing the crowd, as he insisted on continuing the tirade. What's worse, as he later admitted, it wasn't that he was called for a foot fault that bothered him more, it was the fact that she didn't know left from right.

"I wasn't upset with the call, I just expect my umpires to know their left foot from the right foot," said the 28-year-old.

"It's the fact I couldn't get her to admit it wasn't the right foot which infuriated me, the lack of common sense was unbelievable to me. We have got to be able to have a test like 'Point to your right foot, point to your left foot, now call lines.'

It was clear that the match had turned, and was quickly going away from him. IMHO, he was simply looking for a way to fire himself up. To his credit, Andy clearly realized that he said things in the heat of the battle, and was almost apologetic in his post match interview.

"The stubbornness... I let mine get in the way. I got called for two others after that and have no issue with it. In the moment I was just stupefied"

"In hindsight did I let it go too far? Yeah, probably. I think it was a very correctable mistake, and I probably let it get to me more than it should have"

Might Roddick have been a little more sensible on the court and might he have been sensitive to the lines-woman? Sure, but, it's tough to see reason in the heat of the moment. If this is the worst thing that Roddick does, it simply pales into insignificance when compared to what Serena did at last years open, and it is a far cry from some of the things that other players have done in the past - John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ille Nastase - to name a few. Who can forget Andre Agassi's deplorable behavior against Karol Kucera?

I am not justifying or defending Andy's behavior, but, before we go completely nuts, I think the guy deserves some slack, and a break.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via Don't go outside

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via seanbonner.tumblr.com

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via readwriteweb.com

I like this... #17 "Microsoft interviewees are asked unusual questions to gauge their creativity"

And then what? They don't hire them? How else do you explain some of the most unimaginative products that Microsoft has produced?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via mint.com

Kudos to Bill Gates & Warren Buffet for hatching this blueprint!!! The world could use it.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via gizmodo.com

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A while ago, I has posted a link to a great TED talk on the science of motivation. The RSA has taken that talk and turned it into a brilliant animation that illustrates the truth behind what motivates us.

As long as the task required mechanical skills only, higher incentives derived better performance. However, when the task required even rudimentary cognitive skills, higher incentives led to poor performance.

I am not surprised one bit that monetary incentive only goes so far. If we don't love what we do, if we're not passionate about what we do, if there is no purpose to what we do, no amount of monetary compensation is going to change that. Creativity and passion cannot be bought; it has to come from within, driven by a purpose.

Make sure to watch the whole video...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A few days ago, Consumer Reports completed their test of the iPhone 4 and posted their results...

The iPhone scored high, in part because it sports the sharpest display and best video camera we've seen on any phone, and even outshines its high-scoring predecessors with improved battery life and such new features as a front-facing camera for video chats and a built-in gyroscope that turns the phone into a super-responsive game controller.

Eventhough the iPhone 4 placed at the top of the smartphone stack, Consumer Reports would NOT recommend the phone for one simple yet important reason - It does not perform the role of the "phone" in iPhone, as well as it should...

there is a problem with its reception. When your finger or hand touches a spot on the phone's lower left side—an easy thing, especially for lefties—the signal can significantly degrade enough to cause you to lose your connection altogether if you're in an area with a weak signal. Due to this problem, we can't recommend the iPhone 4.

As an iPhone 4 owner who upgraded from the first generation device, I would attest to the problem, as would any number of other users. Apple however, instead of acknowledging the problem has blamed it on everything from software to users themselves.

Do you think that any company other than Apple, any CEO other than Steve Jobs would have gotten away with telling users that they are "holding the phone all wrong"? I don't either. Whatever happened to "customer is the king"? I fail to understand Steve's reluctance to accept that there is problem with the device. Maybe he simply refuses to see a flaw in what he considers a perfect work of art?

There are a few ways to get around the signal loss - hold the phone "right", get a bumper (Apple should be giving this away) or as the Consumer Reports article suggests, use duct tape...

an affordable solution for suffering iPhone 4 users: Cover the antenna gap with a piece of duct tape or another thick, non-conductive material. It may not be pretty, but it works. We also expect that using a case would remedy the problem.

Obviously, Apple feels that the Consumer Reports article is bad for it's image, and so have gone out of their way to bury any threads that discusses the report. Even Apple's fanboy blog TUAW is finding it hard to interpret this the right way.

In my opinion Apple has grown way too powerful for it to see reason. No, it does not have the market share to warrant an anti-trust inquiry, but its actions - some of which would put Microsoft to shame - of late definitely do.

UPDATE: Cult Of Mac believes that it is inevitable that Apple will issue a recall of the defective hardware that is the iPhone 4

Apple will be forced to recall the iPhone 4 following Consumer Reports tests proving the “Death Grip” antenna issue is not software related, but a hardware flaw

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via insideview.com

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In medieval Japan, a mighty general had a final battle to wage. His troops were greatly outnumbered by the enemy that waited less than a mile away. Yet, the general believed that his smaller army of followers had superior fighting skills and spirit that could lead them to victory.

On the way, they came to a shrine, and the general stopped to pay homage. Then, facing his troops outside, he reached into his garments, pulled out a coin, and held it high. "This coin will forecast our destiny," he shouted. "I will flip this coin. If it is heads, we will be victorious. If it is tails, we will be defeated. Yet, heads or tails, we shall proceed to battle and fight valiantly. Do all agree?"

"Yes!" roared his band of followers.

"Well, then," the general yelled, "I flip the coin and seal our fate!"

There was a great silence as the coin soared high into the air, glittering in the sunlight. After what seemed like many seconds, the coin finally landed in the gravel with a soft clink. Everyone circled the coin, and as the small cloud of dust cleared, they saw it was heads!

There was a great uproar as they all eagerly charged into battle and easily defeated the enemy.

After the battle, a lieutenant whispered to the general, "No one can change destiny."

"How right you are." the general said, showing the lieutenant the coin, which had heads on both sides.

The above story is a great example of the incredible power of the mind. Henry Ford once famoulsy said "Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you're right". We have the choice to believe that we control nothing, or that we control everything. What's it going to be?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Roger Federer recovered from two sets down, and barely scraped through his first round match 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-0, against unheralded Alejandro Falla. First rounder on grass, against the defending and six time champion, you'd think Falla had no chance.

Yet, here he was going toe to toe against Federer, possibly the greatest grass court player of all time, applying pressure on the defending champion, unlike any that he had seen other than from another lefty, a certain fella that goes by the name, Rafael Nadal.

So, what was Falla doing that Roger couldn't quite deal with? Simple. Take a look at where Falla was serving almost the entire match, especially on the second serves - exclusively to the Federer backhand, so much so that you'd think Falla was getting tips from Roger's nemisis. This is exactly what Rafa does to Roger, time and time again.

Falla played strategically brilliant tennis for most of the match, but the great champion that Federer is, he hung in there knowing that he would get an opening, and capitalized when he got one.

If Roger and Rafa were to meet in the finals, as expected, Roger would need to come up with a smarter game plan to counter the "serve to the backhand" strategy, because Nadal, unlike Falla, will not let go of a stranglehold.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

That is a very creative expression of how bad one person thinks the oil spill is. We might as well be drinking oil - some of the animals and birds already are.

via flickr.com

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

via smashingmagazine.com

Permalink | Leave a comment  »