It's easy to confuse the negative effects of scale with cultural similarities. I've lived in both cities and you'd have to step outside the US to find two cities less like each other.
Its easy to understand why New York magazine would publish high-brow link-bait: the decreasing relevance of banking-- NY's primary economic engine.
The funny thing is that the importance of banking is cyclical. Banker misbehave, markets punish them, they pretend to cower, they quietly recover... and then they misbehave again.
These kinds of comparisons will diminish once it's misbehaving time again.
Waaaaay too soon to be writing off holacracy. Fad or not, it's at the crawl stage (crawl-walk-run). And to compare it to business-as-usual running-- when it's as broken as it is-- is premature.
I'm not looking for them to include an iPad or a data connection. I'd buy it if it came with customers. The "business in a box" marketing would then be spot on.
I wonder how much of this argument will always be made-- one generation after another. As a thought experiment I put myself in my father's shoes and replaced every reference to phone with television. The text still resonated. I'm tempted to try seeing how many generations I could go back (all the way back to Buddha maybe)... but I have fruit to slice.
The interesting part for me is the self-serving marketing that the writer is doing. As a precious metals investor, it is in his best economic interests for people to believe this view as it can only speed the flight to gold.
Wouldn't it be great if Russell Kirsch went from coffee shop to coffee shop having similar conversations? Kinda like the hacker version of that scene in the movie Soapdish where Sally Fields and Whoopi Goldberg go to the mall and Whoopi pretends to recognize Sally. In the movie, the result was a flock of women crowding around her. In Russell's version, each encounter would end with an inspirational blog post or tweet.
As jaded as I sound, it's a little naive to look at this like its about law or justice. Its much more about power and influence. And corporations have a disproportionate amount of it.
I think we're all going to be a little disappointed next week and we'll have three justices to thank: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They have regularly allowed conservative platforms and politics to come before law to influence their decisions. (And that's not meant to be flame-bait for conservatives because when the liberals have the majority, they pull the same stunts.)
The really sad is that after the Bush v. Gore decision and Citizens United, the court lost its credibility and left the public entirely disillusioned with the legal process.
Maybe I've been watching too much Breaking Bad but there's a great opportunity here for someone to "acquire" the pre-processed shipments in Maywood NJ. Who wants to be my co-founder on this project? There's gotta be Pinkman out there to my Walter. C'mon!!!
I'm on the same page as the author. Plus, I'd be willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay extra for no-logo versions of most electronic products - from smartphones to TV and major appliances. That aesthetic is worth paying for.
For as long as there have been acquisitions (at any scale), there's been anecdotal evidence that innovation quickly dies in the acquired company. One thing to consider is that innovation is not dying because the larger company is killing the acquired product but rather that its dying because the talent is being integrated into the larger company's priorities.
I'd hire either of these teens right out of high school. There's a reason that they didn't use [insert TV show] action figures. It says a lot about the kind of people who love LEGOs.
On a side note: I'm still not diggin' what the company is doing with LEGOs for girls. It's insulting to all genders when they advance the all-girls-want-to-be-princesses agenda. As much as I love the original product, I was an early supporter of the stop-selling-out-girls petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-lego-to-stop-selling-ou...).
The path to killing Hollywood has to start from an understanding of how/where they make their real money. The post does a good job with a third of that answer-- Hollywood contracts are notoriously one sided so adding consistency and transparency to the process might create the appropriate incentives for creative talent to leave that model. In theory, that approach is already in full swing (see the independent film movement).
The other two thirds of the story are the international market and merchandising.
Even the worst film end up making money abroad. And those markets don't necessarily have access to the web. So addressing the how of international distribution (the non-web answer) will be a must.
And then to be genuinely disruptive, the last third of the solution needs to address merchandising. There needs to be a clear path for everything from action figures to cereal boxes. This one can't be done in isolation of other markets so an alternative ecosystem needs to be created.
Really? A young girl dies, hacker or not. A writer who was touched by her writes about it. And the only thing worth writing is that you beat her to programming by 2 years. Bravo!
Not that this applies to you, but at what age do people learn empathy and sensitivity?
Its easy to understand why New York magazine would publish high-brow link-bait: the decreasing relevance of banking-- NY's primary economic engine.
The funny thing is that the importance of banking is cyclical. Banker misbehave, markets punish them, they pretend to cower, they quietly recover... and then they misbehave again.
These kinds of comparisons will diminish once it's misbehaving time again.