The China Vortex

It has been some time since I last posted an article, so I thought I better give you a pretty good excuse.

Long story short: I have said goodbye to my old Windows (Averatec) laptop, and have bought and am using a brand new MacBook Pro 2.4G 2/250 15″ laptop running OS X (Leopard), which I bought directly from Apple. After buying the laptop, I swapped out the 2G RAM for 4G, so now I have one sweet top of the line Mac. Right now, I’m basking in the moment since I’m sure that Steve Jobs will introduce something more cool at Macworld 2008.

Oh well, that’s the Apple tax…

My first computer, bought in 1989, was a Macintosh SE 4/40, which had its operating system on a floppy disk. From 1989 to 1997, I used Macs, and owned about eight Macs. In 1997, when I moved from Taiwan to the US, I moved to the Windows platform because the Office suite on the Macintosh was not compatible with the Windows version. At the time, Steve Jobs had just returned to Apple as CEO (for several years he preferred using the term interim CEO, or iCEO, because the company was in such bad shape.)

For a long time, I was a satisfied user of Windows. Unlike many Mac users, I don’t think that Microsoft is evil, and overall, I believe that the company has tried to develop and launch decent products which bring value to their customers. But I think that there are problems.

First of all, Microsoft has too many product lines and business units. The end result: there are too many mini-business kingdoms fighting for their piece of the pie. Apple does not have this problem; it is run by only two people, Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive. By any definition, they are very smart, even brilliant. Ultimately, they make the call about every product and service Apple ships. This means that there are no mini-business kingdoms at Apple.

Unlike Microsoft, Apple is run by designers. Engineers are interested in technology and features; designers are interested in how to make technology usable. For designers, user experience is everything. Jobs and Ive are designers, not engineers. Most people are excited by design and usability, not by technology and features. Since Apple controls the hardware and software, Jobs and Ive are in a unique position to control and shape user experience in a way no other company, not even Microsoft, can. This is why the iPhone has been a runaway success, not just in the US where it was first launched, but all over the world. When it comes to the space where technology and design meet, Apple is in a league all its own, and the market is now rewarding it.

But Jobs doesn’t just understand design, he also understands marketing, which is all about managing peoples’ expectations and perceptions. Even though he is widely respected, he never hogs the spotlight; by saying less, he puts Apple’s products and services in the spotlight where Mac aficionados can work themselves into an excited frenzy and become evangelists for the company. By saying and doing less, Steve Jobs does more for the company.

Enough big picture stuff; let’s talk about the experience. Long story short: I love it. The OS feels mature, and it does everything I want it to do, and fast. I tend to be a fast thinker with bad short-term memory; when I want something I want it to happen right away. There is a Chinese saying xinxiang shicheng which means “to get something as soon as you can think of it”. That was always the ideal when talking about computing for me; why couldn’t the computer do what I wanted it to do NOW? For the first time, I feel that I’m close to that goal.

While Windows has been generally satisfactory, I have never been satisfied with Windows registry. While a new Windows computer was snappy, it would quickly decay into molasses mode when the registry got all gooked up. During the ten years I have been using Windows, I have used several different versions of Windows (Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows 2000, and Windows XP). And this does not include the software patches for all the different versions. From a business and customer point of view, it makes no sense that Microsoft could not take care of the registry problem over the past ten years. During the same ten years, Apple has been able to shift to an all-new Unix-based operating system which is rock-solid and continues to improve in performance.

At the same time, with Windows I still have to put up with some DOS commands and foibles such as the backward slash for directory navigation, instead of the forward slash used by Unix, and Windows failure to differentiate between upper- and lower-case in naming conventions. (I have a real problem with the backward slash “\” even though Bill Gates invented it himself.) If I’m spending most of my time on the Internet, why not just deal with Unix on the computer’s OS, which is the native language of the Internet?

Microsoft should be more like Apple and just explain to their customers why they are phasing out a lot of the obsolescent stuff including DOS commands and navigation, and should bring Windows naming conventions in line with Unix.

I bought and installed a copy of Windows XP so that I could run my favorite Windows application, MindManager Pro 7. Since Mindjet also makes a Mac version, I have downloaded the trial version and have been using that. Result: I haven’t been running Windows XP at all.

I can see that I’ll be doing some prototyping and maybe even development on this computer. For this reason, I’m keeping the configuration relatively simple and clean. Web servers use port 80; since Skype uses port 80 too, I’m keeping it off this machine. I’m thinking of getting a new ASUS Eee PC to cover that.

But then, maybe not. I have also bought an iPod Touch and a Nokia e61i.

They should keep me busy for a while…

I have just published a new white paper called “Why Indian Software Outsourcing Companies Are Outsourcing to China”.

The white papers covers the reasons why the Indian companies are coming to China, which mostly have to do with how tapped out the infrastructure in India is, the shortage of human talent, and lack of hardware infrastructure in India and how long it takes to set up in India.

China has good educational institutions in the tier two and three cities, which is why multinationals are expanding to those cities. I have not even heard anyone talk about India’s tier two and tier three cities.

Have you?

This means that India’s technology centers are highly concentrated, and because of severe competition from the leading IT service providers such as IBM, Accenture and EDS, they are under severe pressure to find talent.

Increasingly, the place they are going to find this talent is in China.

You can download this free PDF after registration here.

There has been a lot of talk lately about valuing social networks and Facebook's management knows that, which is why they try to track everyones' activities across the Internet with Facebook Beacon.

There has been a lot of discussion
if/how/when/who Facebook will acquire a social network company in China. As usual, I will jump out to offer my often contrarian views on social networking.

Let me put it this way, I don’t think that there is a way to value social networks, even though this is what advertisers would very much like to see happen. And the reason that social networks cannot be valued in a top-down/corporate/advertising way is because they are entirely subjective and dynamic according to each individual at any given moment in time.

That’s why it makes much more sense for each individual to assign a value for _access_ to his network, and anyone who wants to access it has to pay an access fee. If you don’t like the access fee, then don’t pay. If you like the fee, pay, and you will get access.

It’s that simple. Nobody owns the network except me. Not Facebook, LinkedIn, Google or anyone else. I own my relationships, just as you own your relationships. They only exist on Facebook insomuch as I’m active on Facebook now, but that is no guarantee that I will be there tomorrow.

That is why it doesn’t matter if Facebook owns all my data; if I no longer go there, it’s dead, out-of-date data. My data is only valuable as long as I’m active there.

I talked about the idea before, let me fill it out some more.

Here is my problem with Facebook’s Beacon:

1. If Facebook wants to track my activities across the Internet, they should explicity ask me first, and give me an opt-out option.
2. If I say “Yes”, they should ask me how much I want to be paid for access to my network activities on a 24-hour basis
3. I go in and set my fee for 24 hour access beginning immediately and click submit.
4. Facebook’s servers churn and return “yes” or “no”. If “yes”, they will be directed to my payment gateway. After confirmation, Facebook will say something like “Thank you for giving Facebook access to your network activities for 24 hours. After 24 hours, the cookie installed in your browser will automatically expire. (More blahblahblah from corporate and legal departments.)

In this model, each user has control over his/her activities, and is paid for access to their data by each social network.

Now wouldn’t this be a much better world than the current free-for-all where everybody is playing “Let’s screw the users and see how much we can get for free?” The current valuations on social networks are based on not paying users for access to their data.

How would you value social networks if they had to pay users for access to their data?

And since the Internet is all about pushing power to the edge, then why shouldn’t users have the power to earn money from having their activities and relationships tracked?

It would be great to hear what Seth Godin, Dare Obasanjo, Dave Winer and Robert Scoble have to say about the idea.

UPDATE: It’s been three hours since I posted this article, and I wanted to see if Facebook had imported this article into Facebook Notes so that I could tell my Facebook friends about it. (I have set Facebook to automatically import my posts here.)

Guess what? Facebook has not imported this article. Now what have I done to get that kind of treatment? I seem to have some recollection about “empowering users” and all that stuff.

Charming. Did their PR and marketing people go to the “Khmer Rouge Charm School of How to Win Friends and Influence People”. I guess I should be so grateful to Facebook and their management where they can watch all our moves and try to monetize it without passing anything down to us dumb users who haven’t figured out the shill yet.

I’m a great believer that if you fail, you should fail fast. In this respect, Mark Zuckerberg and his flaks have done a great job in record time. Mark, what are your chances now that you will hit that 15B valuation?

Scott Karp has written a great piece “Facebook’s Crisis Demonstrates That People Matter More Than Technology”. Be sure to read it.

When an ailing computer company which has lost a lot of its shine teams up with one of the leading ad agency groups, WPP, to form a new marketing agency called DaVinci to spend $4.5B in marketing money, I am, naturally, more than a little skeptical.

Consolidating adspend under one roof makes sense sometimes; it made sense for IBM in the nineties when it chose my former employer, Ogilvy, also a part of WPP, to handle all its accounts. IBM was able to consolidate its image, and Lou Gerstner, then IBM’s CEO was able to make a dramatic turnaround and a nice exit for himself.

More than 10 years later though, the challenge for Dell is more complex. Dell is a company which has surpassed at squeezing costs out of the system, making cheap computers for the office masses. The problem now for Dell is that it is getting challenged on this front by Lenovo, the Chinese computer manufacturing giant and Acer, the Taiwan company which has made a dramatic comeback after a near-death experience. And then there is the US giant, HP, which is doing some very interesting stuff.

When it comes to buzz, Apple sets the bar. After switching to Intel architecture, then using the iPod as a platform to generate buzz for the iPhone globally, Apple is on a roll. Dell has been left in the dust. Add to that recent customer complaints about quality, and Dell is not in a good situation.

So can DaVinci turn things around for Dell?

My initial reaction is that it doesn’t go far enough; it is made up of Dell and WPP people, and can serve as a buffer to any agency conflicts. But the problems which afflict Dell run much deeper than just quality problems.

They are management and perception problems.

One of the big problems marketing people run into is how to turn a product which is a stinker into something which people want to buy. The Internet has made the challenge even greater, because anyone who has the time, motivation and interest can find anything about a product.

It doesn’t matter how you spin a turd, when it stops spinning, it’s still a turd.

The problem is that once a company starts thinking that it’s all about an agency, or it’s all about the creative, the ground is set to place the marketing people and agency as the fall guys, when actually the problem is with bad management decisions. Then as the management panics because of falling share price, bad buzz, and everything else, their decisions get increasingly short-sighted and the options get worse and worse. When the management starts thinking in these terms, the company is basically in a death spiral; it’s all ends when it hits the ground and bursts into flames.

The problem with Dell is that they are very good at cutting costs, but they have not shown customers how they can ADD value. So naturally, Dell attracts the customers which are at the bottom of the value chain. Dell’s management has effectively commoditized their own product line. This is never a wise thing to do. If your own products have effectively become commodities, how do you position them against anything else?

The answer is you can’t.

Cutting internal manufacturing and component costs is something every computer maker should do internally, but you never want to make it the message you tell your customers and IT departments.

For the past several months, I have been debating what I should get for my next computer. It has been a match between the Santa Rosa Macbook Pro and the HP 2710p. The 2710p is a Tablet PC and has received some excellent reviews. It was the only PC I have been seriously considering.

Why? Because I have never owned a Tablet PC, and it looked like it had reached the right balance of functionality and design. Other HP lines, Dell and the other PC makers never entered the equation.

HP obviously likes the 2710p a lot, they have made it the centerpiece of a TV ad campaign in Asia.

That is why I say that the integration of Dell and WPP do not go deep enough. Instead of trying to flog a lot of commodity products which the market has tired of, instead they should think of how to come up with new products and a product line which actually make a person excited. We’re not talking about marketing anymore; we’re talking design marketing, the kind of stuff Apple excels at.

They should start with one product, then take it to a product line, then expand it, then kill all the boring stuff. Just like Apple did with the iPod, which expanded into the iPhone line.

Of course, in order to do all that, you need to be a dictator like Steve Jobs. The question is whether Michael Dell can be that kind of dictator, even if his own name is on the line.

Scott Karp had an excellent article about how Facebook’s Beacon messed up and created such a reaction from Facebook users.

My explanation for Facebook’s policy re Beacon is that all the press, plus a 15B valuation on a company which does not have significant cash flow will get management to adopt all kinds of dumb user-privacy violating tactics to justify the valuation in the hope that the company can garner significant ad revenue.

In short, Facebook’s Beacon policy of spying on users’ activity across the Internet was a panic move…

Some hokey marketers get so wrapped up in the data that they can garner that they forget a lof the information is, frankly, useless.

“Look! We can target albino 16-year old Chinese boys who play more than 20 hours on the PS3 in Nome, Alaska during the winter and who had the Nintendo Wii recommended to them on Overstock by a friend in Wichita, Kansas!”

Now, many have put forward basically a Bill of Rights for users, and user control of their own data. Dave Winer has said that the user should be able to control how his/her data is used, right down to being able to to keep a copy for him/herself.

Giving the user control over his data? What a revolutionary idea! (There I go again…)

I think that there is a simple and elegant solution which will take some hard work and years to perfect.

Here it is: Why do consumers have to give their data for free to advertisers and be only consumers? Why can’t consumers be advertisers too? And why can’t they be credited or paid for advertising products/services they like? In return for being paid/tracked, they would give up their anonymity. Should they want to become anonymous again, they can do so, and they would not be tracked. But they would not be paid. If they wanted to become tracked/paid again, they could do so. Anytime. Anywhere.

In this scenario, the user would control what ads he wanted to receive in his user profile in real-time; this could be done with a system of checks or tags or something else. To opt out of “auto ads”, just to use an example, all he would have to do is uncheck it.

Basically, the user is selling his attention information to the advertisers. I look at it another way; the user is selling his time to advertisers to get data; relevant advertising data will be deemed useful and passed on, while irrelevant data will not be used and will not be passed on, and will be treated by the user as spam. In return for passing meaningful data to another prospect or customer, the first consumer should be reimbursed with money for exposing his data, and making a meaningful referral which eventually results in a sale.

And so on and so forth. Here is the trade: Give us your name, identity and user info, and let us follow your activities, and we will pay you. You can opt out anytime, and you will not be paid.

Simple.

I have always wondered why consumers are always treated by advertisers as consumers, when in real life, people have multiple roles such as father, husband, son and manager, or mother, wife, daughter and VP, just to use a few examples. So why should people only be consumers? Ask people for their data, then pay them for it.

That’s what I call a fair trade.

Now, if Facebook did that, that would be really something. And if Facebook doesn’t, then I hope that someone else does.

If they do, they’ll have my business.

Whatever Facebook does, let’s cut the spyware bullshit. That’s a real business killer. Those guys just dug themselves a big one with Beacon, and I’m wondering how they’ll get out.

This morning I was watching a TV program on China’s CCTV-4 which talked about the history of gold, historically and in China. The program, all in Mandarin, had a fascinating format. It started off with history and the Bretton Woods agreement of 1945 and when the US controlled about 80% of the world’s gold reserves. At the time, the US Federal Reserve had a standing policy of letting non-US citizens redeem their gold at a price of US$35 per troy ounce, while not allowing Americans to own gold. Then, as the value of the dollar fell, Nixon basically opted out of Bretton Woods and the US government would no longer redeem gold. This started the period of different currencies floating against each other in floating exchange rates.

Before and during Bretton Woods, because of the tie to gold, the US dollar was often referred to as “meijin” 美金 instead of the now popular term “meiyuan” 美元 or US dollar. The implication is that in earlier times, the US dollar was as good as gold.

Not now.

In 1979 with 17% inflation in the US and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, gold shot up to US$850 an ounce. Then when things settled down, so did gold prices.

Now, because of all the trouble with the US dollar and the subprime mortgage crisis, gold is back between US$700-800 per troy ounce.

Then the program took a curious turn and started interviewing Chinese who were investing their savings in gold. The best way to describe it was as if it had suddenly become the Home Shopping Channel program for gold. China opened up the gold market to trading for Chinese retail investors in Oct. 2002. Then it proceeded to interview housewives and ordinary Chinese urban consumers about their investments in different gold markets, all in China, and how much money they had made. Then there were interviews with gold analysts for gold exchange websites, all of whom were gold bulls.

And this program went on and on for an hour. The interesting thing is that this program was broadcast on CCTV-4, which is the news channel. And of course, nothing gets on this channel without official approval. The underlying message of the program was that gold is a good investment for Chinese investors in turbulent times. Not euros, not yen, and certainly not the dollar.

Gold. So go forth and buy gold, and rest assured that you will not lose your investment money. I could not escape the impression that the Chinese government was trying to talk its citizens out of putting their savings in dollars, and wanted them to save their money in gold.

Fascinating!

Ever since the subprime mortgage crisis began, the US dollar has become the currency nobody wants. Private equity and venture capital firms from the US have been actively investing in Chinese companies, just because they want to get out of US dollars. This pace is picking up as even the top-tier VCs from the US are relocating to China. Sometimes I think that if you breathe and can count to 10 in English you can get seed funding for your China startup. (Follow-up rounds are not as easy; they depend on company fundamentals, at least for now.)

It seems like the Chinese are getting tired of buying economic activity in the form of exports to the US, and getting paid in depreciating dollars. Add to that some other recent tensions, and you get the picture that things are going to start getting more rocky on the economic, military and political fronts.

There was a time when the US financial markets were looked up to and trusted by the Chinese and the rest of the world as a model. That trust has been shattered. At the end of the day, that is what capital markets depend on to work: trust. Already we are seeing a trend away from going public in the US and to other capital markets.

All of this adds up to my view that globalization is one of those ideas which makes good sense when viewed from 30,000 feet, but simply will not work in the real world of economic, political and military power.

The US dollar’s fall, in a way, is a direct result of globalization. When the US had the world’s leading economy and was the home of the world’s most voracious consumers (consumers who continued to consume even after they had no savings), the rest of the world had almost no choice except to use the dollar as the main currency for international transactions. With the rise of Japan, then the European Union, and now China and the African nations, that has all changed. Economic strength and activity are now highly diversified; there is no single center of power.

China is investing heavily in the development of Africa. The world-famous China-Europe International Business School (CEIBS) based in Pudong, Shanghai will soon announce plans for an African campus. Other parts of the world, including India and oil-rich countries of the world continue to grow. And they have less need for dollars which continue to depreciate in value. Add on to this the general unpopularity of US foreign policy in the rest of the world. They are looking for more stable investments which more or less keep their value.

All this adds up to a picture of a world which has less demand for dollars. If the US did not rely on depreciating the dollar as a policy to lessen the debt burden, the falloff would not have been as precipitous as it has become. Sometime soon, American consumers will have to learn about living within their means, and saving money. I’m of the opinion that the sooner they learn, the better. In order for it be worthwhile for Americans to save, the dollar must be stable.

If there is one thing impressive about China, it’s all the investment in infrastructure. Sure, a lot of it is tacky and even poorly constructed, and sometimes there are bridge collapses, but it is getting better in quality. Most importantly, the government is building for the future.

It’s time the US started investing more in its own future, instead of just consuming for today.

But now, the world is looking for other choices besides the US and the US dollar. And globalization is giving the rest of the world more choices to pick from.