Primarilly, Apple's position is in design and CONVENIENCE of his consumers. However, he missed a subtle part of service which is strongly related to the convenience. Convenience is judged by customers, not by the product itself. Though Apple's A/S policy is not that good, he sells lots of iPhones and iPads because the buyers believe Apple as a representitive of convenience and evolution. But in spite of dysfunctional antenna of iPhone 4, Apple acts like they have no idea to fix the problem. I think it's far from convenience (and even gets people feel a little upset).

Google has a different kind of problem. I heard that Google wants to get into Game industry. I hope not because the position of Google is not entertaining. It is similar to the case of IBM that the market extention brought confusion. In my humble opinion, Google should not try any outranged bombardment for it would kill anybody including himself.

Big runners may miss something. The focal point is that they should acknowledge the fact and deal with the problem quickly and precisely. Showing mistake is not shameful action but the ignorance of them is the shameful.

How great leaders inspire action (TED)
It's a wonderful talk about leadership. Starting with WHY-thinking is enough to inspire people including managers, employees and customers. Beyond the archetype of standard manager, leaders may innovate business and operation while the colleagues willingly participate in their journey.

Let's think about the rule which benefits the workers like an incentive. That would motivate the workers to achieve their goal (or not). Then, how about removing the incentive? Demotivation would be the crucial return. In perspective of executives, incentive is not must-be matter but is just a tool for high-performance. This kind distinct of view on rules delivers collision sometimes.

Beneficial rules would be greeted. On the other hand, these rules cannot be ceased easily because of the effect I wrote in the middle. It does not mean that incentive-like useful rules should be eliminated. Rule-maker should be considerable for both the positive-side and the negative-side when making new rule. I'd summarize the methodology here to check out before proclaiming the rule in public.

1. List the advantages of the rule (score it from -10 to 10).
2. List the disadvantages (score it from -10 to 10) when it is suspended .
3. Let's set advantages as A = { a1, a2, ..., an } and disadvantages as D = { d1, d2, ..., dn }.
4. Let's set the weight of advantages and disadvantages as W = { w1, w2, ..., wn }.
5. Calculate the total effect of advantage and disadvantage.
   That is, Ea = (A*W) / W, Ed = (D*W) / W.
6. Let P be a period of day which the effect lasts.
7. Then, check out that Ea > Ed / log(10, P).

Then setting an example would help to understand. Let's think about INCENTIVE again. Here are the lists of advantages and disadvantages with weight.

• It will motivate people to work hard. (advantage 8, weight 6)
• It will raise the loyalty to the company. (advantage 2, weight 5)
• The expense would be increased. (advantage -4, weight 2)
• It will demotivate people if incentive has gone. (disadvantage 9, weight 6)
• They will think that the company is in a hard time and may lose their loyalty. (disadvantage 5, weight 5)
• The expense would be decreased. (disadvantage -4, weight 2)

Suppose that the incentive would affect people for 3 months. Then P = 90. Finally, the following is the result.

Ea = (a1*w1 + a2*w2 + a3*w3) / (w1 + w2 + w3) = (8*6 + 2*5 + (-4)*2) / 13 = 3.84
Ed = (d1*w1 + d2*w2 + d3*w3)/ (w1 + w2 + w3) = (9*6 + 5*5 + (-4)*2) / 13 = 5.46
Ea is bigger than Ed / log(10, P) = 5.46 / 1.95 = 2.8.
Then, this incentive should not be deprecated.

People matter is one of the most important things on earth, I mean, the relationship. The main stream flows on the humane river nonetheless there are competitions and quarrels. However humanity is usually underestimated in business world. Why are people crazy about Steve Jobs? Is it because of his career or special ability? I don't think that's all about him. There's something different in renowned and honored people and brands.

Business is basically about people. Companies try to move and lead people into their territory. And that is a great issue for it is a big deal to get attention from them in spite of their saying about customer-based marketing. Actually it is not that kind of what about people, but is really about money and product.

Entrepreneurs need to be familiar with people. Creativity does not come from loneliness. What would be the matter people crave? They can be easily attracted by a tipping point which seems delivering incredible edges in their life. After that, the brand power would be immense and no other competitors can come up with the overthrowing trigger unless the power brand makes any mistake.

Traditional methods for business analysis are not the absolute rules in this world. People change, especially in their mind. Humanity has made new trend of people-oriented stuffs so that it could open a new market. That is the way the cookie crumbles.

Sometimes, thinking differently guides us to a great solution. And I thought about a HR solution which looks gorgeous (and even a little quaint). The point is to reduce the number of positions and to separate payment system from the hierarchy system. The following is a kind of model.

• Grand Master Directors who get key role to determine the direction to go.
• Master Managers who share the vision of the organization and leads members.
• Member Assistant managers or senior staffs who participate in all kinds of work.
• Apprentice Staff members who support Members with their immature skills.

Peter Drucker, the pioneer of contemporary business management, said that "Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility." I totally agree with it. Too many stages will loose temper and can demotivate to be promoted. Somebody emphasized that every employees should have entrepreneurship and more horizontal relationship at work would vitalize it as they might feel that they are one of owners of enterprise.

You may urge that there's no success from this model. Yes, it's true. But today's agile movement entails a very change at this moment and rapid adjustment is a great benefit in IT management. The flatter the hierarchy is, the more power the dynamic invokes. My point is that, not the model itself.

Other opponents may say that there is no incentive matter at all. But that is why I firstly said that payment system should be splitted from ranking system. The payroll cost would be increased when the member showed an incredible outcome. That is, the incentive system is required here. And that's enough to inspire people to concentrate on their work.

Another problem would be compatibility. Most ERP systems contain HR management system and they are based-on the currently prevalent HR system. But that's not big trouble as many ERP systems are established with flexibility. And then, how about M&A? Different hierarchy system confuses the merging process and increases the cost. In that case, substitution table would help. For example, Master with 3-year experience can be matched to Senior Manager.

Problems always exist. Focusing on efficiency may cause other problems. Then it's time to think about the balance. Current HR model would be better? I am afraid I don't think so. By adopting advantages of original model, this new model would be extended further. And I think it is a good try to construct new HR system because it helps to think about effectiveness in human things.

Apple unveiled iPad which has fantastic features last week. Jobs convinced that it would make a great change in future computer technology. I fully got it because iPad is fresh, simple and even attractive. The product itself is great, but something is controversal. The strategy.

Apple tends to compete against himself. iPad, iPhone and iPod touch are in the similar segmentation. That is, functional duplication exists in those kinds. What if someone who buys iPhone recently gets the news of iPad? He will regret the purchase (or not) but he won't pour extra money on iPad because he already has iPhone. That is what Apple is missing.

On the other hand, preemption of market is important. Revealing iPad may bring Apple the first-comer advantage. Consider that Apple is not a kind of company who overwhelms the market but a kind of pioneer. He always breaks through the way with his mighty brand name APPLE and his representative, Jobs.

I don't know which is right to Apple. The thing making me sure is that iPad is now before the judge of market. Personally, I see iPad negatively but who knows? My opinion based on the principle: "Ten advantages cannot cover just one missing." And I will continue to stare at.

At the head of this posting, I mentioned that meeting is to DECIDE something. However, lots of administrators do this to supervise or to manage something. Meaningless. And it causes a bad effect on efficiency though management is intended to increase efficiency.

Better meeting condition is that meeting agenda is apparent and is obviously determined before starting the meeting. Every members should know why they are in the place. And the manager should check before closing that the decision from discussion is shared enough and is agreed with all of them. It doesn't have to be unanimous but detractors need to be persuaded with reasonable grounds.

Stubborn members may exist in the team. They rarely tend to be cooperative despite the full agreement except 'em. Ignore their opinion if and only if their claim is considerably significant. That kind of members usually loose the tension of the meeting and decrease the inspiration by the decision.

I drew an idealistic form of meeting. It is a sort of communication and thus important. Without meaningless meeting, you can get an extremely effective result from the communication tool. What if no meeting is available in your company? Miserable. Please etch the point in mind that meeting is a double-edged sword.

The bigger the market is, the more change occurs in there. Although it is still a significant factor of marketing theory, positioning is less meaningful than the past because the speed of growth in technology is too fast to predict the future market. PC, for instance, was an innovative product before and the software industry led it. And the next runner, laptop appeared and it took the market share of personal desktop. What was the next? Netbook. And then? So many convenient ideas come out to the ground like smart phones, smart books, and the tablet PC, one of the future expectations. With this trend, WWW is going to move to M(mobile) network.

As you know, the world changes fastly. And I think, this unpredictable circumstance affects the marketing methodology. Firstly, I want to focus on the STANDARDIZATION which will help the firm to enlarge the size. Standard is the one which other companies need to follow because customers might be familiar with it. And that will give loyalty on related products.

The second to see is OPENNESS. Personally, I see the downside of Apple who blocks any access to its product and tech. Fascinating product may get their fame but quarantined one may go shortly. The best is, fully enticing and open to the public. Why is people enthusiastic on the product like Nexus one, Google unveiled yesterday? It looks great and gets numerous potential from openness.

New big market needs new principles of marketing and new business strategies. In this world, myriads of ideas are up and down, stability is not the only virtue but also adaptiveness. Remember the definition of marketing itself: the process associated with promotion for sale goods or services.

Western countries have treated development as a result of research and technological evolution. And it has given them lots of benefit in a real time. But the condition is being changed. Most researches and technologies are open to the web mostly, that is, they can be found easily by normal people. The value of technology is decreasing as economical rules pass a remark that supply exceeding demand would downgrade the value, and finally it leads the uprising of Asia relatively.

Asia has lots of possibility and potential because future industries would come from wisdom and creativity. Saturated market has no great future. Viewing the world vastly and seeing it in a far distance like a hawk may offer an insight for the time to come.

What is our purpose for existing?
Who is our target customer?
Why does anyone need what we're selling?
If there is a need, is it enough to support a profitable business?
What were our competitors up to?
Can you reduce expenses--without harming the product?
Do we have the right leadership?
Do we have the right employees?
How will we continue to drive revenue?
How are your employees holding up?

I summarized a posting of 10 significant questions from Marc Kramer, author of five books and instructor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and the National University of Singapore. Continuing to ask these questions would prevent the company from oblivion of the propriety and from deviation. If you want to know some more about the subject, details would be here.

Focusing on the market cannot be over-exaggerated but this fundamental principle is often forgotten. And the market should be related with customers closely. Some may urge that inner-complexity and outer-simplity would cover the problem, the distinct between the customers and the complicated technology. That is, sophisticated procedure should be hidden behind the simple interface. I totally agree and even want to advocate something more.

Human evolutional process is too slow to get in touch with the exploit of new technology area. One of the good example is 3-dimensional graphics. Myriads of people have less capacity to embrace the 3D environment even though 3D world itself looks so fantastic as the effect is similar to the real world. That's because the world is controlled by input device rather than operation from body itself. It would be a difficult condition to manage the 3D object with such an unfamiliar way.

Again, with no professional use, simple thing is always good. But simplicity should lead itself to convenience which reduces the gap between complex process like calculation and judgement, and human brain.

I think Google fails to acculturate itself to a new area. Simple is quite good for rationalists whilst Asian people is rather emotional. (I mention it carefully that I'm taking about a tendency, not an exact fact) I have a good example of this disparity. Music artists in Asian countries focuses on visualization especially in South Korea because customers prefer to enjoy MULTI-media content. It shows that Asian sees the fact in different way and Google's sticking to its original simple-based framework causes to be an underdog.

Another reason's here. Korean search market is preoccupied with a number of searching services before Google launches in the place. Specialized searching services like knowledge-searching, rank-searching, map-searching empower the domestic suppliers. Google has no differentiational factor against his competitors, and failed to increase market share there.

One of the opportunities I suggest for Google is to research for other kind of services like community-based search engine with Asian de facto standard design and interface as they are apt to feel rather than to think. Relationship is a significant matter in Asian's life. Any ideas? You might think and FEEL.

You might be aghast at the fact that most of your information through electronic device is able to be found by someone. But the more horrible thing is, your behavior might be a weak point to invade into your own space. Is it possible? Yes, because we all have weaknesses for we are not the God.

One of the good examples is "I love you" virus. In logical thinking, we know that we must not open any suspicious e-mail so as to avoid any virulent macros or scripts. But after reading the fascinating title "I love you", many people open the mail and get the virus.

Another example is the misuse of call center. Most companies have their own call centers and they're eager to do their best toward the callers, saying lots of information about their company including critical security issues. Suppose that someone starts with the question of why the connection slows down in spite of nothing happened. He may ask for more about the system, with no problem, and then finally he gets the OS, its version, server application, DB, etc.

These abusing cases are not always risky enough. But it may hurt others by spreading a rumor of the victim or by taking someone's secret in the middle. Even the data can be forged from the source: yourself.

Then what's the solution? Actually there's no complete solution. The only way is to be careful not to allow any fraudulent access into your place. (I feel sorry for offering such a trivial solution) It seems somewhat heartless but safety is more important.

Predictable damage can be derived by this: Cexp = ∑∑Ci(k)×P(k), where Ci(k) means the damage for threat k in i property and P(k) means the possibility threat k can occur. The reality has problems because we cannot get it with credible resource. Then for accuracy, I define some more conceptions. (Bold-style is used to avoid confusion among terms)

T is a set which contains N security technologies. That is, T = { tn | n = 1, 2, ..., N }
S is a set of flags which notify whether each tn is applied. S = {Xt1, Xt2, ..., Xtn}
Xtn = 0(if tn not applied) or 1(if applied)
A is a set of attacks. A = { a1, a2, ..., aM }
K(t, a) is the possibility that t, the security tech. defend against attack a.
W is a set of weight of each attack. W = { wa1, wa2, ..., wan }
Security measure matrix R by R = WK where K = [ K(1, A), K(2,A), ..., K(N,A) ]

We've got the basic concept about quantitative analysis in security management. And we need to adapt it into the reality. The main question is that, how to get K, the possibility of being damaged? Let Es be an affair of tn protecting successfully and Ea be of emerging attack a. Then K(t, a) = P(Es) = ∑P(Es|Ea)P(Ea). Each of value can be acquired from data.

Security measure matrix R is to take an objective conclusion whether importing each of security technology. If RIo, R before adaption, is bigger than RIs, the remaining risk after applying, then it'll shows you why the system needs the security technology.

It seems to be counterattack against Google as Chrome beat up the name of IE, of course it's not a sense to discuss whether one would effect to the other war because each collision has its own place to occur. Anyway, as a prevalent technology, search engines spread out from there to there. Amazing is that a glamour enterprise tries to launch new one so as to make a fight with another big enemy. Actually Bing has lots of weaknesses. Most of all, I felt that algorithm for ordering from search results does not act properly. I couldn't find what I want till the page turns to the next in some keywords.

Would Google do counteract against it? Well, if I were in that location, I would not care, though, because Bing has no differentiational point and does not stack enough data yet. (Bing is faster? No. Bing is smarter? Maybe no. It's just a rookie and attracts only one who want to experience something new) A little possibility is that internet is world wide and the expanding speed becomes so fast that new one may get its reputation easier. And we cannot ignore the power of the long-tail.

Anyway I'll enjoy competition of two giants.