You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Thought Leadership’ tag.

The fact is most opportunities are not corollary to the obvious.

Ten years will come-and-go quickly. It already has, and it will do so, again. And, along the way, Apple’s stock could well hit one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). You can take my word for it. But, here is additional insight.

As Galvin makes his case, Apple’s revenues may triple in the next ten years. So, the stock could indeed hit $1000. But, the real play is not so obvious, and will likely be in the form of fiber optics – because that is what is needed to pipe the content. But, Data Centers will have their role as well. And, dudes like Bob Twitchell (big smarty pants genius that he is) will help lead the way with emerging technology that makes relative technology faster, more secure, and less costly.

Reactionary investment strategy like reading news briefs off MSN and Yahoo! will kill you. Whereas proactive research will build wealth. So… read between the lines from cross-referenced information. Think in terms of convergence. For example, “Apple”, “Video Anywhere”, “Fiber Optics”, “Data Centers”, and “Venture Capital”.

Follow the money BEFORE the thundering herds sort it out.

It’s about foundational thinking and strategy – relative technologies that make for great strategic partnerships. One element of the formula building off of another.

Now you owe me.

Soon… More insight into being a physical bad-ass at fifty, and great Margarita tips.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

I don’t know, yet (anyway), if my recent post: prayer and change (everyone is talking about. I’m flattered, just skeptical unsure as to why) upset or inspired Butch (“RW”) Nicholson. But, it certainly initiated, or possibly provoked the following point and question:

“Many people pretend to be Christains? Really? People believe what they believe, including you. I am interested in what you have to say. I am not interested in what you think others pretend to be. I would submit we all pretend most of the time. What do you pretend?”

I’m now pondering precisely why, but the question made me recall another of my posts: drink heartily from the cornucopia of fear.

This is an exercise in assigning words that might read pretty to a feeling that is ugly. To recognize what we don’t like, so that it can be replaced with what we want or dare hope for.

And, also, the widely read and certainly debated: Christian Ambiguity.

There is nothing worse than a Christian on the defensive. They become less tolerant and more judgmental when they get insecure.

And, somehow, from the dark reaches of my own mind, there emerged a response to Butch’s query:

“well… there is always the implied contention that the demonstrable inadequacy of any argument from analogy for the existence of other minds is sufficient to reject introspection as a method of determining one’s own mental state(s). there is always the position in the repudiation of an argument from analogy, but disagrees with knowledge of one’s own mental state(s) does not require introspection

so… relative to my blog post, I simply don’t pretend to have an answer like – for example – people with fish (symbols) on their cars. I only believe (in the context of this rapartee)  that prayer can help anyone answer most questions as it aligns mind, body and spirit with most circumstances.”

I strive, and daily, to live the authentic life. I may fear hypocrisy, but I pretend little (other than, perhaps the pretense of no fear, itself).

This is a line-of-thinking that may have no end. But, you can’t lose for the attempt and effort – although there may well be no clear win. That is, until you fade to black, or see the light, in a manner of speaking.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

The moment was an eye-opener, to be sure, when I realized I was one of  “they”.

“They” (possibly, also known as “others”) say that your income is the average of the five people that you spend the most time with (outside of your family).

This helps make my Grandad’s point when he often said: “If you must judge a man, do it by those around him”.

The thinking around this post is not driven by statistics. And, this is some what unusual for me. I’ll typically make my point with hard data to support them – all of them.

However, here, I’m making a statement that I believe is true. This belief is driven by instinct. And, I trust my instincts. I will be investigating my theory. But, in the meantime, your own gut will follow my position.

Don’t bother attempting to defy or debate me. I’ve reached a higher plane.

This may not make you part of the solution. But, it’s a start. A big part of our job should be making money. It’s okay to do that. Really. I’ll write you a note.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

It’s been a rather long, tumultuous, and educational experiential journey refamiliarizing myself with the PC (as opposed to Apples), Windows – by way of the Android Operating System – and technology in the form of upheaval; the kind that requires and creates change. “Experiential” is an interesting word for the purposes of this post. The word derives it’s meaning from a learning process at the feet of old philosophers, yet it’s also apropos to a dedicated process of learning something new by, essentially, immersion. And, here we are…

Along the way, I find myself constantly reminded that we’ve become terribly reliant upon the internet for information with it being the uncertain arbiter of truth.

So… It’s become my view that the Internet, or any technology can not, will not, and should not act as a proxy to achieve the dreams and social goals we lack the courage to propose, debate, and legislate.

Thusly, I stand firm the Jeffersonian and Heterodox.

And, not often enough, we’ve discussed what being Jeffersonian means, on this Blog. However, today I’ll add some thought around what it does not mean. There will most certainly be the shaking of fists – and, furiously, that. Possibly the gnashing of teeth. Heated words, to be sure. The portent of change, inevitable.

NOTE: Don’t be overly concerned if you are reading this and come to a bound conclusion that you’ve waded, possibly unsuspecting, into my thinking mid-stream. We must all begin somewhere, and it’s how we finish, and that likely, counts for the most.

In any event, I’ll offer this abstract to maneuver you along:

It is often claimed that Internet technology will revolutionize society by privileging the small and benefiting the individual. We term the utopian tendency to hail a new communication technology as an inherently positive, decentralizing, and democratic force. In a manner of speaking this might be referred to as an example of the: “the Jeffersonian syndrome (named in honor of my hero so often appropriated to identify the decentralized, democratic outcome – the predicted triumph of the many over the few).”

It’s not just me, mind you. Others started it…

“Life in cyberspace seems to be shaping up exactly like Thomas Jefferson would have wanted: founded on the primacy of individual liberty and a commitment to pluralism, diversity, and community” (Kapor, 1993).

And,

“…the social liberalism of New Left and the economic liberalism of New Right have converged into an ambiguous dream of a hi-tech ‘Jeffersonian democracy’. Interpreted generously, this retro-futurism could be a vision of a cybernetic frontier where hi-tech artisans discover their individual self-fulfillment in either the electronic agora or the electronic marketplace” (Barbrook & Cameron, 1998).

Huh? “agora”?

Social critics dislike paucity. For example, society (that collective you), they (the social critics) complain, suffers when there are too few firms in a market, too few political choices, or too little communication. Small numbers of firms coordinate actions to stifle entry and innovation, largely at the expense of consumers. Concentration at the most extreme results in rapacious monopolies that produce inferior products at high prices. Likewise, a small number of political parties limit voter choice, stifle policy change, and produce voter apathy and special interest politics. Society would clearly be better served, so the critics argue, by greater political choice and the accompanying increased voter participation. Too little communication is also bad for society, as limited communication precludes understanding, diversity, and community.

Weep not for the minority, although, it is that collective “they” that hold most of the power, and the wealth, under many definitions, that is part of it.

Social critics often place their hopes in technology to erode the dominance of the few and foster diversity. Many view the internet as a liberating technology. Indeed, they embrace the internet as subversive, a technology that will pry power away from the few – tyrants, censors, robber barons and phone monopolies (let’s not forget Obama, Obamacrats, and that insidious media) and return it to the people. The internet, so the critics claim, will usher in a new era of perfect market competition, more direct democracy, and greater community-building (cf. Dyson, 1997). Ultimately, it will undermine the dominant few in many segments of society, and usher in a more democratic and heterogeneous political and economic system.  A system that will produce infinite consumer choice in the marketplace, deliver true democracy in the political realm, and provide unlimited and enhanced communication in the cultural realm.

This view leads to fallacious expectations about the impact of technology. And, these misguided expectations are cyclic and predictable. Corollary to this might be  a brief historical discussion of earlier communication technologies. Jeffersonian claims about the Internet are rebutted by the three propositions:

1.  New technologies do not operate in isolation from existing organizations and systems;

2.  Valuable information is never cheap; and,

3.  The economics of information markets imply concentrated structures.

And, so… The Internets non-Jeffersonian impact on economic, political, and community structures is discussed using three cases:

1.  The online market for books;

2.  The claims made about direct democracy; and,

3.  And, political parties, and the hopes for computer- mediated communities.

It’s not that I wish to promote an opposite, dystopian perspective, nor do I consider the Internet impotent in terms of societal change.

Instead, I wish to call attention to the Jeffersonian-esque view of technology as a very predictable mis-perception that is a waste of our energies.

First, as a society we must, in reasoned deliberation, conclude that we are in need of one or more of the goals we have discussed here; be it less concentrated markets, greater economic efficiency, more direct democracy, a more decentralized political system, or more participatory and emancipatory communities.

Second, after a rational analysis of our goal and the changes needed in the social, political, and economic domains to approach it (addressing also the question of if and how “the” internet has the potential to aid us in these ends).

Third, and perhaps finally, we need to advance that goal through policy.

The hype surrounding technology is also predictably old: the introduction of the PC ushered in the “PC revolution” quite simply because many analysts expected the technology to usher in just that – a revolution (a revolution of what and how the revolution was to happen was never quite specified). The hype and bluster of the internet and in particular electronic markets is thus just yet another round of new technologies and anticipated revolutions.

Think in terms of what the catapult meant to war nine hundred years ago.

These technologies have had, and may yet have, a broad range of important and far-reaching implications. The question on the table is whether these technologies will deliver on the promised Jeffersonian expectations of decentralization and democratization, or whether this revolution will yet again fail to materialize. As I’ll struggle, here, in my own inarticulate manner, to have made clear, the weight of history leads us to doubt, the present conditions in electronic commerce lead us to doubt, the claims made about direct democracy lead us to doubt, and the idolatry of the computer-mediated community lead us to doubt.

This makes me perhaps not fearful, but certainly watchful of the idyllic, sophomoric generation that sees computers and the internet as the “easy button”.

While this post has approached these domains largely using an economic perspective, I’ll grimly suspect that judicious analysis from other perspectives would also cast the Jeffersonian expectation in an unflattering light. But, stay focused on me. But, as my own Mother expounded: Question everything, and accept nothing until the truth of the day is best known.

Where the drive of the heterodox crosses paths with the passion and intellectual nuance of the Jeffersonian, you’ll find that truth in the light of the seeking heart.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

So… Today’s words might be “box” and “paradigm”.

Most of you know what a box is. And, others think they understand the concept of paradigm. However, just to nudge things along here is a definition:

par·a·digm  (pr-dm, -dm)

n. 

1. One that serves as a pattern or model.

2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.

3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

…what’s that? who’s insufferable?

In any event, I was involved in a multi-voiced electronic conversation (Cisco has some real bad-ass communication technology) late yesterday morning – to accommodate the West Coast, when, while commenting on my photo on my business website,  AG said: “Cork appears to be crouching in a box”. And, in response, SJ quickly retorted: “No box could possibly hold Brian Cork”.

I reasonably certain more was said, especially with those two. But, I lost track of it all as that box comment sent my thinking down an entirely different path.

I’ve never subscribed to the idea of: “thinking outside the box”. Being the contrarian and Heterodox that I am, I would often say things like: “box?”, “what box”. But, looking back, I feel that was all rather sophomoric, now.

But, circling back to what you know, and what you think you know, I believe I do know that most information, money and power are in the hands of a minority. And, I don’t believe “they” think  or see outside of any box. Instead, what if we took the position that being in a box, and possibly an VERY LARGE CLEAR box gave a select few a 360 degree view of everything and everyone?

Stand back, you. Say’s, I.

I’m calling this the Big Box Theory.

The less inspired amongst you might be thinking: “yeah… but, that means everyone can see you and there is a loss of advantage”. However, the masses can’t read my heart. They’ll only realize my actions. Much of it what I choose, and want them to see.

The media is very much like this.

My box is bigger every day. And, its clear – as in transparent. But, as it spins both fast and slow, as I decide, I can view, gaze upon, consider and ponder everything around me and choose my own course and path. The collective outside is left to gaze in and wonder as that shiny object catches their attention.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

I’m keenly aware of the fact that many of you are never certain what you’re going to get when you access my blog. You’re numbers continue to grow, so I am reasonably certain you should be rewarded with some insider-like information that will help you make all manner of informed decisions, today to be sure.

As a preamble I’ll begin with:

The word is already spreading… Altough I remain a hearty and ferocious Apple evangelist, I recently picked-up an HP all-in-one touchscreen PC. Although I’m freely going to admit that Windows 7 is more “mac-like” than ever; but, still sucks in comparison, I’ll be running LINUX on it (Ubuntu, to be precise).  But, a key element, to all of this, is that Google’s unique Operating System, Android, is a very lean LINUX (UNIX actually), open-source architecture. Ironically, that finds it following Apple, again – but also explains, in part, the early and productive alliance between Apple (whom leads the way) and Google that acquires the way. Just to be clear, the Apple OS, found on all their hardware, is UNIX-based. So, something big is on the horizon. I’m aware of it. And, I’m going to be ready.

Meanwhile…

He never quite grasped my intentions, but when I bought Nicholas Johnson a NexusOne (aptly named “the Google Phone”) during his short stint with us it was because we, my own collective “we”, had determined that Google was going after Microsoft. Although I have direct access to decision-makers there, discretion is called for, and, I needed to learn about, and observe, all things Google from an outsiders perspective.

I was looking for less passion and more insightful research from Nicholas. In fact, I recently emailed him the following: “Don’t rush in. Wait to champion something until you have more facts than passion. If I’ve tried to teach you anything, that would be it’s foundation.”

Mind you, I have a lot of high expectations for Nicholas, and remain quite hopeful. He is earnest and deserving of a break. I had a few of my own at the hands of better men than myself, to be sure.

Then, as we warm to our primary topic, I’ll offer a quick side note; and, this based upon additional generational perspective:

Google likely seems a, if not, the, company to bet on. But, likely, more so for reasons unfathomable by most people. I’ll point out that many people under forty have a skewed view of Google. They think Google represents “money”, “affluence”, “promise”, “power through influence”, and “innovation” – all a chest thumping demonstration of youth and promise. But, although working at Google is generally believed to be cool, most people that show up there do so at far below tech-industry wage. And, the stock will create little wealth now for employees. So…why slavery is cool I can’t comprehend myself. But, I bought stock Google early. So, they all “work” for me and my own “devices”, anyway. And, that is less so a side note, and an important point, I’ll make as we proceed.

In any event, here comes the good stuff (I’ll suggest you use a highlighter):

Oddly, people aren’t talking enough about the quiet-yet-epic battle being waged between Google and Microsoft. You should know that I believe Apple is creating “white noise” to distract everyone with its unimportant riff with Adobe to discreetly help Google. Consider this… Stop and think about Microsoft’s recent discussions around the acquisition of Adobe as the pieces come together for you, here.

You should expect that the insidious “they” are monitoring this escalating activity because it portends both the downfall of Microsoft, and a terrific short (stock) opportunity for the bold and fearless. As Monday ebbed, shares of Microsoft gained 3 cents to $24.60 on the clearly unspectacular news that it’s Windows 7 Operating System was launching with a series of handsets through AT&T. This is just a reminder that I’ve recently dumped my iPhone because AT&T’s infrastructure is so over loaded that services has become horrific. I’m now thoroughly enjoying my HTC EVO 4G phone through Sprint, thank you. And, the Microsoft handsets look like the Zune for crying-out-loud. So, this piece of news is oh so apropos to this post.

For Microsoft, the new devices represent one step in an uphill struggle. In the most recent quarter, the company’s existing cell phone software accounted for just five percent (5%) of the worldwide (for all you Androids chest-thumping over North American exposure) smart phone market. That compares with forty one percent (41%) for Nokia’s Symbian system, eighteen percent (18%) for Research in Motion’s BlackBerry phones, seventeen percent (17%) for Android, and 14 fourteen percent (14%) for the iPhone.

On another side note… My investors made a fortune buying and owning Microsoft stock through the 90’s. That’s a whole ‘nother story. And, it’s a good one. But, for the purpose of this blog post, suffice it to say, that I hated (I understand that is strong language – especially from an earthly father that teaches his own children to hate nothing) Microsoft for Gates’ stealing Jobs’ (Apple) operating system for Windows. But, I also understood that I could use that effort for my own agenda. So, I did. And, with grim satisfaction because Microsoft is evil. Possibly as evil as Obama. But, that later, and in other posts.

You probably aren’t aware of it but Google has been slowly, but surely, displacing Microsoft as the number PC technology company (Apple, if you care about innovation and shareholder value – and, as an Apple shareholder, I do, is the number one overall technology company). They’ve  done it by clever misdirection. I’ll submit that Google is very similar to Microsoft in that it actually develops very little from scratch. So, “innovation” is not a word I’ll assign to Google. They acquire great technology in the form of applications and tools and then arguably make them better and give them life (Google more so than Microsoft ever did). That is how Microsoft (and numerous HUGE companies that reward shareholders) grew. In fact, that’s exactly what Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, did when he spotted and then acquired what is now the foundation of the Android Operating System back in 2005 (very few of you actually knew that). Larry is president of products at Google and is very good at spotting and acquiring great little companies (his co-founder Sergey Brin is the real technology guy, and something of a magician when it comes to inspiring others around him to integrate, well, a lot of things). Thusly, Andy Rubin, the uber-geek that actually invented Android now works for Google as the head of that project. So… Instead of taking Microsoft head-on in desktops, Google first consolidated their hold on Web search, and only then started moving into Web-based desktop applications (i.e. Google Docs, etc). Then, in 2008, they made their first direct strike at the desktop with the release of their own Web browser: Google Chrome. Along the way they actually emulated Apple and discouraged the Android development community from straying from the Mobile Internet Devices (MID) platform. I’ll pause here and point out that MID is Intel’s name for for mobile devices – that include the Asus netbook. It took some digging. But, we’ve sorted out that Android has two product policies in its code (again, rather Apple-like, eh). Product policies are operating system directions aimed at specific uses. The two policies are for phones and MID’s. The same, but different.

But, now, that’s changing – and, fast. In fact, Android is already a desktop operating system.

Android is, after all, a Linux operating system and it’s always been easy to move Linux from one platform to another.

In other words, Google, not just some technically adept users, is likely thinking about using Android as a desktop operating system. And, this could very well unhinge Microsoft. I don’t see Google making its desktop move very quickly though. Although thanks to Android’s already existing hardware partners in the Open Handset Alliance, Android-powered netbooks could arrive as early as spring this year. But, people might prefer a tablet, similar to the iPad. That strikes me as a more likely future. Apple continues to lead the way. And, thusly, Google will continue to prove them right. But, there are always people like me that want a huge screen in their office. So, an Android desktop is a certainty – if only because I want one.

And… It’s sitting in my office now.

There will be challenges, and as you know, I’m a pioneer for those.

Now, here is some boring information for you to ponder as we come to my ultimate point for all of this:

The primary complication (and, part of my keen interest as an investor) is the ecosystem. One important part of the ecosystem would be to have a set of well-functioning applications (an office productivity suite, for example). Google is mostly leaving applications development for Android to third parties (applications which run in the browser like Google Docs being the notable exception). Open Office is something to ponder, now. Oddly, we don’t see enough of these third parties developing applications for Android netbooks in the next twelve months. But, therein lies just one of the opportunities.

From a decided authority:

“While it is true that Android’s applications are written in the JVM (Java Virtual Machine, Dalvik, instead of Linux developers’ eternal favorites, Gnu C or C++, Android already includes a set of C/C++ libraries. So, porting GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) shouldn’t be that difficult. After that’s done, bringing over OpenOffice 3.0 or the like would be trivial.

But, why bother? Google already has a host of Web-based applications that run great on Chrome.

“Compilation” is a process which needed for a machine such as a PC to be able to use an operating system and understand code. G2 developers (out of the United Kingdom) compiled Android for a regular Intel CPU (which is what the Asus netbook runs on). The G1 phone, the first commercial mobile phone that Android ran on, however used a different processor – the ARM CPU.

Taking that work as credible, I’m going to assume that compilation wouldn’t take that much time.

I envisioned Nicholas up to his elbows in this.

In any event…

Android’s Linux core makes experimental compilations possible. For example, compilations require “drivers”. Drivers are programs which are needed to communicate an operating system like Android with various computer hardware. There are already a lot of Linux drivers, and Linux is able to run on a lot of different computer architectures. As I hinted to above, we are close to having my HP Touchscreen running Linux. Otherwise we’d have needed to build our drivers from scratch.

Based on the progress we see in the Android open source project, we believe that getting an Android desktop to market is feasible under three months. And, the manufacturer will likely be Chinese, and out of Shenzen. Of course, the timing depends as much on decisions by the partners in Google’s OHA alliance and other developers contributing to Android, as it does on Google itself. It is these partners, including device makers and carriers, who decide how and when to adopt Android for different devices and markets. But, that adoption is exploding!

Apparently, mass production of the desktop, tablet or netbook would be possible under nine months. Do it! However, as we evaluate the progress of the various OHA projects, we expect conditions for a mass-market to ripen in 2011, rather than in 2010 (especially with what’s looming on the commercial real estate horizon – more about that in two weeks). Right now a variety a of OHA members, both announced and, perhaps more importantly, unannounced (“we” sometimes refer to them affectionately as “they” of a kind), are working on “special projects” to set up a sufficient ecosystem.

If you couldn’t follow all, or enough, of this. Or, just want the life-changing elements – try and grasp this:

I’ll (and, legion will help me) make sure Apple sets the standard as a quality benchmark that Google will continue to value up. As a shareholder focused on wealth building that makes perfect sense. Then, I’ll leverage that to fund and enable my ultimate mission of vengeance against Microsoft. I own all three stocks, and using the first two to unhinge the third is going to be a nice, long, smooth and deeply gratifying process. This is, after all, an epic story based on good vs. evil (the promise being no evil shall be realized, eh). And, its been a blast to be in the midst of all of it, with the promise of so many more adventures to follow.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

I can’t say whether this line-of-thinking originated with an army in general, the army, or Chief Master Sergeant Drew, in particular… However, it’s certainly apropos wherever, or however, you might be engaged.

In fact, I just may have thought of it myself:

“If it’s not working, either change the rules, or change the circumstances”.

Some call this thinking (interestingly, another word for thinking is “contemplating”, but that won’t work, here) part of situational awareness.

God gave us all varying degrees of discernment. We might as well use it. Some just better than others.

By the way… Do any of you spend time thinking about alternate words, and how they can be applied in a manner that demonstrates both the richness of our English language, and creative resourcefulness? It’s okay if you don’t. But, it’s vitally important that you understand that I do such things.

Peace be to my Brothers and Sisters.

Brian Patrick Cork

what’s all this about?

I can’t explain what that damn tree means - or, if it might stand for something.

However, here I do discuss events, people and things in our world - and, my (hardly simplistic, albeit inarticulate) views around them.

So, while I harangue the public in my not so gentle way, you will discover that I am fascinated by all things arcane, curious about those whom appear religious, love music, dabble in politics, loathe the media, value education, still think I am an athlete, and might offer a recipe.

All the while, striving mightily, and daily, to remain a prudent and optimistic gentleman.

brian cork by John Campbell

Current Quote

"Perhaps victory can be realized best when the heart changes."

Share This Blog! Do It!

Bookmark and Share

Follow brian on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 111 other followers

Archives

Categories

blog calendar?

April 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Top Clicks

  • None

LinkedIN



View Brian Cork's profile on LinkedIn

about this particular Theme:

I'll warn you now that Tarski is theme of this blog created by Benedict Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson. It is named for the logician Alfred Tarski. I'll recommend his papers ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages’ and ‘On the Concept of Logical Consequence’, both of which can be found in the collection Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics.