iPhone

I’m slowly figuring out exactly how big of a deal the iPhone has been.

First quote (via)

Were Apple’s results stripped out, Barclays Capital estimates earnings growth at S&P 500 companies that have reported fourth-quarter results would be 2.9 per cent rather than 7 per cent.

Wow. Ok, well, Apple’s this awesome company with this gigantic array of awesome products, right?

Apple’s spectacular growth has been down to the iphone (and now, perhaps, the ipad). The rest of the business is about the same as it was. Amazing.

Tim Cook agrees:

The iPhone is creating a halo for the Macintosh. iPhone has also created a halo for iPad. You can definitely see the synergistic effect of these products, not only in developed markets, but also in emerging markets where Apple wasn’t resonant for most of its life.

Except that growth isn’t about halo effects. Growth is about the next iPhone. This is a product whose success is so incredible I’m not even sure that’s possible!

Whew

I ruminated on that Steve Jobs review for far longer than most blog posts. I desperately wanted to avoid contravening my New Years resolution to not be negative, but I honestly felt like I had to do it.

Anyway, Joel Spolsky (who is one of my online heroes and literally works in the building next to mine), makes me feel better today:

It is not, as it turns out, necessary to be a micromanaging psychopath with narcissistic personality disorder (or even to pretend to be one) if you just hire smart people and give them real authority. The saddest thing about the Steve Jobs hagiography is all the young “incubator twerps” strutting around Mountain View deliberately cultivating their worst personality traits because they imagine that’s what made Steve Jobs a design genius. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, young twerp. Maybe try wearing a black turtleneck too.

For every Steve Jobs, there are a thousand leaders who learned to hire smart people and let them build great things in a nurturing environment of empowerment and it was AWESOME. That doesn’t mean lowering your standards. It doesn’t mean letting people do bad work. It means hiring smart people who get things done—and then getting the hell out of the way.

Joel is much more in the *Clever* school of talent management and so am I.

And yet:

You’re A Cultist, Too. Review of *Steve Jobs* [and *Clever*]

Boxing fans, like everyone else on earth, consume drama. ‘Action Fighters‘ draw the crowds with danger while skilled fighters, ironically enough, weave reality TV plot lines and talk trash to stay relevant. Drama outside the ring is still drama.

Steve Jobs was a drama magnet. Not all of it was his fault, to be sure, be he was an unabashed, deliberate showman. There was always going to be a biography about Steve Jobs, he was a narcissistic egomaniac after all, and he would probably have written the thing himself if he had to. We care because he was a driven businessman, but cringe over his dark personality. BOTH qualities were necessary to his success.

Consider the best part of this book:

Jobs’ biological father, Abdulfattah “John” Jandali, was a restauranteur and once owned an Italian joint in San Jose:

“That was a wonderful place”, he (Abdulfattah) said. “All of the successful technology people used to come there. Even Steve Jobs.” [Mona, Steve’s biological ister] Simpson was stunned. “Oh, yeah, he used to come in, and he was a sweet guy, and a big tipper,” her father added. Mona was able to refrain from blurting out, STEVE JOBS IS YOUR SON!

Jobs was understandably astonished when she mentioned the restaurant near San Jose. He could recall being there and even meeting the man who was his biological father. “I remember meeting the owner. He was Syrian. Balding. We shook hands.”

I call BS. There’s no way Jobs remembers this more than a decade later, but even without a drop of desire to meet Jandali, he still found a way to stir the pot.

Steve Jobs was a difficult dude. I heard this before reading the book and was a bit skeptical. Can’t be that bad, right?

Well it was:

  • He continuously decomposed things into black and white. Something was either “insanely great” or “shit”.
  • When things were shit he personally insulted whomever presented him with the shit.
  • When things were “insanely great” he had a habit of convincing himself that it was his idea all along, robbing true creators of the credit.
  • He lied. A lot. He lied to himself, he lied to others. He lied about facts of history. He lied about facts of his life and others’. He cheated and he stole and he lied.
  • He was supremely self-centered as well as self-delusional. He almost certainly, as was suggested in the book, suffered from a mild case of narcissistic personality disorder.

Imagine working for a guy like that? Yet he inspired thousands of workaholic overachievers to give him (and so us) their most precious gift: their greatest work.

Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, the co-authors of *Clever*, are no doubt baffled. Theirs is a book about managing business superstars and its model leader doesn’t look much like Steve Jobs.

It’s actually closer to Will Wright, video game “auteur”, manager of teams and an employee of Electronic Arts. They describe him as indispensable, semi-autonomous, extremely productive and inspiring. Managing Clevers is meant to be a deferential process: they just need some infrastructure, a few other Clevers around and the peace to get on with it.

Being a rather typical business book, *Clever* is padded out with enough fluff to make a struggling high school student blush. But let’s see how Steve Jobs does against a list of the qualities that maximize the effectiveness of leading ‘Clevers’:

  • Explain and persuade (vs use authority)
  • Influence with expertise (vs hierarchy)
  • Amplify their achievements and don’t take any credit
  • Protect them from politics

Not doing so well. Steve was an autocrat who mistreated his people, except those who flattered his artistic conceit. ‘Artists’ were given special treatment.

  • Talk straight
  • Encourage failure
  • Give them time and don’t interfere
  • Don’t create bureaucracy
  • Tell them what (vs how)
  • Give people space and resources

Steve does better on this second list, though reading the tone of *Clever* I might have changed the the title to *Mothering*. And there was nothing motherly about Steve.

But Clevers are, above all, performance junkies and Steve inelegantly dismissed people’s perceived performance barriers. He did it by declaring their work crap when deep down they agreed. He didn’t need to belittle them, but those that stand in awe of the resulting outperformance forgive that.

*Clever* discusses this rush of achievement but then misses the most important leadership quality of all and THE one Steve was known for.

The ability to inspire.

But let’s step back first for some necessary biographical detail.

The world is flush with narcissistics with delusions of grandeur. This one was a man gifted with extraordinary circumstance. He was raised in Silicon Valley. He and Woz (a legitimate, world-class genius) were given the gift of each other’s friendship. He was catapulted into fame and fortune while witnessing what awesome ability and hard work can achieve. His very first work experiences were with A+ players. Who can say that? If you had that and lost it, wouldn’t you want to recreate it?

But he was a willful, obstinate and shockingly difficult human being. So he took that amazing training and screwed it all up; unfortunately, that’s the only way to learn.

And learn he did. He learned by emptying his bank account, pawing at success with NeXT and Pixar. But we don’t see the stumbles and heartache so we don’t learn with him.

Instead we focus on the design of the Pixar office and other vacuous minutiae like his personal life. He didn’t care about anyone then, so why should we care now? You can feel Steve’s guiding hand pausing on the Pixar supernova then pushing us to the third act and his spectacular successes (“Talk about the iPhone! Talk about the iPad!”). Well-trodden ground with lots of puff. But where are the disgruntled insiders with new scoops?

So I didn’t even finish the thing.

I came away from this book with an appreciation for the staggering power of inspirational charisma. A charitable comparison would be to a preacher that can heal with his words. A less charitable one would be to a cult leader or con man. They all share the gift of enthusiasm without affectation, which apparently very few people can resist. We’re all cultists at heart.

And there are all kinds of interesting facets to this gift that the book implicitly explores.

One comment that kept coming up was his ability to “figure out whether you know what you’re talking about”. Time for a little (more) Robin Hanson, who taught me that leadership makes you both better at lying and better at detecting lies.

Perhaps… the implicit elites in a band [are] better able to read such clues [signaling lying], either via better raw abilities or because power frees one to use such abilities (perhaps by reducing fear of retribution).

Leaders lie a lot because they can get away with it and call people out on lies because it isn’t socially costly for them to do so.

Another example: take Steve’s desire to ‘control all aspects of the user experience’. He indulged the most extreme form of this inclination at NeXT: they built operating systems, software, hardware, factories to build the hardware and programming languages to write the software. All the while we read of Steve’s compulsive need for everything to benefit from the touch of design. Much is made of his obsession over painting the assembly machines in factories in spite of the operating complications that result.

And we see yet another side to Steve when he forced into negotiations as a partner (or, gasp, supplicant) in a deal. He’s terrible at it: all hardball and temper tantrums. As we learned in the 2008 financial crisis, assholes can’t negotiate, even to save their own bacon. Was the purity of his ‘complete experience’ vision rooted in his inability to play with others?

And let’s face, the ‘go it alone’/walled garden strategy was a failure for personal computers. Bill Gates (who, by the way, is easily the most interesting and funny character in the book) was right: you win by getting everyone into your sandbox.

Luckily for Steve, he got over this with the Pixar/Disney deal and only selectively lengthened his supply chain in the the smartphone/tablet era, where integrated software and hardware is essential. Indeed, the Microsoft PC strategy is as big a failure for smartphones as the Apple strategy was for the personal computer.

I don’t think that anyone who reads this book would want to retroactively make themselves Steve Jobs’ friend. Such a relationship would be unpleasant. You’d alternately bask in the attention of his charismania and wither under his belittling rage. Mostly, however, you’d live out your life without a hint that he knew who you were. Indifference is painful. He wasn’t ‘friendly’.

But he brings new life to the common lessons of startup success: work hard, be relentlessly resourceful, be enthusiastic.

Sure there is a correlation between success and some unpleasant qualities, but I still hold the faith that good guys can win, too.

There’s An App For That

One of my favorite economists, Michael Mandel writes:

Last spring Technet asked me to examine the size of the ‘App Economy’, focusing on the number of jobs being created. The official job statistics from the BLS were no help, given the speed at which the App Economy was evolving. Instead, I developed an innovative methodology for using a ’21st century’ database, The Conference Board Help-Wanted OnLine, to track App Economy jobs.

From the pdf article:

App Economy now is responsible for roughly 466,000 jobs in the United States, up from zero in 2007 when the iPhone was introduced.

Back to the blog post:

  • Today, the App Economy is clearly a job leader. It managed to create jobs during the worst recession since the Great Depression, suggesting that the App Economy will be a major driver of  job growth during the coming expansion.
  • The App Economy cross-cuts industries, including  leading internet companies such as Google and Facebook, hardware/software developers such as Apple and Electronic Arts, smaller app developers,  and wireless providers such as AT&T.
  • State and local governments that want to participate in the coming expansion should think about encouraging App Economy jobs. The methodology I used enabled me to identify App Economy jobs by state and MSA. Much more could be done along these lines.
  • The federal government needs to adopt policies to encourage App Economy growth. More about this in my next post.

Those last two bullets annoy me.

“Study finds a ‘problem’ in an industry? Oh, well we have a policy recommendation for that.”

“What? Oh, sorry, you said NO problem in this industry. Well, we have an app for that, too.”

To an economist with a hammer…

Adventures in Gloomy Distraction

Seeking Alpha has a two-part piece on the Canadian Housing market. Here is the upshot:

1. Some US housing markets (note that is plural) had a big run-up in prices.
2. US consumers had a lot of debt.
3. There was a significant collapse in house prices.
4. 1 is cause by 2 which all caused 3.
5. 1 and 2 are true in Canada.
Therefore housing collapse in Canada. QED.

For pushback on comment #4, listen to Eugene Fama on Econtalk. Or read Scott Sumner.

I did and read that there was no housing bubble. I read that there was a big, huge recession precipitated by shoddy monetary policy. I’ve wondered, then, if there is such a thing as a bubble. And I’m starting to think there might not be.

If you life in North America it’s easy to overstate similarities between Canada and the US. What else is there, anyway? Europe? China? We’re nothing like them, we must be like each other.

What about Australia?

1. Big housing run-up? Check
2. Debt-fueled? Check
3. Resource-based economy? Check
4. Big recession in 2008?…

Um… ahem… big recession in 2008?

Wasn’t there a big recession in 2008 with a housing collapse and a debt-deflation spiral? Like we got in the US? Like we’re going to get in Canada?

Nope. Here’s Sumner:

Nor can people point to the US housing bubble; a speculative bubble also hit Australian housing. The difference is that their bubble never burst, prices are still higher than in 2006. It may burst someday, but if and when it does it will produce a recession only if the Reserve Bank of Australian lets NGDP growth fall significantly.

Here’s the conclusion of the SA piece:

Conclusion

It is clear that the Canadian housing market has undergone a debt-fueled asset price inflation (i.e.: a bubble) that has greatly outpaced inflation. It is equally clear that Canadian home prices have not yet begun their price reversion to the mean.

On average, I suspect that housing prices will correct by about 25-30% across Canada, with some of the extremely overvalued markets (i.e.: Vancouver) declining more like 40% or more.

If the Canadian housing market crash behaves like the USA one, expect most of the losses to occur in the first two years, and then slow down after that.

Canadian banks will suffer, and may need a bailout. They are over-leveraged and over-exposed to housing market debt. I will not be surprised to see a Canadian banking crisis emerge in the next few years, and government bailouts to go with them.

Investment Action: shorting Canadian banks such as CM, BNS, RY, and TD. Also, shorting some home construction companies or commodity companies may work.

This is a bet that the Canadian central bank will let NGDP expectations plummet like the fed did in the US. Without a monetary contraction housing crashes don’t happen.

And I’m even not saying it’s a BAD bet, actually, I’m just saying that this article’s analysis is completely irrelevant to whether its conclusion is correct.

Is the Bank of Canada more like the Reserve Bank of Australia or the Fed or something in between? That’s the analysis you want to undertake.

Fix The Future. Get Outta Your Bubble

From what I can tell, that’s about the upshot of Charles Murray’s book that’s set the blogosphere alight this past week.

I haven’t read the book and probably won’t with the likes of this and this and this review giving me the gist.

And the gist is that the ‘upper class’ are richer, better educated, more likely to go to church, more likely to stay married and more likely to raise kids that will themselves be even more educated, rich, churchgoing and married than themselves. Fine.

But there are two extra bits that Murray (and everyone else) is focusing on. First, the churchgoing part above is a clue to this cutting straight past the labels ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’. Second, and most importantly for Murray: these people are self-segregating.

Most of the commentary discusses the geography of this trend, which is apparently stark. The ‘elite’ don’t venture out of their bubble and so the non-‘elite’ don’t get to see what being ‘elite’ is all about. This is meant to ice their and their kids’ chances of moving up.

Therefore, says Murray, the elite have a duty to get themselves out there more.

My parents always worried about what kind of kids my sister and I hung out with. They figured our peers would influence our habits much more than they could.

Charles Murray agrees then turns to them and asks: “but who are YOU hanging out with?”

Full disclosure: Murray would probably say that you, dear reader, and I are both in this elite. As are our parents and everyone we know, basically.

Will China 2050 be European?

We see massive urbanization driving Chinese development.

Out of the country and into urban service industries. Sounds familiar. So let’s extrapolate.

This paper suggests China’s 2050 population will be roughly the same as it is today.

According to this, overall GDP will increase by between 2 and 2.5x by 2020. By 2050, we’re talking about a 20x increase. China has about 1.4bn people, which will roughly be the same as it was, so the GDP/person will go from something like 1.4b/3t = 4,500 to low teens in 2020 and 90k by 2050?

That means that in 2020 China will be something like Brazil and by 2050 a 1st world country? Sounds like a big jump.

Anyway, I’m thinking more of the rural vs urban divide in China. It’s a densely populated place, even in the rural areas and Ryan Avent taught me that rural and urban differences are deep and deeply political. Urban peoples’ political outlook is hugely shaped by the fact that they live on top of one another and favor more interventionist political systems to deal with all the conflicting interests that result.

The upshot here is that China will have a combination of population density, economic heft and sheer size more similar to today’s Europe than anything else. Will its politics follow suit?

Peddling Trifles

Here’s Suster and Wilson on “Mobile First”.

Wilson’s post is the original, but Mark Suster does a better job on the discussion. Here’s what makes Mobile (capital ‘M’) so interesting to a tech VC:

Mobile has many attributes that are critical:

  • The devices are individual, not shared
  • They are location aware, which is important in personalizing the service offering
  • They are more likely to be the “bottom end of the sales funnel” or in other words close to “point of purchase.” If I am looking at movies on my mobile phone there is a higher chance I’m out-and-about and ready to buy tickets. I have talked with people in the industry who tell me that mobile movie sites convert ticket sales much higher than desktop websites.
  • They are limited in size. In some senses this might seem like a disadvantage. BUT … I’ve talked to a number of eCommerce sites that also report much higher conversion rates than standard web. The hypothesis is that the limited real estate forces less choice and therefore less distraction. This increases conversions of items shown to you.
  • They are often one click away from buying. It’s not pleasant handing over 30% margin to Apple when you sell stuff through the App Store. But on the other hand if you have a product with a very high gross margin (software, virtual goods, etc.) then this is often more than made up by higher conversion rates versus asking somebody for a credit card.
  • They occupy a lot of people’s leisure time. Therefore if your app is geared toward leisure activities (games, communications with friends, etc.) then mobile is awesome.

There’s a trend there and it captures quite a lot of the exciting, consumer-driven advances today: make it easier to consume products while consuming leisure. Mobile works best when exploiting people’s incredibly high discount rates. If you can be there at exactly the moment impulse strikes you’ve got a sale.

Eventually, mobile will mean the everlasting checkout snack line.

But that means mobile only works for trivial products and momentary experiences. Nobody is going to make any kind of big purchase on a whim like that.

And as a result, aside from map tools, I find the whole thing really uninteresting.

Some Links

First, some whining about Siri. I take pleasure in being a Siri contrarian for some reason.

Next Scott Sumner links us to a paper on the old school banking systems of the late 19th century. Also here.

Never forget that the downside of switching to a banking system in which moral hazard isn’t insured by the government (a noble aim, surely) is one which costs a LOT more for customers. Say goodbye to free checking, for example.

It’s not just reckless ibank risk managers who have gotten something for nothing. You have, too.