I am using this very interesting app on Blackberry called Whatsapp. It is an instant messenger which does not require you to sign in. It just works based on your cell number (quite a smart idea in the first place). Me and my friends have formed a chat group on the service and have been using it for sending inane messages about nothing in particular. You can use it to broadcast your text, pictures, sound files etc to your friend group. I have already made 3 groups on this phone. And while using it today, I had a minor epiphany of sorts. I realized that I could use this little app to substitute Facebook. I have the facebook app on my phone too but it is very bulky and does not have an instant messenger like functionality. The chat interface is available on the laptop and not on the browser. But using whatsapp, I can chat with a select community of my friends, share files and all - and all this in an instant. For the stuff about me which I do not wish to broadcast or archive- whatsapp is actually quite better than facebook. Maybe facebook will do well to come up with a chat application
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Forbes India And Outlook Business
Have recently started reading Forbes India. I think it is a very nice magazine. I love to read businessweek but always wanted a magazine that covered Indian business with as much depth and perspective. I think Forbes India and Outlook Business have begun to get there. Businessworld - while much more cheaper is honestly quite trashy.. Forbes is good but at a 100 bucks is very expensive. Guess will have to be happy with reading the online version for the time being :)
Taryanche Bet...
The title of this blog is also the title of a lovely Marathi movie I saw today. The title is loosely transalated as 'Island of stars'. The movie is a sinple story of a family in Dapoli - a village about a boat ride away from Mumbai. The story has Sachin Khedekar in a lead role. The stoy is simple - While on a visit to Mumbai, Sachins son (Onkar) comes upon a 5 star hotel. He insists on going inside - but is stopped from doing so by his father, who knows that they will not be allowed to set foot inside that palace for the rich. The boy insists and Sachin strikes a deal - they can stay at the hotel provided Onkar comes first in his school in the exams. Onkar takes this to his heart - puts in some serious efforts and actually tops his class. That is when the movie gets interesting.
The movie is very well made. It is extremely realistic and has fab performances by the entire cast - including the ones with 2 bit roles. I generally find most Marathi movies to be loud and full of slapstick humor but this one was refreshingly different. I think movies like Valu, Natarang, Achanak and Taryanche Bet are sure signs that something wonderful is afoot in the world of Marathi cinema - let us hope that we continue to see more such movies being made.
But I digress - Let us come back to the movie. The movie beautifully captures the struggle of the father to keep his side of the bargain. He knows he will never be able to afford the 22000/- required to put his family of four through one night at the hotel. The frustration at being unable to make his kids dream come true makes him compromise his principles. His moral code is strong enough to withstand his own and his wife's earthly desires but crumbles when faced with those of his children. But the movie has a positive message. He does revert back to the path of the straight and the correct - with the support of Onkar.
At no point did the movie feel false or the screenplay seem hackneyed. It was a thinking man's movie that raises important questions- How much money is enough? What can and cannot be compromised? How many things which we take for granted in our lives would really be extra-ordinary expiriences for those below us on the income ladder? And why do those things within our grasp give us so little pleasure?
I think the upwardly mobile (myself included) are beginning to develop rapacious tendencies for all things all the time. There is something very rotten with the way we run our society. All resources are to be diverted to those who can afford them. Money is the ultimate means and also the justification for consumption. This is a very serious problem in a society like ours - one with serious income inequalities. I dont want to rant on about this as enough has been written about it - but I would like to give an illustration of the problem we have. Suppose there is a village in which everyone has almost the same income and wealth. The main commodity of consumption in the village is Oranges which can be consumed in any quanity by each person in one day - and is consumed purely for pleasure. Now since everyone has the same income , everyone will have the same capacity to buy these oranges - say 1 a day. Now suppose, some people develop a slightly higher income. These people will then be able to buy 2 oranges every day. They are therefore pulling in more oranges towards themselves and depriving the others (whose incomes have not grown) of Oranges. Now if the income of these already slightly high income folk increases further, they will consume more and more till they alone can finish of all the oranges and there is nothing left fot the others. So what happened is that although the utility of the orange did not increase but because they could - the rich bought more and the poor were deprived of these oranges. THis is happening in the real world for everything from apartments to Alphonso mangoes. The rich are to take while the poor to sell. It is ok to take as long as you can afford it. Wonder how long this system will last till the poor say 'Damn with the money - let us use the number power instead!'
The movie is very well made. It is extremely realistic and has fab performances by the entire cast - including the ones with 2 bit roles. I generally find most Marathi movies to be loud and full of slapstick humor but this one was refreshingly different. I think movies like Valu, Natarang, Achanak and Taryanche Bet are sure signs that something wonderful is afoot in the world of Marathi cinema - let us hope that we continue to see more such movies being made.
But I digress - Let us come back to the movie. The movie beautifully captures the struggle of the father to keep his side of the bargain. He knows he will never be able to afford the 22000/- required to put his family of four through one night at the hotel. The frustration at being unable to make his kids dream come true makes him compromise his principles. His moral code is strong enough to withstand his own and his wife's earthly desires but crumbles when faced with those of his children. But the movie has a positive message. He does revert back to the path of the straight and the correct - with the support of Onkar.
At no point did the movie feel false or the screenplay seem hackneyed. It was a thinking man's movie that raises important questions- How much money is enough? What can and cannot be compromised? How many things which we take for granted in our lives would really be extra-ordinary expiriences for those below us on the income ladder? And why do those things within our grasp give us so little pleasure?
I think the upwardly mobile (myself included) are beginning to develop rapacious tendencies for all things all the time. There is something very rotten with the way we run our society. All resources are to be diverted to those who can afford them. Money is the ultimate means and also the justification for consumption. This is a very serious problem in a society like ours - one with serious income inequalities. I dont want to rant on about this as enough has been written about it - but I would like to give an illustration of the problem we have. Suppose there is a village in which everyone has almost the same income and wealth. The main commodity of consumption in the village is Oranges which can be consumed in any quanity by each person in one day - and is consumed purely for pleasure. Now since everyone has the same income , everyone will have the same capacity to buy these oranges - say 1 a day. Now suppose, some people develop a slightly higher income. These people will then be able to buy 2 oranges every day. They are therefore pulling in more oranges towards themselves and depriving the others (whose incomes have not grown) of Oranges. Now if the income of these already slightly high income folk increases further, they will consume more and more till they alone can finish of all the oranges and there is nothing left fot the others. So what happened is that although the utility of the orange did not increase but because they could - the rich bought more and the poor were deprived of these oranges. THis is happening in the real world for everything from apartments to Alphonso mangoes. The rich are to take while the poor to sell. It is ok to take as long as you can afford it. Wonder how long this system will last till the poor say 'Damn with the money - let us use the number power instead!'
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
A subscription service for diapers...?
Was thinking.. is it a good idea to start a subscription service for Diapers.. You know like a brand say Huggies could start an offer by which every week a set amount of Diapers will be delivered to the homes of subscribers.. What I am told is Diapers are a big expense.. and if the diaper people can give up some of their margins, they may be able to lock in assured demand from customers. The customers on their part will get a regular supply.. from what I know babies are slow at being potty trained. Chalo.. Am done for the day.. off to sleep! G'nite!
Psst... Kelloggs. Want a new market?
I have a suggestion for Kelloggs.. the breakfast cereal brand. I am doing this out of goodwill, cause I do like their products although I find them a bit on the expensive side. But they are tasty and nutritious and I see Kelloggs roosting in my house for some time to come...
The Kelloggs ads show that they are focussed on 2 main markets 1. Womens nutrition and the kids nutrition markets. But there is one promising market which I think they are missing out on. It is the young working adults market. This is the market consisting of young men and women who have just entered the workforce. Many of them stay away from home and are not yet married. They stay with other friends and no one in this setup is interested in cooking breakfast. Of course breakfast is not a optional meal (like evening snacks) - so they will end up either having breakfast cooked by the maid or will eat out. I feel this TG will take to Kelloggs offering easily if it is presented correctly to them. I think so for the following reasons:
1. This age group is very concerned about the way they look - and corn flakes/oats/ wheat flakes offer a high energy non fatenning alternative to gorging on parathas, idlis or vada pavs at the neighborhood snack counter
2. It is actually cheaper to have a bowl of cornflakes and milk every day than have your breakfast (even at the local udipi joint). Dont trust me, just do the math and see for yourself
3. Many of these TGs tend to buy and consume in bulk. So when one friend in a flat brings this home, the others will devour it (virtually at any time - including at 1 AM at night). This would drive faster consumption.
The only thing Kelloggs needs to do is convince them that this is the 'Kewl' thing to do... Just show a young succesful fellow eating a bowl of conrflakes and then get hit on by voluptious females.. the job is done! (Dont guys ever want anything else... obviously not, what am I thinking!! ;) )
Kelloggs - if you are reading this - i need my royalty (or at the very least a very lucrative job offer :P)
- Gg
The Kelloggs ads show that they are focussed on 2 main markets 1. Womens nutrition and the kids nutrition markets. But there is one promising market which I think they are missing out on. It is the young working adults market. This is the market consisting of young men and women who have just entered the workforce. Many of them stay away from home and are not yet married. They stay with other friends and no one in this setup is interested in cooking breakfast. Of course breakfast is not a optional meal (like evening snacks) - so they will end up either having breakfast cooked by the maid or will eat out. I feel this TG will take to Kelloggs offering easily if it is presented correctly to them. I think so for the following reasons:
1. This age group is very concerned about the way they look - and corn flakes/oats/ wheat flakes offer a high energy non fatenning alternative to gorging on parathas, idlis or vada pavs at the neighborhood snack counter
2. It is actually cheaper to have a bowl of cornflakes and milk every day than have your breakfast (even at the local udipi joint). Dont trust me, just do the math and see for yourself
3. Many of these TGs tend to buy and consume in bulk. So when one friend in a flat brings this home, the others will devour it (virtually at any time - including at 1 AM at night). This would drive faster consumption.
The only thing Kelloggs needs to do is convince them that this is the 'Kewl' thing to do... Just show a young succesful fellow eating a bowl of conrflakes and then get hit on by voluptious females.. the job is done! (Dont guys ever want anything else... obviously not, what am I thinking!! ;) )
Kelloggs - if you are reading this - i need my royalty (or at the very least a very lucrative job offer :P)
- Gg
Sunday, October 30, 2011
On Reality...
I was reading this wonderful book called 'Phantoms in the Brain' written by a neurologist. Although no one in their right mind will call it a light read, it did manage to hold my interest till I finished the book - and considering the nature of the topic I would think the writer has done quite a commendable job indeed. The book gives a very interesting perspective on the inner workings of our brains. It deals with such heavy concepts as what is reality? What is the nature of the self? Where do our thoughts come from etc etc
The single biggest takeaway i had from the book was how fragile is the concept which we call 'reality'. To most of us, reality is something so obvious. It is just the way things are.. and everyone else who doesn't see how these things are has no business being around - he/she is just wasting precious Oxygen. We actually have words like 'crazy', 'mad' for people who do not share our understanding of the world. But as the book shows all it takes is a few circuits in our brains to come loose and what is most obvious to everyone else would become completely incomprehensible to us. Sample these cases for e.g. people who have had injuries to certain parts of their brain have trouble telling which body parts are theirs (the disorder has some arcane name - i forget what it is). These people when shown their own arm will honestly claim that the arm actually belongs to their brother! That is reality to them.... you cannot convince them otherwise. Or consider the peculiar case of people with phantom limbs. Apparently, when people loose their limbs due to amputation etc the brain simply refuses to accept that the limb is no longer there - it will continue to think that the arm or leg is still attached to the body when even the patient's eyes can see that there is nothing attached to the stump on their shoulder. To make it worse, some of these patients suffer from intense pain in these phantom limbs. Try telling these patients that the pain is not real. The point is that our reality is nothing but certain inferences which our brain makes to ensure our continued survival in the world. Sometimes, these inferences can be wrong but we would have absolutely no way to tell. That is what makes this so scary!
As scary as that thought is, the book drove home one point quite strongly. That even if we have fully functional brains, we should still not be sure of whatever we think is the reality. Cause, there is simply no such thing. There is only perception. And if you can change your perception, you can change your reality.
This has enormous implications for our day to day working also. I have many times come across colleagues with whom I am unable to make any headway on solving some basic issues. They just don't seem to 'understand'. I wonder how someone can be so pigheaded and not see the obvious 'reality' in front of them. What makes the problem seem so difficult is that both of us are convinced we are right in dealing with the reality in front of us. But if either of us understood that we are fighting because our perceptions differ i would imagine it would be easier to negotiate and arrive at a solution. The reason is that it is easier to change our perspective - but not what we call reality. It is also easier to accept that the other person has a different perspective but we cannot accept that the other someone has a different reality altogether!
So, what I have figured out is that there is no such thing called 'Absolute Reality' in the world at all. It is only our collective perceptions. Whatever agrees with the perception of the maximum number of people becomes the reality - for everyone else also. And perceptions can change en masse and almost instantly.
e.g.: Before the ipad the 'reality' was that there was no market for tablet computers. Microsoft, HP, Acer had all tried and failed. And then Apple came along. Was Apple able to change reality and suddenly create a market for tablets? I think the answer is that Apple changed peoples perspectives about a tablet (and what it could do and how sexy it was) and when perspective changed, the reality changed overnight.
History has enough examples of well designed product that simply would not sell. No matter how much the pioneer tried, he could not convince the customers to give his product a shot. To him, he seemed to be doing everything right but still - no results. Why might this be so? Because his 'reality' and those of his customers was completely different (i.e. his perspective was at odds with the majority of his would be customers). He needed to accept that and either force the customers to change their perspectives so that his reality became their reality or change the product so that it became compliant with the perceived reality of his would be customers. And once this was done - Voila! we have a winner on our hands!
So I will keep this in mind the next time I run into some idiot who has trouble seeing things my way :)
Well - this is enough for today... Gotta go and make some tea... Stay tuned in for more!
- Gg
The single biggest takeaway i had from the book was how fragile is the concept which we call 'reality'. To most of us, reality is something so obvious. It is just the way things are.. and everyone else who doesn't see how these things are has no business being around - he/she is just wasting precious Oxygen. We actually have words like 'crazy', 'mad' for people who do not share our understanding of the world. But as the book shows all it takes is a few circuits in our brains to come loose and what is most obvious to everyone else would become completely incomprehensible to us. Sample these cases for e.g. people who have had injuries to certain parts of their brain have trouble telling which body parts are theirs (the disorder has some arcane name - i forget what it is). These people when shown their own arm will honestly claim that the arm actually belongs to their brother! That is reality to them.... you cannot convince them otherwise. Or consider the peculiar case of people with phantom limbs. Apparently, when people loose their limbs due to amputation etc the brain simply refuses to accept that the limb is no longer there - it will continue to think that the arm or leg is still attached to the body when even the patient's eyes can see that there is nothing attached to the stump on their shoulder. To make it worse, some of these patients suffer from intense pain in these phantom limbs. Try telling these patients that the pain is not real. The point is that our reality is nothing but certain inferences which our brain makes to ensure our continued survival in the world. Sometimes, these inferences can be wrong but we would have absolutely no way to tell. That is what makes this so scary!
As scary as that thought is, the book drove home one point quite strongly. That even if we have fully functional brains, we should still not be sure of whatever we think is the reality. Cause, there is simply no such thing. There is only perception. And if you can change your perception, you can change your reality.
This has enormous implications for our day to day working also. I have many times come across colleagues with whom I am unable to make any headway on solving some basic issues. They just don't seem to 'understand'. I wonder how someone can be so pigheaded and not see the obvious 'reality' in front of them. What makes the problem seem so difficult is that both of us are convinced we are right in dealing with the reality in front of us. But if either of us understood that we are fighting because our perceptions differ i would imagine it would be easier to negotiate and arrive at a solution. The reason is that it is easier to change our perspective - but not what we call reality. It is also easier to accept that the other person has a different perspective but we cannot accept that the other someone has a different reality altogether!
So, what I have figured out is that there is no such thing called 'Absolute Reality' in the world at all. It is only our collective perceptions. Whatever agrees with the perception of the maximum number of people becomes the reality - for everyone else also. And perceptions can change en masse and almost instantly.
e.g.: Before the ipad the 'reality' was that there was no market for tablet computers. Microsoft, HP, Acer had all tried and failed. And then Apple came along. Was Apple able to change reality and suddenly create a market for tablets? I think the answer is that Apple changed peoples perspectives about a tablet (and what it could do and how sexy it was) and when perspective changed, the reality changed overnight.
History has enough examples of well designed product that simply would not sell. No matter how much the pioneer tried, he could not convince the customers to give his product a shot. To him, he seemed to be doing everything right but still - no results. Why might this be so? Because his 'reality' and those of his customers was completely different (i.e. his perspective was at odds with the majority of his would be customers). He needed to accept that and either force the customers to change their perspectives so that his reality became their reality or change the product so that it became compliant with the perceived reality of his would be customers. And once this was done - Voila! we have a winner on our hands!
So I will keep this in mind the next time I run into some idiot who has trouble seeing things my way :)
Well - this is enough for today... Gotta go and make some tea... Stay tuned in for more!
- Gg
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Why I didnt Blog... and why i intend to start again
I have been a thinker and a dreamer for as long as I can remember. I am also a perfectionist but that is the perfection I expect from others and have no intention of supplying it myself :) What I like best is to be left alone to think and dream till I get bored of it and seek out human company. The range of topics that interest me are truly diverse. This is also reflected in my reading interests which covers Economics, business affairs, human affairs, biographies, philosophical, contemprory, classics... I often ponder serious questions such as 'Does God Really Exist' - I think most probably not, What should be the role of government in civil society?, Why do we buy the kind of stuff we buy? As you can see when you have time to think and no intention of acting on anything you may choose to meditate about whatever catches your fancy :)
Now for such a prolific idler one expects that it would be fairly easy to blog, right? After all, blogging is just writing down your thoughts one thought-sequence at a time. After all, what to write is the major problem for most people but for me the content comes naturally - it is the taking the effort to put it down which is such a big challenge. Also, knowing the person I am I refuse to do stuff unless I see some use for myself in it. If 10 people guarantee me that they will read my blog every week and promise to think better of me for my blogging I might still do it. But doing favors to strangers by telling them about myself is not my idea of spending leisure time!
So then the question is 'Why am I writing this?'. Well its probably because I wish to put some structure to my thinking and blogging (or indeed writing of any sort) requires you to do precisely that. The challenge I am facing now is what to and what not to say here, what is the order in which I should queue up all these indisciplined thoughts in my head and also holding
back some information to reveal in my next post. Chalo, I am bored now... Till I come back again.. Adios! :)
Now for such a prolific idler one expects that it would be fairly easy to blog, right? After all, blogging is just writing down your thoughts one thought-sequence at a time. After all, what to write is the major problem for most people but for me the content comes naturally - it is the taking the effort to put it down which is such a big challenge. Also, knowing the person I am I refuse to do stuff unless I see some use for myself in it. If 10 people guarantee me that they will read my blog every week and promise to think better of me for my blogging I might still do it. But doing favors to strangers by telling them about myself is not my idea of spending leisure time!
So then the question is 'Why am I writing this?'. Well its probably because I wish to put some structure to my thinking and blogging (or indeed writing of any sort) requires you to do precisely that. The challenge I am facing now is what to and what not to say here, what is the order in which I should queue up all these indisciplined thoughts in my head and also holding
back some information to reveal in my next post. Chalo, I am bored now... Till I come back again.. Adios! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)