Archive for the ‘Discutii’ Category
Doua despre Grecia
luni, iulie 6th, 20151. Atitudinea. Aroganta. Esti dator vandut, ai nevoie de sustinere, iar atitudinea guvernului de la Atena fata de toti ceilalti europeni a fost aroganta la patrat.
2. Toate celelalte planuri de salvare a Greciei mai mult au ingropat-o. Grecia are nevoie de un alt plan de restructurare si o reducere/taiere a datoriei. Plata datoriei din cresterea economica pe 30-40-50 de ani (1-2 procente din crestere) ar putea fi o solutie. Doar cu taieri de costuri e greu.
Greek government debt, % of GDP
1980: 21%
1985: 43%
1990: 68%
1995: 93%
2000: 100%
2005: 98%
2010: 145%
2015: 172%
Haters
marți, martie 10th, 2015The design is great; the user experience seems so very meh. This is not an aid to living. It is a supercomplication.
Most of this is not Apple’s fault. Watches are great to glance at for a second — Apple has done well to call its brief notifications Glances — but rather annoying to hold to your face for longer. Your wrist gets tired. The screen is tiny. Your phone is beckoning, and it’s right there in your pocket.
Peering at your watch is not cool; culturally, it signifies that you are bored and restless with where you are, and are wondering whether it’s time to go. Talking into your watch is certainly not cool. If someone forced me to use this thing, I’m sure I would find myself unstrapping it from my wrist most of the time, which defeats the purpose.
Una despre francul elvetian
luni, ianuarie 19th, 2015Many economists believe that balance sheet losses are irrelevant for a central bank, so they should play no role in policy. But the SNB is 45 per cent owned by private shareholders, many of whom are individuals, who receive dividends from the SNB. The rest is owned by the cantons, which have been complaining recently about insufficient cash transfers from the SNB.
Frumos, nu? De aici.
iWatch/2015
vineri, ianuarie 2nd, 20155/ Another market where the reality will not live up to the hype is wearables. The Apple Watch will not be the homerun product that iPod, iPhone, and iPad have been. Not everyone will want to wear a computer on their wrist. Eventually, this market will be realized as the personal mesh/personal cloud, but the focus on wearables will be a bit of a headfake and take up a lot of time, energy, and money in 2015 with not a lot of results.
Probabil cea mai controversata predictie a lui Fred pentru 2015, multi i-au sarit in cap, „cum sa nu fie iWatch-ul un succes, esti nebun”. Well, nici eu nu cred ca ceasul Apple „va rupe” dar astept sa fiu contrazis cu argumente.
Cateva intrebari pentru raspunsurile voastre:
– Cat de mare poate fi piata pentru un astfel de ceas? Definim piata = toti posesorii de ceasuri? Definim piata = toti posesorii de smarphoneuri? Definim piata = toti posesorii de iPhone/iPad?
– Toti posesorii de iPhone il vor cumpara?
– Cum definim daca va fi sau nu un succes? Cate unitati trebuie vandute?
Lista cu toate previziunile lui Fred aici.
Next 20 years
miercuri, septembrie 24th, 2014If we were sent back with a time machine, even 20 years, and reported to people what we have right now and describe what we were going to get in this device in our pocket—we’d have this free encyclopedia, and we’d have street maps to most of the cities of the world, and we’d have box scores in real time and stock quotes and weather reports, PDFs for every manual in the world—we’d make this very, very, very long list of things that we would say we would have and we get on this device in our pocket, and then we would tell them that most of this content was free. You would simply be declared insane. They would say there is no economic model to make this. What is the economics of this? It doesn’t make any sense, and it seems far-fetched and nearly impossible. But the next twenty years are going to make this last twenty years just pale. We’re just at the beginning of the beginning of all these kind of changes. There’s a sense that all the big things have happened, but relatively speaking, nothing big has happened yet. In 20 years from now we’ll look back and say, „Well, nothing really happened in the last 20 years.”
De aici.
#Asaincepe
vineri, iunie 27th, 2014The 5 main insights at a glance:
1. One-third of journalists said social media posts are not a reliable source of information. Despite this, half of journalists said social media were their main source of information.
2. Remarkably, half of journalists said they consider consumer opinion to be more reliable than a statement by an organisation. Journalists use social media to find out what people are talking about and when writing articles, but do not always check whether public opinion is based on facts.
3. Fact-checking has become less thorough; ‘publish first, correct if necessary’ is the motto these days. Only 20% of journalists always check their facts before publishing. Almost half of journalists said they published most of their stories as quickly as possible to correct later if necessary. PR professionals also noted that since the arrival of social media journalists are getting in contact less frequently to check facts.
4. Journalists (60%) said they feel less bound by journalistic rules on social media than with traditional media such as a newspaper article. They act differently on social media than in traditional media, sharing their personal opinion more openly on social media, despite the fact that journalists are seen as being objective and reporters of news facts relating to events of general importance.
5. Dutch PR professionals are lagging behind compared to their international counterparts. In the Netherlands the focus lies on sending out news, while internationally more attention is devoted to dialogue and direct contact with journalists and consumers via social media.
The 5 main expectations for the future
1. Journalists expect less fact-checking to be done in the future. Conversely the role of crowd-checking, whereby the public’s opinion is used and accepted as being true, will grow in importance.
2. User-generated content, such as tweets and pictures or videos from bystanders, is already widely used in news and is expected to grow further.
3. Dutch PR professionals will stage a catch-up as they reduce their focus on sending out releases and concentrate more on engaging in dialogue and building relations.
4. Journalists expect journalism to be driven by clicks and views more than by content.
5. PR professionals expect their contact with consumers to intensify with increasingly less involvement of journalists, now that they have the ability to approach the target group directly and engage in dialogue with them.
Publish first, correct later if necessary
With 45% of journalists putting out 60% to 100% of what they publish as soon as possible – without checking facts – and correct later if necessary, “publish first and correct later” seems to be the new motto.
1 cu 4
miercuri, mai 21st, 2014Desi nu sunt de acord cu (tot) ce a scris Catalin Tolontan astazi, am retinut ca:
Prima c?dere a fost din print în online. A doua va fi din online în google. Calculele arat? astfel. Iei 40.000 de euro pe lun? din publicitatea online, ceea ce se întîmpl? unui num?r mic de redac?ii. În schimb, din google încasezi 10.000 pe lun?. Simbolic calculînd, pentru fiecare patru euro pierdu?i din publicitatea de agen?ii prime?ti o compensa?ie de un euro adus de google. Este exemplul unor publica?ii de talie mare.
Trebuie remarcat ca gsp.ro este un site plin de coduri Google, implicit de reclame furnizate de Google. Intregul post, care face parte dintr-un „serial” de trei, il gasiti aici.
Facebook a introdus unlike-ul automat
joi, martie 27th, 2014Am citit la Cristi un post despre reach-ul organic al Facebook-ului care a scazut sub nivelul inflatiei anuale a lui Mugur Isarescu. Lucru vizibil de altfel, in ultimul an, pentru oricine are cat de cat activitate pe Facebook. Bineinteles ca au aparut si comentariile, stai putin, ca e vorba de continut, ca trebuie sa evoluam, ca trebuie sa miscam muntii, sa generam engagement, sa generam like-uri si comentarii cu ceea ce postam noi, ca branduri, pe Facebook.
Domnilor, nu e chiar asa, eu cand am dat like paginii Jaeger-LeCoultre sau colegei Diana Marcu de la gandul.info, am dat like constient, treaz si in deplinatatea facultatilor mintale, am dat like in cunostinta de cauza si stiind ce as putea sa primesc la schimb. Daca Diana Marcu se apuca sa posteze foto cu pisici, iar Jaeger-LeCoultre semneaza contract de imagine cu Justin Bieber am oricand posibilitatea de a da unlike. Simplu. La fel de simplu cum am dat like. Userii au dat like unor branduri pentru ca le plac acele branduri, pentru ca le consuma, le utilizeaza, sunt atasati de ele, nu pentru contentul pe care-l posteaza si nici pentru numarul de like-uri si comentarii pe care-l genereaza. Cel putin eu asa am inteles notiunea de like, vreau sa vad/primesc/citesc mesajele acelui brand/nume/pagina/personaj caruia i-am dat like. Facebook a decis, prin algoritmii sai, ca postarile acestor branduri/pagini/personaje/vedete nu mai merita sa intre in feed-ul/atentia mea. Sunt de acord ca poate decide ca, in cazul unui brand cu 8-10 postari pe zi, 1 din 2 sa fie piua, hai 1 din 3, hai 1 din 4. Dar nu sa-mi „ascunda” 98 din 100. Pentru ca asta inseamna un unlike pe care eu nu l-am dat.
Da, sigur, pot decide ce vor, pentru ca e sistemul lor si sunt regulile lor, dar nu inseamna acceptul nostru automat, nu inseamna ca trebuie sa fim de acord cu asa ceva si sa cautam explicatii gen „e contentul, domle, e engagementul”.
+1
luni, martie 24th, 2014The peacetime CEO sets big, hairy, audacious goals. The wartime CEO is too busy fighting the enemy to read management books written by consultants who have never managed a fruit stand.
Ben Horowitz
Cinci greseli ale vestului in Ucraina
luni, martie 3rd, 20141. L-au subestimat pe Putin, cea mai mare eroare, interesele Rusiei in Ucraina/Crimeea sunt mult mai mari decat interesele Rusiei in Siria si sunt mult mult mult mai mari decat interesele SUA/EU in Ucraina. Putin nu a „renuntat” la Siria, de ce ar renunta la Ucraina/Crimeea cu care are granita comuna si e mult mai aproape de Moscova? Cine isi inchipuie ca Putin va renunta la Crimeea e naiv.
2. Au mers in piata si au fraternizat cu demonstratii in timp ce negociau cu Ianukovici. Bun, rau, criminal, Ianukovici era presedintele ales al Ucrainei. Constitutional inca e presedintele ales al Ucrainei pentru ca nu si-a dat demisia.
3. Au amenintat Rusia in legatura cu actiunile din Crimeea desi Rusia are acorduri semnate cu Ucraina referitoare la baza navala si la stationarea trupelor din regiune. Adica Rusia are tot dreptul sa aiba trupe in Crimeea, au devenit agresivi dupa ce toata lumea s-a grabit sa condamne trimiterea de trupe in peninsula. Primul lucru pe care noul guvern ar fi trebuit sa-l faca era sa anunte ca va respecta interesele Rusiei in Crimeea si acordurile semnate. In felul acesta Rusia nu mai avea nici un argument pentru agitatia din Crimeea. In schimb noul guvern ce a facut:
4. Noul guvern a interzis drepturile minoritatilor (una din primele actiuni luate!), in conditiile in care in Crimeea spre 60% din populatie este rusa. Masura a fost luata INAINTE de a aparea miscarile de trupe ale Rusiei din Crimeea. Iar vestitii nu au avut nici o reactie la aceasta masura (remember Kosovo?)
5. Nu au nici un plan pentru salvarea economica a Ucrainei. Rusia a „trimis” mai multe miliarde de dolari catre Ucraina, Rusia trimite gaze in Ucraina, vestul nu a facut nimic desi noul guvern este unul pro european. Fara ajutor, adica fara bani, Ucraina e in faliment.