New Fit Era

How to sound smart in your TEDx Talk

How to speak so that people want to listen

5 Levels of Leadership

Austeridade

Nadim Habib - As organizações

World of Tanks

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. It's unpolite."

in World of Tanks

Makers: The New Industrial Revolution

“As Marx observed, power belongs to those who control the means of production”

(pg. 15)


“couldn’t help but observe that of his many ideas, only the sprinklers actually made it to market at all.
Why? Because he was an inventor, not an entrepreneur. And in that distinction lies the core of this book.”

(pg. 20)


“They didn’t need to compromise their music to get published, and they didn’t need to sell in big numbers or get radio play. They could find their own fans; indeed, the fans found them via word of mouth, and postcards poured into such micro-labels to order music that couldn’t be found in most stores”

(pg. 32)


“It is simply what ideas do: spread when shared.”

(pg. 37)


“Rather than inventing everything from scratch, he would have built on the work of others, compressing decades of work into months. Rather than patenting, he might have published his designs online, like other members of his community.”

(pg. 40)


“The great opportunity in the new Maker Movement is the ability to be both small and global. Both artisanal and innovative. Both high-tech and low-cost. Starting small but getting big. And, most of all, creating the sort of products that the world wants but doesn’t know it yet, because those products don’t fit neatly into the mass economics of the old model.”

(pg. 44)


“Because of the expertise, equipment, and costs of producing things on a large scale, manufacturing has been mostly the provenance of big companies and trained professionals.”

(pg. 48)


“What the Web taught us was the power of “network effects”: when you connect people and ideas, they grow. It’s a virtual circle—more people combined create more value, which in turn attracts even more people, and so on”

(pg. 57)


“But manufacturing was always seen as something else entirely. Making stuff is expensive; it needs equipment and skills in everything from machining to supply-chain management. It usually requires huge up-front investments, and mistakes lead to warehouses of unsellable inventory. Failure may be celebrated online, where the cost of entry is relatively low, but in the world of making stuff, failing means ruination”

(pg. 65)


“If I were to become a sprinkler inventor and entrepreneur, what problems would I be solving?
My assumption was that the best way to reinvent a mature industry would be to open it up to the ideas of others. So I asked a few basic questions, which you could call a toolkit for transformation (it can apply to practically any product):
1. How would these products be improved if they were connected to the Internet?
2. How would they be improved if the designs were open, so anyone could modify or improve them?
3. How much cheaper would they be if their manufacturers didn’t charge for their intellectual property?”

(pg. 72)


“My electronics company, 3D Robotics, is based on an open-source computing platform called Arduino, which is a cheap and easy-to-use processor and free programming environment”

(pg. 75)


“As we’ll see later, companies such as General Electric are using Maker-like community innovation methods among their own employees to develop proprietary products—open innovation doesn’t have to be wide open”

(pg. 83)


“Rather than top-down innovation by some of the biggest companies in the world, we’re seeing bottom-up innovation by countless individuals, including amateurs, entrepreneurs, and professionals”

(pg. 84)


“they offered it to the regional manufacturing association as the site of a laboratory in the future of making stuff. Today it is the Manchester Fab Lab, the first Fab Lab in the United Kingdom.”

(pg. 119)


“Projects made on free days are supposed to be documented online so others can share them. On other days, members pay to use the facility, and those projects can be proprietary and closed.”

(pg. 121)


“Today’s cottage industry is more typically an Etsy marketplace seller with a computer-controlled vinyl cutter making cool stickers for Mac-books or making and selling perfect replacement parts for vintage cars”

(pg. 131)


“And rather than competing on price in a commodity market that favors cheap labor, they compete on innovation. They invent their own designs and can charge a premium to their discriminating consumers who are intentionally avoiding mass-produced goods.
So, back to the future. Today we are seeing a return to a new sort of cottage industry. Once again, new technology is giving individuals the power over the means of production, allowing for bottom-up entrepreneurship and distributed innovation”

(pg. 133)


“you could only buy things that passed all of the three tests:
1. The products were popular enough for manufacturers to make.
2. The products were popular enough for retailers to carry.
3. The products were popular enough for you to find (via advertising or prominent placement in stores near you).”

(pg. 162)


“In the Web case, the “stuff” was and is mostly creativity and expression in digital form: words, pictures, videos, and the like. It doesn’t compete with commercial goods for money, but does compete for time”

(pg. 165)


“what if they could be produced using digital manufacturing where there is no cost to complexity and no penalty for short production runs?”

(pg. )


“Goods made by passionate consumers-turned-entrepreneurs tend to radiate a quality that displays craftsmanship rather than mass-manufactured efficiency.”

(pg. )


“Today, in experiments with IKEA furniture, when the paper’s study participants were given the opportunity to buy IKEA furniture they built themselves versus identical units built by others, they bid 67 percent more for their own creations. They did the same with Lego kits and paper origami. In all cases, people would pay more for things where their own sweat was one of the ingredients.”

(pg. )


“They offer no economies of scale. It is no cheaper on a per-unit basis to make a thousand than it is to make one. Instead, they offer exactly the opposite advantage: there is no penalty for changing each individual unit or making just a few of a kind.”

(pg. )


“What entrepreneurs quickly learn is that they need to price their product at least 2.3 times its cost to allow for at least one 50 percent margin for them and another 50 percent margin for their retailers (1.5 × 1.5 = 2.25)”

(pg. )


“We release our electronics PCB designs in their native form (Cadsofts’ Eagle format), under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license (“by-sa”), which allows commercial reuse. Our software and firmware, meanwhile, are all released under a GPL license, which also allows for commercial reuse as long as attribution is maintained and the code stays open”

(pg. )


“Amateurs have as much influence as professionals. The same is true in almost any open-innovation community: when you let anyone contribute and ideas are judged on their merits rather than on the résumé of the contributor, you invariably find that some of the best contributors are those who don’t actually do it in their day job.
Rogers describes the participants as falling into two classes: “solution seekers” and “solvers.” The first want something in particular done, and the second like to solve problems of any sort.”

(pg. )



“What makes the community work is homophily (“love of the same”), the tendency for people to associate and bond with others like themselves in a network.
What this taps is the Long Tail of talent; in many fields there are a lot more people with skills, ideas, and time to help than there are people who have professional degrees and are otherwise credentialed. Exposing this latent potential, both of professionals looking to follow their passions rather than their bosses’ priorities and of amateurs with something to offer, is the real power of open innovation.”

(pg. )


“As a buyer, you spend two long weekends (six days in total) assembling the car”

(pg. )


“And so on for all the other fasteners and assembly techniques, for a foreshortened mechanic boot camp”

(pg. )


“When something goes wrong with your Rally Fighter, you don’t take it back to the “dealer” or wait for a recall. You built it, so you can fix it”

(pg. )


“But it’s also the future: the open-source community approach means that designs are not just faster, cheaper, and better, but also come already market-researched”

(pg. )


“the company says it can take a new vehicle from sketch to market in eighteen months, about the time it takes Detroit to change the specs on some door trim.
Local Motors proved this in early 2011, when the Pentagon’s DARPA research agency ran a competition for an “Experimental”

(pg. )


“Crowd-derived Combat Support Vehicle” (XC2V). Local Motors’ community snapped into action and came up with a design within weeks, which was refined by the company’s engineers. Three and a half months later the design had won, and a month after that Rogers presented it to President Obama. Of course, the competition was designed to favor Local Motors–style communities, but it’s hard to believe that a traditional defense contractor could have even got the paperwork done in three and a half months, much less designed and built a new high-performance armored car from scratch.”

(pg. )


“Ford employees are free to use the space day or night for projects related to their work or personal projects”

(pg. )


“Rather than just driving the modern factory, the computer is becoming the model for it. Infinitely flexible and adaptable, general-purpose industrial robots can be combined to create the universal Making Machine. And like computers, they work at any scale, from the mile-long NUMMI plant to your desktop. That—not just the rise of advanced technology, but also its democratization—is the real revolution.”

(pg. )


“Kickstarter, like many of the sites like it (IndeGoGo, RocketHub, and Funded By Me, to name just a few”

(pg. )


“One of the triumphs of the twentieth-century manufacturing model was that it was optimized for scale”

(pg. )


“any color you want as long as it’s black”

(pg. )


“He discovered that what they needed more than anything else, even more than a new CNC machine, was the ability to talk to one another”

(pg. )


“MFG.com, the low-cost factories of Alibaba, or the one-off digital fabrication of Ponoko and Shapeways”

(pg. )


“Once factories only worked for the biggest companies with the biggest orders. Now many of them will work at any volume. Smaller batches mean higher prices, of course, but if you’re just making a few of something the cost difference may matter little compared to the ability to do it all. The world’s supply chains have finally become “impedance matched” to the individual. Anyone can now make anything.”

(pg. )


“Today we can amplify and identify DNA at the kitchen table. Tomorrow we will be able to sequence it, too. But after that comes synthesizing it, modifying it, and the rest of genetic engineering”

(pg. )


“At that point, people will start hacking life.”

(pg. )

In "Makers: The New Industrial Revolution" by Chris Anderson

Jackdaws

“Sir Stewart Menzies, the foxhunting head of MI6, hated intellectuals, communists, and homosexuals, but Alan Turing, the mathematical genius who led the code breakers, was all three.”

(pg. 178)


“War enables people to be what they really are: the sadists become torturers, the psychopaths make brave front-line troops, the bullies and the victims alike have scope to play their roles to the hilt, and the whores are always busy”

(pg. 196)


In "Jackdaws" by Ken Follet

O segundo mundo

"Os norte-americanos tendem a acreditar que presidem ao primeiro império global do mundo, mas a Grã-Bretanha foi de facto o último império global no qual o Sol nunca se punha. Grande parte do mundo pertencia ao seu domínio e a ele prestava contas."

(pg. 16)

"O EUA, a UE e a China representam três diferentes estilos diplomáticos que competem para liderar o século XXI: a coligação ao estilo norte-americano, o consenso ao estilo europeu e a consulta ao estilo chinês."

(pg. 18)

"Se a relações humanas têm a ver com <>, então a geopolítica tem a ver com conquistar aliados e influenciar países."

(pg. 25)

"A UE é de longe o império mais popular e mais bem-sucedido da História, pois nãpo domina, mas disciplina."

..."a Europa precisa de se expandir, senão morre. <..."

(pg. 34)

"Todos os <> são governados por sistemas supra-presidenciais que mantêm deliberadamente Parlamentos enfraquecidos, enquanto as oligarquias controlam a economia através de clientelismos baseados nos clãs. Os poderes político e económico não se limitam a sobrepor-se, são sinónimos um do outro."

(pg. 97)

"Gwadar era uma minúscula aldeia de extrema pobreza há dez anos... Os Chineses estão a transformar essa área num centro energético de primeira classe: até o Titanic conseguiria atracar lá."

(pg. 129)

"Enquanto a maioria dos países tem exércitos, aqui é o exército do Paquistão que tem um país, é um conhecida piada que circula no Paquistão."

(pg. 130)

in "O segundo mundo" by Parag Khanna

7 maus hábitos dos fracos líderes

Não são os 7 pecados mortais, mas são os 7 maus hábitos presentes nos líderes fracos, identificados por Eric Jackson na Forbes. Mesmo em Portugal temos bons líderes em todas as áreas (na política, nas empresas, no desporto, etc.) mas a verdade é que a corrupção, o nepotismo e a mediocridade tem-nos trazido cada vez mais fracos líderes.

O 1º mau hábito é verem-se a si próprios como dominadores. Este é talvez o hábito mais insidioso porque é altamente desejável. Quem não gosta de dominar, de decidir, de mandar? O problema é que esta forma sobranceira e prepotente de estar, leva os fracos líderes a nunca questionam o seu domínio e deixarem de conseguir discernir que estão à mercê das circunstâncias. Amiúde tendem a subestimar o alcance do seu domínio e a desprezar o papel da conjuntura e das circunstâncias no seu sucesso. Os líderes que caem nesta armadilha sofrem com a ilusão da preeminência pessoal, vendo-se como donos das suas organizações. Para eles, todas as outras pessoas que fazem parte da organização, apenas existem para executar as suas ordens. O sintoma é a falta de respeito pelo próximo.

O 2º mau hábito é identificarem-se demasiado com a organização. Este hábito pode por vezes parecer benéfico, porque queremos líderes empenhados e totalmente alinhados com a organização, mas a verdade é que a realidade confirma o ditado: “o que é demais é erro”. Frequentemente acabam por perder a noção da fronteira entre o interesse pessoal e o colectivo. E ao invés de tratarem as organizações para ter sucesso, os fracos líderes tratam-nas como sendo extensões de si próprios. Líderes com esta visão, usam frequentemente as organizações para atingir ambições pessoais e desviam recursos financeiros da organização, para uso pessoal. Alguns, com percursos longos e notáveis, tendem a pensar que deram tanto à organização, que qualquer despesa em proveito próprio é trivial. O sintoma é a falta de carácter.

 O 3º mau hábito é julgarem que têm todas as respostas. Esta é uma imagem que durante anos fomos habituados a cultivar nos nossos líderes. Que seriam homens fora de série, quase omniscientes, capazes de decidir e responder rapidamente a qualquer desafio. Mas diz a sabedoria popular que “depressa e bem, não há quem”. Os líderes que decidem sozinhos e depressa (a quem normalmente chamamos determinados) deixam escapar os pormenores e não compreendem bem a situação. Pior ainda é, pelo facto de acharem que têm as respostas todas, nem sequer se dão ao trabalho de consultar alguém. Na verdade os líderes que querem ter todas as respostas tendem a calar outros pontos de vista. O sintoma é a falta de seguidores.

O 4º mau hábito é cruelmente eliminarem todos aqueles que não estão cegamente de acordo consigo. Os fracos líderes querem incutir a sua visão e forçar todos a acreditarem nela. Para eles, “quem não está comigo, está contra mim”, e assim sendo só existem 2 opções para quem trabalha com estes líderes: junta-se a eles ou sai. O problema deste mau hábito é que é desnecessário e ao mesmo tempo destrutivo. Não é condição essencial, para um líder ter sucesso, ter unanimidade à sua volta. Aliás, é até benéfico ter gente com opiniões e visões diferentes, pois essa é a única possibilidade de encontrar (e consequentemente corrigir) problemas e erros. E acreditem que eles acontecem porque ninguém é perfeito. Na maioria das vezes, os líderes que tendem a sufocar quem deles discorda, acabam por cair sozinhos, levando a organização consigo. O sintoma é o mau estar e o abandono dos mais directos colaboradores.

O 5º mau hábito é serem demasiado bons oradores e obcecados com a sua imagem. Isto é mais natural nos líderes de organizações mediáticas. O problema é que, no meio de tanto “espectáculo”, de tanta dedicação às “relações públicas”, o foco na organização e nos seus objectivos começa a tornar-se menor, desleixando a gestão e falhando metas. A consequência disso é novo erro: ao invés de procurarem grandes realizações, começam apenas a preocupar-se com a aparência do pouco que vão conseguindo. Além do mais, os líderes que são obcecados pela sua imagem, cedem à tentação de gastar demasiados recursos financeiros para a promoverem, ao invés de investirem ou pouparem. O sintoma é a constante procura de atenção.

O 6º mau hábito é subestimarem os obstáculos que podem surgir. Parte do fascínio de ser um líder é a oportunidade de poder assumir e perseguir uma visão. No entanto, quando os líderes ficam demasiado encantados com a sua própria visão, começam a ignorar ou subestimar as reais dificuldades que se podem colocar no seu caminho. E quando estas se colocam, e se mostram mais difíceis de ultrapassar do que o previsto, os fracos líderes mergulham invariavelmente num abismo. Em vez de reanalisarem e reavaliarem a situação, caem em desgraça. São incapazes de reconhecer o erro e alterar o rumo, porque acham que isso os enfraquece como líderes. O sintoma é ser-se megalómano, exagerado e demasiado determinado.

O 7º mau hábito é apoiarem-se constantemente no sucesso do passado. Muitos líderes acabam por baquear pelo facto de se quererem aproveitar demasiados do que acham ser os seus pontos fortes, e por evitarem sair da sua zona de conforto. Acabam portanto por se agarrar a um modelo estático e estagnam. Insistem em receitas ultrapassadas e ideias antigas, usadas em tempos passados. Além disso não consideram os cenários presentes e futuros, as inovações, as evoluções. Ao invés de se adaptarem às novas circunstâncias, usam a sua carreira como único ponto de referência, e repetem o que no passado lhes trouxe êxito. O sintoma é constantemente referirem o que fizeram de bom no passado. Conclusão, se o leitor é um líder e comete estes erros, é melhor começar a pensar em mudar a sua maneira de ser, de estar e de agir. Se por outro lado o leitor não é, mas tem um líder assim, mais vale começar a pensar em abandonar a organização e procurar novos desafios, novas paragens.

Wired Oct 11

"Real Scientists make mistakes
Taking calculated risks is worth it; playing safe isn't. "You can't avoid mistakes," Cox reckons. "Because if you do, you're playing safe, and you are not going to do anything very well." Even the pros might look back and wish they'd done some things differently, but that's just part of being creative.
"

"I understood that the reality around us is not given. If you push reality - if you have a vision of how it should be - then you have the possibility of changing it." pg. 118

Porque não conseguimos andar em linha recta

Os Demónios de Berlim

"Nunca sabemos em que curva do futuro, o passado está à nossa espera."

(pg. 37)


"Como homens não somos nada, mas integrados numa grande causa somos invencíveis, e o senhor faz parte desta causa."

(pg. 39)


"Há um apagão no mundo, só temos de esperar que regresse a luz."

(pg. 43)


"- Se não tivesse uma sorte tão má, meu tenente, dizia que nem sequer tenho sorte nenhuma..."

(pg. 74)


in "Os Demónios de Berlim" by Ignacio Del Valle

Ladder paradox

The ladder paradox (or barn-pole paradox) is a thought experiment in special relativity. It involves a ladder travelling horizontally and undergoing a length contraction, the result of which being that it can fit into a much smaller garage. On the other hand, from the point of view of an observer moving with the ladder, it is the garage that is moving and the garage will be contracted to an even smaller size, therefore being unable to contain the ladder at all. This apparent paradox results from the assumption of absolute simultaneity. In relativity, simultaneity is relative to each observer and thus the ladder can fit into the garage in both instances.

Twin paradox

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. In fact, the result is not a paradox in the true sense, since it can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been verified experimentally using measurements of precise clocks flown in airplanes and satellites.

Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox, many based upon there being no contradiction because there is no symmetry—only one twin has undergone acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases. One version of the asymmetry argument made by Max von Laue in 1913 is that the traveling twin uses two inertial frames: one on the way up and the other on the way down. So switching frames is the cause of the difference, not acceleration per se.

Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein, Born and Møller invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration. Both gravitational time dilation and special relativity can be used to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.

Grandfather paradox

The grandfather paradox is a proposed paradox of time travel first described (in this exact form) by the science fiction writer René Barjavel in his 1943 book Le Voyageur Imprudent (The Imprudent Traveller). The paradox is this: suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveler's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveler's parents (and by extension the traveler himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have traveled back in time after all, which means the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveler would have been conceived allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather. Thus each possibility seems to imply its own negation, a type of logical paradox.

Despite the name, the grandfather paradox does not exclusively regard the impossibility of one's own birth. Rather, it regards any action that makes impossible the ability to travel back in time in the first place. The paradox's namesake example is merely the most commonly thought of when one considers the whole range of possible actions. Another example would be using scientific knowledge to invent a time machine, then going back in time and (whether through murder or otherwise) impeding a scientist's work that would eventually lead to the very information that you used to invent the time machine.

An equivalent paradox is known (in philosophy) as autoinfanticide, going back in time and killing oneself as a baby.

The grandfather paradox has been used to argue that backwards time travel must be impossible. However, a number of hypotheses have been postulated[citation needed] to avoid the paradox, such as the idea that the past is unchangeable, so the grandfather must have already survived the attempted killing; or the time traveler creates an alternate time line in which the traveler was born.

Nokia e o comodismo

Este memo de Stephan Elop, CEO da Nokia, ao pessoal da Empresa dá que pensar. E mostra-nos o que acontece quando uma empresa começa a perder a competição da Inovação face aos seus concorrentes. Mostra-nos, também, que é fundamental reconhecer o problema e atacá-lo de frente.

Leaked memo from CEO: 'Our platform is burning'. What Nokia boss Stephen Elop told his staff.

"
There is a story about a man who was working on an oil platform in the North Sea. He woke up one night from a loud explosion, which suddenly set his entire oil platform on fire.

He barely made his way out of the chaos to the platform's edge. When he looked down over the edge, all he could see were the dark, cold, foreboding Atlantic waters.

The man had mere seconds to react. He could be consumed by the flames. Or, he could plunge 30m in to the freezing waters.

He decided to jump. After he was rescued, he noted that a "burning platform" caused a radical change in his behaviour.

We too, are standing on a "burning platform", and we must decide how we are going to change our behaviour.

And, we have more than one explosion - we have multiple points of scorching heat that are fuelling a blazing fire around us.

For example, there is intense heat coming from our competitors, more rapidly than we ever expected. Apple disrupted the market by redefining the smartphone and attracting developers to a closed, but very powerful ecosystem.

In 2008, Apple's market share in the $300+ price range was 25%; by 2010 it escalated to 61%. It is enjoying a tremendous growth trajectory with a 78% earnings growth year over year in Q4 2010. Apple demonstrated that if designed well, consumers would buy a high-priced phone with a great experience and developers would build applications. They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.

And then, there is Android. In about two years, Android created a platform that attracts application developers, service providers and hardware manufacturers. Android came in at the high-end, it is now winning the mid-range, and quickly it is going downstream to phones under à100. Google has become a gravitational force, drawing much of the industry's innovation to its core.

Let's not forget about the low-end price range. In 2008, MediaTek supplied complete reference designs for phone chipsets, which enabled manufacturers in China to produce phones at an unbelievable pace. By some accounts, this ecosystem now produces more than one-third of phones sold globally - taking share from Nokia in emerging markets.

While competitors poured flames on our market share, what happened at Nokia? We fell behind, we missed big trends, and we lost time. We thought we were making the right decisions; but we now find ourselves years behind.

The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product that is close to their experience. Android came on the scene just over two years ago, and this week it took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.

We have some brilliant sources of innovation in Nokia, but we are not bringing it to market fast enough. We thought MeeGo would be a platform for winning high-end smartphones. However, at this rate, by the end of 2011, we might have only one MeeGo product in the market.

At the midrange, we have Symbian. It has proven to be non-competitive in leading markets like North America. Additionally, Symbian is proving to be an increasingly difficult environment in which to develop to meet the continuously expanding consumer requirements, leading to slowness in product development and also creating a disadvantage when we seek to take advantage of new hardware platforms. If we continue like before, we will fall even further behind.

At the lower-end price range, Chinese OEMs are cranking out a device much faster than, as one Nokia employee said only partially in jest, "the time that it takes us to polish a PowerPoint presentation". They are fast, they are cheap, and they are challenging us.

And the truly perplexing aspect is that we're not even fighting with the right weapons. We are still too often trying to approach each price range on a device-to-device basis.

The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems, where ecosystems include not only the hardware and software of the device, but developers, applications, ecommerce, advertising, search, social applications, location-based services, unified communications and many other things. Our competitors aren't taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem. We're going to have to decide how we either build, catalyse or join an ecosystem.

This is one of the decisions we need to make. In the meantime, we've lost market share, we've lost mind share and we've lost time.

On Tuesday, Standard & Poor's informed that they will put our A long-term and A-1 short-term ratings on negative credit watch. This is a similar action to the one that Moody's took last week. During the next few weeks they will make an analysis of Nokia, and decide on a possible credit rating downgrade. Why? Because they are concerned about our competitiveness.

Consumer preference for Nokia declined worldwide. In the UK, our brand preference has slipped to 20%, which is 8% lower than last year. That means only one in five people in the UK prefer Nokia to other brands. It's also down in traditional strongholds: Russia, Germany, Indonesia, UAE .

How did we get to this point?

At least some of it has been due to our attitude inside Nokia. We poured gasoline on our burning platform. We have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven't been delivering innovation fast enough. We're not collaborating internally.

Nokia, our platform is burning.

We are working on a path forward - a path to rebuild our market leadership. When we share the new strategy today, it will be a huge effort to transform our company.

The burning platform caused the man to shift his behaviour, and take a bold and brave step into an uncertain future. He was able to tell his story. Now, we have a great opportunity to do the same. - Stephen "

Austeridade

Crash 1929

"O facto de que muito do que se repetia acerca do mercado - nessa altura e actualmente - não correspondia à realidade é importante, mas não é extraordinário. Entre os seres humanos, existe uma espécie de interação que assenta não nos conhecimentos, nem sequer na falta de conhecimentos, mas no facto de não se saber quanto não se sabe."

"A sabedoria é muitas vezes uma abstracção relacionada não com os factos ou com a realidade, mas com os homens que a exibem e a forma como a exibem."

(pg.103)


"De todos os mistérios do mercado bolsista, o mais impenetrável é a razão por que existe um comprador para cada pessoa que deseja vender"

(pg. 130)


"Apesar de muitas vezes se sugerir o contrário, as pessoas deixam-se muito rapidamente seduzir pelo poder. ... ... como comprovamos fantasmas de muitos tiranos, de Júlio César a Benito Mussolini, somos muito cruéis para com aqueles que, tendo tido poder, o perdem ou são eliminados. Nessa altura, para além do ódio em relação à sua arrogância do passado, são também vítimas do desprezo pela sua presente fraqueza. Sofrem todas as indignidades possíveis."

(pg. 150)


in "Crash 1929" by John Kenneth Galbraith