It’s a strange sensation to be in PowerPC land. To those that don’t know, that was the (IBM) technology which Macs were previously built on, before moving to the much more flexible and powerful Intel platform. My first Mac, bought in 2004, was a G4 iBook. I loved it and remember even writing an ode to it on this weblog. It is currently still alive in the, hopefully, responsible hands of a family-member.

What made the G4 special was that there was no going back to Windows. You could emulate it, v e r y  s l o w l y , but you really had to make due with what Mac OS X offered you and I loved that idea of being stranded on an island and having to make the best of it. As a result, I learned a lot about my Mac and it also spawned plenty of blog posts on better Mac productivity here.

But now that I am on a Macbook and have been logging on to Windows via Bootcamp regularly, my reality has somewhat changed.

H A R D W A R E !!!

Macs vs. PCs… I was always aware of the hardware differences, particularly quality-wise. If you do the simple math, my 2004 iBook, now 5 years old and expected to last at least 2 years longer. I don’t know what it’s like in PC-world (not the mag), but I imagine you won’t get this kind of return on investment (ROI) under EUR 1000 ($1500). And by ROI, I mean, on the road ROI, as my laptop was constantly with me travelling. If you have a dusty EUR 200 ($300) PC server lying around somewhere, I expect that will probably last you half a decade as well.

I’m pretty certain that today, if I were to choose either Windows or OS X, I would still buy Apple, simply because they build their machines so damn well. Dvorak, when the Macbook Pros were just launched, called them the Bentleys of computers, and I whole-heartedly agree.

S O F T W A R E !!!

My post today is really about the software-war, which is what most Apple (and Windows) fanboys seem to focus on. And I’m here to tell you that there is no more software-war! Apart from a few (somewhat important) design-flaws in Windows (unfortunately I haven’t tested Vista or 7 yet), the migration between both platforms is fairly flawless.

All the major applications exist on both platforms: Office, programming, designing, picture- and video-manipulation. I don’t want to step on anyone’s territory, I know that, for some of those, Macs are better and for others, PCs are. But for the everyday-consumer like me, you can use both platforms as a tool.

Where I was mostly worried, ironically, was not anything that was inherent to the Mac platform, though I did argue partially that it was some time ago. It’s a free software called  Quicksilver, which allows you to launch apps, find and manipulate files more quickly than using shortcuts and the mouse, or even Spotlight. It has taken over my day-to-day so much, that I no longer have files lying around on my desktop, the Dock, and rarely use the Finder either. The reason is that, for launching stuff, using the keyboard together with search, is much much faster than going somewhere “manually.” Imagine doing the same on the internet and browsing to every address individually, instead of having Google and predictive text…

But even that has no longer become a problem on Windows due to a number of alternatives that exist and of which I chose SlickRun as my number 1 replacement.

I will not go into the Design aspects of the Mac OS, which are without a doubt superior to Windows (XP at least). But where software as a tool is concerned, the war is over! I can survive just as well on Windows as I have on OS X.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps marks an end to my pro-Mac posts (though, let’s wait for Snow Leopard to be sure). Who knows, I may eventually even (gasp!) post a review of a Windows software here soon.

Vincent

Here’s a quick question to all people used to either interact with or being part of software development teams.

Consider a software vendor, a good one, and its technical headcount. It is no secret that R&D teams aren’t made of software developers only. In order to be deployed successfully, architectures and code need to be tested by a QA department (QA = quality assurance) where professional testers run through thousands of automatized-or-not scenarii; documentation; technical support staff help the install base with potential regressions occuring during updates and coping with changing information system environments; localization project managers monitor translations of the software: and last but not least, application engineers actually parameterize the software at clients.

Now my question, how many technical staff should you account for every software development engineer? I figured out an average ratio of 1 to 4, that is to say, for every technical team of 100 there should be around 25 software developers actually hacking code.

I know there exists extremes but by and large, from what I’ve seen, I don’t think I’m too far from the reality with a 1:4 developer / all-categories-technical-staff ratio.

What do you think? Feel free to describe what the company does when sharing your experience, because, since there are very large discrepancies between, say, an SAP that manufactures ‘heavy’ enterprise software and any web application designer that may not necessarily run industrialized testing and that has no professional service department, we might not get nuances at first sight.

PS: the ratio will also depend on the maturity stage of the company: at Microsoft, [# of develops]/[develops + Microsoft Consulting Services staff + developer evangelists + localization engineers + testers (1 for each develop) + architects] approximately equals 1/4 (1 to probably 5 ot 6 adding documentation specialists; & 1 to much more if you consider the system integrator ecosystem that actually does the application engineering). But the company is rather mature and therefore can afford to focus on quality of execution rather than productivity in execution. Which probably wouldn’t be the case for an enterprise software startup for obvious resource reasons. Anything to share? Best and worse practices, per specific industry (Web 2 / UGC, Video Games, enterprise, affordable consumer traditional applications, etc.) most welcome. I need to test my own budgeting assumptions

I usually don’t ’steal’ posts from others -especially without adding any value-adding comment, but I couldn’t help sharing this one – found on Richard’s blog thanks to Twitter (follow him). Here’s a very inspiring slideshow by Index Ventures VC & founder of Open Coffee Saul Klein:

[slideshare id=58242&doc=nextweb2007-saul-1518&w=425]

The slideshow speaks for itself, doesn’t it? And even if you don’t chose to become an entrepreneur yourself at this very moment, in Europe or elsewhere, my take is that you should join an early-stage startup. Let me tell you a quick story about this.

The first time I thought of leaving MS to start a startup (a thought that never occurred again, believe it or not, before I actually walked out to either join another company or take the big plunge), I hadn’t even joined Microsoft. I was at Capital IT, a major VC forum in Paris, as a Microsoftee although I was due to join the company a few days later. There I met, for the first and last time so far, Pascal Mercier, a French fundraiser whose firm Aelios Finance is pretty successful at matching the best entrepreneurs and smart money (to my knowledge both angels & VCs). I was introduced as a recent graduate and the second we met, Pascal Mercier asked: “Why didn’t you choose to join a startup rather?”. The best answer I found was: “but I do work for startups!” Which I thought was true since 1) MS is just a damn successful startup (you would be surprised to see the easy-going startup atmosphere within the company); 2) I was part of the team that took care of emerging ISVs in France. Acknowledging reason #2 only I guess, Pascal nodded and we parted ways. I later realized though that working for startups, and working in a startup, are clearly two different things. When you represent Microsoft, you may call whoever you want and the door will be opened the next day. Your brand power is so strong that at the end of the day, you never know whether you achieved great things because you’re damn so good, or because your company is so powerful in its industry. As an entrepreneur, and I’ve been facing this issue already, you need to fight like a pitbull to get passed through the right person on the phone, and fight again to get an appointment. I should also mention that you’ll need to deliver the best pitch of your life, after waiting for an hour in the lobby without even being served a cup of coffee, to actually get to the point where you may pretend to try and sell your solution. This struggle for survival is real life and that makes entrepreneurs fully accountable for their success or failure.

The same rationale goes for early-stage startups, without a brand name yet: life will be tougher for sure than if you worked for a big name, but the impact you can have on such companies is huge (eg double revenues in 6 months, etc. something unachievable in an 85K-strong corporation like Microsoft – or even at Google, a 20K-strong company & definitely not a startup anymore). Whether you want to be an entrepreneur or join a larger group later in your career (or both), an unknown and yet ambitious startup is where you should start your career to acquire the right survival toolkit. By the way, did I mention the stock option plan?

My two cents…

Addendum 11am: check out comment #3 to discover how to spot startups that will pay you better than large corporations and resign from consulting, banking and Fortune 500 companies to join them!

I consider myself a “power buyer” on Amazon – having ordered and read for the last decade or so between 20 and 30 books every year, for sums of money far from negligible, at least to me.

This being said, I’ve never been more unhappy about my experience as a customer. Here are 5 free pieces of advice from too faithful a customer:

1. The company pretends to invest millions in its customer relationship management systems, but why on Earth Amazon never implemented any Fidelity / membership program? Even the worse companies in the world, customer service-wise (yes you’ve recognized them, I’m talking of airlines), have membership /faithfulness programs. I would be delighted to gain some travel miles or free mp3 as a reward for being a long time customer.
2. Books purchased via the one-click purchase button should be automatically removed from one’s automatic recommendations, wish list & shopping cart. Why would you want to recommend a book already acquired and shipped to the actual same customer in the past? Today, you face a high risk of ordering a book twice because of that.
3. Amazon seems to consider that none can purchase a book anywhere else than on their store. I think users should be granted with the possibility to mark a book as already acquired (somewhere else), either on Amazon (they should make this automatic though, but I’m so desperate…) or elsewhere.
4. Even worse, when these books are already in the shopping cart (or mention “In your shopping cart” already), that is to say between my wallet and Amazon’s and their warehouse and my shelves, Amazon still finds ways to recommend them. Don’t they think I already know the book if it’s included in either my shopping cart or my wishlist?
5. This one is more a back office thing. But aren’t you guys all about dematerializing the bookshopping experience? So why can’t I find ‘.pdf’ed invoices in my “account info” space? I still need to keep these blue bills for ages: I know you legally have to send these, but why don’t you help us get rid of the tons of paper we receive.

And I’m not even mentioning transnational use of Amazon (if you acquire a book on Amazon.com rather than on Amazon.yourcountry login in with the same email address, it’s not removed from your country’s wishlist) or the interface here. Or… let’s mention it before we leave the floor: Amazon’s interface wasn’t so much more convenient back in 1997 or so than it is today. I’m surprised because every engineer from Amazon I’ve met was super bright, but if I were an e-Commerce entrepreneur today I would definitely embrace rich media and video category marketing as a paradigm to set a new user experience standard.

To everyone: as you will have understood, I’m not so happy with my experience as a customer on Amazon. Any alternative?

No it is not. And when you think about it’s kind of a good thing. Because it means that the path from technology to revenue is that much shorter. Of course, the other side of that coin is that there are many people competing for that same revenue.

After writing my last post on this, and Marc’s comments, I started to ask myself some questions, such as:

• What is technology? Is it mechanical, digital, a hybrid?
• What is software? Is it the nail, the hammer, the glue, something else?
• Should software be an end-product? Is is worth anything without the hardware, is hardware worth anything without software?
• What would it take to make something innovative, aka. high-tech?

Certainly not an exhaustive list, but a good start.

My favourite of these is the fourth question, what it takes to be innovative. Back, when I was trying to convince myself to go into software, my main objective was to create something that would change my / the world in some ways. But it was strange, every-time I was thinking about a product, or rather a service (I see software as a service), I was always thinking that it would be so much better if there were hardware designed for / with it.

It’s the age-old debate of Apple vs. Microsoft, Quicktime vs. Flash or Java, a console vs. a computer, Firefox vs. IE/Safari etc. The difference between these “technologies” is that the one is designed to be—somewhat—platform-agnostic, and the other is designed for a platform.

We’ve rehashed Apple vs. Microsoft many times, so I won’t go into that too much. But if you look at cross-platform apps like Flash (as well as AIR) or Firefox, they are clearly feature-rich, but in many cases laggy as hell. I would consider both an inferior product, simply because it does not work as well as other competing products on the same hardware. The same with Windows, which has huge legacy-support, but is in some cases (a loud minority, I’m sure) not as “plug & play” with the systems it runs on, as e.g. Apple’s OS X, or the Xbox-OS.

Both of which are designed for the specific hardware, and it is actually the whole package—hardware + software—that is considered the innovation.

For something to be considered innovative, it should be seen as the whole end-product for the consumer. A minor example. When I installed OS X Leopard on my ancient (but perfect) G4-laptop, it gave me the two-fingered right-click. By all accounts a hardware-innovation, a tiny one, but which made the whole interface better. I’m not sure if software on its own could ever achieve a similar effect on the user.

So what would it take for real innovation to occur? It would have to be a paradigm-shift. We’re seeing a lot of interesting software coming out, a good example probably being Second Life. Yet Second Life—which was inspired by a world called “The Metaverse” that an author, Neal Stephenson, came up with in a book, called “Snow Crash,” is nowhere close to that ideal.

The reason is that, from a user-perspective, the Metaverse started with the interface—gloves and a helmet hooked up to a box—which allowed the user to literally hook into a system. How does Second Life ever compare to that? Instead, it forces users to be immobile behind their PCs, staring into a 2-d interface, imagining themselves to be in a world, in which they clearly are not.

And, in my eyes, the same applies to lots of software designed for an interface that simply does not innovate.

Facebook, Windows, OS X, Open Social, AIR, etc. All platforms actively marketing for developers. Yet how much of that marketing is happening in hardware, an area which has largely been commoditised over the last 20 odd years to the degree that R&D in that area must have been stagnating much.

You do see some changes. Microsoft, when it started on the Xbox, made a paradigm-shift. Apple has been doing the same for years, but now at an exploding rate. Microsoft’s Surface will be very interesting, as will the next version of Windows, though still restricted to a 2-d interface. And there’s probably 100s of other examples, which I can’t think of now.

The thing is that innovation in software has exploded in the last decades, as has, to a lesser degree, hardware. But we have reached a mature-level where the novelty has worn off. For software to become interesting again, we need new hardware—a new way to interface with technology, that takes us away from the boring old mouse and keyboard, and allows us to the live the mobile life for which our physical bodies were actually designed.

The Wii is a good example of what happens when you don’t just focus on hardware, you don’t just focus on software, but you focus on how your product can actually become useful in the lives of people that are not geeks, early adopters, or the loud minority.

Vincent out. This is my last post this year, I think.

 In chess, a gambetto – say it with an Italian accent, consists in sacrificing a piece at the beginning of a game to gain a competitive position on the exchequer – for example through the control of the center of the chessboard or one of the long diagonals.

Getting back to business (we’ll get back to the gambetto later), it is very common to say that the state of an economy is reflected by the strength of its currency when the Euro currency is weak – and hence that the economy of the EU are in poor shape. However, when the Euro gets stronger, companies and officials claim that corporations are constrained in their efforts to export goods and services and that the situation should be reversed or the EU will soon enter an economic turmoil.

I think this is all too easy and bullshit.

God Dollar used to be the only viable currency in international trade, until the Euro came out of nowhere in January 2000 (2001 for actual pocket coins and bills). The European Union is the world’s largest consumer market, and a gateway to the Middle East and Africa for American companies. Although the Dollar still dominates international transactions of goods (slightly) and financial transactions (easily), the Euro has emerged as a tangible alternative considering the political stability of the region.

Consequently, the Euro vs. US Dollar exchange rate has kept growing insanely from 1 EUR = USD 0.85 in mid 2000 (1 EUR = 1.19 USD on January 1st 2000) to 1 EURO = USD 1.47 USD today. Althoug I acknowledge the trickiness of the situation for export businesses, high tech or not, I see very few corporations have implemented hedging strategies or make proper use of forward contracts – which is a shame. Still, instead of lamenting, I believe economic decision makers of both the US and the EU should roll up their sleeves and act in such a way (hell yeah I’m even givin’ lessons now, love blogging…):

For US High Tech companies: go for internationalization. Acquiring hardware, software, telco devices, consumer electronics and services labeled in USD has never been cheaper. So why wait? I’m pretty sure any potential buyer would understand this reasoning. A weak USD is a fantastic opportunity for American exporters to thrive abroad, and win strategic, long-term projects. It doesn’t matter whether the profitability of these projects is low: what matters is to build reputation on new markets, or to highlight your competitive advantage against local players. Remember, the gambetto? Be ready to sacrifice a few cents today (anyways, the dollar rates so low that it’s no big loss whatsoever) to be in the real race when that moment comes.

For European high tech ventures: shop for intellectual property and talents in the US since the Euro has never been so strong against the US Dollar – which will make acquiring quality companies cheap, and build production capability in China and India (or go and get cheap but excellent developers in Eastern Europe, before the Euro comes there, or Israel) to reduce the cost of goods sold, enhance their competitiveness and therefore be ready for a shift during harsher economic times or win back market share on their competitors’ behalf. EU corporations, especially the big ones, find it hard to tear the P&L from the balance sheet and should learn to make better investments. Remember when the VCs said that few large European high tech corporations had a real, sound external growth strategy? Even though making the quarter may seem tough because of a strong Euro, acquiring today technologies that will generate tomorrow’s revenues boils down to ’sacrificing’ a small slice of the pie to weaken the competition, and build a better product offer for tomorrow. Gambetto again.

Now waiting for the Chinese Yuan to offer a third way…

What does “photo editing” mean? Back in the old days, when coming up with a barely recognizable image was considered a feat, it probably meant nothing. Later on, for professionals and pretty skilled amateurs, it meant playing on successive stages of the chemistry process, using special gases that left particular imprints on the negatives, cutting and adjusting the latter, and so on. And then came the digital era. Nowadays, any mouse-able kid can do practically anything with a photograph: change the lighting, the colors, add a third eye to a friend’s forehead, etc. You get the gist.

But photo editing is changing once again. I came across a couple innovations in photo editing that show that efforts are being channeled towards what can be called “intelligent imaging”. To edit a photo today, you still have to understand the image: you and you alone know what is an object, what is a face, or where this object can (or cannot) realistically be; you and you alone can determine from where the photo should be taken, at what angle, with the focus on which object, etc. “Intelligent imaging” goes beyond that.

Better than a hundred words, two examples should do it:

- The first one is a video of conference by Dave Story, vice president of interactive design at Adobe. The website is in French, but the video at the end (in English) is the interesting part.

- The second one is a technology called “seam carving” (thanks Steve for the pointer), which is being developed in several universities and companies at this moment. The following video explains pretty much most of what there is to know. You can then download an open-source GUI software here if you want to try it out. For other examples and other software (including a Gimp plug-in), you can visit this Flickr group.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-SSu3tJ3ns]