Stritar's chronolog

The end of recession or the coolest Slovenian billboard of 2014?

Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:41:51 GMT

A few days ago, a billboard captured my attention. Actually, we're talking about many billboards, since this metallurgy company called Bučar put them all over Ljubljana. The weird thing is, they are using them to recruit new employees. Wait a minute, there's something wrong with this picture! While everybody is aggressively trying to sell us stuff we don't really need, these guys are actually looking for new workers with billboards? In a country with an unemployment rate of 13%? Is this thing for real?

Let's try to understand what just happened here... The company itself seems to be the development of a capable entrepreneur Drago Bučar, whose business is growing like mad. Judging the billboard's design, I would guess the campaign is not a professional act, but rather something done internally, without much involvement from a marketing agency. But that doesn't change the fact the effect of the billboard is brilliant. While trying to find 10 new workers (as posted on their website), I believe Bučar actually managed to produce one of the most effective branding campaigns of this year in Slovenia, which already granted them an apperance on the national radio. Everybody wants to know who these guys are, and they were targeting somebody completely different. Can you believe the irony?

Of course, there is always the possibility that this billboard is a work of a mastermind genius, whose plan was to capture attention with false pretense, but I don't think so. This thing looks legit, and it's always nice to hear about prosperous companies from Slovenia. Good luck, kick ass!

Occupy Wall Street and Other "Revolutions" as the Ultimate Reality Shows [Repost]

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:11:17 GMT

This post was originally published in November 2011 in a special two part series transatlantic blog post about Occupy Wall Street, on Nick Taylor’s thetwohalves.com, which is no longer available.

The situation isn't peachy. The global economic system is collapsing, the middle class is disappearing, and financial institutions have taken control of the fate of many countries and corporations. People are frustrated and want something else, they want a predictable and stable future. Hence the global Occupy Wall Street movement has been born, supported by various public figures and activist groups such as The Anonymous. Fueled by the success of the Arab Spring, these people are demonstrating against the domination of the rich 1% (or the ultra rich 0.1%), hoping to achieve a better world built on equality, opportunity and optimism.

When history looks upon the events that unfolded in 2011, it will probably view them similarly to 1848, when the Spring of Nations took place in Europe. But this time it's a bit different, it's a bit more theatrical. We're watching it live, and participating in it real-time. Everybody is in it, one way or another, the technology allows it, the people and the media amplify it. Even if you are just an observer, you pretty much know what's going on. People are squatting the streets, the police are trying to prevent it (violently), the corporations and political elites ignore it, some people support it, others don't.

These days, everyone can be a reporter. And most activists are. Equipped with laptops, tablets and smart phones, backed up by social media, thousands of tweets, blogs, pictures and videos are broadcast to the Web each minute. Uncountable number of actors, cameras and commentators make this event bigger than Big Brother, even bigger than The Truman Show. Occupy has become the ultimate global crowdsourced reality show happening non-stop, every minute, every hour, for days, even months.

The fascinating fact about this story is that you can choose the channel you want to watch. You can go directly to the source, to the people who are living it. You can consume it on the secondary level, where television and print media report their own, perhaps biased versions of what's happening. You can study the higher level interdisciplinary implications, such as these great Twitter visualizations of Occupy Wall Street or the Egyptian revolution. The Web is the playground with infinite toys.

But it's up to you if you want to get involved and contribute to the critical mass of this movement. Everybody can be a part of it, even if you're just watching or sharing information from the coziness of your living room. Perhaps you've finally been awarded with the opportunity to change the world. Probably not, but there's always a chance. And if the world won't change, you can at least participate in the show that will go down as one of the greatest reality shows of our time. Are you the 99%?

Check out the complete Occupy Wall Street series.

Did Apple and Samsung just pull the greatest trick in the mobile universe?

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:09:54 GMT

The verdict is finally in. Samsung has lost the lawsuit against Apple, which means the court decided they were copying iPhone's design and user experience. The decisions seems legit, specially if you saw the internal document from Samsung, a case study comparing and improving the Galaxy's user interface based on iOS's. On the other hand, it's hard to say if the decision is morally right and what it means for the mobile industry. Software patents are a problem and some companies like Google have already made a stance agains them (even though they've supposedly acquired Motorola because of them). But could all of this be just a marketing trick? Where Apple and Samsung set out to dominate the mobile industry?

Collectively, these two companies hold 50% of the smartphone market share, and take 90% of the global industry margins. Samsung is the only Android manufacturer that is really profitable. Around 25% of the iPhone is made by Samsung. The corporations publicly don't like each other, and don't have any problems suing each other while making business. A weird situation indeed.

Apple's biggest quarter brought in $13 billion dollars of profit on $46 billion dollars of revenue, most of it from iOS devices. Samsung's revenue is around the same, with lower margin ($5 billion). Yet the whole legal fiasco ended up in Samsung having to pay around $1 billion to Apple. Peanuts, if you ask me. We have been listening to this bullshit for years now, yet the decision doesn't make any significant different to any of the giants. Except the fact that people are taking side with one or the other. Not Nokia, HTC, Motorola, Sony or anyone else. Other manufacturers don't seem to exist anymore. Just Apple and Samsung, abusing the legal system to own the mobile world. Which could easily be one of the most brilliant marketing stunts ever. Two rings to rule them all.

Why I don't believe in these crazy technology company valuations

Mon, 21 May 2012 08:14:15 GMT

The debate about the potential second technology bubble is all over the media. One of the first milestones that will determine the outcome of this story happened on friday, when Facebook went public. As opposed to other (smaller) web IPOs of the past years (LinkedIn, Groupon, Zynga, Yandex), the price on the first day stayed on the same level. This was to be expected, since Facebook received the valuation of 100 billion dollars. To put that in perspective, that's around half of Google's value, and about the same value as Amazon has. But Facebook makes 10 times less revenue than Google does, and its revenue growth is slowing down. Was Facebook valued too high? It seems so, and some analysts are already saying that most of the stocks were bought by institutional investors to keep the share price above 38$.

Facebook is not the real problem

But Facebook is not the biggest problem. It is the leading global social service, and an established company with almost 1 billion registered users, besides making quite a hefty amount of revenue ($3.7 billion in 2011). I'm more worried because of others, who make little or no revenue at all. Today, Rovio is valued around the same as Nokia, with yearly revenues of around $100 million. Instagram, with practically no revenue model, was bought for $1 billion, which is 12.000 times what Kodak is worth. A bit silly.

In technology, specially the web, companies come and go. The lifespan of services is short, and people don't hesitate to switch to a new, better alternative, and they switch fast. Remember Excite? Yahoo? MySpace? They were on top of the world not more than a decade ago. Draw Something, which was bought by Zynga for $200 million, already lost millions of users. How long does will it take for people to get bored with Angry Birds? Foursquare, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, even Facebook?

Still looking for a revenue model? Consider this.

Most of these companies have millions of users, and that is probably what fuels their valuations the most. Even though, quite a few of them are still looking for their revenue model. But what if the market simply isn't big enough for everybody? What if that is the real problem behind not being able to find a revenue model? I did some research, and here's what I found out:

the projected global spending on online advertising will be around 97$ billion in 2013 and $113 billion dollars in 2014 (source, source)
around half of that will be spent on search, around half on display (source)
projected revenues of social media ad spending in the US are around $10 billion in 2016 (source)
global mobile ad spending in 2016 will be around 15% of total online spending, or $22 billion (source)
apps and in-app purchases will generate around $46 billion in 2016 (source)
estimated size of the virtual goods market in 2015 is around $5 billion (source)
Google makes around $40 billion a year (source)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but these facts tell me that all of these companies have a market of around $150-$200 billion in 2015. ALL of them, including all the local players. Not really that much when you think about it. Sure, it's a different industry without production, but for comparison, Apple's yearly revenues are about $100 billion.

Trying to understand the math behind valuations

I went even further, and analyzed the performance of these companies; how much they earn, how much they are worth, and how many users they have. Then I tried to compare the price / sales, sales / users and price / users ratios. Since a few of high-valued companies basically have no revenue (Instagram, Foursquare), it seems that they are worth mostly between $20 and $100 dollars per user.

	Sales ($b)	Price ($b)	Users (m)	Price / Sales	Sales / Users	Price / User	Source
Amazon	50	100	/	2.00	/	/
Apple	110	520	/	4.73	/	/
Draw something	0.05	0.2	10	4.00	5.00	20.00	revenue, value, users
Facebook	4	100	900	25.00	4.44	111.11	revenue, value, users
Foursquare	/	0.7	20	/	/	35.00	revenue, value, users
Google	40	200	1000	5.00	40.00	200.00	users
Groupon	2	8	115	4.00	17.39	69.57	users
Instagram	/	1	50	/	/	20.00	revenue, value, users
Kodak	6	0.07	/	0.01	/	/
Linkedin	0.5	14	130	28.00	3.85	107.69	users
Microsoft	70	260	/	3.71	/	/
Nokia	38	11	/	0.29	/	/
Pinterest	0.05*	1	12	20.00	4.17	83.33	revenue, value, users
Rovio	0.1	9	1000**	90.00	0.10	9.00	revenue, value, users
Tumblr	/	1	30	/	/	33.33	revenue, value, users
Twitter	0.14	10	100	71.43	1.40	100.00	revenue, value, users
Yahoo	5	19	170	3.80	29.41	111.76	users
Zynga	1	7	150	7.00	6.67	46.67	users

Data for publicly traded companies are available on MarketWatch.
* - estimate
** - downloads

Google manages to make the most from its users, around $40 per user per year. How much can the others make in the long-run, put together with the estimated $150b market size? How many can even earn anything before their users leave? The equation somehow doesn't add up.

These companies are great, but still…

I'm a big fan of the internet, I truly admire these companies, and use most if their services. But I still think this is madness. Didn't we learn enough from the first dot-com bubble? Today, we're a part of the social / mobile excitement, what can we expect tomorrow, the semantic excitement? The internet is maturer than this, and nobody will take it seriously, if it will behave so manically depressive. Ups and downs every few years surely don't work that well, and another bubble is definitely something the we don't need in these unstable economic times. So, please guys, take it a bit easier. don't be too greedy and enjoy what we have.

Perhaps the best thing that could happen at this point is for Facebook to lose about 30%-50% of its value. That could put some sense into the frenzy, before it goes to far. The situation surely needs more consideration.

You know what's cooler than $100 billion dollars? $50 billion dollars.

Apple should offer the opportunity to merge two iPads (with mockups)

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:14:42 GMT

The iPad 3 is coming out in March, and like its predecessors, it will surely be a huge success. But every time a new generation of an Apple gadget comes out, the previous ones flood the secondary markets, usually followed by massive price drops. Like iPads 1 today, iPads 2 will probably be quite inexpensive in the following weeks, when we'll have a new item on our with list. This may not be a really a big problem for Apple, since their business model of ultra-fast product cycles obviously works, but still, the idea of being able to sell more than one product of the same line to a single person could hold quite a few benefits. Let's take a look.

Why bother

I remember a really cool anecdote about an intern, who was bragging to the management of a pharmaceutical corporation he would be able to double the sales of their shampoo without any costs. Of course, no one believed him (or her), but the idea was very simple and effective. He said the company should simply put a "Wash twice" instruction to the back of the bottle, making people consume twice as much of it. The sales probably didn't double, but it's still a brilliant idea.

What about Apple? It's obvious that the low priced iPads 2 will be eating into the sales of the new iPad 3, since a lot of people will go for a second hand, cheaper version of the still capable-enough iPad 2. But by offering the possibility to merge two iPads into a single unit, Apple could prevent some of that effect, lowering the supply of the old iPads. Not only that, they could identify a totally new group of potential consumers who would buy the new iPad 3:

current: the people who don't own a tablet
current: the people who already own an iPad or a different tablet and will switch because of the iPad 3
new: people who already own an iPad, but don't feel the need to update to iPad 3 (like me)

This third group of people is who we are after, by offering them another added value to buy the new iPad without making them sell the old one. Owning two iPads at once? Why not.

Benefits: real multitasking

While the iPad and most other mobile devices support software multitasking, having more applications opened and one on the screen isn't real multitasking for the user. Split screen apps could solve this issue, but the screen size isn't that big. What would be better than having two apps on two iPads, with copy-paste and other cross-functional support? Like combining books and notes?

Real multitasking on two integrated iPads, using the iBooks and Notes.

Benefits: the book mode

We've already seen quite a few promising prototypes of book-shaped tablets, but I'm not sure if any of them made it to production. As shown on the second mockup, which displays different mailboxes in a TweetDeck type-of form on the first, and the emails on the second screen, this kind of use could prove itself very much useful.

Mailing like a pro: mailboxes on one screen, emails on the other.

Benefits: the laptop mode

At this point, the iPad is still not a full replacement for a personal computer, because of its hardware and software limitations. But it does support remote desktop connections to a computer, behaving as a terminal. Very cool, but not that useful, since it's hard to control a computer using a touch screen. By integrating two iPads into a laptop, we suddenly receive a keyboard and a trackpad, making such tasks much easier. Add a few more features to the iOS, and you could have a full replacement for a laptop. Something similar to the Asus Eee Pad Transformer or the Acer Iconia laptop concept?

Combining two iPads into a fully working laptop.

Requirements

Hardware: Easy. Something similar to the current magnetic sleeve which would hold the two iPads together. A cable wouldn't be needed, since connectivity could be done by wifi or bluetooth.

Software: Hard. Enabling one iPad to become a server and another one to become a client, being able to access and control the apps of the other.

Conclusion

Merging two iPads wouldn't be easy and probably not as useful as imagined in the mockups, since the user experience and controlling would have to be completely reinvented to support dual screen mode. Besides, if you would combine the iPad 1 (around 700 grams) and the iPad 2 (around 600 grams), you would get a 1,3 kg beast. Not very promising, but still not perfectly useless (the current 13' MacBook Air weighs 1,35 kg).

But the idea surely does hold potential. There could be even more interesting uses of such an installation, I've only outlined a few of them. So ~~Steve~~ Tim, if you like the idea, feel free to make it work. I would be more than happy to test out the MacBook Pad concept with the complementary iPad 4.

Special thanks to betmenka for lending me her iPad 2 despite being in a real hurry.

I feel sLOVEnia. I really do.

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:25:27 GMT

Not that it's the best slogan ever. I always preferred "Slovenia, on the sunny side of the Alps", which was somehow forgotten / lost / stolen in the mean time, but "I feel" it's still much better than the previous "Slovenia invigorates" we've been seeing. Each slogan tells a story, but together they tell another, wider story, a story of a nation looking for its identity in these confusing times of globalization and recession. But we may not be as confused as it seems, these past weeks have shown there is much determination around. Much love, displayed in the huge amount of support and sincere wishes I received after we've launched Twenity. I felt sLOVEnia, finally!

Even in the making of Twenity, people were helping us, commenting, blogging about it and lending us their Twitter accounts for testing. The launch went great, the whole wwwh community and others took Twenity for its own. We've made contact with successful Slovenian startups (more on them some other time) and exceptional individuals, all prepared to help and support us in any way they can. Everybody's curious about what's happening and where we are going. And quite a few think Twenity could be it.

But why the surprise? Well, even though Slovenians are very capable, they are traditionally also a bit protective and envious, not really wishing their neighbor would succeed with something or have a bigger car. We often lack the ability to find unity (as displayed by the current political crisis in the worst time possible), but at the same time wish we could stand united the way some other cultures can. But it seems new values have finally come around, backed up by ideas that Slovenia could truly be the next Silicon Valley. Ideas brought by a new generation of technology entrepreneurs, experiencing them on their own skin in San Francisco.

Tomaž Štolfa from vox.io said that the entire IT sector in Slovenia couldn't form a corporation as big as Apple or Google, and he is more than right. We shouldn't compete between ourselves, 5 mobile operators are more than enough for 2 million people. We should think big, and technology is where I FEEL we can make it, it's where i recognized LOVE and wider thoughts. I see capable people everywhere, and it's overwhelming. Together, we could do something special, bypassing the current political and economical fuckup. And I know you feel it to. Thank you for that.

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

Occupy Wall Street – why it won’t go away and why it matters [guest blogger Nick Taylor]

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:27:26 GMT

This is part of a special two part series transatlantic blog post about Occupy Wall Street. Come check out my cross-branded blog post on Nick Taylor’s thetwohalves.com*.

The Occupy movement has gone global ever since it’s fiery start on September 17, 2011, in New York City's Zuccotti Park. Strangely enough, the phenomenon was initiated by Canadians, the founders of Adbusters magazine, not Americans, lending further credibility to South Park’s famous "Blame Canada" motto. But I digress.

Why should you care? It’s just a bunch of stupid hippies and jobless freaks expressing their angst because they can’t get a job with their smelly dreadlocks, right? Well, maybe not. This movement is tapping into the very core of the reasons underpinning the Great Recession, tapping into ancient history and even potentially changing the course of the political debate in the United States and around the world through its grass roots and social media approach. Click here for a global map of protest locations around the world. More interesting than the countries on the map IMHO are the glaring exceptions: quasi-communist China, formerly communist Russia and most of Africa. Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing.

The drivers of the movement are many, however one of the more powerful statistics (click here for a primer) is that the top 1 percent of Americans possess a greater net worth than the entire bottom 90 percent. What’s making people angrier still is the drop in lower and middle class income against this top 1 percent. While no one is really talking about the reasons, it’s pretty simple. While the middle class in America grew wealthy primarily due to rising home values tied to mortgages, the wealthiest decile was predominantly invested in their own businesses and didn’t rely on loans for their wealth, so when the bottom fell out of the housing market worldwide, they were immune.

But enough about money. What this post is about is recognizing the political impetus for change evident in OWS. Some have called it the left leaning version of the Tea Party movement. And it is. In fact, I have great respect for both movements, as impossible as that may sound to Europeans. And I am not one to shy away from controversial positions, as evidenced by my post on WikiLeaks. Both organic movements were born out of a frustration with the current self-serving political structure that is willing to change absolutely nothing. So much for Obama! But what the OWS is sorely lacking is a well-defined set of goals and more importantly, a charismatic spokesperson. From my strategic marketing perspective, what they need to ultimately succeed is a leftist version of Sarah Palin. And much like the billionaire Koch brothers (whom the only viable Republican candidate for President of the US, Mitt Romney has been courting) were soon outed as the financial engine of the Tea Party, it’s only a matter of time before the people financing the Occupy movement are exposed.

The grassroots model which OWS champions, based loosely on the Egyptian protests which made effective use of social media to spread discontent with an unpopular and autocratic government worldwide is the closest the modern world has seen to a direct democracy since ancient Greece. Could this be the way forward? Say what you will, but the Occupy movement is absolutely right about one thing. Money should not equal political influence. The will of the people should. If it weren’t for the crack rock habit corporate money represents to US politicians, Congress would have changed legislation to outlaw the dubious financial instruments which nearly sunk the global economy years ago. Shame on you, elected representatives.

Sadly, while most Americans still want to believe in the Dream and many will tell you that hard work is the key to success, the stats offer a much starker reality. Income inequality in the US now ranks in the bottom third of the world, is greater than in most of the developed world (including Europe) and is in fact very close to Russia’s. Not exactly the comparison Americans aspire to. Slovenians reading this post can take comfort in knowing their country is best in the world when it comes to income equality, even if it could be doing a much better job in attracting FDI, reforming its 3rd world judicial system and job creation.

Way forward? You tell me, but change is in the making, and if history has taught us anything, it’s that revolutions can be sudden, unpredictable and harsh. France’s Marie Antoinette learned that the hard way. America was forged through a revolution. Will it be re-born through one? Or will the OWS movement simply fade into oblivion? Only time will tell, but the clock of political change is ticking, many people are fed up and the younger generations are the ones with a future to lose… Not to mention the whole world is watching.

Nick Taylor is a social media, PR and marketing consultant, blogger, politico and wannabe geek based in Scottsdale, Arizona (US). He shares his thoughts on thetwohalves.com.

Check out the complete Occupy Wall Street series.

The great technology wars and the transition of software from B2B to B2C

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:25:14 GMT

The epic article by Fast Company about the technology wars of 2012 provides great insight into what's happening in Silicon Valley and software in general these days. Four players, or the Fabulous Four, are mentioned to be the real market and innovation leaders: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google. Each of these companies found its place where it dominates and invents new business models, and each one is a role model for new generations of technology startups and leaders. And if you didn't notice, all of them sell software to consumers, not other companies (in case of Google and Facebook, you are the real customer, but advertisers pay for it). Software is becoming more and more consumer-oriented, and the clash of these titans will determine the outcome, the software of the future.

The Fab Four

Who are these fantastic companies? Amazon is the leader in e-commerce. Apple reinvented mobile devices and content distribution. Facebook is the largest social network in the world, a big brother in the making. Google is the biggest web and search company.

I almost won't argue with the choice of the Fab Four. To me, these are truly the technology companies that are moving things forward. To be honest, the list is bit of an understatement for Microsoft, even though that doesn't change the fact I'm trying to put out here. These four corporations (their software at least) are more B2C (Business To Consumer) than B2B (Business To Business) oriented. Even Microsoft, with its XBox, Bing, Windows (Phone and Tablet) programs is shifting focus to consumer markets.

The stock market comparison

The B2B software market is still huge, but electronic commerce, online advertising and the economy of scale of billions of users spending a few dollars is slowly outperforming more expensive business solutions sold fewer times, even if they are deployed millions of times as operating systems, products or services. If you check out the following charts, you can see information about market capitalization, revenue and historical price change of these companies (Facebook is not public yet, but it's IPO could be around $100 billion) compared to traditional technology companies such as Oracle, Microsoft and IBM. The numbers are pretty interesting (source: ycharts).

Market capitalization of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 10 years (as available)

Change in market capitalization of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 7 years (as available)

Revenue of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 10 years (as available)

Change in revenue of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 8 years (as available)

Change in stock price of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 7 years (as available)

Why does it matter

As a software architect, I see major shifts in user-centered software compared to business-oriented software. Even if you check Gartner's strategic technologies of 2012, it becomes more and more obvious what's happening:

software is made for and "sold" to users, not management anymore
product cycles and new releases are reaching Warp Speed
the focus is shifting from features to benefits
user experience is becoming more and more important
technology used is getting less and less important
system and data integration is becoming trivial with web services and APIs
there's a new generation of devices that run software (smartphones and tablets, the internet of things)
scaling and performance is not measured in Whateverbytes, but in number of users
new distribution channels (marketplaces) are going beyond the Web
platforms and mashups have emerged, where ecosystems of software are being build around the core service
online software is more disruptive and innovative, business software follows (from Web 2.0 to Enterprise 2.0, adoption of gamification in the enterprise, etc.)

Adaptation

Some business software companies, such as Salesforce.com have managed to adapt to this situation, offering a platform others can upgrade and develop on. We're adapting too, on a smaller scale. Neolab is still mostly focused on B2B software, since that's where we've built our market. Sure, we did a few web portals and are working on deploying our own user-targeted service Twitfluence, but it's business-oriented software that we generally work on. But that doesn't change the fact we are fully aware that the concept of software is changing, and we are on top of it, trying to embrace these trends and include new paradigms in corporate infromation systems. Social, user-oriented, user-friendly. Knowing that people are behind every company.

Software is maturing; consumers are getting more and more demanding, brands behind the software are getting more and more important. And as the Web expands even further, this fact will become yet more obvious. It's you and me who are the ones who are "buying" software. Which is great, since in the end the ordinary people, not corporations, will be those who will decide how software and technology of the future will look like. Interactive, useful and fun. Here we are now, entertain us.

Environmental, political and technological influences of Avatar

Mon, 11 Jan 2010 18:46:28 GMT

This post is probably already out of date, but I still feel I should say a few words about the movie that could become one of the biggest blockbusters of all time and surely a cult movie of the future. I personally loved it. Not just because of the story and the package, but because of the positive influence it will bring to this confused era. I think the director James Cameron is quite bold to openly address most of the biggest global issues of our time in it, a thing that actually wasn't mentioned as much as it probably should be.

Comparing Avatar with Pocahontas is very popular these days, but I simply don't care about the similar plots. I see Avatar not only as a movie that changed cinema forever, I think it will also change the world for the better. We, the people of this planet needed a statement like this badly, now we can only hope that many of us got the obvious and the subtle messages it holds. The messages which doubt the actions of governments and corporations worldwide and support a more responsible attitude towards life, the universe and everything.

Environmental issues

The debate on global warming is more actual than ever, and the media are doing great to confuse people about the fact if it really exists and if it is really caused by humans. I personally don't care about what's true anymore, because one thing I did get out of this is that there is nothing I can really do about it. But that doesn't change the fact that I care about this planet and I feel we should be more responsible and respectful towards 'our mother'. Humans are the only species on the Earth that will take anything we are be able to get our hands on as long as it's available and possible, without thinking about the consequences. We were supposed to be the most intelligent species, but in this case insects or rodents act more intelligent and strategic than we do. If our planet dies, we will just go somewhere else.

Imperial and political issues

The age of imperialism is far from over and capitalism without any morale is a global trend. Child and slave labor, other types of exploitation, mining of scarce natural resources using all means necessary, destroying nature for business opportunities and even wars are things we got used to seeing as normal. Because of these actions, some people and other living beings are dying, suffering or barely able to survive while some other people are getting richer and more influential. Bad things used to happen because of religion. Today, in the advanced world of democracy and liberty, the worst things on the planet are happening because of political, economical and corporate interests. In contrast with your television, Avatar makes you sad because of this.

Revolutionary technology

Leaving aside the global problems, we can’t go past drooling over supposedly revolutionary technology of film making on which James Cameron waited for years before he filmed Avatar. The imaginary landscapes, together with amazing flora and fauna is really beautiful, even though we have to admit the whole concept resembles The Lord of the Rings a bit. But one thing is certain, the 3D screening is pretty awesome and almost makes you think the movie is a real theater stage. It’s really real 3D. You have to see it to believe it, which you probably already did. Electronics manufacturers are already making 3D television prototypes so it looks like we are ready for the next generation of broadcasting. Another thing to spend money on, but still pretty cool.

I enjoyed Avatar because of the listed reasons and statements, which are portrayed in the film in different forms and to different extent. Hopefully you were able to notice them too. Besides, the movie is fun and surely a positive influence on the world and our perception of it. Hell, you can’t believe a movie like that has a chance to break the all time box office record, looks like it's not so hopeless after all and people actually do care about our lives and our future, even if they saw Avatar mostly to admire the technology. If they sympathized, they understood, and that's what's important for the already messed up future up ahead. Avatar, we thank you.

Neolab in 2009

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:38:32 GMT

2009 was a hard year for everybody, specially for start-ups such as Neolab. Greed and wrong decisions of global financial institutions and their leaders turned the world upside down. Luckily we were able to survive, to stand tall against all the challenges that await for us next year. Projects have been confirmed, so the biggest issue that we face now is consolidating our inner organization and finishing our software framework that we put so much time and energy into.

A few weeks ago, Neolab celebrated it’s second birthday. The first two years are supposedly decisive for the survival of start-ups, so if this unfriendly situation won’t last too long, looks like we’ll make it. To sum it up: for us, 2008 was the year of checking out the scene, where we were observing if it’s possible to make it on our own. The second year, 2009, was the year of marketing, where we presented ourselves to broader audience.

Our presentation was quite successful. After a few years of building and optimizing our design and marketing concept with IlovarStritar, we finally launched our web page, a thing we are very proud of. Until this post we (they) have already received two awards for Neolab’s broader corporate identity, Brumen award and Taiwan international award. This confirmed we made the right decision by doing something special with our image.

The whole story of our design identity is built around a fictional ecosystem of pixelized mutant animals, representing connectivity of people, organizations and processes using information technology. Different animals are used for different documents and people so the whole concept is scalable, artistic, interesting and fun. If you like, you can check out the whole showcase on the IlovarStritar website.

We are becoming one of the biggest slovenian experts in IT. In april we received an award on the Slovenian IT conference for best paper on the subject of IT 2.0. If that wasn’t enough, we were also named the Emerging web agency of 2009 on Slovenia's biggest web authority, Netko. The barriers between organization, marketing, IT and web are obviously getting thinner and thinner, and Neolab stands strong right in the middle of it.

We may look good on the outside, but we are also healthy on the inside. At this point we employ six people, which actually brought a bit of organizational confusion. By adopting stronger approaches in project management, things are turning for the better. Besides, our big investment into our framework, which now stands stable, scalable and promising, will soon be complete, so we are more than ready for all the projects that are coming upon us.

Hopefully this year will be more welcoming. As we and our services mature, new challenges for our clients, suppliers, partners, supporters and ourselves are on the horizon, so you better be ready for all the things we have in store. To a successful 2010!

Backpacking in Thailand

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:34:06 GMT

November was a great month, my yearly vacation finally arrived. To make it something special, my girlfriend and I went backpacking in Thailand. The country is beautiful and diverse, with metropolises and jungles, highways and paradise islands. The people are also really nice and the food is great. Even though it wasn't cheap, Thailand is a place definitely worth visiting.

Our path started in Bangkok. After a few days of sightseeing, shopping and meeting some friends we took a bus north. Ancient ruins, nature and hikes were amazing, but we decided to fly to Kuala Lumpur to do a bit of change in the culture (Malaysians are mostly Muslim, compared to Buddhists in Thailand). Finally, for the grand finale, we stayed on the tropical islands for a week to gather our strength to return to the western world. The map below displays our journey and the pictures display the highlights.

Bangkok

Bankgkok, the capital of Thailand, is an awesome city. With around 8 million inhabitants, it's packed with sights, temples, palaces, parks, markets and busy streets. The buzz doesn't end even during the night, and tuk-tuks are the coolest and most rational way of getting around in the chaotic traffic of the urban jungle.

Sukhotai

Traveling north, we stopped at the ancient ruins of Sukhotai, a great city of the past. Now it rests among the trees and reminds tourists of the large ancestry of empires long gone.

Chiang Mai

Chiang Mai is the cultural center of the north and offers travelers a good starting point for many activities, such as adventures, treks, safaris, cooking schools and one of the greatest things we did on our trip, elephant training. These creatures are colossal and beautiful. After a few hours of activities it's hard not to fall in love with them.

Kuala Lumpur

It's becoming obvious that Asia is the continent of the future, but we had to check it out for ourselves. The capital of Malaysia is a modern city with skyscrapers and monorail, but it lacks some of the cool vibe Bangkok has.

Ko Phi Phi

First island we visited was Phuket, but it turned out to be packed with massive tourist resorts. After one day we ran away to Ko Phi Phi, and it was just what we were looking for. A tropical paradise with long-tail boats, white sand beaches, palm trees and beatiful see.

Ko Phangan

Thailand's famous Full Moon Parties are known all around the world, where tens of thousands of people dance away until sunrise. Sadly they happen only once a month, but we were still lucky enough to catch the Black Moon Party and get loaded on buckets of alcohol under neon lights.

There you have it, three weeks of cruising around Thailand. Seeing the people and society there and comparing them to our materialist western civilization made me wonder about a lot of things. Perhaps it's because of Buddhism, perhaps it's because of other cultural or economical elements, but people there seem happy and you get drawn to that. I felt really safe everywhere I went, which sadly can't be said for many western cities. The story of civilizations continues to intrigue.

Made in Slovenia

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:57:42 GMT

Friends tell me I am usually too naive and romantic, but sometimes I just can't help myself being an optimist. Even though Slovenia is one of the most taxed nations in the world, I still envision Slovenia as an emerging country with one of the highest potentials around. Breakthroughs are possible, f.i. Ireland became one of the most successful countries in the EU (second highest GDP in EU!) even though their economic model was hit really hard by the recession. I'm sure Slovenia will do even better when her time comes, so be ready.

Perhaps the greatest competitive advantage of Slovenia is insight, intuition and understanding others. It started with Yugoslavia, probably the only country in the world fully embracing three major religions (Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim). Sadly, that story ended in bloodshed, but some positive heritage remains. With great geographic location, bordering Austria, Croatia, Hungary and Italy, all the major cultures of Europe are influencing Slovenians. By being a post socialistic country with not too exploited capitalism adoption, Slovenia was the perfect playground for new era negotiations between Bush and Putin. Neutral ground between north and south, east and west, understanding motives and interests of many players, small enough not to be a threat.

Cultural diversity and high information flow made some Slovenians outstanding, and the Adriatic see being the window to Europe probably helped too. Quite a few companies were able to produce global success stories, specializing in high-tech products and services, such as IT, technology, aeronautics and alternative energies (more on cool Slovenian brands some other post). Not bad for a country the size of a large city, taxed to the maximum.

Taxes. They work really contra productive, but they're caused by our greatest flaw - our size. 2 million citizens. Everybody knows everybody and projects become political way too soon. Another thing that happens is that the government becomes the only buyer big enough to afford things. Our startup Neolab is developing innovative IT solutions and trying to make it abroad, with some success. Because I understand that building the Slovenia brand plays a really important part in achieving this, I'm blogging about it and doing everything in my power to promote Slovenia (and Neolab, I admit...). Hopefully others will follow and "Made in Slovenia" will have higher value soon. I think it deserves it and most of us probably need it.

Exporting high value-added specialized products and services is what we do best and what we will hopefully be able to continue on a larger scale. This is the strategy Slovenia has to keep and support. Our scientists are amongst the best in the world and can make innovative, creative, useful and modern goods of the highest quality for a fair price. Besides, people here are cool, most of them are faithful, fair, loyal and unconflicting. Come see for yourself, nice people, tasty wine, good beer and beautiful nature will do you well.

The world of the globalized tomorrow will be moderated by the neutral and objective. This is Slovenia's hidden expertise that still has to be recognized, even though we've already been doing it for ages. And because we are too naive, we won't even take advantage of it. We will rather work hard and wait for the indirect, long term benefits. It may sound irrational, but I fully support that approach.

My inspiration for this post is an online civil initiative about development and future of our country that's actual right now by taking full advantage of Web 2.0 (Facebook, Twitter, Noovo, LinkedIn). Thumbs up for that, but we will probably need more than just good ideas. This time my contribution goes for motivation and realization that we have the potential to make it big if we work together and cooperate. Made in Slovenia.

Price elasticity of demand - operating systems and Snow Leopard

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:25:49 GMT

A lot of my colleagues from the Faculty of Economics think their study was mostly a waste of time. Too much focus on old, out of date concepts and approaches, too little focus on real life. I can't argue with that, it is a bit old school and theoretical, so it's up to the student to make the most out of the abstract things he learned. But you can't do that before you see the real world. And you also have to put a bit of thinking into the whole picture. Then you are able to see that basic concepts, such as supply and demand are everywhere (not only in economics and business) and can fully explain why the sweets of the most scarce flavor in the box taste the best.

Another interesting concept in economics is price elasticity. To put it in simple words, it explains how people react to different prices of the same commodity. Elementary goods, such as food, are not elastic; if a loaf of bread costs 50 cents or 2 €, the bakers will sell about the same amount, because people need it for living and they will buy it anyway. On the other hand, luxury goods are very elastic. If a basic car would costs 5.000 € or 20.000 €, the people would react strongly to it, and only a few people would buy cars because they would be too expensive.

There's a whole theory behind it on how to find the optimal price for goods. Record labels don't want to see it and the whole record industry is in a crisis, while music piracy is in bloom. In my opinion, I would buy a lot of records, if they would cost 5 € each. In real world, I won't buy many because they cost 20 € each. So, the big question at hand is: would the global record industry sell more than 4 times the number of records they do if the price was 4 times cheaper? I think they would - and if I am right, this would mean that music records are price elastic.

These days we are witnessing a very good example on price elasticity of software and it looks like Apple has done it again. They're offering their newest operating system Snow Leopard for 29 € to users of the previous version (Leopard). Rumors have it you can put it also on the prior version (Tiger), which I hope is true, because I already bought it (it is possible according to AppleInsider). So, at the same time Windows users are struggling not to let go of Windows XP and are sticking to the past, Apple is giving away their new operating system for a price of a good meal and everybody wants it. Pretty smart for market penetration and building customer loyalty.

I wouldn't pay 150 € to go for a new version of an operating system, which is about the regular price of Windows Vista or Mac OS, specially if the current one works. But 30 € completely changes the story. The result is interesting; it caused a demand overflow and here in Slovenia you had to make a reservation and wait for a week to get it. When I went to the store, everybody was buying Snow Leopards. I understand the cult of Mac, but this was amazing and a good example of market supremacy.

Looks like the strategists at Apple know their economics as well as they now their marketing.