Archiv der Kategorie: Kreativität

John Deere turned tractors into computers — what’s next?

One of our themes on Decoder is that basically everything is a computer now, and farming equipment like tractors and combines are no different. My guest this week is Jahmy Hindman, chief technology officer at John Deere, the world’s biggest manufacturer of farming machinery. And I think our conversation will surprise you.

Jahmy told me that John Deere employs more software engineers than mechanical engineers now, which completely surprised me. But the entire business of farming is moving toward something called precision agriculture, which means farmers are closely tracking where seeds are planted, how well they’re growing, what those plants need, and how much they yield.

The idea, Jahmy says, is to have each plant on a massive commercial farm tended with individual care — a process which requires collecting and analyzing a massive amount of data. If you get it right, precision agriculture means farmers can be way more efficient — they can get better crop yields with less work and lower costs.

The idea, Jahmy says, is to have each plant on a massive commercial farm tended with individual care — a process which requires collecting and analyzing a massive amount of data. If you get it right, precision agriculture means farmers can be way more efficient — they can get better crop yields with less work and lower costs.

But as Decoder listeners know by now, turning everything into computers means everything has computer problems now. Like all that farming data: who owns it? Where is it processed? How do you get it off the tractors without reliable broadband networks? What format is it in? If you want to use your John Deere tractor with another farming analysis vendor, how easy is that? Is it easy enough?

And then there are the tractors themselves — unlike phones, or laptops, or even cars, tractors get used for decades. How should they get upgraded? How can they be kept secure? And most importantly, who gets to fix them when they break?

John Deere is one of the companies at the center of a nationwide reckoning over the right to repair. Right now, tech companies like Samsung and Apple and John Deere all get to determine who can repair their products and what official parts are available.

And because these things are all computers, these manufacturers can also control the software to lock out parts from other suppliers. But it’s a huge deal in the context of farming equipment, which is still extremely mechanical, often located far away from service providers and not so easy to move, and which farmers have been repairing themselves for decades. In fact, right now the prices of older, pre-computerized tractors are skyrocketing because they’re easier to repair.

Half of the states in the country are now considering right to repair laws that would require manufacturers to disable software locks and provide parts to repair shops, and a lot of it is being driven — in a bipartisan way — by the needs of farmers.

John Deere is famously a tractor company. You make a lot of equipment for farmers, for construction sites, that sort of thing. Give me the short version of what the chief technology officer at John Deere does.

[As] chief technology officer, my role is really to try to set the strategic direction from a technology perspective for the company, across both our agricultural products as well as our construction, forestry, and road-building products. It’s a cool job. I get to look out five, 10, 15, 20 years into the future and try to make sure that we’re putting into place the pieces that we need in order to have the technology solutions that are going to be important for our customers in the future.

One of the reasons I am very excited to have you on Decoder is there are a lot of computer solutions in your products. There’s hardware, software, services that I think of as sort of traditional computer company problems. Do you also oversee the portfolio of technologies that [also] make combines more efficient and tractor wheels move faster?

We’ve got a centrally-organized technology stack organization. We call it the intelligent solutions group, and its job is really to do exactly that. It’s to make sure that we’re developing technologies that can scale across the complete organization, across those combines you referenced, and the tractors and the sprayers, and the construction products, and deploy that technology as quickly as possible.

One of the things The Verge wrestles with almost every day is the question of, “What is a computer?” We wrestle with it in very small and obvious ways — we argue about whether the iPad or an Xbox is a computer. Then you can zoom all the way out: we had Jim Farley, who’s the CEO of Ford, on Decoder a couple of weeks ago, and he and I talked about how Ford’s cars are effectively rolling computers now.

Is that how you see a tractor or a combine or construction equipment — that these are gigantic computers that have big mechanical functions as well?

They absolutely are. That’s what they’ve become over time. I would call them mobile sensor suites that have computational capability, not only on-board, but to your point, off-board as well. They are continuously streaming data from whatever it is — let’s say the tractor and the planter — to the cloud. We’re doing computational work on that data in the cloud, and then serving that information, those insights, up to farmers, either on their desktop computer or on a mobile handheld device or something like that.

As much as they are doing productive work in the field, planting as an example, they are also data acquisition and computational devices.

How much of that is in-house at John Deere? How big is the team that is building your mobile apps? Is that something you outsource? Is that something you develop internally? How have you structured the company to enable this kind of work?

We do a significant amount of that work internally. It might surprise you, we have more software development engineers today within Deere than we have mechanical design engineers. That’s kind of mind-blowing for a company that’s 184 years old and has been steeped in mechanical product development, but that’s the case. We do nearly all of our own internal app development inside the four walls of Deere.

That said, our data application for customers in the ag space, for example, is the Operations Center. We do utilize third parties. There’s roughly 184 companies that have been connected to Operations Center through encrypted APIs, that are writing applications against that data for the benefit of the customers, the farmers that want to use those applications within their business.

One of the reasons we’re always debating what a computer is and isn’t is that once you describe something as a computer, you inherit a bunch of expectations about how computers work. You inherit a bunch of problems about how computers work and don’t work. You inherit a bunch of control; API access is a way of exercising control over an ecosystem or an economy.

Have you shifted the way that John Deere thinks about its products? As new abilities are created because you have computerized so much of a tractor, you also increase your responsibility, because you have a bunch more control.

There’s no doubt. We’re having to think about things like security of data, as an example, that previously, 30 years ago, was not necessarily a topic of conversation. We didn’t have competency in it. We’ve had to become competent in areas like that because of exactly the point you’re making, that the product has become more computer-like than conventional tractor-like over time.

That leads to huge questions. You mentioned security. Looking at some of your recent numbers, you have a very big business in China. Thirty years ago, you would export a tractor to China and that’s the end of that conversation. Now, there’s a huge conversation about cybersecurity, data sharing with companies in China, down the line, a set of very complicated issues for a tractor company that 30 years ago wouldn’t have any of those problems. How do you balance all those out?

It’s a different set of problems for sure, and more complicated for geopolitical reasons in the case of China, as you mentioned. Let’s take security as an example. We have gone through the change that many technology companies have had to go through in the space of security, where it’s no longer bolted on at the end, it’s built in from the ground up. So it’s the security-by-design approach. We’ve got folks embedded in development organizations across the company that do nothing every day, other than get up and think about how to make the product more secure, make the datasets more secure, make sure that the data is being used for its intended purposes and only those.

That’s a new skill. That’s a skill that we didn’t have in the organization 20 years ago that we’ve had to create and hire the necessary talent in order to develop that skill set within the company at the scale that we need to develop it at.

Go through a very basic farming season with a John Deere combine and tractor. The farmer wakes up, they say, “Okay, I’ve got a field. I’ve got to plant some seeds. We’ve got to tend to them. Eventually, we’ve got to harvest some plants.” What are the points at which data is collected, what are the points at which it’s useful, and where does the feedback loop come in?

I’m going to spin it a little bit and not start with planting.

I’m going to tell you that the next season for a farmer actually starts at harvest of the previous season, and that’s where the data thread for the next season actually starts. It starts when that combine is in the field harvesting whatever it is, corn, soybeans, cotton, whatever. And the farmer is creating, while they’re running the combine through the field, a dataset that we call a yield map. It is geospatially referenced. These combines are running through the field on satellite guidance. We know where they’re at at any point in time, latitude, longitude, and we know how much they’re harvesting at that point in time.

So we create this three-dimensional map that is the yield across whatever field they happen to be in. That data is the inception for a winter’s worth of work, in the Northern hemisphere, that a farmer goes through to assess their yield and understand what changes they should make in the next season that might optimize that yield even further.

They might have areas within the field that they go into and know they need to change seeding density, or they need to change crop type, or they need to change how much nutrients they provide in the next season. And all of those decisions are going through their head because they [have] to seed in December, they have to order their nutrients in late winter. They’re making those plans based upon that initial dataset of harvest information.

And then they get into the field in the spring, to your point, with a tractor and a planter, and that tractor and planter are taking the prescription that the farmer developed with the yield data that they took from the previous harvest. They’re using that prescription to apply changes to that field in real time as they’re going through the field, with the existing data from the yield map and the data in real time that they’re collecting with the tractor to modify things like seeding rate, and fertilizer rate and all of those things in order to make sure that they’re minimizing the inputs to the operation while at the same time working to maximize the output.

That data is then going into the cloud, and they’re referencing it. For example, that track the tractor and the planter took through the field is being used to inform the sprayer. When the sprayer goes into the field after emergence, when the crops come out of the ground, it’s being used to inform that sprayer what the optimal path is to drive through the field in order to spray only what needs to be sprayed and no more, to damage the crop the least amount possible, all in an effort to optimize that productivity at the end of the year, to make that yield map that is [a] report card at the end of the year for the farmer, to make that turn out to have a better grade.

That’s a lot of data. Who collects it? Is John Deere collecting it? Can I hire a third-party SaaS software company to manage that data for me? How does that part work?

A significant amount of that data is collected on the fly while the machines are in the field, and it’s collected, in the case of Deere machines, by Deere equipment running through the field. There are other companies that create the data, and they can be imported into things like the Deere Operations Center so that you have the data from whatever source that you wanted to collect it from. I think the important thing there is historically, it’s been more difficult to get the data off the machine, because of connectivity limitations, into a database that you can actually do something with it.

Today, the disproportionate number of machines in large agriculture are connected. They’re connected through terrestrial cell networks. They’re streaming data bi-directionally to the cloud and back from the cloud. So that data connectivity infrastructure that’s been built out over the last decade has really enabled two-way communication, and it’s taken the friction out of getting the data off of a mobile piece of equipment. So it’s happening seamlessly for that operator. And that’s a benefit, because they can act on it then in more near real time, as opposed to having to wait for somebody to upload data at some point in the future.

Whose data is this? Is it the farmer’s data? Is it John Deere’s data? Is there a terms of service agreement for a combine? How does that work?

Certainly [there is] a terms of service agreement. Our position is pretty simple. It’s the farmer’s data. They control it. So if they want to share it through an API with somebody that is a trusted adviser from their perspective, they have the right to do that. If they don’t want to share it, they don’t have to do that. It is their data to control.

Is it portable? When I say there are “computer problems” here, can my tractor deliver me, for example, an Excel file?

They certainly can export the data in form factors that are convenient for them, and they do. Spreadsheet math is still routinely done on the farm, and then [they can] utilize the spreadsheet to do some basic data analytics if they want. I would tell you, though, that what’s happening is that the amount of data that is being collected and curated and made available to them to draw insights from is so massive that while you can still use spreadsheets to manipulate some of it, it’s just not tractable in all cases. So that’s why we’re building functionality into things like the Operations Center to help do data analytics and serve up insights to growers.

It’s their data. They can choose to look at the insights or not, but we can serve those insights up to them, because the data analysis part of this problem is becoming significantly larger because the datasets are so complex and large, not to mention the fact that you’ve got more data coming in all the time. Different sensors are being applied. We can measure different things. There [are] unique pieces of information that are coming in and routinely building to overall ecosystems of data that they have at their disposal.

We’ve talked a lot about the feedback loop of data with the machinery in particular. There’s one really important component to this, which is the seeds. There are a lot of seed manufacturers out in the world. They want this data. They have GMO seeds, they can adjust the seeds to different locations. Where do they come into the mix?

The data, from our perspective, is the farmer’s data. They’re the ones who are controlling the access to it. So if they want to share their data with someone, they have that ability to do it. And they do today. They’ll share their yield map with whoever their local seed salesman is and try to optimize the seed variety for the next planting season in the spring.

So that data exists. It’s not ours, so we’re not at liberty to share it with seed companies, and we don’t. It has to come through the grower because it’s their productivity data. They’re the ones that have the opportunity to share it. We don’t.

You do have a lot of data. Maybe you can’t share it widely, but you can aggregate it. You must have a very unique view of climate change. You must see where the foodways are moving, where different kinds of crops are succeeding and failing. What is your view of climate change, given the amount of data that you’re taking in?

The reality is for us that we’re hindered in answering that question by the recency of the data. So, broad-scale data acquisition from production agriculture is really only a five- to 10-year-old phenomenon. So the datasets are getting richer. They’re getting better.

We have the opportunity to see trends in that data across the datasets that exist today, but I think it’s too early. I don’t think the data is mature enough yet for us to be able to draw any conclusions from a climate change perspective with respect to the data that we have.

The other thing that I’ll add is that the data intensity is not universal across the globe. So if you think of climate change on a global perspective, we’ve got a lot of data for North America, a fair amount of data that gets taken by growers in Europe, a little bit in South America, but it’s not rich enough across the global agricultural footprint for us to be able to make any sort of statements about how climate change is impacting it right now.

Is that something you’re interested in doing?

Yes. I couldn’t predict when, but I think that the data will eventually be rich enough for insights to be drawn from it. It’s just not there yet.

Do you think about doing a fully electric tractor? Is that in your technology roadmap, that you’ve got to get rid of these diesel engines?

You’ve got to be interested in EVs right now. And the answer is yes. Whether it’s a tractor or whether it’s some other product in our product line, alternative forms of propulsion, alternative forms of power are definitely something that we’re thinking about. We’ve done it in the past with, I would say, hybrid solutions like a diesel engine driving an electric generator, and then the rest of the machine being electrified from a propulsion perspective.

But we’re just getting to the point now where battery technology, lithium-ion technology, is power-dense enough for us to see it starting to creep into our portfolio. Probably from the bottom up. Lower power density applications first, before it gets into some of the very large production ag equipment that we’ve talked about today.

What’s the timeline to a fully EV combine, do you think?

I think it’ll be a long time for a combine.

I picked the biggest thing I could, basically.

It has got to run 14, 15, 16 hours per day. It’s got a very short window to run in. You can’t take all day to charge it. Those sorts of problems, they’re not insurmountable. They’re just not solved by anything that’s on the roadmap today, from a lithium-ion perspective, anyway.

You and I are talking two days after Apple had its developers’ conference. Apple famously sells hardware, software, services, as an integrated solution. Do you think of John Deere’s equipment as integrated suites of hardware, software, and services, or is it a piece of hardware that spits off data, and then maybe you can buy our services, or maybe buy somebody else’s services?

I think it’s most efficient when we think of it collectively as a system. It doesn’t have to be that way, and one of the differences I would say to an Apple comparison would be the life of the product, the iron product in our case, the tractor or the combine, is measured in decades. It may be in service for a very long time, and so we have to take that into account as we think about the technology [and] apps that we put on top of it, which have a much shorter shelf life. They’re two, three, four, five years, and then they’re obsolete, and the next best thing has come along.

We have to think about the discontinuity that occurs between product buy cycles as a consequence of that. I do think it’s most efficient to think of it all together. It isn’t always necessarily that way. There are lots of farmers that run multi-colored fleets. It’s not Deere only. So we have to be able to provide an opportunity for them to get data off of whatever their product is into the environment that best enables them to make good decisions from it.

Is that how you characterize the competition, multi-colored fleets?

Absolutely, for sure. I would love the world to be completely [John Deere] green, but it’s not quite that way.

On my way to school every day in Wisconsin growing up, I drove by a Case plant. They’re red. John Deere is famously green, Case is red, International Harvester is yellow.

Yep. Case is red, Deere is green, and then there’s a rainbow of colors outside of those two for sure.

Who are your biggest competitors? And are they adopting the same business model as you? Is this an iOS versus Android situation, or is it widely different?

Our traditional competitors in the ag space, no surprise, you mentioned one of them. Case New Holland is a great example. AGCO would be another. I think everybody’s headed down the path of precision agriculture. [It’s] the term that is ubiquitous for where the industry’s headed.

I’m going to paint a picture for you: It’s this idea of enabling each individual plant in production agriculture to be tended to by a master gardener. The master gardener is in this case probably some AI that is enabling a farmer to know exactly what that particular plant needs, when it needs it, and then our equipment provides them the capability of executing on that plan that master gardener has created for that plant on an extremely large scale.

You’re talking about, in the case of corn, for example, 50,000 plants per acre, so a master gardener taking care of 50,000 plants for every acre of corn. That’s where this is headed, and you can picture the data intensity of that. Two hundred million acres of corn ground, times 50,000 plants per acre; each one of those plants is creating data, and that’s the enormity of the scale of production agriculture when you start to get to this plant-by-plant management basis.

Let’s talk about the enormity of the data and the amount of computation — that’s in tension with how long the equipment lasts. Are you upgrading the computers and the tractors every year, or are you just trying to pull the data into your cloud where you can do the intense computation you want to do?

It’s a combination of both, I would tell you. There are components within the vehicles that do get upgraded from time to time. The displays and the servers that operate in the vehicles do go through upgrade cycles within the existing fleet.

There’s enough appetite, Nilay, for technology in agriculture that we’re also seeing older equipment get updated with new technology. So it’s not uncommon today for a customer who’s purchased a John Deere planter that might be 10 years old to want the latest technology on that planter. And instead of buying a new planter, they might buy the upgrade kit for that planter that allows them to have the latest technology on the existing planter that they own. That sort of stuff is happening all the time across the industry.

I would tell you, though, that what is maybe different now versus 10 years ago is the amount of computation that happens in the cloud, to serve up this enormity of data in bite-sized forms and in digestible pieces that actually can be acted upon for the grower. Very little of that is done on-board machines today. Most of that is done off-board.

We cover rural broadband very heavily. There’s some real-time data collection happening here, but what you’re really talking about is that at the end of a session you’ve got a big asynchronous dataset. You want to send it off somewhere, have some computation done to it, and brought back to you so you can react to it.

What is your relationship to the connectivity providers, or to the Biden administration, that is trying to roll out a broadband plan? Are you pushing to get better networks for the next generation of your products, or are you kind of happy with where things are now?

We’re pro-rural broadband, and in particular newer technologies, 5G as an example. And it’s not just for agricultural purposes, let’s just be frank. There’s a ton of benefits that accrue to a society that’s connected with a sufficient network to do things like online schooling, in particular, coming through the pandemic that we’re in the midst of, and hopefully on the tail end of here. I think that’s just highlighted the use cases for connectivity in rural locations.

Agriculture is but one of those, but there’s some really cool feature unlocks that better connectivity, both in terms of coverage and in terms of bandwidth and latency, provide in agriculture. I’ll give you an example. You think of 5G and the ability to get to incredibly low latency numbers. It allows us to do some things from a computational perspective on the edge of the network that today we don’t have the capability to do. We either do it on-board the machine, or we don’t do it at all. So things like serving up the real-time location of where a farmer’s combine is, instead of having to route that data all the way to the cloud and then back to a handheld device that the farmer might have, wouldn’t it be great if we could do that math on the edge and just ping tower to tower and serve it back down and do it really, really quickly. Those are the sorts of use cases that open up when you get to talking about not just connectivity rurally, but 5G specifically, that are pretty exciting.

Are the networks in place to do all the things you want to do?

Globally, the answer is no. Within the US and Canadian markets, coverage improves every day. There are towers that are going up every day and we are working with our terrestrial cell coverage partners across the globe to expand coverage, and they’re responding. They see, generally, the need, in particular with respect to agriculture, for rural connectivity. They understand the power that it can provide [and] the efficiency that it can derive into food production globally. So they are incentivized to do that. And they’ve been good partners in this space. That said, they recognize that there are still gaps and there’s still a lot of ground to cover, literally in some cases, with connectivity solutions in rural locations.

You mentioned your partners. The parallels to a smartphone here are strong. Do you have different chipsets for AT&T and Verizon? Can you activate your AT&T plan right from the screen in the tractor? How does that work?

AT&T is our dominant partner in North America. That is our go-to, primarily from a coverage perspective. They’re the partner that we’ve chosen that I think serves our customers the best in the most locations.

Do you get free HBO Max if you sign up?

[laughs] Unfortunately, no.

They’re putting it everywhere. You have no idea.

For sure.

I look at the broadband gap everywhere. You mentioned schooling. We cover these very deep consumer needs. On the flip side, you need to run a lot of fiber to make 5G work, especially with the low latency that you’re talking about. You can’t have too many nodes in the way. Do you support millimeter wave 5G on a farm?

Yeah, it is something we’ve looked at. It’s intriguing. How you scale it is the question. I think if we could crack that nut, it would be really interesting.

Just for listeners, an example of millimeter wave if you’re unfamiliar — you’re standing on just the right street corner in New York City, you could get gigabit speeds to a phone. You cross the street, and it goes away. That does not seem tenable on a farm.

That’s right. Not all data needs to be transmitted at the same rate. Not to cover the broad acreage, but you can envision a case where potentially, when you come into range of millimeter wave, you dump a bunch of data all at once. And then when you’re out of range, you’re still collecting data and transmitting it slower perhaps. But having the ability to have millimeter wave type of bandwidth is pretty intriguing for being able to take opportunistic advantage of it when it’s available.

What’s something you want to do that the network isn’t there for you to do yet?

I think that the biggest piece is just a coverage answer from my perspective. We intentionally buffer data on the vehicle in places where we don’t have great coverage in order to wait until that machine has coverage, in order to send the data. But the reality is that means that a grower is waiting in some cases 30 minutes or an hour until the data is synced up in the cloud and something actionable has been done with it and it’s back down to them. And by that point in time, the decision has already been made. It’s not useful because it’s time sensitive. I think that’s probably the biggest gap that we have today. It’s not universal. It happens in pockets and in geographies, but where it happens, the need is real. And those growers don’t benefit as much as growers that do have areas of good coverage.

Is that improvement going as fast as you’d like? Is that a place where you’re saying to the Biden administration, whoever it might be, “Hey, we’re missing out on opportunities because there aren’t the networks we need to go faster.”

It is not going as fast as we would like, full stop. We should be moving faster in that space. Just to tease the thought out a little bit, maybe it’s not just terrestrial cell. Maybe it’s Starlink, maybe it’s a satellite-based type of infrastructure that provides that coverage for us in the future. But it’s certainly not moving at a pace that’s rapid enough for us, given the appetite for data that growers have and what they’ve seen as an ability for that data to significantly optimize their operations.

Have you talked to the Starlink folks?

We have. It’s super interesting. It’s an intriguing idea. The question for us is a mobile one. All of our devices are mobile. Tractors are driving around a field, combines are driving around a field. You get into questions around, what does the receiver need to look like in order to make that work? It’s an interesting idea at this point. I’m ever the optimist, glass-half-full sort of person. I think it’s conceivable that in the not too distant future, that could be a very viable option for some of these locations that are underserved with terrestrial connectivity today.

Walk me through the pricing model of a tractor. These things are very expensive. They’re hundreds of thousands of dollars. What is the recurring cost for an AT&T plan necessary to run that tractor? What is the recurring cost for your data services that you provide? How does that all break down?

Our data services are free today, interestingly enough. Free in the sense [of] the hosting of the data in the cloud and the serving up of that data through Operations Center. If you buy a piece of connected Deere equipment, that service is part of your purchase. I’ll just put it that way.

The recurring expense on the consumer side of things for the connectivity is not unlike what you would experience for a cell phone plan. It’s pretty similar. The difference is for large growers, it’s not just a single cell phone.

They might have 10, 15, 20 devices that are all connected. So we do what we can to make sure that the overhead associated with all of those different connected devices is minimized, but it’s not unlike what you’d experience with an iPhone or an Android device.

Do you have large growers in pockets where the connectivity is just so bad, they’ve had to resort to other means?

We have a multitude of ways of getting data off of mobile equipment. Cell is but one. We’re also able to take it off with Wi-Fi, if you can find a hotspot that you can connect to. Growers also routinely use a USB stick, when all else fails, that works regardless. So we make it possible no matter what their connectivity situation is to get the data off.

But to the point we already talked about, the less friction you’ve got in that system to get the data off, the more data you end up pushing. The more data you push, the more insights you can generate. The more insights you generate, the more optimal your operation is. So to the extent that you don’t have cell connectivity, we do see the intensity of the data usage, it tracks with connectivity.

So if your cloud services are free with the purchase of a connected tractor, is that built into the price or the lease agreement of the tractor for you on your P&L? You’re just saying, “We’re giving this away for free, but baking it into the price.”

Yep.

Can you buy a tractor without that stuff for cheaper?

You can buy products that aren’t connected that do not have a telematics gateway or the cell connection, absolutely. It is uncommon, especially in large ag. I would hesitate to throw a number at you at what the take rate is, but it’s standard equipment in all of our large agricultural products. That said, you can still get it without that if you need to.

How long until these products just don’t have steering wheels and seats and Sirius radios in them? How long until you have a fully autonomous farm?

I love that question. [With] a fully autonomous farm, you’ve got to draw some boundaries around it in order to make it digestible. I think we could have fully autonomous tractors in low single digit years. I’ll leave it a little bit gray just to let the mind wander a little bit.

Taking the cab completely off the tractor, I think, is a ways away, only because the tractor gets used for lots of things that it may not be programmed for, from an autonomous perspective, to do. It’s sort of a Swiss Army knife in a farm environment. But that operatorless operation in, say, fall tillage or spring planting, we’re right on the doorstep of that. We’re knocking on the door of being able to do it.

It’s due to some really interesting technology that’s come together all in one place at one time. It’s the confluence of high capability-compute onboard machines. So we’re putting GPUs on machines today to do vision processing that would blow your mind. Nvidia GPUs are not just for the gaming community or the autonomous car community. They’re happening on tractors and sprayers and things too. So that’s one stream of technology that’s coming together with advanced algorithms. Machine learning, reinforcement learning, convolutional neural networks, all of that going into being able to mimic the human sight capability from a mechanical and computational perspective. That’s come together to give us the ability to start seriously considering taking an operator out of the cab of the tractor.

One of the things that is different, though, for agriculture versus maybe the on-highway autonomous cars, is that tractors don’t just go from point A to point B. Their mission in life is not just to transport. It’s to do productive work. They’re pulling a tillage tool behind them or pulling a planter behind them planting seed. So we not only have to be able to automate the driving of the tractor, but we have to automate the function that it’s doing as well, and make sure that it’s doing a great job of doing the tillage operation that normally the farmer would be observing in the cab of the tractor. Now we have to do that and be able to ascertain whether or not that job quality that’s happening as a consequence of the tractor going through the field is meeting the requirements or not.

What’s the challenge there?

I think it’s the variety of jobs. In this case, let’s take the tractor example again — it’s not only is it doing the tillage right with this particular tillage tool, but a farmer might use three or four different tillage tools in their operation. They all have different use cases. They all require different artificial intelligence models to be trained and to be validated. So scaling out across all of those different conceivable operations, I think is the biggest challenge.

You mentioned GPUs. GPUs are hard to get right now.

Everything’s hard to get right now.

How is the chip shortage affecting you?

It’s impacting us. Weekly, I’m in conversations with semiconductor manufacturers trying to get the parts that we need. It is an ongoing battle. We had thought probably six or seven months ago, like everybody else, that it would be relatively short-term. But I think we’re into this for the next 12 to 18 months. I think we’ll come out of it as capacity comes online, but it’s going to take a little while before that happens.

I’ve talked to a few people about the chip shortage now. The best consensus I’ve gotten is that the problem isn’t at the state of the art. The problem is with older process nodes — five or 10-year-old technology. Is that where the problem is for you as well or are you thinking about moving beyond that?

It’s most acute with older tech. So we’ve got 16-bit chipsets that we’re still working with on legacy controllers that are a pain point. But that said, we’ve also got some really recent, modern stuff that is also a pain point. I was where your head is at three months ago. And then in the three months since, we’ve felt the pain everywhere.

When you say 18 months from now, is that you think there’s going to be more supply or you think the demand is going to tail off?

Supply is certainly coming online. [The] semiconductor industry is doing the right thing. They’re trying to bring capacity online to meet the demand. I would argue it’s just a classic bullwhip effect that’s happened in the marketplace. So I think that will happen. I think there’s certainly some behavior in the industry at the moment around what the demand side is. That’s made it hard for semiconductor manufacturers to understand what real demand is because there’s a panic situation in some respects in the marketplace at the moment.

That said, I think it’s clear there’s only one direction that semiconductor volume is going, and it’s going up. Everything is going to demand it moving forward and demand more of it. So I think once we work through the next 12 to 18 months and work through this sort of immediate and near-term issue, the semiconductor industry is going to have a better handle on things, but capacity has to go up in order to meet the demand. There’s no doubt about it. A lot of that demand is real.

Are you thinking, “Man, I have these 16-bit systems. We should rearchitect things to be more modular, to be more modern, and faster,” or are you saying, “Supply will catch up”?

No, very much the former. I would say two things. One, more prevalent in supply for sure. And then the second one is, easier to change when we need to change. There’s some tech debt that we’re continuing to battle against and pay off over time. And it’s times like these when it rises to the surface and you wish you’d made decisions a little bit differently 10 years ago or five years ago.

My father-in-law, my wife’s cousins, are all farmers up and down. A lot of John Deere hats in my family. I texted them all and asked what they wanted to know. All of them came back and said “right to repair” down the line. Every single one of them. That’s what they asked me to ask you about.

I set up this whole conversation to talk about these things as computers. We understand the problems of computers. It is notable to me that John Deere and Apple had the same effective position on right to repair, which is, we would prefer if you didn’t do it and you let us do it. But there’s a lot of pushback. There are right-to-repair bills in an ever-growing number of states. How do you see that playing out right now? People want to repair their tractors. It is getting harder and harder to do it because they’re computers and you control the parts.

It’s a complex topic, first and foremost. I think the first thing I would tell you is that we have and remain committed to enabling customers to repair the products that they buy. The reality is that 98 percent of the repairs that customers want to do on John Deere products today, they can do. There’s nothing that prohibits them from doing them. Their wrenches are the same size as our wrenches. That all works. If somebody wants to go repair a diesel engine in a tractor, they can tear it down and fix it. We make the service manuals available. We make the parts available, we make the how-to available for them to tear it down to the ground and build it back up again.

That is not really what I’ve heard. I hear that a sensor goes off, the tractor goes into what people call “limp mode.” They have to bring it into a service center. They need a John Deere-certified laptop to pull the codes and actually do that work.

The diagnostic trouble codes are pushed out onto the display. The customer can see what those diagnostic trouble codes are. They may not understand or be able to connect what that sensor issue is with a root cause. There may be an underlying root cause that’s not immediately obvious to the customer based upon the fault code, but the fault code information is there. There is expertise that exists within the John Deere dealer environment, because they’ve seen those issues over time that allows them to understand what the probable cause is for that particular issue. That said, anybody can go buy the sensor. Anybody can go replace it. That’s just a reality.

There is, though, this 2 percent-ish of the repairs that occur on equipment today [that] involve software. And to your point, they’re computer environments that are driving around on wheels. So there is a software component to them. Where we differ with the right-to-repair folks is that software, in many cases, it’s regulated. So let’s take the diesel engine example. We are required, because it’s a regulated emissions environment, to make sure that diesel engine performs at a certain emission output, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, etc., and so on. Modifying software changes that. It changes the output characteristics of the emissions of the engine and that’s a regulated device. So we’re pretty sensitive to changes that would impact that. And disproportionately, those are software changes. Like going in and changing governor gain scheduling, for example, on a diesel engine would have a negative consequence on the emissions that [an] engine produces.

The same argument would apply in brake-by-wire and steer-by-wire. Do you really want a tractor going down the road with software on it that has been modified for steering or modified for braking in some way that might have a consequence that nobody thought of? We know the rigorous nature of testing that we go through in order to push software out into a production landscape. We want to make sure that that product is as safe and reliable and performs to the intended expectations of the regulatory environment that we operate in.

But people are doing it anyway. That’s the real issue here. Again, these are computer problems. This is what I hear from Apple about repairing your own iPhone. Here’s the device with all your data on it that’s on the network. Do you really want to run unsupported software on it? The valence of the debate feels the same to me.

At the same time though, is it their tractor or is it your tractor? Shouldn’t I be allowed to run whatever software I want on my computer?

I think the difference with the Apple argument is that the iPhone isn’t driving down the road at 20 miles an hour with oncoming traffic coming at it. There’s a seriousness of the change that you could make to a product. These things are large. They cost a lot of money. It’s a 40,000-pound tractor going down the road at 20 miles an hour. Do you really want to expose untested, unplanned, unknown introductions of software into a product like that that’s out in the public landscape?

But they were doing it mechanically before. Making it computerized allows you to control that behavior in a way that you cannot on a purely mechanical tractor. I know there are a lot of farmers who did dumb stuff with their mechanical tractors and that was just part of the ecosystem.

Sure. I grew up on one of those. I think the difference there is that the system is so much more complicated today, in part because of software, that it’s not always evident immediately if I make a change here, what it’s going to produce over there. When it was all mechanical, I knew, if I changed the size of the tires or the steering linkage geometry, what was going to happen. I could physically see it and the system was self-contained because it was a mechanical-only system.

I think when we’re talking about a modern piece of equipment and the complexity of the system, it’s a ripple effect. You don’t know what a change that you make over here is going to impact over there any longer. It’s not intuitively obvious to somebody who would make a change in isolation to software, for example, over here. It is a tremendously complex problem. It’s one that we’ve got a tremendously large organization that’s responsible for understanding that complete system and making sure that when the product is produced, that it is reliable and it is safe and it does meet emissions and all of those things.

I look at some of the coverage and there are farmers who are downloading software of unknown provenance that can hack around some of the restrictions. Some of that software appears to be coming from groups in the Ukraine. They’re now using other software to get around the restrictions that, in some cases, could make it even worse, and lead to other unintended consequences, whereas providing the opportunities or making that more official might actually solve some of those problems in a more straightforward way.

I think we’ve taken steps to try to help. One of those is customer service. Service Advisor is the John Deere software that a dealership would use in order to diagnose and troubleshoot equipment. We’ve made available the customer version of Service Advisor as well in order to provide some of the ability for them to have insights — to your point about fault codes before — insights into what are those issues, and what can I learn about them as a customer? How might I go about fixing them? There have been efforts underway in order to try to bridge some of that gap to the extent possible.

We are, though, not in a position where we would ever condone or support a third-party software being put on products of ours, because we just don’t know what the consequences of that are going to be. It’s not something that we’ve tested. We don’t know what it might make the equipment do or not do. And we don’t know what the long-term impacts of that are.

I feel like a lot of people listening to the show own a car. I’ve got a pickup truck. I can go buy a device that will upload a new tune for my Ford pickup truck’s engine. Is that something you can do to a John Deere tractor?

There are third-party outfits that will do exactly that to a John Deere engine. Yep.

But can you do that yourself?

I suspect if you had the right technical knowledge, you could probably figure out a way to do it yourself. If a third-party company figured it out, there is a way for a consumer to do it too.

Where’s the line? Where do you think your control of the system ends and the consumer’s begins? I ask that because I think that might be the most important question in computing right now, just broadly across every kind of computer in our lives. At some point, the manufacturer is like, “I’m still right here with you and I’m putting a line in front of you.” Where’s your line?

We talked about the corner cases, the use cases I think that for us are the lines. They’re around the regulated environment from an emissions perspective. We’ve got a responsibility when we sell a piece of equipment to make sure that it’s meeting the regulatory environment that we sold it into. And then I think the other one is in and around safety, critical systems, things that they can impact others in the environment that, again, in a regulated fashion, we have a responsibility to produce a product that meets the requirements that the regulatory environment requires.

Not only that, but I think there’s a societal responsibility, frankly, that we make sure that the product is as safe as it can be for as long as it can be in operation. And those are where I think we spend a lot of time talking about what amounts to a very small part of the repair of a product. The statistics are real: 98 percent of the repairs that happen on a product can be done by a customer today. So we’re talking about a very small number of them, but they tend to be around those sort of sensitive use cases, regulatory and safety.

Right to Repair legislation is very bipartisan. You’re talking about big commercial operations in a lot of states. It’s America. It’s apple pie and corn farmers. They have a lot of political weight and they’re able to make a very bipartisan push, which is pretty rare in this country right now. Is that a signal you see as, “Oh man, if we don’t get this right, the government is coming for our products?”

I think the government’s certainly one voice in this, and it’s stemming from feedback from some customers. Obviously you’ve done your own bit of work across the farmers in your family. So it is a topic that is being discussed for sure. And we’re all in favor of that discussion, by the way. I think that what we want to make sure of is that it’s an objective discussion. There are ramifications across all dimensions of this. We want to make sure that those are well understood, because it’s such an important topic and has significant enough consequences, so we want to make sure we get it right. The unintended consequences of this are not small. They will impact the industry, some of them in a negative way. And so we just want to make sure that the discussion is objective.

The other signal I’d ask you about is that prices of pre-computer tractors are skyrocketing. Maybe you see that a different way, but I’m looking at some coverage that says old tractors, pre-1990 tractors, are selling for double what they were a year or two ago. There are incredible price hikes on these old tractors. And that the demand is there because people don’t want computers in their tractors. Is that a market signal to you, that you should change the way your products work? Or are you saying, “Well, eventually those tractors will die and you won’t have a choice except to buy one of the new products”?

I think the benefits that accrue from technology are significant enough for consumers. We see this happening with the consumer vote by dollar, by what they purchase. Consumers are continuing to purchase higher levels of technology as we go on. So while yes, the demand for older tractors has gone up, in part it’s because the demand for tractors has gone up completely. Our own technology solutions, we’ve seen upticks in take rates year over year over year over year. So if people were averse to technology, I don’t think you’d see that. At some point we have to recognize that the benefits that technology brings outweigh the downsides of the technology. I think that’s just this part of the technology adoption curve that we’re all on.

That’s the same conversation around smartphones. I get it with smartphones. Everyone has them in their pocket. They collect all this personal data. You may want a gatekeeper there because you don’t have a sophisticated user base.

Your customers are very self-interested, commercial customers.

Yep.

Do you think you have a different kind of responsibility than, I don’t know, the Xbox Live team has to the Xbox Live community? In terms of data, in terms of control, in terms of relinquishing control of the product once it’s sold.

It certainly is a different market. It’s a different customer base. It’s a different clientele. To your point, they are dependent upon the product for their livelihood. So we do everything we can to make sure that product is reliable. It produces when it needs to produce in order to make sure that their businesses are productive and sustainable. I do think the biggest difference from the consumer market that you referenced to our market is the technology life cycle that we’re on.

You brought up tractors that are 20 years old that don’t have a ton of computers on-board versus what we have today. But what we have today is significantly more efficient than what we had 20 years ago. The tractors that you referenced are still in the market. People are still using them. They’re still putting them to work, productive work. In fact, on my family farm, they’re still being used for productive work. And I think that’s what’s different between the consumer market and the ag market. We don’t have a disposable product. You don’t just pick it up and throw it away. We have to be able to plan for that technology use across decades as opposed to maybe single-digit years.

In terms of the benefits of technology and selling that through, one of the other questions I got from the folks in my family was about the next thing that technology can enable. It seems like the equipment can’t physically get much bigger. The next thing to tackle is speed — making things faster for increased productivity.

Is that how you think about selling the benefits of technology — now the combine is as big as it can be, and it’s efficient at this massive scale. Is the next step to make it more efficient in terms of speed?

You’ve seen the industry trend that way. You look at planting as a great example. Ten years ago, we planted at three miles an hour. Today, we plant at 10 miles an hour. And what enabled that was technology. It was electric motors on row units that can react really, really quickly, that are highly controllable and can place seed really, really accurately, right? I think that’s the trend. Wisconsin’s a great place to talk about it. Whether it’s a row crop farm, there’s a small window in the spring, a couple of weeks, where it’s optimal to get those crops in the ground. And so it’s an insurance policy to be able to go faster because the weather may not be great for both of those weeks that you’ve got that are optimal planning weeks. And so you may only have three days or four days in that 10-day window in order to plant all your crops.

And speed is one way to make sure that that happens. Size and the width of the machine is the other. I would agree that we’ve gotten to the point where there’s very little opportunity left in going bigger, and so going faster and, I would argue, going more intelligently, is the way that you improve productivity in the future.

So we’ve talked about a huge set of responsibilities, everything from the physical mechanical design of the machinery to building cloud services, to geopolitics. What is your decision-making process? What’s your framework for how you make decisions?

I think at the root of it, we try to drive everything back to a customer and what we can do to make that customer more productive and more sustainable. And that helps us triage. Of all the great ideas that are out there, all the things that we could work on, what are the things that can move the needle for a customer in their operation as much as possible? And I think that grounding in the customer and the customer’s business is important because, fundamentally, our business is dependent upon the farmer’s business. If the farmer does well, we do well. If the farmer doesn’t do well, we don’t do well. We’re intertwined. There’s a connection there that you can’t and shouldn’t separate.

So driving our decision-making process towards having an intimate knowledge of the customer’s business and what we can do to make their business better frames everything we do.

What’s next for John Deere? What is the short term future for precision farming? Give me a five-year prediction.

I’m super excited about what we’re calling “sense and act.” “See and spray” is the first down payment on that. It’s the ability to create, in software and through electronic and mechanical devices, the human sense of sight, and then act on it. So we’re separating, in this case, weeds from useful crop, and we’re only spraying the weeds. That reduces herbicide use within a field. It reduces the cost for the farmer, input cost into their operation. It’s a win-win-win. And it is step one in the sense-and-act trajectory or sense-and-act runway that we’re on.

There’s a lot more opportunity for us in agriculture to do more sensing and acting, and doing that in an optimal way so that we’re not painting the same picture across a complete field, but doing it more prescriptively and acting more prescriptively in areas of a field that demand different things. I think that sense-and-act type of vision is the roadmap that we’re on. There’s a ton of opportunity in there. It is technology-intensive because you’re talking sensors, you’re talking computers, and you’re talking acting with precision. All of those things require fundamental shifts in technology from where we’re at today.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/22533735/john-deere-cto-hindman-decoder-interview-right-to-repair-tractors

Jeff Bezos’s vision comes true, here’s how you’ll shop in 2020: The vast bulk of store-bought goods – food staples, paper products, cleaning supplies, and the like – you will order electronically. Some physical storefronts will survive, but they’ll have to offer at least one of two things: entertainment value or immediate convenience.

If Jeff Bezos’s vision comes true, here’s how you’ll shop in 2020:

The vast bulk of store-bought goods – food staples, paper products, cleaning supplies, and the like – you will order electronically. Some physical storefronts will survive, but they’ll have to offer at least one of two things: entertainment value or immediate convenience.

 

Source: https://www.wired.com/1999/03/bezos-3/

 

The Inner Bezos

Amazon.com’s founder figured out how to sell books on the Web, and now he wants to sell you everything else. Simple, right? So why is he so far ahead of the pack?

The counter clerks at Amelia Island’s Flash Foods convenience store never saw it coming. Around Christmas 1997, a rented white Chevrolet Suburban pulled into the parking lot and disgorged three members of a commando squad on a mission. The team was disguised in the tourist garb common to the Florida resort island, and the only hint that it might be a military operation was the way the squad members whispered code words like „Whiskey, Bravo, Tango“ into their Motorola walkie-talkies. While the driver sat in the car and timed the exercise, a second soldier stood guard at the door. Another quickly grabbed a spot in line for the cashier. The fourth rushed toward the dairy case in quest of the squad’s ultimate goal: a quart of milk.

Within two minutes, the purchase was completed and the car was roaring back onto the streets.

One of these odd customers bore the code name Ffej Sozeb. If the clerks had heard this nom de guerre, they still might not have figured out that they’d been hit by a pioneering Internet entrepreneur who one year later would be worth north of $9 billion. The slightly built, 5′ 8″, brown-eyed faux Navy SEAL with thinning hair was, in reality, Jeff Bezos, founder, chair, and CEO of Amazon.com. His comrades on this mission of breakfast necessity were members of his immediate family: father Mike, brother Mark. Behind the wheel: his mother Jackie.

That Jeff Bezos is almost innately programmed to turn something as mundane as a milk run into a fantasy game should serve him well during the next few years, as he attempts to drive Amazon.com beyond its phenomenal, if so far unprofitable, early success as a book, music, and video seller. The 35-year-old Bezos must make Amazon.com, to this point little more than a convenient place to shop for a limited range of goods, the kind of environment that lures men, women, and children in from vast distances, then seduces them into acts of acquisition. As Internet commerce matures from the exotic to the everyday, as it becomes less about exploiting a position on the frontiers of technology and more about mastering the art of sales and merchandising, the challenges Bezos faces have become exactly those that confronted the great retailers who invented the mass market for consumer goods in the United States a century ago.

To reach historical heights – to become as important to 21st-century culture as Richard W. Sears, Macy’s Isidor Straus, and John Wanamaker were to the culture of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when they fundamentally changed not only the experience of shopping but also the essential nature of American life – Bezos will need to deliver on the second promise in the oft-repeated goal he sets for his staff: „to build a valuable and lasting company.“

„It’s a question,“ says Stanley Marcus, chair emeritus of Neiman Marcus, with the simplicity of an expert in long distance seduction, „of how you get the merchandise you’re infatuated with into the hands of the people you like.“

The goal is within reach. Bezos’s vision has always been about taking advantage of a new platform and new tools to change shopping itself. Long before he launched the company, he had dreams of making Amazon.com „broader than books and music“ – a point reinforced this past Christmas season by his move into gift sales and by his December move to offer Amazon.com customers goods from other retailers. Analysts who had projected $190 million in revenue for the company during the fourth-quarter holiday period were flabbergasted when Amazon.com registered sales of approximately $250 million, news that helped send the company’s stock as high as $350 per share by early January (shortly before a three-for-one stock split) – just shy of the $400 per share CIBC Oppenheimer foresees by 2002.

If Jeff Bezos’s vision comes true, here’s how you’ll shop in 2020:

The vast bulk of store-bought goods – food staples, paper products, cleaning supplies, and the like – you will order electronically. Some physical storefronts will survive, but they’ll have to offer at least one of two things: entertainment value or immediate convenience.

Successful „shoptainers“ will be like the Gap, with its environment of music and youth culture, or Nordstrom, with its tinkling pianist and distinctive face-to-face service. They may be even more amplified, with personal service and showmanship turning every shopping trip into a Super Bowl-style destination event. „That experience is what you get when you go to movie theaters, and why you don’t always rent movies, right?“ Bezos notes.

As Internet commerce matures, Bezos faces the same challenges that confronted the great retailers who invented the mass market for consumer goods a century ago.

Convenience specialists will also have contemporary antecedents – the 7-Eleven chain, say, or Walgreen’s, where you can get a quart of milk or NyQuil geltabs at 10 p.m. – but these, too, will evolve: open 24/7, for example, so that you can take care of the last mile of delivery yourself at any time. The consultants at the Global Business Network even sketch out a scenario where, within a generation or two, vans carrying inventories of more popular necessities, such as toilet paper or diapers, may be constantly circling neighborhoods, ready to drop off an order within moments of receiving it.

The United States – whose culture has been defined by consumption since at least the 1840s, when the British consul in Boston was appalled to see servant girls „strongly infected with the national bad taste for being overdressed“ – will be utterly transformed, Bezos believes, by this bifurcation of shopping and consumer desire into shoptainment and just-in-time components. The urban downtowns, which just a few years ago planners and politicians gave up for dead, will continue to renew and thrive, thanks to the inherent entertainment value in the great retail districts like Times Square or Pine Street in Seattle. Yet within a generation’s time the kitschy and cluttered landscape of today’s suburbia will disappear, because the new retail environment won’t support „the sort of bad stores that people go to because they don’t have any alternative.“

„Strip malls,“ Bezos predicts, „are history.“

Bezos reserves an evangelical passion for the changes he expects in the most manipulative aspects of today’s consumer culture.

„What consumerism really is, at its worst,“ he adds, „is getting people to buy things that don’t actually improve their lives. The one thing that offends me the most is when I walk by a bank and see ads trying to convince people to take out second mortgages on their home so they can go on vacation. That’s approaching evil.“

When Bezos describes his primary goals for the Amazon.com interface, he becomes a whistle-stop campaigner for a new politics of consumerism. „We want to turn visitors into customers, and we want to make the experience as welcoming as possible,“ he says. He insists that the lures and aids Amazon.com provides for its online shoppers – the one-click ordering system that stores credit card and shipping information; the variety of helpful suggestions and information that seem configured to exploit a customer’s most impulsive tendencies – are far removed from the world’s entrenched consumerist come-ons.

The new merchant, he suggests, volubly and unstoppably, is a community builder, a facilitator, a networker. He cites Amazon.com’s willingness to post negative book reviews as an example of harnessing the antimanipulative truths the Internet allows consumers to root out. The Net’s famously decentralized, open flow of information, he goes on, inevitably deflates the most extravagant hype of traditional retailing. And that shifts the balance of power – which since the origins of department stores and mass merchandising has favored the merchant – back into the hands of consumers. Amazon.com’s scheme is, in effect, to form a strategic alliance with all that newly unleashed power.

„This doesn’t mean that you can’t build a valuable, lasting enterprise in the online environment,“ Bezos says, „but it does mean you better recognize the environment you’re in, and not try to build an airplane to fly underwater. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!“ The laugh, which frequently interrupts conversation, comes out as a long, extended bray, startling the uninitiated. The laugh has become famous, too, yet it only underscores Bezos’s ardor. Almost since the beginning of Amazon.com’s remarkable rise, Bezos has been characterized as yet another fuzzy-cheeked geek who lucked into an IPO, an uninspired financial technician with a good but not very original idea about distributing goods over the Internet, who would soon be, in the ill-fated phrase of Forrester Research president George Colony, „Amazon.toast.“ It’s a characterization Bezos’s competitors have found costly. They may also have missed that, in focusing on the consumer in a way few Web entrepreneurs can match, he is actually trying to transform the world.

„Jeff always wanted to make a lot of money,“ says his high school girlfriend, Ursula „Uschi“ Werner. She herself was an overachiever – valedictorian of the Miami Palmetto Senior High School class a year ahead of Bezos, winner of a full scholarship to Duke University, and a Rhodes Scholar – but she remains awed by Bezos’s commitment. „It wasn’t about money itself. It was about what he was going to do with the money, about changing the future.“

Family is important. The Bezos family is extremely close; they actually enjoy spending the holidays together. Reflecting on the source of Jeff Bezos’s drive, his closest friends turn inevitably to the legion of family stories, all of which seem to revolve around the theme of hard work and equally hard play.

But within the well-known Bezos family story lies a remarkable story of collective strength.

Mike Bezos is not Jeff’s biological father. „I’ve never met him,“ Jeff says of the man who is. „But the reality, as far as I’m concerned, is that my Dad is my natural father. The only time I ever think about it, genuinely, is when a doctor asks me to fill out a form.“ While it’s easy enough to theorize that the circumstance of Bezos’s birth has had profound psychological repercussions, he responds to questions about it with complete equanimity – if some surprise; his family rarely discusses the matter and even close friends don’t know the truth. „It’s a fine truth to have out there,“ he says. „I’m not embarrassed by it.“

He recalls that his parents sat him down and told him when he was 10. Whatever their concerns about the possible consequences, they needn’t have worried. Jeff describes the moment as not nearly as important or memorable as learning, at around the same time, that he would need to wear glasses. „That made me cry,“ he says.

Mike Bezos (pronounced BAY-zoes) had arrived in the United States, alone, in 1962, at the age of 15. He came under the auspices of Operation Pedro Pan, an education/rescue program crafted by a south Florida Catholic priest that spirited thousands of teenagers out of Castro’s régime during the early ’60s. After learning English and graduating from high school in Delaware, where he lived in a Catholic mission with 15 other refugees, Mike Bezos moved to New Mexico to attend what was then the University of Albuquerque.

There, he met Jackie Gise, in a local bank where the two worked. In his freshman year of college – he was 18, she was 17 – they married.

Jeff was born soon after, in January 1964, and Mike Bezos legally adopted him.

With a young family – Jeff’s sister Christina and brother Mark are five and six years younger than him, respectively – Mike Bezos still managed to finish his education, then joined Exxon as a petroleum engineer. The family moved several times during Jeff’s childhood, from Albuquerque to Houston, then briefly to Pensacola, Florida.

Bezos remembers he always had the youngest parents around. But his friend Joshua Weinstein says that even during their high school years, when she was in her early 30s, Jackie Bezos commanded as much if not more authority and respect than any other mother. She says her values came from her own father, who offered another strong role model for Jeff.

Jeff spent summers working at his maternal grandfather’s ranch in Cotulla, Texas, fixing windmills, castrating cattle, laying pipes, and repairing pumps. Lawrence Preston „Pop“ Gise had held jobs that a young boy couldn’t help but find cool. Gise worked on space technology and missile defense systems at Darpa in the late 1950s; in 1964, Congress appointed him manager of the Atomic Energy Commission’s Albuquerque operations office, where he supervised 26,000 employees in the AEC’s western region, including the Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore laboratories. He retired to his southwest Texas spread in 1968, and he doted on Jeff from the time his grandson was an infant. „Mr. Gise was a towering figure in Jeff’s life,“ says Weinstein.

His grandfather sparked and indulged Jeff’s fascination with educational games and toys, assisting him with the Heathkits and the other paraphernalia he constantly hauled home to the family garage. (Picture the scattered components of a robot; an open umbrella spine clad in aluminum foil for a solar cooking experiment; an ancient Hoover vacuum cleaner being transformed into a primitive hovercraft.)

Jackie Bezos’s challenge as a parent was to stay a step ahead of, or at least next to, her prodigy. „I think single-handedly we kept many Radio Shacks in business,“ she jokes. During his late grade school years, Jeff became fixated on a device called an Infinity Cube, which uses a set of motorized mirrors to allow one to stare into „infinity.“ But at $20 it was too expensive to buy, she told him. Jeff figured out that the pieces of the cube could be bought cheaply, so he did – and built it himself. „The way the world is, you know, someone could tell you to press the Button,“ he said at the time. „You have to be able to think … for yourself.“

The story of Bezos and the Infinity Cube is documented in Turning on Bright Minds: A Parent Looks at Gifted Education in Texas. Written by Julie Ray and published locally in the Houston area in 1977 – and, incidentally, not available via Amazon.com – the book follows 12-year-old Jeff (renamed Tim) through a typical day in the Vanguard program at Houston’s River Oaks Elementary School, a magnet school that was part of a voluntary integration effort in the city’s public school system. Jeff endured a 40-mile round-trip commute each day to attend. The author describes him as „friendly but serious,“ even „courtly,“ and possessed of „general intellectual excellence,“ though, according to teachers, „not particularly gifted in leadership.“

He used his brain to compensate. Jackie and Mike, concerned that Jeff wasn’t always comfortable with kids his own age, enrolled him in the high-pressure world of Texas youth football. „He barely made the weight limit, and I thought he was going to get creamed out there,“ Jackie recalls, laughing. Within two weeks, however, the coach had named him defensive captain, because Jeff was one of the few kids on the team who could remember all the plays – not only where he was supposed to be but also the assignments for the other 10 players on his squad.

He completed his personal immersion in the shared world of every American geek growing up in the ’70s and early ’80s by diving into the deep end of the sci-fi and fantasy pool. When the River Oaks school gained access to a mainframe computer in downtown Houston via a timeshare system, he and his friends spent hours on it playing a primitive Star Trek game, searching for cloaked Klingon ships in a three-by-three matrix.

By the time he reached high school in Dade County, Jeff had focused on space travel as his future. It wasn’t just that he wanted to be an astronaut, like thousands of other kids; as he told friends and acquaintances, he intended to be a space entrepreneur. „Oh, he had ideas about space promotion!“ says Bill McCreary, a Miami Palmetto science teacher. Some were drawn from real-life experiences in a high school space initiative he attended at NASA’s Huntsville, Alabama, center. But behind the young Bezos’s space-station plans was serious intent. „He said the future of mankind is not on this planet, because we might be struck by something, and we better have a spaceship out there,“ recalls Rudolf Werner, the father of Jeff’s high school girlfriend. Uschi Werner still jokes that Bezos’s real goal for Amazon.com is to amass enough of a personal fortune to build his own space station. Reminded of those concerns today, Bezos laughs but quickly turns serious. „I wouldn’t mind helping in some way,“ he says. „I do think we have all our eggs in one basket.“

Achieving his astronaut goals meant succeeding at school, and Bezos would show as a teenager that behind the easygoing façade and booming laugh was a relentless, even intimidating, work ethic, one that has become his hallmark at Amazon.com. „He was always a formidable presence,“ says Joshua Weinstein. When Bezos made clear his intention to become class valedictorian, for example, Weinstein says everyone else understood they were working for second place. Besides securing the valedictorian’s title, Bezos was also one of three members of his graduating class awarded a Silver Knight Award, a prestigious academic honor in south Florida high schools, sponsored by Knight Ridder’s Miami Herald. (Pilgrimage note: One of the few remaining talismans of Jeff Bezos’s presence at Miami Palmetto is an oak board, in a glass display case cluttered with sports memorabilia just inside the school’s front door, that holds the names of Silver Knight winners.)

Bezos got his first taste for retail during this time, spending one summer as a fry cook at McDonald’s, studying the company’s automation improvements even while he responded to the Pavlovian cues of the many and often simultaneously sounding buzzers that told him when to scramble his eggs, flip his burgers, and pull his fries out of the boiling vat. „Now, actually, the french fries raise themselves up out of the oil,“ he says, „which let me tell you is a major technological innovation! Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!“

In an attempt to avoid a second summer in the grease pit, Bezos, with Uschi Werner, embarked on his first serious entrepreneurial effort: a summer-education camp for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-graders that the two labeled the DREAM Institute. (DREAM stood for Directed REAsoning Methods.) Six students signed up for the $600 camp; two of them were Jeff’s own brother and sister.

The program, prophetically, emphasized a mix of science and literature, the future and the past. Required reading included The Once and Future King, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Lord of the Rings, Dune, Watership Down, Black Beauty, Gulliver’s Travels, Treasure Island, and David Copperfield, along with the plays Our Town and The Matchmaker. The science curriculum ranged from fossil fuels and fission to space colonies and interstellar travel – with a dollop of television and advertising study thrown in for good measure. „Our program,“ the budding entrepreneurs wrote in a „Dear parent“ flyer generated on Jeff’s Apple II and a dot-matrix printer, „emphasizes the use of new ways of thinking in old areas.“

„When I’m 80,“ he asked himself, „am I going to regret leaving Wall Street? No. Will I regret missing the beginning of the Internet? Yes.“

Jeff and Uschi’s long distance relationship didn’t survive his matriculation at Princeton, but their entrepreneurial exploits nonetheless helped Bezos overcome his first serious intellectual disappointment. Intent on becoming a theoretical physicist and following the likes of Einstein and Hawking, he discovered that although he was one of the top 25 students in his honors physics program, he wasn’t smart enough to compete with the handful of real geniuses around him. „I looked around the room,“ Bezos recalls, „and it was clear to me that there were three people in the class who were much, much better at it than I was, and it was much, much easier for them. It was really sort of a startling insight, that there were these people whose brains were wired differently.“ The pragmatic Bezos switched his major to computer science and committed himself to starting and running his own business.

In his senior year, Bezos turned down job offers from Intel, Bell Labs, and Andersen Consulting to join a start-up called Fitel, which had run a full-page ad in The Daily Princetonian soliciting the school’s „best computer science graduates.“ The company, launched by two Columbia professors in the days when VANs and EDI were hot topics, was attempting to build an ambitious worldwide telecommunications network for trading firms that would help them clear and settle cross-border equity transactions – piggybacking atop General Electric Information Service’s network alongside GEnie, GE’s early consumer online service.

Bezos was employee number 11. His success at debugging spaghetti code earned him rapid promotion to head of development and director of customer service, which entailed a weekly commute between New York and London, where his divisions were located, aboard discount airline People’s Express. „This is not,“ he says, „the right way to organize a start-up company, just for the record. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!“

After nearly two years of failed attempts to grow Fitel, Bezos bailed out for a more stable job as a product manager at Bankers Trust. There, he sold software tools to the company’s pension-fund clients, but he also explored outside projects. At one point, he collaborated briefly with a Merrill Lynch consultant named Halsey Minor (who would later become well known as the founder of CNET) on an abortive plan to start a company that would use then-fledgling software agents to create a personalized news fax for financial professionals. By 1990, however, after only two years at Bankers Trust, Bezos was circulating his résumé to headhunters with the express goal of escaping financial services for a technology company, where he could pursue what he had decided was his „real passion,“ using computers and so-called second-wave automation to revolutionize business.

Then a headhunter called, telling Bezos, „I know you said you would kill me if I even proposed the finance thing, but there’s this special opportunity that’s actually a very unusual financial company.“ It was the two-and-a-half-year-old hedge fund firm D. E. Shaw.

David Shaw, like Bezos, was a computer scientist. His specialty was devising new trading strategies for particular financial instruments. The two clicked immediately, with Bezos finding Shaw „one of those people who has a completely developed left brain and a completely developed right brain. He’s artistic, articulate, and analytical. It’s just a pleasure to talk to someone like that.“ Shaw, in turn, thought his 26-year-old hire „fantastic,“ a „pleasurable person to talk to“ who was „also very entrepreneurial.“

Four years later, Bezos had worked his way up to senior vice president, one of four at the firm. He’d also devised a plan for his personal life.

„At a certain point I was sort of a professional dater,“ he explains about his years in New York. His systematic approach to the quest for a permanent relationship was to develop what he labeled „women flow,“ a play on the „deal flow“ Wall Streeters try to generate to locate worthwhile investments. In managing their deal flow, bankers will set limits like „I won’t look at anything under a $10 million equity investment.“ The limitation Bezos set for friends producing candidates for his „women flow“ was more esoteric. „The number-one criterion was that I wanted a woman who could get me out of a Third World prison,“ he says.

„What I really wanted was someone resourceful. But nobody knows what you mean when you say, ‚I’m looking for a resourceful woman.‘ If I tell somebody I’m looking for a woman who can get me out of a Third World prison, they start thinking Ross Perot – Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! – they have something they can hang their hat on! Life’s too short to hang out with people who aren’t resourceful.“

His self-deprecatory explanation for asking friends to set him up on blind dates is that „I’m not the kind of person where women say, ‚Oh, look how great he is,‘ a half hour after meeting me. I’m kind of goofy, and I’m not – Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! – it’s not the kind of thing where people are going to say about me, ‚Oh my God, this is what I’ve been looking for!'“

As it happened, women flow did not produce the desired result. Instead, he fell in love with a member of his own staff. The future MacKenzie Bezos was a research associate who had been an assistant to novelist Toni Morrison while studying at Princeton. MacKenzie – whose first novel will be published by Random House later this year – and Jeff were married in 1993. A year later, Shaw put Bezos in charge of exploring new business opportunities in the burgeoning world of the Internet.

It was while brainstorming ideas in the then-unfamiliar area of electronic commerce that Bezos came to his deceptively simple conclusion: The most logical thing to sell over the Internet was books, largely because two of the country’s largest book distributors already had exhaustive electronic lists.

As Amazon.com has long since established, no single bookstore, even a superstore, can carry a comprehensive inventory of the books in print. The distributors, carrying thousands of titles, in effect act as the warehouse for most stores, particularly smaller independent booksellers. When customers ask a store for a book it doesn’t have, the first place many of them will turn to fill the customer’s order is Ingram or Baker & Taylor, the two largest distributors. These companies‘ inventory lists, once regularly circulated to bookstores on packs of microfiche, went digital in the late 1980s along with others in the book trade – an unheralded benchmark that would enable Bezos to offer books online through the virtual retailer he envisioned creating.

But David Shaw and others at the firm weren’t ready to make books a priority. After consulting initially with another partner, Bezos approached Shaw to tell him he had been bitten by the entrepreneurial bug and wanted to leave. Bezos says he kept staring at the Net’s 2,300 percent annual growth figure and placing his thoughts within what he calls a „regret-minimization framework.“ „When I’m 80,“ he asked himself, „am I going to regret leaving Wall Street? No. Will I regret missing a chance to be there at the beginning of the Internet? Yes.“

„Let’s take a walk,“ he recalls Shaw saying, and the two of them set off for Central Park. Shaw, while acknowledging that he himself had left an established business to pursue entrepreneurial dreams, tried to impress on Bezos what he would be giving up by leaving; not just financial security but a pivotal role at D. E. Shaw. „I did tell him that we might be competing with him, too,“ Shaw says. Bezos was willing to accept that risk.

When MacKenzie and Jeff Bezos made their now semifamous cross-country road trip to the Seattle area, Jeff tapping out a business plan on his computer along the way, he had already spent months laying the groundwork for Amazon.com, beginning with his Internet investigations at D. E. Shaw. Bezos had also made at least one recruiting trip to California to meet with three programmers he’d learned about through a D. E. Shaw partner. Over blueberry pancakes at the Sash Mill Cafe in Santa Cruz, Bezos managed to convince one of them, Shel Kaphan, to become employee number one.

Kaphan has a reputation among the engineering staff at Amazon.com as the prototypical pessimist, a geek convinced that the company’s systems are always on the verge of implosion. He came by his doomsaying honestly – he had worked for at least a dozen companies before Amazon.com, including failed start-ups and bureaucratically inept monsters. Shortly before he and Bezos met he had left Kaleida Labs, an ill-fated Apple spin-off, which makes it all the more remarkable that he almost immediately found Bezos trustworthy – so trustworthy, in fact, that Kaphan agreed in short order to relocate to Seattle.

Bezos returned in principle to the setting of his childhood experiments, building the prototype for Amazon.com with Kaphan and a contractor named Paul Barton-Davis in the cramped, poorly insulated converted garage of a rented home in the Seattle suburb of Bellevue. A potbellied stove commanded the middle of the room, and extension cords ran everywhere because there weren’t enough electrical outlets to power the trio’s Sun SPARCstations. Eventually the stove was ejected in a space-saving flurry and replaced by a set of ceramic space heaters, which further taxed the overburdened power supply.

Bezos has profited directly from his Amazon.com stock only once, selling 180,000 shares last November for $23 million.

In their quest to revolutionize retailing, the threesome made ample use of the unsuspecting competition’s physical resources. One can never tire of the delicious irony that Kaphan and Bezos would frequently repair to the Barnes & Noble store in downtown Bellevue to drink coffee and toss around ideas in the relative calm of the in-house Starbucks café. The superstore also served as a venue for business meetings with outsiders. MacKenzie Bezos even negotiated the company’s first freight contracts there.

The first million dollars of seed capital came from a group of 15 angel investors Bezos had persuaded to help him, including Wall Street chums, friends of his parents, buddies from Princeton, and a small group of local investors. Tom Alberg, onetime president of Lin Broadcasting, a subsidiary of McCaw Cellular, was part of the group and became Amazon.com’s first board member.

At one point, a single venture capital firm in the Seattle area wanted to take the whole million-dollar round but demanded a 50 percent discount on the valuation Bezos had offered. He refused and the VCs passed, in part because they believed Barnes & Noble would crush Amazon.com as soon as it turned its attention in Bezos’s direction. Watching that decision, Alberg says, taught him that „you need to do due diligence in this world, but at some point you need to make a judgment about the people.“

Bezos and Kaphan rigged the SPARCstations to sound a bell’s ring every time the servers recorded a sale. Amazon.com launched in July 1995, and the bell started ringing – so often that within a few weeks the noise had become unbearable and they disabled it. „Every week, the revenues went up,“ says Alberg. „By the second or third week, there was $6,000 or $10,000, and by the end of early September there was $20,000 a week. It was clear there was a trend here.“ It also helped that even in the earliest days sales were coming from around the country. „He could say, ‚I had a sale in New Hampshire,‘ and we were all impressed,“ Alberg recalls.

It wasn’t that Bezos was first out of the box with an idea for shopping, or that he had discovered some magic elixir unknown to other merchants. But he had made a series of small, smart choices that added up.

It starts with the realization that in fact not everything should be virtual – that Amazon.com should own its own warehouses, so that it can maintain quality control over the packaging and shipping of orders, which Bezos sees as an essential opportunity to enhance the Amazon.com customer experience. This allows the company to combine orders for books from multiple publishers – or orders that include a book, a CD, and a video – into single packages. It also gives Amazon.com employees who pack orders a chance to check for defective goods. In its music department, for example, the company will replace cracked or broken CD jewel cases. Locating in Seattle, therefore, wasn’t about being near a technology hub as much as it was about being near one of Ingram’s distribution facilities, which allowed for quicker turnaround on deliveries from that key supplier. And Washington had a relatively small population, which limited the pool of potential customers from whom Amazon.com would be forced to collect sales tax. (It’s no accident that the company’s second warehouse is in Delaware, which not only has no sales tax but is also an ideal base for serving East Coast customers; its third and latest warehouse is near Reno, Nevada – which lets Amazon.com originate deliveries close to the huge California population, but just outside that state’s tax-collection borders.)

Bezos combined those pragmatic choices with a relentless focus on the customer experience: tweaking the interface to make it ever easier to understand, streamlining the ordering process at every turn, responding immediately to every customer query. „We want people to feel like they’re visiting a place,“ he says, „rather than a software application.“

He also turned hiring staff into a Socratic test. „Jeff was very, very picky,“ says Nicholas Lovejoy, who joined Amazon.com as its fifth employee in June 1995. In endless hiring meetings, Bezos, after interviewing the candidate himself, would grill every other interviewer, occasionally constructing elaborate charts on a whiteboard detailing the job seeker’s qualifications. If he ferreted out the slightest doubt, rejection usually followed. „One of his mottos was that every time we hired someone, he or she should raise the bar for the next hire, so that the overall talent pool was always improving,“ Lovejoy says.

With its potential $250 million in revenues in the fourth quarter of 1998, Amazon.com is on track for at least $1 billion in annual sales this year. The company has moved its headquarters three times since starting in the Bellevue garage, and its staff is spread out in four buildings in downtown Seattle, in addition to its Northwest warehouse location, in an industrial area near the port facilities that stretch along the harbor south of downtown. This summer, the company will consolidate all but the warehouse operation in the old Pacific Medical Center building, which sits on a bluff near the intersection of I-5 and I-90 southeast of central Seattle.

But nothing about the company’s physical or revenue growth can compare to the astonishing rise in its stock price in recent months – on January 19 Amazon.com’s $22.1 billion market value exceeded that of Kmart and JCPenney combined – and the concurrent growth in Bezos’s personal net worth, over $9 billion by mid-January 1999. (A few other billionaires, including his parents, and dozens of multimillionaires have been created during the two short years of Amazon.com’s public existence.)

Bezos is thus far facing down stratospheric wealth with a modesty that outsiders to tech culture often find odd (and maybe even unnatural) but which is surprisingly common in the industry, where twentysomethings worth millions routinely rent along the freeway. When Joshua Weinstein teased Bezos about being listed on the Forbes 400 roster of the richest Americans, for example, „Jeff said the only real difference was that he doesn’t have to look at the prices on a menu anymore.“

„One thing to keep in mind,“ Bezos says, about not only his own gains but those of any Amazon.com employee who holds unvested options or hasn’t sold their stock, „is for many of these people the wealth that they have is paper wealth, and it will exist at that level only for as long as we continue to serve our customers well.“ Securities and Exchange Commission records show that Bezos himself has profited directly from his Amazon.com stock only once, when, last November, he sold 180,000 shares (of the more than 19 million he held at the time) for approximately $23 million.

Like a lot of other newly minted tech barons, Bezos’s splurges tend to involve having a good time with friends. In August, to celebrate Shel Kaphan’s fourth anniversary at Amazon.com, Bezos organized „the Shelebration,“ a four-day surprise weekend excursion to Maui. He chartered a jet to carry himself and MacKenzie, Kaphan, and members of the Amazon.com engineering staff and their spouses from Seattle to Hawaii. When the group arrived at the house Bezos had rented, Kaphan discovered a second surprise: An even larger group of Shel’s old friends from the San Francisco Bay Area had arrived there first, aboard a second plane Bezos had chartered for them from San Jose.

MacKenzie and Jeff, who’ve lived till now in a one-bedroom rental in downtown Seattle, also recently went shopping for a house, spending a reported $10 million for a rustic mansion alongside Lake Washington in a neighborhood littered with Microsoft millionaires.

It’s often forgotten how recently the mass American consumer market has evolved, how profoundly it has changed the way people shop, and how dramatically it has altered the very structure of society. Little more than 100 years ago, most Americans bought their goods – including clothes, food, furniture, even at times books – directly from the people who created them. But as the Industrial Revolution penetrated industry after industry, a gap began to open between producers and consumers until the one had little or no direct contact with the other. A new breed of middlemen arose to act as brokers between them (creating legendary opportunities for what sociologist Thorstein Veblen, in his Theory of the Leisure Class, derided as „conspicuous consumption“). In turn, routine, public display of manufactured, store-bought wares enabled the development of virtual societies (or „consumption communities,“ as historian Daniel Boorstin labeled them) in which membership and status were based not on an inborn class hierarchy but on the ownership of specific types of goods.

The most successful of the new retailing middlemen were the salesmen and magnates who understood that Americans, particularly in the rapidly urbanizing society of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, wanted their status anxieties satisfied by the shopping experience, and who built the modern department store for this express purpose. Among the most flamboyant was John Wanamaker, who sounds like a latter-day Internet entrepreneur with his boast 89 years ago that he had „revolutionized the retail business in America.“ Among the innovations Wanamaker could claim credit for developing or popularizing were escalators, the glass display cabinet, the street-level store entrance, the revolving door, free delivery anywhere in the world, and charge accounts. Wanamaker’s landmark Philadelphia store still operates at the corner of Broad and Market streets, and his New York store at Broadway and Astor Place was that city’s premier shopping destination from the 1890s until the 1920s, when it was finally surpassed by Macy’s, „The World’s Largest Store.“

But perhaps the most significant innovation by Wanamaker and his peers – who included Marshall Field, Boston’s Filene family, and Isidor Straus, who ran Macy’s – was their decision to display their mass-produced goods artfully behind plate glass, which new technologies had made easier to produce in ever larger sheets.

Before 1885, most merchants, if they chose to display anything, simply piled goods haphazardly in their front windows. It took an impresario named L. Frank Baum – who later indulged another kind of American fairy tale when he wrote The Wizard of Oz – to change that. In 1897 Baum began publishing a trade journal called The Show Window and a year later founded the National Association of Window Trimmers.

„You know, the potential exists in a broadband world for every author to have a five-minute video snippet explaining the intended audience.“

The goal of any good store-display designer, according to Baum, was to „arouse in the observer the cupidity and longing to possess the goods.“ Under his example, department store merchants began to use glass, light, and color to create street-corner crowds and stimulate their audiences in ways previously unknown. „What a stinging, quivering zest they display,“ novelist Theodore Dreiser said in 1902 about the newfangled „show windows“ he had encountered, „stirring up in onlookers a desire to secure but a part of what they see, the taste of a vibrating presence, and the pictures that it makes.“

A century later, the „show window“ is alive and well, now transferred to the modern video display, whether it’s connected to the Internet or receiving a television signal. Bezos and crew have focused as intently on trimming their video windows as Baum and Wanamaker concentrated on theirs.

Certainly, his backers insist, Amazon.com’s founder has the necessary talents. Board member Patty Stonesifer, a former Microsoft executive, points to last year’s annual meeting of Amazon.com shareholders, at the Seattle Art Museum, where Bezos held the audience spellbound in a way that reminded her of the best Hollywood executives she has met. „I don’t think he’s a showman,“ says Stonesifer, „but people are drawn to him because he seems unbelievably like a winner. And they want to help him win.“

Translating that ability from the annual meeting to the screen is, of course, another matter. Up to this point, the focus has been on minimizing flash in favor of speed, and on accepting the limitations of what it’s possible to do within the 640 x 480 pixels available inside a browser window on a computer screen. „Every business has to deal with some scarcity, and in our case it’s screen real estate,“ Bezos observes.

But even amid the tiny graphics and fast-loading pages, the entertainment value built intentionally into Amazon.com shows through. Rankings, for example – updated in real time for the company’s best-sellers – tell shoppers exactly how well each book is selling. (It’s not unheard-of for authors to purchase copies of their own books just so they can see the ticker bump up.) And dedicated collectors of rarities – the most notoriously exacting crowd around, with significant cultural trickle-down – can readily appreciate Amazon.com’s attention to detail. Using the music keyword-search function, for example, you can pull up a listing of the six CDs offered by Amazon.com that feature the oud, the traditional Middle Eastern stringed instrument. (Oud by George Mgrdichian was number 14 on Amazon.com’s Middle East music chart in early January.)

As bandwidth and speed increase, making it ever easier for consumers to browse through goods online, Bezos expects e-catalogs to finally drive their paper counterparts into extinction. The bulletin-board discussions and review areas on Amazon.com will also grow more sophisticated, he promises. „You know, the potential exists in a broadband world for every author to have a five-minute video snippet explaining who the intended audience is, why they should buy that book, or that music CD, or that video, and you’ll be able to show the trailers from the videos.“ (Asked, however, to name the one missing technology that, if it existed, would dramatically improve Amazon.com’s business prospects, he says simply, „Windows instant on“ – meaning a personal computer that boots up as quickly as a TV or a PalmPilot. „At home it’s a real pain,“ he says, „because in the 90 seconds or two minutes that it takes, I’ve forgotten what I was going to do!“)

Bezos spends hours at a time thinking about the future: trawling for ideas, exploring his own site, sometimes just surfing the Web, particularly on Mondays and Thursdays, which he tries to keep unscheduled. „I catch up on email, I wander around and talk to people, or I set up my own meetings – ones that are not part of the regular calendar.“ His surfing isn’t always confined to retail: Let the record note that on a Thursday in January he spent five hours on the Web using MacKenzie’s MSN account, plumbing the depths of his space fascination and learning more about „roton“ rockets.

He also gathers new ideas from other wanderers in the company. Amazon.com’s purchase last August of Junglee, then a Silicon Valley-based company that produces product comparison software for Web shoppers, came about when Amazon.com treasurer Randy Tinsley approached Bezos sometime in late April 1998 and lobbied for the acquisition. After a half-hour debate during which Tinsley allowed that Junglee might resist a sale, Bezos’s final word was, „We have a million other things to do – drop it.“ Two hours later, Tinsley called Bezos back to say he had called Junglee anyway and the management there was actually interested. „It shows you how much people listen to me!“ Bezos jokes.

Like an investor checking his portfolio, every three months Bezos sits down with his assistant Kim Christenson to examine and analyze his calendar for the quarter just past. He wants to know, among other things, how much time he has devoted to each of the dozen or so categories to which Christenson has assigned every meeting, phone call, or trip. (The categories include standards like recruiting, as well as onetime items like the launch plans for Amazon.com’s UK and German sites.)

Although he won’t disclose all the projects currently occupying those 12 categories, one that surely colors all of them is the need to fend off the renewed challenge by Barnes & Noble to Amazon.com’s book business – in particular, the potential threat to his supply chain in Barnes & Noble’s recent purchase of Ingram, the book distributor that has been an essential source of Amazon.com inventory. Asked whether B&N’s bid for Ingram took him by surprise, Bezos implies that he knew Ingram was for sale and passed on it, adding, „We don’t talk about what we might have looked at and not done.“ Given that getting items into customers‘ hands as quickly as possible is a key part of the Amazon.com experience, he admits that distributors are also key, at least currently. But he insists they aren’t a necessity long term. „There are so many ways to solve that problem,“ he says, one of which appears to lie in Amazon.com initiatives to build direct relationships with publishers. As for Barnes & Noble, „I bet you a year from now they will not consider us direct competitors,“ Bezos predicts. „Clearly they do today, but we’re on different paths … we’re trying to invent the future of ecommerce, and they’re just defending their turf.“

Jeff Bezos is shopping in meatspace. „I want to get a pair of cargo pants,“ he says, „although my wife says she hates them.“

We’re striding up Pine Street toward the new Nordstrom store in Seattle’s downtown shopping district, next door to the Pacific Place mall and only a couple of blocks from Amazon.com headquarters. Bezos wants cargo pants, he says, because he has too much stuff to carry in his pockets. Today he’s packing a gizmo he calls his World Trade Center Escape Kit, a combination flashlight, penknife, and key chain that he began to carry after the New York landmark was bombed. (For Christmas, he bought every member of his family their own survival kit, an off-the-shelf postmodern version of the Swiss Army knife, from Brookstone, called the Tool Logic Tool Lite Deluxe. Bezos, who has given the matter a good deal of thought, insists that the people trapped for hours in the smoky darkness of the World Trade Center’s fire escapes would have reached safety faster if they had had these simple tools.) Toy shopping, online and off, captivates him. Jeff and MacKenzie’s Christmas gift to everyone a year ago was laser-tag guns and vests, which, combined with the walkie-talkies his parents offered up, served as weapons in a nighttime game of laser-enhanced Capture the Flag on Amelia Island. The entire Bezos clan raced around in the dark zapping each other. „I never realized my mom was such a good shot!“ he says. But Jeff, as his mother recounts with a hint of disapproval, used a secret weapon to stack the deck in his favor: a pair of night-vision goggles MacKenzie had given him. „It’s not clear,“ Bezos counters, „that you’re supposed to have a level playing field when you’re marching into battle. Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!“

In Nordstrom we pick up lattes and stand in the middle of the main floor. Bezos comments idly on the down escalator: „Look, you turn immediately and go down, instead of walking from one end to the other and circulating through the merchandise.“ He pauses to consider whether the utility in facilitating quick passage from the main floor to the basement would outweigh the retail imperative.

For the kind of shopper Bezos represents, utility is, of course, a mantra. His wardrobe consists of white or blue dress shirts and a pair of khaki pants. Back in the late ’80s in New York, when he had to wear a suit every day to the office, he gained a preference for shirts with hidden snaps under the collar points for easy tie removal. He has trouble locating this style in the Pacific Northwest, so now he buys a pack of standard snapless shirts and has the snaps sewn on. When he discovers a pair of shoes he likes, he’ll buy four pairs at once and wear them in regular rotation for years.

Bezos has a full-steam-ahead, leaning-into-the-wind style of walking when he’s in a hurry, and in the Pacific Place mall he is continually veering off on some new quest for knowledge. He marches into an upscale pen shop and asks the first salesperson we encounter to show us the most expensive model in stock, which turns out to be a $975 Mont Blanc fountain pen. „That was a very good salesman,“ he announces when we leave, pleased with the young man’s knowledge of nib and ink arcana. As we pass Victoria’s Secret he says slyly, „You know, they charge you for the catalog in the stores,“ and whisks me through racks of bras and panties to a cash register in the back, where he asks the clerk to show him the goods. It turns out two catalogs are for sale, one for $5 and another for $3. „It’s the rare store that gets to charge for the catalog,“ he notes admiringly.

We bomb out of the mall and across the street to Old Navy. („You know, they treat jaywalking as seriously here as they do in Los Angeles,“ Bezos says before leaping bravely into mid-block traffic.) Once inside, he tries on a pair of light khaki cargos, size 33R. He deliberates. He decides to buy the pants. „I’m only going to buy one pair,“ he says, „because my wife hasn’t seen them yet.“

Back out in the street, the shopping throng envelopes us. Bezos waves an arm across the scene. „You see, none of this is going away,“ he says. „The Net can’t replace this experience.“

Not that it matters. Back in his office, he’s once again enumerating Amazon.com’s unlimited upside and its not insignificant advantages over the places we’ve just been – small, centralized inventory, low-cost warehouse space, one-to-one knowledge of consumer preferences. „There’s no comparison between the two models,“ he says gleefully, leaning forward and clasping his hands. „Online is so much cheaper.“

It remains to be seen what the long-term costs for Amazon.com will be. In business, of course, the conventional wisdom is that being an innovator costs a lot more than being an imitator, a fact Bezos acknowledges. But the pioneering quality of his business model is as much an aspect of his personality as the personality of Amazon.com. „You cannot,“ he says, „make a business case that you should be who you’re not.

„One of the things that I hope will distinguish Amazon.com is that we continue to be a company that defies easy analogy,“ he goes on. „This requires a lot of innovation, and innovation requires a lot of random walk“ – that is, spontaneous, open-ended search.

„There’s a strong case to be made for being a copier. It’s just not as satisfying, or as fun!“ Rule number one on how to succeed in business, from the new master of the game.

PLUS

Count the Change: All $22.1 Billion of It*

Mall of America 2010

In this room 50 years ago, the internet was born

On October 29, 1969, in this room at UCLA, a student programmer sent the first message using ARPANET, a precursor to the modern internet. The message didn’t go well. The programmer, Charley Kline, got halfway through the word login before the program crashed. It wasn’t a great start.

 

It would take a few more decades until the internet started entering our homes, but its impact is almost incalculable. It’s transformed nearly every facet of life, and whole human generations identify around its existence.

Source: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a29608415/welcome-to-internet-week/

Travel Blogging

„While travel blogging is a relatively young phenomenon, it has already evolved into a mature and sophisticated business model, with participants on both sides working hard to protect and promote their brands.

Those on the industry side say there’s tangible commercial benefit, provided influencers are carefully vetted.
„If people are actively liking and commenting on influencers‘ posts, it shows they’re getting inspired by the destination,“ Keiko Mastura, PR specialist at the Japan National Tourism Organization, tells CNN Travel.
„We monitor comments and note when users tag other accounts or comment about the destination, suggesting they’re adding it to their virtual travel bucket lists. Someone is influential if they have above a 3.5% engagement rate.“
For some tourism outlets, bloggers offer a way to promote products that might be overlooked by more conventional channels. Even those with just 40,000 followers can make a difference.
Kimron Corion, communications manager of Grenada’s Tourism Authority, says his organization has „had a lot of success engaging with micro-influencers who exposed some of our more niche offerings effectively.“
Such engagement doesn’t come cheap though.“

That means extra pressure in finding the right influencer to convey the relevant message — particularly when the aim is to deliver real-time social media exposure.
„We analyze each profile to make sure they’re an appropriate fit,“ says Florencia Grossi, director of international promotion for Visit Argentina. „We look for content with dynamic and interesting stories that invites followers to live the experience.“
One challenge is weeding out genuine influencers from the fake, a job that’s typically done by manually scrutinizing audience feedback for responses that betray automated followers. Bogus bloggers are another reason the market is becoming increasingly wary.“

Apple will be around for a long time. But the next Apple just isn’t Apple.

Apple, the iPhone, and the Innovator’s Dilemma

David Paul Morris/Bloomberg/Getty Images

If you re-read the first few chapters of The Innovator’s Dilemma and you insert “Apple” every time Clayton Christensen mentions “a company,” a certain picture emerges: Apple is a company on the verge of being disrupted, and the next great idea in tech and consumer electronics will not materialize from within the walls of its Cupertino spaceship.

The Innovator’s Dilemma, of course, is about the trap that successful companies fall into time and time again. They’re well managed, they’re responsive to their customers, and they’re market leaders. And yet, despite doing everything right, they fail to see the next wave of innovation coming, they get disrupted, and they ultimately fail.

In the case of Apple, the company is trapped by its success, and that success is spelled “iPhone.”

Take, for example, Christensen’s description of the principles of good management that inevitably lead to the downfall of successful companies: “that you should always listen to and respond to the needs of your best customers, and that you should focus investments on those innovations that promise the highest returns.”

Molly Wood (@mollywood) is an Ideas contributor at WIRED and the host and senior editor of Marketplace Tech, a daily national radio broadcast covering the business of technology. She has covered the tech industry at CNET, The New York Times, and in various print, television, digital and audio formats for nearly 20 years. (Ouch.)

Then think about the iPhone, which, despite some consumer-unfriendly advances like the lost headphone jack and ever-changing charging ports, has also been adjusted and tweaked and frozen by what customers want: bigger screens, great cameras, ease of use, and a consistent interface. And the bulk of Apple’s investment since 2007, when the iPhone came out, has been about maintaining, developing, and selling this one device.

In the last quarter of 2018, the iPhone accounted for $51 billion of Apple’s $84 billion in revenue. Its success, the economic halo around it, and its seeming invincibility since its launch have propelled Apple to heights few companies have ever imagined. But the device will also be its undoing.

Here’s what happens when you have a product that successful: You get comfortable. More accurately, you get protective. You don’t want to try anything new. The new things you do try have to be justified in the context of that precious jewel—the “core product.”

So even something like Apple’s Services segment—the brightest non-iPhone spot in its earnings lately—mostly consists of services that benefit the iPhone. It’s Apple Music, iTunes, iCloud—and although Apple doesn’t break out its numbers, the best estimate is that a third or more of its Services revenue is driven by the 30 percent cut it takes from … yep, apps downloaded from the App Store.

The other bright spot in the company’s latest earnings report is its Wearables, Home, and Accessories category. Here again, Apple doesn’t break out the numbers, but the wearables part of that segment is where all the growth is, and that means Apple Watches. And you know what’s still tied nice and tight to the iPhone? Apple Watches.

Even Apple’s best-selling accessories are most likely AirPods, which had a meme-tastic holiday season and are, safe to say, used mostly in conjunction with iPhones. (I’d bet the rest of the accessories dollars are coming from dongles and hubs, since there’s nary a port to be found on any of its new MacBooks.) As for stand-alones, its smart speakers are reportedly great, but they’re not putting a dent in Amazon or Google, by latest count. Apple TV, sure. Fine. But Roku shouldn’t have been embedded in a TV before Apple was.

And none of these efforts count as a serious attempt at diversification.

You may be tempted to argue that Apple is, in fact, working on other projects. The Apple acquisition rumors never cease; nor do the confident statements that the company definitely, absolutely, certainly has a magical innovation in the works that will spring full grown like Athena from the forehead of Zeus any day now. I’m here to say, I don’t think there’s a nascent warrior goddess hiding in there.

Witness Apple’s tottering half-steps into new markets that are unrelated to the iPhone: It was early with a voice assistant but has stalled behind Amazon and even Google Assistant. It wasn’t until last year that the company hired a bona fide machine-learning expert in John Giannandrea, former head of search and AI at Google—and he didn’t get put on the executive team until December 2018. That’s late.

There’s its half-hearted dabble in self-driving technology that was going to be a car, then became software, then became 200 people laid off. Its quailing decade-long attempt to build a streaming service would be sort of comical if there weren’t clearly so much money being thrown around, and so tentatively at that. Rumors of its launch go back as far as 2015, although now it’s supposed to launch in April—this time they mean it.

But even if the streaming service actually arrives, can it really compete against YouTube, PlayStation, Sling, DirecTV, Hulu, and just plain old Netflix? Apple’s original programming is also apparently “not coming as soon as you think.” Analysts are, at this point, outright begging Apple to buy a studio or other original content provider, just to have something to show against Netflix and Amazon originals.

Of course, lots of companies innovate through acquisition, and everyone loves to speculate about what companies Apple might buy. Rumors have ranged from GoPro to BlackBerry to Tesla to the chipmaker ARM. Maybe Netflix. Maybe Tesla. Maybe Disney. Maybe Wired. (Apple News is a hugely successful product … mostly on iPhones, of course.) But at every turn, Apple has declined to move, other than its $3 billion Beats buy in 2014 (which it appears to be abandoning, or cannibalizing, these days).

Now, let me be clear, once again. None of this is to suggest that Apple is doing anything wrong. Indeed, according to Christensen, one of the hallmarks of the innovator’s dilemma is the company’s success, smooth operations, great products, and happy customers. That’s one of the things that makes it a dilemma: A company doesn’t realize anything’s wrong, because, well, nothing is. Smartphone sales may be slowing, but Apple is still a beloved brand, its products are excellent, its history and cachet are unmatched. But that doesn’t mean it has a plan to survive the ongoing decline in global smartphones sales.

The Innovator’s Dilemma does say an entrenched company can sometimes pull out of the quicksand by setting up a small, autonomous spinoff that has the power to move fast, pursue markets that are too small to move the needle for a company making $84 billion a quarter, and innovate before someone else gets there first.

Well, Apple has no autonomous innovation divisions that I know of, and the guys in charge are the same guys who have been in charge for decades: Tim Cook, Eddy Cue, Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi, Jony Ive—all have been associated with Apple since the late ’80s or ’90s. (I mean, has there ever really been a time without Jony Ive?)

You see what I’m saying here: brilliant team with a long record of execution and unparalleled success. Possibly not a lot of fresh ideas.

And then there’s the final option for innovation, one that Apple has availed itself of many times in the past. As Steve Jobs often said, quoting Picasso: “Good artists copy; great artists steal.” The iPod was born of existing MP3 players; the iPhone improved on clunky, ugly smartphones already on the market. The MacOS and the computer mouse were developed to maturity (yes, with permission) after being invented at Xerox PARC.

So maybe Apple will find the hottest thing in tech that’s still slightly unknown and come out with a better version. But is there such a thing as a way-sexier cloud computing business?

I guess it’s possible that the rumored virtual- and augmented-reality headset that Apple is supposed to release in 2020 will take the world by storm and popularize VR in a way that no one imagined, and like AirPods, will take a look that’s painfully dorky on the surface and turn it into a not-quite-ironic must-have statement of affluence and cool. It’s happened before. But this time, I think the company will get beaten to that punch—or whatever punch is next. Apple will be around for a long time. But the next Apple just isn’t Apple.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-molly-wood-apple/

5 Steps to Master the Art of Negotiation

Wouldn’t it be a different world if everybody thought the way you did? If everybody spontaneously conformed to your every wish, your every thought, your every feeling? Since life doesn’t work that way, you would do well to become skilled at the art of negotiation.

Related: Be Calm, Flexible and Speak Up in a Negotiation, and Everyone Can Win

In negotiation, after all, neither party holds all the aces. Instead, negotiation proceeds (or should proceed) on a rather level playing field. Since both parties want to win, what is the best way to proceed? Here are five steps.

1. Establish the relationship

The wise negotiator establishes the relationship before proceeding further. Doing so allows you to get a feeling for the person with whom you are dealing, and vice versa. Though often ignored, „feeling“ itself is an essential part of negotiation. So, always be open and sincere. Honesty, integrity and dignity are palpable qualities, and the foundation upon which constructive negotiations are built.

You are best positioned to negotiate when the other party respects you, not only as a businessperson, but as a human being. Trust, which is gained through that respect, is the key to successful negotiation.

2. Choose ‚honey over vinegar.‘

You’ll do better with honey than with vinegar — but the honey must be genuine. Never underestimate the natural ability of other people to sense who you really are. Disingenuous, manipulative and secretive are feelings that simply cannot be hidden.

When negotiating, you too can sense if the other party’s values are subpar or lack integrity altogether. No greater red flag exists in the entire arena of negotiation.

Related: This Strategy Will Make Negotiations Less Painful

3. Focus on the win-win.

Win-wins are the only way to go. If you approach a negotiation thinking only of yourself, you are a terrible negotiator. Understanding what all parties need, and working for all concerned is vital. Keep in mind that seeing things in only black and white (win-lose) creates limited thinking; creativity is essential to good negotiation.

Ultimately, all people involved should find themselves on the same side of the fence. You want to be a player, not a pain. Keep your eye on the big picture and don’t get caught up in the small stuff. Stay out of the weeds.

4. Embody your inner adult.

Never forget that everyone has an inner adult and an inner child. It is remarkable to witness how even high-level business deals break down because someone at the table starts thinking childishly, instigating that behavior in others. When you see this happening, keep in mind that everyone goes out of balance.

Be the stable anchor, the respectful adult at the table. Helping people come back into balance is often best done by example. Take the high road, embodying your inner adult. Don’t argue; instead, understand.

5. Respect the rhythm of the relationship.

Always remember that there is a rhythm to everything. Don’t push it. Oftentimes, it is best to say nothing. Never forget that silent pauses can be a very powerful tool. Give yourself and others the time and space to reflect upon everything that has been said.

Don’t rush it. Try to sense the natural and appropriate rhythm of all the people at the table, including yourself.

In closing

By implementing these five points, you will be well on your way to mastering the art of negotiation. Negotiation is all about relationships. By cultivating and maintaining a good rapport with everyone at the table, every player can win. You’re not just creating an agreement, you are cultivating a long-term relationship as well as a reputation.

By mastering the subtle art of negotiation, you establish yourself as a top-rank business person, and that in itself may lead to even greater opportunities in the future.

Source: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253074

Freaks – die wahren Helden – die Disruptoren der neuen Arbeitswelt – die Querdenker als neue Elite

Irgendwie ist der neue Mitarbeiter doch ein Spinner, sichtbar tätowiert oder ein echter Comupter-Nerd? Gewöhnen Sie sich an das Ungewöhnliche, denn laut Experten sind gerade die sogenannten „Freaks“ die besten Führungskräfte und schon bald werden dies auch die deutschen Unternehmen erkennen. Da kann es gut sein, dass Ihr neuer Chef in Kürze irgendwie „anders“ ist. Doch was hat es eigentlich mit den Freaks auf sich und wieso taugen sie besser zur Führungskraft als der 08/15-Mitarbeiter?

Sind Freaks die besseren Führungskräfte?
Traut Euch, anders zu sein

Inhalt
1. Deutsche Unternehmen setzen auf den angepassten Durchschnitt
2. Wonach suchen deutsche Unternehmen ihre Führungskräfte aus?
3. Wer ist eigentlich ein „Freak“?
4. Die Schwächen sind das Problem
5. Wie können Peak Performer integriert werden?
6. Für welche Unternehmen eignen sich die Spiky Leaders?

Deutsche Unternehmen setzen auf den angepassten Durchschnitt

Bislang halten die deutschen Führungsetagen keine großen Überraschungen bereit: Angepasste Anzugträger tummeln sich in den leitenden Positionen, hier und da eine Frau – aber nicht zu viele. Tatsächlich suchen die meisten deutschen Unternehmen für ihre Führungspositionen nach angepassten und leistungswilligen Mitarbeitern. Wieso? Weil Sie kein Risiko darstellen, Beständigkeit versprechen und ein hohes Maß an Zuverlässigkeit. Der Durchschnitt bringt es deshalb im Beruf am weitesten.

Freaks hingegen feiern eher als Selbstständige ihre Erfolge und stellen da schon einmal die gewohnten Marktmechanismen auf den Kopf.

Doch wieso machen sich die deutschen Unternehmen eigentlich nichts aus eben dieser Fähigkeit? Aus den Querdenkern, Risikofreudigen und wahren Genies? Echte Talente und herausragende Stärken, das sollte eine Führungskraft mitbringen. Da sind sich zumindest viele Experten einig…

Wonach suchen deutsche Unternehmen ihre Führungskräfte aus?

Eine bei Statista veröffentlichte Umfrage gibt hierauf wenig überraschende Antworten: Demnach erachten 100 Prozent aller befragten Unternehmen die Kommunikationsfähigkeit als besonders wichtig für eine Führungskraft. 99 Prozent setzen zudem auf eine hohe Motivation, 98 Prozent auf bereits erbrachte Leistungen im Unternehmen.

Statistik: Erachten Sie folgende Eigenschaften bei Führungskräften als wichtig? | Statista
Mehr Statistiken finden Sie bei Statista

Die Personalberaterin Uta von Boyen kennst sich bestens mit dem Thema aus: Nach Allroundern werde gesucht, Beständigkeit und Mittelmaß. Schul- und Hochschulnoten, Assessment-Center und normierte Lebensläufe seien die Auswahlkriterien für neue Mitarbeiter und Führungskräfte müssen in erster Linie leistungsbereit sein. Es ist das Prinzip „Befehl und Gehorsam“, das in vielen Unternehmen in den Führungsetagen ausgeübt wird – welches jedoch eigentlich in der modernen Wirtschaft nichts mehr verloren hätte. Denn in den immer schneller werdenden Zeiten der Globalisierung und Digitalisierung müssen Unternehmen auf neuartige Geschäftsstrategien setzen, um dauerhaft gegen die nunmehr weltweite Konkurrenz bestehen zu können. Und hierfür, so Uta von Boyen, seien gerade Freaks die besseren Führungskräfte.

Wer ist eigentlich ein „Freak“?

Als „Freak“ in diesem Sinne bezeichnen die Experten alle jene Mitarbeiter, die aus dem üblichen Rahmen fallen. Es handelt sich um Querdenker, Menschen mit Spezialbegabungen und ausgeprägter Persönlichkeit. Freaks bringen Unruhe in ein Unternehmen, fungieren als Visionäre und haben häufig Schwierigkeiten damit, sich in die gegebenen Strukturen einzufügen. Sie werden deshalb auch „Peak Performer“ oder „Spiky Leaders“ genannt. Es sind eben jene Menschen, die unangepasst arbeiten, neue Ideen hervorbringen und ebenso herausragende Stärken wie eben auch Schwächen mitbringen.

Die Schwächen sind das Problem

Genau hierin liegt aber das Hauptproblem der Unternehmen mit den Peak Performern: Sie haben Schwächen. Und Schwächen werden in der modernen Arbeitswelt nicht geduldet. Der Sinn steht daher stets nach der möglichen Minimierung der Schwächen anstelle der Förderung von Stärken.

Die scheinbar besten Mitarbeiter sehen die Unternehmen deshalb in angepassten „General Managern“. Ein Prozess, der bereits in den Schulen beginnt, ja mancherorts sogar im Kindergarten oder der Vorschule. Wer aus dem Rahmen fällt, erhält Nachhilfeunterricht oder gilt als schwer erziehbar. Die scheinbaren ADHS-Fälle nehmen immer weiter zu, nur weil ein Kind keine acht Stunden ruhig in der Schulbank sitzt. Wer besondere Begabungen oder originelles Denken mitbringt wird nicht weiter gefördert. Stattdessen wird der Unterricht starr durchgezogen und die Schüler auf die goldene Mitte eingeebnet. Wieso? Weil der Durchschnitt den Weg des geringsten Widerstands bedeutet.

Spiky Leaders hingegen, müssen mit viel Aufwand in ein Unternehmen integriert werden, sollten diese nicht bereits desillusioniert und demotiviert aus der Schul- und Hochschullaufbahn herauskommen. Dabei hat uns die Geschichte immer wieder gelehrt, dass gerade diese Peak Performer einen hohen Wert für die Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft haben. Sie haben in der Vergangenheit gar immer wieder das Überleben der Menschheit gesichert, da sind sich Historiker und Evolutionsbiologen einig. Und hätten Sie Steve Jobs nicht auch zu Beginn seiner Laufbahn als echten Freak wahrgenommen?

Wie können Peak Performer integriert werden?

Das größte Problem darin, die außergewöhnlichen Begabungen der Peak Performer in einem Unternehmen zu nutzen, liegt also in ihrer erfolgreichen Integration in das Unternehmen. Hierfür muss es seine Führungsstrukturen überdenken und neue Konzepte erstellen. Spiky Leaders funktionieren meist in kleinen Teams am besten, wo sie mit dem angepassten Durchschnitt zusammenarbeiten können. Ein Unternehmen funktioniert nämlich ebenso wenig nur mit „Freaks“ als ganz ohne. Es geht also um eine effiziente Zusammenarbeit zwischen Peak Performer und 08/15-Mitarbeiter. Die Zusammensetzung dieser gemischten Teams ist eine wahre Herausforderung, zumal die Unangepassten häufig menschlich schwierig sind, als „stachelig“ wahrgenommen werden. Dadurch bringen sie aber eine positive Dynamik in jedes Team und eine produktivere Arbeitsatmosphäre. Dynamiken bringen schließlich Ergebnisse hervor – Stillstand nicht. Es gilt also, die Organisationsform eines Unternehmens der Integration von Peak Performern anzupassen:

  • Feste Strukturen müssen aufgelockert werden.
  • Der Spiky Leader muss individuelle Freiräume genießen.
  • Seine Talente und Stärken müssen effizient gefördert und gezielt eingesetzt werden.
  • Die Schwächen der Peak Performer gilt es frühzeitig aufzufangen.

Für welche Unternehmen eignen sich die Spiky Leaders?

Es geht nun nicht darum, dass jedes Unternehmen in jedem Team mindestens einen Spiky Leader besetzt. Im Gegenteil: Ob ein Peak Performer für Ihr Unternehmen geeignet ist, wer, wie viele und in welcher Position, das hängt von Ihrer jeweiligen Organisationsform sowie der strategischen Ausrichtung des Unternehmens ab. Häufig sind Peak Performer gerade in in geringer Anzahl auf wichtigen Schlüsselpositionen gut besetzt. Zudem sollte stets nur höchstens ein „Freak“ pro Team eingesetzt werden. Allerdings ist die Akzeptanz der Peak Performer in einem Team nicht immer einfach und sie stellen damit ein hohes Risiko dar. Ein Risiko, welches bislang nur die wenigsten Unternehmen bereit sind einzugehen. Wer jedoch bereits jetzt begreift, dass ganzheitliche Führung in Zukunft auch auf Querdenker nicht verzichten kann, ist der Konkurrenz in der Globalisierung einen großen Schritt voraus.

Was denken Sie von den Peak Performern? Haben Sie bereits Erfahrungen mit ihnen gemacht oder würden Sie sich vielleicht sogar selbst als einen solchen bezeichnen? Es ist und bleibt ein spannendes Thema…

https://arbeits-abc.de/querdenker-als-fuehrungskraft

Delight Users with Animation

“Delight” is a word that we’re hearing and using more often to describe pleasurable moments in our products. Delight is the magic that makes us fall in love with a product. It’s a core element to strive for when designing. When it comes to providing pleasure or delight in our websites and apps, animations contribute a lot.

WHY DELIGHTFUL ANIMATION IS IMPORTANT

Digital design plays a crucial role in how customers experience a product. Modern design is highly focussed on usability, because usability allows people to easily accomplish their goals. However, designing for the user experience has a lot more to it than making a usable product. Good design is pleasurable and seductive. Good design is delightful. “At this point in experience design’s evolution, satisfaction ought to be the norm, and delight ought to be the goal,” says Stephen Anderson. Animation can help you achieve this goal.

WHEN TO USE DELIGHTFUL ANIMATION

Just like any other design element animation should contribute the user flow. Delightful animations are pleasurable for the user without detracting from the usability of the app. There are two cases when implementing delightful animation into your digital designs can strengthen UX:

  • Engaging and entertaining. Entertaining animation draws attention to our products by creating a strong first impression. It can make our products more memorable and more shareable.
  • Baking emotion in design. Showing the human side of your business or product can be a very powerful way for your audience to identify and empathize with you. The aim of emotional design is to create happiness. You want people to feel happy when they use your product.

Let’s look at a few ways animation can help create delightful moments:

1. KEEP USERS INTERESTED DURING LOADING

Loading time is an unavoidable situation for most digital products. But who says that loading should be boring? When we can’t shorten the line, we can certainly make the wait more pleasant. To ensure people don’t get bored while waiting for something to happen, you can offer them some distraction: this can be something fun or something unexpected. While animation won’t solve the problem, it definitely makes waiting less of a problem: fine animation can distract your users and make them ignore long loading times.

001
Credits: Dribbble

2. MAKE A GREAT FIRST IMPRESSION

First impressions count: people judge things based on how they look. Good animation throughout the onboarding flow has a strong impact on how first-time users will engage with the app. A good first impression isn’t just about usability, it’s also about personality. If your first few app screens look a little different from similar products, you’ve shown the user that your entire product experience will likely be different too. For example, animating an illustration for a new feature can educate the user about the feature in a memorable way.

002
Credits: Dribbble

3. MAKE YOUR INTERFACES FEEL MORE ALIVE

Creative animation can make your user experience truly delightful: they can transform familiar interactions into something much more enjoyable and have the power to encourage users to actually interact. Attention to fine movements can increase the level of usability and therefore desirability of the product.

4. INCORPORATE EMOTIONAL INTERACTIONS

Focusing on user emotions plays a huge role in UI interactions. As Aarron Walter said in his book Designing for Emotion: “Personality is the mysterious force that attracts us to certain people and repels us from others.” Using animation you can establish an emotional connection with your users, and remind them that there are real humans behind the design. An example of animation from ReadMe is full of emotions.

5. HELP USER RECOVER FROM UNEXPECTED ERRORS

‘Errors’ happen. They happen in our apps and they happen in our life. Sometimes they happen because we made mistakes. Sometimes because an app failed. Whatever the cause, these errors — and how they are handled — can have a huge impact on the way user experiences your app. A well-crafted error handling can turn a moment of failure into a moment of delight. When displaying an unexpected error, use it as an opportunity to delight with animation.

003
Credits: Dribbble

6. MAKE A COMPLEX TASK FEEL EASIER

Animation is able to transform a complex task into an inviting experience.  Let’s take a MailChimp case for inspiration. What makes MailChimp awesome is its smooth functionality wrapped in cheeky humor and friendly animation. When you’re about to send out your first campaign, the accompanying animation shows how stressful it is. Mailchimp brings empathy to the design: by combining animated cartoons with tongue-in-cheek messages like “This is your moment of glory,” MailChimp softens the nervousness of sending your first emails.

7. BREATHE FUN INTO THE INTERACTIONS

People love to discover treats in interfaces just as they do in real life. The joy is more than the treat, it’s the discovery of the treat and the feeling that someone took the time to think of you.

index
Credits: Dribbble

People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.—Maya Angelou

Never underestimate the power of delight to improve the user experience. The difference between products we love and those we simply tolerate is often the delight we have with them.

Of course, before your application can create an emotional connection with the user it must get the basics right.  Thus, make your product a joy to use by connecting feelings with features!

https://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2017/04/7-ways-to-delight-users-with-animation

The 15 coolest concept cars revealed this year so far

Automakers are pushing bold, innovative ideas forward with their latest concept cars.

Faraday Thumb23Rob Ludacer

Whether it’s a car with nothing inside but a sofa and TV or an electric car resembling the Batmobile, concept cars give us a glimpse of how technology will shape the future of driving.

1. Volkswagen unveiled a microbus concept meant to give a modern spin to the classic Volkswagen bus at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.

1. Volkswagen unveiled a microbus concept meant to give a modern spin to the classic Volkswagen bus at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.

Volkswagen

Called the BUDD-e, the electric car gets up to 373 miles of range.

The doors open with a simple wave of the hand, and you can control the console’s interface by making hand gestures.

The doors open with a simple wave of the hand, and you can control the console's interface by making hand gestures.

Volkswagen

You can also use the interface to control things like the temperature and lighting in your house.

2. The big unveiling to come out of the Consumer Electronics Show was Faraday Future’s concept car, the FFZERO1.

2. The big unveiling to come out of the Consumer Electronics Show was Faraday Future's concept car, the FFZERO1.

Rob Ludacer

It can go from zero to 60 miles per hour in under three seconds.

Four motors placed over each wheel give the car a top speed of 200 miles per hour. It’s also capable of learning the driver’s preferences and automatically adjusting the internal settings.

Four motors placed over each wheel give the car a top speed of 200 miles per hour. It's also capable of learning the driver's preferences and automatically adjusting the internal settings.

Faraday Future

Although Faraday Future plans to release a production car in 2020, the FFZERO1 is just a show car.

3. LeEco, a Chinese tech company, unveiled its Tesla killer concept car at the Consumer Electronics Show.

LeEco is also partners with Faraday Future.

Called the LeSEE, the car has a top speed of 130 miles per hour. It also has an autonomous mode.

Called the LeSEE, the car has a top speed of 130 miles per hour. It also has an autonomous mode.

LeEco

The steering wheel will retract back into the dashboard when the car is in autonomous mode.

4. The Lincoln Navigator concept car comes with giant gullwing doors. It was unveiled at the New York Auto Show in March.

4. The Lincoln Navigator concept car comes with giant gullwing doors. It was unveiled at the New York Auto Show in March.

Ford

We won’t be seeing those doors in the production model of a Lincoln Navigator anytime soon, unfortunately.

The six seats inside can be adjusted 30 different ways, and there’s entertainment consoles on the back of four seats so passengers can watch TV or play games.

The six seats inside can be adjusted 30 different ways, and there's entertainment consoles on the back of four seats so passengers can watch TV or play games.

Ford

There’s even a built-in wardrobe management system in the trunk so you can turn your car into part walk-in closet.

5. BMW’s Vision Next 100 was unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show in March. It comes with an AI system called Companion that can learn your driving preferences and adjust accordingly in advance.

5. BMW's Vision Next 100 was unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show in March. It comes with an AI system called Companion that can learn your driving preferences and adjust accordingly in advance.

BMW

The side panels of the Next 100 are made of carbon fiber.

The steering wheel will retract into the dashboard when the car is in autonomous mode.

The steering wheel will retract into the dashboard when the car is in autonomous mode.

BMW

There’s also a heads-up display that will show information about your route on the windshield.

6. BMW added to its Vision 100 line in June. Here we see the Mini Vision Next 100 that was built for ridesharing.

6. BMW added to its Vision 100 line in June. Here we see the Mini Vision Next 100 that was built for ridesharing.

BMW

The car can recognize who you are when it comes to pick you up and will greet you with personalized lighting.

The steering wheel will shift into the center of the console when the car is in autonomous mode.

The steering wheel will shift into the center of the console when the car is in autonomous mode.

BMW

The BMW also comes with a heads-up display that will show information about your route on the windshield.

7. The last addition to the BMW Vision 100 line is this futuristic Rolls-Royce.

7. The last addition to the BMW Vision 100 line is this futuristic Rolls-Royce.

Rob Ludacer

The Rolls-Royce is also completely autonomous.

Because the car envisions a completely autonomous future, the interior is composed entirely of a two-person, silk sofa and a giant OLED TV.

Because the car envisions a completely autonomous future, the interior is composed entirely of a two-person, silk sofa and a giant OLED TV.

Rolls-Royce

There’s also a secret compartment in the car for storing your luggage.

8. McLaren unveiled a stunning concept car called the 675LT JVCKENWOOD at the Consumer Electronics Show.

8. McLaren unveiled a stunning concept car called the 675LT JVCKENWOOD at the Consumer Electronics Show.

McLaren

The McLaren 675LT comes with a wireless networking system so it could communicate with other cars on the road about traffic and accidents.

The car comes with a steering wheel that looks like a video game controller!

The car comes with a steering wheel that looks like a video game controller!

McLaren

The controller is meant to help the driver control the heads-up display while in motion.

9. Italian automaker Pininfarina unveiled a beautiful hydrogen-powered concept car at the Geneva Motor Show.

9. Italian automaker Pininfarina unveiled a beautiful hydrogen-powered concept car at the Geneva Motor Show.

Pininfarina

The car, called H2 Speed, refuels in just three minutes.

It has a top speed of 186 miles per hour and can go from zero to 62 miles per hour in 3.4 seconds.

It has a top speed of 186 miles per hour and can go from zero to 62 miles per hour in 3.4 seconds.

Pininfarina

The car can regenerate energy from braking.

10. Audi unveiled its connected mobility concept car in April. There’s a longboard integrated in the bumper in case you want to roll from the parking lot to work.

10. Audi unveiled its connected mobility concept car in April. There's a longboard integrated in the bumper in case you want to roll from the parking lot to work.

Audi

It conveniently pulls out when you need it and is stored in the bumper when you’d rather travel on foot!

The car’s infotainment system can calculate the fastest route based on real-time data and will suggest using the longboard if that seems faster.

The car's infotainment system can calculate the fastest route based on real-time data and will suggest using the longboard if that seems faster.

Audi

It will even show you the best parking spot to make the longboard portion of your commute shorter.

11. Aston Martin showed off a beautiful concept car in May called the Vanquish Zagato Concept.

11. Aston Martin showed off a beautiful concept car in May called the Vanquish Zagato Concept.

Aston Martin

All of the body panels in the Vanquish Zagato are made of carbon fiber.

Aston Martin made the car with Italian auto design company Zagato. The two have worked together since 1960.

Aston Martin made the car with Italian auto design company Zagato. The two have worked together since 1960.

Aston Martin

There’s not too many details on this car since it’s just a concept, but it sure is pretty.

12. Jeep showed off a crazy looking wrangler in March at the Easter Jeep Safari, an off road rally.

12. Jeep showed off a crazy looking wrangler in March at the Easter Jeep Safari, an off road rally.

Chrysler

That is a monster car.

The Wrangler Trailcat concept had to be stretched to 12 inches to accommodate the massive engine providing 707 horsepower.

The Wrangler Trailcat concept had to be stretched to 12 inches to accommodate the massive engine providing 707 horsepower.

Chrysler

It comes with racing seats from a Dodge Viper.

13. Toyota unveiled a strange-looking concept car dubbed the uBox to appeal to Generation Z in April.

13. Toyota unveiled a strange-looking concept car dubbed the uBox to appeal to Generation Z in April.

Toyota

The uBox is all-electric.

The interior is entirely customizable so it can transform into a mobile office or fit more people.

The interior is entirely customizable so it can transform into a mobile office or fit more people.

Toyota

It also comes with a nice curved glass roof that lets plenty of light inside.

14. French automaker Renault showed off a stunning, high-tech sports car dubbed the Alpine Vision in February.

The Alpine Vision is a two-door, two-seater sports car.

It can go from zero to 62 miles per hour in 4.5 seconds

The interior is decked out with a LCD gauge cluster in the center console.

15. Lastly, Croatian automaker Rimac designed a stunning, all-electric concept car for the Geneva Motor Show.

15. Lastly, Croatian automaker Rimac designed a stunning, all-electric concept car for the Geneva Motor Show.

Rimac

Called the Concept_One it can accelerate from zero to 62 miles per hour in just 2.6 seconds.

The Concept_One can reach a top speed of 185 miles per hour.

The Concept_One can reach a top speed of 185 miles per hour.

Rimac

It has a regenerative braking system that allows it to generate energy whenever it brakes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/coolest-concept-cars-revealed-in-2016-2016-6

Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: Soon We Won’t Program Computers. We’ll Train Them Like Dogs

AI_2-1-1.jpg

BEFORE THE INVENTION of the computer, most experimental psychologists thought the brain was an unknowable black box. You could analyze a subject’s behavior—ring bell, dog salivates—but thoughts, memories, emotions? That stuff was obscure and inscrutable, beyond the reach of science. So these behaviorists, as they called themselves, confined their work to the study of stimulus and response, feedback and reinforcement, bells and saliva. They gave up trying to understand the inner workings of the mind. They ruled their field for four decades.

Then, in the mid-1950s, a group of rebellious psychologists, linguists, information theorists, and early artificial-intelligence researchers came up with a different conception of the mind. People, they argued, were not just collections of conditioned responses. They absorbed information, processed it, and then acted upon it. They had systems for writing, storing, and recalling memories. They operated via a logical, formal syntax. The brain wasn’t a black box at all. It was more like a computer.

The so-called cognitive revolution started small, but as computers became standard equipment in psychology labs across the country, it gained broader acceptance. By the late 1970s, cognitive psychology had overthrown behaviorism, and with the new regime came a whole new language for talking about mental life. Psychologists began describing thoughts as programs, ordinary people talked about storing facts away in their memory banks, and business gurus fretted about the limits of mental bandwidth and processing power in the modern workplace.

This story has repeated itself again and again. As the digital revolution wormed its way into every part of our lives, it also seeped into our language and our deep, basic theories about how things work. Technology always does this. During the Enlightenment, Newton and Descartes inspired people to think of the universe as an elaborate clock. In the industrial age, it was a machine with pistons. (Freud’s idea of psychodynamics borrowed from the thermodynamics of steam engines.) Now it’s a computer. Which is, when you think about it, a fundamentally empowering idea. Because if the world is a computer, then the world can be coded.

Code is logical. Code is hackable. Code is destiny. These are the central tenets (and self-fulfilling prophecies) of life in the digital age. As software has eaten the world, to paraphrase venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, we have surrounded ourselves with machines that convert our actions, thoughts, and emotions into data—raw material for armies of code-wielding engineers to manipulate. We have come to see life itself as something ruled by a series of instructions that can be discovered, exploited, optimized, maybe even rewritten. Companies use code to understand our most intimate ties; Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has gone so far as to suggest there might be a “fundamental mathematical law underlying human relationships that governs the balance of who and what we all care about.” In 2013, Craig Venter announced that, a decade after the decoding of the human genome, he had begun to write code that would allow him to create synthetic organisms. “It is becoming clear,” he said, “that all living cells that we know of on this planet are DNA-software-driven biological machines.” Even self-help literature insists that you can hack your own source code, reprogramming your love life, your sleep routine, and your spending habits.

In this world, the ability to write code has become not just a desirable skill but a language that grants insider status to those who speak it. They have access to what in a more mechanical age would have been called the levers of power. “If you control the code, you control the world,” wrote futurist Marc Goodman. (In Bloomberg Businessweek, Paul Ford was slightly more circumspect: “If coders don’t run the world, they run the things that run the world.” Tomato, tomahto.)

But whether you like this state of affairs or hate it—whether you’re a member of the coding elite or someone who barely feels competent to futz with the settings on your phone—don’t get used to it. Our machines are starting to speak a different language now, one that even the best coders can’t fully understand.

Over the past several years, the biggest tech companies in Silicon Valley have aggressively pursued an approach to computing called machine learning. In traditional programming, an engineer writes explicit, step-by-step instructions for the computer to follow. With machine learning, programmers don’t encode computers with instructions. They train them. If you want to teach a neural network to recognize a cat, for instance, you don’t tell it to look for whiskers, ears, fur, and eyes. You simply show it thousands and thousands of photos of cats, and eventually it works things out. If it keeps misclassifying foxes as cats, you don’t rewrite the code. You just keep coaching it.

This approach is not new—it’s been around for decades—but it has recently become immensely more powerful, thanks in part to the rise of deep neural networks, massively distributed computational systems that mimic the multilayered connections of neurons in the brain. And already, whether you realize it or not, machine learning powers large swaths of our online activity. Facebook uses it to determine which stories show up in your News Feed, and Google Photos uses it to identify faces. Machine learning runs Microsoft’s Skype Translator, which converts speech to different languages in real time. Self-driving cars use machine learning to avoid accidents. Even Google’s search engine—for so many years a towering edifice of human-written rules—has begun to rely on these deep neural networks. In February the company replaced its longtime head of search with machine-learning expert John Giannandrea, and it has initiated a major program to retrain its engineers in these new techniques. “By building learning systems,” Giannandrea told reporters this fall, “we don’t have to write these rules anymore.”

But here’s the thing: With machine learning, the engineer never knows precisely how the computer accomplishes its tasks. The neural network’s operations are largely opaque and inscrutable. It is, in other words, a black box. And as these black boxes assume responsibility for more and more of our daily digital tasks, they are not only going to change our relationship to technology—they are going to change how we think about ourselves, our world, and our place within it.

If in the old view programmers were like gods, authoring the laws that govern computer systems, now they’re like parents or dog trainers. And as any parent or dog owner can tell you, that is a much more mysterious relationship to find yourself in.

ANDY RUBIN IS an inveterate tinkerer and coder. The cocreator of the Android operating system, Rubin is notorious in Silicon Valley for filling his workplaces and home with robots. He programs them himself. “I got into computer science when I was very young, and I loved it because I could disappear in the world of the computer. It was a clean slate, a blank canvas, and I could create something from scratch,” he says. “It gave me full control of a world that I played in for many, many years.”

Now, he says, that world is coming to an end. Rubin is excited about the rise of machine learning—his new company, Playground Global, invests in machine-learning startups and is positioning itself to lead the spread of intelligent devices—but it saddens him a little too. Because machine learning changes what it means to be an engineer.

Soon We Won’t Program Computers. We’ll Train Them Like Dogs