Thomas Chang | Web Article: Changes in Technology and Business Economy

Here is the link: Free! Why $0.00 Is The Future of Business

Here is my analysis: Digital economists seem to understand a concept different from the traditional business model. Rather than the two way exchange between provider and consumer, the digital age has spurred economists to rethink the elements in which creates an efficient economy. The article described how the future of business models is becoming more adaptive to exchanging “something” rather than solely money. I found it interesting when they mentioned the asset of time and respect as capital. With the multiple components of exchangeable “externalities” it seems the over lying common denominator is activity. As long as there is any type of activity, economic opportunities exist. Whether it be using a site for free and glancing at an ad or buying cheap CD’s while receiving exposure to a touring band, there is a connection between all those situations which lies in mere activity.

Most traditionally, people receive a service or product and pay for it. But now, humans have developed more complex methods of gaining revenue in parallel to how humans behave. Psychologically, consumers love the idea of free because they don’t have to compensate anything to attain something else. From that, websites have designed their business model to just that type of behavior by allowing their site to be free but have a third party pay them for ad space. And while a user may not think they are affected by advertisement, studies will show that reoccurring ads can significantly solidify a certain inclination towards one brand or another through mere subconscious exposure.

Thomas Chang | Article: "The Genius of the Tinkerer"

Here is the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503730101860838.html

Here is my analysis: The concept the writer illustrates in this article is interesting because year after year, ideas manifested from the past provide valuable insight, like building blocks, to how we can design new ideas on top of the old. On a personal note however, I think it is as important to be able to find ideas out of simplicity as well rather than adding onto the old. One fairly recent example is in the 1990’s, mp3 players were bulgy devices that came in all sorts of styles and colors. The more the better, the bigger the better right? Not necessarily. When Steve Jobs designed the iPod, it was simply a white rectangle box with a circle in the middle. Who would have guessed. On Steven Spielberg’s Back to the Future, their idea of the future consisted of magnificently ostentation plastic clothing, bright flashing devices and noisy, bleeping house appliances. It is nothing like the world we live in today. The most prized futuristic houses are simple and clean.

The approach on today’s style has seemed to play more along the lines of simplicity and convenience rather than adding more on top of the old. As Leonardo da Vinci once said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” That is not to say, the story about the scholar who designed the orthodontic teeth cement after studying corals is not wonderful. It makes sense how different elements, physical and abstract ideas, can be combined in different combinations to create something completely new.

TED Video: Jason Fried, Work Dynamics

Here is the link: http://www.ted.com/talks/jason_fried_why_work_doesn_t_happen_at_work.html

Here is my analysis: Jason Fried points out several important points about the distractions in today’s working environment. He points out that most company managers are misconceived about how their employees are distracted during work because they think websites like Facebook, Twitter and personal emails are the problem. However, Jason Fried illustrates how managers, themselves, are the distraction to their employees. “Managers don’t actually do the work; they just go around making sure everyone else is…” explains Fried. I can understand this point because he provides the example of sleeping. Work and sleep are both phase-based activities. When you are interrupted during sleep, it takes time to go through the natural cycles again (the events of alpha, theta, brain waves, K-complexes, REM, etc). Likewise with work, when you are interrupted while you’re concentrating on something, it takes time to return to your previous mode of focus.

Managers might constantly come by to check up on you, ask you questions or summon meetings. Meetings are an interesting case alone. I remember in high school, while I was in the junior reserve officer training corps, the staff members and officers were required to attend weekly meetings. One of the largest projects we worked on was organizing a week-long camp (Basic Leadership Camp) for the underclassmen. The meetings were the most torturous of events because they were excruciatingly long and we never got anything done. The same four hours it took to take turns talking about every department’s particular situation could be done simply by having leader speak to two to three people, independently, for a few minutes then allow them to continue working rather than keeping them in the conference room to listen to another department’s problem that had no relevance to their own tasks. However, one aspect about Jason Fried position on the topic of distraction, I feel, is that his point may be true for the more elite team of employees.

I think managers should take in the circumstantial factors of their work place and what type of employees they lead. For example, it seems that less focused and motivated businesses have a reason to restrict Facebook or Twitter because their employees may be lazy individuals who need a supervisor to keep them in line and constant meetings to reorganize. On the other hand, companies like Google or Facebook possess the most brilliant of teams and high-caliber workers. These are the people who have the self-discipline to choose, as Fried says, when is the right time to be distracted. They have the initiative to continue working and not voluntarily lose focus. Recently, I watched an interview from Mark Zuckerberg where the interviewer asked him about board meetings and Zuckerberg replied, “I mean, here at Facebook, we’re about focus and not so much about bureaucracy…” This response was like a breath of fresh air.

Thomas Chang | Web Article: "Is Google making us stupid?"

Here is the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/

Here is my analysis: This article had great relevance to my personal experience with using the internet over the last few months. I’ve been working on a project that has gone on for about a year now, and much of it had to do with researching different aspects of networks and simply spending time, exploring. It has gotten to the point where the article has slammed the nail right on the head. I think I have significantly lost much of my ability to concentrate and focus, both in thought and speech. As explained in the article, internet surfing, by nature, does not require much concentration. Rather, like the way I spend much of my time online, it consists of “hopping” from site to site, skimming, getting distracted, checking my email, typing a few sentences for my homework essay, and checking Facebook… Unlike reading a book, I am no longer training myself to “sit tight” and read one material thoroughly. And over time, I have noticed that my way of thinking is easily distracted.