Friday
On the success of reality shows
(answer to the question "Why do you believe Reality Shows have grown in numbers regarding various subjects, along with the television viewers ?")
It is basically the same trend as on the internet : reality shows have this consumer generated content flavor and give the illusion something is really happening on the screen, something you could be involved in, something you could even be doing yourself. The illusion that at last TV is somehow about me, somehow as interactive as the internet.
The internet positioned TV as a monolithic media for the masses, TV answered with real life real time individuals. People get hooked to it for fear of missing an event, something happening, some naughty movement in front of these fake webcams. Of course everything is set, staged, programmed, scenarized, but it doesn't feel like broadcasting (or better : I'd dare say "downcasting") anymore. Rather like bottomupcasting / grassrootcasting. And it tastes like s..t.
Entrepreneurial culture and market valuations
(answer to the question "Do you believe that large companies with more entrepreneurial cultures have higher stock market valuations than their more traditional counterparts ?")
To my humble opinion, the stock exchange is not the place where actual business is being done, except for stock traders. If you don't accept that fact, if you don't realize that you are in a different level of reality, you may wake up in the middle of a Twilight Zone episode.
That said, take two companies from the same field and with the same assets. In a rational market, the company with the higher value should be the one with the higher potential to grow beyond its current position.
But the market is not rational, there is no such thing as two similar companies, and communication / propaganda plays too big a role out there, especially where "culture" is involved. Remember the late nineties ?
Define: innovation
Innovation can be immaterial, like a new way of considering that environment, even using the same old tools (ie your eyes and brain). Sign' o the times : I noted that in today's vocabulary, "progress" turned somehow negative (a colateral damage of the end of the myth of eternal progress during last century) while "innovation" became the new fave. As a matter of fact, innovation is not necessarily positive - the "novation" doesn't necessarily mean "one step forward" like in "progress". Who knows when this beautiful world will fall out of fashion...
200704
(answer to the question "how would you define innovation ?")
On the impacts of new technologies
(answer to the question "With all this great technology - computers, email, cellphones, IM, YouTube, MySpace, wireless Internet, etc. - where is it taking us? How is it impacting society?")
This question has been answered by countless books and essays. As I feel it, the very texture of society has changed (society as a whole as well as society as a puzzle of societies) and identity crisis is not over yet. The tissue can look much more elaborate, yet it can easily be torn. Societies either lock out to protect themselves, or collapse - the fittest survive, their frontiers blurred and everchanging. No wonder identity became a more complex concept and challenge for individuals as well as for societies...
The technology boom you mentioned is neither good nor bad in itself. It changed our perception of time and space, it changed the way we interact with our environment and with each other It contributes to diversity (ie revival of languages) and speeds up evolutions, but also facilitates globalization and uniformization. It contributes to knowledge, but also threatens intelligence. The sexier virtual worlds become, the duller real ones appear and the more people try to escape. ... and so on....
All this is at least disruptive and upsetting for any society. Gaps and divides are formed and not everybody will adapt, not everybody will follow the same path nor the same pace. More than ever, education is key. Beyond the learning of the tools you mentioned, of course.
India 10 years from now
(answer to the question "What are the images that come to your mind when you think of India 10 years from now?")
Plenty of hot spots and a few dark pits : a huge, diverse and beautiful powerhouse facing major problems which could endanger its very integrity. Beyond poverty, I'm thinking about terror, separatisms and religious clashes fueled by international fundamentalisms. Nationalism is bound to rise and I do hope it won't be only the wrong kind of nationalism.
Moderates may eventually rise against these attacks on the oldest democracy, and a positive common conscience could emerge as a new power, like South Korea's netizens. I also hope the urban / rural and litterate / illiterate divides will be better dealt with. I see more conglomerates become major players at the global level, but more and more in services instead of industries.
Loosers under capitalism
(answer to the question "Are you a loser under capitalism ?" - only the fittest survive)
I read some interesting research about evolution and the relation towards risk taking for humans. Our brain couln't evolve as fast as our civilisation, and some of us still need the occasional chill to prove their ability to survive in a prehistoric environment. From that, one may deduce entrepreneurs or extreme sports lovers somehow missed some steps somewhen. They are great survivors where the law of the jungle is applied but global warming means the end of rain forests...
So here is my answer : I must be a loser under capitalism but could turn out to be a winner under evolution... which I don't consider such a sweet victory (ruling over a desert, anyone ?)
About great technos and great business models
(answer to the question "Does a great business model foster great technology, or does a great technology foster great business models ?")
I've survived a couple of start-ups in the innovation field and I know two things : great technology can be a curse, and failing to deliver a death warrant. If I get your question right, you have both techno geniuses and marketing whizz kids, and you are wondering what a brainy manager would do to get the most value out of this explosive combo.
First : lock patents, don't waste your gems and don't let them go. They shouldn't feel like they are locked in a monolithic joint playing a "us vs them" game. You foster innovative approaches in general and as a general you must take decisions. If time to market is key, keep a playing ground for research - give your techies time to work on pet projects in exchange for the delivery of the dreadful quick-and-dirty gizmo your salesforce requires. Market the smart upgrades while selling the monster. It may work even if you are not Microsoft.
Actually, that's the essence of Google part II (growing into a powerhouse beyond the initial innovation) : the new bricks added to the edifice are either smart tools fresh from the lab or quick and dirty me-too products launched basically to fill the blanks, the time for competitive upgrades to be completed. You may not be able to stretch your staff that far, but at least mentioning Google could help stretch the smile on your investors' face for a while.