Quite a while ago, I reported Amazon starting a grocery delivery service in West Coast cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle. It must be doing well, because Amazon is moving this service east.
The delivery is called Amazon Fresh. Amazon Fresh is scheduled start it’s delivery in New York soon and very soon. But it’s only in one neighborhood: Brooklyn’s Park Slope. It should eventually expand throughout Brooklyn and other boroughs (although they’re keeping hush about when). Park Slope was chosen because of it’s high number of Amazon customers. If Amazon Fresh customers put their orders before 10am, they will get their groceries that day. If they place orders after 10am, they will have to wait until the following day. Don’t go running to join Amazon Fresh now, even if you are in Brooklyn. To participate in this program, you have to be an existing member of the Amazon Prime program…who just happen to live in Brooklyn’s Park Slope. That program is $99 a year and expected to go way up. Effective January 2015, Amazon Fresh customers will have to upgrade to a Prime Fresh program. I say upgrade because of price, not potential quality. As of this date, Prime Fresh will cost you $299 a year.
This is something I don’t get. If you’re trying to promote a new service, why are you going to triple the price on your customers when the service is barely on the ground? I agree with Amazon Fresh on the slow and cautious approach, testing the waters in California, then in New York. But I must admit, one neighborhood at a time is a bit too slow. The competition won’t be kind. Local grocers like Fresh Direct have that area on lock. And in the eyes of many, it will look like the mega international corporation is trying to kick the small business little guy to the curb. Good luck dealing with that public relations nightmare. So with the price increase and image problem, does Amazon Fresh stand a chance in Brooklyn?
Health care, and how far companies should go to insure their employees, has always been a touchy subject. Now, two technological giants are addressing an even more controversial health issue.
Facebook and Apple is offering women the opportunity for freezing their eggs. They will be the first corporations in US history to cover egg freezing for non-medical reasons. Facebook has already started the process. Apple will start covering egg freezing in January 2015. Here’s how egg freezing works: A woman donates her egg to a fertility clinic and has them frozen. When the motherhood clock starts ticking, she can go back and retrieve them. While this is no guarantee for a future baby, success rates are getting better. This procedure isn’t cheap. It can run someone $10,000 just for one procedure, plus an annual storage fee that can easily run $500. But starting in January 2015, Apple and Facebook will cover as much as $20,000 for egg freezing.
Now why would Facebook and Apple would invest in such a cause? It’s no secret by now Silicon Valley has been working around the clock to recruit women in technology fields. They know the statistics and things aren’t what they used to be. Several times as more women are having children later than they did back in the 1970s. Some say this will encourage women to stay with the same company longer, boosting loyalty cred, cutting down on hiring and recruiting cost, and stopping the ‘revolving door’ effect, when many employees are here today and gone tomorrow. Others say this will give women employees years to build up their career and advance in the company. But critics say that there’s no guarantee egg freezing will produce a child in the future. Some critics say women would compromise their souls to these companies. For instance, if she resigns, quits, or gets laid-off or fired in the future, will that company hold her frozen eggs for random or hostage? Where do you stand on this issue?
Being the CEO of a major tech company like Microsoft isn’t easy to start with. I’m sure current CEO Satya Nadella is finding that out. He found that out even more so in the past 24 hours.
There was a conference in Arizona called Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. Mr. Nadella took the stage and attempted to address the issue of? pay inequality between men and women. He said women should have faith in the system to give them a raise, and “It’s good karma. It will come back.” Whoops. The audience wasn’t happy with that response, and he quickly tried to clean up the mess he made. Within hours of his controversial comment, Satya Nadella wrote a letter. The letter said he was honored to talk to women in the technology field and he answered the question wrong when it came to pay raises. Mr. Nadella further stated his belief that both genders should be paid and treated equally and if you think if you’re deserving of a raise, you should ask. He credits the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing for teaching him a valuable lesson. I think he’s learned it.
When we speak at conferences like this, we have to pick and choose our spots. This was a conference celebrating women in computer technology. Also, keep in mind women are often paid less than men for doing the same job. So to tell women to have faith in this system at a conference empowering women was a bad move on Mr. Nadella’s part. But I am impressed with the way he handled it afterward. He saw his mistake, owned up to it, is doing his best to make amends, and is now trying to move on. So though pay inequality (and wealth inequality in general) are topics that need to be addressed, I say give Satya Nadella a break. What do you say?
Today, Fortune Magazine released the top 40 most powerful and influential people around the world under 40. Those in technology virtually owned this list.
More than half the men and women on Fortune’s Top 40 list are in the technical field. Of the top ten, seven are involved in technology. Of the top twenty, thirteen of them were tech leaders. But the rankings were a bit surprising. I was expecting Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or Twitter’s co-founder Jack Dorsey to take the top spot. But there was a tie for #1: Uber’s Travis Kalanick and Airbnb’s Brian Chesky. It’s been explained these men top this list because of the revolutionary and controversial effect Uber and Airbnb are having on the world. With Uber, you can flag a taxi cab on your smartphone and a lot of cabbies don’t like that. With Airbnb, you can book house guest rooms and weekly hotels as well as some mainsteam hotels, changing the way many people vacation. Mark Zuckerberg placed second on the list. Surprisingly, Jack Dorsey only placed eleven. Almost everyone uses Twitter these days, so I’m a little shocked at that one. Whats App co-founder Jan Koum made number 5. Instagram’s Kevin Systrom’s made #8 and porfolio manager Jesse Cohn rounded out the top ten.
Women made their presence known. Thirteen made the top 40 list. The highest ranked is Yahoo’s Marissa Meyer. Despite the challenges and turbulence still surrounding Yahoo, Fortune Magazine ranked her the sixth most influential person under age 40. Snapchat COO Emily White is ranked 14 and Twitter General Counselor Vijaya Gadde placed number 28. Though almost half the Fortune under 40 list was made up of non-whites, not all the news of diversity was good news. Only two were African-American, Urban Compass founder Robert Reffkin (#29) and Walker and Co. founder Tristan Walker (#35). Unfortunately, I found no Latinos on this list. Diversity is an issue the technology community have been wrestling with for a while now, and it seems they have a ways to go. What do you think of the Fortune Magazine top 40 under 40?
I came across an interesting interview with Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt. He believes the competition between Apple and Google is more intense than ever before, especially when it comes to the smartphone race. Apple has iOS and Google has Android Nexus. In Mr. Schmidt’s own words, “In fact I believe that this brutal competition between Apple and Google over Android and iOS has enormous benefits for consumers worldwide.” This competition has gone on for years. When Schmidt passed an Apple store with lines around the block, he verbally rubbed it in Samsung’s face. Back in 2010, Schmidt met with the late Apple founder Steve Jobs. Jobs called out Android/Google, claiming they were intellectually copying Apple. Of course, Schmidt insisted Android was built on their own intellect. Did you know Eric Schmidt used to work for Apple, but stepped down in 2007?? Now he’s chairman executive for the rival company.
Don’t get me wrong; this isn’t some bloody hip-hop rivalry. Both companies truly respect each other. In fact, Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt were actually friends. And the Google exec is right, this fierce, but respectable competition has been Good for business. It’s kept us wondering what the next smartphone is going to be. It’s kept prices reasonable (well, pretending on who you ask). And I like hearing a little trash talking between the two mega conglomerates. Competition is good for any free market enterprise and any capitalist society, and Google and Apple prove it. What I’d like to see is even more competition within the smartphone market. That would be really good for us consumers. Whose winning the fight between Google and Apple?
This is where the rest of the story comes in. Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is new the LA Clippers owner. If I’m not mistaken, this is the first time a former CEO/President of a major technical based corporation is also owner of a major sports franchise.? But Ballmer already appears to be throwing his weight around. According to a Reuters article, Ballmer feels some players and coaches aren’t on Windows. Clippers coach Doc Rivers said, maybe jokingly or not, “We are probably going to get rid of these iPads, aren?t we?” Steve Ballmer replied, “Yeah, we probably are.” I highly doubt the new Clippers owner was joking about that one. So this coming NBA season, don’t be surprise to see all Clippers personnel using devices like Surface tablets, whether they want to or not. Why should we be surprised? Some reports say Ballmer won’t even let his own family use Apple products.
I appreciate loyalty as good as anybody. If Steve Ballmer wants to represent his old company, may he be blessed at doing so. But to refuse or ban your own company from doing so is crossing the line. What Ballmer should do is encourage his players and Clippers staff to switch to Windows products on their own. Do a cool demonstration and show how the Surface is better than the iPad. Be the salesman he is. Maybe this is how Ballmer is going to get the organization off Apple. I hope it is. But I don’t like how this is leading: a potential forcing a entire team to switch to one brand. Now I know some people say, “It’s his team. He can do whatever he wants.” But tell me, how would you like to be forced to switch technical brands just because the new CEO said so?
