House for Sale!
6 years ago
If Microsoft were to redesign the original iPod packaging, which would you buy? This classic marketing video still makes a great point about simplicity.
Friday, December 4, 2009
I'm currently reading Viktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning, and it's changing my life. Or at least I hope it is. Frankl survived the Nazi concentration camps, and he wrote this book to explore the psychological motivations for the horrible actions he witnessed.
To this point (I'm approximately halfway through the book), Frankl has primarily provided details of life in a concentration camp and personal anecdotes that would make one shudder. But his overarching theme is starting to emerge. Frankl suffered more than almost any of us will ever have to suffer, and yet, thankfully, he survived long enough to grasp an eternal truth in a way many of us will never experience. This quote is long, but I'm including it below. I hope you can benefit from it as much as I have.
In attempting this psychological presentation and a psychopathological explanation of the typical characteristics of a concentration camp inmate, I may give the impression that the human being is completely and unavoidably influenced by his surroundings. (In this case the surroundings being the unique structure of camp life, which forced the prisoner to conform his conduct to a certain set pattern.) But what about human liberty? Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behavior and reaction to any given surroundings? Is that theory true which would have us believe that man is no more than a product of many conditional and environmental factors--be they of a biological, psychological or sociological nature? Is man but an accidental product of these? Most important, do the prisoners' reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances?
We can answer these questions from experience as well as on principle. The experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of action. There were enough examples, often of a heroic nature, which proved that apathy could be overcome, irritability suppressed. Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress.
We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.
...It is this spiritual freedom--which cannot be taken away--that makes life meaningful and purposeful.
We do not have to endure what Frankl endured. And yet we are granted the same spiritual freedom. How are we using it?
To this point (I'm approximately halfway through the book), Frankl has primarily provided details of life in a concentration camp and personal anecdotes that would make one shudder. But his overarching theme is starting to emerge. Frankl suffered more than almost any of us will ever have to suffer, and yet, thankfully, he survived long enough to grasp an eternal truth in a way many of us will never experience. This quote is long, but I'm including it below. I hope you can benefit from it as much as I have.
In attempting this psychological presentation and a psychopathological explanation of the typical characteristics of a concentration camp inmate, I may give the impression that the human being is completely and unavoidably influenced by his surroundings. (In this case the surroundings being the unique structure of camp life, which forced the prisoner to conform his conduct to a certain set pattern.) But what about human liberty? Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behavior and reaction to any given surroundings? Is that theory true which would have us believe that man is no more than a product of many conditional and environmental factors--be they of a biological, psychological or sociological nature? Is man but an accidental product of these? Most important, do the prisoners' reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances?
We can answer these questions from experience as well as on principle. The experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of action. There were enough examples, often of a heroic nature, which proved that apathy could be overcome, irritability suppressed. Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress.
We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.
...It is this spiritual freedom--which cannot be taken away--that makes life meaningful and purposeful.
We do not have to endure what Frankl endured. And yet we are granted the same spiritual freedom. How are we using it?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
If any of you weren't able to watch the game on Saturday, I'd just like to offer my condolences. I was lucky enough to be at the stadium and witness the most exciting BYU game I've seen in years (I was gone for the 2006 BYU-Utah game, so that doesn't count). It was a welcome contrast to the humiliating defeat in last year's rivalry game where Max Hall threw 5 interceptions--more than Utah had had the entire season. Max apparently didn't forget that, and he came ready to play this year. He remained cool under intense overtime pressure and delivered a smooth 25-yard touchdown pass to Andrew George, giving BYU more than enough reason to celebrate. It was safe to say he had reclaimed his reputation and respect.
That is, until his now-infamous post-game interview.
If you missed his comments, here's a direct quote: "I don't like Utah. In fact, I hate them. I hate everything about them. I hate their program, their fans. I hate everything. It felt really good to send those guys home. I think the whole university and their fans and the organization is classless. They threw beer on my family and stuff last year and did a whole bunch of nasty things. I don't respect them and they deserved to lose."
That would hardly be out of line in a locker room discussion, and part of what he said is understandable (especially considering the personal nature of the attacks on both him and his family). However, not only are those comments completely inappropriate for a public interview, they cast a shadow on an otherwise clean and definitive victory. Most of what everyone has heard since the game hasn't been about football--it's centered around Max Hall and his hatred of "everything."
Fortunately, Max did issue an apology in which he clarified his feelings and stated his respect for Utah's coach and players. But the initial impact of his interview was big enough to attract thousands of Max Hall-haters to join Facebook pages such as "Max Hall hates me and thinks I'm classless" and to deepen the rivalry to an unhealthy, hateful level.
Moral of the story? Don't always say what you really think. Especially if you're on camera.
That is, until his now-infamous post-game interview.
If you missed his comments, here's a direct quote: "I don't like Utah. In fact, I hate them. I hate everything about them. I hate their program, their fans. I hate everything. It felt really good to send those guys home. I think the whole university and their fans and the organization is classless. They threw beer on my family and stuff last year and did a whole bunch of nasty things. I don't respect them and they deserved to lose."
That would hardly be out of line in a locker room discussion, and part of what he said is understandable (especially considering the personal nature of the attacks on both him and his family). However, not only are those comments completely inappropriate for a public interview, they cast a shadow on an otherwise clean and definitive victory. Most of what everyone has heard since the game hasn't been about football--it's centered around Max Hall and his hatred of "everything."
Fortunately, Max did issue an apology in which he clarified his feelings and stated his respect for Utah's coach and players. But the initial impact of his interview was big enough to attract thousands of Max Hall-haters to join Facebook pages such as "Max Hall hates me and thinks I'm classless" and to deepen the rivalry to an unhealthy, hateful level.
Moral of the story? Don't always say what you really think. Especially if you're on camera.
Monday, November 30, 2009
I've had the entrepreneurial drive since I was a kid, so it's fun to finally be starting a "real" company. Although I'm still in the early stages, things are definitely looking promising.
My business idea has evolved to focus on the English tutoring niche. There are currently 1.1 billion people learning English, and that number is expected to be 2 billion in the next 10 to 15 years. Each year, people spend $50 billion to learn English. Simply put, the market is huge.
Most of the competition in this market offers tutoring by licensed tutors at an average rate of $20 to $40 per hour. I believe a ton of money is left on the table by neglecting those who are willing to pay for English help but cannot afford a professional tutor. In addition, most of the competition's offerings consist of lesson packages of 30-60 minutes at a time. What if a student or an individual wants only 10 minutes of on-demand English assistance on a particular topic?
Oovoh (pronounced EW-vo) will fill that need. Tutors will be ordinary individuals who will be briefly trained, tested and then selected (very similar to ChaCha's method of training, testing and selecting their guides). The tutors will then be required to complete three ten-minute tutoring sessions at no pay. If their ratings are positive, they will then be eligible to offer paid tutoring. As tutors complete certain "milestones" (based on ratings), they will be eligible for pay raises.
Because the tutors are not professional or licensed, the cost for students will be dramatically lower. Prices are anticipated to start at the per-minute equivalent of $10 per hour and will range up to $18 for more experienced (and highly-ranked) tutors. Additionally, students will be granted 15 free minutes at signup.
I believe Oovoh's concept is sound and the potential is huge. The road ahead is long and uncertain, but I believe there is a road.
My business idea has evolved to focus on the English tutoring niche. There are currently 1.1 billion people learning English, and that number is expected to be 2 billion in the next 10 to 15 years. Each year, people spend $50 billion to learn English. Simply put, the market is huge.
Most of the competition in this market offers tutoring by licensed tutors at an average rate of $20 to $40 per hour. I believe a ton of money is left on the table by neglecting those who are willing to pay for English help but cannot afford a professional tutor. In addition, most of the competition's offerings consist of lesson packages of 30-60 minutes at a time. What if a student or an individual wants only 10 minutes of on-demand English assistance on a particular topic?
Oovoh (pronounced EW-vo) will fill that need. Tutors will be ordinary individuals who will be briefly trained, tested and then selected (very similar to ChaCha's method of training, testing and selecting their guides). The tutors will then be required to complete three ten-minute tutoring sessions at no pay. If their ratings are positive, they will then be eligible to offer paid tutoring. As tutors complete certain "milestones" (based on ratings), they will be eligible for pay raises.
Because the tutors are not professional or licensed, the cost for students will be dramatically lower. Prices are anticipated to start at the per-minute equivalent of $10 per hour and will range up to $18 for more experienced (and highly-ranked) tutors. Additionally, students will be granted 15 free minutes at signup.
I believe Oovoh's concept is sound and the potential is huge. The road ahead is long and uncertain, but I believe there is a road.
Rough homepage mockup #1
Rough homepage mockup #2
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
