Required Blog #2- If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook.

"Look, a guy who builds a nice chair doesn't owe money to everyone who ever has built a chair, okay? They came to me with an idea, I had a better one.[i]"

Many of the ideas Friedman presented in The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century are now outdated, the ideas presented in Chapter Eleven: How Companies Cope has stood the test of time. In this chapter, Friedman presented a list of rules that companies should follow if they wish to be successful in the twenty-first century. Unlike many of the arguments proposed so far, I actually agree with these proposed rules. In the twenty-first century traditional models of business no longer work, forcing companies to adapt and compete around the world.  I found that the rule that stood out the most to me was his first rule. I found this rule best demonstrated by the looking at the origins of Facebook.

In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook in the dorm rooms at Harvard. Meanwhile, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra thought that Zuckerberg was working on the next biggest dating website, ConnectU, to hit Harvard. It was not until reading the school newspaper did they discover that Zuckerberg had launched and developed Facebook. Facebook would go on to become one of the largest technological companies in the world, while ConnectU failed. The ConnectU members quickly learned what Friedman considers the first rule for companies in a flat world.

Get More: 2011 MTV Movie Awards Site

Rule# 1: When the world is flat, whatever can be done will be done. The only question is whether it will be done by you or to you[ii]. 

The ConnectU founders thought they had a great idea that would be a success at Harvard and 

eventually other universities around the country. Mark Zuckerberg realized that he had a better idea on how to connect people around the world and worked on developing Facebook. The ConnectU founders were operating under the traditional models of business where you are not competing with everyone else in the world. They assumed that since they had come up with the idea for a version of a website that no one else would think of improving upon that idea and launching a competing service. Mark Zuckerberg, operating under Friedman's rules, saw how to improve an idea and launched a competing service. In the end, they did not do the idea for ConnectU, but instead it was done to them.

While the ConnectU founders eventually received a settlement from Facebook, the gains were insignificant compared to the overall worth of Facebook. The ConnectU founders received $20 million in cash, and shares of stock worth $45 million at the time. Meanwhile, Facebook was worth an estimated $15 billion at the time[iii]. Instead of creating a $15 billion idea, they left with a significantly smaller compensation. While $65 million is still a lot of money, the difference in worth demonstrates just how true Friedman's #1 rule is.

The story of Facebook all relates back to Friedman's #1 rule for companies in a flat world. Companies must recognize that they can no longer compete in a global environment without looking at how to improve on someone or your own ideas.  Simple improvements on a single idea resulted in one company being worth $50 million today, and $65 million in compensation. If a company assumes that they are the only capable of executing an idea, someday soon they will find themselves bankrupt looking back as another company executes that capability better than they ever did.

---

[i] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/quotes

[ii] The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, pg. 442

[iii] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/feb/12/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-ex-classmates

Required #1 - Computing Power in the Future

      I found the video that we watched in class on Thursday to be overly sensational. While all of the statistics in the video are true, some of them are overhyped. The statistics While the computers will have the processing power of the human brain soon, I do not find these statistics to be scary as some people did. My cell phone today has more computing power than a mid-1990s personal computer and we are still just fine. To me, the statistics offered hope for the future. The statistics do not show that machines will soon rise against us, but will provide computing power that to discover never before thought of ideas. 

Until researchers are able to invent an Artificial Intelligence, programmers will always limit computers. The programs code determines what functions and processes a computer is able to perform. If the process does not exist in the code, the computer cannot complete the task. This limitation also makes computers inadequate for specific tasks that require identifying intangibles a computer cannot identify. For example, computer programs today always predict that the Americans would be able to win the Revolutionary War. The computer is unable to identify the intangibles such as the American will to fight, American knowledge of the lands, and the leadership of George Washington. While a computer may be able to eventually identify some of these intangibles, it will not be possible for many years.

Watson, an IBM Jeopardy playing supercomputer, best demonstrates the possibilities and limitations of computers in the near future. Watson was able to beat the two best Jeopardy players of all time by over $50,000 over the course of two days. Watson excelled because it consistently was able to "hit" the buzzer before the human competitors could. This advantage demonstrates the possibilities of the ever-increasing computing power of computers. Computers will able to go through data in hours that used to take days or even months. This offers endless possibilities for research and development projects. Projects that may have taken years or stalled because of a lack of computing powers now have the possibility of finishing in shorter time.

Watson also demonstrated the limitations of computers in the foreseeable future. In the US Cities category of Final Jeopardy Watson embarrassingly missed the question. On the question, " Its largest airport was named for a World War II hero; its second largest, for a World War II battle," Watson answered Toronto. Various possible explanations exist for the embarrassing answer, but all resolve around the idea that Watson was unable to process the context of the question fully. Watson had problems with similar questions in the earlier rounds, especially with shorter questions. 

I for one am glad that we will not have to welcome our new Robotic overlords anytime soon. While computers may be increasing their computing power rapidly, they will always be limited by the programming. This increased computing power can and will promote break-through research and development around the world. If we should develop artificial intelligence however, we should begin prepare to welcome our new overlords.