Added On: Saturday, January 23, 2010

Activate Simpati 3G dan GPRS for internet access with 3G modem

To activate 3G or GPRS for your Telkomsel Simpati sim card so you can use it on a 3G modem, do the following:

2 step process

SMS
'GPRS 62101118253*****' send to 6616 without quotes. The 16 digit number is written on your SIM Card. Registration takes 48 hours, but took 5 mins for me. Telkomsel will send you a confirmation sms.

SMS
'3G' TO 3636

Cost Rp. 5/kb, not cheap or as my medan friends would say 'Mahal Kali.'

Settings for modem:
apn telkomsel
username: wap
password: wap123
access number: *99#

Added On: Friday, January 22, 2010

Bring it on..

Greetings 2010, earlier this year people smsd and emailed wonderful greetings. They said this year would be better than the last. After 2009, anything would have been better. So far it feels the same. The psychics now say its going to be just as bad as last year. Haha, what do they know right..

I say bring it on, we're ready for anything... except for another natural disaster.

Added On: Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine

By Robert Capps

08.24.09
Photo: Kenji Aoki

WHEN GOOD ENUF IS GREAT

Entire markets have been transformed by products that trade power or fidelity for low price, flexibility, and convenience.
Erin Biba


Phone
Net-based calls can be laggy, and they sometimes drop out in mid conversation. But they can also be free—even international calls—and it's easy to turn conversations into shareable MP3s. Skype now accounts for 8 percent of international calling minutes, and the service added nearly 38 million users in the second quarter of 2009, a 42 percent increase over the same period last year.


Books
Amazon's Kindle can't display complex graphics, and paper still has much higher resolution. But the device does store hundreds of titles in a slim package, ensuring that you always have access to whichever Philip K. Dick tale you're in the mood for. The Kindle is expected to generate $310 million in revenue by the end of 2009. Barron's estimates that annual sales could reach $2 billion by 2012.


Televison
Its content may not be hi-def, and you're stuck watching it on a computer screen, but Hulu lets you catch recent television shows and popular movies whenever and wherever you want. For free. No wonder it has 40 million unique viewers—up from just 7 million a year ago.

In 2001, Jonathan Kaplan and Ariel Braunstein noticed a quirk in the camera market. All the growth was in expensive digital cameras, but the best-selling units by far were still cheap, disposable film models. That year, a whopping 181 million disposables were sold in the US, compared with around 7 million digital cameras. Spotting an opportunity, Kaplan and Braunstein formed a company called Pure Digital Technologies and set out to see if they could mix the rich chocolate of digital imaging with the mass-market peanut butter of throwaway point-and-shoots. They called their brainchild the Single Use Digital Camera and cobranded it with retailers, mostly pharmacies like CVS.

The concept looked promising, but it turned out to be fatally flawed. The problem, says Simon Fleming-Wood, a member of Pure Digital's founding management team, was that the business model relied on people returning the $20 cameras to stores in order to get prints and a CD. The retailers were supposed to send the used boxes back to Pure Digital, which would refurbish them, reducing the number of new units it had to manufacture. But customers didn't return the cameras fast enough. Some were content to view their pictures on the tiny 1.4-inch LCD and held on to the device, thinking they'd take it in later to get prints. Others figured out how to hack the camera so it would download to a PC, eliminating the need to return the thing altogether.

Brisk sales combined with a lack of speedy returns destroyed the company's thin margins, and the camera failed. But the experience taught Kaplan and Braunstein a lesson: Customers would sacrifice lots of quality for a cheap, convenient device. To keep the price down, Pure Digital had made significant trade-offs. It used inexpensive lenses and other components and limited the number of image-processing chips. The pictures were OK but not great. Yet Pure Digital sold 3 million cameras anyway.

Kaplan and Braunstein also learned something important about camera retailing in general. The market had long been split into two main segments: point-and-shoots (including disposables) and single-lens reflex cameras, which use interchangeable lenses and other high-end accessories. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of cameras sold then—as now—were the handy point-and-shoots; SLRs tended to attract only serious hobbyists and professionals.

Oddly, though, there was no point-and-shoot analogue in video cameras—and that's where the pair saw their next opportunity. Home videocams were almost without exception expensive, complicated devices loaded with features like image stabilization, night-vision mode, and onboard color correction. And even with tools like Apple's iMovie, it was a hassle to get footage off the cameras and onto a computer for editing and sharing. In terms of complexity and price, the camcorder market resembled the SLR market, but with no low-end alternative. Kaplan and Braunstein suspected that there might be a place for a much cheaper, simpler video camera. So they decided to make one.

After some trial and error, Pure Digital released what it called the Flip Ultra in 2007. The stripped-down camcorder—like the Single Use Digital Camera—had lots of downsides. It captured relatively low-quality 640 x 480 footage at a time when Sony, Panasonic, and Canon were launching camcorders capable of recording in 1080 hi-def. It had a minuscule viewing screen, no color-adjustment features, and only the most rudimentary controls. It didn't even have an optical zoom. But it was small (slightly bigger than a pack of smokes), inexpensive ($150, compared with $800 for a midpriced Sony), and so simple to operate—from recording to uploading—that pretty much anyone could figure it out in roughly 6.7 seconds.

Within a few months, Pure Digital could barely keep up with orders. Customers found that the Flip was the perfect way to get homebrew videos onto the suddenly flourishing YouTube, and the camera became a megahit, selling more than 1 million units in its first year. Today—just two years later—the Flip Ultra and its subsequent revisions are the best-selling video cameras in the US, commanding 17 percent of the camcorder market. Sony and Canon are now scrambling to catch up.

The Flip's success stunned the industry, but it shouldn't have. It's just the latest triumph of what might be called Good Enough tech. Cheap, fast, simple tools are suddenly everywhere. We get our breaking news from blogs, we make spotty long-distance calls on Skype, we watch video on small computer screens rather than TVs, and more and more of us are carrying around dinky, low-power netbook computers that are just good enough to meet our surfing and emailing needs. The low end has never been riding higher.

Photo: Kenji Aoki, Lego sculpture: Nathan Sawaya



Computers
On paper, netbooks might seem like crappy toys. They have almost no storage, processing power, or graphics capability. What they do have, though, is accessibility: Cheap, small, and light, they let you connect to the Internet from almost anywhere. Netbook shipments were up sevenfold in the first quarter of 2009.


Trade Shows
It sounds lame, and it is: virtual trade shows inhabited by eager sales avatars and their potential clients. No, it's not the same as meeting face-to-face, but with the economy flatlining, digital confabs are a working alternative. Analysts expect 5,000 virtual events next year, an increase of 500 percent for the industry.


Advertising
They're not high-concept, and they don't feature celebrities (or even pictures). But text-based ads are highly targeted, incredibly cheap to produce, and make up 90 percent of Google's net revenue (and 45 percent of all Internet ad sales in the US).


-D Modeling Software
Rendering software like AutoCAD is notoriously hard to use. Google's SketchUp is dead simple. The result: It has been embraced by architects, engineers, educators, and artists. The full version costs $500—a pittance compared to AutoCAD's $4,000 price tag. SketchUp has become so popular, in fact, that Autodesk has responded with its own lo-res app: Project Dragonfly.

Illustrations: Quickhoney

So what happened? Well, in short, technology happened. The world has sped up, become more connected and a whole lot busier. As a result, what consumers want from the products and services they buy is fundamentally changing. We now favor flexibility over high fidelity, convenience over features, quick and dirty over slow and polished. Having it here and now is more important than having it perfect. These changes run so deep and wide, they're actually altering what we mean when we describe a product as "high-quality."

And it's happening everywhere. As more sectors connect to the digital world, from medicine to the military, they too are seeing the rise of Good Enough tools like the Flip. Suddenly what seemed perfect is anything but, and products that appear mediocre at first glance are often the perfect fit.

The good news is that this trend is ideally suited to the times. As the worst recession in 75 years rolls on, it's the light and nimble products that are having all the impact—exactly the type of thing that lean startups and small-scale enterprises are best at. And from impact can come big sales. "When the economy went south before Christmas last year, we worried that sales would be affected," says Pure Digital's Fleming-Wood. "But we sold a ton of cameras. In fact, we exceeded the goals we had set before the economy soured." And this year? Sales, he says, are up 200 percent. (Another payoff: In May, networking giant Cisco acquired Pure Digital for $590 million.)

To some, it looks like the crapification of everything. But it's really an improvement. And businesses need to get used to it, because the Good Enough revolution has only just begun.

Speaking at an Online publishers conference in London last October, New York University new-media studies professor Clay Shirky had a mantra to offer the assembled producers and editors: "Don't believe the myth of quality." When it comes to the future of media on the Web, Shirky sternly warned, resist the reflex to focus on high production values. "We're getting to the point where the Internet can support high-quality content, and it's as if what we've had so far has all been nice—a kind of placeholder—but now the professionals are coming," Shirky said. "That's not true." To reinforce his point, he pointed to the MP3. The music industry initially laughed off the format, he explained, because compared with the CD it sounded terrible. What record labels and retailers failed to recognize was that although MP3 provided relatively low audio quality, it had a number of offsetting positive qualities.

Shirky's point is crucial. By reducing the size of audio files, MP3s allowed us to get music into our computers—and, more important, onto the Internet—at a manageable size. This in turn let us listen to, manage, and manipulate tracks on our PCs, carry thousands of songs in our pockets, purchase songs from our living rooms, and share tracks with friends and even strangers. And as it turned out, those benefits actually mattered a lot more to music lovers than the single measure of quality we had previously applied to recorded music—fidelity. It wasn't long before record labels were wringing their hands over declining CD sales.

"There comes a point at which improving upon the thing that was important in the past is a bad move," Shirky said in a recent interview. "It's actually feeding competitive advantage to outsiders by not recognizing the value of other qualit ies." In other words, companies that focus on traditional measures of quality—fidelity, resolution, features—can become myopic and fail to address other, now essential attributes like convenience and shareability. And that means someone else can come along and drink their milk shake.

To a degree, the MP3 follows the classic pattern of a disruptive technology, as outlined by Clayton Christensen in his 1997 book The Innovator's Dilemma. Disruptive technologies, Christensen explains, often enter at the bottom of the market, where they are ignored by established players. These technologies then grow in power and sophistication to the point where they eclipse the old systems.

That is certainly part of what happens with Good Enough tech: MP3s entered at the bottom of the market, were ignored, and then turned the music business upside down. But oddly, audio quality never really readjusted upward. Sure, software engineers have cooked up new encoding algorithms that produce fuller sound without drastically increasing file sizes. And with recent increases in bandwidth and the advent of giant hard drives, it's now even possible to maintain, share, and carry vast libraries of uncompressed files. But better-sounding options have hardly gained any ground on the lo-fi MP3. The big advance—the one that had all the impact—was the move to easier-to-manage bits. Compared with that, improved sound quality just doesn't move the needle.

Photo: Kenji Aoki, Lego sculpture: Nathan Sawaya


Of course, there are those who appreciate the richer sound of uncompressed files, CDs, or even vinyl records (regarded by some audiophiles as the highest-fi format available). But most of us don't give it a second thought. In fact, there's evidence that consumers are simply adapting to the MP3's thin sound. Jonathan Berger, a professor of music at Stanford University, recently completed a six-year study of his students. Every year he asked new arrivals in his class to listen to the same musical excerpts played in a variety of digital formats—from standard MP3s to high-fidelity uncompressed files—and rate their preferences. Every year, he reports, more and more students preferred the sound of MP3s, particularly for rock music. They've grown accustomed to what Berger calls the percussive sizzle—aka distortion—found in compressed music. To them, that's what music is supposed to sound like.

What has happened with the MP3 format and other Good Enough technologies is that the qualities we value have simply changed. And the change is so profound that the old measures have almost lost their meaning. Call it the MP3 effect.

We've seen it again and again. Consider, for example, the rise of cloud computing. For years, software was something you bought and installed on your hard drive. A lot of it was made by Microsoft, which solidified its dominance by releasing ever more powerful, feature-laden updates. But with the advent of services like Gmail and Zoho Writer, many users are now turning to the Web for basic tasks like word processing, spreadsheets, and email. These cloud apps have inherent limits: They run through a browser window and can't directly access your local hard drive or processor. They lack features. Their performance depends on the strength of your Internet connection. Nevertheless, tens of millions of people use Gmail, while Zoho Writer boasts 1.8 million users and is growing at a rate of 100,000 subscribers a month. Microsoft, of course, is now jumping into the cloud as fast as it can. Redmond says that Office 2010 will be largely cloud-based. Not to be outdone, Google recently announced a mostly cloud-based operating system that will work in tandem with the company's Chrome browser.

Web tools are succeeding because they're Good Enough. They do most of what we need from a word processor or a spreadsheet or an email program or even an OS. But, like the MP3, they also offer other advantages. You can access them from any computer. If your hard drive crashes, you don't lose your work. And they are incredibly cheap—free in the case of simple tools or just a few dollars a month per user in the case of business apps.

Compare these qualities with those of the MP3 and the Flip, and a clear pattern emerges. The attributes that now matter most all fall under the rubric of accessibility. Thanks to the speed and connectivity of the digital age, we've stopped fussing over pixel counts, sample rates, and feature lists. Instead, we're now focused on three things: ease of use, continuous availability, and low price. Is it simple to get what we want out of the technology? Is it available everywhere, all the time—or as close to that ideal as possible? And is it so cheap that we don't have to think about price? Products that benefit from the MP3 effect capitalize on one or more of these qualities. And they'll happily sacrifice power and features to do so.

By traditional military standards, the MQ-1 Predator isn't much of a plane. Its top speed is a mere 135 miles per hour. It has an altitude ceiling of 25,000 feet. It carries only two 100-pound Hellfire missiles. It has a propeller. By comparison, an A-10 can travel 420 mph, cruise at 45,000 feet, and carry up to 16,000 pounds of bombs—not to mention a 30-mm gatling gun. An F-16 can reach a blistering 1,500 mph (Mach 2), climb to more than 50,000 feet, and back up its 20-mm multibarrel canon with six missiles.

All three of these aircraft are used for surveillance and close air support. But more and more, the military is relying on the unmanned Predator. In the past two years, it has logged more than 250,000 flight hours, nearly all of them in combat. It has been deployed to the Balkans, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Photo: Kenji Aoki, Lego sculpture: Michael Psiaski


Why, if manned planes are so superior, is the Predator saturating the combat market? Because military aircraft are experiencing their own version of the MP3 effect.

Over the past few decades, the armed services—like many industries—have been radically changed by the Internet and other modern communications technologies. Now that the military can digitize and share information quickly, engagements are conducted differently: Greater emphasis is being put on "situational awareness," the ability of remote commanders to know what's happening on a battlefield at all times. This in turn has altered what the military looks for in a plane, much the same way small digital files changed what music fans value in a recording.

There is at least one measure by which the Predator has piloted aircraft handily beat: the ability to maintain a constant presence in the air. That's because the drones are relatively cheap to build, can fly for more than 20 hours straight, and don't require pilots who need sleep, food, and bathroom breaks (and who might die if the plane is shot down). In Afghanistan and Iraq, a Predator is available pretty much anytime the military needs one. Accessibility, in other words, has become a dominant aircraft value—prized as much as, and sometimes more than, speed, altitude, and armament.

"Sustaining the sorts of operations we conduct with the Predator used to be virtually impossible," says Eric Mathewson, director of the Air Force Unmanned Aircraft Systems Task Force. "The idea of putting an aircraft over an area of interest 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, was simply unsustainable."

Piloted aircraft are still valuable, he's quick to add, but because the Predator can linger, it has enabled a new type of strategy—remotely guided surgical strikes with fewer troops and armaments. It's a lesson that surprised the Air Force and other services, Mathewson says, but one that has been learned definitively. "We're now looking at aircraft capabilities for the future that are even more persistent," he says. "We're exploring airships again, which could stay airborne for up to five years."

The impact of the Predator illustrates the potential of the MP3 effect to transform almost any market. In fact, Good Enough tech is already gaining a foothold in two other huge industries: the legal profession and health care.

Richard Granat is a pioneer in a field called elawyering. It shouldn't be confused with Web sites that merely offer legal documents for downloading, Granat explains. Elawyering involves actual lawyers, and clients who use these services get help sorting through legal issues.

Granat, who runs his own law firm and cochairs the American Bar Association's task force on elawyering, has designed and marketed a number of Web tools that walk people through common legal procedures. He created a child-support calculator, for example, which assists couples going through relatively amicable divorces. There's also a tool to help people decide whether they need Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. These widgets then generate legal forms, which may be reviewed by a licensed attorney who can make suggestions or offer advice over the phone.

It turns out to be a remarkably efficient way of offering what Granat calls legal transaction services—tasks that are document intensive. For everything from wills to adoptions to shareholder agreements, elawyering has numerous advantages. It's cheaper, for example; a no-fault divorce, Granat says, might run a fifth of what seeing an attorney would cost. It's also faster—customers can access the tools anytime and never have to interrupt their day to meet with someone in a distant office. Simply put, elawyering makes certain legal services more accessible.

There are trade-offs, of course. "The relationship has less richness than what you'd get from sitting in a lawyer's office," Granat says. "And if you have an issue that's more complex, then you still need to see a lawyer face-to-face." In other words, it's a lower-fidelity experience.

But for most simple legal interactions, elawyering is, well, Good Enough. It gets the job done, even if it doesn't let you ask every question or address every contingency. And not surprisingly, it's on the rise. "Elawyering will be mainstream in three years," Granat says. "I predict that in five years, if you're a small firm and don't offer this kind of Web service, you're not going to make it."

Photo: Kenji Aoki, Lego sculpture: Nathan Sawaya


In the case of health care, the Good Enough mindset can be seen in a new initiative by Kaiser Permanente. The largest not-for-profit medical organization in the country, Kaiser has long relied on a simple strategy of building complete, self-sustaining hospitals—employing 50 doctors or more—in each region it serves. "It's an efficient model," says Michele Flanagin, Kaiser's vice president of delivery systems strategy. "It offers one-stop shopping: pharmacy and radiology and everything you want from health care in one building." But that approach forces patients who don't live near a hospital to drive a long way for even the most routine doctor's appointment.

As it happens, though, Kaiser has become one of the most technologically advanced health care providers in the country, digitizing everything from patient records and doctors' notes to lab data and prescriptions and putting it all online. The system is networked, so patients can email their doctor, check lab results, and make appointments from their PC or mobile Web device. Getting a referral doesn't mean carrying medical records from one doctor to another, as it does at many hospitals.

In 2007, Flanagin and her colleagues wondered what would happen if, instead of building a hospital in a new area, Kaiser just leased space in a strip mall, set up a high tech office, and hired two doctors to staff it. Thanks to the digitization of records, patients could go to this "microclinic" for most of their needs and seamlessly transition to a hospital farther away when necessary. So Flanagin and her team began a series of trials to see what such an office could do. They cut everything they could out of the clinics: no pharmacy, no radiology. They even explored cutting the receptionist in favor of an ATM-like kiosk where patients would check in with their Kaiser card.

What they found is that the system performed very well. Two doctors working out of a microclinic could meet 80 percent of a typical patient's needs. With a hi-def video conferencing add-on, members could even link to a nearby hospital for a quick consult with a specialist. Patients would still need to travel to a full-size facility for major trauma, surgery, or access to expensive diagnostic equipment, but those are situations that arise infrequently.

If that 80 percent number rings a bell, it's because of the famous Pareto principle, also known as the 80/20 rule. And it happens to be a recurring theme in Good Enough products. You can think of it this way: 20 percent of the effort, features, or investment often delivers 80 percent of the value to consumers. That means you can drastically simplify a product or service in order to make it more accessible and still keep 80 percent of what users want—making it Good Enough—which is exactly what Kaiser did.

Flanagin believes these clinics will enable Kaiser to add thousands of new members. And they'll do it for less. The per-member cost at a microclinic is roughly half that of a full Kaiser hospital. The first microclinic is set to open in Hawaii early next year. Medical care is now poised for its own manifestation of the MP3 effect.

The phenomenon certainly won't stop with hospitals, lawyers, and military campaigns. As more and more industries move their business online, they too will find success in Good Enough tools that focus on maximizing accessibility. It's a reflection of our new value system. We've changed. To benefit from the MP3 effect, companies will have to change as well.

No one understands this better than the folks at Pure Digital Technologies. Two years ago, the Flip Ultra nailed all three of those accessibility traits: It was significantly less expensive than other digital video cameras—so much so, it almost seemed an impulse buy in comparison. It was much easier to use, not only for shooting video but also for uploading clips to the Internet. And its pocketable size and Web-sharing abilities made video available anytime, anywhere. The Flip hit the Good Enough trifecta.

When asked why he thinks the Flip has succeeded where more powerful videocams—and even new Flip knockoffs from the likes of Sony—have failed, Pure Digital's Fleming-Wood has an interesting answer: "I think it's because we have a better product." What's odd is that executives at Sony and Canon would likely say the same thing—after all, their models have far more features and often produce sharper images. But Fleming-Wood is using a different definition of "better." He now defines quality entirely in terms of ease of use—how easy it is to shoot and share the video. "The one thing everyone wants to do with their footage is show it to someone else," he says.

Even so, it's easy to imagine that feature creep will one day seep into the Flip. After all, the company recently released models that record in HD, so why not image stabilization or a bigger LCD—or hey, how about a touchscreen! "We will always prioritize accessibility over features," Fleming-Wood insists. The increase in pixel count, he says, is simply the result of Moore's law advances in chip speed and storage capacity, not a signal that Pure Digital is changing its focus. Once HD components became available that would not drastically raise the price of the camera or make it harder to use, "it made no sense not to go HD," Fleming-Wood says. He points out that Pure Digital has yet to include other features like an optical zoom or image stabilization, adding that he knows people love the Flip because of how simple it makes recording and sharing video. "We will never sacrifice that."

When he thinks about how the Flip line will improve in the future, Fleming-Wood envisions adding features that will make the video even easier to share. "Well, we could add Wi-Fi or cell connectivity, so if you were filming your kid's soccer game, you could be uploading the footage to the Web in real time so Grandma could watch from home," he says with a daydreamer's enthusiasm. To do something that ambitious, of course, might require sacrificing some of that HD image quality. No problem, as long as it's Good Enough.

Senior editor Robert Capps (rcapps@wired.com) wrote about Judd Apatow in issue 15.06.

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough?currentPage=5

Added On: Monday, December 07, 2009

Apple’s Game Changer, Downloading No

By JENNA WORTHAM
IAN LYNCH SMITH, a shaggy-haired ball of energy in his late 30s, beams as he ticks off some of the games that Freeverse, his little Brooklyn software company, has landed on the iPhone App Store’s coveted (and ever-changing) list of best-selling downloads: Moto Chaser, Flick Fishing, Flick Bowling and Skee-ball.

Skee-ball, Mr. Smith says, took about two months to develop and deploy and then raked in $181,000 for Freeverse in one month. The company’s latest bid for App Store fame? A game featuring a Jane Austen character in a lacy dress who karate-chops her way through hordes of advancing zombies.

“There’s never been anything like this experience for mobile software,” Mr. Smith says of the App Store boom. “This is the future of digital distribution for everything: software, games, entertainment, all kinds of content.”

As the App Store evolves from a kitschy catalog of novelty applications into what analysts and aficionados describe as a platform that is rapidly transforming mobile computing and telephony, it is changing the goals and testing the patience of developers, bolstering sales of the Apple motherships the applications ride upon — the iPhone and iPod Touch — and causing Apple’s competitors to overhaul their product lines and business models. It even threatens to open chinks in Apple’s own corporate armor.

Thanks in large part to the iPhone, introduced in 2007, and the App Store, which opened its doors last year, smartphones have become the Swiss Army knives of the digital age.

They provide a staggering arsenal of functions and tools at the swipe of a finger: e-mail and text messaging, video and photography, maps and turn-by-turn navigation, media and books, music and games, mobile shopping, and even wireless keys that remotely unlock cars.

“Apple changed the view of what you can do with that small phone in your back pocket,” says Katy Huberty, a Morgan Stanley analyst. “Applications make the smartphone trend a revolutionary trend — one we haven’t seen in consumer technology for many years.”

Ms. Huberty likens the advent of the App Store and the iPhone to AOL’s pioneering role in driving broad-based consumer adoption of the Internet in the 1990s. She also draws comparisons to ways in which laptops have upended industry assumptions about consumer preferences and desktop computing. But, she notes, something even more profound may now be afoot.

“The iPhone is something different. It’s changing our behavior,” she says. “The game that Apple is playing is to become the Microsoft of the smartphone market.”

The popularity of Apple’s app model has reached a fever pitch. Tens of thousands of independent developers are clamoring to write programs for it, and the App Store’s virtual shelves are stocked with more than 100,000 applications. Apple recently said that consumers had downloaded more than two billion applications from its store.

Major players like Research in Motion (maker of the BlackBerry), Palm (maker of the Pre), Google (maker of the Android mobile operating system) and Microsoft (maker of Windows Mobile) are taking note and scrambling to replicate the App Store frenzy.

App fever has even prompted cities like New York and San Francisco to open reservoirs of city data to the public to spur software developers to create hyperlocal applications for computers and phones.

One need not look further than the lobby of Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., to see that the iPhone and applications that run on it are centerpieces of the company’s mobile strategy. Planted squarely in the lobby of the main office, at 1 Infinite Loop, is an impressive, 24-foot-wide array built out of 20 LED screens populated with 20,000 tiny, brightly colored icons.

As Philip W. Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing at Apple, describes how the wall works — each time an application is purchased, the corresponding icon on the electronic billboard jiggles, causing its neighbors to ripple in unison — he, too, becomes animated.

Normally reserved and on message, Mr. Schiller waves his hands back and forth and allows his voice to ascend into giddy registers as he speaks about the potential unleashed by the App Store.

“I absolutely think this is the future of great software development and distribution,” Mr. Schiller says. “The idea that anyone, all the way from an individual to a large company, can create software that is innovative and be carried around in a customer’s pocket is just exploding. It’s a breakthrough, and that is the future, and every software developer sees it.”

APPLE cloaks most of its inner workings in a shroud of secrecy — a tactic that has helped preserve the company’s mystique and generate intense interest in its product rollouts.

But the App Store relies on vast cadres of outside developers to populate its virtual shelves with products, leaving Apple in the unfamiliar and at times uncomfortable position of having to collaborate with folks who haven’t drunk the company’s corporate Kool-Aid.

This has led Apple to be deeply supportive of developers once shunned by big telecommunications companies, while also frustrating many of them more recently with what developers see as the company’s inscrutable and arbitrary process for accepting programs into the App Store.

Apple frames the issue differently.

“I think, by and large, we do a very good job there,” Mr. Schiller said. “Sometimes we make a judgment call both ways, that people give us feedback on, either rejecting something that perhaps on second consideration shouldn’t be, or accepting something that on second consideration shouldn’t be.”

For Apple, the review process is a necessary evil. The company places high value on what it describes as “customer trust,” or the idea that users have faith that an application distributed on the iPhone won’t crash the platform, steal personal information or contain illegal content.

Mr. Schiller says the majority of applications sail through the review with no difficulty, and those that do require greater scrutiny are largely those that are slowed down by bugs or glitches in the coding.

“We care deeply about the feedback, both good and bad,” he says. “While there are some complaints, they are just a small fraction of what happens in the process.”

Apple says it receives more than 10,000 application submissions each week. Most become available in the App Store within two weeks (creating yet another problem: the difficulty consumers have in efficiently and effectively trolling through 100,000 apps to find hidden gems they hadn’t known about).

Still, the App Store is markedly better than the alternative, says Peter Farago, a marketing executive at Flurry, a mobile analytics company in San Francisco. Gone are the days when mobile developers had to negotiate with major telecommunications companies if they had any hopes of publishing their applications on a mobile phone.

“It took six to nine months to build a relationship with a carrier, maybe a quarter-million to get the infrastructure built, and the company took 50 percent or more from each dollar,” Mr. Farago says, a process that limited access to mobile platforms. “Apple has helped create a much healthier middle class of developers and expanded the pie for everyone.”

Apple pockets 30 percent of the revenue earned by any App Store program, with developers keeping the balance. Although barriers to entry for software developers have dropped considerably, Mr. Farago acknowledges that “friction points have changed.”

Developers now cite instances in which applications have been held in approval limbo, neither accepted nor rejected for months. And as bigger companies begin churning out programs, the smaller, garage-size outfits worry that they will be squeezed out.

FreedomVoice Systems, a company in San Diego, couldn’t wait to roll out a mobile version of its telephone software for the iPhone. The company submitted an application to the App Store last year and excitedly waited. And waited. And kept waiting.

“We’re facing 396 days with no contact from Apple,” says Eric Thomas, chief executive of FreedomVoice. “The app has been ‘pending’ in the App Store for a year.”

Mr. Thomas says he understands that it is Apple’s decision whether to accept his app. “But the idea they wouldn’t tell us it was a no — or even why — so we could try to do something about it,” he said, “is a very strange and unneighborly approach.”

Freeverse, which Mr. Smith founded in 1994, also creates games and desktop programs for computers. But like legions of other software developers, the company shifted its focus to the iPhone as the popularity of the device skyrocketed. But that doesn’t mean it’s been an easy road to riches.

“For our size and seriousness, we are still treated like a college freshman who is doing this as a side project,” Mr. Smith says. “The trade-off being that there is a much lower barrier to entry for developers. Anyone can have a shot.”

No one knows that better than Cerulean Studios, a software firm in Brookfield, Conn. After e-mail generated only automated responses from Apple for three months, Cerulean got a call in November from an Apple employee.

“He didn’t say much, just that our app would be going live in the App Store that afternoon,” recalls Scott Werndorfer, a co-founder of Cerulean. “We knew what we were getting into with Apple. They want everything to be pixel perfect, and you have to play ball by their rules.”

Some Apple developers are willing to go to greater lengths — underground — to avoid dealing with Apple’s policies and to get their software out quickly and on their own terms. To do that, they create programs for “jailbroken” iPhones and iPod Touches. Such devices are modified to allow anyone to upload a program onto them, which Apple says is illegal.

“Developers are just tired of the review process and navigating opaque hurdles,” says Mario Ciabarra, who operates Rock Your Phone, an online storefront containing a small catalog of applications for jailbroken iPhones. “They’ve been defecting to the jailbroken community or other platforms, such as Android. That demand has created the marketplace for our products and attracted developers.”

Mr. Ciabarra says about 1.5 million iPhones have visited his storefront, an impressive figure though still a small fraction of the 50 million iPhones and iPod Touches that Apple says it has sold.

As the App Store has matured, so has the need to come up with more sophisticated ways to profit from it. Simply having a great application is not enough. Bart Decrem, chief executive of Tapulous, a start-up company that publishes musical rhythm games, recalls the early days when it was enough to develop a shiny application that used the iPhone.

The company’s first game, Tap Tap Revenge, was available in the App Store when it opened in 2008. It quickly climbed the store’s charts, and Apple eventually ranked it as the most popular free iPhone game that year.

These days, Mr. Decrem says, that kind of instant and relatively easy success is much rarer because more companies are competing in the App Store. They include giant game publishers like Electronic Arts, which recently released a version of its popular video game Rock Band for the iPhone.

“It’s still the Wild West, but the stakes are higher,” Mr. Decrem says.

Tapulous has begun working with record labels and musicians to introduce paid special editions of Tap Tap Revenge featuring big-name artists. “Simply selling applications is ultimately not a scalable model,” he says.

IT’S unclear how concerned Apple is about some of the tensions swirling around the App Store. The company’s App Store policies have faced criticism — and even prompted a Federal Communications Commission investigation of Apple’s decision to reject an iPhone application developed by Google, which is still under way. Critics say they wonder whether the company can be trusted to maintain a fair marketplace, especially when developers release products that could compete with Apple’s current or future line of products.

Apple runs the App Store under the aegis of its iTunes unit (the operation that, wedded to the iPod, transformed music downloading in a way that analysts say the App Store, wedded to the iPhone, is now transforming mobile computing).

“A rocket ship is even too small of an analogy,” says Eddy Cue, Apple’s vice president for iTunes, of the App Store’s popularity. “We’ve been able to leverage a lot of our iTunes technology for the App Store. But it’s completely different. We’re reviewing all of those apps. We really don’t have to review each and every song.”

Apple executives are quick to point out the importance of ensuring that third-party applications run smoothly and provide a high-quality experience for users.

“Our goal is very simple: We want to have the best platform for applications that there has ever been on any product,” notes Mr. Schiller, the marketing executive. “We know we’re not perfect, but we know we’re better than anything else that has been and we want to keep improving it.”

Apple says it has increased the number of product reviewers working on the App Store and has tried to improve and streamline the way it communicates with developers.

The App Store’s success — as much a surprise to Apple as it has been to competitors — has given rise to a new digital ecosystem. Today, hundreds of software aspirants, from individuals tinkering in their bedrooms late at night to established companies looking for lucrative new revenue streams, are jumping into the App Store fray.

And smartphone manufacturers across the board are trying to make their platforms more attractive and lucrative to bring in the kind of creativity and enthusiasm that Apple has.

It’s easy to see why: Although Apple doesn’t release specific financial figures for the App Store, analysts estimate that it generates as much as a billion dollars a year in revenue for Apple and its developers.

At a recent conference in San Francisco organized by Research in Motion for BlackBerry developers, the company said it would make several changes to its mobile operating system to increase the kinds of applications developers can create for its devices, including allowing advertising and e-commerce within applications. Jim Balsillie, a co-chief executive of Research in Motion, says he isn’t focusing on the sheer number of apps available on a BlackBerry (3,000) but on their utility.

“Is it about 20,000 apps or 200,000 apps or is it about changing those 20,000 apps and their deep integration and how they interrelate to one another?” asks Mr. Balsillie. “We’re much more interested in changing the applications and changing the user experience and really unlocking the promise and the money and revenue opportunity for the ecosystem.”

Regardless, says Mr. Balsillie, apps and smartphones have created a new playing field.

“It’s inevitable that all cellphones will be smartphones,” he says. “There will be more services and new ways to monetize and more consumption. Growth is a given; it’s just a question of who is going to innovate in the right way to drive that value proposition to capture that growth.”

ALTHOUGH Palm is still rolling out the e-commerce portion of its own app store, called the App Catalog, the company hopes to draw developers to write for Palm devices like the Pre because Palm’s operating system, called webOS, is based largely on the same programming languages used to create Web sites — meaning developers are already familiar with the tools they will need to create mobile apps.

So far, however, Palm offers 500 applications, a relatively slim selection compared with the iPhone, and many analysts believe that this has made the device less attractive to consumers. Palm, like Research in Motion, says it doesn’t need an avalanche of applications to compete.

“Two years ago, the iPhone blew away expectations for what mobile devices are capable of. And mobile devices and applications are the future of the computing industry,” says Ben Galbraith, co-director of Palm’s developer relations team. “But the market is becoming saturated with a large volume of applications. When you’re number 50,000 out of 200,000, how do you survive?”

Palm says it is offering a breezier review process to developers — including allowing them the option of submitting their programs as candidates for Palm’s App Catalog or immediately publishing their applications in a third-party, online storefront — which may help it avoid some of the conflicts plaguing Apple’s relationship with developers.

Meanwhile, Microsoft, which analysts have criticized for its sluggish approach to the smartphone market, also says it is emphasizing quality for the application store it introduced in October, Windows Marketplace for Mobile.

“Our strategy is to look holistically at how we can provide the best all-around user experience,” says Victoria Grady, director of mobile strategy at Microsoft. The Marketplace now has more than 800 apps.

Many developers and analysts think Google’s mobile operating system, most recently placed in the Motorola Droid, may evolve into the fiercest competitor to the iPhone. Unlike Apple, Google has eschewed a review process, allowing any developer to publish an application to the Android Marketplace, its version of the App Store, instantly. About 14,000 applications are available for Android-powered smartphones.

“We’re doing everything we can to open the device to both developers and consumers,” says Eric Chu, group manager of the Android platform at Google. “That is a critical part of what we think makes Android unique: applications are no longer limited to a single device.”

Mr. Chu said the growing number of Android-powered phones available on multiple wireless carriers increases the financial opportunity for developers. “Last year at this time, we only had one device,” he says. “The volume is going up at a tremendous pace, and the developer ecosystem is seeing that.”

Besides being a business opportunity for all of these companies, apps offerings may also be a matter of survival in a make-or-break market. Apple has another strong advantage: the iPhone offers developers a uniform, standard platform.

“When we create an application for the iPhone, you know it’s going to run exactly as you tested it on every single model,” says David Lieb, co-founder of Bump Technologies, which creates software that lets users share contact information by tapping two phones together. “The same isn’t true for the rest of the smartphones, which have varying screen sizes, processor speeds and form factors.”

HOWEVER the competitive landscape shapes up, the App Store phenomenon shows no signs of slowing. IDC, a technology research firm, predicts that the number of iPhone apps will triple next year, fueled by the growing popularity of smartphones and other mobile devices. Along the way, analysts say, the App Store will continue to upend the architecture of the smartphone business and threaten competitors that don’t have vibrant and extensive offerings.

The way the industry once operated, “Each handset company would come up with its latest iterations and maybe have the hottest device of the season or not,” says Ms. Huberty, the Morgan Stanley analyst. “Enter apps into the equation, and that changes. It goes from being a product cycle game to a platform game.”

“People will look back on the iPhone as a turning point in the industry,” says Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. “The iPhone will be remembered as the first true handheld computer.”

Added On: Saturday, November 28, 2009

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 smashes industry records

November 27, 2009 | Tom Slater

The latest in a parade of hits, Activision’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has sold an estimated $550 million in the first five days of its release, bringing the entire The Call of Duty series $3 billion in sales between its six titles.

Modern Warfare 2 officially smashed opening-day sales records with 4.7 million copies sold in its first day in the U.S. and U.K. alone. To put that in perspective, James Bond has been a franchise for 47 years and grossed just over $5 billion.

Activision isn’t the only company growing fat on Modern Warfare’s success. GameStop, an online gaming retailer, sold 2.5 million copies of MW2 within three days of its release. Not coincidentally, GameStop’s Q3 sales rose to $1.82 billion, up from $1.7 billion in Q2. Activision ended the day’s trading up 0.09 percent, closing at $11.57.

“If you consider the number of hours our audiences are engaged in playing Call of Duty games, it is likely to be one of the most viewed of all entertainment experiences in modern history,” says Robert Kotick, CEO of Activision.

MW2 includes over 40 types of weapon and presents the player with the option of participating in a civilian massacre — a controversial move that VentureBeat reporter Dean Takahashi examined in his review of the game. This scene has inspired some outcry: There were early reports that it was banned in Russia. In fact, the game was released there, but without the massacre scene. To help offset some of the outrage over the massacre concept, Activision has donated $1 million to veteran’s groups in the U.S.

MW2’s launch beat every previous-best first and five-day launch in the entertainment industry: box office, book releases and video games launches alike have been humbled by its sales. Previously, the five-day sales of Grand Theft Auto IV held the record at 6 million units and $500 million dollars. MW2 has been so successful, in fact, that a special edition of the game is being offered with full functioning night vision goggles. So far, no handgun edition has been announced.

Added On: Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Inside Google's Advertising Empire

Google's announced plans to buy display-ad company Teracent. Here's a look at how the purchase fits into Google's advertising empire and your online life.

JR Raphael, PC World
Monday, November 23, 2009 03:00 PM PST


Google's gobbling up another advertising company, the search giant has announced. Google will acquire Teracent, a Silicon Valley startup specializing in "intelligent display advertising." Yep -- that means more online ads customized specifically for your visit.
Teracent, of course, is far from Google's first foray into the online advertising world; as most people who use the Web can't help but know, Google-served ads are practically everywhere these days. Here's an overall look at Google's ad-related acquisitions and how they play into your online life.


Teracent: Google's Display-Advertising Acquisition

Reading the way Google describes Teracent, it's not hard to understand how it'll fit into the company's advertising ecosystem.

"Teracent's technology can pick and choose from literally thousands of creative elements of a display ad in real-time -- tweaking images, products, messages or colors," Google's official blog posting explains. "These elements can be optimized depending on factors like geographic location, language, the content of the website, the time of day or the past performance of different ads."

Teracent's technology is expected to become available to advertisers using Google's Content Network and DoubleClick program. Yahoo, incidentally, announced an advertising partnership with Teracent earlier this year. There's no word yet how the Google acquisition could affect that relationship (though "badly" might be a logical guess).

Google's Past Ad Acquisitions

The Teracent acquisition comes just two weeks after Google announced it was buying mobile advertising provider AdMob -- a deal worth a whopping $750 million in stock. AdMob focuses primarily on display ads and mobile application ads. Translation: Get ready to see a whole lot of Google-powered advertising on your mobile phone.

Prior to AdMob, Google's ad-related acquisitions had revolved around the Web and even the airwaves. (Some say the G-gang is also aiming for in-brain advertising, though I'm pretty sure those rumors are unfounded.) So what are some of the other noteworthy purchases, and how have they affected you? Time for the quick tour:

• DoubleClick: Bought for $3.1 billion in 2007, DoubleClick delivered a massive network of advertisers into Google's already-strong advertising system. You can thank DoubleClick for all the Google-run display and rich-media ads around the Net -- prior to DC's entry, those had been a relatively small part of Google's advertising empire.

• AdScape: In-game advertising firm AdScape entered the Google domain in March of 2007, drawing speculation of massive Google-led virtual worlds on the way. To its credit, Google did launch Lively last summer. It took only a matter of months, however, for the service -- which, by some accounts, had turned largely into a virtual teenage groping ground -- to get shut down.

What's AdScape doing now? Good question. It's somewhere in Google's advertising empire, just presumably in a quiet corner. One day, though, the big G's targeted advertising may pop up in a game near you.

• dMarc Broadcasting: Even further down on the list of not-quite-so-successful ad attempts is dMarc Broadcasting, bought by Google in January of 2006. The company was meant to help Google get into radio advertising, and it did -- for a short while.

Earlier this year, the Google radio ad idea died, effectively sending dMarc to the gDump and Google ads off of America's airwaves.

• Applied Semantics: Ah, the one that started it all. Google grabbed Applied Semantics in 2003, marking the beginning of the AdSense program and Google's status as a serious advertising player. You know all those little text ads that pop up on Google searches and on countless other Web sites? You can thank Applied Semantics for getting that ball rolling and providing the foundation for the various Google ads we see today.

Google Acquisitions: The Next Steps

So who's next on Google's acquisition wish list? Possibly Microsoft or Digg, if you buy into these satirical suggestions (I wouldn't advise it).

In reality, though, the one safe prediction to make is that we'll see plenty more Google purchases soon, and odds are, it won't be long before one of them brings another new twist to the company's massive ad network. If you want anything more specific, well, you can try Googling it -- but I somehow doubt you'll find the answer.

JR Raphael is co-founder of geek-humor site eSarcasm. You can keep up with him on Twitter: @jr_raphael.

Added On: Friday, November 20, 2009

Colum McCann wins major US fiction prize



Thursday, 19 November 2009

Colum McCann's September 11 novel Let the Great World Spin picked up the 2009 National Book Award for Fiction, one of the most significant literary awards in the US next to the Pulitzer Prize. Winners were announced November 18 during a ceremony in New York City.

National Book Awards are given in the categories of fiction, non-fiction, poetry, and young people's literature. Other 2009 awards went to T.J. Stiles's The First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbuilt for nonfiction; Keith Waldrop's Transcendental Studies: A Trilogy for poetry; and Phillip Hoose's Claudette Colvin: Twice Toward Justice for young people's literature. Hoose was joined onstage by the early civil rights heroine who inspired his novel.

The Best of the National Book Awards, a special prize celebrating the awards' 60th anniversary, was based on public online voting after finalists were selected. Flannery O'Connor's The Complete Stories won; finalists included books by John Cheever, Ralph Ellison, William Faulkner, Thomas Pynchon and Eudora Welty.

Dave Eggers won the 2009 Literarian Award, recognizing "outstanding literary service to the American literary community." His 2006 work What is the What: The Autobiography of Valentino Achak Deng, won France's Medicis literary prize in November; his other novels include A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (2000), which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. An author, editor, journalist, publisher, screenwriter, Eggers is co-founder of 826 Valencia, a nonprofit writing and tutoring center for youth, and of McSweeney's, an independent publishing house.

Author and activist Gore Vidal accepted a lifetime achievement award honoring Distinguished Contribution to American Letters.

The National Book Awards have recognized excellence in American literature since 1950. The winners, who are selected by a jury, each receive a $10,000 cash prize and a bronze sculpture; finalists each receive $1,000, a medal, and a citation from the panel jury.

http://www.nationalbook.org/index.html

Added On: Monday, November 16, 2009

IN THE SHADOW OF THE GOLDEN BOY



When Oscar De La Hoya hung up his gloves for good this past February, it prompted the immediate question to fight fans - "Who will be the next Oscar?" The answer may be not as obvious as it seems.
November 2, 2009 - by Dave Larzelere


For nearly a decade, Oscar De La Hoya ruled the fight game as its marquee pay-per-view attraction. Every time he fought, it was an event guaranteed to generate huge amounts of cash and crossover interest. After Mike Tyson exited the stage, De La Hoya was the only fighter left standing who could regularly put boxing on the front of America's sports pages.



When Oscar announced in February that he was hanging up the gloves, the news provoked considerable angst among dedicated sweet scientists. They envisioned a period of waning interest and malaise similar to what the NBA suffered in the post-Jordan years.

Eight months after De La Hoya's farewell, the battle lines of the post-Oscar era have begun to take shape. Two fighters stand poised to inherit the 'crown, both with such compelling (and contrasting) claims on the throne that they may as well represent the houses of Lancaster and York. But as Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather jostle to become the sport's new reigning king, there's reason to suspect that the next generation of boxing will not be dominated by a single, over-arching superstar, but rather by a talented group of worthy contenders all vying for top-dog status.

To hear Floyd Mayweather tell it, however, those contenders are all pretenders. "I'm the cash cow," he says regularly. "All roads lead to me."

Mayweather certainly made a strong case for that claim in his fight with Juan Manuel Marquez in September. In a virtuosic performance, he showed not a trace of ring rust after a near two-year absence from boxing, pitching a virtual shutout on the scorecards against a man deemed among the top two or three pound-for-pound fighters in the world.

At the box office, the event was a blockbuster success, doing a million pay-per-view buys and confounding the predictions of many boxing insiders who thought it would struggle with sales due to the pronounced size difference between the welterweight Mayweather and the lightweight Marquez.

"Floyd proved himself as the A-side of an event-type fight," says HBO boxing analyst, Max Kellerman. "He proved that he is now an event-maker like Oscar was."
The fight was a mismatch, as it turned out, but fans tuned in anyway. For Floyd Mayweather, the star of the show, that success was almost as satisfying as his victory in the ring. "Floyd proved himself as the A-side of an event-type fight," says HBO boxing analyst, Max Kellerman. "He proved that he is now an event-maker like Oscar was."

Mayweather, however, is not the only man to anchor a major boxing event in 2009. In May, Manny Pacquiao generated rave reviews and media buzz when he knocked out Ricky Hatton in front of a packed house at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. The fight did 850,000 pay-per-view buys, announcing to everyone that the Filipino sensation known as Pac Man had officially crossed over to mainstream stardom in the U.S.

Most expect Pacquaio's November 14th bout with Miguel Cotto to equal or exceed the Hatton numbers, and though Cotto is acknowledged as perhaps the toughest opponent of his career, Pacquiao remains a heavy favorite to win the fight. If Pacquaio does get past Cotto, and the event matches the PPV success of Mayweather/Marquez, it sets up a natural super-fight for 2010 in which the winner could immediately inherit De La Hoya's place atop the sport. A Pacquiao-Mayweather fight could be the best thing to happen to boxing in a long time, even better than the attention-grabbing mega-fights of the De La Hoya era.

"Sports are at their strongest," says Kellerman, "when their No. 1 box office attraction is also their best participant. Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Muhammad Ali. The problem with De La Hoya was that during the period where he was the number one box office attraction, he was never the best guy. What's interesting about a potential Pacquiao vs. Mayweather situation is that the winner of that fight would certainly be viewed as the best fighter in the sport and the biggest box office attraction."

Of course, doubts linger about either Pacquiao or Mayweather possessing enough star power to carry boxing in the fashion of De La Hoya. With Mayweather, there's the issue of his fighting identity as a consummately skilled boxer whose bouts are often less than exhilarating to watch. Then there is the simple question of casting. Floyd has played the villain for years now, and though "bad guys" often have been huge stars in boxing, Mayweather may find it hard to reach a De La Hoya-level of universal appeal while working the Darth Vader angle.

For his part, Pacquiao has the good guy role down pat. He's humble, eminently likable, and thrill-a-minute in the ring. His electrifying style has won him a devoted cult of fans among professional athletes—Kevin Garnett, Derek Jeter, and Kobe Bryant among them.

But is he a true Golden Boy? Will the American sports audience ever completely give itself over to a small Filipino fighter who speaks very little English? And will Pacquiao stick around long enough to see it happen? Pacquiao's trainer, Freddie Roach, has said that his charge will fight only once more after Cotto, and he's even gone so far as to suggest that Cotto might be his last bout.

There are, of course, many more fighters on the scene today who could become breakout stars—Cotto, Andre Berto, Chad Dawson, Paul Williams. There's a former pound-for-pound king, Shane Mosley, still at the top of his game and holding a major belt at 147 pounds, and a young welterweight in Mexico, Saul Alvarez, is already being anointed the heir to Julio Cesar Chavez.

De La Hoya's retirement ended a chain of dominant superstars in boxing that can be traced back to the 1960's, from Oscar to Tyson to Sugar Ray Leonard to Muhammad Ali. But the baton was not passed seamlessly among that quartet. In the pre-Tyson period from about 1982 to 1986, when Ali had retired and Ray Leonard fought only twice, the sport was dominated not by one gigantic superstar, but a handful of big names, names like Larry Holmes, Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran and Ray Mancini.

This is a period remembered by boxing fans as a golden era for the sport. Today, the fight game has the same potential for a group of thrilling and talented fighters, many occupying the same general weight penumbra, to fill the De La Hoya vacuum with a cutthroat struggle for supremacy in which boxing fans are the definitive winners. It's good to keep this in mind as we sit and wonder whether Pacquiao or Mayweather will be the next monarch of boxing's unruly kingdom. Maybe it will be neither, and maybe, the kingdom will be all the better for it.

SIMPLY PHENOMENAL - PACQUIAO DOMINATES COTTO








In the lead-up to their fight, many wondered whether Manny Pacquiao could handle the power of a hard-punching welterweight like Miguel Cotto. Tonight Pacquiao answered with a resounding yes, taking Cotto's best shots and breaking down the Puerto Rican with speed and precision to take his welterweight crown.
November 14, 2009 - by Dave Larzelere | Photos by Will Hart & Ed Mulholland

With utter fighting mastery, Manny Pacquiao defeated Miguel Cotto with a TKO in the 12th round at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas tonight, taking Cotto's WBO welterweight belt in a sensational performance that left no question that Pacquiao is not only one of the best pound-for-pound fighters of his generation, but one of the best of all time.

It's a record seventh world title for Pacquiao in seven different weight classes, proving himself perhaps a more complete and explosive fighting machine as a welterweight than he was when he won his first world title eleven years ago as a 112-pound flyweight. For Cotto, meanwhile, though it was only the second loss of his great career, it was a nevertheless a devastating evening, as he found himself on the receiving end of a thorough beating that had him retreating so dramatically at the end of the bout that boos were heard throughout the sold-out arena.

It was a much different story early in the fight, however, when a confident Cotto went on the attack. In the first four rounds, it appeared the showdown was going to follow the script set out for it by many boxing pundits as a memorable war between Cotto's considerable power and Pacquiao's electrifying speed. Cotto's well-timed jab seemed to neutralize Pacquiao'shandspeed in the first frame, and using his own underrated speed, he was able to land heavier shots onPacquiao than the Filipino sensation has absorbed in recent memory.

In fact, tonight's major story may be just how well Pacquiao took those shots. Going into the fight, the public knew how fast Pacquiao was, and also knew that he had knockdown power in both hands. But one thing the world learned tonight about Manny Pacquiao was that he can walk through gigantic punches from a bruising welterweight on the order of Cotto, a man long known for breaking down his opponents with the ferocity of his attack.

Despite Cotto's landing head-snapping jabs and hooks, the speed differential started to show in Pacquiao's favor in the second round, and in the third, he drew first blood with a sneaky-fast right hand that sent Cotto stumbling and then bracing himself with a glove on the canvas - the first knockdown of the fight. The second, a much more convincing knockdown, came in the very next round, as Pacquiao, having languished on the ropes for much of the round, exploded with a roundhouse left that caught Cotto lunging and sent him sprawling to the canvas, clearly injured.

It's arguable that Cotto never quite recovered from that knockdown. He fought a cagey fifth round and may have tipped the frame in his favor, but after that it was all Pacquiao in a frightening onslaught. By the seventh, Cotto had begun to circle the ring relentlessly to stay out Pacquiao wheelhouse, and by the ninth, swollen and bloodied, he was merely in survival mode, desperately trying to end the fight on his feet.

It was not to be, as referee Kenny Bayless stepped in to stop the carnage at 55 seconds of the final round. Now a seven-time champion, all that seems left for Pacquiao to accomplish in boxing is to solidify his claim on being the world's top pound-for-pound fighter by facing the other current aspirant to the pound-for-pound throne, Floyd Mayweather. After tonight's performance, and after Mayweather's commanding victory over Juan Manuel Marquez in September, the way is cleared for a Pacquiao/Mayweather extravaganza that, if it happens, is set to become the biggest, most anticipated, and most hotly debated boxing match of the young millennium.

Labels:

Added On: Thursday, November 12, 2009

Inside the App Economy

Beyond the goofy games is a world of useful programs that's making fortunes and changing the rules of business

It's easy to shrug off the kooky world of apps. The bite-size software programs people load onto their mobile phones or tap into on the Web seem mostly to be silly games and pointless novelties. But look past the beer-drinking apps and flatulence programs and you'll see something significant taking shape: a bustling app economy that's creating new fortunes for entrepreneurs and changing the way business gets done.

It's happening with dizzying speed. Just two years ago, almost none of this existed. Apple's (AAPL) App Store, the most popular destination for mobile-phone programs, was launched last summer. Now there are more than a dozen rival stores, and at least 100,000 apps have been created. Some startups that staked their claim in the app economy have become large, lucrative businesses in just a few months. Two-year-old Zynga, which makes popular game apps, is already profitable, with more than $100 million in revenues. By comparison, Google (GOOG) didn't start making money until its third year—and still had less revenue.

There are serious business tools among the thousands of new apps. Salesforce.com's (CRM) programs let executives manage customer relationships from an iPhone or BlackBerry. Oracle (ORCL) apps let managers check inventory or get a snapshot of a business unit's performance. The computing that people used to do at their desks increasingly can be done on devices they can carry anywhere.

Early Days
Apps will help determine technology's next big winners. The success of Apple's iPhone is due in large part to the fact that the company can offer customers more software choices than any rival. Research In Motion (RIMM), maker of the business-oriented BlackBerry, has scrambled to catch up and has made progress. But established giants such as Nokia (NOK) and Microsoft (MSFT) are struggling to get traction, raising questions about their prospects.

These are such early days, no one knows exactly how big the app economy is. Companies make money from selling apps, from ads within apps, and from selling digital goods used in apps. Add it up and analysts figure it's at least a $1 billion market today, headed for $4 billion by 2012. Not bad for a brand-new business.

True, much of the money these days comes from goofy games. One popular app is I Am T-Pain, named after the performer, born Faheem Najm. Fans can download software to their iPhone and mimic his robot-like voice. But it's time to heed the opportunities in this fast-evolving world. The $2.99 T-Pain app has put its creator, a year-old startup called Smule, on track to pull in $3 million this year. "Apps have moved into the mainstream. The world's changed," says Jeff Smith, Smule's chief executive.

ZYNGA'S ZING

Revenues are soaring on the success of 'Social Game' Apps like FarmVille

Early this year, Mark Pincus, founder of the tech startup Zynga, huddled with staffers in his company's San Francisco offices to brainstorm new product ideas. Zynga develops game apps that can be played on social networks such as Facebook or mobile phones like the iPhone, and Pincus needed a follow-up to a popular poker app. One employee suggested a farming game, where players could grow digital crops and sell them to make virtual money. Pincus liked the idea and gave it the green light. Four months after its launch, FarmVille is one of the most popular apps in the world, with 60 million people playing it in the last month. "It just exploded," says Pincus.

Such is the nature of business in the burgeoning app economy. Success—and a flood of money—can arrive practically overnight. Zynga doesn't charge users to play FarmVille, but it does sell digital crops, cattle, and farmland. Corn seed, for instance, goes for the equivalent of 10 cents; cows run 20 cents each. All those digital goods add up. Zynga pulls in its nine-figure annual revenues from FarmVille and 20 other games.

The company may be just getting started. U.S. revenues from so-called social games have surged over the past two years to $720 million, and analysts project they will grow to $2 billion by 2012. "We are seeing very strong success with these companies," says Atul Bagga, an analyst with investment bank ThinkEquity. "They are basically letting customers choose [how much money] they want to [spend] in a particular game or application."

Zynga has the vibe of a young Google (GOOG). Just like the search giant in its early days, the company has a masseuse on staff and chefs who serve up two meals a day to keep employees from wasting time going out for food. It has weekly keg parties, like the ones Google's founders once hosted. And Pincus has tried to maintain a light atmosphere, even as the company has grown to 468 employees. The winner of a monthly poker tournament gets treated to a one-day Lamborghini rental. Pincus calls the atmosphere "ghetto Google."

Seeds of Success
The company's offices are in the industrial Potrero Hill neighborhood of San Francisco. On a recent October day the 43-year-old Pincus, clad in jeans and an untucked oxford shirt, drew three intersecting circles on a whiteboard. He says the next great opportunity on the Web lies at the intersection of three trends—apps, Web services, and small online payments from consumers. Pincus sees apps not as products but as ongoing services that users tap into from Facebook or the iPhone and pay for in small increments. "Our story has been about finding games people could play forever and giving them a reason to do it," he says.

The strategy is in full swing in the FarmVille studio at Zynga, where a 30-person crew manages the company's biggest hit to date. The game is an odd success for the digital world: Users get a virtual plot of land to farm as they see fit. As they grow crops and earn currency, they can use the money to buy more seeds, animals, and tools like tractors. Since all players are logged in to Facebook, they can work with friends or co-workers, or they can compete against them for farmer bragging rights. There are roughly 20 times more people playing FarmVille these days than there are actual farms in the U.S.

For a hit like FarmVille, the work is never done. A wall-size chart in the FarmVille studio lists the various virtual items up for consideration in the next round of improvements to the game, culled from staff ideas and requests from users. The ability to get feedback and act on it quickly is a break from past models, says Mark Skaggs, who runs the FarmVille group. At large companies such as Electronic Arts (ERTS), where Skaggs used to work, "You might design a feature and not know until two years later whether it was good or people liked it," he says. "Here, you can design a feature in a day and put it in the game the next day."

As Zynga's games have grown, they've become giant test labs for new ideas. "Every single click is being recorded," says Vish Makhijani, Zynga's chief operating officer. That means Zynga can quickly find out the impact of small adjustments—such as changing the size of a cabbage patch in FarmVille or the cost of a new gun in the game Mafia Wars—on retaining users and increasing revenue. One recent success: digital sweet potato seeds that cost $5 a packet. The seeds, which of course cost nothing to duplicate, pulled in more than $400,000 in three days.

The rich opportunity has fueled aggressive competition. Zynga's primary rivals are London's Playfish and Mountain View (Calif.)-based Playdom. Playfish is known for a game called Pet Society, which lets people adopt online creatures and then dress them up in designer clothes, while Playdom's hit game is Mobsters, in which people try to gain skills, alliances, and wealth. All three companies are private and don't disclose financial information.

The game makers compete for users across all sorts of technology platforms. The big targets are Facebook, with more than 300 million members, and Apple's App Store, with more than 50 million iPhone and iPod touch users.

Lately, Playdom and Zynga have also been dueling in court. A lawsuit filed by Zynga in September alleges that several former employees recruited by Playdom supplied the competitor with the Zynga Playbook, a proprietary document the complaint describes as "the recipe book that contains Zynga's 'secret sauce,'" referring to its game-making techniques.

The rapid growth and sharp rivalries have drawn comparisons to the early days of Web pioneers such as Amazon.com (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY). One significant difference is that the apps business has virtually no barriers to entry, meaning it is hard for any company to maintain a lead. Today there are thousands of small developers who crank out apps that don't make a dime.

The perk-heavy culture at Zynga is certainly reminiscent of the dot-com days. Inside its office for human resources, 160 small paper bulldogs are tacked on the wall, one for every new hire in the past quarter. There's a cooking staff of 17, and most game studios have their own kitchen. Several rooms are equipped with Xboxes and board games, and are designated "meeting-free areas."

New Staffers and a Couch
With employees grouped into a series of discrete loft offices, Zynga's operation looks more like 11 small startups glued together than one large one. It's a reflection of how the company is run: Studio heads set goals and are given freedom to achieve them any way they can. Those who succeed are rewarded with cash and stock bonuses and are granted extra resources such as new hires. When a new game called Café World recently set a company record for growth, signing up 16 million users in its first two weeks, its head, Roy Sehgal, was rewarded with a bevy of new employees and the leather couch he had been requesting for his office for weeks.

Pincus calls this style of management "true meritocracy" and says it's modeled partly after the approach at Amazon. It applies to regular staffers as much as managers. In his first three months in the poker group, Harsimran "Sim" Singh moved up the company ladder three times for helping to bring growth back into the company's longest-running game, Texas Hold'em. A year after landing at Zynga with no direct reports, the 25-year-old runs the entire poker unit, a team of 45.

The Amazon influence affects how Pincus conducts his board meetings. Each time he meets with his directors, he begins by recounting whatever issue kept him awake the night before. It's a tip he learned from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, an acquaintance and role model who shares a director with Zynga.

One matter getting airtime at board meetings of late: When should the company consider going public? Zynga doesn't need cash. It raised $39 million in venture capital in 2008 and hasn't touched the money since. But a publicly traded stock would give Pincus the currency to make deals or dole out employee options. Still, Pincus wants to protect the culture he has created. "We all make so many compromises in order to build our businesses that we wake up one day and we've created a company that we don't want to work at," he says. "I wanted to create a long-term home."

THE MAN BEHIND APPLE'S APPS

How Eddy Cue and his team keep the App Store ahead of the competition

If you had to choose one person who makes the world of apps go around, Eddy Cue might well be it. Apple (AAPL)'s vice-president for Internet services is the architect and overseer of Apple's App Store. Millions of iPhone owners have downloaded the 85,000 apps available from the App Store. That's light years ahead of rival offerings from Google (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT), or Research In Motion (RIMM).

Cue and his team seem on track to ensure that those mobile Internet wannabes don't close the gap anytime soon. While no rival has even 15,000 apps, his team keeps tweaking Apple's offerings to make them more attractive to consumers and useful to developers. On Oct. 14, for example, Apple told developers that for the first time they could give away apps on a trial basis and then ask consumers to pay later. "Apple has done a ridiculously good job, and now they're taking it to the next level," says Jeff Holden, chief executive of Pelago, which makes apps for the iPhone and other devices.

Cue, 45, joined Apple as a lowly staffer in the IT department in time to witness the company's darkest days during the mid-1990s. He not only survived a major housecleaning after Steve Jobs returned to the company as chief executive in 1997 but emerged as one of the CEO's most trusted lieutenants. When Apple found itself playing catch-up in digital music early this decade, Jobs put Cue in charge of creating the iTunes Music Store. While far less ambitious efforts floundered, Apple's site was doling out millions of songs within weeks, with nary a hitch.

Hollywood Connection
Over time, Cue's role expanded from running the iTunes store to cutting deals to fill it. While Jobs often finalizes agreements, Cue does most of the heavy negotiations with record labels and Hollywood studios. "Eddy doesn't have attitude. That's part of his success," says one former Apple insider. "In an industry with lots of big egos, he can hold his own without saying, 'I'm the inventor of iTunes, bow before me.' One favorite approach is for Cue to "play good cop to Steve's bad cop," says the ex-employee. Apple declined to comment for this story.

Cue stands out within Apple's hard-core culture for his friendly, let's-get-a-beer manner. A rabid Duke University basketball fan, he's described by insiders as an "East Coast guy's guy." But he's one of a tight-knit group that makes sure that Apple devices, software, and services work smoothly together. Many app developers don't know the role he plays or even his name.

No doubt Cue has his hands full with the fast-growing App Store. When Apple rushed plans for the store into place in 2008, it was overwhelmed by the customer interest. The company had to invent the business on the fly, including how to approve and promote applications. Now Apple's back-end infrastructure may be as indispensable a competitive advantage as the iPhone's design. Developers have flocked to Apple because they see how the App Store can make huge successes of programs like Shazam and Tap Tap Revenge.

Apple's success has led to controversy. Some developers gripe about delays in getting into the App Store, and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating Apple's refusal to approve an application from Google. Analysts say Apple needs to develop better ways for customers to find just the right app among the thousands of options—and thereby make the business more profitable for more developers.

Still, most developers give Apple and Cue high marks. They not only established the App Store but also are building on its success. "Apple is really listening to the marketplace," says Shervin Pishevar, CEO of app developer Social Gaming Network.

ENTER YAHOO

The company is out to become the go-to place for applications

Yahoo! (YHOO) has big plans for apps. While Apple may have started the app phenomenon by letting developers create programs for the iPhone, Yahoo wants to be the company that brings apps to the wider world.

In the company's most ambitious app effort to date, Yahoo is redesigning its home page to include applications from outside developers. As the changes roll out through November, the apps will be listed along the left-hand side of the Yahoo.com page, used by more than 300 million people each month. Visitors can customize their own home pages, selecting the apps they want. Then they can check the day's headlines from USA Today or bid for an item on eBay (EBAY) without leaving the Yahoo site.

Yahoo will make money from advertising embedded within the apps. It's also considering launching its own app store, similar to Apple's, in which case it could charge for applications and split revenues with developers.

This is only one of the app frontiers Yahoo is exploring. The company has developed software for televisions that lets people launch applications such as Twitter and Facebook on the TV screen while watching their favorite shows. Another new technology allows people to tap into apps directly as they use Yahoo! Mail. Wherever people are, Yahoo wants to "summon up a gallery of all the possible things you could do," says Prabhakar Raghavan, head of Yahoo's research division. "Here are 50 million things you could do—book a ticket, upload a picture. Everything's an app."

Yahoo's home page strategy is getting some traction. Dozens of software developers have signed up and landed their programs in the "App Gallery," a menu from which users can pick and choose their favorite free programs. Carrie Cronkey, the director of business development at personal finance site Mint.com, says people are more likely to join Mint if they're referred by Yahoo because it implies a level of security. "The fact that [your app] is on Yahoo makes you more credible," she says.

For Yahoo, the real payoff from sprinkling apps into TVs and its home page comes in the form of data. By tracking which apps people use and how they interact with them, the company is building on its ability to serve targeted ads. That may help the company compete for ad revenues against rivals such as Google (GOOG). "Apps can play a big role in understanding user behavior," says Raghavan.

GOLD RUSH?

Money is flowing into apps as smartphones reshape the tech world

When Bart Decrem went looking for office space in the spring of 2008 for his startup, Tapulous, Jeff Clavier opened his door. Clavier, the founder of venture capital firm SoftTech VC, saw enormous potential in the Tapulous software that would run on Apple's iPhone. So he let Decrem use some space in the firm's Palo Alto (Calif.) digs and made an investment in his company.

Eighteen months later, Clavier's support of Tapulous looks like it may be one of his best investments ever. The company's Tap Tap Revenge app, in which players tap on-screen balls in sync to the beats of a song, has become a breakout hit. The game and its multiple spin-offs have been downloaded more than 15 million times. Tapulous, which makes money from game sales, advertising in the game, and the sale of in-game avatars, has been profitable since this summer, a speedy accomplishment for a tech startup.

The investment has convinced Clavier there is loads of potential for venture capital investments in mobile applications. At last count, consumers had downloaded 2 billion programs from Apple's App Store, and that's just one place among several where people get apps. Clavier believes app startups could become billion-dollar outfits that rival traditional game and software companies. "The revenues of these companies will become substantial," he says. "There will be publishers that become large brand names."

"We See Huge Markets"
The torrid growth has attracted money from other high-profile investors. Last March, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, one of the Valley's marquee venture capitalists, launched a $100 million investment fund specifically to back startups creating software applications for the iPhone. Last October, Research In Motion (RIMM) unveiled a $150 million venture fund, with investments from Thomson Reuters (TRI) and RBC Venture Partners, to develop apps and services for its BlackBerry and other phones. And this October, U.S. mobile operator Verizon Wireless (VZ) announced an initiative to invest up to $1.3 billion in wireless applications and related technologies. "We see huge markets and game-changing opportunities," says Kevin Talbot, co-managing partner of the BlackBerry Partners Fund.

Of course, investors don't need a dedicated fund to participate. Firms such as Union Square Ventures, O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, and XG Ventures are devoting an increasing amount of time and money to financing wireless apps. "Most of the deals we see are in the mobile arena," says Andrea Zurek, co-founder of XG Ventures, a new VC firm of former Google (GOOG) executives.

The money flowing into apps is inspired by the belief that smartphones and other portable devices are transforming the tech world. The growth of mobile computing is sparking a renaissance in software development. Gaming apps are the most popular programs right now, but mobile shopping, content, social media, communications, and productivity tools are attracting increasing amounts of capital. "We don't think this is slowing down anytime soon," says Matt Murphy, the partner at Kleiner Perkins running the fund dedicated to Apple-related investments. (View an interview with Murphy here).

Douglas MacMillan is a staff writer for BusinessWeek in New York. Burrows is a senior writer for BusinessWeek, based in Silicon Valley. Ante is an associate editor for BusinessWeek.

Zynga CEO: Playfish Helps EA 'Catch Up'

Posted by: Douglas MacMillan on November 10

Mark Pincus has become the poster boy for the booming business of social online games. His company, Zynga, brings in more than $100 million in annual revenues, and owns the most popular Facebook app of the year, FarmVille. Zynga is even considered by analysts and observers to be a candidate to go public next year.

So what does Pincus make of video game stalwart Electronic Arts recently scooping up Playfish, one of Zynga’s top rivals, in a deal that’s worth up to $400 million? He says EA paid a justifiably high price to enter the social gaming space. “The founders got a really good cashout, and EA got to catch up to a business that they had kind of missed the start of,” Pincus says.

Zynga may benefit indirectly from the marriage, since EA marketing savvy could bring more attention to the social gaming space, he says.

Pincus isn’t worried about Playfish’s newfound access to more capital making it a stronger competitor. But he admits that EA’s popular game brands including The Sims and Madden have a lot of potential in the social gaming space. “There’s a good chance for them to try to leverage EA’s major brands and take Sims and other [games] into the market,” he says. This could be a “risk” for Zynga and others that don’t have a stable of recognizable game franchises to draw on, Pincus says.

EA never talked to Zynga about the possibility of an acquisition, according to Pincus. "They apparently didn’t want to buy us," he says. "They might have realized that we weren’t interested in being acquired." Or, EA might have assumed the price tag would have been too high to bother. If Playfish was worth $400 million with 60 million active users, analysts estimate Zynga, with 186 million users, may already be worth over $1 billion.

Pincus shrugs off speculation that Zynga is coming due for an IPO. "Why would we sell it or why would we take it public if neither of those options accelerated our business plan?" he asks. Even though a public offering would give Zynga cash to make deals of its own, Pincus thinks the constant scrutiny of Wall Street would threaten the company's innovative, entrepreneurial structure. That echoes the sentiment he conveyed last month, when I interviewed him for a BusinessWeek cover story on The App Economy.

Recently, Zynga has been brought to task for promotional offers made inside its games, offers which account for less than 20% of revenues. As the blog TechCrunch reported Oct. 31, many of these offers reward users for signing up for unwanted contracts and subscriptions. Since then, Pincus has pledged to put each offer in Zynga games under more scrutiny, and remove those that appear to be "misleading," he says. "We have to try to police them."

Policing is hardly what the company was doing before. Pincus claims he personally never knew about the more seedy offers in FarmVille and other games, since he spends most of his time building products, not revenues. "We have one person who deals with offer networks and it’s not even a full time job," he admits. Still, the entrepreneur adds that his ignorance of the matter is "not an excuse."

He’s certainly paying attention now. And with EA’s marketing muscle behind Playfish, he’ll need to keep closer tabs on the competition too.

Apple Bathes in Profit

Market share is probably the easiest and most often used point of comparison between competing products. It makes sense: If something has a large share of the market, it’s probably doing well. But that doesn’t always mean that it’s doing better than something with less market share, especially from a business perspective.

I bring this up because today brought some very interesting numbers from the research firm, Strategy Analytics. According to them, Apple has surpassed Nokia as the most profitable phone maker in the world. I’ll throw some numbers at you in a second to show why this is really incredible, but the key takeaway is that this is why, at the end of the day, Apple wins.

While the press and rivals obsess over market share, Apple quietly comes in and makes an insane amount of money. It’s the same in the computer industry. Small market share, huge amount of money. The most important thing for all of these are companies is the bottom line. Apple wins that battle.

According to the report, Apple made $1.6 billion in operating profit off of the iPhone in Q3. Nokia, meanwhile, made $1.1 billion. Let’s put this in perspective. Recent numbers suggest Nokia controls roughly 35% of the worldwide handset market. Apple? About 2.5%.

Not 25%. Two point five percent.

Since the launch of the iPhone in 2007, just about everyone has been clamoring for more variety in Apple’s offering. People wanted iPhone minis, they wanted CDMA iPhones, etc. But Apple stuck to its guns and has basically sold one phone, which it could manufacture efficiently, when rivals like Nokia are busy peddling dozens. Sure, there are a few variations on the iPhone (included memory, and now the 3G/3GS), but basically, it’s one phone that is pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars of more profit than the market leader.

To people who follow Apple closely, this should be absolutely no surprise. It’s the same thingit does in the computer industry. Despite having a much smaller market share than its rivals, it makes more money than most of them. The key, of course, is that Apple maintains its high profit margins, while the competitors shuffle to battle each other for market share.

That’s not to say that Apple doesn’t care about market share for either its computers or the iPhone, it undoubtedly does. But it’s a secondary goal to running a successful business. A business which is now absolutely thriving in an awful worldwide economic environment.

Screen shot 2009-11-11 at 2.21.17 AMIf Apple wanted to boost its computer market share, it could do so in a heartbeat simply by slashing into its margins and chopping hundreds of dollars off its machines. That’s why those “I’m A PC” shopping commercials this summer were humorous. They’re attacking Apple for not competing in segments (low cost PCs) that it has absolutely no desire to compete in. Would those commercials be effective if Apple chose to sell a $500 MacBook? No, becauseLauren probably would have bought it (remember, her first stop was the Apple store).

Most consumers obviously shouldn’t like the idea that a company is purposely charging more for its product to keep its margins high. But Apple has a winning proposition for that because it builds machines of such high quality that to many users itseems like they should cost more than they actually do. Or as Apple COO Tim Cook put it in a earnings call over the summer, “Our goal is not to build the most computers. It’s to build the best.” When you do that, apparently you can keep your margins high and in turn, make insane profits.

The iPhone is a bit different because Apple has a partner that it has convinced to pay it an insane amount of money for each device sold and then subsidize the cost of it for consumers. Remember that when the iPhone first came out it was $600. That’s the price Apple clearly felt comfortable setting for it to maintain what it thought was a good margin.

That price, of course, was ridiculous (though, admittedly, myself and plenty of others paid it). A few months later, Apple realized this too, and slashed a couple hundred dollars off the price, thus slashing it margins. But then they figured out a better way. Previously, they had been getting a cut of every monthly AT&T iPhone contract. But with the iPhone 3G, Apple decided to give all that money to AT&T in exchange for one upfront payment, and the promise that AT&T would subsidize the cost of the phone down to $199 (and $299). Jackpot.

So basically, Apple is now making a huge margin on every iPhone sold, while AT&T more or less picks up the tab. (Don’t feel too bad for them, they still make plenty on those monthly contracts.) Now you see why Apple doesn’t mind that exclusive agreement even while us consumers bitch to no end? There are 1.6 billion reasons why they like that deal (okay, probably some smaller percentage of that, but still).

And because Apple makes all of this money, they have money to pour into making that next great product. A product that will likely be high quality — and sell with a high margin. Hopefully some of that $34 billion in cash (with no debt) is being poured into finalizing the tablet as we speak.

This influx of profit also allows Apple to take the plunge into new markets, like it did with the iPhone. Earlier today, blogger John Gruber recalled what former Palm CEO Ed Colligan said when he heard that computers makers like Apple could enter the phone market:

“We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone,” he said. “PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”

Not only did they walk in, they walked in, changed the landscape, and have what now appears to be the best business model industry-wide.

Just as with the computer industry, while all its rivals were busy jockeying for market share, Apple secured the high ground and figured out the best way to bathe in profits.

Added On: Friday, November 06, 2009

Starbucks: Howard Schultz vs. Howard Schultz


Starbucks' iconoclastic founder has gone through a reeducation in the rigors of running a more typical company. That doesn't mean he has to like it

You can get a sense of what's important to someone by the stories he tells. At Starbucks (SBUX), a company diminished in ways both tangible and ineffable, Howard Schultz is telling a story about milk. Starbucks uses a lot of the stuff. As part of Schultz's efforts to improve the quality of the millions of lattes and cappuccinos Starbucks serves, he forbade what had become the common practice of resteaming milk. That meant the baristas were pouring millions of dollars of leftover milk down the drain. As store managers for the first time began thinking about how to operate more efficiently, an idea emerged. It was simple, obvious, and made everyone wonder why no one had thought of it before: They could put etched lines in the steaming pitchers so that the baristas would know exactly how much milk to use for each size drink. Before, they just guessed. "The celebration of that line in the halls of Starbucks has become a metaphor," says Schultz. "How many other lines can we find? We've found a lot because no one was ever looking. The people who have found those lines have become part of the folklore."

Can you think of many other executives who would turn something so prosaic into folklore? Or who would have left something so basic to chance? But we're talking about Howard Schultz, and about Starbucks, which for most of its existence was fast-growing and free-flowing, a place where the experience was everything. A place where the boss led by instinct, where authenticity was what counted. Schultz liked to say that Starbucks had taken the road less traveled.

That vision, perhaps inevitably, has collided with the exigencies of the real world. The $4 latte has become an unaffordable luxury, and Starbucks is competing with McDonald's (MCD) and Dunkin' Donuts, two chains more interested in selling lots of coffee than in being a part of people's lives. Even so, Schultz, for a time, seemed strangely unconcerned that the ground was shifting. When he reclaimed the responsibilities of chief executive in January 2008, he announced that Starbucks had lost its way: It had become the kind of soulless corporation he detested. He promised to take the company back to its roots, to make Starbucks loved again.

The Great Recession has since forced Schultz to do something even more drastic. He has had to acknowledge, however grudgingly, that the company needed to change almost everything about how it operates. Starbucks had to become more ordinary. The first orders of business: Cut costs by at least $500 million, shutter 800 stores in the U.S., lay off more than 4,000 employees. And also: Conduct more customer research, offer discounts, advertise. All very common, unremarkable ways of doing business. All new and uncomfortable to Schultz. "He was always so tantalized by out-of-the-box thinking," says John Moore, a former Starbucks marketing executive. "But sometimes it's the box that needs to be fixed."

Spend enough time with Schultz, and one thing becomes clear. Despite the recent reversals and reckonings, he still wants it all. Starbucks must be powerful and benevolent, respected and passionate, ubiquitous and imaginative. There is no point telling him that no big corporation, certainly not one with some 16,000 stores in 50 countries, has ever found such a balance. He simply doesn't buy it. Yet he concedes the strain of trying to stay true to his shareholders and his original vision. "I've had to change my own mentality and thinking," he says. "It's always a fragile balance between creativity and discipline, but it's much more acute than it was in the past." As he leads Starbucks into its next era, Schultz's biggest struggle may be with himself.

THE SOUL OF THE COFFEE HOUSE

Howard Schultz, who is 56, has lived and breathed Starbucks for more than two decades. He is a salesman, a marketer, a merchant, and he always thought he could tell Starbucks' story best. Even during the eight years when he wasn't actively running Starbucks, everyone—from the executive team to the baristas—felt his presence. When he reassumed the position of CEO 19 months ago, the staff at the Seattle headquarters knew they were in for something. "We were all shell-shocked that first week," says Troy Alstead, the chief financial officer. Schultz had never really left, but somehow he was very much back. "We need his passion and drive and challenging nature," says Alstead.

Schultz has always relied on instinct. And his instincts have been pretty good. From the beginning, when he bought Starbucks' six stores from its quirky founders in 1987, he knew what the company could be. He wanted to sell an experience, and so he created a gathering place with its own language and culture. He knew the baristas would be everything to the company, so he treated them well, offering stock options and health insurance even to part-time employees (and everyone was called a partner). He talked about the soul of the coffee house, doing good in the world, controlling your own destiny. He tried plenty of things that failed, and he made many compromises that he would later regret. But he always measured success on his own terms.

Let other companies base their strategies on customer surveys. That wasn't the Schultz way. "We did it, but he hated it," says Howard Behar, who as a senior executive at Starbucks for more than a decade had a close but contentious relationship with Schultz. Another former executive recalls what happened to anyone with the temerity to suggest doing more research. "Everybody would cringe and say: 'You're new, aren't you?' Howard would say: 'We're not P&G.' " If Schultz wanted to learn something about his customers, he would visit a store. Schultz says he still visits 25 locations a week.

There were a bunch of other things he didn't believe in—things most executives do without questioning. For most of his tenure, Schultz hasn't cared much about costs. He didn't think he had to because Starbucks was opening thousands of stores a year, and speed was always more important than efficiency. Advertising? That was what other companies did. After all, millions of people were walking around holding Starbucks cups. "Our advertising money went to the best real estate on the corners," says Arthur Rubinfeld, who was in charge of Starbucks store development in the 1990s and recently returned after a six-year absence to lead the work on new-store designs.

For a long time the Cult of Schultz worked brilliantly, and no one complained. Certainly not the shareholders who watched the stock's value increase by nearly 5,800% from the initial public offering in 1992 to its peak in 2006. By 2007, Starbucks was a $10 billion company serving 50 million customers a week. For 15 years, sales in stores that had been open for more than a year surged at least 5%. "No one in the history of retail had ever done that before," says Schultz. Even now, as Starbucks seems more and more like every other retailer, Schultz doesn't seem quite like any other chief executive. He's still an iconoclast.

Eventually, though, came the reversal—then the reappraisal. "We got swept up," Schultz says. "We stopped asking: How can we do better? We had a sense of entitlement. And I'm here to tell you that's over." All companies find themselves retrenching at some point. But it's hard to overstate just how much Schultz has been forced to retreat from the practices of the past. "We've gone through a huge change," says Alstead, who has worked for Starbucks since 1992. "And somewhere in the mix [were] stages of grief."

A new breed of manager has emerged at Starbucks, people whose skills would have been far less valued back in the day. Consider Peter D. Gibbons, Schultz's handpicked supply-chain guru. Gibbons didn't have a problem telling Schultz & Co. that Starbucks was really bad at even the most basic operations. Such as delivering supplies to the stores. "Now we're excited about the supply chain," says Alstead. Cliff Burrows, who oversees the U.S. stores, has been told to simplify operations (and save money). Translation: Among other things, getting baristas to use a standard six-step process to brew coffee rather than do whatever they feel like. Schultz even hired a chief information officer in the person of Stephen Gillett, who previously worked at Yahoo! (YHOO) His job is to make sure real-time data flows to headquarters, where it can be sliced and diced into meaningful analysis. Lastly, there is Michelle Gass. She helped make the Frappuccino a hit in the mid-1990s and has been given a budget—Schultz won't say how much—to, that's right, advertise.

You can just hear the business traditionalists applauding: Finally, Howard has gotten religion. Certainly, most of what he's doing makes sense. Starbucks arguably would have been in better shape today if it had more data. "When the numbers went south, we couldn't even make an educated guess about why," says a former executive. "We had no way to get details about sales, no way to capture customer opinion, no good way to get information from the baristas."

Burrows's efficiency drive in the stores, which includes teaching baristas to set up the pastry case in 25 or so minutes rather than 45, has saved Starbucks $60 million in the past three months. And Gillett's store sales data helped Schultz see an important difference between the morning (when coffee is a necessity) and the afternoon (when it is an indulgence). "We never had that level of segmentation before," Schultz says. "It's a new tool in terms of being able to move the business in different ways." The numbers prompted Starbucks to offer any grande cold drink for $2 after 2 p.m. to customers who had already made a purchase that day: The company calls it the treat receipt.

Gass, named the chief of marketing and new product development last year, convinced Schultz that advertising is essential in the current climate. "The consumer is shifting to more conscientious consumption," she says, "and for us that's really good, that's what we always set out to be—the company that does the right thing, that buys its coffee responsibly, that takes care of its partners. The objective is to remind people why they fell in love with Starbucks to begin with."

STILL CONFLICTED

In 19 months, Schultz has turned Starbucks upside down and, in doing so, set in motion a possible recovery. Already there are signs that the company is doing better. During the last quarter same-store sales declined, but less sharply.

The man, however, still seems conflicted. Maybe it's understandable. Getting baristas to use a standard process to make coffee seems a lot like McDonald's counter staff cranking out Egg McMuffins. And listen to Schultz on customer research. "I despise research," he says. "I think it's a crutch. But people much smarter than me pushed me in this direction, and I've gone along." Hardly the words of a convert. Now, when he walks around Starbucks' Seattle headquarters, Schultz sees life-size cardboard cutouts representing four customer archetypes.

Yes, Schultz approved Starbucks' first all-out advertising campaign. You may have seen the ads in the newspaper: They are meant to look like they are printed on a burlap coffee bag and tell you in no uncertain terms what the company stands for. Schultz seems to appreciate them, in a perfunctory way. Just before the campaign launched in May, Starbucks posted a video on YouTube (GOOG) of Schultz discussing the ads with baristas in a Seattle store. For a man routinely described as charismatic and inspiring, he seems surprisingly uncomfortable. See for yourself: It's still up.

Schultz's autobiography, written more than a decade ago, is called Pour Your Heart Into It. He comes across, then and now, as a classic entrepreneur: optimistic, relentless, mercurial, and eager to prove people wrong. And when he says, "I love being the underdog," as he did several times in our conversations, he's not talking about then, he's talking about now. Except now he is the chairman, CEO, and president of a company that made more than $300 million in profit last year, that is the most followed company on Facebook, and one of the most recognized brands in the world. Would anybody really call him, or Starbucks, the underdog?

Schultz's curious assertion seems to suggest that the role he inhabits now, as a conventional executive making predictable decisions, may be a little harder for him to play than he lets on. There are other signs. He recalled for me a story he had just told a group of Starbucks marketing executives. Schultz went to visit Molly Moon's, a new ice cream shop in Seattle that everyone was talking about. It was a summer Sunday, and about 100 people were in line. When Schultz finally got in, he looked around carefully. He figured the owners hadn't spent more than $50,000 on the place; the signs were poor, the furniture secondhand. But there was energy and passion, and the ice cream was fantastic. "You want to be there," he says. "To me that store reinforces all the things I believe in. It's not marketing, research, consultants, it's just the experience."

A month later, during a conversation in late July, he returns to the same idea. Word was out that Starbucks was opening a concept store in Seattle, and Schultz was as excited as I had seen him. Earlier in the year he'd asked a select group of employees a question: If you were going to open a store to compete with Starbucks, how would you do it? Then Schultz gave them a small budget, told them they were on their own, and left. In early June they emerged to present a design they called 15th Ave. Coffee & Tea. On the door it would say: "Inspired by Starbucks." (Schultz insisted the store have a different name because it offers beer and wine.) It would sell Starbucks coffee, but the company logo and graphics would be gone. So would the automated espresso machines that some Starbucks stores still use and Schultz has always hated. The food would be baked locally. There would be coffee and tea tastings in the mornings. In the evenings, music and poetry readings. "We all said we'd invest in that company," recalls Schultz. "I said: 'Go open it.' "

He visited the store for the first time just days before it opened on July 24. "I was blown away by the creativity," he says. "I asked the lead designer: 'Where did you get this coffee scale?' She got it from the flea market. When is the last time somebody went to the flea market to get something for a Starbucks store? It reminds me of the early days, when we were fighting for survival, for respect. To me this hearkens back to when we were at our best." He says there are plans to open two other concept stores in Seattle. Beyond that, he can't say. "But my hope is that we can expand it," he adds. It's as if Schultz can't help himself: Starbucks is growing up, and he needs to start over again with something small.

Berfield is an associate editor at BusinessWeek .

Karim Rashid, Designer & Author of 'KarimSpace' (INTERVIEW)

Karim Rashid is a renowned designer who has also written a book called ‘Karim Space,’ a popular and personal guide to living.

Karim Rashid has been the recipient of multiple awards, the latest from Veuve Clicquot Globalight called the Popai Gold Medal for Technics and Innovation. Along with Veuve Clicquot, Karim has also worked for Swarovski, LaCie and Samsung, among many others.

10 Questions With Karim Rashid

1. How did you get involved in design and what motivates you to continue?

My career really started in 1993 (when I was 33) when I moved to New York City. In my early 20s I spent two years in Italy doing post-graduate classes and working in Milano in a design office. That experience made me realize that I wanted to design poetic artistic yet functional everyday objects for everyday life.

But on my return to Canada from 1985 to 1991, I worked in a design office in Toronto for six years doing really ‘hardcore’ industrial design projects like machinery, medical equipment, power tools, laser measuring devices, snow shovels, train interiors, and mailboxes for Canada Post. I was disillusioned about the profession and felt that Italy was about the only country that understood the necessity of beauty in industrial design.

The North American companies were disrespectful of design. Design was not embraced as it is today. I went into being a full-time academic and stopped designing for two years because I was so fed up with industrial design. I was full-time in Toronto at OCAD, then the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD).

I was going to quit the profession in 1992 when I was fired from RISD. I was told I was teaching ‘philosophy and theory,’ not design. Then I found myself in New York City penniless and started drawing objects romanticizing about the beautiful world I always wanted to shape.

When I started my office, after approaching about 100 companies from La-Z-Boy to Gillette, I only got one client. I designed a collection of tabletop objects for Nambe in Santa Fe that became very successful. They sold about $3,000,000 a year and entered permanent museum collections.

This relationship gave me the confidence that I could really contribute some meaningful and successful objects into the world. I designed the OH chair and Garbo Waste can for Umbra (1995). They continue to sell millions and proved to me that Americans want design but at an affordable price.

I then went on to design cosmetic packaging for Issey Miyake, the Prada skincare line, cosmetics for YSL and Shiseido, products for Sony in 1998, and Giorgio Armani shops in 1999.

The first restaurant I designed was for Morimoto, the Iron Chef, in 2001 (Philadelphia) which fortunately won many awards. Being a successful restaurant interior designer afforded me many more interior projects including the Semiramis hotel in Athens. It was my first hotel, and I designed every aspect from the architecture to the flatware, from the menus in the restaurant to the staff’s uniforms. Since then I have designed thousands of objects and about 50 interiors.

This moment as I answer your questions I am working in 30 countries on about 50 projects and I feel like I am just starting. There is about 100 million dollars of my work sold yearly by about 200 companies globally. I think that I design objects that people love and want—not objects that are about design for design’s sake or insular design that is unfriendly and not coherent with people’s behaviors and sensibilities.

2. How significant are the topics of cool hunting and trend spotting in the world of writing or design?

I think what Trend Hunter does is necessary to expose the world to the ‘new’—to inspiring design and movements. Trend hunting is a preoccupation and need for many, but for me as a designer, I am working more in a first order, I am designing and shaping the future, not working off existing trends or styles.

My focus has never been about what’s cool or trendy. I do not look for trends and I never derive my work from trends. Design is about shaping new movements, finding new directions, new solutions, and new aesthetics, so design eventually shapes or results in trends. Design has been the cultural shaper of our world from the start. We have designed products, systems, cities, industrialization; we designed everything in the entire built environment.

3. How do you define a trend?

Trends for me are something that come and go, or are momentary, which is part of our ever-evolving, in flux world. But as a designer, if something is ‘trendy’ it means for me, it is over, it is style at that point, and no longer a movement or direction.

But frankly, I think we have blurred the meaning of trend, style, and design. Style is steeped in appropriating the past; design is about shaping the future. Trend is the populous embracement of the present.

4. How do you define cool?

Cool is smart, beautiful, poetic, original, individual, useful, sexy, enlightening, inspiring, contemporary, colorful, energetic, fulgent, powerful, and intellectual yet accessible.

5. Do you need a culture of innovation to create something that is cool?

Yes—I always believed that design and innovation should be inseparable. Style is separable from innovation, hence design has content, and style is fleeting and forever subjective.

Let me give you an example. I designed some shoes for a Brazilian company called Melissa. They asked me to design a high heel shoe. My first thought was to create a comfortable high heel shoe since I can’t believe that in the last 100 years we have continued to design uncomfortable high heel shoes. As far as I am concerned, there is no excuse.

So I used a tri-injection process to create a shoe made of three different inseparable polymers. One polymer is the unseen inside heel that almost moves and cushions (inspired by Nike Air concept). The sole polymer is extremely robust, and the overall shoe last is soft and very flexible polymer on the foot. Many women tell me it is the most comfortable high heel shoe they have worn. I also injected a scent in each shoe of vanilla, strawberry, etc.

The shoes are washable and remain looking perfect for years. This is an example of innovation and the result is an interesting unusual yet high performing object of design. I may sound like a braggart here but let me say that although this project is a successful example, for every success I have designed 10 failures!

6. What is the best way to create an infectious idea, product or service?

I write about this subject in my book “DESIGN YOUR SELF.” I would say question your life. Bring ideas, possibilities, opportunities, or even just alternatives to one’s life. With awareness we can then start to ‘resolve’ our problems which, at the end of the day, inspire individual control and self-confidence about taking charge of your life and your destiny.

My real desire is to see people live in a the modus of our time, to participate in contemporary world, and to release themselves from nostalgia, antiquated traditions, old rituals, meaningless kitsch, and that we should be conscious and sensorially attune with this world in this moment that we are alive.

7. What is the key to innovation?

Design’s agenda since the Industrial Revolution was to create accessible altruistic objects for a larger audience, so design’s agenda was to shape a betterment of society. And innovation affords this betterment. We live better today than we have ever lived historically, regardless of all the world’s problems.

I try to always have some level, even a nuance, of originality or innovation in my work, whether it is a new material, a new human behavior, new form, new production method, new market, new message (be it wit, humor, emotion, meaning, social or political agenda), new experiences, or completely new concepts.

Innovation is not about trends, it is not about problem solving, it is not about just form or just function—it is about progress. Innovation is the manifestation of brilliant new ideas that create progress and evolve humankind. To innovate is to be highly perceptive of the moment in which we live.

8. What are the most important trends you see in the design industry?

Trends are not important. I want to rid the world of nostalgia (NO-STALGIA!) so we can enjoy, celebrate and experience the contemporary world without perpetual biases and subjective tastes. I want to live only in contemporaneity.

It is comfortable for people to live with recognized vernaculars, with the security of known signs and languages. The past is easy to copy; the past, though, is pointless. We live, breathe, and engage today’s world.

A mobile phone is not a copy of the last, nor is a car or a fashion; therefore, all entities of our life should have this same agenda of high performance, new aesthetics, greater comfort, softer, more sophisticated and eloquent designs. You are alive today, so you should surround yourself with physical goods that are a reflection of our milieu.

The future trend will be immateriality. I think that the future is that we will own nothing (but have even more heightened, more digital experiences). This is really nature—a new digital nature. Now we lease cars, we lease houses, lease computers, and soon we will learn to lease everything, experience it for a short while, and go on to the next.

We will create a hyper consumptive, forever dynamic, ever-vast changing human condition, where everything will be cyclic, sustainable, biodegradable, and seamless. The digital age will be more human, more communicative, more active, more inspiring, and more experiential than ever. So if I design a physical object, it must at least try and speak and communicate this technological world in which we live.

9. Professionally, what do you want to be doing or studying in 10 years?

There is so much to do. I want to design an electric car, smart clothing, smart objects, houses, robots, buildings, restaurants and hotels, a hospital, a school, and I could go on and on. I want to keep designing products, cosmetics, furniture, lighting, interiors, producing art, and shaping the future.

I also have a desirous need to design objects for the physically challenged and the aging population. It is quite shocking how so few companies are addressing this ever-growing market. By 2012 there will be over 60 million Americans over the age of 60.

10. What are your most important hobbies?

Outside of design I always loved music, collecting music. So for the last 30 years I have deejayed around the world. So I do not really have a hobby. I always say that you should make your hobby your job.

Design is my lifelong hobby. Design is something that can be so emotional, so experiential, so romantic, so poetic, and so human and yet constantly moves us forward. We must evolve, we must innovate, and we must change. I want to change the physical world.

30 Healthy Cholesterol Tips

1. Find more ways to walk. Can you walk to the store for milk? Park farther away? Take the stairs? If you can move more, DO! Physical activity is vital to heart health.

2. Eat six or more small meals a day.
A large study of British adults found that people who ate six or more times a day had lower cholesterol than those who ate twice a day, even though the "grazers" got more calories and fat!

3. Fix all your sandwiches on whole grain bread. Eating more complex carbs, like whole grain bread and brown rice, can increase HDL levels slightly and significantly lower triglycerides, another type of blood fat that contributes to heart disease.

4. Say cheese! Women who ate a serving a day (about the size of four dice) had higher HDL (good cholesterol) and lower LDL (bad) than those who ate less, according to a study at Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

5. No laughing matter. A recent study showed that diabetes patients who watched funny sitcoms for 30 minutes, along with their standard meds, reduced their heart risk substantially: They had about a 26 percent increase in HDL ("good" cholesterol), compared with a bump of just 3 percent among patients in the control group.

6. Brew it better. If you're worried about cholesterol, stick to paper-filtered and instant coffees. Unfiltered coffees, which are typically made with a French press, contain more of a cholesterol-raising substance called cafestol.

7. Make the move to nonfat milk. If you drink whole milk, switch to 2 percent. If you already drink 2 percent, move to 1 percent. If you drink 1 percent, you're ready for nonfat.

8. Start with soup. Studies show that folks who begin their meals with soup end up eating fewer calories by the end of the day without feeling hungrier. Give it a try with a broth-based soup.

9. Bag some barley. Thanks to its impressive stash of soluble fiber, which slows the digestion of food and the rise of blood sugar, barley is much friendlier to blood sugar than rice for most people. And it lowers cholesterol to boot.

10. Start three days this week with oatmeal, a proven cholesterol-reducer. Use the old-fashioned or quick-cooking kind, not instant.

11. Sip a cup of black tea every four hours. Government scientists found that three weeks of drinking five cups a day of black tea reduced cholesterol levels in people with mildly high levels.

12. Berry good news. Adults who ate about a cup of berries a day lowered their blood pressure and raised their HDL (good) cholesterol after eight weeks, according to a new study from Finland.

13. Pay attention to fiber.
Studies find that eating 10 to 30 grams of soluble fiber a day -- much more than the average American eats -- reduces LDL about 10 percent. Aim to up your intake slowly though, otherwise you may experience some bloating and flatulence.

14. The use of medication doesn't have to be permanent. If you improve your diet and increase your activity level, you may reduce your cholesterol enough to get off the medication and stay off it!

15. Add half a tablespoon of cinnamon to your coffee before starting the pot. A Pakistani study found that 6 grams cinnamon a day (about 1/2 tablespoon) reduced LDL cholesterol in people with type 2 diabetes by nearly 30 percent.

16. Try turmeric. Small studies have found that curcumin, a component of turmeric, cuts cholesterol. Heat a little oil in a sauté pan, and toss in a tablespoon of turmeric, a dash of salt, and a generous pinch of black pepper (pepper can increase your uptake of curcumin by up to 2,000 percent). Stir for a minute, then add veggies and lean protein for a healthy, sunny dish.

17. Pop edamame as a snack. Just half a cup contains nearly 4 grams fiber, not to mention the soy isoflavones in these soybeans. Consumption of both has been linked to lower cholesterol.

18. Fall in love with olive oil. A study found that people who consumed about 2 tablespoons of virgin olive oil daily for just one week had lower LDL and higher levels of antioxidants in their blood.

19. Put your pizza on a diet.
Order a veggie pie with extra vegetables. Or, if you must have meat on your pizza, make it chicken or ham, not pepperoni. Or try clams, shrimp, or anchovies!

20. Practice deep breathing four times a week for two to four minutes. Use this technique when you're faced with a stressful situation to mitigate your body's reactions.

21. Take as prescribed.
If you need cholesterol medication, statins are generally prescribed first, but your doctor may also suggest bile acid sequestrants, fibrates or prescription niacin, all of which will help.

22. Make healthy eating easy. If time's an issue, buy "semiprepared" foods. Some examples: boneless, skinless chicken breast; broccoli and cauliflower florets; and bagged salad.

23. Bag the butter. Dip breads in olive oil instead, or try a sterol-based spread. In the kitchen, try replacing butter with olive or canola oil.

24. Make meals picture-perfect. On days when you don't have salad, add a piece of fruit to your lunch. Or better yet, have fruit at lunch and salad with dinner.

25. Get creative with vegetables. Throw frozen veggies (no need to defrost!) into soups.

26. Step to it. Try to get at least 2,000 steps a day just through everyday activities, like vacuuming and gardening. Make it easy and check out a sports store for a pedometer.

27. Bored with your walks? Invite a friend to break up the tedium or try a new route -- both can make for a more enjoyable experience, and time will go much faster.

28. Lower stress levels with an enjoyable hobby. Can't think of one? Jot down your favorite childhood pastimes, then find one you can transfer to your adult life. For instance, if you loved to draw, find a drawing class nearby and sign yourself up!

29. Sprinkle wheat germ or flaxseed
(both rich in omega-3 fatty acids) over salads, yogurt, and cereal.

30. Set the alarm on your computer to go off once an hour. This is your signal to get up and take a short, five-minute walk.

Added On: Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Samsung Upbeat about Memory Chip Recovery


Posted by: Moon Ihlwan on October 28

A year ago, the global semiconductor industry was fraught with overcapacity. The situation was particularly bad for memory chips. But suddenly the tech industry is facing supply constraintsfor DRAM (dynamic random access memory) chips used in computers to hold data while processors run programs and NAND flash chips used in mobile gizmos to store music, photos and data.

That’s good news for the tech sector looking for signs of recovery after a yearlong slump. And no other company will benefit more from a semiconductor supply shortage than Samsung Electronics, the world’s largest maker of memory chips. The Korean company’s chip business chief, Kwon Oh Hyun, said Oct. 28 he expected the supply of both DRAM and NAND chips to fall slightly short of demand next year, making chip prices stay firm. Samsung aims to increase its chip revenues to $25.5 billion in 2012 from an estimated $16.6 billion this year, he said.

The optimistic outlook stems from confidence that Samsung has widened its gap with rivals during the downturn. Samsung kept investing in upgrading production technologies and equipment while Japanese, American and Taiwanese rivals cut back in spending. Industry analysts say Only Samsung and Hynix Semiconductor, another Korean company, can now produce DRAM chips by printing circuit lines on wafer disks with 50 nanometer technology – a tool increasing productivity by 30% from the previous-generation technology. Samsung is poised to report a sharp rise in profits this year, thanks partly to a turnaround in its chip business.

http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/15930.1310913874

Added On: Thursday, October 22, 2009

The Coolest Small Company in America

Why are high-powered M.B.A.'s getting off the fast track to work for a $13-million food company in Ann Arbor?

It's 4:20 on a Wednesday afternoon, and Ari Weinzweig is talking to a group of new employees about the 4 Steps to Selling Great Food. "Anybody know what the first one is?" he asks, holding up a plump, brown, and fragrant loaf of bread from Zingerman's Bakehouse.

" 'Know it,' " says a young woman with curly blond hair.

"That's right," says Weinzweig. "Great." And he proceeds to lead the group on a sensory excursion into the properties of slow-rising artisanal bread.

The CEO of Zingerman's Community of Businesses (ZCoB), Weinzweig looks like a Jewish hippie version of Ichabod Crane -- tall and gangly, with olive skin, curly black hair, and a fringe of a beard. He wears a ring in one ear and a stud in the other and dresses in black jeans, sandals, white socks, and a T-shirt with the sleeves rolled up. The Chicago native studied Russian history at the University of Michigan and describes himself as a lapsed anarchist.

In 1982, Weinzweig founded Zingerman's Delicatessen with Paul Saginaw, who is still his partner. Over the next 10 years, the deli became world famous -- and then hit a wall. Faced with the choice of changing the company or letting it stagnate, the partners came up with an ingenious strategy that has allowed them to retain the best aspects of small-business life while enjoying the benefits and challenges of growth. The result is ZCoB, consisting of seven small businesses in and around Ann Arbor, Mich., with two more in the active-planning stage. Together the businesses do a profitable $13 million a year in sales.

One of the businesses is Zingerman's Training Inc., or ZingTrain. Right now it's playing host to the orientation of the new employees, but ZingTrain also offers training and consulting for non-ZCoB companies, which send their people to learn the Zingerman's way of doing business. Earlier in the week bank managers, bakery owners, and restaurateurs from around the Midwest were in Ann Arbor for the "Managing with Zing" seminar. Other sessions have attracted a wide range of organizations -- grocery-store chains, hospitals, garden shops, not-for-profit groups, chocolatiers, custom manufacturers, even a mortuary -- from across the country.

It was at one such seminar that Todd Wickstrom first experienced Zingerman's. At the time, Wickstrom owned two franchised bakeries in Chicago that he wanted to improve, and he thought the session might give him new ideas. It did. On his return to Chicago, he sent Weinzweig an E-mail message: "The seminar made me realize you can live your ideals in the food business. The bad news is, I can't do it here." Weinzweig invited him to become a managing partner of the deli, and Wickstrom jumped at the opportunity. He sold his bakeries and moved his family to Ann Arbor. "I would have come in as a dishwasher to be in this environment," he says.

The environment is, indeed, ZCoB's most striking feature, combining a strong sense of community, a deep belief in people, a fascination with management and business, and a passion for great food and great service. It's an entrepreneurial environment in which good ideas become real businesses, and employees with good ideas have an opportunity to become owners. More to the point, it's an environment that many can't resist. "Working here has never felt like a job to me," says Wickstrom. "I'm constantly learning about managing, about food, and about myself."

Wickstrom isn't the only former entrepreneur to be seduced by ZCoB. "It was just a great opportunity. Everything was right about it," says Dave Carson, who built and sold two successful technology companies before becoming cofounder and managing partner of Zingerman's Creamery.


BRAIN FOOD, SOUL FOOD: Zingerman's has a passionate, challenging culture and corned beef on rye to die for.

Other, equally accomplished recruits fled successful careers in corporate America for jobs at Zingerman's that pay, at most, in the high five figures. Maggie Bayless, a ZingTrain managing partner, holds an M.B.A. from the University of Michigan and did stints at General Motors and Soho Natural Soda. Stas' Kazmierski, ZingTrain's other managing partner, was a high-powered consultant with clients such as Boeing, Marriott, and Prudential Insurance. Amy Emberling majored in social theory at Harvard, studied cooking at the Hotel Ritz in Paris, earned an M.B.A. from Columbia University, and now makes bread and pastries at Zingerman's Bakehouse. And Ron Maurer held high-level positions at such companies as Lexis-Nexis and Living.com before signing on as ZCoB's vice-president of administration and chief financial officer at half the salary he could get elsewhere. "I figured if Zingerman's was even close to its billing, I'd be happy here," he says. "In fact, it's better than its billing."

Eleven years ago there was no room for such people at Zingerman's. The deli had a reputation for being warm-hearted, fun-loving, and food-obsessed, but it had nothing to offer experienced professionals looking for new business challenges and no need for their services. Then, in 1992, Weinzweig and Saginaw began developing an innovative growth model that redefines the choices founders have when they've achieved their initial goals and begin thinking about what to do next.

Standing alongside each other, Ari Weinzweig and Paul Saginaw bring to mind Don Quixote and Sancho Panza -- or perhaps the Cisco Kid and Pancho. Where Weinzweig is long and lean, Saginaw is short and sturdy, with a barely visible five o'clock shadow covering the top of his shorn head. They met in the late 1970s while working at an Ann Arbor restaurant called Maude's and immediately hit it off. What united them was the dream of a perfect corned-beef sandwich on rye. "We both grew up in cities with great delis, and Ann Arbor didn't have one," says Saginaw, who comes from Detroit.

Twenty-one years ago the two started a deli meant to carry the finest artisanal food products and serve the best sandwiches known to humankind. "We wanted sandwiches so big you needed two hands to hold them and the dressing would roll down your forearms," says Saginaw. "We wanted people to say about other sandwiches, 'This is a great sandwich, but it's not a Zingerman's.'"

Within a decade, they'd accomplished that and more. Articles extolling the deli's food appeared in the New York Times, Bon Appetit, Eating Well, and other publications. "In Zingerman's," novelist Jim Harrison raved in Esquire, "I get the mighty reassurance that the world can't be totally bad if there's this much good food to eat, the same flowing emotions I get at Fauchon in Paris, Harrod's food department in London, Balducci's or Dean and DeLuca in New York, only at Zingerman's there is a goodwill lacking in the others."

Still, when all was said and done, in 1992 Zingerman's was just a deli doing $5 million a year out of a cramped red-brick building in Ann Arbor's historic district. One manager was starting a bakery to supply the deli with bread and pastries; otherwise there were no plans for growth or even significant change. Zingerman's was, in short, a typical, mature, stable small business, exhibiting all the symptoms of companies that have plateaued. Behind the shelves crammed with exotic spices, oils, and vinegars, bureaucracy had begun to creep in. There was an active rumor mill. Opportunities to advance had dried up, and competitors were beginning to encroach on Zingerman's market.

Weinzweig and Saginaw had a choice. They could keep Zingerman's a small, local operation and run the risk that it would languish or atrophy. Or they could take it to the next level. But if they grew Zingerman's aggressively, they might sacrifice the very attributes that had made the deli extraordinary since its beginning -- close contact with a community, intimacy with customers, team spirit among employees, and exceptional quality of food and service.

Weinzweig can pinpoint the exact moment when the growth issue first reared its head. It was a sultry summer day in 1992, and the lunchtime rush was in full swing. In addition to the usual headaches involved in feeding the hungry multitudes, a cooler had broken down. Weinzweig was racing around, trying to deal with the problems, when Saginaw came hurrying in. "Ari, we got to talk," he said.

"OK, Paul, but not now," Weinzweig said. "I've got too much going on here."

"No, it's important," Saginaw insisted. "We've got to talk right now. Let's go outside."

Weinzweig reluctantly followed Saginaw out the side door and sat down beside him on a bench. "OK, what is it?" he asked.

"Ari," Saginaw said, "where are we going to be in 10 years?"

"I couldn't believe it," Weinzweig recalls today. "I sat there thinking, 'I don't have time for this. The cooler is broken, the kitchen staff is stretched thin, and he hauls me out to talk about 10 years from now?' But I had to admit, it was a real good question."

It was also the start of a two-year debate that tested the limits of their partnership. Saginaw felt strongly that the company had grown smug and complacent, leaving it vulnerable to competitors who could copy Zingerman's merchandising and chip away at its customer base. The partners had recently settled a lawsuit against one such copycat, and the experience had convinced Saginaw that legal protections were a poor substitute for innovation. The business needed to be shaken up. It needed to build higher barriers to competitors by expanding, improving, and trying different things. In short, it needed a new vision for growth, and Saginaw thought that all options should be on the table, including the possibility of opening Zingerman's clones in other cities. That was, after all, the most logical way to grow a retail food business. A lot of people had already suggested it and offered to get involved. "We might be stupid not to do it," he told Weinzweig.


THE EARLS OF SANDWICH: Ari Weinzweig and Paul Saginaw transformed a small, local deli into one of the most attractive companies to work for in America.

There was just one problem: Weinzweig was dead set against it. "I didn't want to spend my time flying to Kansas City to see some mediocre Zingerman's," he explains. "For me, it was important to be part of something great and unique. You lose the uniqueness when you try to replicate the original. I said to Paul, 'I can't say you're wrong from a business standpoint. If that's what you want, maybe you should do it, but it's not something I want to be associated with. I'll leave.'"

"You have to understand," says Saginaw, "Ari is a guy who studies the history of orange marmalade. He has an emotional attachment to the product. He was afraid the coleslaw would be bad, and his name would be on the door. I said, 'Your name isn't on the door, and I don't care about the coleslaw. We can throw it out. But if you care so much about it, fine. We'll find another way.'"

That other way, however, proved frustratingly elusive. Saginaw and Weinzweig had no interest in pursuing acquisitions or moving to another location, and they knew of no alternative growth strategies for small companies like theirs. So they did a lot of reading, thinking, and talking -- meeting regularly to discuss their ideas at a picnic table next to the deli. They wrote vision statements and then rewrote them, soliciting input from people inside and outside the business. By 1994 the outlines of a grand design had emerged. The Zingerman's Community of Businesses was ready to be born.

Weinzweig and Saginaw envisioned a company comprising 12 to 15 separate businesses by 2009. Like Zingerman's Delicatessen and Zingerman's Bakehouse (which was already up and running), the new businesses would be small and located in the Ann Arbor area. Each would bear the Zingerman's name but would have its own specialty and identity. Each would have at least one managing partner who would work in the business and be an owner. Internal entrepreneurship would be encouraged and supported, but partnership would be open to outsiders as well. And whereas not every new company would be a food business, all would be designed to enhance the quality of food and service offered to Zingerman's customers and to improve the financial performance of ZCoB and its components. Initial funding would come from Weinzweig, Saginaw, and the new partners themselves, with the goal of reaching breakeven on a cash-flow basis as soon as possible.

"The key was having partners who were real owners," says Weinzweig. "We wanted the passion. We wanted people who had visions of their own. Otherwise, whatever we did would be mediocre, and the whole idea was to elevate the quality of each element of the company."

In the summer of 1994, Weinzweig and Saginaw presented their vision in a document titled "Zingerman's 2009: A Food Odyssey." It took the form of a long conversational letter from Weinzweig to the company's managers and employees. He wrote a similar letter to customers, whom he and Saginaw considered important members of the Zingerman's community.

Although the partners had prepared the groundwork carefully, their plans drew mixed reviews. Customers didn't understand why it was necessary to change a business they considered nearly perfect. Lawyers and accountants told the founders they were crazy to let the new partners have real stock and to run the new companies as separate businesses. But the most negative response came from Zingerman's managers, who voted with their feet. In the 18 months after the rollout, more than 80% left. "People had gotten comfortable," says Weinzweig. "We told them that we were going to have a significant culture change. It would be a lot like going back to a start-up. We'd have to work 90 hours a week again, and no one would be going home at 4 on Friday anymore. A lot of people didn't want to do that."

It was a tumultuous period, Emberling recalls. From her position as pastry manager at the bakery, she viewed the transformation of Zingerman's into ZCoB with misgivings. First came the establishment of the Zingerman's Service Network, or ZingNet, a central administrative unit that would provide marketing, finance, and human-resources services to the businesses. At about the same time, a CFO was hired who began asking for new financial reports from the bakery staff. Emberling feared that the company was becoming bureaucratic and impersonal. She also worried about the exodus of veteran managers, not to mention the various management experiments, some of which struck her as nutty.

"They started a deli council, with the staff voting on everything," she recalls. "I thought that was insane. How could 17-year-olds make decisions for the company? They knew nothing about the business."

Accustomed to operating autonomously, Emberling and her coworkers worried that the bakery might be expected to follow the deli's lead and play by its rules. "As a manufacturer, we were very into process, rigor, accuracy," she says. "The deli had a different style. We didn't see the value of being in the ZCoB with them. We just wanted the deli to buy our bread and pastries and leave us alone."

In 1996, Emberling left the company when her husband took a job in Denmark. In 2000, Frank Carollo, managing partner of the bakery, asked her to be his co-managing partner, and she returned to Ann Arbor with her family. "By the time I came back, it was a different company," she says. "They'd managed to implement ZCoB very well. There was a partners group that met regularly. And they'd done an incredible job of building a common culture. I don't know if they realized what they were doing when they did it, but they definitely got it right."

In her new role, Emberling not only makes bread and pastries but, as an owner, has major responsibility for the present and future success of the business. "I love it here," says Emberling. "I don't make as much money as the investment bankers I went to school with, but I make enough, and I'm never bored. We face the same questions that big companies face, without the stock-market worries, and there are so many interesting people to talk to. It's very stimulating and challenging."

There's a concept taught in ZingTrain's seminars concerning the mastery of a skill. When you know absolutely nothing about a skill, you are unconsciously incompetent -- that is, you don't know what you don't know. As you learn more, you become consciously incompetent: you know what you don't know. With training and practice you can become consciously competent, while total mastery makes you unconsciously competent, meaning that you use the skill so effortlessly that you're not even aware you're doing it.

Here's the kicker: in order to teach a skill, you have to go backward, from being unconsciously competent to being consciously competent. Until you can teach it, moreover, you don't really know what you know. That concept helps to explain the process Zingerman's went through that earned it a reputation for management equal to its reputation for food.

The catalyst was ZingTrain, which was launched in 1994. Over the years Zingerman's had received numerous consulting requests, mostly from other specialty-food retailers interested in emulating the deli's culinary acclaim and customer service. Maggie Bayless, ZingTrain's cofounder and original managing partner, wanted to offer training instead. "Rather than figure out what someone was doing wrong and trying to fix it, we'd show people what worked for us," she says. At the same time, ZingTrain would provide training for ZCoB managers and staff.

First, however, ZingTrain had to come up with the language to explain what Zingerman's did. That meant distilling various practices into easily understandable, and teachable, concepts and principles. "We already had the 3 Steps to Great Service," says Weinzweig, referring to a maxim applied at Zingerman's since its early days. "We just kept building from there." One by one, the handy rules of thumb emerged: the 5 Steps to Handling Customer Complaints, the 4 Steps to Order Accuracy, the 3 Steps to Great Finance, the 4 Steps to Productive Resolution of Differences, and on and on. Each rule was more a set of talking points than a rigid formula -- a way to get people to focus on a subject and remember it afterward. Some rules simply codified practices Zingerman's had been using for years. Others expressed management ideas that Weinzweig believed in but had never fully implemented. Still others were developed in response to issues that arose as the company evolved.

At some point you have to roll your eyes at the sheer number of rules. "Ari talks about the 18 Steps to Calming Amy Down," says Emberling. ("I guess I forgot to tell her the 8 Points of Talking to Journalists," says Weinzweig.) Yet each rule does contain a nugget of management wisdom. To give good service, after all, you really do have to "1. Figure out what the customer wants. 2. Get it for them -- accurately, politely, enthusiastically. 3. Go the extra mile." What's more, it's important for employees to know that.



"I sat there thinking, 'I don't have time for this. The cooler is broken, the staff is stretched thin, and Paul hauls me out to talk about 10 years from now?' But I had to admit, it was a real good question."

--Ari Weinzweig



Soon Weinzweig and his colleagues began applying the same thinking to more challenging and sophisticated aspects of management, such as leadership, training, and organizational development. A voracious reader of business books and a prolific writer, Weinzweig turned out long papers on Zingerman's application of concepts like stewardship and entrepreneurial management. He then worked with the ZingTrain partners to break down those concepts into a series of steps, points, and definitions, thereby turning ideas into management tools for both ZCoB's employees and ZingTrain's customers. "What we look for is elegant simplicity," he says.

Through that process, ZingTrain got a steady supply of material for its seminars, which began to fill up fairly regularly. ZingTrain's curriculum, in turn, had a huge effect on ZCoB itself. Employees who took the courses were challenged to wrestle with management philosophy in all its complexity. As people were baking bread, selling cheese, or making gelato, they were also studying business, not to mention the history and sociology of food, another part of the curriculum. As a result, the company became a kind of school -- the University of Zingerman's, people called it.

The result was a culture both intellectually stimulating and unifying. "All those three-step things really do work," says Emberling, "but they also gave us a language to talk to each other. Everyone in the different businesses had the same vocabulary, which helped create the culture in the community as a whole."

Other factors also contributed to a common culture. The deli, for example, had long used distinctive lettering and cartoons on its signs and printed material. Following the formation of ZCoB, those design elements were standardized across the businesses to ensure they all had the same look and feel. "The more common themes you have throughout, the more effectively you can build the community," says Weinzweig. "We want to leave a lot of flexibility while providing enough structure for people to be successful. That way, the ZCoB doesn't become a collection of businesses that have nothing in common but ownership."

Much has changed at Zingerman's in 10 years. The company has been adding businesses at the rate of about one every 18 months, and the pace shows no signs of slackening. Altogether the businesses employ 334 people, up from about 125 in 1994, when the company consisted of just the deli and the bakery. With the new businesses have come new partners, new language, and new opportunities for employees, as well as energy, passion, and excitement that was missing a decade ago. That was, of course, what Weinzweig and Saginaw had in mind. A little more than halfway to 2009 it appears likely that the company will meet the goals laid out in its 1994 vision statement.

Yet for all the changes, what is most striking is how much Zingerman's has remained the same. It's still a local, independently owned business with extraordinarily close ties to Ann Arbor and its environs. Last year, on the 20th anniversary of the company's founding, 13 local not-for-profit organizations put up a giant plaque next to the Zingerman's Delicatessen saying, "Thank you for feeding, sheltering, educating, uplifting, and inspiring an entire community." One organization, Food Gatherers, was actually started by Zingerman's in 1988. "We don't like to advertise our work with nonprofits," says Saginaw, "but it's fair to say this would be a different community if we didn't do what we do."

Meanwhile, food critics keep raving about Zingerman's, and the raves are often for products and services coming from the new companies -- bread from the bakery, cream cheese from the creamery, and just about everything from the mail-order house. Both Zingerman's Bakehouse and Zingerman's Mail Order have received industry recognition.

Inside the company, questions about the future remain, but they seem to be manageable. "We've realized the value of living with ambiguity," says Emberling. "When something comes up, it's not always clear what the right answer is. You just have to go with the process and have faith. Mutual trust and respect play a big role. You have to operate in a world of integrity. There's a lot of integrity in this company at all levels -- from the financial statements to the croissants."

That integrity and resilience will surely be tested in the years to come. Although Zingerman's has always been profitable on an operating basis, its margins have been squeezed recently by, among other things, a change of management at the deli and the expense of launching the new businesses. "There's no reason we can't earn 10% profit before tax," says Ron Maurer, "but it won't be easy. The question is, How far can we go without damaging the culture?" Right now the company has a goal of donating at least 10% of its operating profit to charitable causes, which is laudable, but it can't help affecting financial performance.

Then there's the problem of generating the cash that will be needed to buy back the stock of departing partners. All the partners say that they're not going anytime soon, but the day will come. As for the founders, "currently, our exit strategy is to die," says Saginaw.

The company could, of course, be sold. Weinzweig notes that the Zingerman's brand could be very valuable if, say, a major grocery-store chain wanted to set up its own specialty-foods department or subsidiary. But he isn't interested in going that route. "People keep badgering me about an exit strategy," he says. "But I don't want to get out. We've been in business for 20 years, and I look forward to coming to work even more now than I did in the beginning. I'm having more fun, and I'm more at peace with the realities of life. So why should I leave?"

He pauses and flashes a lapsed-anarchist smile. "Success means you're going to have better problems," he says. "I'm very happy with the problems I have now."

Bo Burlingham is Inc's editor-at-large. He is also the author, with Jack Stack, of The Great Game of Business and A Stake in the Outcome.


History in the Baking


1982 Zingerman's Delicatessen offers "flavorful, traditionally made foods...in an entertaining, educational, and service-oriented setting"

1992 Zingerman's Bakehouse produces baked breads and pastries for the deli and other customers

1994 Zingerman's Training Inc. shares Zingerman's expertise in training, service, merchandising, specialty foods, and staff management with the public and ZCoB members

1996 Zingerman's Mail Order sends foods across the country and around the world

1998 Zingerman's Catering provides food for small parties and large events

1999 www.Zingermans.com allows customers to buy Zingerman's products on-line

2001 Zingerman's Creamery produces handcrafted fresh cheeses, gelato, and other dairy products for the deli and other customers

2004 Zingerman's Roadhouse features a menu of American regional cooking

TBA Mexican Restaurant (name and opening date not set)


Please E-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Added On: Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Heart of a Company

The birth of a seriously ill child set Kenny Kramm on a course from ordinary guy to extraordinary entrepreneur.

Of all the motivations for launching a business, love and fear may be the most powerful.

Kenny Kramm, a slight, gentle-spoken man of almost preternatural calm, is the founder and CEO of $5.7 million FlavorX Inc., a fast-growing company based in Bethesda, Md. But not so long ago, the only thing Kramm wanted to start was a family. By 1992 he was married to his college sweetheart, with a three-year-old daughter and a second child on the way. After a stint on the creative side of advertising had left him feeling dissatisfied and vaguely unclean, Kramm had sought refuge in the family business, a cozy, old-fashioned pharmacy that he expected one day to inherit. There he labored comfortably alongside his parents, working the counter and passing the time of day with the store's mostly elderly clientele, much as he had done growing up.

At age 29, Kramm had never so much as toyed with the idea of starting a company. What's more, he possessed a trait incompatible with entrepreneurship: He was perfectly content with his life the way it was. "It wasn't the kind of life you would read about in Inc.," says Kramm. "But it was good."

Back then, the only thing troubling Kramm was his unborn child. Though she was now healthy, his first child, Sarah, had been born two months early, blue and not breathing. During her second pregnancy his wife, Shelley, developed toxemia; the couple awaited the new baby's birth with trepidation. On February 6, 1992, Hadley Kramm was born at 28 weeks, weighing 3 pounds, 10 ounces. Still, "she was fine," says Kramm. "She had an Apgar score of 10. We were so relieved. We thought it would be okay."

But when she was 10 days old, Hadley -- still in the hospital because of her weight -- stopped eating. Her skin mottled. The Kramms haunted the hospital corridors by day, spending fretful evenings at home with Sarah. They alternately summoned hope and dismissed it as a dangerous luxury. Then "we got the call," says Kramm.

Obeying the summons, the Kramms rushed to the hospital. There "the resident led us into the NICU carrying a flashlight because it was the middle of the night," recalls Kramm. "He shined it on Hadley, and her eyes were rolled back in her head." The resident insisted it wasn't a seizure, and so did other residents who attended Kramm's daughter during that long President's Day weekend. "They said it was just 'seizurelike activity,' and it went on for three days. Three days," says Kramm. Finally, on Tuesday, a physician confirmed that yes, Hadley was experiencing seizures and needed immediate treatment. She should have had it days earlier.

Kramm believes his daughter's seizures may have resulted from a massive brain hemorrhage caused when she was given asthma medicine by mistake. (The hospital denied responsibility, the Kramms say. They also say they were too exhausted and demoralized to sue.) Whatever the culprit, the damage was extensive and irreparable. Hadley's life would thereafter be defined by a long list of debilitating ailments, the most serious of which were continual seizures, a blood-clotting disorder, and cerebral palsy. She would need help with some of the most basic functions for the rest of her life: She might never live on her own. "When you have a baby you have boundless hopes for them," says Kramm. "All we could do was ask, what is the best we can hope for? Will she be able to walk? Will she talk?"

For many families the introduction of a child so disabled is not a single shattering event but rather the beginning of a lifetime of fraying relationships, periodic despair, and shuttered possibilities. It could have gone that way for the Kramms. Instead, Kenny Kramm mustered the energy -- even at his life's emotional ebb -- to begin a venture that far exceeded his earlier ambitions. Driven to take back some control of his family's future, he launched a company that is both inspired by and intended to financially secure his daughter Hadley.

FlavorX Inc., which flavors liquid medicines for children, is a family business because it leverages the diverse talents of Hadley's extended clan. But it is also a family business because it helped save a family.

As a pharmacy technician, Kramm knew young children hated swallowing medicine, but it had never seemed like an earth-shaking problem. Hadley made it one. Home from the hospital, his infant daughter balked at the four daily doses of phenobarbital she needed to prevent grand mal seizures that deprived her brain of oxygen. "She would clamp her mouth shut and you couldn't get it open," says Kramm. "If you did get it open, she'd hold the medicine in her mouth for half an hour until she'd start crying and it would come out all over her. That was worse because we didn't know how much she'd gotten, and we were afraid of giving her more in case she got too much." The Kramms erred on the side of undermedication, and as a result Hadley's seizures continued, sending her to the emergency room over and over again. "After two or three months we decided we couldn't function like that," says Kramm.

Then one day in May, Kramm's father, Harold, suggested sweetening Hadley's phenobarbital with flavorings used by candy manufacturers. When the pharmacy shut its doors on those warm evenings in late spring, father and son would repair to a small counter in the back of the store and stand there for hours, mixing the medicine with varying amounts of whatever flavors they could get their hands on. They experimented with cherry, wintergreen, grape, peppermint, and cinnamon: Kramm would taste each by taking a bit on his fingertip and touching it to his tongue, then rinsing his mouth with water.

The combinations that Kramm deemed most successful he carried home to Hadley in diminutive dosing cups. "She rejected at least 10 before she finally accepted banana," he says. "When she swallowed it, that was the first time in months that I felt I had some control back in my life."

Center Pharmacy, which is in Spring Valley in Washington, D.C., shares a building with several pediatricians' offices and an annex of Children's Hospital. Word of the Kramms' success with phenobarbital spread, and soon their neighbors began sending down patients with all kinds of prescriptions to be filled and flavored: everyday children's antibiotics, as well as medicines for more serious conditions, like phenytoin for seizures and digoxin for heart arrhythmia. As more and more customers requested the flavorings, Kramm, who had been a business major, saw an opportunity to increase sales with a distinctive offering. And the notion of helping children was therapeutic, since he could do so little for the one child that mattered to him most.

Kramm recognized immediately that variety was key to the new offering's appeal. So he used some of the store's young customers as a focus group to test flavor combinations. Does sour apple clash with Zarontin? Wouldn't mixing chocolate and Biaxin only make matters worse? He continued to taste-test every concoction himself and began compiling a formulary of optimum drug and flavor recipes. In each case, the amount of flavoring had to be carefully controlled so it wouldn't dilute or destabilize the medicine. (The flavorings -- all commercial products -- were already approved by the FDA.)

Center Pharmacy, which started life in a nursing home, had always catered to elderly customers. But after Kramm placed an ad touting the flavoring service in the Washington Post, parents and their finicky offspring swarmed the pocket-sized pharmacy from as far as 25 miles away. The Kramms began stocking toys and other child-related products. Within a few years, the clientele changed from 90% geriatric to 90% pediatric. Meanwhile, the pharmacy's sales overall jumped from $600,000 to $3 million.


"When you have a baby, you have boundless hopes for them. All we could do was ask, will she talk?"

But that growth only partly salved the anxiety that Kramm felt as he watched his personal expenses mount. At the pharmacy, he was making $70,000 a year. What with medications (Hadley routinely took at least four, including ones for seizures and blood clots), operations (she needed surgery every two years because her muscles became so rigid that her feet turned in), various therapists, special equipment, and modifications to their home, the family was spending as much as $100,000 a year on Hadley alone.

Kramm and his wife worried obsessively about what would happen to their daughter after they died. "I couldn't bear the thought of her unable to support and defend herself, at the mercy of people that did not love her," says Kramm. "We needed enough money to make sure she would be taken care of for the rest of her life."

Though Center Pharmacy was solid, Kramm also fretted about its future. Huge chains such as CVS, Rite Aid, and Kroger were swallowing up or driving out smaller stores, while third-party reimbursements were spiraling downward, taking a further toll on independents. "We'd seen some of our friends go out of business," says Kramm. "I wanted a backup plan in case something happened to the pharmacy."


FlavorX is a family business because it leverages the diverse talents of Hadley's extended clan.

So in 1995 Kramm took $15,000 from his personal savings and a little more than $200,000 that his father gave him from the pharmacy's profits, and launched FlavorX as an independent company. It would sell its "systems" -- consisting of the formulary and refillable sets of flavorings -- to other pharmacies. "It was a risky thing to do because we had such large expenses at the time," says Kramm. "But those expenses were only going to get larger. We had to make it work."

Center Pharmacy is a curious seedbed for an innovative, fast-growth company. The 36-year-old neighborhood business is comfortably old-fashioned, competing on personal service rather than price. Staff and customers are on a first-name basis, home deliveries are common, and the Kramms themselves will drive to other pharmacies to pick up something for a customer if they're out of stock. They even give out their home phone numbers. "I can remember many instances," says Kramm, "when my dad would get called out in the middle of the night because a hospice patient needed a pain medication or somebody had some other emergency."

From a very young age Kramm helped out in the store, sliding fliers into envelopes, pasting price stickers on bottles of laxatives, whatever needed doing. Over the years he had absorbed his father's philosophy that having a family business is less about passing on than about pitching in. Consequently, there was no question in the entrepreneur's mind that his father would do more than just bankroll the new company. Kenny Kramm possessed business and marketing skills. But Harold Kramm understood the technical details of compounding -- the practice of customizing medicines to meet individual needs. A pharmacist himself, he knew the target market as well as anyone.

The only problem: Harold Kramm was as comfortably old-fashioned as his business. Impressed by what the flavoring service had done for Center's bottom line, he saw no need for the service -- or Kenny -- to ever outgrow the store. His son argued that it was time. They'd put in three years of development on the product and had 50 pages of flavor and medicine combinations in their formulary. (That number has now risen to more than 500 pages.) They could make life better for millions of children instead of the few hundred who patronized the store.

And, if it worked, they'd be helping Hadley. "All my decisions, at that time and since, were influenced by Hadley's situation," says Kenny Kramm. Slow growth was not an option: He wanted financial security and he wanted it soon. "I felt I had to accomplish my goals as quickly as possible," he explains. "That made me much more aggressive than may have been natural to me."

The issue came to a head in the summer of 1995. The National Association of Retail Druggists was meeting in Las Vegas, and Kenny Kramm saw the conference as the perfect opportunity to test the concept's acceptance. Harold, by contrast, saw it as "a waste of time and money," says his son. But, in a rare instance, Kenny's entrepreneurial instincts overrode his filial ones. "I told him he could either join me or I would go alone," Kenny recalls. At the conference, FlavorX's no-frills booth attracted long lines, and the embryonic company signed up its first 20 accounts. Harold was convinced, and "I guess for the first time I really was too," says Kenny.

But the real battle -- or what passes for a battle in such a polite, soft-spoken clan -- erupted when Kenny Kramm suggested FlavorX sell its system to chain stores. In Harold's eyes, it was a deal with the devil. "My father is not a fan of the chains," says Kenny. "When we started, all he wanted to do was help his granddaughter, but in the first two years something like 5,000 independent pharmacies went under. As one of the survivors, he wanted to do something for the other survivors."

Bowing to his father's wishes, for three years Kenny Kramm sold exclusively to independent pharmacies, touting his product as a sling to wield against Goliath. "We actually turned down the chains -- it was stupid, stupid, really stupid," he says. "I didn't want to upset my father and I didn't want to be screamed at by our independent customers for selling out. But the independents were going out of business, and I didn't want the company to die because I made a bad decision."

So in 1999 Kramm, whose confidence had been growing along with his company's sales, decided to target the behemoths with or without his father's blessing. To make it easier on his father he began with a local chain -- Giant, now owned by Royal Ahold -- dragging Harold along to meetings with their new customer. "My father had watched Giant grow, which made it easier to get used to the idea," says Kramm. "And when he saw that we sold 150 sets in one hour, it started to make sense to him."

Standing beside his son, Harold Kramm -- still dapper at 73 -- shrugs gently. "At least the independents had a few years to get it established," he says.

The son's strategy is paying off: FlavorX has grown at a five-year rate of 786%, landing on the Inc. 500 list in 2002; it's been profitable every year but one. "Kenny has made this thing into something so much bigger than I had ever imagined it could be," says Harold Kramm. "He is a very talented boy."

FlavorX moved out of the Center Pharmacy building in 1998, but it didn't go very far: The company's headquarters are just five miles away from the family business. The two places are even closer in spirit, displaying on their walls some of the same snapshots, mottoes, and posters, including one proclaiming 14-year-old Sarah's anointment as Miss Teen USA for Maryland. Kramm's office is a gallery of portrait-sized family photos and homemade artworks. ("Hadley does a lot of handprints," says the CEO.) On his desk rests a memo pad emblazoned with childish drawings of one girl in a wheelchair and another clutching a shopping bag. "From the Dad of Sarah and Hadley" reads the legend across the top.

Today the dad of Sarah and Hadley is conferring with the uncle of Sarah and Hadley -- a.k.a. Woody Neiss, the company's chief financial officer and Shelley Kramm's youngest brother. Neiss, who four years ago left a well-paying job at PeopleSoft to enlist in the family mission, has just returned from a three-day trip to Australia, where he accepted the Thomas Alva Edison Award for Innovation from the Young Entrepreneurs Organization. The trophy -- a century-old phonograph, one of the originals peddled by Edison's company -- is fragile and bulky and clocks in at 60 pounds. Neiss carted it home on the plane himself so he could present it to FlavorX's 40 employees at the Monday-morning staff meeting. "I couldn't wait," he says gleefully.


"All of my decisions, at that time and since, were influenced by Hadley's situation. That made me much more aggressive."

What makes the FlaxorX model innovative is not the idea of flavoring medicine -- a practice that has been applied, unsystematically, by other pharmacists in the past -- but the idea of choice. Children are able to select from a menu of 42 flavors. The options include such appealing flavorings as strawberry cream, root beer, and chocolate silk pie; pharmacists pipette in the recommended amount. "Choosing their own flavors makes the process fun, and once the child has made the choice, he's invested in it and is much more likely to take the whole prescription," says Kramm. "He'll take it even if tastes crappy because he doesn't want to admit to his mother he was wrong."

Stores pay on average $800 to $1,000 each to join the program, which gets them the 556-page formulary, in-store marketing materials, and a rack of small glass vials filled with plummy-purple grape and pearly peaches 'n' cream. Refills cost about $10 a bottle. "We're like Gillette," says Neiss. "We make our money off the reorders."

The company has been expanding its line: In 1999 it introduced flavorings for veterinary medications (Kramm tastes all those too), and it's developing pour-on flavors for special-diet dog and cat food. In the human realm FlavorX recently launched PediaPop -- a lickable, flavored electrolyte replenisher for kids with diarrhea. Far more ambitiously, Kramm and Neiss are talking with a small drug company about creating a branded line of over-the-counter medicines that would apply the Baskin Robbins methodology to off-patent medicines. "We would label it FlavorX acetaminophen, for example, and with each bottle there would be different flavor packets you could buy," says Neiss, an animated guy who is caf to Kramm's decaf. "You could just pick a packet off the rack and add it yourself."


"It would be silly to sell when we're at this high-growth stage. Right now the grand scheme is to go public in two to four years."

FlavorX runs lean, generally developing new products with deeper-pocketed pharmaceutical companies. The company also outsources manufacturing and deploys a young, chiefly part-time sales force to talk up the brand among doctors, who in turn urge pharmacies to buy the systems.

Only one area is impervious to economies: testing, on which the company has spent more than $1 million. Beyond ensuring safety, testing is an important barrier to entry that protects Kramm's company from competitors who might want to copy its model. "Each flavor has to be tested with each medication, and there are more than 400 medications, so it's a huge hurdle for any start-up," says Kramm.

The company's brand equity and proprietary formulas, as well as the scientific validation meant to intimidate would-be competitors, make FlavorX an attractive acquisition target. "I get calls once a month or so from someone asking if we're interested in selling," says Neiss. "But we're building so much value in the company that it would be silly to sell when we're at this high-growth stage. Right now, the grand scheme is to go public. Hopefully in two to four years. Hopefully."

Once a boutique service in a single store, FlavorX is now offered in about 10,000 chain pharmacies, 1,500 independents, and 300 hospitals. The progress of the company's human inspiration has been less sure. At age 11, Hadley Kramm can say barely 30 words, uses a walker or wheelchair, requires support to sit up, and still wears diapers. "Hopefully, by the time she's 12 she'll be potty trained," says Kramm. He pauses. "I never thought I'd be saying that. 'By the time my child is 12 she'll be potty trained.'"

Hadley's disabilities have had little effect on her Audrey Hepburn looks: elfin, silky-browed, with the tender vulnerability of beauty easily bruised. At the Kramm home on a March afternoon, she is dressed in a diaphanous red top, pink-trimmed sneakers, and blue jeans that barely crease as she totters stiff-legged across the playroom floor, her thin hands clutching the back of a chair. "Say your name, Hadley," Kramm coaxes his daughter. Gamely, Hadley pushes out the h, but the rest of the word collapses into a plaintive sound too tenuous to be called a sigh.

The playroom, like other parts of the Kramm home, is a riot of toys and books -- they are heaped in boxes, piled on shelves, cascading from baskets that hang from the ceiling. "We want to keep Hadley stimulated, and you have to buy a lot of toys to find one she'll respond to," says Kramm. "And we're always buying things for Sarah to make up for ... the lack.... " He pauses. "I know we probably shouldn't do that," he says finally. (For the record, Sarah shows no sign of having suffered from a lack of anything. Upstairs she is on the phone, rattling on euphorically about the modeling agency with which she has just signed.)

Toys are the least of the family's expenses. The Kramms just moved into a larger home so Hadley could have a room on the first floor. ("She's getting too big to carry up the stairs," says Kramm.) They have many modifications planned: a ramp to the front door, a bathroom equipped with a transfer station so Hadley can get out of her wheelchair and into the shower, lower counters, rails along some walls, wider doorways. The 11-year-old is outgrowing her two $4,000 wheelchairs and will soon need another. And her parents have ordered a special adaptive bicycle to help develop her legs, which, until recently, she had never used.

Then there are the specialists. The Kramms employ a full-time au pair and a roster of therapists -- occupational, physical, speech. Hadley has also had multiple operations, including several to treat her hypertonia, which causes her muscles to grow rigid. "It looks like she's smiling about something," explains Kramm, referring to a grin that seems unwilling to stop at Hadley's ears. "But really, the muscles are all tightened in her face. She can't stop."

But just because the smile isn't real doesn't mean Hadley's not happy. Kramm thinks she is, and he means to keep her that way. How much money will that ultimately take? "I have no idea," he says. "Millions. It would probably take millions for me to feel comfortable that she will be taken care of."

Even as Kramm waits for the security he craves, FlavorX performs an important psychic function for all the members of its founding family. "This company has been my salvation," says Kramm. "It's let us all respond to the situation in ways that draw on our strengths and that aren't about wallowing in depression or giving up. It's put something positive into our lives."

Leigh Buchanan is a senior editor at Inc.


Hadley's Other Legacy

Like her husband, Shelley Kramm went through a dark time after Hadley's diagnosis, suffering from panic attacks and depression. But unlike her husband with his budding enterprise, she had no source of distraction, no mental sanctuary where she could still be in control. "I saw what Kenny was doing and I supported him all the way, but I also wanted something for myself," she says. "Only I didn't know what."

The answer came on a spring day in 1995 during a visit to a local playground. "Sarah ran to this pumpkin coach and started climbing on it," Shelley Kramm recalls. "I looked around and realized there wasn't a single thing in the whole park that Hadley could play on, or where Sarah and Hadley could interact. So Hadley and I went and sat down on the side and watched Sarah. And I looked at Hadley and she was crying. She understood."

That was the beginning of Hadley's Park Inc., a nonprofit that designs and builds playgrounds equally accessible to children with and without disabilities. Shelley Kramm, a former interior designer with no experience running an organization or raising money outside the parameters of a bake sale, persuaded Montgomery County, Md., to donate an acre of land and raised $1 million from individuals, corporations, grants, and the government. To get ideas for the park she talked to physicians, therapists, and parents of disabled children, and enlisted Sarah's Brownie troop in a yearlong study of disabilities.

The first Hadley's Park went up in 1996, in the family's hometown of Potomac. It has ramps leading up to a pirate ship, and a transfer station to help children move from their wheelchairs into a castle or a frontier village. The swings have backs to support riders with no upper body strength; many signs are in Braille, and the soft, springy ground is surfaced with recycled tires. "I don't want people to have to deal with wood chips and barriers and beams," says Shelley Kramm. "This is supposed to be common ground."

Today there are five Hadley's Parks in the Washington area and 15 more in development around the country. And while the venture does nothing to bolster the Kramms' finances, it has done as much as FlavorX to heal the family's spirit, to keep it whole. "So many people in situations like this, their marriage has taken a blow," says Shelley Kramm. "I think all those hours Kenny and I stayed up late talking about our projects, talking about what we were going to do, that was the make or break point for us."

"And we didn't break," says her husband. "So now we're making something."


Please E-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Building a Marketing Juggernaut

How did Aquascape's Greg Wittstock--the "Pond Nazi" to his rivals--get so successful so quickly? One key reason: He created an army of loyal customers by teaching them how to make money.

Clyde Wilson, who owns a 14-year-old landscaping business in Bracey, Va., didn't know much about Aquascape Designs Inc. until last January, when his wife insisted he attend a two-day seminar in a nearby city. Her reason was straightforward: She was scared. Their company had lost so much money in 2002 that they'd had to borrow $65,000 to get through the winter. They clearly needed to do something different, and Aquascape, which designs and sells pond-building supplies, was promoting its seminar as a chance for landscapers to learn how to succeed in the pond business. Whether or not pond-building proved to be their salvation, Mrs. Wilson hoped her husband would pick up some profitable ideas.

It was on the second day of the seminar that Wilson had his revelation. It came in the form of a simple formula he could use to figure out how long it would take his business to reach the breakeven point in any given year (see "Are You on Track to Break Even?" page 67). As soon as he got home, Wilson and his wife plugged in their numbers and discovered that they would need 540 days to break even in 2003. "Omigod," Wilson thought, "we're going out of business." But the formula also gave him hope--by making him more aware of his gross margins. Clearly, his prices were too low. A $300 lawn-cutting contract, for example, should have been $400; a $50 contract for delivering mulch should have been $150. So he raised his rates, and most customers paid them without complaint. In July, Wilson's wife sent him back to school, this time to attend Aquascape's third annual Pond College in St. Charles, Ill. By then, he'd improved his overall gross margin from 6% to 35% and was on track to break even by August 10. At the Pond College, he lost no time in seeking out Greg Wittstock, Aquascape's 33-year-old founder, owner, and CEO. Wilson just wanted to thank the man. "If I hadn't gone to that seminar," Wilson told Wittstock, "I wouldn't be here today. I'd be out looking for a job."

Chances are you're not familiar with the pond industry. You may not even know it exists. But exist it does, with sales of $1.4 billion a year and growing, and its driving force is the company Wittstock started in 1990 when he was still an undergraduate at Ohio State University. Today, Aquascape has 130 employees, 35,000 customers, and $44 million in annual sales. It has been on the Inc. 500 list three times, and its ponds have been installed all over the United States and Canada, as well as in parts of Europe and South America. Most important, it has built an army of loyal customers--mainly independent landscape contractors and pond-supply distributors--who gather every July at a resort near the company's headquarters in Batavia, Ill., to learn, network, and celebrate the joy of ponds. This year's event was a weeklong extravaganza called Pond-erosa--not to be confused with Pondapalooza, the industry trade show that took place two weeks later in Atlanta--and included both the Pond College and the 11th annual Parade of Ponds.

Ponds are, in fact, more than a business to the Aquascape crowd. They are a passion and a calling, and no one is more passionate about them than Wittstock, who is also known as the Pond Guy--a name he has trademarked--and who is an intense, athletic, notoriously volatile, utterly ingenuous former fullback on his state champion high school football team. "My philosophy is that everyone wants a pond," he says. "A lot of people just don't know it yet."

That's a situation he intends to rectify. One of his current projects involves placing pond kiosks in malls around the country. He displayed a prototype at this year's Pond College. "How 'bout that sucker, huh?" he asked the assembled throng, looking and sounding more like an overgrown Bart Simpson than the CEO of a company that has revolutionized its industry. "Do you think we can take ponds mainstream with this? We're going to educate the masses, man! That's what's so awesomely cool about malls!"

By and large, Wittstock's employees share his enthusiasm, and he is venerated by his customers. But, as devoted as his followers are, Wittstock is an object of fear and loathing in the rest of the industry, where people refer to him as the Pond Nazi, call his company "the Dark Side," and regard the Aquascape empire as a cult-like phenomenon. "He's very egotistical, extremely aggressive, and incredibly intolerant of any views that deviate from his own," says one of his industry adversaries. "He looks at business as war. In his own company, he's a tyrant, yet he has this loyal following. That's the cult aspect." Wittstock is even shunned by his father, Gary, who used to be his partner and is now his competitor.

Some of the hostility is related to Aquascape's controversial pond-building methodology, which aims to create a natural eco-system that can keep water clear without the use of chemicals or ultraviolet light. When Wittstock began marketing the system aggressively in the mid-1990s, he raised hackles in the industry because his approach broke many of the rules of conventional pond-building. Wittstock responded by suggesting that promoters of other pond-building techniques were, at best, morons who didn't know what they were doing or, at worst, charlatans who were ripping off their customers. That didn't go over well in the small, collegial world of ponds, where people hold deep convictions about, for example, whether a Japanese koi fish prefers a gravel or cement bottom.

Fear is also a factor--especially now that Aquascape has moved beyond its original niche of contractor-built ponds and begun targeting the do-it-yourselfers who constitute more than 85% of the market. On the surface, the two market segments are very different, at least from a pricing standpoint. Contractor-built ponds start at about $3,500 for a small backyard job and can run to more than $500,000 for a two-acre commercial project with stepped waterfalls cascading into pools. Do-it-yourself pond kits, on the other hand, sell for as little as $200. But no one is underestimating Wittstock's ability to do for the latter market what he's done for the former. "Aquascape has turned itself into a marketing juggernaut," says Steve Stroupe, an industry consultant and independent sales rep, as well as one of the few people in the pond world who has maintained personal and business relations with the various factions. "Greg is creating such a hypercompetitive environment that only the strongest will survive."

The intriguing part is how he's done it. Virtually all of Aquascape's marketing involves teaching other people--and other companies--how to make money in the pond businesss. Indeed, the entire organization is set up to provide customers with whatever information, education, products, marketing materials, and technical support they need to have successful businesses of their own. Granted, Wittstock's motives are hardly altruistic--like any supplier, Aquascape stands to be a prime beneficiary of its customers' success--but the company goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the contractors, garden centers, and wholesalers it does business with earn a profit on ponds.

"You want to know what this is?" Wittstock asked his audience at the Pond College. "We're a franchise business without the franchise fee." More to the point, Aquascape is a franchise business without a franchise agreement. Contractors are under no legal obligation to use the Aquascape pond-building materials on which the company makes its money. While Aquascape does charge for its seminars, magazines, books, videos, and marketing materials, they are not a major profit source. But what's to stop a contractor from taking advantage of the training programs and then buying less expensive pond supplies from one of Aquascape's competitors? The answer is, nothing--or at least nothing in the form of a binding contract. Some pond-builders do, in fact, go to the seminars, buy the books and videos, use the marketing materials, and purchase the big-ticket items elsewhere. Those people are a distinct minority, however, and their defections have had no discernible impact on Aquascape's meteoric growth.

Clearly, Wittstock has figured out something about marketing in the information age, and you don't have to be in the pond business to wonder what it is.

"If you want to keep motivated employees around," Wittstock tells his seminar audience, "there's no better way than to teach them the Financials.

On a slow winter day in Raleigh, N.C., about 20 landscape contractors have gathered in a hotel conference room for a two-day course in pond-building. This particular session focuses on the importance of doing breakeven analysis and sharing the information with employees. Leading the seminar is Ed Beaulieu (pronounced buh-LOO), a zoologist turned pond-builder who is Aquascape's vice president of construction. A lean and laid-back fellow with a shaved head, a mustache, and a goatee, he takes the group through the process of calculating breakeven and explains the energizing effect that knowledge of the numbers has had on the members of his work crew.

Greg Wittstock sits quietly in the back row, listening, watching. He used to run these sessions himself, although they were different back then, focusing more on pond construction and less on the business. He did the first tour in 1996, hitting 19 cities around the country. The next year, he upped the total to 43 cities and, the year after, to 57. He was on the road for three straight months in 1998, secretly loving it while complaining mightily to his fiancée, Carla, who wanted him to stop. Once they were married, Wittstock turned the tours over to other people in the company. But he still shows up occasionally, and you can see him wrestling with the urge to jump back in.

Now, in Raleigh, he gets out of his chair and starts walking around. When he sits down again, he's in the first row. As Beaulieu finishes his presentation, Wittstock decides to challenge the audience. "I want to know how you're going to apply all this," he says. "How many of you are going to go back and share this with the people who work for you?" Three or four hands go up. Beaulieu points out that opening the books doesn't mean you have to talk about individual salaries with employees. "Yes, you can," Wittstock cuts in. "You can ask them, 'How much do you want to make?' $40,000 a year? No problem. We just have to do another $300,000 in sales....And maybe they'll start telling you ideas: 'Here's how we can cut 2% of expenses.'" His face is lit up. He stabs the air with his finger. "And guess what? Kaboom! They're thinking like owners!"

All eyes are riveted to him. His body is tense. He holds out his hand, palm up, fingers raised and taut, as if he's literally grabbing the attention of the people in the room. "Think about the questions you have on this...because we've done it, man! I've seen the power that it's had with our employees!"

Wittstock sits back down, and Beaulieu begins to talk about how he uses the breakeven formula with his crew. "Tell them about hiring," Wittstock says. Beaulieu explains how he and his crew use the formula to decide whether to hire additional people. "And then they vote!" says Wittstock. "The employees vote!" They can make the decision, Beaulieu says, because they know how many more ponds they'll have to build to cover the cost of an extra person.

"And what happened before?" Wittstock asks, rising from his chair again. "Every employee said, 'We're overworked. Hire somebody else.' Does hiring someone else affect their salary? It sure does, because there's only so much to go around. But did they think that way? So now, with this, do you get better buy-in? Are they complaining less? Is that valuable to you? Are motivated employees tough to find? If you want to keep motivated employees around, there's no better way than to teach them the financials. Because all of sudden you're not a crook! Everybody's part of the same team!"

Wittstock was not always so passionate about the numbers. He started out as a contractor, after all, and--like most contractors--he let someone else handle the finances. Then, in 2000, he attended a seminar given by Charles Vander Kooi, a Colorado-based consultant to the landscape industry, who spoke about the mistakes people make in estimating their costs and the trouble they can get into as a result. He gave the example of a snowplowing company charging $50 for a job that actually cost the business $60 by the time the overhead expenses were factored in.

Vander Kooi's talk struck a chord with Wittstock. He kicked the idea around with other people in the company, and eventually they came up with their own approach to breakeven analysis, one simple enough to be easily grasped by the pond-building crew. Among other things, the system allowed the employees to figure out how many ponds they needed to build each week to hit their breakeven point by a given date. After breakeven a portion of every sales dollar goes to net profit, and Wittstock agreed to split that portion between the company and the crew members, meaning that each employee stood to benefit financially by reaching breakeven as soon as possible.

Overnight, the psychology of the crew was transformed. Employees began taking better care of the equipment, and they made sure they had everything they needed when they showed up at a job site. Meanwhile, morale soared. Brian Helfrich, a foreman, admits that he'd been thinking about leaving Aquascape to start his own pond-building business until he got the financial message. "This is the one thing that completely changed the way I look at Aquascape and every other company," he says.

Yet, as effective as the breakeven formula was, Wittstock and Beaulieu did not think about including it in the seminar curriculum until last year, after Aquascape's largest customer got into trouble paying its bills. Beaulieu had tried to help the customer straighten out its finances and quickly realized that it was barely breaking even on the sale of ponds, despite having an overall gross margin of more than 40%. Evidently the owner, though a good salesman, had no idea how to make sure his company earned a profit.

That discovery was a wake-up call for Wittstock, Beaulieu, and the other people involved in customer training and education. If their best customer--a company they'd held up as a role model--didn't know how to make money, what about the rest of their market? They decided to expand the seminar from one day to two and to include basic business training, but the trainers' first attempt at teaching the financials was a bust, mainly because they tried to do too much. Afterward, they agreed that they had to simplify the financial information and focus on the breakeven formula. The simplified program, introduced at the next seminar, was an instant success. Asked to name his favorite part of the program, one contractor wrote on a comment card: "Financials. The breakeven concept. Wow! My eyes are open." And his least favorite? "Financials. Thinking about the amount of lost time and money."

Wittstock likes to explain Aquascape's success by saying, "We're pond guys, not engineers." The comment is a not-so-subtle swipe at his father, an engineer, but it contains more than a kernel of truth. To Wittstock, the products are secondary, a means to an end. The pond's the thing, and Aquascape's hallmark has been its ability to simplify every aspect of the business--from financial management to construction. The simpler Wittstock can make the process, the easier it will be for people to follow the instructions, meaning more ponds will get built.

Wittstock had already done a lot of simplifying by the time he rolled out his pond-building system in the mid-1990s. With his approach, he claimed, a contractor could build in one day a pond that others took three weeks to install. At the heart of his system--which hasn't changed much since then--is what he calls the 20/20 rule. Any pond of any size, he says, can be constructed with the same 20 components assembled in the same 20 steps. The components include everything from the stones around the waterfall to the glue for attaching the flexible plastic pipe to the filter. The steps run from "Mark pond area" to "Get paid." It's all there, and always the same. To be sure, the size of the components will vary from pond to pond; different ponds will have different designs, based on the geography of the space and the desires of the pond owner; and complex ponds will take more time to build than simple ones. But the process doesn't change, Wittstock says, nor do the types of products needed.

The 20/20 rule was one of the most radical of Aquascape's innovations. Critics charged that Wittstock was cheapening the art of pond-building, turning it into an assembly-line, cookie-cutter process, and sacrificing quality for profits. He strenuously denied that his system compromised quality. On the contrary, he said, ponds built professionally, according to Aquascape's principles, using high-quality materials, were superior to others--more natural-looking, more aesthetically pleasing, more durable, easier to maintain, better for the environment.

He didn't disagree, however, that his approach was more profitable, or that it was assembly-line. In effect, he'd done for ponds what Ray Kroc had done for hamburgers and Henry Ford for cars. But Wittstock insisted that, by systematizing pond construction, Aquascape allowed the pond-builder both to make more money and to be more creative. The artistry had to do with the pond's design and the quality of its execution, not with the steps involved in carrying it out.

For water-gardening veterans, it was a lot to swallow, especially coming from a brash 25-year-old, but Wittstock knew ponds. He'd been making them since he was 12. The first one had been a hole in the ground behind his family's home in Wheaton, Ill., west of Chicago. That pond was soon replaced by a more elaborate concrete one that he built with his father. As the years went by, the two of them continued to work on the pond, redoing it every summer, experimenting with filtration, pumps, and construction techniques until finally, in 1990, they got it just about right.

That summer, Wittstock also began thinking about branching out. He had recently finished his sophomore year at Ohio State and had a summer job at a subsidiary of Union Carbide, where his father was an engineer. One afternoon, he says, he was driving home, ruminating about how miserable he was in his job and wondering what else he might do, when a thought popped into his head: What about starting a pond-building business? Everyone who saw the Wittstocks' pond wanted one--the mailman, the UPS guy, the neighbors. He told his parents about his plan. "He said, 'No one builds ponds like me. All I need is a wheelbarrow, a shovel, and a strong back,'" says his mother, Lauri. "And he had a name, too. He wanted to call it Aquascape Designs." For Christmas, his parents gave him the wheelbarrow and the shovel.

Wittstock went into business the following summer, marketing his services by placing classified ads in newspapers and leaving business cards at rock yards. He also wrote a letter to the gardening editor of theChicago Tribune. The response came a year later, in the summer of '92, when one of the newspaper's freelance writers called. By then, he'd built 17 ponds and had a small backlog of orders, but he was eager for publicity. The article appeared on the front page of the Tribune's Tempo section on Sunday, August 2--and Wittstock's telephone started ringing. All told, the article wound up generating orders for 81 ponds. Suddenly he was booked for the rest of the season and into the following year.

Wittstock could no longer handle the business alone. He was building ponds by day and making sales calls, lining up pond parts, and doing other chores by night. As it happened, his father, Gary Wittstock, was available to help. He'd left Union Carbide by then and started his own engineering consulting business, which wasn't doing well. In September, he began working at Aquascape.

Exactly who did what is a matter of dispute nowadays. It appears that Gary worked primarily on sales, administration, and engineering, while Greg focused on pond-building. He began looking for ways to reduce the construction time--by having all the parts on-site at the start of a job, for example, or by laying the pipe before digging the pond, so that the dirt from the hole had to be shoveled only once, not twice. Out of such efficiencies came the 20/20 rule and the one-day pond-building methodology. He also hired his first foreman to work with his crew and build ponds without him.

But it wasn't until the fall of '93, he says, that he began to see the real potential of the business. His mother--an English teacher turned corporate training consultant--urged him to speak to a former colleague of hers, who was working for Arthur Andersen in Columbus, Ohio, where Greg was still finishing up his college degree. The two began talking about Aquascape's strengths and quickly zeroed in on Wittstock's homegrown, hands-on knowledge of pond-building. The consultant encouraged him to expand his horizons, to think about reaching the masses. Franchising was an obvious option. Wittstock tried to set up a franchised unit in Columbus, but after six months of negotiating, the deal fell through. Disappointed and frustrated, he decided to forget about franchising and focus on the booming business in Chicago.

"The back-order policy at Aquascape is simple: There will be no back orders. If one occurs, the flag in front of the building is lowered to half-staff."

But he didn't stop thinking about the masses, and one day in 1994, he says, the answer came to him. So what if he couldn't sell his knowledge by franchising? Why not just give it away? Through newsletters and catalogs, he'd teach landscapers what he knew and sell them the products they needed to do it on their own.

From that epiphany, an entirely new Aquascape evolved, but it took a couple of years. Complicating the transition was the increasingly rancorous relationship between Wittstock and his father, who had become his 50-50 partner in April 1993. At the time, it had seemed reasonable to divide the equity between them. The two had been making ponds together for more than 10 years. In the past, moreover, they had gotten along well. "I never had a fight with my dad growing up," says Greg. "Here, we couldn't talk without fighting."

On one level, it was a clash of personalities. They were polar opposites. "Gary is very detail-oriented," says Lauri Wittstock. "Greg is an entrepreneur." Of course, every business needs a combination of those traits, and the people who have them don't necessarily wind up driving each other crazy, but--as time went along--Gary and Greg were increasingly at each other's throats. "He's an engineer, and he was always over-engineering everything," says Greg. "My deal is KISS--Keep it simple, stupid....Ed [Beaulieu] and I were running construction back then. We'd design a filter with one pad, and my dad would put in two, even though it made the pond harder to maintain and had no benefits. It was like that all the time."

"We built the business together in my opinion," says Gary. "He was the hard-working installer, and I was the engineer that engineered the system. The fighting was because of control. Greg wanted to run everything."

Inevitably, the conflicts had repercussions outside the company. "I was traveling a lot, and when I came back, each of them would tell me his side of the latest fight," says Lauri, who generally sided with her son. "They both advanced the business. Gary brought maturity, and Greg brought creativity. But the business was always Greg's. We were just parents supporting a kid in his hobby, which Gary would never admit."

The situation came to a head in 1996. By then, Lauri and Gary were getting divorced, largely because of the battle for control of the company. "I just couldn't see my husband doing this to my son," says Lauri. "We really had a picture-perfect family, and it all came apart." Gary, for his part, was so upset about the divorce that he withdrew from the day-to-day operations of the company. Eventually, however, he decided he wanted to come back, much to the chagrin of Greg, who moved to end their partnership. Greg says that he offered his father seven different buyout formulas, including one whereby Gary would get 3% of Aquascape's sales for 15 years. In 2002, that would have amounted to almost $940,000--more than 22% of the company's net pretax profit. According to Greg, Gary dismissed the offer, saying, "3% of nothing is nothing, and if you're running this business, it will be nothing."

Gary says he does not recall getting such an offer or making such a comment, but he concedes that Greg proposed giving him "a large sum of money payable over many, many years" on condition that he stay away from the business. Gary rejected the offer. "I didn't want to leave," he says. "I was very content working with Greg."

"I just wanted my own career back," Greg says, "and I was willing to give away the farm to get it. It had nothing to do with money, obviously, or I wouldn't have offered him that deal. In the end, we had to go to arbitration. I bought him out for $184,000. He left and started his own business. He was my first competitor."

Gary's company, founded in April 1997, was called Pond Supplies of America and was based in Yorkville, Ill., about 20 miles from Aquascape's headquarters in Batavia. While PSA did reasonably well, Aquascape took off like a rocket. In 1995, Gary's last year in the office, it had done $800,000 in sales. The next year, sales more than doubled, to $1.8 million. In 1997, they doubled again, to $4 million, and they kept right on climbing from there. By 2002, sales had reached $31 million, an increase of 16% over the year before. That was respectable enough, but it paled alongside the surge in net pretax income to $4.2 million (13.3% of sales) from $1.6 million (5.9% of sales) in 2001--a leap of 163%. This year, Aquascape will do between $43 million and $45 million in sales, thanks partly to an acquisition.

That growth has come in the face of ever-increasing competition. PSA's sales are now $6.8 million, according to Gary, and 11 other direct competitors have entered the picture, all offering products similar to Aquascape's but at lower prices. Then there are the many companies that offer different pond-building approaches altogether, mainly for the do-it-yourself market.

Some of Aquascape's remarkable growth can be explained by traditional marketing techniques--and Greg Wittstock's willingness to invest in them. The catalog is a good example. Aquascape now sends out 3.2 million catalogs a year in nine different mailings. None of its competitors do more than two. Still, the catalogs don't explain the most tantalizing part of Aquascape's success, namely, the willingness of old customers to pay a premium for sticking with the company. To understand that, you have to look at other factors--one of which is Aquascape's in-house pond-building division, headed by Ed Beaulieu. Up until 1995, it was virtually the whole company, but as Wittstock transformed Aquascape from a pond-builder into a designer and marketer of pond-building equipment, the role of the construction team changed. It became Aquascape's research-and-development unit, coming up with new products, testing them in the field, experimenting with different types of jobs, and developing the marketing and management techniques that other contractors could use to build their own businesses and motivate their employees.

In principle, the construction division--which builds ponds only in the Chicago area--competes with other local contractors, but it also refers work to those that become Aquascape customers, and it regularly takes on lower-margin jobs to acquire experience and learn lessons that it can then pass on to other landscapers around the country. Moreover, by operating successfully in a competitive market, the team gives Aquascape a tremendous marketing advantage: Customers know its products have been field-tested by one of the best pond contractors around. "That gives me a lot of confidence," says John Russell, the CEO of Russell Water Gardens in Redmond, Wash. "I know that whatever I buy from Aquascape is going to work." Meanwhile, Aquascape is in the unusual position of having an R&D division that earns a profit.

Another factor is Aquascape's back-order policy. It's very simple: There will be no back orders on any product the company carries. If a back order occurs, the flag in front of the building is lowered to half-staff. This is an expensive policy. It means the warehouse is perpetually overstocked. "I'm willing to err on that side," says Wittstock. "It's about how ponds sell. When a landscaper gets a job, he needs the equipment right away, or he'll have guys sitting around for days. That's also why we double-check parts going out of our warehouse. If one $2 plumbing fitting is missing, you can't hook up a pump. Someone has to go to Home Depot. A one-day job becomes a two-day job, and you cut your profitability in half. Instead of making $2,500 per day, you're making $1,250 per day."

The back-order policy gives Aquascape another huge marketing advantage. "Other companies just can't match their service," says Tom Smith, owner of Garden State Koi, based in Warwick, N.Y., who gave up lucrative but competing product lines to become an Aquascape distributor. "Their fill rate [for orders] is something like 99.5%. Can you imagine getting that kind of fill rate in this industry? If I order from anybody else, I'm lucky to get 50%."

"It's a big part of their success," says Steve Stroupe, the independent sales rep. "Any competing vendor who doesn't understand the power of their no-back-order policy is going to get bloodied."

The same could be said of Aquascape's phenomenal rate of innovation. In the first six months of this year, the company introduced, among other things, a "pondless" waterfall, a new line of pumps, a kit to help contractors empty ponds for cleanouts, a bulk fish-food dispenser, a customer rewards program, seven new videos, and two new books, including The Pond Guy on Marketing, in which Wittstock reveals his marketing secrets. "Aquascape innovates so fast that other guys can't keep up," says Tom Smith, the distributor. "I sent in a memo at the beginning of March about a contractor who wasn't comfortable putting a one- or two-ton boulder on a pond liner. He worried about making a hole. I said, 'What about coming up with a rock pad for people like him?' [Four months later] I asked Ed Beaulieu, 'What's happening with the rock pad?' He said, 'We're testing it on Monday. It will be ready in a couple of weeks.' What other company can move so fast?"

With each innovation comes information about new ideas and products and techniques for Aquascape's customers. But to get the information, people have to stay in the loop. That means taking advantage of Aquascape's educational offerings, yet another factor. The centerpiece is the traveling training program, which swings into high gear every year about this time. Backing it up is an entire publishing and video division, which generates a flood of training and marketing materials.

And beyond education, there's one final factor that has to do with the ponds themselves. "You know," says Smith, "ponds aren't just a business--they're a lifestyle. After 9/11, I must have gotten six, eight calls from people who wanted to thank me for the relief their ponds gave them from the flood of bad news. We get that all the time. You build a pond for $10,000, and people hug you. You turn on the water, and they cry."

Every professional pond-builder can tell stories about customers who develop deep, emotional attachments to their ponds. "People give names to their fish," says Tonja Andreattia, of Andreattia Waterscapes in Medford, Oreg. "The women tell me, 'My husband would never go out in the yard before, and now I can't stop him.' Everybody is so appreciative. They say the pond changed their lives." Contractors, too, have a passion for ponds that borders on religious fervor, and it rubs off on Aquascape. "I earn a good living with ponds," says Kenny Floyd, who overcame various alcohol and drug addictions before starting Aquatic Construction in Metairie, La. "More important, I get up every morning and do what I would do anyway for free. I can tell you, Greg Wittstock re-creates lives. He did mine."

He's been called a hypocrite, but Wittstock says he bought Water Creations to solve a strategic problem: an inability to penetrate the do-it-yourself market.

Back in Batavia, Aquascape's headquarters is getting a little crowded these days. There's still room for the indoor pond filled with koi that eat out of your hand, not to mention the 15 aquariums and terrariums housing all manner of fish and reptiles, from freshwater stingrays to a bearded dragon lizard named Rex. There's still room as well for the fitness center, the indoor basketball-soccer-tennis court, and the two pool tables. Workspace, however, has become tight as the number of employees has exploded from 71 to 130 people, thanks to Aquascape's purchase of a major competitor, Water Creations, in January.

That acquisition raised eyebrows throughout the industry. For years, after all, Aquascape people had been heaping scorn on Water Creations and its products. There was the additional irony that Aquascape--so often accused of being cultlike--had bought a company founded by members of a real religious cult, the Plymouth Brethren, a fundamentalist Christian sect that traces its origins to 19th-century England. Steve Stroupe, for one, couldn't resist poking fun at the merger, putting out a bogus press release with the headline "Cult Leaders Bury the Hatchet" and writing a satirical analysis of the deal entitled "The Church and the Bordello."

Wittstock told people that he'd bought Water Creations, now called Nursery Pro, because it solved his company's major strategic problem, namely, its inability to penetrate the huge market of do-it-yourselfers who find Aquascape ponds to be out of their price range. He pledged that he would eliminate the most objectionable features of the Water Creations products and use them to get people started in ponds. The goal, however, would be to move retail customers up to professional ponds over time. How? By education, of course.

Eventually most of his followers came around, although there are still some doubters. Kenny Floyd, the Louisiana contractor, remains uncomfortable with the acquisition. "I felt it was hypocritical," he says. "Water Creations sold a lot of gadgetry that we thought wasn't good. I have confidence that Greg can improve the products, but it's a big change. I'm really going on my faith in Greg."

Greg is also going on his faith in Greg, which has never been in short supply. He believes that the industry is poised to explode, and that Aquascape/Nursery Pro is now positioned to take advantage of the explosion. He points to a study by a market research firm showing that ponds and water gardens are the fastest-growing segment of the $46 billion lawn and garden industry. Then there's the survey from USA Today indicating that more homeowners (16%) would choose to enhance their homes with a water feature than would go for any other home improvement except decks (also 16%). With Nursery Pro, Wittstock now has access to the entire market. "Before I could only reach the people who could afford the big ponds," he says. "Now I can get to anybody, and I can bring them up." The average pond owner, he notes, buys three ponds in a lifetime.

Within a couple of years, Wittstock expects to outgrow his present, 103,000-square-foot facility, but he has a plan to deal with that, too. It's called Aqua Land, and it will be a 5.7-acre, wedge-shaped, ecofriendly building with grass on the roof. That's where he plans to put the soccer field for the guys in the warehouse. In addition, there will be a swimming pool, at least one koi pond, a daycare center, a state-of-the-art fitness center, a spa, a tennis court, and two racquetball courts. The building is supposed to be finished by December 2005. It will cost at least $15 million.

Aqua Land is the Pond Guy's dream come true--or at least one of his dreams. There's still that little piece of unfinished business with his father. The two haven't had much contact since 1997. In that time, Gary has remarried, and Greg and his wife have had two children, whom their grandfather barely knows. Greg insists that he'd like to make up. "I'm not good with this feeling," he says. He's not sure that making up will be possible, however, as long as he and his father are competitors.

Gary, meanwhile, says he'd like nothing better than to be the doting grandparent of Greg's sons. Then again, he has no inclination to leave the pond business. On the contrary, he recently started another company to manufacture pond equipment. As for PSA, he insists it's in good shape. "We've got some great new products," he says. And profitability? "Well, that's something we have to work on."

Of course, one way to work on it might be to send some people to Aquascape's breakeven seminar. It doesn't appear, however, that Gary will be doing that anytime soon. He and his son aren't talking. I

Sidebar: Are You on Track to Break Even?

The principles behind Aquascape's approach to breakeven analysis are almost as old as accounting itself. What's new is the way Aquascape has used its formula as a tool for education, communication, and marketing. The secret lies in the formula's simplicity. To calculate your breakeven point for a given period of time, you need to have just two numbers, your overhead expenses and your gross margin.

Start with your total sales for the period. Then calculate your cost of goods sold (COGS)--or, in service businesses, your cost of sales--by adding up all of your direct costs, that is, the costs directly involved in obtaining or producing what you've sold. You get your gross profit by subtracting COGS from sales. Express that number as a percentage of sales, and you've got your gross margin.

You calculate your overhead by adding up all of the other expenses, the indirect or fixed ones (rent, utilities, insurance, administrative salaries and benefits, and the like).

Here's an example using projected numbers from Aquascape's construction division in 2003:

Annual Sales$750,000100%
Total Cost of Goods Sold (COGS)$453,45960%
Gross Profit$296,541
Gross Margin40%
Total Fixed Costs (Overhead)$247,11533%
Net Income From Operations$49,2467%
(before taxes)

By definition, breakeven is the point at which total revenue equals total costs. Put another way, your gross profit will equal your overhead at the breakeven point: Breakeven Gross Profit = Overhead

But remember, gross margin is gross profit divided by sales. That means gross profit equals sales multiplied by gross margin. Therefore, at the breakeven point: Breakeven Sales x Gross Margin = Overhead

To figure out the amount of sales you need to break even, divide your overhead for a given period of time by the gross margin. Breakeven Sales = Overhead / Gross Margin

That's the basic breakeven formula, and there are a lot of things you can do with it. Let's say you want to buy a truck that will cost you monthly finance charges of $500, plus $250 per month for fuel and insurance (let's assume those are the only new expenses). In a year, you'll make payments of $6,000, and you'll have fuel and insurance costs of $3,000, for a total of $9,000 a year in new overhead expenses. How much do you need in additional sales to cover those expenses? You divide $9,000 by your gross margin, say, 40%, and you find that you'll break even on the investment with a sales increase of $22,500 per year.

You can then ask yourself, "Will this truck allow me to get the $22,500 more in annual sales that I would need to justify spending the money to buy it?" It's often easier to answer the question if you take the analysis a step further. Say your average sale is $6,000--about the price of a pond. In that case, you'll need the equivalent of 3.75 ponds ($22,500 / $6,000 = 3.75) in additional sales to break even. So you can ask, "Will this truck make it possible for me to build 3.75 more ponds this year?"

You can also use the formula to figure out how long it will take you to break even in a given period. Suppose your annual overhead is $240,000, and your gross margin is 40%. You'll break even when you hit $600,000 in sales ($240,000 / 0.4 = $600,000). Now suppose that, on average, you do $20,000 a week in sales. At that rate, you'll hit $600,000 in 30 weeks. When you get there, you will have covered all of your overhead expenses for the year. In the remaining 22 weeks of the year, you'll earn an operating profit of 40¢ on every $1 of sales.

But what if you could increase your weekly sales to $25,000? Your breakeven point would go down to 24 weeks from 30 weeks, and you'd be earning 40¢ on the dollar six weeks longer. Or what if you could increase your gross margin to 44%? Then you'd need only $545,455 (rather than $600,000) in sales to break even.

Bo Burlingham (bo.burlingham@inc.com) is an Inc. editor-at-large.

The Ultimate Investment Club for Entrepreneurs

At CMS, a highly successful but little-known financial services firm, entrepreneurs help each other find the best places to invest.

Mark Solomon is telling a story.

It is a night several years ago, he is saying, and he is driving for hours through an unrelenting rainstorm to visit a prospective client for CMS, the Philadelphia financial services company that he founded in the late 1960s. In the car with Solomon are his deputies: Paul Silberberg, CMS's president, and Bill Landman, CMS's chief investment officer. For a firm that represents the likes of Bernie Marcus, the founder of Home Depot, this prospective client, a man worth hundreds of millions of dollars, would be a nice fit. He would also be an amazingly nice catch.

And yet, there is a problem. The CMS team, soaked from the short walk from the car to this entrepreneur's house, makes a lengthy presentation in the living room. "We look for three things in a client," says Silberberg. "One is a very successful entrepreneur who has built the business. Number two is geographic location--our clients are all within a three-hour plane ride of Philly because we would like to get back for dinner after visiting them, even if it's a late dinner. Third, and probably the most important, is shared values. We look for people whom we like, who are honest, and who are philanthropic. We look for people who really care about more than just creating wealth for themselves and their families, who are trying to use that wealth to help repair the world in some way. And we don't care how--inner city work, save the whales, hug the trees, we just don't care."

This entrepreneur, however, was not the saving, hugging, or repairing kind. As Solomon recalls, he said, "'I've read all your material, and it seems you're extremely philanthropic. You need to know I'm not.' And he was proud of this."

Solomon decided to give it his best shot. "I was going to take a chance on converting him," he says, and he began to regale this man with personal stories about the joys and virtues of philanthropy. Then he launched into a brief tutorial on the Rule of 72. "He didn't know what it was, so I said, if you take the rate of interest you earn and divide it into 72, it tells you how long it takes for you to double your money." Assuming this entrepreneur could earn a steady rate of 6%, Solomon offered some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, showing that the man would probably be highly placed in the Forbes 400 by the time he was 70. "Do you know how big the hole has to be to bury you and that amount of money?" Solomon asked. "What in God's name are you going to do with it? This guy just looked at me like I was talking in Chinese."

Solomon decided to stand up and announce that he just didn't see how this was going to work for either CMS or the entrepreneur. The CMS execs filed out, piled back in the car, and drove for four hours in the rain, doing their best to keep the car from hydroplaning on the Xooded roads home to Philadelphia.

Even to most entrepreneurs, CMS is a largely unfamiliar name, a firm few know about and even fewer have joined. CMS doesn't exactly seek anonymity, but its obscurity results from the firm's aversion to the media (this is its first real profile) as well as its focus on only the most select (and successful) entrepreneurs. Technically speaking, CMS views itself as an "alternative investment boutique" or "an entrepreneurs' buyers cooperative." Its offices in Philadelphia, where all 100 employees work, comprise two rambling floors of a low-rise brick building on an aggressively unpretentious block. The firm currently has several hundred active clients to whom it offers advice on life insurance, estate planning, and asset allocation. More important, CMS invites those same clients to invest in various funds, generally ranging in size from $30 million to $150 million, that the firm creates at a rate of about four or five per year. Since its inception, the firm and its clients have invested more than $3 billion in real estate and private equity. Every client who invests is an entrepreneur--no corporate executives, entertainers, or idle rich. Every client has been referred by existing clients or someone within CMS's vast network of contacts. And every client has been screened in the same manner as the wealthy-but-ungenerous man Solomon and company visited that night in the driving rain.

Let me explain who our clients are," says Mark Solomon, the founder of CMS. "They tend to be older people who have had a value-realizing event. And the return of their money is more important to them than the return on their money."

All of which suggests some obvious questions: Why doesn't CMS--itself an entrepreneurial, profit-maximizing concern--just sign up every wealthy investor it can find? And why does it focus so much on the criterion of philanthropy? And above all, what can an everyday entrepreneur, someone on the ground floor of building a business, learn from these people in the penthouse? As it turns out, quite a lot. But first, consider the question of why this peculiar firm limits its membership to entrepreneurs. CMS is fundamentally a network of men and women who help themselves, and each other, by helping the firm. In other words, CMS makes money for its clients, and for itself, because it uses its clients' expertise to scout out good investments. When weighing a potential investment, for instance, CMS's in-house analysts may crunch the numbers on a prospective buy and then ask one or two of its entrepreneur/clients with expertise in that area to get on a plane, look things over, and report back. As Bill Landman, the CMS investment chief, puts it: "There's virtually no business we consider buying where we can't call up two or three clients so they can offer insights about the opportunity."

Of course, the firm's clients are not only very wealthy but very busy. Don't they mind getting pulled into such time-consuming investing projects? "Not at all," says Bernie Marcus, the retired founder of Home Depot. "So many of the financial people today sit in front of their computers and they only know the numbers. But here, these partners at CMS go to people who have been in the kind of businesses they're considering. You can't buy that kind of information. And all these clients share freely with them because they know that. These guys are smart enough to listen to the people who have become successful. This is how they perpetuate their success."

These are not venture capitalists looking to seed start-ups. CMS invests in more mature companies that are up and running and looking to grow, and the firm always looks for a measure of control in the businesses it pursues.

Two recent deals typify the process. Three years ago, CMS teamed up with KRG Capital, a Denver private-equity firm, in purchasing two Pennsylvania-based companies: TransCore Holdings and UTI Medical Devices. TransCore is a leading provider of automated toll-collection systems like the ones used by EZPass. "It's a fascinating business, a great management team," Landman concluded after a period of due diligence. What really charmed him, however, was TransCore's strategic position in a field that promised terrific growth--as well as the belief that the fledgling company would benefit from his firm's involvement. CMS quickly matched TransCore with a new accounting firm and a new law firm that could handle the intricate state and government contracts the company depends upon. "We went on the company board," Landman says. "We're very involved with the company day to day."

Landman is similarly optimistic about UTI, which engineers, manufactures, and assembles precision medical equipment. He explains that KRG was in the process of buying and integrating several small medical-device companies when some CMS clients told him about UTI. Seeing a nice fit, he brought the idea to KRG. Landman believes that the resulting deal (the new integrated device firm that has kept the UTI name) has enormous potential, and as usual CMS and its clients have been tapped for expertise, advice, and guidance. This has meant visiting UTI's production facilities at various locations around the country and helping the company reconfigure its executive ranks. Landman, for instance, has helped recruit and interview CEO and CFO candidates.

One of the first investments that I made with them went bad," says Donald Crawford, a broadcast entrepreneur who owns a chain of 28 radio stations. "And on their own initiative they made good on any losses we sustained."

The origins of CMS go back to the mid-1960s, when Mark Solomon was selling sophisticated high-end life insurance policies to doctors and entrepreneurs in the Philadelphia area. Solomon discovered that he didn't like doing business with doctors, but that he loved doing business with entrepreneurs. By the time he formed CMS (originally Capital Management Systems) in the late 1960s and brought Paul Silberberg onboard a few years later, the firm had honed its expertise in peddling insurance and financial- and estate-planning advice. "The entrepreneur part of CMS, like most things in life, was an accident," Solomon says. "Over time you gravitate toward where you feel most comfortable." As Silberberg explains, it might be easier and less time-consuming to represent nonentrepreneurs--people who don't ask so many questions about potential investments. But it would be more difficult on the back end, especially since CMS's funds are illiquid and often put investors' money out of reach for as long as 10 years. "In private investments you need time to work things out," says Silberberg, "and less sophisticated clients don't give you time. We have yet to buy a business that hasn't run into a problem. It's just a question of how big and when. And our clients give us time to fix those things."

Or at least they do now. In the early 1980s, when CMS first started investing alongside its clients in real estate and individual businesses, the learning curve was steep. While some early residential real estate deals turned out well, a commercial office building endeavor blew up. Then came a disastrous investment in a Chuck E. Cheese pizza franchise in which CMS lost its clients' money along with its own. A wipeout. The loss undercut CMS's most fundamental covenant with its clients--that it would never endanger principal. In some ways, however, the debacle proved a turning point for the firm. The partners decided that CMS would immediately come clean to clients about just how bad things had gone and transfer to those same clients the firm's own shares in a profitable buyout fund.

If building trust is the first step to building a profitable business, CMS made a mint by screwing up and then owning up. None of the clients were happy, of course; some still grumble about Chuck E. Cheese even now, almost 20 years later. Yet CMS has a client base of realists who understand that things can go wrong. "One of the first investments that I made with them went bad," recalls client Donald Crawford, a broadcast entrepreneur who owns a chain of 28 radio stations around the country. "They had the mantra of protecting clients' capital at all costs. And on their own initiative they made good on any losses we sustained. It just showed me that these were men of their word and it was a safe bet being with them for the long haul."

It is a widely held truism that entrepreneurs tend to be far better at creating personal wealth than managing it. Solomon and Silberberg don't go so far as to say that entrepreneurs are bad investors, but CMS has long understood that people busy building a business have such enormous time constraints--and such a single-minded focus on their work--that they're prone to stumble. "We knew from the beginning that there was a real need for diversification and that our clients weren't doing it," says Silberberg. "They didn't know how to do it. They were just like we were--they had the attention span of a gnat. We also knew they weren't going to do the homework. They were making huge bets that were ridiculous. We saw that we had the opportunity to create a real service. We were at least going to make more studious bets. And we were going to take some of those eggs and put them in other baskets." The good thing, adds Silberberg, is that his clients have always understood their limitations. "The difference between the entrepreneur and the doctor is that the doctor doesn't know anything about investments but thinks he does," he says. "The entrepreneur doesn't know anything about investments and recognizes it. Doctors are wonderful people. They're just not good business people."

The years have taught Silberberg several lessons that he likes to share with his clients: "Number one would be that people are everything," he says. "Both the beginning and the more sophisticated entrepreneur get carried away with the sex appeal of the transaction--they have to look at the people behind it." His second point is that many investors look at how much money they can make--and gloss over the risks: "We look closely at how much we can lose." His third key lesson goes to the heart of the entrepreneur's dilemma: If you want to create wealth, Silberberg says, most do it by concentration, just as his clients have done as they built their businesses. At some point, though, there's too much risk in that strategy, and that's when it becomes imperative to protect wealth by diversifying. This is not, Silberberg emphasizes, simply a matter of splitting money between stocks and bonds. "The beginning entrepreneur cannot get access to some of the really good asset classes," he says, referring to the kind of exclusive private equity deals his firm favors. But Silberberg says every entrepreneur can diversify by vintage, by geography (especially with real estate), and by choosing between different operating partners.

It has taken Silberberg and company more than a decade to smooth out their approach to investing and create a successful system; in the meantime, the firm has found it useful to move away from piecemeal investments in small businesses like fast-food franchises. CMS now makes all investments from pooled funds, to which clients contribute, so as to socialize the returns. As Solomon puts it: "We're able to take the grand-slam home runs and doubles and strikeouts and come up with a good average." While CMS's focus on up-and-running companies and real estate minimized the damage from the bursting of the technology bubble, the firm has nevertheless struggled to find big winners over the past few years. For one thing, as the stock and bond markets have grown tougher, the number of investors pouring into the marketplace for alternative investments in private equity and real estate has grown, leading to increased competition and higher prices. At the moment, CMS has scaled back the size of its funds to correspond with what it sees as a scaled-back opportunity to buy good companies--and good real estate projects--at good prices.

"What we're trying to do is generate a 500-basis-point advantage over the public markets," says Silberberg. CMS has easily beaten this goal over the past two decades, racking up a 20% return in its multifamily housing funds (while public multifamily REITs earned on average about 11%) and a 20% return in private equity (while the S&P 500 returned about 15%). Irvin Naylor, a Pennsylvania entrepreneur who made his fortune from a box company and who now owns several East Coast ski resorts, has about 10% of his net worth invested with CMS. "My rate of return, cumulatively for 20 years, is 24.5% annually," he says. But Silberberg says he always tells new clients that "yesterday is yesterday." He adds that if people like Warren Buffett and Jeremy Siegel are correct in predicting more modest returns of, say, 7% over the next few years, then CMS would be shooting for a 12% return in private equity. Says Silberberg: "That would make us and our clients very happy."

The person entrusted with this task at CMS is Bill Landman, the chief investment officer. In the 1970s and early 1980s, before he came to the firm, Landman worked as a sports agent, and his demeanor--casual, friendly, confident, yet completely opaque--hints at a bearing that must have served him well in contract negotiations. During the spring and summer season he worked with baseball stars such as Tony Pe - a, Ken Griffey, and Tim Raines; during the off-season he spent time cutting real estate deals. His interest in private equity deals came later. "I'm the ultimate generalist," Landman says. At CMS, however, where equity investments run the gamut from buyout funds to CD packagers to tube-sock manufacturers, and where the real estate investments range from garden apartments in Birmingham to rental complexes in Seattle, that's not a bad thing. Versatility, and knowing a little about a lot, is a plus--especially since the firm has a big Rolodex of people who know a lot about a little.

Here's how it works: In a roundtable investment meeting with a dozen managers of the firm's real estate funds, Landman's associates give updates on their property investments around the country. Landman fires back general questions about hurricane damage, job loss, market saturation, and competition. But when the topic turns to potential investments in various markets in the South, he insists some members of the group contact their clients with special expertise in the region. "Let's get them on this as quickly as possible," he says. Later, in a meeting convened to discuss a huge equity fund investment in assisted-living facilities and geriatric daycare, Landman asks various deputies to contact specific clients so the firm can get a better sense of what CMS might be able to add to the daycare business. A thumbs-up from these clients, or a strategy for making the facilities spit back a better return, would mean the difference between going forward or tabling the project.

Such an approach drives home the point that CMS's value proposition is not merely something the firm offers its clients; it's something its clients offer one another. As Bernie Marcus points out, CMS's trump card is its clientele. The firm knows that its clients are as smart, and usually smarter, than anyone in the CMS office.

Still, if CMS's decision to limit clients to entrepreneurs essentially translates into a mercenary decision to add value to the firm, CMS's second peculiarity--the decision to make philanthropy a driving force--is arguably more complicated. One explanation goes like this: CMS's two top executives, Silberberg and Solomon, long involved with philanthropic activities themselves, have an authentic desire to sow their ideas with employees (who are urged to volunteer with community projects), fellow partners (who are forced to dedicate to charity 10% of their gross income share), and like-minded, deep-pocketed entrepreneurs (who are invited to attend conventions on charitable giving). While true, all this merely helps explain why CMS does good, not why CMS has done well.

As Silberberg notes, philanthropy has served CMS as an "indicator" of a client the firm would like to work with. And while it may be counterintuitive, there seems little question that CMS's success is due in part to its decision to limit clients and give money away. In Philadelphia, a relatively conservative business community where family connections can be more useful in reaching the upper echelons than raw talent, the firm's emphasis on exclusivity and philanthropy have set it apart. Thus CMS partners sometimes make reference to entrepreneurs who end up on their "LTS list" instead of their client list. "LTS," says Silberberg, "means life's too short."

Bernie Tenenbaum, a private-equity investor who used to run the entrepreneurial studies program at the Wharton School of Business and knows CMS well, explains that by doing good deeds, the firm built value for its clients: "They were able to break into a club, servicing a very narrow niche, by demonstrating both charitable leadership and personal commitment," he explains. Tenenbaum likewise remarks that philanthropy has had great utility for both CMS and the client base it serves. The first-order impact of a successful entrepreneur is wealth creation, he says; the second is philanthropy--the desire to have an impact on society. "I think what the CMS guys have done is tap into that desire for their clients to make a difference," he explains, "to create a legacy that outlasts themselves." Many of the CMS clients contacted for this story agree. Harold Toppel, for instance, who founded and later sold the Pueblo International chain of super stores, tapped the firm's philanthropic expertise when he and his wife decided to set up an after-school mentoring program. They didn't know how to go about it until CMS sent an adviser to Toppel's home in Florida. "Without CMS's help," Toppel says, "we wouldn't be where we are with that program."

Through the years, some observers have questioned Silberberg and Solomon's philanthropic motives but have been at a loss to show they fall short of practicing what they preach. Indeed, whether their motivations are heartfelt or strategic--or both--the CMS partners have demonstrated a steadfast involvement with community and religious charities. Says one client: "I believe they're sincere, I believe they're genuine. But if they're not, who cares? They're doing great things. And if they're not sincere, they sure have been doing this a long, long time. They're acting like a charitable company every single day."

Seated at a circular oak table in a conference room at CMS, Mark Solomon is telling another story. Five years ago, he is explaining, an old friend called to say, "Mark, I've got a client who is a real estate developer and needs a new source of equity. You've got to meet with him." So Solomon asked his friend what the developer did and heard something distinctly unappealing in response. The friend said, "He buys underperforming hotels."

To Solomon, this was exactly the kind of risky investment CMS avoids. "I said, 'Let me explain who our clients are,'" Solomon recalls. "They tend to be older people who have had a value-realizing event, and the return of their money is more important to them than the return on the money. So I don't think buying underperforming hotels is going to resonate with our client base."

Solomon's friend told him to shut up and try listening for a change. So Solomon listened to a few details of the hotel business Jim Procaccianti was running out of Rhode Island. Then Solomon, his interest piqued, went to meet Procaccianti--or Proc, as everyone at CMS now calls him. It seemed to Solomon, and to some CMS clients, that the way the Procaccianti Group functioned--buying a foundering hotel and using its own integrated construction, design, and management divisions to relaunch it--had potential. And so CMS went ahead and dedicated a small portion of a multifamily housing fund to a hotel that Procaccianti wanted to buy. CMS rules dictate that the firm must put its own money in a fund along with its clients' money; they also dictate that any joint venture partner (Procaccianti in this case) must invest his or her own money as well. So in this hotel test project, they'd all succeed or fail together--CMS, its clients, and Procaccianti.

As it turned out, there was nothing but upside. CMS backed the Procaccianti Group in the $6 million purchase of a Ramada Inn in East Hartford, Conn. The hotel was doing $3.5 million annually in gross income and was earning $138,000 in net operating income--"basically, no income at all," says Solomon. The development team put $6 million into revamping the place--new skin, new elevators, new management, new everything. At the end of the first year, the gross stayed the same but the net went up to $750,000. The management team then changed the hotel from a Ramada to a Sheraton, and in the second year, the gross rose to $7.1 million and the net to $2.2 million. At that point, says Solomon, "we could see that this strategy worked, and we did six more hotels with different funds."

More recently, Procaccianti came up with an opportunity to buy a large number of hotels and turn them around, and CMS took two clients on a fact-finding mission. "The fact-finding team was very encouraging," says Solomon, "so we went back out [to our clients] and raised $125 million." So far, CMS has committed about $43 million of the new fund.

CMS, says Bernie Marcus, has always known that while successful entrepreneurs are not like everyone else, they are very much like each other. Solomon, Silberberg, and Landman, says Marcus, "are entrepreneurs themselves, so they understand us. They understand what entrepreneurs want and need. These are all self-made men, and all self-made men go through certain kinds of struggles. The CMS group is kind of like a family of entrepreneurs."

It's no accident that when scrutinizing CMS for the entrepreneurial lessons its clients can teach, it turns out that the firm itself is just as instructive. Bernie Tenenbaum, the former entrepreneurial studies exec, explains that the CMS partners had the imagination early on to see that they could lead in a marketplace of entrepreneurs when no one saw the opportunity. "They were in effect looking for themselves in the mirror," says Tenenbaum. "They said, 'We can't be the only ones.' Then they had the persistence to keep at it. Woody Allen says that 80% of success in life is just showing up. Well, they stayed focused on their niche, and they didn't deviate. It's a classic lesson for other entrepreneurs. They said: 'Who am I and what am I good at doing?' And once they knew, they stuck to it."

This is Jon Gertner's first piece for Inc.