Google is the 'inverse' of Apple

Schmidt: Google is the 'inverse' of Apple

'We are the opposite of Jobsian closedness'

By Cade Metz in San Francisco • Get more from this author

Eric Schmidt likes to say that Google is a fundamentally "open" company, and according to the man himself, this means that Google is the anti-Apple.

"With the Apple model — which works extremely well, as I know as a former Apple board member — you have to use their development tools, their platform, their software, their hardware," Schmidt said today during an appearance in San Francisco. "If you submit an application, they have to approve it. You have to use their monetization and their distribution. That would not be open. The inverse would be open."

At one point, he said that Apple's core strategy was "closedness."

During last week's interview with The Wall Street Journal, Schmidt made repeated claims of Google openness, and these claims continued this morning at the annual TechCrunch Disrupt conference, as Schmidt explained how Google is working with the rest of the industry to build — and this is an exact quote — "an augmented version of humanity."

"Google's core strategy is openness," he said. "Ours is a fundamentally open [strategy]. Open internet. Open web. It's how we fundamentally drive everything."

After the speech, when one reporter pressed him on what these open claims actually mean, Schmidt served up that comparison with Apple. "The easiest comparison is the Apple model versus the web model," he said. "Flash was allegedly a problem [for Apple]. But we love Flash, and Flash has done extremely well on Android. That 's an example of openness. Let the user decide. The user can decide [between] HTML5 or Flash."

Of course, Steve Jobs likes to say that Apple is open because it prefers HTML5 to Flash — HTML5 being an open standard. And though Schmidt likes to paint Google as open, the company is quite closed when it comes to the inner workings of its search and search-ad platforms — not to mention its back-end infrastructure. It bills a project like Android as open — and to a certain extent, it is — but there's a portions of the project that remain completely closed. That includes development of the latest version of the OS, and certain Google services on the OS.

As we've said before, we've reached the point where the word open is completely meaningless — at least among the digerati. But as he builds his augmented version of humanity, Schmidt will continue to use the term. Repeatedly. ®
Newscribe : get free news in real time

US's Structural Unemployment of Excuses

By PAUL KRUGMAN

What can be done about mass unemployment? All the wise heads agree: there are no quick or easy answers. There is work to be done, but workers aren’t ready to do it — they’re in the wrong places, or they have the wrong skills. Our problems are “structural,” and will take many years to solve.

But don’t bother asking for evidence that justifies this bleak view. There isn’t any. On the contrary, all the facts suggest that high unemployment in America is the result of inadequate demand — full stop. Saying that there are no easy answers sounds wise, but it’s actually foolish: our unemployment crisis could be cured very quickly if we had the intellectual clarity and political will to act.

In other words, structural unemployment is a fake problem, which mainly serves as an excuse for not pursuing real solutions.
 
Who are these wise heads I’m talking about? The most widely quoted figure is Narayana Kocherlakota, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who has attracted a lot of attention by insisting that dealing with high unemployment isn’t a Fed responsibility: “Firms have jobs, but can’t find appropriate workers. The workers want to work, but can’t find appropriate jobs,” he asserts, concluding that “It is hard to see how the Fed can do much to cure this problem.”

Now, the Minneapolis Fed is known for its conservative outlook, and claims that unemployment is mainly structural do tend to come from the right of the political spectrum. But some people on the other side of the aisle say similar things. For example, former President Bill Clinton recently told an interviewer that unemployment remained high because “people don’t have the job skills for the jobs that are open.”

Well, I’d respectfully suggest that Mr. Clinton talk to researchers at the Roosevelt Institute and the Economic Policy Institute, both of which have recently released important reports completely debunking claims of a surge in structural unemployment.

After all, what should we be seeing if statements like those of Mr. Kocherlakota or Mr. Clinton were true? The answer is, there should be significant labor shortages somewhere in America — major industries that are trying to expand but are having trouble hiring, major classes of workers who find their skills in great demand, major parts of the country with low unemployment even as the rest of the nation suffers.

None of these things exist. Job openings have plunged in every major sector, while the number of workers forced into part-time employment in almost all industries has soared. Unemployment has surged in every major occupational category. Only three states, with a combined population not much larger than that of Brooklyn, have unemployment rates below 5 percent.

Oh, and where are these firms that “can’t find appropriate workers”? The National Federation of Independent Business has been surveying small businesses for many years, asking them to name their most important problem; the percentage citing problems with labor quality is now at an all-time low, reflecting the reality that these days even highly skilled workers are desperate for employment.

So all the evidence contradicts the claim that we’re mainly suffering from structural unemployment. Why, then, has this claim become so popular?

Part of the answer is that this is what always happens during periods of high unemployment — in part because pundits and analysts believe that declaring the problem deeply rooted, with no easy answers, makes them sound serious.

I’ve been looking at what self-proclaimed experts were saying about unemployment during the Great Depression; it was almost identical to what Very Serious People are saying now.

Unemployment cannot be brought down rapidly, declared one 1935 analysis, because the work force is “unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer.” A few years later, a large defense buildup finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs — and suddenly industry was eager to employ those “unadaptable and untrained” workers.

But now, as then, powerful forces are ideologically opposed to the whole idea of government action on a sufficient scale to jump-start the economy. And that, fundamentally, is why claims that we face huge structural problems have been proliferating: they offer a reason to do nothing about the mass unemployment that is crippling our economy and our society.

So what you need to know is that there is no evidence whatsoever to back these claims. We aren’t suffering from a shortage of needed skills; we’re suffering from a lack of policy resolve. As I said, structural unemployment isn’t a real problem, it’s an excuse — a reason not to act on America’s problems at a time when action is desperately needed.

The Malaysian Institute of Accountants is split – what’s next?

By ERROL OH
errol@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: The outcome of the Malaysian Institute of Accoun-tants’s (MIA) AGM on Saturday indicates that the gap in the membership may be widening between small accounting firms on one side, and the rest of the fraternity on the other. The former are dissatisfied with the profession’s regulatory framework and, judging from the voting at the AGM, their call for change is gaining momentum.

Those at the meeting rejected four resolutions, endorsed by the MIA council, to raise the annual membership subscriptions and the annual practising certificate fee. Similar resolutions failed to secure enough votes at last year’s AGM.

On the other hand, six motions that had been proposed and seconded by two members got the nod. These motions were essentially gestures of protest against certain rules that govern the supervision of accounting practitioners.

Christina Foo says it’s up to the council to recommend action.

 

Newly-elected MIA council member Subramaniam Sankar, a senior audit partner in the accounting firm of HALS & Associates, had proposed all six motions. The seconder was Chan Kah Kooi, also with HALS & Associates.

Subramaniam told StarBiz that the next step for the MIA membership and the Government was to determine whether the institute should be a regulator or a professional association.

“If it is decided that the MIA is to be a regulatory body, then we need another professional association to represent our interests and to provide technical expertise. We can’t leave it to the international accounting bodies. We should have a Malaysian organisation,” he added.

Set up under the Accountants Act 1967, the MIA’s chief tasks are to regulate and develop the accountancy profession in Malaysia. It is in fact a hybrid organisation, embracing the roles of both a regulator and a professional body.

MIA vice president Christina Foo acknowledged that by voting against the resolutions and for the motions, the members represented at the AGM had spoken.

“It’s now for the council to deliberate on these matters and to recommend the appropriate actions. If we need to follow up with the other authorities – and these issues do involve them – we will liaise with them,” she said.

According to Foo, the council meetings for the year had been pre-scheduled and it was up to MIA president Abdul Rahim Abdul Hamid to call for an emergency meeting if necessary.

At the start of the AGM in Kuala Lumpur, which lasted over four hours, a member questioned Abdul Rahim’s eligibility to chair the meeting, alleging that the president was not independent.

When members wanted to put this to a vote, Abdul Rahim instead stepped aside and Foo took over.

The dissenting mood continued when the resolutions and motions were tabled. The voting was via ballots, when it became clear that a show of hands would not go unquestioned.

One of the motions proposes that “necessary steps be taken so that all matters that affect only the rights of members in practice be voted upon only by members in practice.”

Another motion proposes that the MIA council takes steps to control the interview process for the issuing of audit licences, instead of a panel comprising various third parties and the MIA as the minority.

Subramaniam also proposed that there be a separate register for practitioners “so as to accord them with respective rights and obligations required to be in practice.”

The members at the AGM also agreed with the motion that the council should make efforts to abolish the need to renew audit licences every two years.

Subramaniam said if efforts to push for these changes through the MIA failed, it might be necessary for the practitioners to bypass the institute.

He is vice president of the Malaysian Association of Small and Medium Accounting Firms, which currently has about 50 members.

In contrast, the MIA has a total membership of almost 27,000. About two thirds of these are professional accountants in business, while a quarter of this population are in public practice.

According to the MIA’s latest annual report, as at June 30, it had 2,036 member firms, including 1,356 audit firms.

Industry insiders reckoned that at least 1,500 firms could be considered small.