How To Flashing zdr s600s

keyword : How To Flashing zdr s600s for bootloop , How To Flashing zdr s600s for softbrick , How To Flashing zdr s600s for hardbrick , How To Flashing zdr s600s Error Camera , How To Flashing zdr s600s blank screen , How To Flashing zdr s600s lost password , How To Flashing zdr s600s stuck logo , How To Flashing zdr s600s new 2017. How To Flashing zdr s600s repair phone.

DOWNLOAD FILE via Googledrive HERE

Download one of the above file:

How To Flashing zdr s600s

male speaker: good afternoon. welcome to marian minercook athenaeum. it is always a pleasureto welcome one of our distinguished alumniback to claremont. and as a graduating senior, it'seven more exciting for me to see just where a cmceducation can take me. our guest today, jonathanrosenberg, graduated phi beta kappa from claremontmckenna in 1983 with a degree in economics.

after a short stint at theuniversity of chicago, where he got his mba, rosenberg doveright into the burgeoning information technology sector. he first worked as director ofproduct marketing for knight ridder information services,where he helped deploy one of the first online relevanceranking engines before moving to apple, where he managedtheir eworld internet product line. rosenberg then went on to helpfound the @home product group,

eventually becoming seniorvice president of online products and services forexcite @home home. but that was justthe beginning. in 2002, rosenberg startedworking for what may well be the coolest company in thehigh-tech world, google. at google, rosenberg is thesenior vice president of product management andmarketing, where he oversees the design, creation, andimprovement of the internet giant's product line.

google's influence cannotbe overstated. it's the largest americancompany that is not part of the dow jones industrial averageand it continues to grow unchecked. indeed, we here at cmc are thebeneficiaries of some of google's latest technology,the google apps platform, which now providesour college email service, courtesy of gmail. mr. rosenberg is a true friendof the college and embodies

the spirit of leadership andinnovation that we hope to instill in our students. i am honored to welcome mr.rosenberg back to claremont to discuss what really goes onbehind the scenes at the googleplex, google's immensesilicon valley headquarters. please welcome jonathanrosenberg to the ath. [applause] jonathan rosenberg: thank you. so, the people at my table havejust demanded stories.

right? you just said i tell goodstories, you want more story. so i'm going to interruptregularly scheduled programing to provide some stories. i did in fact graduate 25 yearsago this spring along with matt [? pikan ?] whohas come to visit me. and it was just four yearsearlier that my father drove me down to claremont. i had him do what most ofus have our parents do.

i had him help me sherpa mytrunk of stuff into my dorm room and get set up. then i sort of put my hand outand said, you know, dad, i need a check. so he foolishly handedone over. and, of course, he was thenhoping to go meet my professors and look aroundthe campus and i said, you can go now, dad. and so, my dad sort of headedout to the car, and i went to

wave goodbye, and i figuredhe was going to go directly, what was it? the 210 to 5 to the 152 to the101 back to the bay area. but it turned out that hestopped in claremont because he had something to say. and he sent a postcard to mystory house address, and it said something likethe following: dear johnny, mark twain oncesaid that when i was a young man, my father was so ignoranti could hardly stand to have

the old man around. then, when i came back at 21, idiscovered how much smarter he became in the interveningyears. i'm hoping the 60 grand i'mpaying claremont for you will in fact make me much smarter. see you again in four years. love, dad. four years later, iwas a lot smarter. i was an arrogant graduatingsenior, to which matt can

attest, and i was off to conquerthe university of chicago business schoolsyou alluded to. i was, in fact, a lot smarter,and i actually kind of delighted in showing how smarti was to other people generally at their expense. and this, i assure you,was not what my father had in mind. so i went off to the universityof chicago and two years later, i graduated evenmore arrogant and even smarter

and went out to conquer silicon valley much as you described. and my first job was for acompany called operations control systems that made datacenter management software. i was given a lot ofresponsibility for a product, and it failed miserablyin the first year. so, pops came and sat me down. he said, so what didyou learn, son? i said, didn't learn much.

team screwed up. my vision for the productwas great. i don't think i have much tolearn from this at all. my dad said, this time he quotedjohn wooden, you know, jonathan, it's what youlearn after you know it all that counts. think about that. it's what you learn after youknow it all that counts. so in deference to the factthat my father's $60,000

investment in cmc did actuallypay off quite handsomely, i titled this lecture inside theblack box: technology and innovation at google. the title is not, infact, original. my father wrote a book theyear i graduated called technology and innovationinside the black box: technology and economics. so it's in deference to myfather that i now realize that in my entire career i havedone nothing quite as

scholarly as he did in his workinside the black box. that said, i think the cmcsenior that graduated 25 years ago knowing it all has in factlearned a great deal since then, and that's at the heartof what i'm hoping to convey to you all today. was that a story? i'll do some more stories, ok. so, how many have beento my previous talks? ok, well, that's a problem,because this is sort of

jonathan 301. let me do sort of a quicka few minutes on jonathan 101 and 201. we'll bring you up to speed. you're really going to getyour money's worth. see, i'll do a whole course infive minutes and then we'll move on to new material. in my previous talks i talk alot about the internet as a change agent, how it's reshapinginformation exchange

and discovery. some of you may remember i hada pretty slide of a kid on a long dirt road in mumbai andpointed out that even these kids have access to the sameinformation as the scholarly researchers at harvard orstanford or claremont. i also talked a lot how there'sbeen this secular shift in information and anagent of online advertising, which has basically evolved tofinance free products and free software, and how there's thishuge cambrian explosion of

services that are now motivatedand funded by this free engine of advertising. i've also tried to put inperspective my view of business in the 20th centuryand why the big shifts in technology cause thecommunications industry, the entertainment industry, thetechnology industry to miss the next big trend. i've tried to explain whydominant players tend to blow these transitions.

the last time i came, i talkedabout how oil fueled the industrial revolution. much as oil fueled thatrevolution, bandwidth and access to information andpeople spending online, spending time online, and doingsearch, which drives down information costs,basically cause all sorts of commerce to occur online. so for those of you who missedjonathan 101 and 201, that's basically it.

then there's three books. there's only three booksyou need to read. i covered those too, a little,to some degree. they're chris anderson's thelong tail, james surowiecki's the wisdom of crowds, and morerecently don tapscott's wikinomics. so i always figured, i paid myprofessors to tell me the crap that was in the books. they never did that.

they always made me readthe books, right? but i'm going to just give youin one minute or less the essence of those three books. the first one, the long tail,basically talks about how if you lower the costs ofproduction and distribution, you can offer a lotmore variety. and with more variety and thetools to find it, which the internet offers, then peoplewill gravitate towards their own tastes.

and this whole concept of thistyranny of shelf space limiting people to thehit-driven items that we see in stores gives way and peoplecan actually find specific goods and services that map towhat it is that they're really interested. that's basically thewhole long tail. information costs go down,transaction costs go down, economic activity spontaneously combusts and goes up.

the second book, the wisdom ofcrowds by james surowiecki. this basically talks-- it starts from the premise ofa british anthropologist, francis galton, in the 19thcentury, who went to a fair where there was a contestto weigh an ox. and he looked at the guesses ofthe ox, and he discovered that the experts were wrong,but that the average of the crowd actually turned out tobe better than any of the singular experts.

from which, of course, heconcludes on page 79 that we learn that the average of acrowd is often much better than expert, something that wesee today in many prediction markets and others, if youlook at the io electronic markets, and if you lookat the efficiency of the stock market. page rank and much of what yousee on google today is a manifestation of thiscrowd wisdom. the third and last book iswikinomics by don tapscott.

basically it talks about thisera of internet togetherness leading to mass and globalcollaboration and people being able to contribute with openstandards like you see with wikipedia trouncing encyclopediabritannica with real users doing work. linux is an open operatingsystem having individuals do work. so those are the trends thati've talked about before that successful technology companiesand web companies

understand. they're stitching togetherservices through sharing. they're not over-engineeringa closed experience. flickr kicking the heckout of webshots. wikipedia beating britannica. bloggers beating cnn. facebook beating friendster. these are all examples of thiskind of enlightened thinking. so that's jonathan 101,201, and 301.

we had a pop quiz alittle earlier. some of you did prettywell on it. i sat down over the weekend andi tried to come up with sixteen principles ofinnovation, things that i've learned at google thatare different. one of them stems from theconcept of network effects. how many of you remembera network effect? what's a network effect? anyone?

audience: the more youuse something, the greater the value. jonathan rosenberg: themore you something, of course, the seminal examplebeing the fax machine. for those-- do you even remember whata fax machine is? the cell phone, thetelephone as well. vcrs, of course, once peoplecame out with video. the internet is all about this.ebay, the buyers go

where the sellers go, thesellers go where the buyers go, and ebay keepsgetting stronger. google is reallybased on this. users go where the informationis so people bring more information to us. advertisers go where the usersare, so we get more advertisers. we get more users because wehave more advertisers because we can buy distribution on sitesthat understand that our

search engine monetizesbetter. so more users, moreinformation. more information, more users. more advertisers, more users. more users, more advertisers. it's a beautiful thing,lather, rinse, repeat. that's what i do for a living. so that's-- someone alludedto the engine that can't be stopped.

hiring is just like that. if you think about all institutions, think about colleges. colleges are great because theyhave great professors and administrators. and great students come. great students come becausethere are great professors. great professors come becausethey want to be around great students.

great alumni networks build outof great students, and so more students come. so everything, as informationbecomes easily accessible, becomes a network effect. hiring is the same thing, andit's the single most important thing that anybody does. and at google, we do itvery differently. we've always believed thatas hire bs and bs hire cs and so forth.

you get as, bs, and cs. you're in school, right? you can train as to keep hiringas, but you can't train second-rate bs to hire anythingbetter than cs, because second-rate bsare threatened by as. so you've got to seta very high bar and maintain it forever. you wanted a story. i told the story in the previousdiscussion about my

second interview at google. the more interesting storyis the first interview. i came in, and basically the waywe interview at google is, we like run a cat scan. we see if it reveals signsof electrical activity. you can go, bluuuh, you know,or it can go, blip blip blip blip blip blip blip blip. and you say, hire her or leavehim wherever he is. so i had my cat scan withlarry and sergey.

and here's what they do. they bring you in and theyask you a whole bunch of questions, and then they have,some vc told them, ask the person to explain somethingcomplicated. and then you just sit there,and you make them talk. and eventually, they triedto make it more and more complicated, and they soundlike blibbering idiots. so i walked in. larry and sergey said, mm.

explain to me somethingcomplicated. that's the way sergey said it. he sort of has a bit of arussian accent which i can't imitate that well. you could imitate it. audience: explainto me, jonathan. jonathan rosenberg: somethingcomplicated. thank you. god, i knew matt camefor something.

so i'm thinking, well, i gotto explain something that i know something about that theydon't know something about. jonathan theorem 12, which wetalked a little bit earlier. so i thought, well, theoryof the firm. i mean, you know, i used tosort of coach people at microeconomics. let's start with a total costfunction, q of x. you guys need to understand that there'san economic law that states that marginal costbisects average cost at the

latter's minimum, and this canbe proven through cartesian geometry or calculus. so i'm going to start with thecost function q of x, define average cost q of x over x. youtake the first derivative. you set it equal to zero. if you don't remember thequotient rule, because you have x in the denominatorit's easier. you haven't had calculus ina while, you make it x to the minus 1.

and then you basicallytake the derivative. you have q prime of x, which ismarginal cost. you set it equal to zero. q prime of x equals to q ofx over x. right, jerry? right, it works. so i do this. i'm very proud of myself. and sergey says, you can helpwith this, it looks like first-year calculus.

so i'm like, shoot. something more complicated. so i think, well, whatdid i study next? linear algebra. i'm going to explain the simplexalgorithm and how you maximize an objective functionat the corner solutions. and then i'm like, oh, i justread their paper, and page rank sums the eigenvaluesand eigenvectors of the web in end space.

i don't want to talk to theseguys about linear algebra. so i sort of looked at them, andthey were like, i actually interviewed two years before itook the job, so it was eight, nine years ago. and they were sort ofyoung, disheveled computer science types. i thought, i need to moveon to my home turf. i will explain toyou courtship. and i basically gavethem a lecture on

courtship and dating. and they thought itwas brilliant. so brilliant people are acombustible situation. we take brilliant people andwe put them in small work spaces together. if you come to our offices,you'll see all the offices are patterned after the sizein the original garage. sergey and larry actuallymeasured it. and people work in these little

offices in teams of three. working from home in adevelopment environment is a malignant metastasizingcancer. you should never letpeople do it. doesn't work. put people together. don't hire specialists. small groups of specialistshave lower standards and aren't flexible.

number one: hire great people. i have fifteen more of these,so i'm going to go faster. number two: ideas comefrom anywhere. most companies say this, butthey don't really do it. they have like some littlestupid idea box in the corner. and they don't reward peoplefor their ideas. we actually, when we were small,had a meeting and we called it the idea meeting. and we do peer reviews, and wehire really smart people, and

they're rewarded for actuallycoming up with good ideas. and the way you talked aboutyour ideas was, you went in front of your peers, like i'm infront of you, and you say, here's my idea. and you got to talk about ituntil they look bored or booed you off of the stage. seriously. so basically, we're taking thewisdom of crowds and forcing you in front of your peers toshowcase the idea that you

have. and later, when we becametoo big to do things that way, we started todo the first round of ideas through email. people would send an email,and then we'd all vote on that idea. and the ones that got the mostvotes as potentially good ideas got to go up on the stageand either get booed off or show their friends thatthey had a great idea. so you've got to make sure thatyou're accepting of ideas

coming from anywhere, but thenyou've got to implement a system that actually deliversagainst it. the third big thing that we dothat's different is sharing and openness. the openness is the don tapscottstuff that i talked about in wikinomics,but sharing. if you hire great people, youneed to trust them with everything. so everything is onour intranet.

everything. we write the board letter tothe board each quarter. we send it to all of theemployees so they know what we think is important. when somebody comes to me andasks for information, i tell them, have you lookedon our intranet? if they say, no. i say look there. then when i seem them again,i say, did you find it?

if they say no, i say, wellthen, go find it. they go find it. i say, did you put iton the intranet? everything is on our intranet. the same standards of opennessare applied to all of our product development efforts. if you look at the recenteffort we did with opensocial, right? we basically have this protocolto share information

between websites that peoplehave already visited. the same thing with android, thesoftware stack that's open that we're working onfor mobile phones. so, that's what you have toget out of wikinomics. you have to understand thisconcept of openness. you have to understandthis concept. they talk-- how the human genomeproject basically was led by firms that chose to sharewith everyone because they understood the ken arrowmodel of learning by doing.

you win, not by locking peoplein, but by being better at the things that you'veactually done. we're better at search. so even if we share all of whatwe do with people, that's going to help them make usbetter and we're going to stay better because we've learnedmore and we continue to hire people who are better. so we really personified thismodel of open that's eclipsed the more traditional models,the aol closed proprietary

systems model. you can't control theplatform anymore. consumers are in control. customers are free to movefrom one open platform to another, and they're the keyto the continued success of web-based enterprises. you also have, as i said, theinternet driving costs and transaction costs down. and since you have high barriersto entry, you really

have the ideal model forcreating value if you're in this open and sharing world. the next big idea that wehave is to morph ideas and not kill them. and this also goes to a lot ofwhat i talked about in some of my previous talks about theeconomics of technological innovation. i've talked about how differentinventions come on and we don't foreseetheir real economic

impact for some time. the transistor, thelaser, the vcr. i also talked about the steamengine, which was originally developed for pumping waterout of flooded mines. once you connected it to therailroads, basically, you tamed the west. so there areall these technologies that are proposed as point solutionsto very narrow problems. what we have todayis fast change with the underlying technology, thecpu power, the storage

requirements. so you're constantly revisitingthese ideas that didn't work before andreapplying them. blogs were originally aboutpublishing information so that people could reach nichecommunities. but the whole blog systems thatwe developed are now the engines behind publishinginformation in google docs and spreadsheets, which is the nextevolution for those who are using gmail.

we also used to have ideasthat we've morphed like convergence. convergence was originallyabout, remember, the device in your pocket that woulddo everything? how many power chargers do youtake with you on vacation? six? convergence is not atthe device level. devices will proliferate. convergence is in the cloud,where your gmail is, where

your docs are, where yourspreadsheets are. all of your data needsto converge. the devices that vectorinto your data are going to diverge. the opposite of what weoriginally expected, but still the same idea. the next big difference: userscome first, not money. sounds simple to say. very, very few companiesfollow it.

you read the founders' letter. you read larry and sergey'sfocus on the user. i first met them and they saidthey didn't know how they were going to make money,but they were going to build great search. they did. other companies startedlicensing our search and our ads. and it was almost comical thedegree to which they would

become addicted to theheroin of revenue. the more ads they put on theirpage, and the more they push the user's search resultsdown, the more money they made. and they were our partners. and each quarter they would sayto me, jonathan, how do i make more money? and i said, well, you can makemore money by dialing up the ads on the page.

you end up being likevogue magazine. it's nothing but ads. at least the people who readvogue magazine want the ads. on the internet, the peopledidn't want that scope of ads. so every quarter, they basicallywould monetize themselves out of share becausethey were focused on money and not the user. and we were the beneficiaries ofthat share, even though we advise them againstdoing this.

ultimately the winners become,in this new world where information travels quickly,disinformation gets spread online, but the truthalso emerges faster. this is true in politics andit's true in business. so users ruthlessly punishcompanies that do the wrong thing and richly rewardcompanies that do the right thing. did we need steve jobs to tellus that we didn't need to buy ten songs when webought music?

did we need him to figure outthat we all wanted a player with only one button that normalpeople could figure out how to use? sony samsung, the whole mp3world, didn't understand that, and they lost, because jobs,like google, was focused on the user, and maniacally so. users, not money. data drives all decisions. don't come into meeting atgoogle and say, i think.

come in and show us. and show us with data. not with data that you massagedin some spreadsheet from some external source. data that comes from ourlog systems that we know to be true. in every conference roomwe have two projectors. one you can put up your sillypowerpoint presentation if you really want, and the other youhave to show the source data

from that that others canquestion that show your conclusions. argue everything about yourconclusion based on data that everybody else in the room canargue against. don't come in and say, i think. don't come in with yourdesign and say, this is a beautiful aesthetic. users will like it. try it online.

come back. measure what worked. and tell us with data. note the approach to datathat the company took to advertising. there are all these famoussayings about advertising: 50% works, i don't know which 50%. larry and sergey didthe opposite. they took a return oninvestment-based approach to

measuring everythingthat people do. our users get conversiontracking software for free that tells them whether or notthey should lower their bids or raise them, because we wantthem to understand with real data what, on abang-for-the-buck basis they're getting. in years, advertising is goingto be a dashboard that a cmo has, and he's going to figureout how much he wants to spend to achieve a certain objectiveon television, radio, and the

online medium, and we'regoing to tell him on a bang-for-the-buck basisagainst any particular objective what worksand what doesn't. i have one other quick exampleabout information and data. i read an article of mckinseyquarterly about sardine fishermen in the indian ocean. sardine fisherman 101 basicallylook like this. these poor guys go out in these boats to find the sardines.

the goal is to get fish, getthem on your boat, bring them back, and sell themon the market. and they're in these littlevillages that dot the landscape like 15,20 miles apart. so the fishermen all go out inthe morning and race to get enough fish to bring it backto the local market. the first guy back gets agood price for its fish. but some days lots morefishermen come back with lots more fish than themarket expected.

the last fisherman in has acatch that basically spoils, so he has to race back out tosea and go to the next town, which is another day's ride ontheir little fishing boat, and hope that they're notoverstocked with fish. well, some genius basicallysaid, wait a minute, data can solve this, and put cell phonesin the fish markets and gave them to the fishermen. now the fisherman knows whichvillage to head for because he has data.

that fisherman doesn'twant to think. that fisherman wantsreal data. and that real data is basicallythe livelihood around their economicwell-being. iterating products. most companies talkabout this. they don't really do it. i used to be the king ofwriting product plans. all my failed job experiences.

and when i arrived at google,larry basically said, when did the engineers ever do a betterjob of adding features and functions that you wrotein your product plan? when did they ever doit faster than the schedule that you had. i said, well, never. he said, well, then,don't write them. just get people working on ademo, iterate it, see what users do, and make itbetter from there.

eight: vision. not all companies share theirvision with their people, or when they do, it's not much ofa vision, and it's a vision that doesn't standthe test of time. how many people workedfor a company that had a mission statement? how many-- well, raiseyour hands. ok, leave your hands up. ok.

leave your hands upnow only if you remember the mission statement. cynthia. audience: cmc's mission. jonathan rosenberg:outstanding. good job, pamela. they can all recite yourmission by heart. ok, that's good. i like that.

well, like i say, googleis more like a university than a company. so we've got this missionto organize the world's information and makeit universally accessible to people. it's going to take the rest ofmy lifetime and the rest of yours and the rest of yourchildren's children to achieve this mission. everybody understands it.

everybody internalizes it. and it means somethingto them. 20% time. no company has ever officiallydefined 20% time. our engineers work on anythingthey want 20% of their time, and out of this 20 time comespretty fabulous things, like google news, which was basicallya guy by the name of krishna who was following the9/11 efforts and wanted to pull information onwhat was happening

together in a dashboard. and he basically invented googlenews which today is one of the most visitednews sites. thinking big. the antibodies in allcompanies try to reject big thinking. larry and sergey dothe opposite. you come in with some littleidea and they leverage it up to a giant idea.

they even institutionalizedit in what we call the okr process. objectives and key results. one of the vcs told them whenthey first got started, everybody needs objectivesand key results. so the company did whatnormal companies do. you learn from mckinsey:under-promise, over-deliver to your boss, right? so everybody wrote thesepathetically wimpy little

objectives and key results. and larry and sergey wentin to mock them and said, what's this? this isn't very difficult. you're solving this problemfor the bay area. solve it for theknown universe. it's pathetic. so they created a process whereyou're only expected to achieve a mark of about60% on your

other companies dothe opposite. in the middle of the quarterthey all get together and they say, what are allthe commitments that people have made? beat harder if they're notmaking them, or give more resources to the onesthat are successful. we've done the opposite. we've defined very big goals,and in many cases people don't come close to achieving them,and we're rewarding the people

who do reasonably well. sergey, i recall like it wasyesterday, when we only had five-- there were only 500million web searches a day, like, several years ago. and sergey sort of looked aroundand had this look in his eyes at this offsetand said, you were all thinking too small. there are 10 billion web pageviews a day, and only 500 million searches.

i wish an ad on every page. and then we had ad sets, whichis basically the reverse of search, putting the adson the web pages. the x prize. somebody sending a rover tothe moon, driving around, sending back data. i was just in a meetingon energy. and somebody said, we can makerenewable energy cheaper. and larry said, well, then,put an okr up to make

renewable energy cheaperall over the world, cheaper than coal. that's what really willmake a difference. think big. bet on a trend or fallvictim to one. everything about success andtechnology is internalizing and understanding whateric calls the technology base case. you guys read about this, butyou don't internalize it.

moore's law, right? processing doublingevery 18 months. improving by an orderof magnitude ten times in five years. kryder's law of storage. storage becoming halfthe price in a year. it's hard in normal industriesto think this way. to think that the cell phonethat in your pocket is a hundred times more powerfulthan the pc that you

used ten years ago. or, how many do youhave a wii? it's more powerful than thecomputers that powered the apollo missions. that's very hard for people tothink about when they're doing development. larry and sergey internalizedthat before they got started. they built a system that theyknew couldn't work at the scale they needed it to workwith the processing

power of the day. all of you are using gmail. when we launched gmail, wecouldn't afford to give people two gigabytes of storage, but weknew it would take time for them to use up allof their storage. and by then it willbe cheaper. it'd be a year later. it would be half the price. again, betting on a trend.

chad hurley, who was one ofthe founders of youtube. you look at what hedid today and it doesn't seem so brilliant. but you talk to him about whathe saw and he said, you know, there was a moment four yearsago when i was sitting down and i was thinking and i sawthat it was hard to create video, because we didn'thave ubiquitous deployment of cameras. and bandwidth was scarce andit wasn't fast enough to

download these things. and you needed special clientsoftware because we didn't have the open standardsand robust browsers that we have today. but he said, in a year or so,all of that's going to change. and in a year he created $1.6billion worth of value. there are many other trendslike this that we're tracking today. cell phones, obviously.

we're getting overthe form factor. we're getting over thedisplay issues. we're getting overthe battery life. we're cramming all sortsof processing power into these things. we're adding gps locationenabled ability into them. we're not far away from beingable to walk around in stores, take a picture of a bar codewith your cell phone, and have your cell phone tell you how faryou have to drive or walk

to get the same devicein inventory somewhere else cheaper. that's going to fundamentallychange commerce. people with devices in theirhands ready to consummate transactions who have knowledge,data, information, about where they canget a better deal. accept the smaller piece ofa larger pie, rather than hogging a bigger pie. we have matt here,who's a writer.

i'm sorry, let's talkabout your industry. audience: please. jonathan rosenberg: thehollywood writers' strike. they wanted a raise. they wanted a higher cutof dvd sales, right? i don't remember whatthe number was. it was like four cents toeight cents, right? so we held up the world for thefuture of dvd royalties. how many of you students watchall your network shows online?

i know my niece does. put your hands up, come on. do you want a dvd? if someone gave one to you? you don't have a dvd. many of you don't havedvd players. so we're arguing about a largerpiece of a smaller pie that's turning into a crumb. google's the opposite.

we're focusing on makingthe partner successful. when we first developed adsense,which monetized websites, the business peoplewith mbas all said to larry and sergey, we're theonly game in town. offer them 40% percentof the revenue. and larry and sergeysaid, no, no, no. it's their revenue. it's their pages. they're the ones creatingthe content.

give them the vast majorityof the revenue. we'll just take a tiny piece. what did we end up with? a small piece of a much,much larger pie. i'm glad to fixed thingsin hollywood, matt. you're working again. ok, so, given that matt'seating, again. the next concept: feed thewinners, starve the losers. ok, this is the opposite of theway most companies work.

most companies start out withpeople with these objectives. think about other portals. all these general managers thinkabout their own area, not the greater good. so the home page of the portalis where you get distribution. the guy running the careersite, the guy running the finance site, the guy runningthe mail system, they all want traffic. so the one who's doing thepoorest relative to his narrow

objective and key result comesand begs the person who owns the distribution, my career siteis doing really poorly. it's not getting thetraffic i need. push it on the home page sothat more people use it. well, this is the oppositeof what you should do. your career site sucks. that's why-- i'm always picking on myright, not on my left. no one's visiting it.

your finance site rocks. we're getting all thetraffic there. why don't i steer the users tothe finance site, which is good, instead of the careersite, which sucks? that's the way mostgeneral manager oriented companies run. that's why we are functionallyoriented and will always be functionally oriented. you feed the winners andstarve the losers.

avoid hippos. i went to africa recently, andi learned about hippos. latin: river horse. hippo kills more people than anyother animal in the world. hippos kill more projectsin organizations than any other person. a hippo is the highest paidperson's opinion. i am a hippo. when people in a room starttalking, eventually the hippo

speaks, and says, i think. i don't like it when peoplesay, i think. somebody said they wanteda sun story. was it cynthia? sun. eric used to work at sun and hetells a story about coming in at christmas in thelate, mid-'90s. he had a project he wanted todo and to accomplish it, he needed one of theworkstations.

so he went to the shippingdock and stole, borrowed, whatever you want to callit, his pr people, i think, say borrowed. anyway, he took one of the boxesoff the dock and took it to his office and unpacked it. there were eight read me firstdocuments in the box. he put them all up on the walland he looked at them, and he realized that was the company'sboard chart. eight hippos insistedon a read me first

document in the box. you could write an entiresenior thesis on this particular sentence. eight read me first documents. rule of thumb: if you can seethe org chart in a product, don't buy it. that's the difference betweenthe iphone, maniacally driven, accurately and correctly by aman of vision, steve jobs, and these other phones that havemultiple different

applications on them that don'twork together, that all vector into six differentaddress books. who did i say i wouldpick on today? what kind of people? our auditors. yeah, well, that's thewhole security thing. let's pick on lawyersand bureaucrats. ok, i do like some lawyers. i like pragmaticforward-thinking lawyers that

think through theissues relative to a business objective. the kind of people-- who comesfrom a place where they have toll roads? anybody from like-- what's the process? you queue, you wait, you burngas, you throw money in, then what happens whenyou come back? the same thing.

who was the brilliant guy thatactually said, maybe we should just have the toll roads inone direction, like on the golden gate bridge? i'm sure many weeniebureaucrats said that won't work. how many of you have only paidthat toll, and then driven all the way around the bayarea to get back to mill valley, right? we need more people like theguy that said, we only need

tolls in one direction. of course, we need more peoplepaying attention to [unintelligible] use taxes and fixing all thesestupid taxes that we pay that actually waste gas andthat sort of thing. we should have a big gas taxthat would fix it, but that's an entirely another lecture. we can make it less regressiveon the poor by fixing the income tax rate.

and then people wouldn't drivesuch big cars and the world would be a better place. but that's a differentlecture. ok, more on lawyers. how many of you have cars whereyou have to hit i agree every time you get in? or you have parents whohave these things? it's a japanese car. oh, what is it.

audience: [unintelligible] jonathan rosenberg:an american, yeah. well, my cars are all japanese,and i always have to hit i agree. in german cars, you don'thave to hit i agree. are the german lawyers smarterthan the japanese lawyers? or do they make a betterbusiness decision about the relative risks? every time you download afeature online you have to

click i agree. this is just stupid. this is just lawyers saying thatyou have to do this who don't understand the onlinemedium anymore. if your kid's in the-- if you guys go to the hospitaland you haven't signed a release, do you know thehospital can't tell your parents what's wrongwith you because it's a hipaa violation?

all of you should tell yourparents to sign this, by the way, which i'm goingto do for my kids. that's crazy. it violates the spiritof hipaa. you may be over 18, but ifyou're unconscious because you got in an auto accident, all ofyou would want your parents to know and vice versa. you see this-- who came from oneof the banks?

somebody said theywere visiting from capital or something. every time i get a message fromyou it says, this may contain confidential, you know,boring whatever, blah blah blah blah blah blahblah at the bottom. this is just wasting bits. at starbucks finally a geniusdecided that you didn't have to wait for the transaction tobe approved before they let you go stand and waitfor your latte.

it just goes through as thoughit's going to be approved and an alarm bell can go off tenseconds later while they're serving the next customer. i mean what did thelawyer think? pamela was going to go get herchocolate mocha and run out of the store with a visa cardthat didn't work? somebody go get her. this is just-- thisis ridiculous. these weenie in the world, inlinear programming language,

create a constraint set thatbecomes the null set. and and then you end upoptimizing around that. we talked about that in the itdiscussion this morning with respect to auditors andon-site backup. the auditors just havethe wrong rule. you don't need on-site backuphere with a key to the vault anymore. you can have it in eight datacenters all over the world. you have earthquakes here.

you don't want it in a vaultthat you can't get to. at google, we never would havedone images, books, google search, or any of the thingsthat we did if we didn't have reasonable lawyers who explainedto us the risks and then let us make an informedbusiness decision. never surrender to the lawyers,the accountants, or the bureaucrats, except whenthey're right, especially when they're keeping you out of jail,like reg fd violations. that's very bad.

i won't be talking aboutanything that could send me to jail. there are no broadbandconnections in jail. i wouldn't do well withouta broadband connection. rewarding innovation. again, seems simple. most companies don't do it. they have profit sharing. at hp.

i have to pick on somebody,i have to pick on hp. the profit sharing goes between5.5% and 6.5% every year and everybodygets the same. well, that doesn't work. that's like some other country'sapproach to the world and rewarding things. pay the people who deliverlots of money. baseball players, shortstops,they make a lot of money. the best guys in an investmentbank, they

make a lot of money. matt, if his voice had been asgood as the best guys in hollywood, would have mademore money, wouldn't be a writer now. but now he's a producer. you pay the best people waydisproportionately more. millions of dollars. the guy that built google newshas made us millions of dollars, billions of dollars.

pay him millions of dollars. and when some weenie saysthat isn't fair. say you don't care. life's not fair. i wish i could hit a stepback 23-foot jump shot like baron davis. i can't. so i don't get toplay in the nba. i wasn't as handsome asmatt was in college.

i didn't get as many dates. it wasn't fair. audience: he's right. jonathan rosenberg: it'sstill not fair. there's a final ingredientin this. and it's one that i haven'ttalked about. and it's one that all of you,i think, have going for you. and it's about learning. it's why you go to a greatliberal arts school.

because underlying all thethings that i talked about is this one idea: it's learninghow to learn. i learned a lot of claremont. i can no longer articulate thecultural underpinnings of japan's economic miracle, asleon hollerman taught me. i cannot articulate all thetheories of personality that i learned in professorsnortum's class. i might be able to say a fewthings about the theory of the firm, matching wits withjerry, if i was lucky.

but what i learned here was,i learned how to learn. on graduation day, 25 years ago,i'm quite confident that i knew it all. it's amazing how much i'velearned since then. thank you for letting me sharesome of it with you.