• Tech Book of the Month
  • Archive
  • Recommend a Book
  • Choose The Next Book
  • Sign Up
  • About
  • Search
Tech Book of the Month
  • Tech Book of the Month
  • Archive
  • Recommend a Book
  • Choose The Next Book
  • Sign Up
  • About
  • Search

July 2022 - Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World

This month we learn about the explore popular productivity book Deep Work, by Cal Newport, a professor of theoretical computer science at Georgetown.

Tech Themes

  1. Deep vs. Shallow. Just like Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper, we, too, are trying to avoid the shallow. Newport starts his book with an overview of Deep Work compared to Shallow Work. Deep Work is focused, undistracted efforts at achieving the peak of your abilities. On the other hand, Shallow Work includes small, logistical tasks that the brain does not need to be entirely active to solve. Newport argues that more time should be spent in Deep mode. It leads to greater productivity and offers a way for individuals to differentiate themselves with the quality of work they do. In Newport's mind, the distracted Tiktok-obsessed world we currently inhabit is only getting more Shallow, so embracing Deep Work is the only way to survive. Shallow Work tends to involve lots of context switching from Task A to Task B. When this context-switching is repeated incessantly throughout the day, our ability to focus on anything diminishes, and we can end up in a permanent state of shallowness.

  2. Deep Styles. Newport believes there are four core styles of Deep Work: Monastic, Bi-modal, Rhythmic, and Journalistic. The Monastic philosophy of Deep Work tries to completely eliminate all distractions. An example of Monastic Deep Work is famed computer science professor and Turing award winner Donald Knuth. Knuth does not have an email address. As he explains: "I have been a happy man ever since January 1, 1990, when I no longer had an email address. I'd used email since about 1975, and it seems to me that 15 years of email is plenty for one lifetime. Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I try to learn certain areas of computer science exhaustively; then I try to digest that knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don't have time for such study. On the other hand, I need to communicate with thousands of people all over the world as I write my books. I also want to be responsive to the people who read those books and have questions or comments. My goal is to do this communication efficiently, in batch mode --- like, one day every six months." Clearly, the monastic state tries to maximize deep work by shutting everything else out. The Bi-Modal philosophy asks the studier to program stretches of life wholly dedicated to Deep Work. Newport uses famous Penn psychology professor Adam Grant, as an example. Grant batches all of his teaching in the fall and all of his research in the spring. This schedule allows him to flip between modes into excellent-teacher Adam and excellent-researcher Adam. In these states, he's entirely dedicated to being the best at each subdomain, providing simplicity, clarity, and purpose to his routines and focus. Rhythmic philosophy entails finding certain times of day to work in stretches of Deep Work. This approach is the most accessible style of Deep Work for people who don't control their schedules. Newport recommends you plan out a week's worth of Deep Work in regular chunks to establish a routine for getting your mind ready to "Go Deep." The last Deep Work mode, the Journalistic philosophy, may be the most challenging style but can have incredibly intense effects. Newport gives Walter Issacson as an example here: "It was always amazing … he could retreat up to the bedroom for a while, when the rest of us were chilling on the patio or whatever, to work on his book … he'd go up for twenty minutes or an hour, we'd hear the typewriter pounding, then he'd come down as relaxed as the rest of us … the work never seemed to faze him, he just happily went up to work when he had the spare time." Find a philosophy that works for your current work structure!

  3. Busyness != Productivity. In today's corporate world, many people equate busyness with productivity. Have I been sending and receiving emails all day? Have I been in meetings? Have I completed five zoom calls? These all feel vaguely productive, or maybe they don't. But either way, they take up large portions of our day. One only has to look at the hilarious new trend of young employees at mega-tech companies posting about their busy days doing what amounts to 3 hours of work while being spoiled by ridiculous offices and employee perks. Maybe this is why Facebook and Google have recently publicly told employees that their organizations are not very productive. Zuckerberg went as far as to say: "Realistically, there are probably a bunch of people at the company who shouldn't be here." Sundar Pichai created a "Simplicity Sprint "week to identify ways to make Google's 174,000 employees more productive. The world may be in for a more focused, intensely productive time with an imminent recession looming. Maybe that is why so many great companies are borne out of times of trouble?

Business Themes

1_x_9hkwSenWzvpSSC9I4PNw.jpeg
deep-work-shallow.png
  1. Think Weeks and Unconcious Processing. Bill Gates is famous for taking two weeks a year completely off to set new directives for his life and professional work. We covered this in our June 2021 book regarding information overload in investing. Newport definitely likes the idea of Think Weeks - encouraging people to find separate locations from home or work to build creative momentum for the week. Individuals can also take some grand action, like traveling to a remote place or paying a significant sum for specialized accommodation to signal the importance of the work they are about to attempt. Newport also dives into the idea of unconscious processing or a work shutdown. Newport argues that downtime aids insights, helps recharge the energy needed to work deeply, and pushes us to focus only on necessary things (i.e. that nighttime email responses are usually not super important).

  2. Four Disciplines of Execution (4DX). To help people in their Deep Work journies, Newport introduces us to the Four Disciplines of Execution (4DX), a framework created by the FranklinCovey company for helping companies work better. FranklinCovey is the business associated with Stephen Covey, and his highly successful 7 habits of Successful People and First Things First. His son Sean Covey, wrote and popularized 4DX. The four disciplines espoused by the framework are: (1) Focus on the Wildly Important, (2) Act on Lead Measures, (3) Keep a Compelling Scoreboard, and (4) Create a Cadence of Accountability. Clearly, the first discipline focuses on identifying the significant goals we want to achieve. The second discipline is a bit more nuanced and prompts us to think more about the inputs to success rather than the success itself. As an example, a company might have a revenue target for the year, but that target could be broken down into simple actions by the sales team to reach out to customers, understand use cases, and position the company's product to help. Discipline 2 argues that we should focus on these leading indicators of success rather than revenue achievement itself. The third discipline is about creating consistency and identifying success. Jerry Seinfeld offers a great example of this practice: "He [Jerry Seinfeld] told me to get a big wall calendar that has a whole year on one page and hang it on a prominent wall. The next step was to get a big red magic marker. He said for each day that I do my task of writing, I get to put a big red X over that day. 'After a few days you'll have a chain. Just keep at it and the chain will grow longer every day. You'll like seeing that chain, especially when you get a few weeks under your belt. Your only job next is to not break the chain.' 'Don't break the chain,' he said again for emphasis." This advice likely explains the phenomenon of maintaining Snapchat streaks at all costs. The fourth discipline is about establishing accountability for achieving the goals set out during the previous week. FranklinCovey insists that you hold yourself accountable each week. Hopefully, all that's needed is a 15-minute scheduled window to see your progress. The 4DX method is straightforward, clear, and helpful for executing any goal.

  3. Amp it Up. In the spirit of next month's TBOTM, let's talk about amping up the intensity of our Deep Work. Newport discusses the early and incredible success of Teddy Roosevelt in what seemed like everything he tried. As one blogger notes: "While at Harvard, TR developed an intense study or "deep work" attitude. He would schedule every minute of his day including every activity, meal breaks, and classes. Any "spare time" was slated for study - study that did not include daydreams, sips of tea or any sign of indecision. He focused, without breaks, an intense frenzy of concentrated energy." As BusinessInsider notes, the way to incorporate this into our lives is by: "Newport says one way to incorporate rewarding deep work into your life is 'to inject the occasional dash of Rooseveltian intensity into your own workday.' This entails selecting a high-priority task, estimating how much time it would normally take you, and then creating a deadline well below the typical allotted time." Newport, a theoretical computer scientist, has a formula for how to describe this strategy: Quality Work (QW) = time Spent x Intensity. Quality work therefore does not always need to be achieved through laboring hours but can instead be supplemented with blistering intensity and focus. How do you achieve this superior intensity? There is no theory for becoming a more intense worker, but Newport believes that work intensity is a muscle that can be honed over time with more and more efforts of intense, Deep Work.

Dig Deeper

  • Cal Newport Explains Deep Work

  • Walter Isaacson | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union Web Series

  • Donald Knuth - My advice to young people (93/97)

  • The surprising habits of original thinkers | Adam Grant

  • Jerry Seinfeld — A Comedy Legend’s Systems, Routines, and Methods for Success | The Tim Ferriss Show

tags: Cal Newport, Deep Work, Lady Gaga, Bradley Cooper, Donald Knuth, Adam Grant, Walter Issacson, Facebook, Google, Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, Snapchat, 4DX, Sean Covey, Stephen Covey, Jerry Seinfeld, Teddy Roosevelt
categories: Non-Fiction
 

February 2020 - How the Internet Happened: From Netscape to the iPhone by Brian McCullough

Brian McCullough, host of the Internet History Podcast, does an excellent job of showing how the individuals adopted the internet and made it central to their lives. He follows not only the success stories but also the flame outs which provide an accurate history of a time of rapid technological change.

Tech Themes

  1. Form to Factor: Design in Mobile Devices. Apple has a long history with mobile computing, but a few hiccups in the early days are rarely addressed. These hiccups also telegraph something interesting about the technology industry as a whole - design and ease of use often trump features. In the early 90’s Apple created the Figaro, a tablet computer that weighed eight pounds and allowed for navigation through a stylus. The issue was it cost $8,000 to produce and was 3/4 of an inch thick, making it difficult to carry. In 1993, the Company launched the Newton MessagePad, which cost $699 and included a calendar, address book, to-do list and note pad. However, the form was incorrect again; the MessagePad was 7.24 in. x 4.5 in. and clunky. With this failure, Apple turned its attention away from mobile, allowing other players like RIM and Blackberry to gain leading market share. Blackberry pioneered the idea of a full keyboard on a small device and Marc Benioff, CEO of salesforce.com, even called it, “the heroin of mobile computing. I am serious. I had to stop.” IBM also tried its hand in mobile in 1992, creating the Simon Personal Communicator, which had the ability to send and receive calls, do email and fax, and sync with work files via an adapter. The issue was the design - 8 in. by 2.5 in. by 1.5 in. thick. It was a modern smartphone, but it was too big, clunky, and difficult to use. It wasn’t until the iPhone and then Android that someone really nailed the full smart phone experience. The lessons from this case study offer a unique insight into the future of VR. The company able to offer the correct form factor, at a reasonable price can gain market share quickly. Others who try to pioneer too much at a time (cough, magic leap), will struggle.

  2. How to know you’re onto something. Facebook didn’t know. On November 30, 2004, Facebook surpassed one million users after being live for only ten months. This incredible growth was truly remarkable, but Mark Zuckerberg still didn’t know facebook was a special company. Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, had been mentoring Zuckerberg the prior summer: “What was so bizarre about the way Facebook was unfolding at that point, is that Mark just didn’t totally believe in it and wanted to go and do all these other things.” Zuckerberg even showed up to a meeting at Sequoia Capital still dressed in his pajamas with a powerpoint entitled: “The Top Ten Reasons You Should Not Invest.” While this was partially a joke because Sequoia has spurned investing in Parker’s latest company, it represented how immature the whole facebook operation was, in the face of rapid growth. Facebook went on to release key features like groups, photos, and friending, but most importantly, they developed their revenue model: advertising. The quick user growth and increasing ad revenue growth got the attention of big corporations - Viacom offered $2B in cash and stock, and Yahoo offered $1B all cash. By this time, Zuckerberg realized what he had, and famously spurned several offers from Yahoo, even after users reacted negatively to the most important feature that facebook would ever release, the News Feed. In today’s world, we often see entrepreneur’s overhyping their companies, which is why Silicon Valley was in-love with dropout founders for a time, their naivite and creativity could be harnessed to create something huge in a short amount of time.

  3. Channel Partnerships: Why apple was reluctant to launch a phone. Channel partnerships often go un-discussed at startups, but they can be incredibly useful in growing distribution. Some industries, such as the Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) market thrives on channel partnership arrangements. Companies like Crowdstrike engage partners (mostly IT services firms) to sell on their behalf, lowering Crowdstrike’s customer acquisition and sales spend. This can lead to attractive unit economics, but on the flip side, partners must get paid and educated on the selling motion which takes time and money. Other channel relationships are just overly complex. In the mid 2000’s, mobile computing was a complicated industry, and companies hated dealing with old, legacy carriers and simple clunky handset providers. Apple tried the approach of working with a handset provider, Motorola, but they produced the terrible ROKR which barely worked. The ROKR was built to run on the struggling Cingular (would become AT&T) network, who was eager to do a deal with Apple in hopes of boosting usage on their network. After the failure of the ROKR, Cingular executives begged Jobs to build a phone for the network. Normally, the carriers had specifications for how phones were built for their networks, but Jobs ironed out a contract which exchanged network exclusivity for complete design control, thus Apple entered into mobile phones. The most important computing device of the 2000’s and 2010’s was built on a channel relationship.

Business Themes

caseaoltimewarner.jpg
timewarner_aol_facts1.jpg
  1. AOL-Time Warner: the merger destined to fail. To fully understand the AOL-Time Warner merger, you must first understand what AOL was, what it was becoming, and why it was operating on borrowed time. AOL started as an ISP, charging customers $9.95 for five hours of dial-up internet access, with each additional hour costing $2.95. McCullough describes AOL: “AOL has often been described as training wheels for the Internet. For millions of Americans, their aol.com address was their first experience with email, and thus their first introduction to the myriad ways that networked computing could change their lives.” AOL grew through one of the first viral marketing campaigns ever; AOL put CDs into newspapers which allowed users to download AOL software and get online. The Company went public in March of 1992 and by 1996 the Company had 2.1 million subscribers, however subscribers were starting to flee to cheaper internet access. It turned out that building an ISP was relatively cheap, and the high margin cash flow business that AOL had built was suddenly threatened by a number of competitors. AOL persisted with its viral marketing strategy, and luckily many americans still had not tried the internet yet and defaulted to AOL as being the most popular. AOL continued to add subscribers and its stock price started to balloon; in 1998 alone the stock went up 593%. AOL was also inking ridiculous, heavily VC funded deals with new internet startups. Newly public Drkoop, which raised $85M in an IPO, signed a four year $89M deal to be AOL’s default provider of health content. Barnes and Noble paid $40M to be AOL’s bookselling partner. Tel-save, a long distance phone provider signed a deal worth $100M. As the internet bubble continued to grow, AOL’s CEO, Steve Case realized that many of these new startups would be unable to fufill their contractual obligations. Early web traffic reporting systems could easily be gamed, and companies frequently had no business model other than attract a certain demographic of traffic. By 1999, AOL had a market cap of $149.8B and was added to the S&P 500 index; it was bigger than both Disney and IBM. At this time, the world was shifting away from dial-up internet to modern broadband connections provided by cable companies. One AOL executive lamented: “We all knew we were living on borrowed time and had to buy something of substance by using that huge currency [AOL’s stock].” Time Warner was a massive media company, with movie studios, TV channels, magazines and online properties. On Jan 10, 2000, AOL merged with Time Warner in one of the biggest mergers in history. AOL owned 56% of the combined company. Four days later, the Dow peaked and began a downturn which would decimate hundreds of internet businesses built on foggy fundamentals. Acquisitions happen for a number of reasons, but imminent death is not normally considered by analysts or pundits. When you see acquisitions, read the press release and understand why (at least from a marketing perspective), the two companies made a deal. Was the price just astronomical (i.e. Instagram) or was their something very strategic (i.e. Microsoft-Github)? When you read the press release years later, it should indicate whether the combination actually was proved out by the market.

  2. Acquisitions in the internet bubble: why acquisitions are really just guessing. AOL-Time Warner shows the interesting conundrum in acquisitions. HP founder David Packard coined this idea somewhat in Packard’s law: “No company can consistently grow revenues faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth and still become a great company. If a company consistently grows revenue faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth, it will not simply stagnate; it will fall.” Author of Good to Great, Jim Collins, clarified this idea: “Great companies are more likely to die of ingestion of too much opportunity, than starvation from too little.” Acquisitions can be a significant cause of this outpacing of growth. Look no further than Yahoo, who acquired twelve companies between September 1997 and June 1999 including Mark Cuban’s Broadcast.com for $5.7B (Kara Swisher at WSJ in 1999), GeoCities for $3.6B, and Y Combinator founder Paul Graham’s Viaweb for $48M. They spent billions in stock and cash to acquire these companies! Its only fitting that two internet darlings would eventually end up in the hands of big-telecom Verizon, who would acquire AOL for $4.4B in 2015, and Yahoo for $4.5B in 2017, only to write down the combined value by $4.6B in 2018. In 2013, Yahoo would acquire Tumblr for $1.1B, only to sell it off this past year for $3M. Acquisitions can really be overwhelming for companies, and frequently they don’t work out as planned. In essence, acquisitions are guesses about future value to customers and rarely are they as clean and smart as technology executives make them seem. Some large organizations have gotten good at acquisitions - Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Salesforce have all made meaningful acquisitions (Android, Github, AppDynamics, ExactTarget, respectively).

  3. Google and Excite: the acquisition that never happened. McCullough has an incredible quote nestled into the start of chapter six: “Pioneers of new technologies are rarely the ones who survive long enough to dominate their categories; often it is the copycat or follow-on names that are still with us to this day: Google, not AltaVista, in search; Facebook, not Friendster, in social networks.” Amazon obviously bucked this trend (he mentions that), but in search he is absolutely right! In 1996, several internet search companies went public including Excite, Lycos, Infoseek, and Yahoo. As the internet bubble grew bigger, Yahoo was the darling of the day, and by 1998, it had amassed a $100B market cap. There were tons of companies in the market including the players mentioned above and AltaVista, AskJeeves, MSN, and others. The world did not need another search engine. However, in 1998, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin found a better way to do search (the PageRank algorithm) and published their famous paper: “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine.” They then went out to these massive search engines and tried to license their technology, but no one was interested. Imagine passing on Goolge’s search engine technology. In an over-ingestion of too much opportunity, all of the search engines were trying to be like AOL and become a portal to the internet, providing various services from their homepages. From an interview in 1998, “More than a "portal" (the term analysts employ to describe Yahoo! and its rivals, which are most users' gateway to the rest of the Internet), Yahoo! is looking increasingly like an online service--like America Online (AOL) or even CompuServe before the Web.” Small companies trying to do too much (cough, uber self-driving cars, cough). Excite showed the most interest in Google’s technology and Page offered it to the Company for $1.6M in cash and stock but Excite countered at $750,000. Excite had honest interest in the technology and a deal was still on the table until it became clear that Larry wanted Excite to rip out its search technology and use Google’s instead. Unfortunately that was too big of a risk for the mature Excite company. The two companies parted ways and Google eventually became the dominant player in the industry. Google’s focus was clear from the get-go, build a great search engine. Only when it was big enough did it plunge into acquisitions and development of adjacent technologies.

Dig Deeper

  • Raymond Smith, former CEO of Bell Atlantic, describing the technology behind the internet in 1994

  • Bill Gates’ famous memo: THE INTERNET TIDAL WAVE (May 26, 1995)

  • The rise and fall of Netscape and Mosaic in one chart

  • List of all the companies made famous and infamous in the dot-com bubble

  • Pets.com S-1 (filing for IPO) showin a $62M net loss on $6M in revenue

  • Detail on Microsoft’s antitrust lawsuit

tags: Apple, IBM, Facebook, AT&T, Blackberry, Sequoia, VC, Sean Parker, Yahoo, Excite, Netscape, AOL, Time Warner, Google, Viaweb, Mark Cuban, HP, Packard's Law, Disney, Steve Case, Steve Jobs, Amazon, Drkoop, Android, Mark Zuckerberg, Crowdstrike, Motorola, Viacom, Napster, Salesforce, Marc Benioff, Internet, Internet History, batch2
categories: Non-Fiction
 

About Contact Us | Recommend a Book Disclaimer