The Bravery of Ang Lee

Ang Lee (李安) is an amazing man. He is, of course, a famous director of some very good films, but what sets him apart in my mind is how incredibly diverse his filmography is.

Starting out with the so-called "Father Knows Best" trilogy, you could be forgiven to conclude that the time that he'll be a director of Asian-themed movies, perhaps expanding into the Asian-American experience at most. But since then, he's brought us into the worlds of Jane Austen, white suburban America, the American Civil War, martial arts, superheroes, gay cowboys, WWII China, the sixties, and an Indian boy. You may not actually like all of his movies, but you really must admire the courage behind his attempts.

For Ang Lee was not a trust fund baby who could just tinker. He is the son of an educator, failed college entrance exams twice, and had to rely on his wife's income while he was starting out. Once he's tasted some success, it would've been so tempting to just keep churning out the films that got him there. The pressure, for example, to shoot a prequel or sequel to Crouching Tiger was surely incredible, especially since the novel it was adapted from was the fourth of five books. Instead he chose to work on Hulk, which a normal person would've thought was a bridge too far, but his response to that failure was to venture into Brokeback Mountain!

It's as if he could not see his prior experience, or the color of his skin, as limitations to what he could try. He was over 50 when he directed Brokeback, so apparently age isn't a problem either.

I aspire to having this kind of courage.

Fat Lady Singing

Opera just announced that they are abandoning their own web rendering engine in favor of WebKit. This is yet another example of the effects that free-beer software projects sponsored by large companies can have on smaller players. To be frank, they lasted longer than I thought they would, but in the end the efficiencies of software monoculture wins again. Opera might survive just by building a better browser on top of WebKit than everybody else, but I doubt it. I think Free-beer software paid for by Apple devices and Google advertising has claimed another victim.

道歉的藝術

從報上看到裕隆集團董事長嚴凱泰在尾牙宴上醉後說出「那些用蘋果、另一個我就不要說是哪個品牌了...都是王八蛋」等話。本來他的想法如何，說出來是他的自由，公眾場合用粗話是他自身修養問題，但就算不想道歉也其實沒關係。

但是他畢竟道歉了，卻更引起我的興趣。許多細節都有教育性：

首先，「愛用國貨」的出發點就是一個問題。hTC 手機用的是 Android 軟體，主要是美國 Google 公司寫的，手機裡的各種零件多半是許多國家研發生產的。從網上拆機圖片中，看得出電池是中國生產，認得出的晶片有韓國三星和海力士、美國高通和 Synaptics 等公司出品。究竟什麼叫做國貨？真的仔細去檢查，iPhone 用的台灣零件是多是少還不一定呢。裕隆集團後來解釋嚴鼓勵員工多愛用國貨，想必覺得這出發點並沒錯。

第二，「帶著酒意，用開玩笑的口吻」不能是道歉的一部分。酒量不好就少喝，出事沒看到他道歉說喝太多了，說錯話竟是怪罪給酒。報紙說「嚴酒量一向很淺，以往有飲酒場合，多要求媒體不要拍攝」更是笑話，簡直就是說不管醉後如何失態，別被錄下來就好了。這是什麼心態？

第三，說這種話是因為「英雄惜英雄」更是不妥。一來，道歉的場合還自比「英雄」是在想什麼？二來，宏達電讓蘋果和三星打到連年虧損，真敢當這句話嗎？

第四，中時電子報的解讀是「昨天公司擔心引起國內手機族反彈，緊急對外澄清」，這樣算什麼道歉？道歉是你自己以為作錯事說錯話，出發點該是文中的「嚴凱泰有點懊悔」，不是為了什麼反彈才出面道歉。說得對，什麼反彈也不該理會，說錯了，沒人反彈也該道歉，才是道理。澄清是因為有誤會，這裡誤會了他什麼？

第五，裕隆還說嚴「並沒有對任何品牌特別有成見」不就是睜眼說瞎話？會用「王八蛋」罵人不算是成見算什麼？說「不是指名道姓」，那試問「蘋果」是說哪一家的蘋果手機？

要道歉就先得讓人了解你是為什麼道歉，所以頭一句就要說你認為究竟錯在哪裡，冷靜之後如何改變了想法，以後會如何改進，然後才為你的行為表示抱歉。應該說的是：

『我某日在酒後說出這些話，非常後悔。第一，hTC 的手機固然好用，許多外商廠牌的手機裡面也個有許多台灣人的貢獻，本不該說只有 hTC 算是「國貨」。第二，這些話會脫口而出，真是喝太多了，以後會交代身邊的人提醒，不會再喝這麼醉。最重要的，用什麼手機是個人的自由，既不關愛國，更輪不到我來批評什麼，批評也絕不該用粗口。這裡謹對讓這些話所傷害到的人致以歉意，也對身為一個公眾人物造成壞榜樣抱歉。』

跟我的虛擬道歉來比較，你說嚴究竟有沒有真的道歉了？當然沒有。

Protecting Balls

I'm not going to comment directly on the Apple v. Samsung patent lawsuit, mainly because my employer wouldn't like it (and I obviously don't speak for them), but also because the reader would just assume I'm biased.

However, I share the apprehension that many have expressed about patents. Even if you agree that Samsung copied the iPhone and should be stopped, the power of even a single well-placed patent to block an entire class of products is fearsome. If memory serves, over a decade ago, Geoworks had a patent in the WAP browser area, and it propelled the stock from something like US$30 per share all the way to US$180. This is a lot of power.

The solution that many of these patent opponents propose, however, is extreme in the other direction. They want to abolish all patents, or at least all software patents. First of all, very few if any established players are going to support that, and lobbying dollars aside, why should the government ignore some of the country's most successful companies in favor of ranting Internet advocates? Secondly, what would that achieve?

The iPhone was a hugely expensive gamble. There was a mountain of software to develop, and Scott Forstall recalls that Steve Jobs gave him permission to bring in anyone from within the company to work on the iPhone. Forstall then went around and found those he described as "true superstars of the company" and "amazing engineers", and worked them incredibly hard for years. (No, he didn't invite me.) This is no less than betting the company, because stripping every other project in the company of their superstars has an easily-predictable negative effect that I need not belabor, yet they placed that bet.

In other words, to me it's not so much whether there was prior art to pinch-to-zoom or whatever other legal details the poor judge and jury had to slog through, but how to protect the "balls" that goes into a truly innovative product that changed an industry. The point is, even if you didn't think any of the individual distinguishing features of the iPhone were worthy of patent protection, you probably should admit that the total end package redefined smartphones. However trivial you think those inventions were, the fact is that upstart Apple jumped ahead (at considerable risk to itself, let's not forget) technologically, while the rest of the industry rehashed their allegiance to carriers by shipping yet another crippled phone.

Another point that I've seen made is that Apple was handsomely rewarded for its venture, so that should've been enough incentive to innovate. I can't agree with this point of view, true as it may be, because it can be made only in hindsight. Apple couldn't know how much it would make from this phone that it hasn't even fully developed, couldn't know if people would really accept typing on an on-screen keyboard, couldn't know if other carriers could be persuaded to carry the iPhone, and couldn't know a hundred other risk factors. If you still think Apple would've done it anyway in a world without patent protection, consider what would allow another company to leapfrog Apple, without worrying that Apple could easily ape the new invention and crush it with scale? The decision to go for it must be made long before you are assured of wild riches, and a lot of big changes can really only come from big players with lots to lose.

So the question for society is, if not patents (which I'm not really defending here, because there are indeed good reasons to worry that they are too powerful), then what? Is the answer to all future innovation really going to be "Google supporting it with ad revenue" regardless of whether it ever makes its own money? I hope not, because I don't really like that world.

Numbers Don't Lie

When I first joined Apple in mid-2005, the stock was about US$45 a share. When I left in early 2008, it had gone up to US$180 or so. The stock floundered while I was away, and when I came back in late 2009, it was at US$190 or so. Since then, it's gone to over US$600. Look it up yourself, it's just cold, hard numbers.

I should run for president.

Lessons from Trying to Buy a House

The Internet has become an incredibly powerful tool in ways that even a practitioner doesn't necessarily realize. When we decided that it was time to start looking for a house to buy about six months ago, the wealth of information freely available on the Internet was astounding. Armed with apps and websites, I was finding many of the properties that my real estate agent was finding. She usually had some more information (such as whether it's a short sale), but I wasn't far behind at all. It was also a great resource for many industry jargon, as well as traps and pitfalls that lie in wait.

The first thing we learned was that mortgage calculators are entirely ass-backwards. The crucial number to start and end with is how much you have to pay every month for housing. From that number, based on how much downpayment you can muster, interest rates you qualify for, and required expenses such as property taxes and insurance, comes the number telling you how much house you can afford. The online calculators start with "Home Value" as a variable you can enter, which is utterly wrong. Home value is the result of the math, not the starting point.

Another thing we realized was that Americans really are bad at math. Apparently many people (including our agent) don't actually understand that paying your mortgage bi-weekly versus monthly is the same thing. In one case, you pay more quickly and therefore pay less in interest. In the other, you get to hang on to the money you borrowed for longer, at the expense of paying more interest. It's just like the difference between a 15-year mortgage and a 30-year one, but it seems to confuse people. This isn't even really math - it's barely arithmetic!

We also learned that by about 1,500-sqft, the American home-buyer apparently wants a formal living room and a formal dining room, instead of just bigger rooms or other general-purpose rooms like dens. Since Americans don't really invite mere acquaintances home for social functions, the close friends they do invite inevitably go straight into the family room and kitchen, so a good third of these first floors just sit there and never get used. Now, if this was Texas I could understand that land is cheap, but in the Bay Area I'd have expected more pragmatism. How about a music room? Asian kids all learn the violin or piano, right? (It's okay, I can say that.) How about a hobby room, where you might at least lay out a table for a jigsaw puzzle? How about a library?

Lots of houses are built in bulk as part of phased developments, where buyers get to pick one of four or five models, and the developer ensures that your house is not identical to the next ones. It boggles our mind that a development might have dozens of these homes, and yet the interior layouts remain spectacularly bad. 2,000-sqft houses would still have cabinets that aren't square, and there'd be all sorts of odd spaces that aren't good for anything. You'd think if you were designing just four houses to build 100 times, you'd make sure each one is pretty good. After all, this is the industry that came up with "measure twice, cut once", isn't it?

Typically, the master's bedrooms take up half a floor, while the kids' bedrooms are too small to fit even a proper study desk. (As long as we're pretending, shouldn't you pretend that your kids study?) The master's bath is grandiose, but there is perhaps just enough closet space for one person. Nobody seems to have any storage space - turns out Americans park their cars in the driveway and store stuff in the garage - but, boy, do they want that master spa and that formal living room.

And what the hell is up with the white tile countertops? A basic requirement for a countertop is that it's a flat work surface!

Bizarre.

The Designated Hitter Solution

In the American League (AL), pitchers do not have to hit the ball. They have a designated hitter (DH) to do it for them. In the National League (NL), pitchers have to (try to) hit the ball. Since the two leagues actually play each other for some games each season (known as inter-league play) and of course for the World Series, you'll see AL pitchers almost never even swing the bat because they just might hurt themselves doing it. It's not at all uncommon to see an AL pitcher with a bat lazily resting on his shoulder, striking out just watching three fastballs down the middle of the plate. Even NL pitchers are almost invariably the worst hitters on their team, normally restricted to sacrifice bunts, and often replaced when their turn to hit comes up.

Some baseball purists argue against the DH rule, yet the fact is that the game is played at a lower level because of the pitchers hitting. Teams will deliberately walk the batter in front of the pitcher's spot (especially when there are already two outs in the inning), because the pitcher is such an easy out. The dilemma for the manager is between pulling a pitcher who's doing fine otherwise because he can't hit, or watching the pitcher waste an inevitable out. How is either outcome actually better?

The lesson of the DH rule is that, yes, in theory pitchers should learn to hit the ball, but the fact is that they can't and they don't. People who are in charge of rules and policies will do well to remember this. For example, in theory everybody would buy health insurance if they could afford it. In fact, a lot of people won't buy health insurance if they can wait until they're actually sick, and their logic is admittedly pristine. Just as wanting baseball to be "pure" doesn't make it so, the DH rule and forcing the participation of people who are too stupid or too selfish to understand how insurance works are the ugly solutions to ugly problems. The purists and the puritans, on the other hand, have no solution to either problem except to complain.