Watching The Watch

I think an awful lot about wrists.

I watch the spans of wrists and their thickness. I watch the sizes of things people wear, which require sliding over their hands (in which case I also watch their hands) and things, which can be strapped on to wrists.

It is the (jewellery) business, you see.

Cuffs that must be open enough to be slid sideways on to the wrists but not open so big that they slide off unnoticed by the wearer. If a closed bracelet, then how much circumference of wrist should we design for, so that it doesn’t hang off smaller wrists and yet not too tight for bigger wrists? Oddly enough hardly any anthropometric data is available on wrists in the public domain. But Apple chaps researched watchmaking and I am sure somewhere they found this information.

No matter what, the new Apple Watch face (not case, the face) at 38mm for small and 42mm for large is just too big. For dainty wrists, at least.

Steel and gold are not really imaginative choices for “fashion”, and pairing them with coloured rubber straps is meh. Not sure whom Apple visualises as their customer but it cannot have been many who live beyond Silicon Valley, which, let’s face it, is hardly the mecca for fashion. The “modularity” of swapping wrist bands is funky but not necessarily fashionable. No wonder despite bringing fabulous fashion editors — the grand dame Suzy Menkes and Vogue UK’s editor Alexandra Shulman — to California, the commentary is at best lukewarm. As a friend pointed out, it takes chutzpah to ask these editors to fly all the way — and to piss them off — just as they are coming off New York Fashion Week and going to London Fashion Week, which are more crucial to their businesses than the latest gadget.

And there was no Angela (Ahrendts) on stage, which hasn’t won Apple any fans.

Back to wrists. If I want to strap an iPod Nano to my wrist, I will go a step further and buy a Panerai or U-boat or some similar shit. If I want to buy a well-engineered watch, for its engineering, the choices are many.

I have never been able to get excited about digital watches. Nor do I find the prospect of wrist-gazing — is it an upgrade on navel gazing? I wonder! — very exciting. To me, watches are a thing of beauty and precision engineering, and conversation starters. They also show time, and there are plenty of people left on the planet, who can tell the time by looking at watch hands rather than read the numbers off a display, I find.

Jonathan Ive reportedly collects Patek Philippe. Which, as we all know, you “merely look after for the next generation”.

And by “next generation”, Patek doesn’t mean the next Apple product announcement.


The flip side. Naturally.

“My prediction is this will bomb”, said a friend, who is not technology-phobic, nor a random naysayer or Apple-hater.

For what it is worth, and regardless of the Apple Watch’s low fashion cred, worse style cred, I don’t think it will.

It is one of the first to risk its high profile brand and its loyal following by creating a near-fashionable wearable technology product. I mean, one look at Google Glass and the Apple Watch suddenly looks quite low-key, wearable.

But more to the point, Apple leverages its existing platform, to begin with, with a health app. Monitoring one’s heart rate and activity is non-intrusively built in and well, with its chunky appearance, the Apple Watch looks comfortably much like the Polar heart rate monitors that some of us are used to wearing.

I also like the reinvention of some known-knowns, as it were. For instance, the morphing of the watch crown into a digital crown. Those, who don’t wear watches but have experienced the click-wheel (yes, that), will not find it alien. Those, who do wear watches, are already used to twiddling with it and may be delighted with the new uses it can be put to. Then there is the finger movement driven control of things that many iPhone and MacBook users are used to, which has been incorporated into the watch as the tap and the press.

Humans don’t necessarily interact with words alone. The ability to send a pulse to someone you are thinking of is cute (if somewhat limiting because that someone must also own an Apple Watch!). And ironic because one will likely only ever want to send a “pulse” to someone, who makes us skip one. The being is in the not-being (to wax philosophical a bit).

As a platform, the Apple Watch has enormous potential. Between the Apple ecosystem and the possibilities of haptics.


So what about it then?

It is an Apple. It tempts. Sometimes it succeeds.

With my tinkerer hat on, I am curious to buy it and play with it. With my jeweller hat on, I will likely restrict its wearing to my walks and Pilates outings and possibly weekends.

I still maintain that 38mm is too big for my wrist. Then again as enormous watches go, $349 (or whatever it will sell for in the UK) isn’t going to buy me a Breitling.

For now I am watching the Watch.

Technology and taboos redefined – part two

A friend recently lamented on Facebook that she was unable to reach a client on any of the three available contacts she had for him. “Ah, modern communication!”, she quipped.

It set me thinking. About two conflicting phenomena in my life. First, that I have 5 separate email accounts on my iDevices. I separate different threads of my life into those accounts. I also have active Whatsapp, Skype and Viber accounts for other uses. Second, that I disabled voice mail on my phones about 2-3 years ago. I do not encourage anyone to leave me voice mails, preferring text based messages from emails to Whatsapp to iMessage.

Then there are friends in big-cheese type jobs. They seem to use their work emails for everything. But they never take a phone call, preferring instead to use their secretaries and their voice mails as gatekeepers to manage access to themselves.

Thoroughly curious, I scrolled to see some of the status messages of my contacts on Whatsapp and Viber. I noticed that the Viber status message of a friend, who absolutely detests phone calls, reads “only if you must”.

This isn’t a new problem though. As a relatively early adopter of everything from Amazon reviews (first review written in 1999) to LinkedIn (in 2004) to Quora (just about 4 years ago at the time of writing), I have often found struggled with this overload. And about related issues.

About 7-8 years ago, a friend and I were discussing the etiquette for Google Chat. What happens when the green light on their names indicates they are “available” but they don’t respond when you ping them? Are there opening niceties we must engage in, or should we keep it short and sweet? How do we sign off? Soon after we had that conversation, I got quite tired being pinged, no matter what colour the “light”. I have solved the problem by going invisible on nearly all networks and channels I use. With a few closer friends, I have evolved a sort of linguistic shorthand which lets them assess whether I am seeking a real-time conversation or just sharing something they needn’t read or respond to right away.

So what is going on here? Why do we sign up to all these channels of access, and then put up these roadblocks?

Is there real access, or is it just an illusion?

Or are we just trying to cope with communication overload, while balancing it with our FOMO?

As I ‘fessed up, I have often struggled with this overload. But I was often saved, so to speak by the slowness of network effects materialising on social networks and communities. In other words, few people I knew in real life were on these networks so early.

But there comes a moment when a network — or a platform or tool — jumps the shark. A new normal must then emerge. I recall writing in 2000 about how some Goldman Sachs traders were using (bootleg) chat windows to be real time with their clients. I happened to mention it casually in a conference to a gentleman sitting next to me. He turned out to be their head of security in London. Talk about being in the right place at the right time! A year or so later, authorised IM/ chat clients became mainstream. That is when the proverbial hits the fan.

Meanwhile we find ways to cope — we duck, go cold turkey, find other (emerging?) networks, or switch off our online lives temporarily or permanently.

There is a period of hyper-communication, there is a period of quiet. There is information overload, then there is information diet. Sometimes we go indiscriminately all-you-can-consume, sometimes we curate and retreat into filter bubbles of our own or of algorithmic making.

The wheel will turn again. We will find new problems we cannot manage. Until we can.


Technology and taboos redefined

Recently I met with some friends after a considerable hiatus. Meanwhile they had had a baby. I have kept up with the news and have watched the baby grow up through the pictures and updates the friends share on Facebook. Several times in the conversation, we all made casual references to what we know about one another’s lives through Facebook updates. Indeed they showed me some pictures of some big moments in the baby’s life that I had missed. It made me wonder about the role of pervasive technology in challenging behaviours deemed taboo before. In the pre-all-pervasive-tech world, we gossiped, got news through common friends, or phoned or wrote one another. Even so the signal called “life” was sampled quite infrequently and the transmission of the information could suffer fidelity issues.

But now that people themselves put out information about themselves, it has likely greater currency and respectability than gossip, which may have travelled through others. Indeed it is no longer taboo to know ambient information about the life of a friend or indeed, anyone who chooses to use the “global” setting on Facebook or indeed update on Twitter.

Has technology made other taboos acceptable too?

Like many others, I now know a fairly large number of people through my blogging and my use of social platforms such as Twitter or Quora. Often the opportunity arises to meet some of them too. It seems to me that checking someone’s background – using Google or LinkedIn – before meeting them for the first time is now deemed normal. I hasten to add though that my experience suggests it can still freak out the “non-intertubes” people, who are less frequent or less prolific users of the web. This needs to be used abundantly but talked about with caution. I sheepishly admit to not being able to maintain this caution myself. A friend recently invited me to dinner with a friend of his called R. Waiting for our table, R and my friend kept talking about cooking and eating fabulous meals. Then R turned to me and asked if I could guess what he did. Having checked out his profile on LinkedIn in advance, of course I knew he specialised in sanitation. When I said so, both R’s and my friend’s faces fell. I had committed a massive social boo-boo and I have never recovered from it. R never accepted my Facebook friend request, and the less said about the earache my friend has given me since then, the better.

Then there is the idea of flexibility. While in some cultures, it is still not uncommon to plan to meet friends way in advance, making last minute arrangements as well as last minute changes to a rendezvous seem to be common and acceptable now. This has been made possible by mobile phones, of course. And location based services such as FourSquare, where you may be able to locate friends in the vicinity.

This next point may resonate with those who live many time zones away from their parents or siblings. Rationing communication between time zones is a thing of the past. Earlier, when phone calls were expensive, we scheduled calls once a week or fortnight. Now with iMessage and Whatsapp on the one hand, and GTalk, Google Hangouts, FaceTime, Skype etc. on the other, continual and richer communication is possible at almost zero cost. It helps people keep in close contact, regardless of how far apart they may physically be.

As I write this I am aware that the most important social taboo that has been removed or modified beyond recognition is our expectation of privacy. Mainly because we ourselves now put out a lot of information about our lives out there for consumption by friends, families or strangers (the last one is that global setting on Facebook status messages).

The second social taboo that seems to have been removed is exhibitionism. There is now a blurred line between sheer exhibitionism, and self-promotion and advertising of one’s skills for professional gain. Accordingly, persons such as Katie Price in the UK and the Kardashians in the USA have “careers” deemed mainstream and bona fide, although they still successfully shock some in my parents’ generation (and mine).

Of course, individuals themselves are curating and broadcasting this information, portraying themselves not just in favourable light but also sometimes engaging in outright fabrication of a life that looks glamorous and glittering when the reality may be vastly different. Seeing all this, some have argued we are in the midst of a narcissism epidemic. In evidence are vanity and attention-seeking. How else do we comprehend the need for daily changing digital avatars? And their handmaiden, a feeling of entitlement. “You didn’t like my holiday photos on Facebook”. Then there is blame-storming and rages that follow.

We have probably only just seen the tip of the iceberg called technological intersubjectivity. Hopefully it will not sink the Titanic advances that can also be made with technology.

Craftsmanship in luxury

Craftsmanship is the cornerstone of the luxury goods industry. The obsessive focus on the art, the cultural roots, the societal context and the history not only preserves and enhances the heritage, but also helps tell a unique story and find markets for luxury goods, increasingly in countries far from home.

However as emerging markets not only demand goods as consumers but also slowly develop their own brands in luxury, how does the slow and steady pace of craftsmanship reconcile with the speed of globalisation?

The answer is deceptively simple: the historically well-established brands become evangelists for craftsmanship.

The craftsmanship and long heritage distinguish some of the most coveted luxury marques from the luxury upstarts. Such evangelism manifests variously: from Tod’s commitment to La Scala for the special project titled The Italian Dream, to Bottega Veneta’s opening of Scuola della Pelletteria to train the future generation of master leather craftsmen.

Is this bad news for emerging markets and emerging market brands?

Well, not really.

It does, of course, benefit immensely and strengthen the European luxury brands with a long heritage to showcase. But it also potentially levels the field, somewhat, for emerging markets — notably those with a rich history and creative treasures that are underexplored as sources of inspiration.

Think about what a Chinese brand could do drawing upon the history of the Tang dynasty to create beautiful products!

As some of you know, I am also a co-founder of the British jewellery brand, Livyora.  At Livyora, we created our Overture Collection by drawing upon Mughal Art and Architecture, that can be seen in India’s capital city and surrounding regions. We abstracted a visually stunning artifact of Indian heritage, to create stunning, handcrafted pieces in gold and precious stones. A wonderful story could once again be retold.

Craftsmanship still rules. All that is required is a new lens to look beyond the luxury marques of yore.

Are you in business with your friends?

One of the most misleading lines, often cited from The Godfather is: “It’s not personal, Sonny. It’s strictly business.”

An entrepreneur will smile wryly whenever this line is thrown about. Business for entrepreneurs is rarely “strictly business”. It is very, very personal. Which brings us to the title of this post.

The short answer to that question for me is “yes”. I have client relationships with several friends, who are professionals in their chosen areas. My ventures too have always involved friends as co-conspirators and service providers. The tougher questions arise thence. How and when to switch on/ off your friend persona versus your client persona? Is there a priority order of personas, which one can invoke in a situation of conflict? Do all roles/ personas co-exist and you dance seamlessly from one to the other?

Here’s what I have learnt about working well with friends (and not falling out with any of them. Yet.)

Understand each other’s work styles. One of my friends mixes work and non-work so much that he fears no work gets done between gossip, coffee and often a meal. I prefer to work to agendas in work meetings. We now have a happy mix of the two work styles and it works for us. We both work on the agenda, taking segues and tangents, that often enrich our conversation. I am the one in charge of bringing back the tangent to the agenda. He is the one in charge of ensuring we stick to it. In the end we are both in charge of ensuring the other person didn’t feel hemmed in, screamed at or generally disrespected.

Trust each other’s professionalism as much as you trust each other. And be professional yourself. This absolutely cannot be overstated. Professionalism is symmetric — if you are a professional service provider, and I am a client who doesn’t know her brief, pushes you around and is unreliable with her side of the bargain, I shouldn’t expect to be seen as a “professional” client. It either works from both sides or doesn’t work at all. Your choice.

Know when and how much to push back. This is the tricky bit. I have been in a situation, where I have had to defend a professional service provider we engaged, with my collaborators. My friendship was an asset in this conflict but equally possible was that my collaborators thought of me as favouring said friend, because, well, she was my friend! And it did happen. The first couple of times, I tried to explain gently that it was not the case. But at the third instance, I made it amply clear that I did not appreciate the insinuation of impropriety and lack of integrity. I also made it clear that I was working hard to make things work, because others were not fulfilling their job of building an independent relationship with the professional, taking the easy route of “Oh, she is Shefaly’s friend!”. The push back seems to be working. I have taken a back seat in managing that particular relationship, and one of my collaborators is working to build his own equation with the service provider.

Professionalism #fail does not mean friendship #fail but lessons are learnt. In one of my ventures, we hired a professional to render essential services. He is a competent professional in his field but turned out to be most unreliable in many ways. Despite several reminders from me, an engagement letter was nowhere to be seen for months. Absolutely no advice was forthcoming on broader matters. Finally we disengaged. We are still friends but having seen his competence being compromised by his loose professional standards, I do not recommend him as effusively as I used to.

Communicate. Emails. Phone calls. Twitter direct messages. LinkedIn messages. Whatsapp. Google Hangouts. Whatever works for you. But, communicate. It prevents confusion that silence may create. Communicating about what pre-occupations may be keeping you from responding quickly on a mutual matter can foster trust and can enable the other person to extend help as a friend rather than just be the professional you engaged to do some work.

Know your bottom line. What will you walk away from? Every human interaction is but a negotiation. And while there are best outcomes we would like, we also need a back up. So it is best to think ahead: if you had to choose between the friendship and the professional engagement, what would you walk away from? It is a harder call than it looks. Something to think about. In advance.

Coming back to The Godfather, in my view, the trilogy is an object lesson in vision, strategic thinking, organisation building, leadership styles, ethics, “work life balance”, the political economy of business, individual freedom, and heteronormative patriarchy and its discontents. And the futility of it all.

Which brings me to the line that I find most affecting in the film.

“Your father did business with Hyman Roth; Your father respected Hyman Roth; But your father never trusted Hyman Roth.”

This line sums up why being in business with friends can and often does work.

Vito Corleone and Hyman Roth were never “friends” but they did business together. Between friends, however, there is pre-existing trust. Also, hopefully, shared values, a consideration for one another’s well-being and mutual respect. The business comes at the end of all this and benefits from all this.

If, however, in the end, business triumphs at the cost of friendship, it is worth remembering that above all, The Godfather is a story of distrust and mistrust. And this is how it ended.