Trick question. Who said they ever had any?

Further revealing how Silicon Valley is the new 1%, and how the majority of the "journalists" covering the "ecosystem" are PR hacks on payroll, TechCrunch contorts its falling reputation and trashes its little tiny remaining piece of dignity. 

Yesterday's example...

At TechCrunch's very own "Disrupt" conference, it has Michael Arrington's best boy, MG Siegler, on stage at TechCrunch's show, interviewing the CEO of an Arrington-backed company.

Today at TechCrunch Disrupt, CrunchFund’s MG Siegler took the stage to interview Tumblr CEO David Karp. But not before disclosing that his fund was now an investor in the New York City-based blogging platform. Neither provided further details of the investment on stage, but we’ve been able to find out a little bit more about the CrunchFund’s stake in Tumblr.

Wait.

So TechCrunch could write about any story, any company, any technology? It gets to determine who is showcased at *their* show. They decide who interviews whomever is showcased.

And yet they allow an Arrington employee to interview an Arrington backed entity.

And they aren't even aware of this until the interview begins?

And they have to work to "find out a little bit more" about the investment".

Is everyone at TechCrunch being nailed by Arrington? Are these poor journalists so desperate for his anointing that he effectively runs their enterprise? And decides what they write about? 

Forget ethics at this point. How about dignity, TechCrunch?

Credit to GigaOm, they received cash money from GoDaddy for this "sponsored post":

A new era at GoDaddy

Damn near the same thing was posted in PandoDaily a couple weeks ago. As content.

Somebody's getting screwed.

Forbes cites an IBM Study -- a study! -- that proclaims:

If You Don't Have a Social CEO, You're Going to be Less Competitive

The list of the world’s CEOs regularly includes celebrities, billionaires, big egos, risk takers, and failures. What it does not include are social media experts; but that’s about to change. When IBM (NYSE: IBM) conducted its study of 1709 CEOs around the world, they found only 16% of them participating in social media. But their analysis shows that the percentage will likely grow to 57% within 5 years.

Why? because CEOs are beginning to recognize that using email and the phone to get the message out isn’t sufficient anymore.

The big takeaway: That using social technologies to engage with customers, suppliers and employees will enable the organization to be more adaptive and agile.

“As CEOs ratchet up the level of openness within their organizations, they are developing collaborative environments where employees are encouraged to speak up, exercise personal initiative, connect with fellow collaborators, and innovate,” the IBM study concluded.

As we speak, Tim Cook and Apple are loading the bunker with that survivalist food Glen Beck advertises. Apple is doomed. The study says so.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt writes a remarkable tale of how the iPad, its mobility, ease of use, power and accessibility, enabled "the largest financial transaction in the world."

The Apple (AAPL) tablets, equipped with a custom-made debt-restructuring app, were handed out to the leadership team, including representatives from the Finance Ministry, the Hellenic Exchange (the Greek equivalent of the NYSE), the Bank of Greece (their version of the Federal Reserve) and the three external banks that managed the deal, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Lazard.

The idea was to give the participants a rich set of analytic tools and real-time, secure connections to both the global clearing systems and the back offices of banks around the world.

Horace Dediu smartly analyzes Apple's capex spending for the year to date:

At $1.3 billion, the spending is substantial and a new record, but it does not make a big dent in the overall budget for the fiscal year. Half-way through the year, the total spending on M&E and Real Estate is still only 26% of the budgeted $7.1 billion. 

In order to reach its own expectations, the spending therefore needs to double from the current rate to at least $2.5 billion/quarter over the next two quarters.

Such numbers are hard to grasp. They are unprecedented not only for Apple but for almost any comparable company. Just as a reference point, they will have to exceed the historic average CapEx rate for Google by more than 100%.

Horace then reveals cold, hard northern European restraint by never once screaming OMG APPLE TELEVISION!

Google, which loves to claim it stands for freedom and openness, so much so that it withdrew from China, finally receives approval from China to buy American company, Motorola Mobility.

For $12.5 billion.

The company made the official announcement this morning. 

That's not good enough. For the benefit of my users, I read between the lines and attempt to decrypt what is really being said. (As always, my words in bold italics.)

We've Acquired Motorola Mobility

Motorola blackmailed us into acquiring them

The phones in our pockets have become supercomputers that are changing the way we live.

Thanks to Apple's iPhone!

It’s now possible to do things we used to think were magic, or only possible on Star Trek--like get directions right from where we are standing; watch a video on YouTube; or take a picture and share the moment instantly with friends. 

On Google+!

Please share it on Google+. Why don't you like Google+?

It’s why I’m excited to announce today that our Motorola Mobility deal has closed.

Thank you, communist rulers of China!

Motorola is a great American tech company that has driven the mobile revolution, with a track record of over 80 years of innovation, including the creation of the first cell phone.

Which means they have lots and lots of patents.

We all remember Motorola’s StarTAC, which at the time seemed tiny and showed the real potential of these devices.

At least, you remember it if you're over 20 years old. 

And as a company who made a big, early bet on Android, Motorola has become an incredibly valuable partner to Google.

Sure, they lose money. Yes, they lose money on Android.  But they're "valuable". Just trust me on this.

Sanjay Jha, who was responsible for building the company and placing that big bet on Android, has stepped down as CEO.

Android may lose your company money but I promise to take care of those execs who work with me on Android. Wink winnk. 

Oh, and all that stuff about running Motorola 'hands off'. Well, yeah, that wasn't really a lie since you never believed it in the first place.

I would like to thank him for his efforts and am tremendously pleased that he will be working to ensure a smooth transition as long-time Googler Dennis Woodside takes over as CEO of Motorola Mobility. 

Hands off!

I’ve known Dennis for nearly a decade, and he’s been phenomenal at building teams and delivering on some of Google’s biggest bets. One of his first jobs at Google was to put on his backpack and build our businesses across the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia. More recently he helped increase our revenue in the U.S. from $10.8 billion to $17.5 billion in under three years as President of the Americas region.

Dennis is an expert at growing our massive PC advertising business. This should be a perfect fit!

Dennis has always been a committed partner to our customers and I know he will be an outstanding leader of Motorola. As an Ironman triathlete, he’s got plenty of energy for the journey ahead--and he’s already off to great start with some very strong new hires for the Motorola team.

Like I said, hands off.

It’s a well known fact that people tend to overestimate the impact technology will have in the short term, but underestimate its significance in the longer term.

At least, I think it is. Don't have any proof of this. Maybe I should Google it.

Many users coming online today may never use a desktop machine,

For those of you playing at home, a "desktop machine" is a PC. That's the thing where Google makes *all* its money.

and the impact of that transition will be profound--as will the ability to just tap and pay with your phone.

If you use Android, Google will know everything you buy. Ever!

That’s why it’s a great time to be in the mobile business, and why I’m confident Dennis and the team at Motorola will be creating the next generation of mobile devices that will improve lives for years to come. 

Disclaimer: next-generation mobile devices may operate on last year's Android OS.  

Posted by Larry Page, CEO

Supercharged!

Good news on the longevity front: it's increasing. For men, at least. So much so that in another generation or two, men might actually live as long as women. Via MSNBC:

Between 1989 and 2009, life expectancy for U.S. males grew by 4.6 years while predicted lifespans for American women rose by 2.7 years, according to the recent report from Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

That manly surge narrowed the life-expectancy gender gap to five years, one month and six days – compared to a seven-year gulf in 1989. Modern guys will live to be an average age of 76.2 versus 81.3 for women, the IHME reports.

“Men are catching up,” said Dr. Ali Mokdad, professor of global health at the IHME, part of the University of Washington. He and his colleagues examined death certificates and incorporated U.S. Census lifestyle data (including crime rates and ratios of nearby fast-food restaurants and bars) to project lifespan estimates for all U.S. counties.

How’d the dudes pull closer? They’re smoking less than past generations, they’re less likely to be obese than modern women and more apt than females to treat hypertension and high cholesterol, Mokdad said.

When it comes to cardiovascular concerns, Mokdad said, “men are tending to be more vigilant than women."

Mokdad did mention one dark caveat in the seemingly sunny data: the life expectancies of American males and females are both lagging when compared to those of men and women in other developed countries. Infants born this year in the United States will have an average life expectancy of 78.9 years, according to a United Nations study, versus babies born in Japan (83.5), Switzerland (82.3) and Spain (81.5).  

(Note: Don't bother going to their site. It's filled with those ads where words are underlined and ads pop up and prevent you from seeing the content.)

Health care costs continue to rise. This is true for both employers and employees in the US. According to an annual healthcare survey by Mercer, health insurance costs will increase in 2012 by the smallest amount in 15 years. This small amount, however, represents a 5.4% rise, still well above  the general inflation rate and overall increases in worker salaries.  

A significant reason for the increased costs borne by employees is that employers are, not surprisingly, seeking to contain their costs. Per Mercer, “while 2012's slower cost growth is welcome news, it's still higher than the CPI -- which means employers won't be letting up their efforts to control costs anytime soon." 

Employers are containing costs by raising deductibles, altering plans and plan options, increasing premiums and seeking other methods to keep costs in check. These include using various tax incentives and pushing plans targeted for the unique demographics of their employee base.      

A very real and potentially harmful consequence of these various actions is that employees – and their family members/dependents – are visiting the doctor less. Individuals may not have the money that is required, or which they believe will be required, to pay for visits, tests, drugs, etc.  

On the flip side, as more employers institute various health management programs and increase incentives for living healthier lifestyles, employees may simply require fewer doctor visits. Related to this is an increased social awareness of health risks and better tools, including better, more affordable in-home tools, for monitoring chronic conditions. 

The National Business Group  on Health, which represents larger US companies, notes that  in 2012 alone, larger companies will pay about $12,000 per employee  for healthcare costs. Employers have an incentive not only to try and contain costs but to help improve employee health outcomes. The group is quoted in Reuters:

Companies are convinced that money spent on health improvement - for weight loss and smoking cessation programs and the like - are worthwhile. They eventually help to contain healthcare costs. So pay careful attention to the extras that come with your plans like discounts on gym memberships, yoga classes, massages and more. That's worthwhile and you may need all the stress relief you can get when you look at your premiums for next year.

Here’s a thought: perhaps it’s time to start equipping employees with smartphones – such as iPhone or Blackberry.  These devices can be used to remind employees about their conditions, incentivize them to better health, and help track (good and bad) behavior. Already, millions of employees have these devices.. Smartphones are already being used by individuals to improve their health. 

Today’s smartphones can monitor heart rate and even stress. There are apps to record blood pressure, for example, and other vitals. Notifications can be easily set for those that need to track certain outcomes or participate in specific  tasks.  There are virtual games to teach individuals how to improve their health or collect specific data – and incentivize them to do better. 

Let’s look at some numbers:

• 100 million Americans already have a smartphone – and this number is increasing
• 80% of doctors in the US claim to use smartphones or tablets
• A survey notes that 40% of doctors believe apps can be useful to reduce office visits and 88% of doctors think overall care would improve if patients monitored their weight, blood pressure and blood sugar at home. Smartphones make this simple.
• Millions of Americans already use devices such as Fitbit and Nike+ to track their running and exercise and monitor their progress

According to HealthWorks Collective, Pfizer launched the world’s first virtual clinical trial. The 600 trial participants use their mobile phones to enter their health data without reporting to a clinical site. 

There is also the potential for people to be truly empowered by monitoring, recording and even analyzing their own data. The idea of “life logging”, where an individual can use a simple, available computer – such as a smartphone – to track copious amounts of personal information represents a growing trend. Life logging allows a user to easily capture not just vital information, for example, but more common factors such as sleep habits, times of meals, calories consumed, how long they have been seated, length of exercise, exercise type and much more.

Efforts to use smartphones to improve health outcomes and reduce costs are already upon us. How is this information used, who has access to it, can anyone be harmed by any of the data that is captured; these are all critical questions. There are more. What about compliance? Do touchscreen smartphones favor the youth, for example? Or the sighted? Will collecting personal information make a individual lax about visiting a doctor? There are no simple answers for these questions though perhaps it’s time we begin asking them. Smartphones are becoming commonplace, the tools are available, millions are incentivized and billions of dollars are at stake. After all, we want to improve our own health, the health of the nation, and support a robust economy.