The Ants Go Marching Up The Hill

The Occupy Wall Street protesters are without a leader. Not so much in the sense the media has been trumpeting, the lack of a cohesive message within the ranks of anti-war, pro-choice, millionaire-hating and anything-green-loving activists. Instead, this gang of disgruntled citizens is without a presidential hopeful to rally behind against the onslaught of Perrys, Romneys and now Cains.

This protest is more to scold those perched on Capital Hill, than it is about humbling the one percent that live behind its tax-credit walls. Instead of going directly after President Barack Obama, since there is no viable alternative candidate, the protesters are taking aim at his political Achilles’ heel: big money.

Probably close to a majority of those marching voted Obama into office. Deafened by the chants of “Yes we can!” no one really understood what kind of change to expect, other than having the first African-American president. Maybe, that was enough. Whereas Obama was able to put down one demon (OBL), another one popped up in the form of global sovereign debt. The tangled web of collateralized debt and bad loans unraveled a bit only to get wound back up in the global sovereign debt crisis that is taking down countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. The can is kicking back in the form of recession and mounting unemployment.

This protest is more about broken promises than broken bank accounts. But, instead of going after political reform like the Tea Party, the masses decided to camp out in city parks. Maybe something, or someone, will come out of this soup of cardboard signs and angst to lead this wayward crowd in one direction…towards the next election.

'Till Death Do Us Part?

Whose name is behind Google?

In the same breath that people mourn the loss of Apple's great leader, Steve Jobs, many are speculating as to the future, or demise, of his revolutionary company. Will Apple ever be as great? Will Jobs’ mortality overshadow Apple's mythical reach?

I question the foresight, or ego, behind building a company around one man. Jobs was a marketing phenomenon, but he didn’t see it as a problem that when he sneezed Apple’s shares dipped.

Gone are the days of the magician. When Jobs last walked on stage in his blue jeans and black turtleneck, we were putty in his hands. This week, when Jobs' successor, Tim Cook, walked onto the stage, he was putty in ours, molding himself to what consumers needed to keep up the cultish allure of the iPhone. Granted, Jobs didn't leave his legacy without a pipeline of iProducts to come. But, every decision Cook makes will be followed with a "What would Jobs have done….?"

The past has proven the downfall of empires built on iconic CEOs. Post-Bill Gates Microsoft has remained steady after Gates stepped down, but is struggling to keep up with the competition, namely the Mac. Disney, on the other hand, was never the same after the death (or cryogenic freezing) of its creative genius. And with both of those examples, if asked who succeeded them, well, I'd need to Google the answers.

Will Apple's story be a lesson to the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world whose popularity, or notoriety, is the momentum behind the products? Maybe its better to take a step behind the product, instead of in front?

To answer my own question, there is little doubt that Google will stand by itself, without co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.