Whatsapp Success Story

 Whatsapp Success Story



The story of Whatsapp is a live example of where innovation in technology takes people and their communication. With billions of users addicted to ‘Whatsapp’ style of keeping in touch, it is worthwhile to explore what went behind making this phenomenon happen.

Founder

Jan Koum was not from a wealthy family. He stayed with his mother and grandmother in a small apartment. With his hard work, he finally got into San Jose State University where he took training in programming.

Jan met his business partner, Brian while working at Yahoo as an engineer. They worked together in Yahoo for almost nine years and then left the company together. Then they applied to Facebook, but saw no luck. They had no plans to become rich until they thought of making an app for iPhone users.They then created the app which received tremendous success in a very less time. This was because the users found it pretty easy to use and they need not to register anywhere in order to use the application. This was the dream come true for both the partners.

Founding of Whatsapp

Whatsapp Inc was founded in 2009 by two ex-Yahoo! employees, Brian Acton and Jan Koum. After having bought an iPhone and looking at the new appstore, they realised that it was going to be a rapidly growing industry for apps.

Koum chose the name, and they started talking about building an app where people would have their statuses next to their names.

The initial models failing, Koum was disheartened, and was almost about to give up when Acton persuaded him to keep at it. Finally in the  November of 2009, after months of beta testing, WhatsApp launched in the app store for iPhones. The blackberry version was released just two months later.

Earning Through the app


Jan and Brian earned millions of dollars without any advertising on the app. They made money in two ways. They started charging iPhone users on first time installation and the Android users every year. A lot of people used the app and paid both of them. Reports state that around 250 million people use WhatsApp in a month. This is a huge number for any application to reach in the smartphone space.

 The more number of users for WhatsApp, the more partners earn. The money was straight going to their pocket. There was no outside investment in making the app.All the development of the app is done in Russia. They could have earned more from the app by creating the WhatsApp Corporation. They could have earned right away by selling it.


 Main attraction of Whatsapp


Both the partners worked at Yahoo and hence learnt the tricks of the trade. Yahoo works with advertisements. Most users do not like advertisements flashing while using an application. Understanding this, the two made an app which is simple to use devoid of barriers in the form of advertisements. That alone made WhatsApp most loved by the users worldwide.

There are only 55 employees in the WhatsApp Inc. but they serve millions of people each day. The main aim of the app is to provide a simple interface to the users enabling them to stay in contact with their loved ones. WhatsApp is now bought over and owned by Facebook and this made both the partners, Jan and Brian billionaires in a very short period of time.
Acquisition by Facebook


 Acquisition by Facebook


After several months of venture capital financing, Facebook declared that they were acquiring facebook in February 2014. The deal went down for US $19 Billion, it was Facebook’s largest acquisition till then. Till date, this acquisition is the largest transaction done by any two companies backed by venture capitalists.

Milestones


    Whatsapp released for Symbian OS and Android OS in 2010.
    In September 2011, whatsapp released a new version of the Messenger for iPhones having closed the security holes.
    It released for Windows Phones and Blackberry 10 in 2013.
    In 2014, they released a version for smartwatches running Andriod OS.
    in January 2015, Whats app added a call feature to target a totally different group of users

A brief history of Facebook

 A brief history of Facebook 

 

Mark Zuckerberg, 23, founded Facebook while studying psychology at Harvard University. A keen computer programmer, Mr Zuckerberg had already developed a number of social-networking websites for fellow students, including Coursematch, which allowed users to view people taking their degree, and Facemash, where you could rate people's attractiveness.

In February 2004 Mr Zuckerberg launched "The facebook", as it was originally known; the name taken from the sheets of paper distributed to freshmen, profiling students and staff. Within 24 hours, 1,200 Harvard students had signed up, and after one month, over half of the undergraduate population had a profile.

The network was promptly extended to other Boston universities, the Ivy League and eventually all US universities. It became Facebook.com in August 2005 after the address was purchased for $200,000. US high schools could sign up from September 2005, then it began to spread worldwide, reaching UK universities the following monthAs of September 2006, the network was extended beyond educational institutions to anyone with a registered email address. The site remains free to join, and makes a profit through advertising revenue. Yahoo and Google are among companies which have expressed interest in a buy-out, with rumoured figures of around $2bn (£975m) being discussed. Mr Zuckerberg has so far refused to sell.

The site's features have continued to develop during 2007. Users can now give gifts to friends, post free classified advertisements and even develop their own applications - graffiti and Scrabble are particularly popular.

This month the company announced that the number of registered users had reached 30 million, making it the largest social-networking site with an education focus.

Earlier in the year there were rumours that Prince William had registered, but it was later revealed to be a mere impostor. The MP David Miliband, the radio DJ Jo Whiley, the actor Orlando Bloom, the artist Tracey Emin and the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, are among confirmed high-profile members.

This month officials banned a flash-mob-style water fight in Hyde Park, organised through Facebook, due to public safety fears. And there was further controversy at Oxford as students became aware that university authorities were checking their Facebook profiles.

The legal case against Facebook dates back to September 2004, when Divya Narendra, and the brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, who founded the social-networking site ConnectU, accused Mr Zuckerberg of copying their ideas and coding. Mr Zuckerberg had worked as a computer programmer for them when they were all at Harvard before Facebook was created.

The case was dismissed due to a technicality in March 2007 but without a ruling.

Muslims in Hitler's War

 Muslims in Hitler's War

 The Nazis believed that Islamic forces would prove crucial wartime allies. But, as David Motadel shows, the Muslim world was unwilling to be swayed by the Third Reich's advances.


Tunis, December 19th, 1942. It was the day of Eid al-Adha, the Islamic feast of sacrifice. The retreat of Rommel's army had turned the city into a massive military camp. In the late afternoon, a German motorcade of four large cars drove at a slow, solemn pace along Tunis' main road, the Avenue de Paris, leaving the capital in the direction of the coastal town of Hamman Lif. The convoy contained Colonel General Hans-Jürgen von Arnim, commander of the Wehrmacht in Tunisia, Rudolf Rahn, Hitler's consul in Tunis and the Reich's highest civil representative in North Africa, and some other high-ranking Germans. They were to visit the Bey of Tunis, Muhammad VII al-Munsif, who had remained the nominal ruler of Tunisia, to offer him their good wishes for the sacred holiday and to show their respect for Islam. In front of the Winter Palace of Hamman Lif, hundreds of cheering people saluted the convoy; the Tunisian guard extended them an honorary welcome. In the conversations with the monarch, the Germans promised that the next Eid al-Adha, or Eid al-Kabir as it is known in Tunisia, would take place in a time of peace and that the Wehrmacht was doing everything it could to keep the war away from the Muslim population. More important than the consultations, though, was the Germans' public show of respect for Islam. Back in his Tunis headquarters, Rahn enthusiastically cabled Berlin, urging it to make full propagandistic use of the 'solemn reception' at the 'Eid al-Kabir celebration'. In the following days, Nazi propaganda spread the news across North Africa, portraying the Third Reich as the protector of Islam.

At the height of the Second World War, in 1941-42, as Hitler's troops marched into Muslim-populated territories in North Africa, the Balkans, Crimea and the Caucasus and approached the Middle East and Central Asia, officials in Berlin began to see Islam as politically significant. In the following years, they made significant attempts to promote an alliance with the 'Muslim world' against their alleged common enemies: the British Empire, the Soviet Union, America and Jews.

Yet  the reason for the Third Reich's engagement with Islam was not only that Muslim-populated regions had become part of the warzones but also, more importantly, because at the same time, Germany's military situation had deteriorated. In the Soviet Union, Hitler's Blitzkrieg strategy had failed. As the Wehrmacht came under pressure, Berlin began to seek broader war coalitions, thereby demonstrating remarkable pragmatism. The courtship of Muslims was to pacify the occupied Muslim-populated territories and to mobilise the faithful to fight on the side of Hitler's armies.

 German officials had increasingly engaged with Islam since the late 19th century, when the kaiser ruled over substantial Muslim populations in his colonies of Togo, Cameroon and German East Africa. Here, the Germans sought to employ religion as a tool of control. Sharia courts were recognised, Islamic endowments left untouched, madrasas kept open and religious holidays acknowledged. Colonial officials ruled through Islamic intermediaries who, in return, gave the colonial state legitimacy. In Berlin, Islam was moreover considered to offer an opportunity for exploitation in the context of Wilhelmine Weltpolitik. This became most obvious during the Middle Eastern tour of Wilhelm II in 1898 and in his dramatic speech, given after visiting the tomb of Saladin in Damascus, in which he declared himself a 'friend' of the world's '300 million Mohammedans' and, ultimately, in Berlin's efforts to mobilise Muslims living in the British, French and Russian empires during the First World War. Although all attempts to spread jihad in 1914 had failed, German strategists maintained a strong interest in the geopolitics of Islam.


 With the outbreak of the Second World War and the involvement of German troops in Muslim-populated regions, officials in Berlin began again to consider the strategic role of the Islamic world. A systematic instrumentalisation of Islam was first proposed in late 1941 in a memorandum by the diplomat Eberhard von Stohrer, Hitler's former ambassador in Cairo. Stohrer suggested that there should be 'an extensive Islam program', which would include a statement about 'the general attitude of the Third Reich towards Islam'. Between late 1941 and late 1942 the Foreign Office set up an Islam program, which included the employment of religious figures, most prominently the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, who arrived in Berlin in late 1941. On December 18th, 1942 the Nazis inaugurated the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin, which became a hub of Germany's propaganda efforts in the Islamic world; the party organ, the Völkischer Beobachter, ran a headline promising, 'This War Could Bring Freedom to Islam!' As the war progressed and German troops moved into Muslim areas in the Balkans and in the Soviet Union, other branches of the Nazi state followed up on these policies.

German officials tended to view Muslim populations under the rubric of 'Islam'. An advantage of using Islam rather than ethno-national categories was that Berlin could avoid the thorny issue of national independence. Moreover, religion seemed to be a useful policy and propaganda tool to address ethnically, linguistically and socially heterogeneous populations. The Germans saw Islam as a source of authority that could legitimise involvement in a conflict and even justify violence. In terms of racial barriers, the regime showed remarkable pragmatism: (Non-Jewish) Turks, Iranians and Arabs had already been explicitly exempted from any official racial discrimination in the 1930s, following diplomatic interventions from the governments in Tehran, Ankara and Cairo. During the war the Germans showed similar pragmatism when encountering Muslims from the Balkans and the Turkic minorities of the Soviet Union. Muslims, it was clear to every German officer from the Sahara to the Caucasus, were to be treated as allies.


 On the ground in North Africa, in contact with the coastal populations, army officials tried to avoid frictions. As early as 1941, the Wehrmacht distributed the handbook Der Islam to train the troops in correct behaviour towards Muslims. In the Libyan and Egyptian desert, German authorities courted religious dignitaries, most importantly the shaykhs of the influential Sufi orders. The problem was that the most powerful religious force in the Cyrenaican warzone, the Islamic Sanusi order, was the spearhead of the anti-colonial resistance against Italian rule and fought alongside Montgomery's army against the Axis. In any case, Berlin's promises to liberate the Muslims and protect Islam stood in sharp contrast to the violence and destruction that the war had brought to North Africa and the Germans ultimately failed to incite a major Muslim pro-Axis movement in the region.

On the Eastern Front the situation was very different. The Muslims of Crimea and the North Caucasus had confronted the central state ever since the tsarist annexation in the 18th and 19th centuries and the Bolshevist takeover had worsened the situation. Under Stalin, the Muslim areas suffered unprecedented political and religious persecution. Islamic literature was censored, sharia law banned and the property of the Islamic communities expropriated. Party cadres took over mosques, painted Soviet slogans on their walls, hoisted red flags on their minarets and chased pigs through their sacred halls. Still, Islam continued to play a crucial role in shaping social and political life. After the invasion of the Caucasus and Crimea, German military authorities, eager to find local collaborators to stabilise the volatile rear areas, did not miss the opportunity to present themselves as the liberators of Islam. General Ewald von Kleist, commander of Army Group A, which occupied the Caucasus, urged his officers to respect the Muslims and to be aware of the pan-Islamic implications of the Wehrmacht's actions: 'Among all of the German Army Groups, Army Group A has advanced the furthest. We stand at the gates to the Islamic world. What we do, and how we behave here will radiate deep into Iraq, to India, as far as to the borders of China. We must constantly be aware of the long-range effect of our actions and inactions.' Similar orders were issued by General Erich von Manstein in Crimea. In his infamous order of November 20th, 1941, which demanded that 'the Jewish-Bolshevist system be exterminated once and for all' and which became one of the key documents used by his prosecution at Nuremberg after the war, Manstein urged his troops to treat the Muslim population well: 'Respect for religious customs of the Mohammedan Tartars must be demanded.'

In their attempt to control the strategically sensitive rear areas, the Germans made extensive use of religious policies. They ordered the rebuilding of mosques, prayer halls and madrasas and the re-establishment of religious holidays. In the Caucasus, they staged massive celebrations at the end of Ramadan in 1942, of which the most notable was in the Karachai city of Kislovodsk. Under Soviet rule, the Muslims of Kislovodsk had not openly observed Eid al-Fitr and the celebration became a key marker of difference between Soviet and German rule. Attended by a large delegation of high-ranking Wehrmacht generals, it included prayers, speeches and exchanges of gifts; the Germans had brought captured weapons and Qurans. In the centre of Kislovodsk, a parade of Karachai horsemen was organised. Behind the honorary tribune for Muslim leaders and Wehrmacht officers, an oversized, open papier-mâché Quran was arranged, displaying two pious quotations in Arabic script. On the right-hand page there was the shahada, the statement of faith: 'There is no god but Allah/Muhammad is his Prophet' (La ilaha illa Allah/Muhammadan rasul Allah). On the left was the popular Quranic verse (61:13): 'Help [comes] from Allah/and a nigh victory' (Nasr min Allah/Wa fath qarib). Nailed above the Quran was an enormous wooden Reich eagle with a swastika. In Crimea the Germans even established an Islamic administration, the so-called 'Muslim Committees'. In the end, the hopes for freedom among the Muslims of the Soviet borderlands were shattered. The attitudes of Nazi officials towards the Muslim population cooled the longer the occupation period lasted. Ordinary German soldiers, influenced by propaganda defaming the Asiatic peoples of the Soviet Union as sub-humans, were not prepared for dealing with Muslims. Even worse, after the German retreat, Stalin accused the Muslim minorities of collective collaboration with the enemy and ordered their deportation.

              "The attitudes of Nazi officials towards the Muslim population cooled the longer the occupation period lasted".

  Balkans was different again. When the Germans invaded and dissolved Yugoslavia in 1941, they initially did not get involved in the Muslim-populated regions, most importantly Bosnia and Herzegovina, which came under the control of the newly founded Croatian Ustaša state. The Ustaša regime, led by Hitler's puppet dictator Ante Pavelić, officially tried to court its Muslim subjects, while murdering Jews and Roma and persecuting Orthodox Serbs. From early 1942, however, the region became increasingly engulfed in a severe conflict between the Croatian regime, Tito's Communist partisans and Dragoljub 'Draža' Mihailović's Orthodox Serbian Četniks, who were fighting for a greater Serbia. The Muslim population was repeatedly attacked by all three parties. Ustaša authorities employed Muslim army units to fight both Tito's partisans and Četnik militias. Soon, Muslim villages became the object of retaliatory attacks. The number of Muslim victims grew to the tens of thousands. Ustaša authorities did little to prevent these massacres. Leading Muslim representatives turned to the Germans for help, asking for Muslim autonomy under Hitler's protection. In a memorandum of November 1st, 1942 they professed their 'love and loyalty' for the Führer and offered to fight with the Axis against 'Judaism, Freemasonry, Bolshevism, and the English exploiters'. Officials in Berlin were thrilled.


 As the civil war in the Balkans spun out of control, the Germans became more and more involved in the Muslim-populated areas. In their attempts to pacify the region, the Wehrmacht and, more importantly, the SS saw the Muslims as welcome allies and promoted Nazi Germany as a protector of Islam in South-eastern Europe. The campaign began in Spring 1943, when the SS sent the Mufti of Jerusalem on a tour to Zagreb, Banja Luka and Sarajevo, where he met religious leaders and gave pro-Axis speeches. When visiting the grand Gazi Husrev Beg Mosque in Sarajevo, he gave such an emotional speech about Muslim suffering that parts of the audience burst into tears. In the following months the Germans launched a massive campaign of religiously charged propaganda. At the same time, they began to engage more closely with Islamic dignitaries and institutions, as they believed that religious leaders wielded most influence on the people. Muslims were formally under the authority of the highest religious council, the Ulema-Medžlis, and Nazi officials repeatedly consulted with its members and tried to co-opt them. Many Islamic leaders hoped that the Germans would help them found a Muslim state. Soon, however, it became clear that the Wehrmacht and the SS were not able to pacify the region; at the same time, the German support for the Muslim population fuelled partisan and Četnik hatred against them. Violence escalated. In the end, a quarter of a million Muslims died in the conflict.


"In the southern borderlands of the Soviet Union, however, Nazi killing squads still had difficulties distinguishing Muslims from Jews"

As the tide of turned against the war axis from 1941 onwards, the Wehrmacht and the SS recruited tens of thousands of Muslims, among them Bosnians, Crimean Tatars and Muslims from the Caucasus and Central Asia – mainly to save German blood. Muslim soldiers fought on all fronts, they were deployed in Stalingrad, Warsaw and in the defence of Berlin. German army officers granted these recruits a wide range of religious concessions, taking into account the Islamic calendar and religious laws, such as dietary requirements. They even lifted the ban on ritual slaughter, a practice that had been prohibited for antisemitic reasons by Hitler's 'Law for the Protection of Animals' of 1933. A prominent role in the units was played by military imams, who were responsible not only for spiritual care but also for political indoctrination. When speaking to Nazi functionaries about the recruitment of Muslims into the SS in 1944, Himmler explained that the support of Islam had simple pragmatic reasons: 'I don't have anything against Islam, because it educates men in this division for me and promises them paradise when they have fought and been killed in combat. A practical and attractive religion for soldiers!' After the war, many Muslims who had fought in German units, especially those from the Soviet Union and Balkans, faced gruesome retaliation.

***

The Germans' engagement with Muslims was by no means straightforward. Nazi policies towards Islam, as worked out by bureaucrats in Berlin, regularly clashed with the realities on the ground. In the first months after the invasion of the Soviet Union, SS squads executed thousands of Muslims, specifically prisoners of war, on the assumption that their circumcision proved that they were Jewish. A high-level meeting of the Wehrmacht, the SS and the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was held in the summer of 1941, in which Colonel Erwin von Lahousen, who represented Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Wehrmacht intelligence, became embroiled in a fierce argument with Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller, the infamous 'Gestapo-Müller', about these executions. In particular the selection of hundreds of Muslim Tatars who had been sent for 'special treatment' because they were taken for Jews, was brought up. Müller calmly acknowledged that the SS had made some mistakes in this respect. It was the first time, he claimed, that he had heard that Muslims, too, were circumcised. A few weeks later, Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler's chief of the SS Reich Security Head Office, sent out a directive cautioning the SS Task Forces to be more careful: 'The circumcision and Jewish appearance do not constitute sufficient proof of Jewish descent.' Muslims were not to be confused with Jews. In Muslim-populated areas, other characteristics, like names, were to be taken into account.

In the southern borderlands of the Soviet Union, however, Nazi killing squads still had difficulties distinguishing Muslims from Jews. When the Einsatzgruppe D began murdering the Jewish population of the Caucasus and Crimea, it encountered a special situation with regard to three Jewish communities which had long lived closely alongside the Muslim population and were influenced by Islamic culture: the Karaites and Krymchaks in the Crimea and the Judeo-Tats, also known as 'Mountain Jews', in the northern Caucasus.

In Crimea, SS officials were puzzled when encountering the Turkic-speaking Karaites and Krymchaks. Visiting Simferopol in December 1941, two Wehrmacht officers, Oberkriegsverwaltungsrat Fritz Donner and Major Ernst Seifert, reported that it was interesting to note that: 'A large part of these Jews on the Crimea is of Mohammedan faith, while there were also Near Eastern racial groups of a non-Semitic character, who, strangely, have adopted the Jewish faith.' The confusion among the Germans about the classification of Karaites and Krymchaks, which were, in fact, both Jewish communities, was striking. In the end, the Karaites were classified as ethnically Turkic and spared, while the Krymchaks were considered ethnically Jewish and killed. According to Walter Groß, head of the NSDAP Race Office, the Karaites were excluded from persecution because of their close relations with allied Muslim Tatars.

In the Caucasus, representatives of the Judeo-Tats, a minority of Iranian ancestry, took their case to the German authorities. The SS started investigations, visiting houses, attending celebrations and enquiring into the customs of the community. SS-Oberfüher Walther Bierkamp, then head of Einsatzgruppe D, personally visited a village of the 'mountain Jews' in the Nalchik area. During this visit, the Judeo-Tats were extremely hospitable and Bierkamp found that, aside from their religion, they had nothing in common with Jews. At the same time, he recognised Islamic influence, as the Tats also practiced polygamous relationships. Bierkamp swiftly gave the order that these peoples were not to be harmed and that, in place of 'Mountain Jews', the term 'Tats' had to be used.

***

In other war zones, too, Nazi authorities and their local helpers faced difficulties in distinguishing between Jews and Muslims, particularly in the Balkans. The privileged position of Muslims (and indeed Catholics) in the Ustaša state seemed, to many Jews, to offer an opportunity to avoid persecution. Soon, many tried to escape repression and deportation through official conversion to Islam. In Sarajevo alone, around 20 per cent of the Jewish population is estimated to have converted to Islam or Catholicism between April and October 1941; given their circumcision, many found Islam to be the easier option. In the autumn of 1941, Ustaša authorities finally intervened, prohibiting these conversions, and even those who had converted were still not safe from persecution as it was race, not religion, which defined Jewishness in the eyes of German and Ustaša bureaucrats. Still, a number of converted and non-converted Jews managed to flee the country disguised as Muslims; some of them – women and men – wearing the Islamic veil.

Finally, the murder of Europe's Gypsies involved Muslims directly. As the Germans began screening the occupied territories of the Soviet Union they soon encountered many Muslim Roma. In fact, the majority of the Roma in Crimea were Islamic. They had, for centuries, assimilated with the Tatars, who now showed remarkable solidarity with them. Muslim representatives sent numerous petitions to the Germans to ask for the protection of their Roma co-religionists. Backed by the Tatars, many Muslim Roma pretended to be Tatars to escape deportation. Some used Islam. One example was the round up of Roma in Simferopol in December 1941, when those captured tried to use religious symbols to convince the Germans that their arrest was a mistake. An eyewitness noted in his diary:

    The gypsies arrived en masse on carriages at the Talmud-Thora Building. For some reason, they raised a green flag, the symbol of Islam, and put a mullah at the head of their procession. The gypsies tried to convince the Germans that they were not gypsies; some claimed to be Tatars, others to be Turkmens. But their protests were disregarded and they were all put into the great building.

In the end, many Muslim Roma were murdered, but as the Germans had trouble distinguishing Muslim Roma from Muslim Tatars, some – an estimated 30 per cent – survived. During his interrogation at the Nuremberg Einsatzgruppen Trial, when asked about the persecution of Gypsies in Crimea, Ohlendorf explained that the screening had been complicated by the fact that many Roma had shared the same religion with the Crimean Tatars: 'That was the difficulty, because some of the gypsies – if not all of them – were Muslims, and for that reason we attached a great amount of importance to the issue to not getting into difficulties with the Tartars and, therefore, people were employed in this task who knew the places and the people.'

 

 Muslims in the Balkans, too, were affected by the persecution of the Roma, as there were many Roma of the Islamic faith. When the Germans and their Ustaša allies began persecuting the Roma population, they initially also targeted the largely settled Muslim Roma of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the so-called 'white gypsies'. In the summer of 1941 Muslim Roma complained to the Islamic religious authorities about their discrimination. A delegation of leading Muslim representatives petitioned the authorities that Muslim Roma should be considered part of the Muslim community and that any attack on them would be considered an attack on the Islamic community itself. Eager to court Muslims, Ustaša and German officials eventually excluded Muslim Roma from persecution and deportation. When launching their pro-Muslim policies, German bureaucrats had not considered that the (religiously defined) population group ('Muslims') they tried to win as allies could overlap with (racially defined) population groups ('Jews' and 'Roma') that were to be persecuted.

In the last months of the war, holed up in the Berlin bunker, Hitler lamented that the attempts of the Third Reich to mobilise the Muslim world had failed because they had not been strong enough. 'All Islam vibrated at the news of our victories and the Muslims were ready to rise in revolt', he told his secretary, Martin Bormann. A movement could have been incited in North Africa that would have spilled over to the rest of the Muslim world. 'Just think what we could have done to help them, even to incite them, as would have been both our duty and our interest!'

In the end, German attempts to find Muslim allies were less successful than the strategists in Berlin had hoped. They had been launched too late and had clashed too often with the violent realities of the war. More importantly, the Third Reich's claims that it protected the faithful lacked credibility, as most Muslims in the war zones were aware that they served profane political interests. The Germans also failed to incite a major Muslim uprising against the Allies. Although tens of thousands of Muslims were recruited into the German armies, in the end the British, French, and Soviets were more successful in mobilising their Muslim populations: hundreds of thousands fought in their armies against Hitler's Germany. From French North Africa alone, almost a quarter of a million Muslims enlisted in de Gaulle's forces, taking part in the liberation of Europe.

David Motadel is Chancellor's Fellow at the University of Edinburgh and Research Fellow in History at Gonville and Caius, Cambridge and the author of Islam and Nazi Germany's War (Harvard, 2014).

 

The Map: The Moon, 1647

 The Map: The Moon, 1647

  A 17th century map by the founder of lunar topography Johananes Hevelius.

 

Jannes Hevelius (1611-87) followed in his father’s footsteps as a brewer, while also acting as a councillor and the mayor of his hometown, Danzig (Gdańsk). Indulging his interest in astronomy, learnt under the tutelage of the astronomer Peter Krüger, in 1641 he built an observatory on the roof of his house, called Sternenburg: ‘Star Castle’.

He ground his own lenses and built telescopes for it, including one 46m (150ft)-long Keplerian telescope with a wood and wire tube.

He published his results in Selenographia (1647), the first selenographical atlas – a work dedicated entirely to the moon – with 111 plates and engravings, which he had drawn and engraved himself. These engravings showed the moon in every phase and included one composite map of all the features of the moon’s surface shown as if lit from the same direction. This became the model for all later lunar maps. His were the most accurate surveys of the moon to date and his work was key to our understanding of libration and longitude.

Today he is remembered as the founder of lunar topography. A large crater on the edge of the Ocean of Storms bears his name.

Improving the leadership of learning

Improving the leadership of learning

Are we at a turning point or a tipping point? With a general election less than a year away will the reforms that have swept through state schools over the last four years endure and become embedded? Or is there opportunity to take a different path and for alternative arguments to prevail?

These questions were posed by the writer and journalist Fiona Millar in her introduction to the latest in a series of events held as part of the Great Education Debate launched last September by the Association for School and College Leaders.

"The general election presents an opportunity to be ready with alternative arguments," she told teachers, school leaders and education campaigners at the event hosted by the National Education Trust.

"Looking at system-wide leadership, schools are going to have to see the latest wave of change roll through from September but in the longer term let's hope it might be possible to get to a position with politicians where we can look at a 10-year strategy, decide what the best thing to do is and roll it out over that time."

The desire for long-term thinking and planning based on a shared mission and an agreed set of goals was palpable among those taking part in the discussion at the Brady Arts and Community Centre in Whitechapel, east London.

Kate Atkins, headteacher of Rosendale Primary School in Lambeth, said the impact of current government policies had led to schools turning in on themselves instead of reaching out and collaborating with other schools.

"I believe that schools have become too inwardly-focused over the last few years. We've become obsessed by short-term targets, quick fixes, off-the-shelf solutions to our problems. We want to play it safe and we're afraid of change and we've done this to the detriment of all those within our community," she said.

"There are very good reasons why this has happened. We've got league tables, no-notice inspections, local authority support has been eroded and we are surrounded by free schools and enormous academy chains and federations.

"But I do feel there is an opportunity for change and a willingness to think about the bigger picture. We need to look up, look out and set long-term and high targets for ourselves, our schools and the whole of our community.

"We need to put our schools at the centre of their communities. We need to build a community around the school that has a shared set of values and principles that are sustainable in the long term and not dependent on the personality of the leader. We need to reach out and make networks with other schools around us."

Reviewing four years of education reform by the coalition government Geoff Barton, headteacher of King Edward VI comprehensive school in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, said promises by the Education Secretary Michael Gove to foster a culture of collaboration, creativity and professional freedom had failed to materialise.

"What we have got is an atomisation of the system and schools in competition in a way that is deeply divisive. This is our most civilised Secretary of State in terms of his reading and culture and yet it feels from where I am that he is presiding over a message that creativity comes second best to academic study."

Expanding on this theme, he chided the leadership in Sanctuary Buildings for adopting a mechanistic view of education. By paying too much attention to accountability systems and performance measures ministers had narrowed the perception of learning.

As an example he described the impact of the English Baccalaureate.

"I know of some schools that took children out of GCSE music and told them they had to do GCSE history. That is not about principles and values. It's about doing something in the interest of the school because of the performance tables and not in their interests of young people," he said.

Real learning was complex, rich, deep and interesting and was not simply about what could be tested. The challenge for politicians and school leaders was to focus on the reasons why some schools do better than others.

"The ethos that you set around a school – the expectations, values and belief system – is what really drives the quality. You can take a mediocre teacher and get better results if the ethos is that children will behave with that teacher because the expectations of the school have been so clearly set out.

"Values and ethos matter. The quality of learning isn't just about the quality of teaching."

Expanding up on this theme, Emma Knights, chief executive of the National Governors Association, said the Welcome Trust was currently carrying out a pilot scheme with more than 20 governing bodies to discover "how we might measure the things we really care about, the things that we value".

"It is quite hard. Sometimes it comes down to gut feeling. Despite all the wonderful toolkits available around the world it is more or less impossible to measure some of the things we value most. Sometimes you just have to say, 'We know it's the right thing to do'," she said.

Putting Labour's case for an alternative agenda Rushanara Ali, Shadow Education Minister, promised to work with the profession to build a national mission to raise the country's educational performance to equal that of the world's leading school systems.

"We know we improve standards through accountability, strategic support and strong networks of leaders who are confident about what is needed in order to drive up standards. It's also about working in partnership with parents and the wider community," she said.

Labour's would end fragmentation of provision created by the current government by establishing a new middle tier – a network of standards commissioners that would provide local accountability, lead the drive for improvement and encourage school leaders and teachers to work collaboratively together.

While the shadow minister addressed many of the concerns of teachers and heads she had little to say about the vexed issue of accountability. It was left to Lucy Crehan, an international researcher who has studied some of the world's leading education systems, to question the role of school inspection and performance tables.

"Only the United States and the Netherlands have a higher proportion of schools that publish achievement data, and the United States does worse than us in PISA. Finland, Belgium, Shanghai, Japan, Switzerland and Macau are all top performers and none of them publish school data as a way of holding schools to account."

If Britain's political leaders truly wanted to emulate the world's most successful education systems they should start by abolishing league tables or publishing only value-added data, she said. They should also establish a National Board of Education or an Academy of Teachers to guide ministers on school policy.

Summing up the debate, Fiona Millar identified three areas needing urgent attention from politicians and school leaders.

Firstly, the system of accountability should be reviewed to examine not only how children and schools are measured but whether we are measuring the right things.

Secondly, values and ethos should be recognised as playing a vital role in children's learning and achievement and should be built into the accountability framework to ensure learning is about more than passing exams.

Thirdly, it was clear schools wanted to work in collaboration rather than competition.

"No one is quite sure what structures are needed to bring this about. But the way forward is going to be about finding a political solution to bring people back together again," she said

Jeremy Sutcliffe is a journalist and author of '8 Qualities of Successful School Leaders: the Desert Island Challenge'

 

What is education for?

What is education for?

For me, the question isn’t so much what is education for, so much as who. This may seem like a facile point to make - we all know that education is for the students. That’s why people pursue careers in education: to enhance and improve the life chances of children and young people. But how much of what goes on in schools is really centred on them?

The system is run, and usually commented on, by people who enjoyed school and did well. Media commentators. Of course I’m also in that group. Too often, we try to recreate what worked well for us, assuming it will work for everyone. We do so with the best of motives. But it doesn’t work for a substantial minority of children. We need to think more about them. They matter. The child who isn’t a good “fit” with school. The child who struggles, has special needs, or is not a particularly likeable or conscientious member of the school community.

I am agnostic about who runs schools. England has always had a mixed economy of provision and multiple providers, due to a mixture of historical precedent and successive governments’ policies. I am far more concerned about what happens inside schools - for children - than about whose name is above the door.

In recent years, that diversity of schools has expanded exponentially. A thousand flowers (well, three and a half thousand at the last count) bloom. I am not opposed to this, if it is in the best interests of children. Different things work for different people. Unfortunately, too often that is not what drives this burgeoning diversity. Rather, it is driven by the beliefs, experiences and preferences of those running both schools, and chains of schools.

As a profession, we all need to make sure such diversity of provision is managed in the interests of the children living and learning in it. That means, regardless of the good intentions of those doing it, that breaking the law is unacceptable, whether the breaking is intentional or through ignorance. Above all, schools’ first concern must be the benefit and interests of children, not adults.

Look at the curriculum: pupils tell me they want a curriculum which prepares them for adult life, with clear relevance to their lives in AND outside school. They want high quality PSHE, including sex and relationships education. They want equal opportunities to study courses that best fit their strengths as young citizens. In my view, they are right on this last point in particular. The CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Chambers of Commerce, all seek young people with a rounded sense of self and self-worth, with the skills and motivation to go on learning throughout their lives.

This is something private schools do very well. The popular myth? Public school pupils spend their days sitting in rows conjugating Latin verbs in unison: miles away from the truth. Speak to any “old boy or girl” and they will say is how identified and nurtured students’ individual strengths as people, as citizens, leaders and thinkers.

My challenge? If it’s good enough for children in public schools, and we want a vibrant population of thinkers, voters, entrepreneurs, it’s good enough for children in the comprehensive schools where I started, and in those I tended and challenged in Local Authorities later in my career: those to which most of England’s young citizens go to learn, and to grow.

Schools must prepare pupils for the real world. On that, we can all agree. It gets trickier when we try to define what that means. Academic knowledge and qualifications are a vital part of it. They are not the whole story. The large majority of schools do all this very well. I have visited schools all over England where staff bend over backwards to include all students, acting in their best interests. But there are many other pressures on school leaders. There is – inevitably - a temptation to respond to these. Delivering what children and young people need might make it more difficult for an increase in “EBACC” scores. A school may lose points and places in the league tables, which of course do not apply to the private sector. And there, surely, is the nub of this Great Debate.

My office will, in the near future, consult on whether collectively we can identify indicators, and desirable outcomes, for the education system - can we identify the things that constitute a “good” education? We will then examine how ever-changing policies contribute to achieving these, and what more should be done. I hope all those reading this think piece will contribute, for none of us thinks best alone, the other central focus of this Great Debate.


Is our education system effective in the modern world?

Is our education system effective in the modern world?


The UK has fallen to 26th in the PISA league tables for maths, a downward trend reflected in sciences and reading. So things bring us to the question of whether our modern childhood education is effective.

Nowadays, most of our education focuses on academic topics, which have little application for students at present. Further, the introduction of strict specification for many courses does little to encourage natural ability to flourish. Practical and active learning is always more effective than passive learning, for then you have a use for what you learn. It is frustrating when a teacher cannot answer your question because “it’s not on the spec.” Yet in humanities you are encouraged to read around the subject, broadening your mind in areas that interest you.

The average student wakes up early in the morning, tired from a late night and has to drag themselves to school for a day’s worth of free but generally, unwanted, education. Why is this? These students desire education on a topic they enjoy, not the lists of facts and trivialities peddled to us by exam boards.

As a matter of basic values, everyone wants to do well. But unless the motivation can be found, there is little chance of this. Education needs to be stimulating and interesting for a student in order for them to enjoy it and thus make best use of it.

It could be said that schools reject the idea of education being ‘fun’ and ‘enjoyable’, but this could just be due to our obsession with getting a good career and money, in the belief this will bring us fulfilment.

Some schools are not capitalising on their pupil’s abilities. Thankfully, Lawrence Sheriff School has recognised that education must be in the student’s interests. I personally believe that everyone is talented, in different ways and we should all make use of these. It is up to the schools to find and unlock our natural ability and help us to further our interests.

Cameron Butt
Pupil at Lawrence Sheriff School

History of Earth

History of Earth


The history of Earth covers approximately 4 billion years (4,567,000,000 years), from Earth’s formation out of the solar nebula to the present.

Earth formed as part of the birth of the solar system: what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating cloud of dust and gas.

It was composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the Big Bang, as well as heavier elements produced by stars long gone.

Semiconductor Basics

 Semiconductor Basics

 

Semiconductors are materials which have a conductivity between conductors (generally metals) and nonconductors or insulators (such as most ceramics). Semiconductors can be pure elements, such as silicon or germanium, or compounds such as gallium arsenide or cadmium selenide. In a process called doping, small amounts of impurities are added to pure semiconductors causing large changes in the conductivity of the material.

Due to their role in the fabrication of electronic devices, semiconductors are an important part of our lives. Imagine life without electronic devices. There would be no radios, no TV's, no computers, no video games, and poor medical diagnostic equipment. Although many electronic devices could be made using vacuum tube technology, the developments in semiconductor technology during the past 50 years have made electronic devices smaller, faster, and more reliable. Think for a minute of all the encounters you have with electronic devices. How many of the following have you seen or used in the last twenty-four hours? Each has important components that have been manufactured with electronic materials.

 If Resistors are the most basic passive component in electrical or electronic circuits, then we have to consider the Signal Diode as being the most basic “Active” component.

However, unlike a resistor, a diode does not behave linearly with respect to the applied voltage as it has an exponential I-V relationship and therefore can not be described simply by using Ohm’s law as we do for resistors.

Diodes are basic unidirectional semiconductor devices that will only allow current to flow through them in one direction only, acting more like a one way electrical valve, (Forward Biased Condition). But, before we have a look at how signal or power diodes work we first need to understand the semiconductors basic construction and concept.

Diodes are made from a single piece of Semiconductor material which has a positive “P-region” at one end and a negative “N-region” at the other, and which has a resistivity value somewhere between that of a conductor and an insulator. But what is a “Semiconductor” material?, firstly let’s look at what makes something either a Conductor or an Insulator.
Resistivity

The electrical Resistance of an electrical or electronic component or device is generally defined as being the ratio of the voltage difference across it to the current flowing through it, basic Ohm´s Law principals. The problem with using resistance as a measurement is that it depends very much on the physical size of the material being measured as well as the material out of which it is made. For example, if we were to increase the length of the material (making it longer) its resistance would also increase proportionally.

Likewise, if we increased its diameter or size (making it fatter) its resistance value would decrease. So we want to be able to define the material in such a way as to indicate its ability to either conduct or oppose the flow of electrical current through it no matter what its size or shape happens to be.

The quantity that is used to indicate this specific resistance is called Resistivity and is given the Greek symbol of ρ, (Rho). Resistivity is measured in Ohm-metres, ( Ω-m ). Resistivity is the inverse to conductivity.

If the resistivity of various materials is compared, they can be classified into three main groups, Conductors, Insulators and Semi-conductors as shown below.

Related Products: PIN | Varactor

Resistivity Chart

Notice that there is a very small margin between the resistivity of the conductors such as silver and gold, compared to a much larger margin for the resistivity of the insulators between glass and quartz.

Note also that the resistivity of all materials at any one time also depends upon their ambient temperature because metals are also good conductors of heat

Conductors

From above we now know that Conductors are materials that have very low values of resistivity, usually in the micro-ohms per metre. This low value allows them to easily pass an electrical current due to there being plenty of free electrons floating about within their basic atom structure. But these electrons will only flow through a conductor if there is something to spur their movement, and that something is an electrical voltage.

When a positive voltage potential is applied to the material these “free electrons” leave their parent atom and travel together through the material forming an electron drift, more commonly known as a current. How “freely” these electrons can move through a conductor depends on how easily they can break free from their constituent atoms when a voltage is applied. Then the amount of electrons that flow depends on the amount of resistivity the conductor has.

Examples of good conductors are generally metals such as Copper, Aluminium, Silver or non metals such as Carbon because these materials have very few electrons in their outer “Valence Shell” or ring, resulting in them being easily knocked out of the atom’s orbit. This allows them to flow freely through the material until they join up with other atoms, producing a “Domino Effect” through the material thereby creating an electrical current. Copper and Aluminium is the main conductor used in electrical cables as shown.

 

Generally speaking, most metals are good conductors of electricity, as they have very small resistance values, usually in the region of micro-ohms per metre. While metals such as copper and aluminium are very good conducts of electricity, they still have some resistance to the flow of electrons and consequently do not conduct perfectly.

The energy which is lost in the process of passing an electrical current, appears in the form of heat which is why conductors and especially resistors become hot. Also the resistivity of conductors increases with ambient temperature because metals are also generally good conductors of heat.
Insulators

Insulators on the other hand are the exact opposite of conductors. They are made of materials, generally non-metals, that have very few or no “free electrons” floating about within their basic atom structure because the electrons in the outer valence shell are strongly attracted by the positively charged inner nucleus.

In other words, the electrons are stuck to the parent atom and can not move around freely so if a potential voltage is applied to the material no current will flow as there are no “free electrons” available to move and which gives these materials their insulating properties.

Insulators also have very high resistances, millions of ohms per metre, and are generally not affected by normal temperature changes (although at very high temperatures wood becomes charcoal and changes from an insulator to a conductor). Examples of good insulators are marble, fused quartz, p.v.c. plastics, rubber etc.

Insulators play a very important role within electrical and electronic circuits, because without them electrical circuits would short together and not work. For example, insulators made of glass or porcelain are used for insulating and supporting overhead transmission cables while epoxy-glass resin materials are used to make printed circuit boards, PCB’s etc. while PVC is used to insulate electrical cables as shown.
Semiconductor Basics

Semiconductors materials such as silicon (Si), germanium (Ge) and gallium arsenide (GaAs), have electrical properties somewhere in the middle, between those of a “conductor” and an “insulator”. They are not good conductors nor good insulators (hence their name “semi”-conductors). They have very few “free electrons” because their atoms are closely grouped together in a crystalline pattern called a “crystal lattice” but electrons are still able to flow, but only under special conditions.

The ability of semiconductors to conduct electricity can be greatly improved by replacing or adding certain donor or acceptor atoms to this crystalline structure thereby, producing more free electrons than holes or vice versa. That is by adding a small percentage of another element to the base material, either silicon or germanium.

On their own Silicon and Germanium are classed as intrinsic semiconductors, that is they are chemically pure, containing nothing but semi-conductive material. But by controlling the amount of impurities added to this intrinsic semiconductor material it is possible to control its conductivity. Various impurities called donors or acceptors can be added to this intrinsic material to produce free electrons or holes respectively.

This process of adding donor or acceptor atoms to semiconductor atoms (the order of 1 impurity atom per 10 million (or more) atoms of the semiconductor) is called Doping. The as the doped silicon is no longer pure, these donor and acceptor atoms are collectively referred to as “impurities”, and by doping these silicon material with a sufficient number of impurities, we can turn it into a semi-conductor.

The most commonly used semiconductor basics material by far is silicon. Silicon has four valence electrons in its outermost shell which it shares with its neighbouring silicon atoms to form full orbital’s of eight electrons. The structure of the bond between the two silicon atoms is such that each atom shares one electron with its neighbour making the bond very stable.

As there are very few free electrons available to move around the silicon crystal, crystals of pure silicon (or germanium) are therefore good insulators, or at the very least very high value resistors.

Silicon atoms are arranged in a definite symmetrical pattern making them a crystalline solid structure. A crystal of pure silica (silicon dioxide or glass) is generally said to be an intrinsic crystal (it has no impurities) and therefore has no free electrons.

But simply connecting a silicon crystal to a battery supply is not enough to extract an electric current from it. To do that we need to create a “positive” and a “negative” pole within the silicon allowing electrons and therefore electric current to flow out of the silicon. These poles are created by doping the silicon with certain impurities.

 Boron Atom and Doping

boron atom

The diagram above shows the structure and lattice of the acceptor impurity atom Boron.
Semiconductor Basics Summary
N-type (e.g. doped with Antimony)

These are materials which have Pentavalent impurity atoms (Donors) added and conduct by “electron” movement and are therefore called, N-type Semiconductors.

In N-type semiconductors there are:

    1. The Donors are positively charged.
    2. There are a large number of free electrons.
    3. A small number of holes in relation to the number of free electrons.
    4. Doping gives:
          positively charged donors.
          negatively charged free electrons.
    5. Supply of energy gives:
          negatively charged free electrons.
          positively charged holes.

P-type (e.g. doped with Boron)

These are materials which have Trivalent impurity atoms (Acceptors) added and conduct by “hole” movement and are therefore called, P-type Semiconductors.

In these types of materials are:

    1. The Acceptors are negatively charged.
    2. There are a large number of holes.
    3. A small number of free electrons in relation to the number of holes.
    4. Doping gives:
          negatively charged acceptors.
          positively charged holes.
    5. Supply of energy gives:
          positively charged holes.
          negatively charged free electrons.

and both P and N-types as a whole, are electrically neutral on their own.

Antimony (Sb) and Boron (B) are two of the most commonly used doping agents as they are more feely available compared to other types of materials. They are also classed as “metalloids”. However, the periodic table groups together a number of other different chemical elements all with either three, or five electrons in their outermost orbital shell making them suitable as a doping material.

These other chemical elements can also be used as doping agents to a base material of either Silicon (S) or Germanium (Ge) to produce different types of basic semiconductor materials for use in electronic semiconductor components, microprocessor and solar cell applications. These additional semiconductor materials are given below.
Periodic Table of Semiconductors
Elements Group 13     Elements Group 14     Elements Group 15
3-Electrons in Outer Shell
(Positively Charged)     4-Electrons in Outer Shell
(Neutrally Charged)     5-Electrons in Outer Shell
(Negatively Charged)
(5)

Boron  ( B )
    (6)

Carbon  ( C )
  
(13)

Aluminium  ( Al )
    (14)

Silicon  ( Si )
    (15)

Phosphorus  ( P )
(31)

Gallium  ( Ga )
    (32)

Germanium  ( Ge )
    (33)

Arsenic  ( As )
        (51)

Antimony  ( Sb )

In the next tutorial about semiconductors and diodes, we will look at joining the two semiconductor basics materials, the P-type and the N-type materials to form a PN Junction which can be used to produce diodes.

Russia Ukraine War Live

  Russia Ukraine War Live Today is the 55th day of the war between Russia and Ukraine. Despite the mediation of many countries, both the cou...