Dec 2007
Bose: A great company experience
My 3 year old daughter uses my iPhone to play music
videos and YouTube videos and has not touched a PC
(or better, a Mac) yet. With the same content
available on either she's obviously seen me operate
my Mac and looks over my shoulder now and then, but
finds all the keys and even the "Magic-mouse"
complicated. Clearly a usage experience is more
important to her than shear processing power. Sounds
familiar doesn't it? Nintendo anyone?
What I see in so many early business plans today is the old-fashioned notion of deep technology expertise, something most traditional investors still harp on. I see too many BMW engines being developed without attention being paid to the development of The Ultimate Driving Experience®. True, you can't build the driving experience without great engines, but BMW, like no other vendor understands that the total experience is the selling point. In the end, technology will become commoditized and its differentiation will be determined by the way it interacts with content, media, social network, end-users to create a well designed user experience.
Apple is another company that understands that focus on user experience very well. Its products are a piece of art, its function (to a novice) is at least competitive. Buying a Mac is an experience, and so is using it. A much better experience than buying a PC in every way. The box your Mac comes is even a work of art, the way it folds open, the new materials, everything builds to the experience. As a customer you feel special, owning an iPod with your name engrave on it and all your music in it. And that is what Apple customers are buying into: feeling special and appreciated. Attention paid to you!
Now every market segment has its own definition of user experience, so don't go do what Apple does before you understand how you can differentiate. But every software, service or content vendor should consider building a unique customer experience that in the end - sells more. It's a CEO level responsibility because it involves making sizable investments in complementary areas, not just a marketing ploy. The days of just selling a product are over.
What I see in so many early business plans today is the old-fashioned notion of deep technology expertise, something most traditional investors still harp on. I see too many BMW engines being developed without attention being paid to the development of The Ultimate Driving Experience®. True, you can't build the driving experience without great engines, but BMW, like no other vendor understands that the total experience is the selling point. In the end, technology will become commoditized and its differentiation will be determined by the way it interacts with content, media, social network, end-users to create a well designed user experience.
Apple is another company that understands that focus on user experience very well. Its products are a piece of art, its function (to a novice) is at least competitive. Buying a Mac is an experience, and so is using it. A much better experience than buying a PC in every way. The box your Mac comes is even a work of art, the way it folds open, the new materials, everything builds to the experience. As a customer you feel special, owning an iPod with your name engrave on it and all your music in it. And that is what Apple customers are buying into: feeling special and appreciated. Attention paid to you!
Now every market segment has its own definition of user experience, so don't go do what Apple does before you understand how you can differentiate. But every software, service or content vendor should consider building a unique customer experience that in the end - sells more. It's a CEO level responsibility because it involves making sizable investments in complementary areas, not just a marketing ploy. The days of just selling a product are over.
Develop an experience, not just a product
Thursday - December 13, 2007 Filed in: Strategy
| Positioning
In the food industry there is a clear distinction between a chef and a cook. A chef invents new dishes from scratch through experimentation, deep knowledge and experience. A cook takes a few successful recipes, adapts them to his beliefs and serves them up to a large audience. Both are fundable business models, but they rely on different factors to become successful.
In technology this distinction is not often thought about when funding companies. It would be very easy to judge that a chef is always a better innovator to invest in, but I find the opposite to be true in many scenarios I've run into. Different investment and growth scenarios are to be expected from investing in Daniel Boulud's new restaurant in China versus the growing chain of Fleming's restaurants, even though they taylor to roughly the same price points successfully.
Research institutes spin out great chefs, but struggle with scale and mass adoption. Great sales, marketing and business founders in technology usually depend on the continuous innovation only the chefs can provide. The workings of VC funds forces us to combine the chefs with cooks so that the ecosystem provides both continuous innovation and mass adoption at an early stage.
As a CEO, we provide the leadership and direction that pairs the chef and cooks, all you need to do is: do what you do well. Just like Remy in Ratatouille, we will pull your hair to ensure the right dishes are produced - on time.
The Industrial Design trophy wife
Photo-editing today is still an art form, a
specialized and necessary art - and "endured" by
prosumers. The great photography you see hanging on
walls, on websites or in magazines, all have been
edited digitally. Not necessarily to create some
outrageous creative effect but because not a single
camera accurately captures what your eyes see. Not
since the invention of photography in 1870.
Camera vendors promise better results when their customers purchase a more expensive dSLR (digital Single Lens Reflex) camera, a better lens, a solid tripod, a new filter, and, while we’re selling: a new photo bag. Yet, none of those products do anything to change the fundamental difference between what your eyes see and what the camera produces. With a healthy growth of more than 60% worldwide in dSLR sales (according to new 2007 numbers from CIPA), most camera vendors are not in a hurry to out-innovate themselves as their current stance is feeding their business so well. So, the problem remains, camera output is far from ideal.
So today, the great results photographers strive for can really only be achieved through editing, reproducing what you tried to capture. That editing today happens primarily on the desktop (less than 10% of the whole photography market edits online) and by digital SLR users with a great sense of quality and aesthetics. Products are plentiful, such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture and my favorite: LightZone. Yet none of those products completely hide photographic complexity to its new users; the massive numbers of dSLR buyers that just want to create great photographs.
Photo-editing should work like a car, simply put the key in the ignition and drive (without having to worry about how the engine and the transmission works). The editing tool of the future should embed the photographic knowledge and make decisions or recommendations for you, rather than requiring its users to become proficient in the minutiae of color and light. Just like a car, photo editing should be able to go where others have gone before, enriching the experience of new users on a continuous basis. New editing techniques should be sharable through a language we all understand, a photograph. In short: edit "like-Mike" and me-too editing is born.
I believe photo-editing will move away from what it is today, a basket full of technology tools to a service through which the sharing of editing techniques will enable the new "language" of photo-editing. That dramatically simplified language will subsequently enable editing for the long-tail of the photography market, the massive market of point-and-shooters. New technologies such as Pixenate, Picnik, Adobe Photoshop Express already rush to deliver a new basket of tools for the consumer market. And many others will follow.
Today, plenty of opportunities remain in the prosumer editing space in which no vendor has amassed even close to 30% penetration. New editing capabilities are bound to drive the marketplace in which monetization of photographs and, eventually a free-market for photography can flourish.
What's left for the innovative camera vendor is to build a proprietary imaging pipeline that dramatically reduces the need to edit. With 90% of dSLR vendors using the same imaging pipeline (behind the sensor) the time is right to change the way a camera captures data before it reaches the sensor. In the same way your eyes do very smart tricks before light hits the retina.
Camera vendors promise better results when their customers purchase a more expensive dSLR (digital Single Lens Reflex) camera, a better lens, a solid tripod, a new filter, and, while we’re selling: a new photo bag. Yet, none of those products do anything to change the fundamental difference between what your eyes see and what the camera produces. With a healthy growth of more than 60% worldwide in dSLR sales (according to new 2007 numbers from CIPA), most camera vendors are not in a hurry to out-innovate themselves as their current stance is feeding their business so well. So, the problem remains, camera output is far from ideal.
So today, the great results photographers strive for can really only be achieved through editing, reproducing what you tried to capture. That editing today happens primarily on the desktop (less than 10% of the whole photography market edits online) and by digital SLR users with a great sense of quality and aesthetics. Products are plentiful, such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture and my favorite: LightZone. Yet none of those products completely hide photographic complexity to its new users; the massive numbers of dSLR buyers that just want to create great photographs.
Photo-editing should work like a car, simply put the key in the ignition and drive (without having to worry about how the engine and the transmission works). The editing tool of the future should embed the photographic knowledge and make decisions or recommendations for you, rather than requiring its users to become proficient in the minutiae of color and light. Just like a car, photo editing should be able to go where others have gone before, enriching the experience of new users on a continuous basis. New editing techniques should be sharable through a language we all understand, a photograph. In short: edit "like-Mike" and me-too editing is born.
I believe photo-editing will move away from what it is today, a basket full of technology tools to a service through which the sharing of editing techniques will enable the new "language" of photo-editing. That dramatically simplified language will subsequently enable editing for the long-tail of the photography market, the massive market of point-and-shooters. New technologies such as Pixenate, Picnik, Adobe Photoshop Express already rush to deliver a new basket of tools for the consumer market. And many others will follow.
Today, plenty of opportunities remain in the prosumer editing space in which no vendor has amassed even close to 30% penetration. New editing capabilities are bound to drive the marketplace in which monetization of photographs and, eventually a free-market for photography can flourish.
What's left for the innovative camera vendor is to build a proprietary imaging pipeline that dramatically reduces the need to edit. With 90% of dSLR vendors using the same imaging pipeline (behind the sensor) the time is right to change the way a camera captures data before it reaches the sensor. In the same way your eyes do very smart tricks before light hits the retina.
Pairing chefs and cooks in technology
In the food industry there is a clear distinction between a chef and a cook. A chef invents new dishes from scratch through experimentation, deep knowledge and experience. A cook takes a few successful recipes, adapts them to his beliefs and serves them up to a large audience. Both are fundable business models, but they rely on different factors to become successful.
In technology this distinction is not often thought about when funding companies. It would be very easy to judge that a chef is always a better innovator to invest in, but I find the opposite to be true in many scenarios I've run into. Different investment and growth scenarios are to be expected from investing in Daniel Boulud's new restaurant in China versus the growing chain of Fleming's restaurants, even though they taylor to roughly the same price points successfully.
Research institutes spin out great chefs, but struggle with scale and mass adoption. Great sales, marketing and business founders in technology usually depend on the continuous innovation only the chefs can provide. The workings of VC funds forces us to combine the chefs with cooks so that the ecosystem provides both continuous innovation and mass adoption at an early stage.
As a CEO, we provide the leadership and direction that pairs the chef and cooks, all you need to do is: do what you do well. Just like Remy in Ratatouille, we will pull your hair to ensure the right dishes are produced - on time.