Let’s look at photography (my hobby), arguably the most important purchasing-driver of computers (after the ability to access the internet) by consumers. Media management (yes, on the desktop) remains more than a Billion dollar market opportunity.

Case in point: new announcements of Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture tout enhanced interoperability with third party plugins to manage and edit your photographs. Don’t you feel good about that warm open-source-like karma of interoperability?

I don’t. Both vendors have deployed their next trick to customer imprisonment. And plenty of uninformed customers will fall for it. Here is why you shouldn’t:

1/ There is no need for an additional platform for photo management.
Photo editing capabilites of both applications are mediocre (no layer based editing, no advanced local editing etc.) and their asset management capabilities are little more than a replica of file system capabilities (even photographic attributes such as exposure, aperture and other attributes are maintained by the file-system metadata today). So, except for making nice photo albums and calendars, why else would you slug thousands of photographs in a proprietary asset management format that is less reliable than the underlying file-system and requires seperate backup and archiving strategies to maintain.

2/ Plugins have worked for years on file-system based photographs.
The announcement of the interoperability with plugins is really old news as those third party applications have been working with file-system based photographs for years. This is a platform on top of a platform, designed to milk more money out of customers and locks them into a proprietary technology stack. A prison with the windows open is still a prison.

3/ The operating system needs-to and will evolve faster.
The pace of meaningful innovation of the Personal Computer OS is deplorable. Microsoft has not made the PC operating system significantly smarter over the last ten years and that has opened the window of opportunity for Apple to surpass Microsoft in usability (rather than functionality). The ability to easily create and manage user-generated content such as, Photography and Video, has now become important adoption drivers to the platform, OS-vendors have yet to respond to. Photographic capabilities should be built-in (not priced-on). These days the unique media experience of the platform is the differentiation that sells the computer (since they all do internet quite well).

As a consumer, buying into seperate photography management siloes will cost you significant time and money (as the former CEO of a photo software company, researching the alternatives, I tried). My advice is to wait until an agile vendor steps up and turns media management into a core competency of the computing experience.

In the words of Ray Lane (partner at KPCB and former COO of Oracle) who once said customers are better off skipping some steps of innovation (in his case to skip client-server for three-tier internet architecture), I have just presented you with my reasoning to skip-over Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture. Not because I don’t like some of its functionality, but because it is strategically a dead-end street.

The next evolution of media management will soon eradicate the old one and deliver lasting differentiation to the vendor that owns it and provides a much, much better media experience to the consumer.

I am planning on having something to do with that.

Tags: Platform, Photography, Consumer, OS X, Operating System, Innovation, Integrity, Adobe, Microsoft, Apple

Since a platform is the technology foundation for a marketplace, platforms - to achieve extraordinary growth - need to instill the rules of marketplaces as we laid them out in our previous post.

But not all platforms are created equal and some self-proclaimed platform vendors do not adhere to marketplace principles. That could mean you as a provider think you subscribed to a meritocracy - with equal opportunity exposure - yet other participants (your competitors) get pay-to-play advantages. Potential buyers in that tainted market are actually shopping in a premium market, not the free-market they expect to be most economic and trustworthy.

Other synonyms of the same phenomenon abused in the technology industry include: ecosystems, exchanges, communities and networks which all serve identical needs in connecting disparate supply with disparate demand, something a premium market is unable to do.

Consumer companies understand the freedom of choice customers demand. Enterprise software and services vendors have long basked in the glory of premium markets and have a long way to go in order to truly build winner-takes-all free-markets, which in total size are often larger in size than the total size of premium markets in that category.

In the Enterprise space the majority of customers (roughly 80%) buying products or services deviate from its intended design and want to add on, integrate or correlate those off-the-shelve configurations with other ones. Enterprise customers often spend more money on customization than they spend on licensing fees for say, Oracle products. Hence the requirement for a true marketplace of additional enterprise components (check out Serena, great concept but marketplace execution and marketplace compliance - yet to be developed - will be the tell-tale of their real success). Salesforce.com's Appexchange seems to provide the best proximity to a free-market of applications we've seen, although we have yet to verify its integrity against the marketplace rules.

Developer programs from companies like Oracle (with OTN), Microsoft (MSDN) and others use surrogate models of marketplaces to mimic, but not truly deliver on its powerful benefits. Go visit their websites and you'll notice no mention of third party products. There literally is no marketplace, although Microsoft has a link to "a library", if you can find it.

Apple (with the iPhone Developer Network) is experimenting with its rules but apart from compliance to the free-pricing rule, its overall compliance to a free-market is minimal. And, today, they don't need to. Apple still has time to deploy some premium market tricks as long as Google with Android doesn't deliver on a real marketplace for developers early.

As a software provider you may need to run on and comply to a major vendor's technology, just don't assume a developer network, exchange or community will make you rich - not until the marketplace supports a true meritocracy. And for that, again, real marketplace principles need to be deployed.

Tags: Apple, IPhone, Experience, Microsoft, Adobe, Photography, Internet, Democracy, Communication, Innovation

Getty-Images appears to be having trouble getting sold for $1.5B according to an article in The New York Times today. Perhaps the 40+ investment banks on Wall street and an equal amount of large private companies that visited our website really took our Puffer Fish analogy to heart.

So what could be done with Getty-Images? The problem with finding an acquisition partner is Getty-Images' hybrid business model. For a technology acquirer the services business with staff photographers is a burden they will not want to swallow. On the flip side, very few other services companies than perhaps the Associated Press can find solace in the photographer factory that is an integral part of Getty-Images.

1/ Buy company at a decent value
2/ Separate content producer business from content distribution
3/ Privatize each
4/ Sell content production business
5/ Revamp content distribution

ad 1/ To establish a fair price I am eager to see the operating plan metrics separating content production from content distribution in order to find out to what extend both lines of businesses have suffered from being under one roof (there may be some opportunity hidden in there)

ad 2/ Content production is a business model that, in today's world, needs to be separated from distribution. With the internet in place as the conduit for distribution, very few company can still afford to compete with the content produced by a "free-market". There is some remaining value left in the production of "premium" content for a "premium" audience, in the same way the Associated Press is able to provide this service to a confederation or co-op of newspapers.

ad 3/ Build companies that focus on what they do best, one produces content - one distributes it. Not within a single company or P&L or board. Each with its own growth trajectory.

ad 4/ Just like in the "premium" production of news articles (where bloggers compete), the news media will require a "premium" production of editorial photographs that has some trust associated with it. Perhaps a deal can be struck with AP - or a new version of AP can be created with identical goals. Getty-Images already has established a large installed base of agencies who can lease resources on a subscription basis.

ad 5/ Long term, content distribution is where the money is. The Long Tail of photography is massive, much larger in total image exchange than any Super-Store will ever be. Thanks to the Internet. But to build an effective free-market, a core of premium supply is needed to create its initial pull, Getty-Images certainly has that. To make this new company a winner though, it needs to truly support free-market principles, something very few companies can pull off.

We'd be happy to assist in the assessment of the Getty-Images acquisition value along the lines of the aforementioned strategy and even more in the post-acquisition execution. Our passion for photography, the ever increasing reach of the internet, and the value produced by all photographers around the world creates a fantastic new opportunity.

Tags: Adobe, Photography, LightZone, Aperture, OS X, Asset Management

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.

Tags: Bose, Experience

Having done early stage startups for 10 years now, I can't help but compare my search for interesting companies in and around Silicon Valley to one of my favorite hobbys: good authentic food.

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.

Tags: BMW, Experience, Mac, Apple, Nintendo, IPhone

"Apple is going in a different direction than we want to go." That is the statement from a long term Apple customer (10+ years) we recently talked to. The Apple Store in Palo Alto has recently been revamped to where the iPod and its accessories seem to make up the majority of the new store layout. Media software has been tucked into a little corner in the back. Enterprise software for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME), like FileMaker Pro Server is virtually non-existent, "you can get that online" was the response from an Apple representative.

Did you know Apple is actually making more strides than ever in the enterprise business? Oracle, MySQL and a lot of other mission critical software now runs on OS X. Apple risks loosing SME foothold if it does not carefully balance advertising the iPod trojan horse with the reasons why it created the iPod, selling higher margin products. Enterprise software may not be bought in a retail store, but providing exposure and demo stations with enterprise and SME solutions are critical to changing a destructive perception. Or does Apple plan to open new Business Stores soon?

Tags: Entrepreneurs, Walmart, Google, Innovation, Evolution, Yahoo, Commodity, Capitalism, EBay

Traditional Broadcast Media is about to get a major overhaul. Traditionally the demi-cartels, consisting of the networks (like ABC, NBC, CBS or in radio Clear Channel, Vivendi etc.) have a stronghold over content production and distribution. Control of these segments is under tremendous new pressure.

1/ Content stronghold
For less than the average cost it takes to setup a restaurant, no more than $50,000, a professional video content production company can be created to produce top quality 1080i HD content (radio can be produced at a fraction of that cost using podcasting technology). Imagine a world in which the number of content production firms rivals the number of restaurants in your town (and not just Al Gore's new Current Network). Soon we will embrace new anchors and fresh programming throughout the whole season, instead of the four seasons of repetitive programming mix we have been forced to swallow for so long.

2/ Distribution stronghold
Most networks own the stations. Up-and-coming content producers are forced to do business with and, obey to the rules of distribution players to get exposure. Now with the advent of IP Television, Podcasting and upcoming convergence technologies from Tivo and Netflix and others, diverse content will be brought to anybody with an internet connection. The judgement of good content will finally rest in the hands of the viewers.

Two major factors play a role in the accelleration of change:
1/ The slowdown: The FCC is working at its own pace to change the 40-year old rules of broadcasting through governmental processes and buy-in.
2/ The speedup: The unstoppable adoption of the Internet will create new broadcast heros and "networks" that reach a broadcast and market hungry audience; our youth.

Networks better get their act together, build their own internet distribution delivery strategy, determine what people really want to watch, use real (not analytical or statistical) popularity data to up-sell popular internet programs to network television. It is not too late for networks to respond, but their time is running out.

Let the games begin.

Tags: Apple, IPod, MySQL, Oracle, Small Business, OS X, Software, Retail

While attending Tony Perkins' Media 100 beer-and-burger bash at the Alpine Inn, I was confronted by another opinionist that questioned Oracle's foray in the Enterprise Collaboration business. Indeed, it has been a long road; Oracle*Mail, Oracle Office, Oracle Library, Oracle Documents, Oracle Workflow, Oracle InterOffice Suite, Oracle InterOffice, Oracle Collaboration Suite is the reincarnation Oracle's installed base has been hit up with since 1990. As the lead salesman (or should I say Director of Worldwide Marketing), more than 7 years ago for Oracle Office and InterOffice I learned a few important lessons that stuck with me forever.

For one, technology does not sell. Oracle's collaboration tools were then, and are now some of the best in the business.

Two, deliver a proposition to sales people that matches the vendor's existing business model. Incompatibility of business models is why 800-pound Gorillas can't buy themselves into new categories.

Three, commission sales people competitively to other proven product offerings. Don't let your weakest sales people hide behind selling the "impossible". Again, Oracle's technology is not the problem, incompatible business models is the real issue. I see a bright future for Oracle's Collaboration Suite as the software-as-a-service solution for customers who have bought into Salesforce.com's business model.

Now, Digital Asset Management, often erroneously merged into the Collaboration substrate, is a market category that Oracle needs to own and quickly. "Unstructured" data and corporate media management markets are currently growing at a clip of 45% a year, faster than RDBMS or ERP growth. If Oracle wants to be the database for all corporate data, digital asset management is the real opportunity, not only because it works best with Oracle's organic business model. I've got suggestions for Chuck (Rozwat and Phillips) of who to buy to get in quick.

Tags: Intel, IPod, Apple, OS X, Steve Jobs, AmD, Design

As the number of simultaneous Skype users topples two million, audio quality starts to degrade and excitement about a great alternative to costly international calls starts to wane. My weekly calls to Australia and Europe are getting less reliable every month. It is time for Skype to step up its relationships with eager VPN providers (perhaps even the ones that have not joined the proprietary VOIP deployment) to deliver quality-of-service levels that maintain the superb voice-quality we got accustomed to during Skype's inception. I would have no problem paying a small fixed monthly service fee to improve call quality and it could turn Skype in a much more viable and profitable business. Any network provider would be eager to become the backbone of Skype's popularity. Akamai, are you listening too?

Tags: Oracle, Media, Collaboration, Digital Asset Management, Business Model

Investors are getting flooded with Long Tail startups. The Long Tail is the well documented phenomenon in which Amazon.com makes more money in selling books that are not(!) in the top 10,000 and creates controversy about traditional sales principles. Hundreds of examples exist before the introduction of the internet. But the Long Tail really only exists when there is a body attached to it. You go to Amazon because you find the most well known books, then you'll explore its creative variety. The body represents the highly targeted top quality that draws in the audience in the first place. So stop pitching Long Tails, where you rely on some undefined creative variety. Focus on making your numbers in the identifiable market, then benefit from the Long Tail to expand your selection beyond the traditional and constricted marketplace. More on the Long Tail here.

Tags: LaserCard, Security, Homeland Security, Biometrics, IDentity