Democracy
The (technology) language is the problem
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.
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.
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.
I have a dream...
Monday - January 08, 2007 Filed in: Venture
Capital | Strategy
While Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo show impressive
results from a console perspective the game-play
market today appeals to a very narrow demographic.
Consoles are purchased by an age group 25-40 years
old. While that demographic may be most capable of
purchasing these consoles, we know from the types of
games sold at roughly $50 per game that daddy plays
more games than his children.
One could also argue that the most playful age range in our lives is from age 2 to 16 years old, yet the games and platforms provided do not meet that demographic. Fewer than 40% of teenage girls play any games, feeble attempts to turn existing games pink did not yield more sales, according to an executive at Electronic Arts.
So, rather than a deep dive in the existing game-play demographic, with even better graphics of game consoles, vendors should focus on a game-play experience that meets real market demand, removes the negative and vegetative connotation of gaming and instead exercises mind and body.
Nintendo has taken the first step of targeting a new game-play demographic and quite successfully so. Robbie Bach, president at Microsoft (who I recently spoke to) described his initial XBOX objective as building the best performing gaming experience. Sorry Robbie, wrong business objective. Sony is by far the leader in console gaming and has great opportunity; to lose or bolster its lead. Execution will be key, Jack Tretton will have his hands full on that one, but Sony's powerful assets in home entertainment should help.
While the console vendors battle it out on price and performance, we are seeing new entrants prepare themselves to enter the home entertainment demographic with new "game-play" propositions. The console vendors will see competition at a different level, Apple is just one of them.
One could also argue that the most playful age range in our lives is from age 2 to 16 years old, yet the games and platforms provided do not meet that demographic. Fewer than 40% of teenage girls play any games, feeble attempts to turn existing games pink did not yield more sales, according to an executive at Electronic Arts.
So, rather than a deep dive in the existing game-play demographic, with even better graphics of game consoles, vendors should focus on a game-play experience that meets real market demand, removes the negative and vegetative connotation of gaming and instead exercises mind and body.
Nintendo has taken the first step of targeting a new game-play demographic and quite successfully so. Robbie Bach, president at Microsoft (who I recently spoke to) described his initial XBOX objective as building the best performing gaming experience. Sorry Robbie, wrong business objective. Sony is by far the leader in console gaming and has great opportunity; to lose or bolster its lead. Execution will be key, Jack Tretton will have his hands full on that one, but Sony's powerful assets in home entertainment should help.
While the console vendors battle it out on price and performance, we are seeing new entrants prepare themselves to enter the home entertainment demographic with new "game-play" propositions. The console vendors will see competition at a different level, Apple is just one of them.
The Long Tail Continues
Apple switching to Intel is a move that stunned the
faithful Mac community, yet most of us knew Mac OS X
was derived from a dual core OS Steve Jobs had been
running for a while at Next. Had we forgotten?
Did the success of the iPod blur our vision? But more important than the choice for Intel CPU's is the impact on the choice for other hardware components of the computer. The Mac derives its cool look, slim laptop design, unique features and true innovation from a primarily proprietary hardware design process. Low cost and commodity designs from mostly Intel, AMD, and other mass market producers still turns out computer bricks. Intel performance is good, instead of "Intel Inside" just add "Apple Everywhere Else".
Did the success of the iPod blur our vision? But more important than the choice for Intel CPU's is the impact on the choice for other hardware components of the computer. The Mac derives its cool look, slim laptop design, unique features and true innovation from a primarily proprietary hardware design process. Low cost and commodity designs from mostly Intel, AMD, and other mass market producers still turns out computer bricks. Intel performance is good, instead of "Intel Inside" just add "Apple Everywhere Else".