Economic innovation for a bright new world
Innovation
Why the best cloud is still your own
Thursday - May 03, 2012.
The illusion proposed by the cloud is that it offers tremendous business benefits, but along with that enthusiasm and (as technologists) our ability to quickly deploy such a technical infrastructure, comes a new set of business risks a cloud prospect needs to think carefully about.
The move to the cloud (usually from a local intranet), is in essence nothing more than a transition of storage or processing of data onto an extranet (available from anywhere), accessible through a virtually (metropolitan) omnipresent Internet.
Clouds move
Now the enthusiastic deployment of the cloud is to hand such external processing over to a third party (like Amazon for applications, or say Apple's iCloud for documents and media), who can provide robust processing, generic security, backup (and recovery) and instant scalability should you require. And even though in some cases you can decide to maintain management of that infrastructure, you have just moved certain business risks into the laps of others.
A centralized computing environment used by many customers changes the individual risk from a manageable one-to-one to a less controllable many-to-one. It concentrates the single point of failure now also used by your newly acquired technology "neighbors". And that concentration in turn promotes the attraction to hackers, increases the likelihood of cross pollination from misconfiguration, and puts pressure on expertise and technology choices of central management generally under price pressure of industry commoditization.
Furthermore, centralized computing environments aim to offer best-of-breed generic computing capabilities that serves many and thus implicitly ignores the supplemental requirements of every implementation that are non-uniform.
Business on earth
Let’s look at two simple examples of real world requirements, one in each cloud category. Cloud service menus blissfully ignore that every application customer still needs logical application security (unique to each application) to prevent vulnerabilities that can wreak havoc with sensitive and mission critical customer data (nepotism: WhiteHat Security
). Or, related to documents, can you imagine having to call Apple to restore a single version of a document, lets say a book you are writing, that inexplicably got lost in the shuffle. What number at Apple would you even call?So, with a move to the cloud, the control and management of the ecosystem of risk factors that delivers a reliable, optimal and safe computing infrastructure compatible with your unique business needs, has fundamentally changed.
Stay in control
Given the reputation of many high flying, "capital efficient” yet immature technology companies with their general ignorance to the specific business risks of their customers, we have decided to use Dropbox over iCloud to manage our documents from anywhere.
The reason for that is not that the capabilities of Dropbox far outweigh those of iCloud, but simply because Dropbox allows us to mitigate the risk of a single point of failure, is better suited to offer a smooth migration from intranet to extranet, and does not force us to put our eggs in one basket.
To be specific, we deployed Dropbox for some of our document storage that should be accessed from any device (MacBooks, iPads, iPhones) using applications that run on all, and syncs back automatically and immediately to all. Since one of those devices is using Apple’s Time Machine to archive continually locally and runs a daily backup to a networked dynamic RAID by Drobo, we have full control over their recovery while at the same time benefit from the universal access delivered by the Dropbox cloud. A set-and-forget configuration.
Planted firmly on earth, yet on top of the world
Most importantly, and even though the service has performed flawlessly since we implemented it, we do not need to put all of our trust in Dropbox and hope for the best to be comfortable with the fantastic benefits of the cloud.
Short of a prominent cloud company to listen and act upon your unique needs, the best cloud is one that you can control and customize so that it meets all of your specific (rather than generic) requirements. And that the decision to embrace the benefits of the cloud is purposely out of sync with your decision to where you want to put your trust.
Let the merit of the rush of cloud service providers (supported by their investors) flush itself out before you put your trust in them. For the sake of your business risk and continuity.
Agenda for Apple's next board meeting
Tuesday - May 01, 2012.
Read the complete article...
I warned Apple (2 years back)
Thursday - April 12, 2012.
Read the complete article...
4G LTE is the new social network
Wednesday - March 28, 2012.
Read the complete article...
Innovation in … pants
Monday - January 09, 2012.
Read the complete article...
The future of photo editing
Tuesday - January 03, 2012.
Read the complete article...
KLM social seating
Wednesday - December 07, 2011.
. A great idea and service for those interested in socializing because they cannot sleep on long transatlantic flights. The service will allow Facebook and LinkedIn users that opted in to select who they want to sit next to (or not). Curious to see if other airlines will follow. Now if we could only find out from social networks who snores the most…Google does not care
Tuesday - November 29, 2011.
We recently received an e-mail from the company Apture, the online service we used to automatically make live references to Wikipedia and to enable on the fly deep dives into certain terms we use on our site, stating they have been acquired by Google and will be terminating the service in about one month.
More than a disappointment that the service will disappear, it demonstrates how both the employees at Apture and Google think about customers. Terminating a service without a respectable forwarning to “thousands of publishers” demonstrates how many technologists are merely opportunists, trolling from one financial reward to another while trampling its hard earned early adopter customers in the process.
Here is the gist of the e-mail Apture sent on November the 11th, 2011:
I will easily forget about Apture, but I will never forget about the real reputation of Google as witnessed by the actions of the company it acquired. It is not smart to bite the public hand that feeds you, and it hurts those trying to make an earnest living in the innovation’s business.
More than a disappointment that the service will disappear, it demonstrates how both the employees at Apture and Google think about customers. Terminating a service without a respectable forwarning to “thousands of publishers” demonstrates how many technologists are merely opportunists, trolling from one financial reward to another while trampling its hard earned early adopter customers in the process.
Here is the gist of the e-mail Apture sent on November the 11th, 2011:
On December 20 we will discontinue Apture's product and services. When this happens, users will no longer be able to highlight and search terms with Apture on your web pages.
I will easily forget about Apture, but I will never forget about the real reputation of Google as witnessed by the actions of the company it acquired. It is not smart to bite the public hand that feeds you, and it hurts those trying to make an earnest living in the innovation’s business.
Eat to scale
Wednesday - November 23, 2011.
Read the complete article...
LightZone is dead
Thursday - October 13, 2011.
Read the complete article...
Caution in the cloud
Sunday - September 25, 2011.
Read the complete article...
Kid Rocks
Monday - March 14, 2011.
- Kid Rock in his interview with Piers Morgan states how he agrees with my analysis that iTunes' stance on music is wrong. iTunes should embrace multiple pricing mechanisms rather than attempt to displace the labels' or musicians' right to do so. Apparently, Kid Rock is doing just fine without iTunes. [Links: Piers Morgan on CNN
]
iPhone 5
Tuesday - January 11, 2011.
- Waiting for iPhone 5. Forget “Antennagate”, its problems are exaggerated anyway. I like my iPhone 4 functionality but hate its industrial design. An angle of 0.3 degrees slides the phone off of most surfaces (arm-rests, desks), as a result this phone is prone to dropping. Its symmetric design also does not allow the phone’s position to be recognized without looking at it, dangerous in the car, dark environments or other precarious situations and the source of many fumbles. The asymmetric iPhone 3 with a curved back and flat front was much better. But it can’t beat Retina.
The need for a new habitat of innovation
Friday - September 03, 2010.
Read the complete article...
Idiot entrepreneurs
Monday - August 09, 2010.
Read the complete article...
Fotonauts: a smooth piece of the photography puzzle
Monday - February 23, 2009.
Read the complete article...
While Steve Jobs is away; 10 priorities
Wednesday - January 28, 2009.
Read the complete article...
Innovating back to the future
Thursday - January 22, 2009.
Read the complete article...
Mobile is dead, continued
Friday - January 09, 2009.
I wrote about the death of mobile application investments a while back and the recently leaked
e-mail (posted by Tech Crunch) from Tapulous shines more light on those unattractive economics for investors. Investing in the Long Tail
of content (the games category) is not a good idea. Now I want to preface that selling 100,000 copies of a game is a great accomplishment (good job Bart and thank you Apple), but the $1M or so this very popular game generated can hardly be called a venture funded business that is going to emerge with a billion dollar market cap anytime soon.
Here is what needs to be accomplished to generate a little over $1M:
- #1 most popular game for iPhone & iPod touch for 2008
- #3 most popular app overall for the US
- 5 million unique installs on Tap Tap Revenge! (that doesn’t double-count when a user upgrades TTR)
- 100,000 paying customers
So, if being the #1 most popular game on iPhone means you make $1M, I can’t see how:
1/ This initial success is going to continue with an avalanche of other attractive games entering the market
2/ The company is going to be able to produce a consistent stream of similar “winners”
And so here is another example if subprime investing, this time provided by a long tail of angels.
Tap Tap Tap.
Three rules for successful consumer technology companies
Monday - December 08, 2008.
Read the complete article...
cooliris is cool
Monday - December 01, 2008.
Cooliris is cool new navigational technology from browsing media. And until we have more advanced browsers can be a valuable add-on for now. Read the complete article...
Digital Railroad in trouble?
Monday - October 20, 2008.
Read the complete article...
The odd face of Facebook
Wednesday - September 17, 2008.
Read the complete article...
Photoshelter, another one bites the dust
Saturday - September 13, 2008.
Read the complete article...
Beware of the platform that is not.
Wednesday - August 06, 2008.
Read the complete article...
Mobile is dead, for VC that is
Friday - July 11, 2008.
We challenge the viability of mobile phone applications as an investable asset class, because in essence they are no different than user contributed content, where the content consists of logic...Read the complete article...
The remarkable resemblance between innovation and photography
Tuesday - June 17, 2008.
Read the complete article...
What makes Apple different
Tuesday - June 10, 2008.
Read the complete article...
The sweet taste of success
Sunday - May 18, 2008.
Read the complete article...
Getting to know your VC (better)
Wednesday - May 14, 2008.
Read the complete article...
The (technology) language is the problem
Wednesday - April 02, 2008.
Read the complete article...
How developer platforms (should) drive marketplaces
Monday - March 24, 2008.
Read the complete article...
Image catalogs in peril
Monday - January 21, 2008.
Read the complete article...
I have a dream...
Monday - January 08, 2007.
Many times I am asked to help a foreign (usually European) company to make it in the United States. But the pursuit of the American dream requires that sacrifices be made. Everyone wants to be a star like Elvis Presley, yet few have the real determination to do so.
So, why are US companies so different. The internet is releasing the fictional boundaries of technology, making its usage and its future development available to anyone. Universities in Europe are doing a much better job teaching technology, yet we don't see a significant amount of European companies become successful. What is going on?
While I don't have all the answers, I can offer a few personal observations of why the American way - and - dream is alive and well:
1/ More entrepreneurs are bred by a capitalistic society than a socialistic society. Entrepreneurs with a personal stake and drive for success boost investor deal flow and premium supply. A significantly larger investor pool yields higher valuations for premium supply.
2/ Solid early-stage business acumen. While technology and programming skills can be acquired by virtually anyone, the European petri-dish, the ecosystem that supports the early-stage exchange of technology products and services is missing. As a result people with the business skills needed to bring those early stage products to market rapidly is virtually non-existent in Europe.
3/ Resilient attitude. Young Americans (and ex-pats like me who never felt at "home") are taught to make money and make themselves happy, young Europeans are taught to get a job at a reputable company and be happy. Taking risk and thinking different is a requirement of being a successful entrepreneur, in addition to withstanding a great amount of adversity.
4/ More risk-taking buyers. Customers, partners and acquirers are more entrepreneurial too. Aggressive competitive cultures force buyers to be more entrepreneurial. Technology innovation is accepted as the instrument of differentiation in many US businesses and customers will buy products that give them competitive edge and better quality-of-service.
5/ Continuous focus. Focus on success, short and long. Building a business that goes through several transformations to meet continuous market milestones is crucial to success, rather than a formal majestic plan with many dependencies that never materializes.
So, is there no hope for foreign technologists? Au contraire, I've seen some great technologies that, if unlocked, can find early traction and impressive valuations. It's time to judge a technology not by the country it comes from but the content of its innovation. The american dream is waiting for you. Are you up for the ride?
[In remembrance of Martin Luther King]
So, why are US companies so different. The internet is releasing the fictional boundaries of technology, making its usage and its future development available to anyone. Universities in Europe are doing a much better job teaching technology, yet we don't see a significant amount of European companies become successful. What is going on?
While I don't have all the answers, I can offer a few personal observations of why the American way - and - dream is alive and well:
1/ More entrepreneurs are bred by a capitalistic society than a socialistic society. Entrepreneurs with a personal stake and drive for success boost investor deal flow and premium supply. A significantly larger investor pool yields higher valuations for premium supply.
2/ Solid early-stage business acumen. While technology and programming skills can be acquired by virtually anyone, the European petri-dish, the ecosystem that supports the early-stage exchange of technology products and services is missing. As a result people with the business skills needed to bring those early stage products to market rapidly is virtually non-existent in Europe.
3/ Resilient attitude. Young Americans (and ex-pats like me who never felt at "home") are taught to make money and make themselves happy, young Europeans are taught to get a job at a reputable company and be happy. Taking risk and thinking different is a requirement of being a successful entrepreneur, in addition to withstanding a great amount of adversity.
4/ More risk-taking buyers. Customers, partners and acquirers are more entrepreneurial too. Aggressive competitive cultures force buyers to be more entrepreneurial. Technology innovation is accepted as the instrument of differentiation in many US businesses and customers will buy products that give them competitive edge and better quality-of-service.
5/ Continuous focus. Focus on success, short and long. Building a business that goes through several transformations to meet continuous market milestones is crucial to success, rather than a formal majestic plan with many dependencies that never materializes.
So, is there no hope for foreign technologists? Au contraire, I've seen some great technologies that, if unlocked, can find early traction and impressive valuations. It's time to judge a technology not by the country it comes from but the content of its innovation. The american dream is waiting for you. Are you up for the ride?
[In remembrance of Martin Luther King
]New opportunities in gaming
Sunday - January 07, 2007.
Read the complete article...
Quality is important
Sunday - November 12, 2006.
To quote Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal at Consumer Technology Ventures last week, quality is an important pillar of success for consumer products and I couldn't agree more.
Read the complete article...
Per-plaxo-ed
Tuesday - August 01, 2006.
So who is not paying attention here?
BlackBerry just got a make-over (by Cingular)
Thursday - July 27, 2006.
Having tested a ton of phones, PDA's etc over the years, the 7130c is a very attractive competitor to the bulky Palm Treo 650 and ... certainly more usable. The small dimensions of the 7130c cuts the size of the older Blackberry almost in half, a little thicker than the Motorola RAZR (which I love) and a bit taller, the 7130c still fits in the pocket of my pants easily. I like it so much, that I decided to get rid of my old Blackberry (on eBay) and my RAZR (although I'll keep it around, just in case) and combine two capabilities into one.
The 7130c with EDGE internet connectivity is actually fast enough to make it a delight to browse the internet (and visit the WAP site of CNN) and read e-mail, while waiting for the traffic light to turn green. The industrial design is good enough (not great) and appealing, the screen that is clearly visible in bright sunlight and adjusts automatically to your surroundings. This is absolutely the best screen I've ever seen on a mobile device.
Phone services are integrated into the PDA capabilities, but this part could be more intuitive. The heritage of the scroll menus from the Blackberry PDA platform complicates things beyond what is necessary. More 'special purpose' buttons would solve the problem. For now however, the Blackberry 7130c
has become my new one-eyed king in the land of the blind. Security 3.0: from after-market to security platform
Friday - April 21, 2006.
Internet security companies are the Jiffy Lubes of the auto industry, they require constant innovation to keep up with the changing product stack they attempt to optimize, but not own. Some companies achieve innovation through non-organic growth (Symantec), others build a set of urgently needed technologies that becomes bigger as customer requirements grow (Trend Micro, McAfee). But keeping up is a challenge, and I expect security companies and the stack owners to aggressively pursue acquisition strategies to round out and secure their own future. Stack owners (Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Cisco) will become fierce competitors to security companies, if partnerships are not appropriate. Today's Security leaders need to change and look into new business strategies.
Looking at the security marketplace from a fresh perspective, I give the current marketplace a 1.2 grade on the following evolution scale.
Security 1.0: the internet is not secure by any stretch of the imagination, but neither is the conventional world. So, get over it. Security is also not an absolute science. Spam, Viruses, Exploits, Worms, Cross-site scripting etc. deliver a vast amount of opportunities to security companies that provide band-aids to the multitude and severity of security gaps. 83 Enterprise AntiSpam companies battle it out every day. Leaving it up to customers filled with fear, uncertainty and doubt to wade through a plethora of point products to select which one is best, and when. It's a jungle out there.
Security 2.0: a secure enterprise, shielded from some of the garbage on the internet, needs protection in the same way you secure your house. Depending on personal preferences that define the vigor and quality of security, securing the doors without securing the windows doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Security is really a risk management issue, a delicate balance in which no single piece of security, data type or communication channel prevails; the equilibrium of security techniques (AntiSpam, AntiVirus, AntiSpyware, Web Application Security etc.) needs to provides sufficient shelter and trust. Leading security companies need to move towards marketing that equilibrium and scope.
Security 3.0: while internal threats are becoming a force to be reckoned with, many security companies are developing a Security 2.0 strategy that incorporates content compliance and other technologies to protect company assets against the employees themselves. I believe security companies should focus on aggressively protecting against outside threats, yet stimulate and enable the internal exchange of information. Content compliance should be checked but not enforced. The integrity of your business lies in the hearts and minds of people, not technology. Moving on, Security 3.0 is a platform strategy consisting of a framework in which a multitude of vendors can provide plugins that separate threat detection from distribution. It will be a free-market in which the best technology will plug into a framework that allows this technology to be used on any type of information, in motion or at rest. I believe many stack owners and security behemoths will play a pivotal role in defining the key components of this security platform and new security specialists will define the new, and highly specialized, security threat detection capabilities.
Bottom line: plenty of acquisition opportunities continue to exist for emerging security companies as the incumbents and stack owners battle to own a large part of the security framework that is essential to instill trust with customers.
The size of after-market providers like Jiffy-Lube, AutoZone is larger than the market size of the car manufacturers, proving that after-markets will exist for quite some time. Security is still the after-market of the technology industry and I see no vendor changing that paradigm significantly today. New security vendors will continue to reap rewards and the incumbents will slowly move towards owning something they've never had, a technology (or platform) stack.
Looking at the security marketplace from a fresh perspective, I give the current marketplace a 1.2 grade on the following evolution scale.
Security 1.0: the internet is not secure by any stretch of the imagination, but neither is the conventional world. So, get over it. Security is also not an absolute science. Spam, Viruses, Exploits, Worms, Cross-site scripting etc. deliver a vast amount of opportunities to security companies that provide band-aids to the multitude and severity of security gaps. 83 Enterprise AntiSpam companies battle it out every day. Leaving it up to customers filled with fear, uncertainty and doubt to wade through a plethora of point products to select which one is best, and when. It's a jungle out there.
Security 2.0: a secure enterprise, shielded from some of the garbage on the internet, needs protection in the same way you secure your house. Depending on personal preferences that define the vigor and quality of security, securing the doors without securing the windows doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Security is really a risk management issue, a delicate balance in which no single piece of security, data type or communication channel prevails; the equilibrium of security techniques (AntiSpam, AntiVirus, AntiSpyware, Web Application Security etc.) needs to provides sufficient shelter and trust. Leading security companies need to move towards marketing that equilibrium and scope.
Security 3.0: while internal threats are becoming a force to be reckoned with, many security companies are developing a Security 2.0 strategy that incorporates content compliance and other technologies to protect company assets against the employees themselves. I believe security companies should focus on aggressively protecting against outside threats, yet stimulate and enable the internal exchange of information. Content compliance should be checked but not enforced. The integrity of your business lies in the hearts and minds of people, not technology. Moving on, Security 3.0 is a platform strategy consisting of a framework in which a multitude of vendors can provide plugins that separate threat detection from distribution. It will be a free-market in which the best technology will plug into a framework that allows this technology to be used on any type of information, in motion or at rest. I believe many stack owners and security behemoths will play a pivotal role in defining the key components of this security platform and new security specialists will define the new, and highly specialized, security threat detection capabilities.
Bottom line: plenty of acquisition opportunities continue to exist for emerging security companies as the incumbents and stack owners battle to own a large part of the security framework that is essential to instill trust with customers.
The size of after-market providers like Jiffy-Lube, AutoZone is larger than the market size of the car manufacturers, proving that after-markets will exist for quite some time. Security is still the after-market of the technology industry and I see no vendor changing that paradigm significantly today. New security vendors will continue to reap rewards and the incumbents will slowly move towards owning something they've never had, a technology (or platform) stack.
The brains are in the service
Monday - April 10, 2006.
Recently I was asked to think about how to improve the phone features and functionality in an ever commoditizing "Terminal market" (an Ericsson acronym). There is a lot at stake here; lots of people buying phones, 2.2B of them to be exact, not enough of them buying the associated internet service.
Improve the specs and make it look good is the easy answer to that question. That is, if you are building a phone not a PDA. In a PDA you can pull technology, services and memory into a bulky enclosure and rely on nerdocrats to buy them; not a large market. So how do you build a phone that is just as smart and fits in the enclosure of a RAZR? Or smaller? Research shows that people buy cool looking phones, rather than bulky ones stuffed with functionality.
The answer in my view is services. Just as the power of the iPod stems from the iTunes library on your desktop connected to the iTunes store, phones should become re-play devices to services provided on the backend. The phone should be an iPod geared towards managing and replaying service data; contacts, calendar items, music, news are pushed out to it automatically, pictures are taken, stored and uploaded automatically to your section of the "store", ready to be shared and, yes, sold. Enabling free market principles to the content distributed by these services, completes the value chain and drives growth of the platform, regardless of phone.
Phone manufacturers need to learn how to build a value chain, not just a phone. Business innovation is just getting started.
Improve the specs and make it look good is the easy answer to that question. That is, if you are building a phone not a PDA. In a PDA you can pull technology, services and memory into a bulky enclosure and rely on nerdocrats to buy them; not a large market. So how do you build a phone that is just as smart and fits in the enclosure of a RAZR? Or smaller? Research shows that people buy cool looking phones, rather than bulky ones stuffed with functionality.
The answer in my view is services. Just as the power of the iPod stems from the iTunes library on your desktop connected to the iTunes store, phones should become re-play devices to services provided on the backend. The phone should be an iPod geared towards managing and replaying service data; contacts, calendar items, music, news are pushed out to it automatically, pictures are taken, stored and uploaded automatically to your section of the "store", ready to be shared and, yes, sold. Enabling free market principles to the content distributed by these services, completes the value chain and drives growth of the platform, regardless of phone.
Phone manufacturers need to learn how to build a value chain, not just a phone. Business innovation is just getting started.
Perception is reality; Apple a consumer company?
Tuesday - August 16, 2005.
"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?
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?
Broadcast Media unleashed
Tuesday - August 09, 2005.
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 1080p 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 acceleration 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.
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 1080p 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 acceleration 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.
Oracle Collaboration "sweet"
Saturday - July 09, 2005.
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.
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.
Step it up Skype!
Wednesday - June 29, 2005.
Podcasting; a new free market by Apple
Tuesday - June 28, 2005.
Radio is about to get a major overhaul. With iTunes, record companies are losing their arbitration, no longer are we forced to buy collections (CDs) in order to enjoy that one favorite song. In the near future that power will be diminished even further. Musicians will post their music without intervention and arbitration of a record company, giving buyers the ultimate selection of music they want to enjoy. Pod-casts is the technology that allows you to pick which radio segment you'd like to listen to (instead of a whole program), and deliver it to you at whatever time is convenient. More exciting is that the creation of pod-casts is open to everyone, allowing anyone to get on the soapbox and speak their mind to the world. Independent reporting from the trenches is only minutes away. New music stations will spring up and deliver music from all corners, to all corners of the globe. Welcome to a free world.
Seismic changes in Digital Entertainment
Friday - May 06, 2005.
Attended the Churchill Club seminar under the same name. Interesting speakers were Chuck D (Public Enemy), Roger McNamee (Integral Capital Partners, Silver Lake Partners, Elevation Partners) and Blake Ross (Firefox creator). It is becoming clear that the old rules of how to create or tap into large media markets have changed. To own these markets one must provide a large selection. MP3 music sharing has given listeners a taste of virtually unlimited supply they are not willing to give up on. The Long Tail roars its head yet again. Tivo1, Mike Ramsay added that 50% of programs recorded on Tivo are non-popular programs. Roger quoted the Death of the Pareto principle. The Palo Alto library has known this for many years, more than 75% of its purchasing budget is for non-popular selection. Mobility and locality were mentioned as important side effects of Long Tail markets. The ability to serve up that wide selection on a wide variety of devices is crucial. Arbitration of content (the way record companies enforce The Pareto principle) is no longer accepted by buyers. Buyers want to find any creative material they are interested in, and in some cases, want to have the ability to get in touch with the artist directly. New search capabilities become important to weed through large selections, Google capabilities were considered insufficient. Scanning type search, "I know it when I see it", provides interesting new browse capabilities for buyers. Blake added that as a technology industry we have the responsibility to make things easier to use before we move on to another golden opportunity. We agree with Roger that media should become the new Consumer Packaged Goods.