I have been troubled by a couple of things in the last few weeks – why is it that when a new product comes out from someone new in the game the incumbent is written-off very quickly. Take the example of Andriod – Google is shipping 60,000 phones a day. And the assertion thus that Microsoft should be afraid even though it sold 2o million phones in 2008. Why is it that Apple has quickly managed to threaten Nokia, Microsoft and RIM in short space of time. Besides a superior product I think the reason is more entrenched in product release cycles.
If Nokia and Microsoft have been in the business way longer than Apple, they should have been able to react at lightning speeds to counter Apple. It was known for a long time that Google will enter the mobile space but why didn’t Microsoft react fast and come out with something hard-hitting? Same goes for search, real-time platforms, social networking etc. So why do we see this?
I think the real reason is the time established companies take to bring in new product releases. This is in my opinion nothing to do with the usual adage of – big companies are slow or reactive and bureaucratic . But that there is no defined process to have a frequent defined new product releases even if it is only with a set of small feature additions/edits. By this I do not mean security patches. The only company that is good at regular and frequent new product releases is Apple. Apple tends to do a complete overhaul of it’s product line every 18-24 months and small regular releases and upgrades every 6-12 months. The unofficial buying guide for Apple products sums it beautifully. Which other company has such predictable new product release cycles and overhauls? Other than Apple, Facebook and in some areas (like search) Google nobody does this well.
A process to make this happen in a large corporate will make sure it remains competitive and any new innovative idea is put into the market soon rather than wait for a new player to proves it’s worth – when it might become too late. If Microsoft and Nokia had such processes in place would we see such threats to it’s existence in the mobile space?
I doubt even companies like Google have such processes in place – which is why we see reactive and panic stricken incomplete and incompetent product releases like Google Buzz to catch up with the likes of Facebook and Twitter. Orkut strategy was totally broken and even in regions where Orkut was big they are now loosing ground as they cannot keep up with product/feature releases from Facebook.
So what makes Apple so good at this? I think the reason is their involvement in selling hardware which needs frequent new releases and overhauls. Which means that they have managed to do this for every product – whether software or hardware. Same might be for Microsoft when it comes to Xbox, but in other areas they don’t think that way.
Hardware industries can teach these web companies a few good lessons on new product release cycles.
Tags: Android, Apple, entrepreneurship, Facebook, Google, hardware, Microsoft, new product, Nokia, Orkut, product, Product Development, release cycles, start-up, Twitter, web
I always wonder do the big global multinationals have a war cabinet. And if so how do they operate? Who is the enemy? Who is the friend? Here I mean the big multinationals who are in the new economy and not the old economy of military hardware, manufacturing, energy etc. I mean more like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, IBM, Amazon, Dell, HP etc … Observe most of them are American.
Looking at the announcements from the likes of Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google recently they seem to be at war with each other. Facebook trying to bring down Gmail, Google trying to beat Twitter and Facebook with Buzz, Apple trying to beat Microsoft and Google and so on … It really looks like a Mexican stand-off.
But in this war against each other how do they react to each others moves. With budgets as big as a small country they need to have strategies and thinking which is not too far from managing and defending a country.
I am an admirer of Admiral John (Jackie) Fisher – generally regarded as one of the greatest admirals in the British Navy. Fisher is primarily celebrated as an innovator, strategist and developer of the navy rather than a seagoing admiral. One of his quotes springs to mind here – “Hit first, hit hard and keep hitting“. Now I truly believe in doing that to your competition. It is not survival it’s winning I care about when running a company. So does any of these biggie’s have such strategies and do they have admirals like Jackie who think like this?
Tags: Amazon, Apple, competition, Dell, Facebook, Google, HP, IBM, innovation, Microsoft, MySpace, Strategy, Twitter, War Cabinet
Innovation is a new way of doing something or “new stuff that is made useful”. It may refer to incremental and emergent or radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations.
And it is this definition which made me wonder how one looks at innovation in different places. When it is incremental it is more like mutation within an organisation. An idea that goes through a change between silos due to exchange of ideas, inspiration from other areas, problems reaching or expanding customer base or just accidental discovery. More often than not incremental change doesn’t require inventing anything new. It is often just a matter of combining and recombining capabilities across disciplines, organizations, and sectors. These capabilities are usually kept under wraps and difficult to access. And opportunities in areas like healthcare, education, energy etc needs more opening up of these so more cross pollination and mutation might occur for us to see better solutions. Data sharing is one of the most important aspects of this mutation as it is with biological process of mutation.
The Big bang innovation is revolutionary changes that result from radically different way of thinking a problem and it’s probably solutions. Each big bang innovation is followed by an era of mutation with small changes until another big bang innovation happens in the area. One of the best examples of big bang innovation is invention and commercialisation of microchip or integrated circuits by Robert Norton Noyce who co-founded Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel giving Silicon valley it’s name. Ever since Moor’s law has made sure small innovation or mutation keeps innovation alive.
While there is nothing new in what I have discussed above. The biggest question facing those entrepreneurs, itching to build a new product, disrupt the norm, innovate and scale an organisation, is what kind of product to build and what kind of innovation to work on. Big bang innovations are very difficult and one sees a lots of failures. And the small innovations resulting from mutations are mistaken for big ones – typically how a feature is mistaken for a product. A clear understanding of the two will help the founders decide how to build the company, size it, raise funding, build, scale, target customers and look at possible exits. More often the big bangs take deep pockets and longer to succeed as they need mass adoption to succeed too – Google, Ebay, Amazon being typical examples. Mutations more often last for a short time, and target small niche markets thus surviving by being acquired quickly. Small changes caused by need, combination of disparate products/services and being in a risky environment where they can become obsolete quickly.
Google is probably the best example of a big bang which has a great ecosystem for mutations so they survive for a long time to come – just as biological organisms do. Other such examples are Microsoft, Facebook, IBM and Amazon – all big bangs who now are in constant mutation mode to make sure they survive the hostile environment they live in.
Before one starts on the entrepreneurship journey one needs to know what innovation they are working on. So what innovation are you? Big bang or mutations – remember there cannot be many big bangs
Tags: Amazon, Ebay, entrepreneurship, Facebook, Google, innovation, Microsoft, mutation, start-up, Twitter
A common question asked in the European technology startup community is – Why can’t we build a Google here? What are we missing? We have the skill, the money, the ecosystem, the will, the ability and the dream. The Techcrunch article about the closing of Popjam a startup founded by the UK star entrepreneur Alex Tew (founder of milliondollarhomepage), gave the answer. The lengthy discussions there say it all.
We have not learnt how to fail and to respect people who fail and learn from their failure. This is a common theme I have observed and experienced in Europe. And we go even further, give no encouragement to someone who has failed before and wants to try again. Getting a startup up and running is hard enough and when the community who claim to be part of this ecosystem work on getting such people down it is really sad. In Britain we seem to go further, there is such harsh personal attacks which makes one think twice before putting themselves out there. I have seen many personal attacks played out on twitter and other blogs widely read by the startup community in UK. Is this an inherent culture of journalism like “The Sun” being played out by all the right one? An open discussion yes, but why get personal? Should we not grow up and appreciate people who want to make it on their own. And like the silicon valley – accept and embrace failure so we rise ahead. Unless we do that we will never be able to build great companies in Europe and especially in UK.
We quite often talk about what the market for a product or a service is. And always asked to focus on the customer. Problem is that the market is always staring at you like a large gorilla in the middle (not corner) of the room. Will I want to say no to any part of the target market – NO!. So who is my customer? Specially when it comes to Web2.0 and e-commerce companies it is hard to define this in each stage of the company.
So my assertion is go and choose your customer. Learn from those you choose to learn from and give them the best of what you can. Build everything around these chosen ones as they will define what you make, how you make it, how you fund it, how you sell it etc. Ignore the rest for now. Too often founders think they do not have the power to choose. If you don’t choose you don’t focus and if you don’t focus you loose product and market strategy. And remember when your customers change (as you expand focus) you will need to change too. These changes will be in your – product, process, talent, business model and how you fund your business. So YES you can choose your customer and you should.
The recent talk about President of Europe got me thinking. Europe consists of one of the richest countries in the world, with potential to possibly shape a lot of world events. Yet how many recognisable world leaders do we have? I am not just talking about political leadership but also business leaders.
The reason I am alluding to this is – I was annoyed by the mention that the president of Europe should be a less known figure. Well apart from 5 people in Europe guess we only have less known and and probably unknown figures who will have no influence and no way to take any issue forward with the huge and influential powers of US, China, Russia, India etc. Now why is it that Europe craves for unknowns. While I am no fan of Tony Blair, I am baffled about any other choice. Do we really want a leader who has never been in front of China, Russia and US to negotiate difficult issues. Does anyone think the likes of Belgian and Luxembourgian Prime Ministers can do much? Or as Angela Merkel suggests a Eastern European unknown leader.
I would like to take this political leadership issue further. Take for example the issue of the massacre of thousands of Bosnian men. Europe showed no leadership and turned its eye away from facts. It was only the US and UK which forced their way in and bombed Serbia to stop the Bosnian war. Why didn’t EU show leadership there? In it’s own backyard? Isn’t something seriously wrong?
This brings me to another point. We know a lot of business leaders in the US – Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos etc … the list is long. I am not sure many even in Europe can come up with such a list of business leaders in the EU countries. Why is this the case even with EU having some world class companies. Is EU obsessed with being average? Is leadership or talking about it seen as a sin? Is talking about vision and inspiring others to follow suit seen as an affront? Is it any wonder that most businesses have role models in the US rather than in Europe? In my opinion this is a very serious issue that we need to look at in order to question why we do not yet have a silicon valley in Europe. Europe needs to stop being a least common denominator continent and more of a go getter only then can people at the bottom aspire bigger and better things.
Tags: Buusiness, Europe, Leadership, Politics, US
The world is Web2.0 business is full of a single most frustrating statement – I know how to build but how do I sell? While a lot can be said about putting the product in front of your customer and test test test. One aspect of such tests is forgotten more often than now – proper feedback and what to take from it.
Feedback from your potential customer is very important. Which is why we have a crazy number of market research companies and people spending a lot of time finishing and polishing business plans. There are a huge number of people sending out surveys – right from large brands to the tinniest of start ups. I have been flooded with some of these surveys lately and on a close inspection most of them make no sense at all. Almost all questions are about – Would you like this x feature in the product? Do you value x feature in the product? Which of the features is most important to you? etc etc … But the most important question – “Do you need or value this product or service?” rarely ever gets asked.
This reminds me of a survey from someone wanting to start a a Pizza store in Germany. All questions pertained to “What sausage would you like on your pizza?” And they went away excited at what people wanted and started the store only to see nobody buying the pizzas. Who would want a pizza with sausages anyway? So they asked the wrong questions. The first questions should have been – Would you like sausages in your pizza?
To top it all – the most stoopid surveys are for women – trying to gauge their likes and dislikes in technology products. Always starting from the wrong end of things (colour matching a favourite) and patronising. Now will you get a correct feedback with that? No wonder none of them understand women customers.
Tags: business, customer, Feedback, Market Research, Survey, technology
While there might seem little or no difference between deadlines and milestones for many, I think there is a major difference. It’s like the difference between running a 100m dash a number of times continuously and running a steady marathon. I hate deadlines not because they make me nervous or I feel threatened with the time-lines. I hate them because I hate the aftermath of a deadline. I am the kind of person who uses a large hammer on a tiny pin – hence I have failed many times. Failures are for another day. I am yet to learn the art of not using a hammer on small pins and hence also be a marathon runner.
So why do I crave for milestones rather than deadlines? I hate the aftermath of a deadline when I have the worst empty feeling of nothing to do. I am sapped of all energy and drive to start anything new. If I don’t have a plan ahead I am like a flight with no flight plan and ready to crash. Milestones on the other hand are a continuous plan to keep things going and there is always an after-plan. I like the regular – “yet to do list” than a deadline to meet. Maybe that is why I hate exams as there is no after plan. And maybe that is why I like to build things and take them to market. I hate to party after a product is made as the real work is yet to begin – get the first customer. Should a start up party after a product is launched? Absolutely NOT!! The only person that is done at this stage is the tech team. Others need to start proving things now and need to meet milestones and not deadlines and now same goes for the tech team. It’s a marathon and you need to keep up and not work on a start-stop schedule. Hence my love for milestones and a dream of running a marathon (yeah right!!)
Tags: Rant
There is a rush towards real-time search spurred by the likes of Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, Google (Google Wave), Microsoft (through investment in FaceBook) etc. While I can understand why the likes of Thompson-Reuters, AP etc would like to be in real-time search, it is hard to say what the future holds for others. Will our appetite for real-time search take over most parts of our internet search? Am I interested in news about M&A, investments, politics, economics, business, disasters etc in real-time? While I get the news, I am more interested in analysis and so is rest of the population (IMHO). So while the main real-time search contenders cannot gain more than getting us news at the earliest and impact a small part of our appetite for information, they do little to give us insight, informed choice and educate us little about issues we know and understand less.
I am interested in news but more in analysis, I would like to know which bank failed but also why and on deeper analysis of how. I would like to buy a product with a good deal of information about it along with some good analysis but not just be the first to know about it’s release. So while real-time search does well on information now – it is more concerned with news and little else. I would for example want to know what is reason or affects of certain economic, political or social issue which has little to do with real-time search. Also when I look at some real world actions like the best deal for a ticket to NYC . Can I do without going on multiple real-time search (inc Google, Bing etc) and comparison sites for days and get some informed choice? I think there is an opportunity for what I call “Delay Tolerant Search” which in my opinion solves bigger problems and I think we have a great appetite for solutions around this. This holds true for some of our daily actions on the internet and quality of articles – which is why Rupert Murdoch is leading the effort to get people to pay for great content.
Tags: delay tolerant search, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, real-time search, Search, Twitter
Nokia is planning to release the Nokia 3G Booklet . Now this did come as a surprise to a lot of people, but I have been predicting this for a while. I think we will soon see Vodafone, Orange, 3, T-Mobile, O2 branded 3G netbooks in the market. This is what will ultimately “kill the wifi hotspots” (well almost) and bring the focus back on these telcos and mobile device makers.
While the Nokia’s “Booklet 3G” — is an Intel/Microsoft-based netbook, I think this will soon change to Symbian OS. Similarly we will see Andriod or Chrome OS on the Google Netbook and Apple will be coming out a netbook with iPhone OS. What the hell maybe even RIM will come up with a netbook with BlackBerry OS and Palm a netbook with WebOS. All in due time. But I think the biggest selling point will be the 3G card in the netbook and the ‘App Store”. Apple has shown the way to success of app stores. We will see the Nokia 3G booklet being the way Ovi store will sell apps on the netbook and the Nokia phones – with both running the same OS this will be an awesome play. With all Palm, RIM, Nokia, Apple going gung-ho about app stores I see this to be the main way to buy and use apps – on both netbooks and mobile phones.
In my opinion these guys should go the way Nivio has – treating software like any other content and allowing users to rent applications like MS Office installing them in seconds (like a iPhone app). I have never used Novio’s service but looking and reading about what they do I think they are onto something big – starting in India and then SME’s in US and Europe. I would love to see the same on netbooks coming from mobile device companies and telcos and I think the app stores are making this possible already.
One important note – Microsoft seems “lazy” in this area and I don’t see them making much of a move. Though they still lead in mobile OS’s they don’t seem to be moving fast enough with products to beat the likes of Apple and RIM. Some arm twisting by Microsoft might slow down this move/diversification to netbooks by telco’s and mobile device makers but unless they form a partnership with Nokia to kill Symbian OS or buy one of the main players they will loose out big time and will only end up on some applications. We have not heard of a “MS App Store” and even if we do I doubt many out there will be excited to build apps for them.
Tags: 3G, App Store, Apple, Blackberry, Booklet, Google, iPhone, Microsoft, Netbook, Nivio, Nokia, Ovi, RIM, Symbian