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
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