Textbooks Are Going Digital

This graph is from an article that details the expected future growth of digital textbooks in the U.S. Within the next five years, demand for digital versions of textbooks will be heavily influenced by availability of content, competitive pricing, increased growth in online learning, the continued use and success of e-readers as well as the continued popularity of the iPad and similar devices. Technology is certainly causing a shift in this market - it should be interesting to see how companies like McGraw-Hill (my focus within the group project) and others plan to do in response to this trend.

Will Facebook Beat Google in Advertising Dollars?

BusinessWeek's front page article this past week was on Facebook: "Facebook Sells Your Friends." It explores the idea of Facebook as advertiser juggernaut. I thought the article made a really interesting comparison of Facebook to Google:

"I can target my exact audience, rather than trying to come up with a proxy for it," like looking at search terms or which websites people visit, says Belden, who was spending about $4,000 a month on Facebook earlier in the year before he was forced to rein in his marketing expenses because of budget issues. He adds: "If I was bidding on expensive Google keywords like 'solar,' I'd be going against guys with a much larger marketing budget."

Should Google be getting scared? Especially now that Facebook is branching out with the "Log in with Facebook" and "Facebook Currency" options?

Is myspace died?

Is my space really dead? This article is points out that although My space is no longer popular among the marketers, it is still an important tool for digital marketing.

My take away is that let's cover as much as possible. If you know that some of your clients will go to the market. Why not just set up and see how it goes?

MySpace. Let’s be honest , at one time you fell under the umbrella of MySpace Mania. We all know it. We’ve all used it. We all have a MySpace page floating around in the dust out there. But when it comes to social media and marketing, MySpace is old news. Many marketers feel that MySpace is losing its relevancy in contrast to the outstanding popularity of other social media networks like Facebook and Twitter. Here at Flank Marketing, we’re not so sure. We’ll tell you exactly why you shouldn’t give up on MySpace.

Have you ever seen the movie the Beautiful Mind? If you have, you might know exactly what we are talking about. Our idea revolves around the idea of Game Theory. It’s seen in a particular scene of the movie, where Nash and his friends all have their sights set on the same Blonde woman at the bar. In the movie, Nash surprises his colleagues with the idea that if they all want the same woman, nobody wins. But if they avoid the blonde and go after her friends, everyone wins: “We won’t get in each other’s way.” Ah ha! Here is the idea behind Game theory, “an analytical tool to guide us to understand the phenomenon behind the way decision-makers interact.” The main purpose of game theory is to consider situations where agents can make strategic decisions in reaction to the actions of other agents.

So what does all this heavy talk about mathematical theories and strategic formulas for decision making have to do with you?! Let’s apply it to the Facebook vs MySpace arch-rivalry and social media marketing. The truth is Facebook has become an over-saturated media market for advertisers. Research shows 9 out of 10 marketers use Facebook to grow and promote their business. It also found that Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and LinkedIn – in that order – are the top four social media tools used by marketers. With everyone fighting over the space to market on these mediums (comparable to fighting over the Blonde at the bar), consumer behavior market research proves the marketing of these agents becomes overwhelming and irrelevant, with no one clearly winning. Instead what would be smart, as Game theory suggests, is to strategically make a decision to market where the other agents are not. A great opportunity for this can be found on MySpace, which is falling completely under the radar with many marketers in competition.

While we don’t deny that MySpace isn’t as popular as it once was, it is still a very valuable social network to millions of people, and it is not going to disappear. Just last month, the hit TV show Glee hosted an online casting call on MySpace, encouraging participants to submit audition videos via the MySpace medium. Nearly 28,000 people responded to the call. If that doesn’t prove MySpace is relevant, I don’t know what will!

Furthermore, MySpace is the12th most visited website in the US, the 17th most visited website in the world. While it might not be the perfect marketing medium for all, it is most definitely significant to many. The most popular MySpace traffic divides its interest between celebrity & entertainment content (23%) and video games (28%); And as seen with the Glee casting call, it makes the perfect medium for those related to these industries. Based on internet averages, MySpace demographics show it is most visited by users who are in the age range of 18-24, have no children and received some college education; And these people are most likely to click on the bright flashy ads or have their attention grabbed by interesting marketing campaigns. What an ideal audience to market to!

When it comes down to it, MySpace still shows great opportunity for marketers. It is out there, mainstream, waiting to be utilized in every way. Can it be the right fit of social media and marketing for you?! We challenge you to think about it!

Get your house on that 9.7 inch screen!!

Sure the housing market is in a "bit" of a jam at the moment but property unlike any other commodity is a solid tangible possession and once the aston martin driving bankers in NYC get a grip on their greed, real estate will rise up again.
Enter the real estate app for the ipad. Normally for the non-tech savvy folks out their, the best bet is a search through the local newspapers classified listings or a subscription to the real estate journal/magazine. And where a property agent will talk in "market language" which will make you wish you had stayed in your rental apartment, the ipad app will get you a simple easy to understand peek into the listings out there.
"Mashed up" with google maps or other mapping systems the application gives you a quick reference of the market listings and focuses your search in the right direction.
Some of them worth mentioning are zillow.com, sfgate.com and Ziprealty.

It will be interesting to watch how the newspaper agencies respond to these independent apps. If they still keep their listings on the electronic paper version or consolidate resources with these application providers.

Comment on "Hide Your Lunch Hulu..."

Farhad Manjoo had an interesting article in this month's Fast Company in favor of Hulu and Netflix merging. It's a pretty good argument for how they could become a powerful competitor to traditional cable companies. They don't have much chance of mutual survival as competitors but could be really interesting as a joint entity. Worth a read if you have a minute.

Are Apple, Netflix and Amazon really the saviors of Entertainment and Publishing industries?

In a digital age when entertainment and publishing industries are loosing relevance, are Apple, Netflix and Amazon really acting as saviors to these industries? Or is it just a perception?

I think this is an interesting to topic to discuss and would like to hear your thoughts.

Some background:

1.) Apple launched iPod in 2001, at at time where music industry is rocked by more than its own beats. iPod + iTunes proved to be a successful business model and Apple successfully get the buy in of the entire music industry into this model. It is now attempting the same with movies. There is still work to do, but it seems that most movie studios will give in to this as well.

2.) News papers such New york times, WSJ and magazines such as Time are all jumping onto iPhone and other smartphone platforms.

3.) Amazon launched Kindle with a promise of transitioning publishers to the digital age

4.) Netflix is getting the buy in of movie studios to deliver their content through its websites and it predicts by 2030 streaming will be ubiquitous and will replace any physical medium

Given this, I wonder whether they really are saviors to these industries or are they adding an extra layer, and stealing profits, to an otherwise direct business between these industries and its customers?

For me in some cases they seem to be the saviors, i.e. music industry, but I question the role of these companies in saving say, publishing industry. Thoughts?

Hide your lunch Hulu. Netflix is hungry.

Netflix is considering a streaming-only membership. If Netflix actually launches this it will be directly competing with Hulu. This streaming only option could be a low cost alternative to Netflix’s traditional product offering for not only customers but also Netflix itself because of the cost savings from not having to ship each disc. According to National Public Radio, it costs Netflix $.78 to round trip ship a disc. Also the reduced price of a streaming only option could attract new users and grow Netflix’s existing user base even more.

With Netflix’s extensive library and massive user base will any of its competitors actually be able to compete in the future?

Netflix's New Competition

Following Blockbuster's recent bankruptcy filing, the New York Times published this story about Netflix's changing competition.

More and more subscribers are getting their content through Netflix's streaming services rather than through DVDs delivered via USPS. While the ability to stream content enables Netflix to reach more devices and screens, it reduces the uniqueness of Netflix's service.

There are obviously numerous companies that offer streaming content, including Hulu, Amazon, and YouTube (although their content is of a different variety currently). Production studios are seeking to capture more of the value attached to their content after its initial airing or release, so they are searching for the most lucrative re-broadcast deals.

In the "on demand" era it is difficult to see how a company like Netflix will compete with Hulu, which is a joint venture with many of the original content owners. As the NY Times article notes, the nature of competition is shifting from distribution logistics to which company will pay the most for the rights to content. Perhaps the streaming video world will not be a winner take all market in the same way that DVDs by mail was.

Facebook poised to expand options for being harassed by high school classmates/ the drunk girl you met at the bar last night

An newly announced partnership between Facebook and Skype paves the way for Facebook Video Chat which seems like the next logical step and will put them in once again in direct competition with Google, this time Google Voice.

Money Quote:
"The move by the pair–which have tested small contact importer integrations before–is a natural one for the social networking giant, which is aiming to be the central communications and messaging platform for its users, across a range of media.

Facebook’s goal, according to sources: To mesh communications and community more tightly together and add more tools to allow users to do so. "

Jumping on the tablet bandwagon

Dell just announced that it is going to release a 7 inch tablet in the coming weeks, followed shortly by 3, 4 and 10 inch versions. Similar to Blackberry's decision to go with an alternative OS for its PlayBook, Dell will also do something interesting. The new tablet will be running on Google's Android smartphone OS. I'm not sure if Dell is the first traditional computer maker to move towards Google's OS. Given that Google's foray into devices with the Nexus One did not turn out so great, I believe the company has made the correct strategic decision to allow a trusted name in computers to handle the device aspect of its entry into the tablet wars. While Michael Dell did say that some of the other versions of the tablet would be offered with the Window's OS, it seems that Microsoft is going to have to play catch up fairly quickly.

Kindle for the web

Amazon has just announced that the first chapter of all ebooks that are available for the Kindle can be read for free now. While this feature is still under beta testing, this move gives some insight into Amazon's e-book strategy: a wide variety of devices already support ebooks in the Kindle format, this move brings even greater accessibility to Amazon's library. Although standalone Kindle programs already exist for Windows and OSX, using the web as a platform leverages convenience and speed (no need to install anything), it becomes easy to share and instantly purchase books, and so forth.

I can't imagine this move having any ill effect upon Kindle sales and instead will serve to further promote Amazon's dominance in the ebook market...sorry Nook users ;)

QNX Who?

There has been a lot of talk about the new BlackBerry PlayPad, but with it came something of a surprise. Rather than running a version of their OS 6 RIMM opted for a operating system developed by their recent acquisition, QNX. The company has been producing solutions for around three decades lending one to question why some commentators are referring to them as the new kid on the block. in addition their technology partner directory reads like a who's who list of tech companies. Given these partnerships and the fact that the OS already has versions modified for healthcare, automotive and industrial industries, RIMM is in a unique position going forward and may see a resurgence.

PlayBook vs. iPad

It seems that PlayBook is playing up its business-user angle, calling it the "world's first professional tablet," according to a New York Times article. Besides being smaller and lighter, the main differences that are being highlighted are PlayBook's compatibility with Flash for video and interactive content, its dual cameras, and that it can mirror a BlackBerry's data via Bluetooth (including the systems that companies use to monitor and control employees' devices).

Here is a comparison of the PlayBook, iPad and Samsung's Galaxy Tab.

Although a Kindle app is on the way, it seems that the biggest challenge in a two-sided market remains getting developers to expand quickly BlackBerry's app offerings.

BlackBerry PlayBook - Preview

---

How is Blackberry trying to differentiate? Is it a serious, credible threat to Apple Ipad?

FORD MAKES LUNCH. GM EATS IT.

OnStar has joined forces with mylink to bring basically the equivalent of Sync to their cars...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/15/onstar-announces-mylink-smartphone-apps-voice-based-sms-facebo/

I wanted an iPhone until I saw this...

It's only a concept for now but I really hope they make this phone.

RIM jumping on the tablet bandwagon

Today, BlackBerry maker Research in Motion announced their version of the tablet, the Playbook, which is due out next year. It will use a new platform, QNX Software Systems, instead of their BlackBerry 6 operating system and promises "an uncompromised Web experience."

But the question still remains, Can anybody beat the ipad? According to T. Michael Walkley's estimates (below), not likely.

RIM's Playbook will only be able to connect to the internet via Wi-fi though plans to offer 3G and 4G are in the works. No price has been announced for this product yet, though its 7 inch screen and 1GB offering will have to be priced much lower than the current Wi-fi 16GB that is going for $499.

Although tablets are increasingly more popular right now, for me, nothing beats reading a good old fashioned book.

Gladwell not particularly interested in your tweets

http://http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Here is an interesting article that considers the limits of social networking. To be fair, Gladwell is evaluating Twitter and Facebook usage in the context of promoting social change. That social change business involves a different set of concerns than Facebook's primary interest which is at its core collecting as much information about folks so they can sell stuff. Still, its a worthwhile read...

Facebook & Others

In a recent Businessweek article, The Big Trends in Small Social Sites, it says that there is good news for marketers, Facebook has opened the way for focused social networks. Sites like goFISHn, Dogster, Eons, and PatientsLikeMe, each cater to people with a common interest. The niche social sites depend on Facebook to get users educated about networking online, but offer the user an experience that gets away from the Facebook me-centric noise to more of a we-centric experience.

These sites are small, but, according to Comstore, in July more than 280 million people logged on to niche social sites. Advertisers have a willingness to pay higher rates for page views because of the targeted audience. The appeal is obviously the focus on the subject matter, so the question to answer, will this segment of social networking grow and be of value to the consumer and advertiser?

For me, I am new to social networking - joined Facebook a year ago. Frankly, I stay away from it because it is noisy. Although I found specific brand and product Facebook pages of value, I have to say the interest specific social network does appeal to me because I believe I would get more from it. How do you feel about a niche social network experience?

The Withings Connected Scale with an iPhone

Facebook Phone: Fact or Fiction?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/09/20/facebook.phone/index.html?iref=allsearch

Facebook has long denied that it's "building" a mobile phone, however that doesn't mean that they're not in the works to plan out the development of such a mobile device. Given the failure of Microsoft's KIN phone with its discontinuation only 6-weeks after it was launch, why would Facebook want to venture out into developing a social networking phone?

One thing I absolutely love about my iPhone is that it gives me immediate access to my treasured networking site, Facebook, while allowing me to have direct access to email, the web, and hundreds of other apps. I'm not certain what purpose the Facebook phone will serve as a standalone, which is why it's looking to partner with Samsung or HTC would build the hardware for an Android-powered phone that would have Facebook's social-networking features deeply integrated. But really, are we in a day and age where we need a dedicated phone to "poke" our friends and immediately untag unflattering pictures of ourselves before anyone has the chance to see them? I think Facebook should learn from Microsoft's failure of the KIN and completely pull out of this venture before facing a similar fate.

Location-Based Social Networking: A fad or here to stay?

I just read this article comparing Facebook Places to Four Square and it got me thinking...is location-based social networking a fad or is it here to stay?

After seeing the comparisons, it seems that from a business model perspective, Four Square is better equipped to provide value to businesses and therefore monetize this aspect of the application. Facebook Places appears to have more of a social aspect to it and I really don't see it taking off. At some point, I feel people are going to get over this notion of ensuring your friends know where you are at all times. I mean, if they really want to know, they can send you a text message, right?

Certainly, there is some value in the Four Square's ability to provide discounts, but I still have trouble seeing location-based marketing products like this really taking off. What do you think?

The Social Network, a movie about Facebook

The Social Network is an upcoming 2010 drama film directed by David Fincher about the founding of the social networking website Facebook.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/

It was Sorkin who, in last week's New Yorker, offered the capsule premise for the film: "It's a group of, in one way or another, socially dysfunctional people who created the world's great social-networking site."

Is this a key tipping point?

--

Or is it a temporary blip?

Is Facebook the next Google?

Facebook is experiencing technical difficulties. The site went down again yesterday for a few hours; Facebook was quick to blame a third-party internet provider for the outage. Which led me to think... should Facebook own and control more of the infrastructure on which it depends? And more broadly, where should the undisputed king of social networking go next?

On the first note, does Facebook have enough computing power to support its massive user base? How many moving parts and external entities does it rely on to deliver its service? Should more of these be brought in-house to ensure control and reliability? I was surprised to discover that Facebook has only 30,000 servers (compare that to Google's 1,000,000 servers). With people spending more time on Facebook than on Google, is this enough?

Speaking of Google, can/should Facebook challenge Google in unfamiliar territory? I think so. If people are spending so much time on Facebook, why not integrate search and email into the website? Is that Google's bread-and-butter? Yes. Is it inconceivable to think that Facebook could steal a significant share of that space in a matter of months? No.

Facebook could become the new go-to internet portal. Facebook could release a social networking-focused browser (good-bye Firefox); it could unveil a calendar feature (good-bye Google Calendar); it could expand its marketplace service (good-bye Craigslist). I truly believe Facebook could become a one-stop-shop for all online activity. What do you think?

Super WiFi!

Not to sound too obsessed with infrastructure, I found this announcement to be very interesting: following the push to expand our broadband reach and capacity, the FCC has recently approved the use of "white space", unused frequencies which provide faster speed and broader access. Perhaps this will be yet another fundamental building block in making reliable wireless access to the cloud a reality? What other innovations will arise?

Google v. Facebook

I found an interesting article that interweaves (in a way) last week's session and this coming week's session. Google has been making acquisitions behind the scenes in an effort to launch a social networking aspect to its already expansive web presence. However, as opposed to launching one site, Google plans to incorporate social networking aspects to many of its existing applications. It should be interesting to see if this takes off.

You can read the article here.

Another perspective on facebook :)

Hey guys,

ENjoyyy ..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHb4wewAIQ&feature=player_embedded

The Facebook Layer - Responding to Venkat's Post

Through the New Yorker's profile Mark Zuckerberg, readers were able to get some insight into how Zuckerberg envisions Facebook playing an active role in people's lives. As Venkat mentioned, one of the main takeaways was Zuckerberg's desire to build a "Facebook layer" into devices. Following Zuckerberg's comments, it is not surprising that reports are surfacing that Facebook is working with the phone manufacturer INQ Mobile.

You can read PC Magazine's take on these reports here.

Through current Facebook mobile apps, users are already to link their phone's address book to Facebook (and take advantage of other features too), so it will be interesting to see what additional features the "Facebook layer" offers...assuming that the INQ reports are true.

Kindle Takes on the iPad

Has anyone seen the new TV commercial for Amazon's Kindle? It pretty much disses the iPad.

The ad shows a guy trying to use his iPad by the pool, without very much luck given the bright sunny day. He asks the girl next to him how she's able to read, and she responds: "It's a Kindle."

.

I thought this ad was pretty interesting for 2 reasons:

1. The ad is a direct attack on Apple

2. The iPad has not established a significant presence in the ebook market yet. The main competitors are still Kindle and Nook.

It'll be interesting to see if Apple responds to this ad, or if they just let it slide!

Facebook Phone, Platform and Social Layer

Here's a recent interview with Mark Zuckerberg that is interesting and relevant for our discussions.   Please review the full interview as it may give insights into what 'social' may mean for your sector.

Some of the highlights from the interview....

Our strategy is very horizontal. We’re trying to build a social layer for everything. Basically we’re trying to make it so that every app everywhere can be social whether it’s on the web, or mobile, or other devices. So inherently our whole approach has to be a breadth-first approach rather than a depth-first one. And we work on all of these different things at the same time, so I’m sure whatever leak you got was probably accurate for whatever the person said. But it was probably just one part of what we are doing. Anyhow. I just wanted to give that context.

...

For example, take Instant Personalization. Our goal is to make it so there’s as little friction as possible to having a social experience. So you go to some apps, take Rotten Tomatoes, which we just launched last week. If people had to click this blue button to Connect, then some percent of them would, but it would be the minority because you don’t know exactly what you’re going to get before you click it.If you had to put up some modal dialog then that would be crazy from a UX perspective. But the fact that they can do that instant integration for the users that want it means that everyone has a good experience as soon as they get there.

On phones we can actually do something better. We can do a single sign-on if we do a good integration with a phone, rather than just doing something where you go to an app and it’s automatically social or having to sign into each app individually. Those are the two options on the web. Why not for mobile? Just make it so that you log into your phone once, and then everything that you do on your phone is social.

--

It also highlights the complex ways in which Facebook competes and connects to Apple, Microsoft and Google.

Apple and Facebook - It's complicated

"It's complicated" that's most likely the relationship status Apple and Facebook would show as their relationship status, after Apple launched it's social network effort Ping without Facebook interaction. Initially Apple negotiated with Facebook to link Ping with Facebook, but Facebook, which at this stage has grown to a significant size and is also aware of the value of it's data so that negotiations with presumably bigger players are no longer a done deal for the latter. After negotiations failed according to Apple due to not acceptable terms, Apple tried to use the regular Facebook connect API, but sees itself blocked from this service. Apple is not alone, Twitter and Zynga have already experienced the same. The question is, how long will it take for the two parties to agree on acceptable conditions and link Ping and Facebook ?

Read here for more details.

What happens when AT&Ts iPhone exclusivity ends?

Speculations have been around for a while, about what happens when AT&Ts contract guaranteeing AT&T exclusive rights to the iPhone. Now Credit Suisse has conducted a survey to try to get some more certainty to the topic. According to the survey 63% of the iPhone owners would stick with AT&T. The remaining 37% would split up like this: 23% switch to Verizon, 3% join Sprint and 2% would prefer T-Mobile. Thinking back to our Spring 2010 classes and the nice maths we did with regards to churn rates I slightly disagree with Credit Suisses assessment of "the damage of losing the iPhone" to be "overblown". For more details about the survey see Credit Suisse's slides.

Is Apple simply a cash machine ?

I came across a Fortune article, which seems to be against everything we have learned at school so far. In today's strategy implementation class it was repeated again: when you increase your market share you also increase your profits, partly due to economies of scale and partly to other joint effects. So how come Apple gains this "outrageous share of the mobile industry's profit", while only selling a tiny number of phones compared to the other manufacturers?

Apple gained 39% of the industry's profit share with 17m units sold, while the others sold about 400m devices to gain 32% of the profit share. While those figures are already impressive, have a look at the charts which a part of the article.
--
I (Venkat) have embedded the picture below and it connects to what we discussed in class about the share of industry profits of Microsoft and Apple.

About time: Dept. of Commerce deploys plans for broadband infrastructure growth

The Commerce Department has announced 35 new grants for funding projects totaling $482.4M to help provide high speed internet to areas of the US which are sorely lacking such infrastructure. This is a tiny portion of almost $7B that will be invested in expanding broadband internet access throughout the country, and as a class we have studied how information systems can bring prosperity, education, and information sharing to impoverished areas (i.e. E-Choupal).

The advent and spread of broadband technologies through businesses, schools, and homes have provided a launching point for sites like Youtube and Hulu as well as technologies like peer-to-peer sharing (Napster, Bittorrent) to develop and grow. I feel this is incredibly crucial for promoting innovations, improving communications, and ultimately leveraging the full capabilities of such an intricate and robust network of humans and technology.

I remember being surprised when I first saw the figure below; although the US has pioneered the internet and its adoption it has lagged behind with promoting accessibility.

(larger picture can be found here)

The notion of cloud computing takes on greater gravity and significance with increased access and speed. Concerns with transferring large files, which admittedly tend to fall on the piracy side of the file sharing spectrum, may no longer be relevant.

What good is a service if one can only use a fraction of its potential?

Facebook phone

Recently there were rumors of Facebook developing a phone (article in the WSJ). The company said this was not true but left the door open. It seems that the next war is going to be about who controls the consumer's contact list and major players in the industry want that list.

With this in mind, I was thinking about what is a phone anyways? A phone is no longer a phone the way we though about it when feature phones were dominant. A phone (meaning a way to communicate via voice) is officially a software layer within a device or even cross devices. The "phone" traditional capability is a commodity.

What do you think a phone is?

AI: and you thought it was only a movie

Did you know that when you type in a keyword in Google, their Artificial Intelligence technology helps you finish your thought? I never gave it much thought of what made that happen, personally I was just happy that I didn't always have to type in some of the longer inquiries I had.

This technology isn't necessarily new, nor doesn't stop there, as Google has been developing and using AI to Make Search Smarter for quite some time now. In addition to online searches, they are working towards using this for speech recognition that they hope will one day be able to translate sentences on the fly using a smart phone.

Google isn't the only one that is investing in using AI in the mobile space, Intel, HP, Apple and Sprint Nextel are also developing AI-related software, components, or hardware for smart phones. Be on the look out for AT&T apps that tap into AI that can not only talk back to you, but can also take notes in class for you. Now where was that app for Dellarocas's last class?

For our next session--the connection between Facebook and the Automotive Sector

--

Not sure if it is a fair comment or not but I thought it was timely! Source

Another Side to the iPhone

I came across an article today that I wanted to share because it serves as a great reminder of how technology can positively impact society.

This article walks through a blind man's first experience with an iPhone and how it positively changed the way he lives his life.

Many of us have probably never realized the great lengths so many of these companies (in this case, Apple) go to allow everyone access to their products.

Google instant

As many (if not all) of us have noticed, Google recently came out with its most recent innovation, Google Instant. I found the combination of two articles around this recent innovation interesting. The first article discusses how Google Instant was created to compete with a much smaller, fairly new competitor, Cuil (which no longer exists), as well as companies such as Twitter and Facebook.

The Second Article talks about how the technological know how of Google Instant would be hard to replicate even for Microsoft of Ask.com. However, if a much smaller competitor such as Cuil was able to create this technology, why couldn't Microsoft?

This brings up the questions as to where exactly Google comes up with it's most recent technologies from. Are they creating cutting edge technologies, following the lead of larger competitors, or fighting off the threat of new smaller tech companies?

Google's Social networking Building Blocks

Here's an article that has useful information on Google's recent acquisitions pertaining to social networking.  According to the article, it has made

five acquisitions in the field: SocialDeck, a mobile social gaming company;Angstro, a social networking search application; Like.com, a social fashion store; Jambool, a social gaming virtual currency; and Slide, a social game maker. It also has a large stake in gaming giant Zynga.

--
Think about these as part of the exploration-exploitation axis and what they could mean in its positioning against Facebook.

Largest US companies by Market Cap.

The list from the online investor...

1995 Bill Gates Memo

Wired.com Bill Gates Memo

Google - Cloud-Based Music Service

As stated by CEO Eric Schmidt, cloud computing is the centerpiece of Google’s strategy. Aligning perfectly with this strategy is the digital music space. Digital music is experiencing a shift from administering our own music collections on local hard drives to building them online where they can be accessed on a multitude of connected devices without having to manage each file transfer by hand.

It will not be easy for Google to capture the cloud-based music space since there is already significant competition from companies such as Lala, iLike, Pandora and Rhapsody. Google has already attempted to become a player in this market by purchasing Lala, but were outbid by Apple. It will be interesting to see if Google seeks another cloud-based music service to purchase. Also, with the ability to take all users’ digital music collections and host them in the cloud it makes a move away from iTunes entirely attractive to consumers. This is a logical next step for Google which will complement their mobile device, the Android, as well as build upon their array of cloud-based services. I think Google is moving in the right direction and should continue to pursue acquisition options. This is a big opportunity for Google to seize the digital music space away from the longstanding giant, Apple.

Apple & Customers

Apple seems to be defying the laws of the open economy. While everyone is racing towards open platforms, open networks, and software that is accessible from multiple device types, Apple has managed to keep pretty much everything except it's api's closed. 

Every year I hear about how eventually this approach will catch up to them. But I'm not sure it will. When we become too attached to our opinions, we tend to forget where they came from. For example in the case of network effects, it's not a question of whether there are network effects or not, we know there are with the app store. It's not a question of whether apple is reaping the reward of them or not, they clearly are. It's simply a question of whether vastly larger network effects like those that will likely be garnered by the android platform are truly beneficial.

Apple provides a cleaned up product for a populous that is not rife with techies. The early adopter, though essential in every way to the growth of technology, is not the moneymaker. Apple has a wealthier client base that purchases more, and is happy that there's a guardian at the gate. The network effects are large enough to make any developer worth their salt build software for apples platform. Isn't that all that they need? Plus, the customer that uses the apple product gets the benefit of a watchdog ensuring that what they buy is safe and will not ruin their phone or iPad. Isn't that worth something?

At the end of the day, customers like having product filtered before it reaches them. They pick easier amongst 20 things than amongst 2000. Maybe Apple's got the right idea. They're simply a modern merchandiser. What do you think?

Has Apple Really Done It Again?

Ignore for just a moment that I am typing this post on my MacBook Pro, have nursed an old Powerbook back to health this year, use an iPod Touch regularly, and am eyeing the iPhone 4...

In reading Forrester Research analyst, Sarah Rotman Epps' post from earlier this summer, Apple iPad Sales: Why Tablets Are Even Bigger Than We Thought I couldn't help but think where is the healthy skepticism?

The crux of Ms. Epps' commentary is that she blundered her original forecast for consumer iPad sales by grossly underestimating just how quickly the technology would take hold. Further, she makes a few observations that lead her to the conclusion that iPads sales are going to continue to grow at a rate so unprecedented that the technology will effectively leave the traditional S-curve in the dust for "adoption spiking upfront."

A few of the more interesting things she noted about consumer adoption led me to a different conclusion:

• In June, 1.3% of US online consumers reported owning an Apple iPad
• An additional 3.8% say they intend to buy an iPad
• The average iPad purchaser is 20% more likely to use facebook and 40% more likely to use Twitter, and has more friends and followers than the average US online consumer

These data points gave me the following alternative ideas:

• The consumer base is composed solely of category influencers in the innovators and early adopters segments
• Who have adopted the device quickly without a comparable competitor to stack up against it in all benefits/needs categories met by the iPad
• Taking a look at a cross-section of data so early after launch is simply misleading in considering what the overall technology diffusion trend will be over time
• After the wave of innovators and early adopters, with the means to purchase the iPad for its premium price tag, are exhausted consumer adoption will inevitably slow
• Remaining consumer targets will aim to rationalize what they have and not overpay for bundled, redundant offerings, but rather pay for the one or two items not yet satisfied by their laptop, music player, etc.

At any rate it will be interesting to see how much steam the iPad will have as different consumer segments with different needs than its current buyers begin to consider it.

Microsoft's Vision of "Seamless"

The key buzz word used over and over again in Ray Ozzie's 2005 memo was the word SEAMLESS. Seamless OS. Seamless Productivity. Seamless Solutions. Microsoft finally recognized that what people wanted were products that "just worked". Microsoft wanted to change its strategies to focus on usability, having end-to-end interoperability, and networked solutions. They had seen the light and we taking steps to change.

Having been in the computer game as the big boy for so long, however, the behemoth of a company had forward momentum in the old way of doing business. Microsoft was a patch work of 110 companies, stitched together through acquisitions, all contributing pieces to the giant puzzle of Microsoft's product offerings. They were trying to set a course where all of these disparate entities were supposed to be able to achieve a "seamless" integration, not only in functionality but in vision. This was a monumental shift in the thought process. Instead of focusing of incremental improvements, Ray Ozzie was asking the employees to undergo a paradigm shift.

Apple, on the other hand, was far better to suited to handle the changing trends in the 3 tenets outlined in the memo. Apple had already been designing and maintaining system integration for years; since the early days. Their focus had always been on the user. By maintaining tight control over its underlying technology, hard ward infrastructure and systems architecture, Apple had the prime position to put together an impressive array of products that "just worked" together. Take for example, the iPOD. Apple was not the first company to put forth an MP3 product offering. Nor was it the first company to develop a digital jukebox to organize and play the MP3. In fact, Apple was rarely the first company to create new ideas. But what Apple does extremely well is to be laser focused on the end user and the usability of its products. iTunes was purposefully pared down to minimalistic functionality to ensure that the users would be able to easily interface with the program. Likewise, the iPOD itself was design with the same minimalistic approach. The seamless integration of the hardware, the design, the software and the iTunes store allowed Apple to create an entirely new way of doing business in the networked world.

Microsoft still has a long way to go. At least they've taken the first step and identified that they need to step up their game.

Where is the future battle field for IT companies

Tim O'Reilly provides a wonderful picture of strength and weakness of top players on a list of services in his blog “State of the Internet Operating System Part Two: Handicapping the Internet Platform Wars”. I like the category to classify IT services, however, I think, the battle field for these IT companies should be beyond these listed services.

First of all, most of the listed services focus on individual consumers, while business users like companies have not been cared much. The demand of information from business users is different from individual consumers. Let’s see consumers’ demand, music, books and movies, these products have been produced by other industry and delivered by IT. So, the focus is on format of delivery. While business user’s demand is on customers’ preference, sales forecast and etc. these are knowledge sometimes not provided by other functions and business users expect to get it from IT. IT may have collected raw data to prepare for these knowledge, but the leap from data to information to knowledge is not easy to be achieved. I think, the knowledge to business users should be another important battlefield for IT companies.

Value chain analysis could provide us another perspective about IT industry. For traditional product, value chain includes a vertical chain of sales order, manufacturing and distribution. Now, most of IT company focus on the last part, information distribution. For manufacturing of information, it’s what we’ve covered in last paragraph, a transformation from data to information to knowledge. For sales order of information, (customers show their preference on type or contents of information), social media functions partly to collect customer’s needs. IT companies will develop competitive advantage if they can get these needs quickly, produce it fast and delivery it in time.

In summary, the future battle field for IT companies could be market of not only consumers, but also business users, not only different services to users, but also transformation from data to knowledge and gathering customer needs.

Has Google become Apple’s greatest enemy?

When Google CEO Eric Schmidt joined Apple’s Board of Directors in 2006, Google was not in mobile, hardware, operating system or browsers business. Google and Apple were still on famously good terms separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley. It all came to an end when Google came up with Android in 2007, which is now the fastest growing Smartphone OS on the market.

At first, Android was probably not a direct threat to Apple, since Apple has gained significant brand awareness and market share by entering the mobile market much earlier. However, with network effect, as more phones utilized Android, the relationship between Google and Apple became more uncomfortable.

The battle has not yet been heated until when Apple rejected Google Voice as an app on the iPhone. By then, Apple had clearly realized that Google was no longer only interested in search but it started expanding into Apple’s domain on multiple fronts. First in 2009, Apple rejected having Google Voice as an app on iPhone, then In June 2010, Apple added Bing to the iPhone as a search option for Safari.

Would Apple form an ally with Microsoft to battle with Google? So did many people think. A couple months immediately after speculations and rumors of Apple-Microsoft partnership, Apple announced its approval for Google Voice on the iPhone. Although what’s working now is not the official version yet, fans are excited that they can finally have a Google Voice app on the iPhone now, but what’s behind this long due approval? What new dynamics would the Google and Apple present to their fans, competitors, and the business world? We will have to see.