Product

...now browsing by category

 

Why Talent is Limiting Supply in the Smartphone OS Market

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

How many smartphone mobile operating systems can the market support? Wrong question. In a market of billions of potential devices with limited network effects [1] and hyper-growth demand the market could support lots of smartphone mobile operating systems – where lots is defined as greater than six and less than twenty. The limiting factor is not demand but rather supply. How many companies can build a competitive mobile OS? The fire sale of Palm and the launch of Blackberry Torch makes it clear that the list of companies that have the skills and resources to build, launch, and sustain a competitive mobile OS is getting smaller each month. Watching this playout feels like watching the top riders in the Tour de France fight their way to the top of Col du Tourmalet — each and every year only the most talented riders keep pace as the ride becomes absolutely grueling.

Companies are starting to fall by the wayside as the stacked teams of Apple, Google, and soon Microsoft take firm control of the race.
Lets look at a checklist of capabilities one needs to launch a competitive mobile OS. Half way down this list you will realize that very few companies have assembled a deep and wide enough talent pool to execute a smartphone mobile os on a global scale.

What you need What it gets you
User Experience
Multi-touch interface Parity
Visual appeal Potential differentiation
Multi-tasking Parity
Apps
Games, Games, and Games (1) Acquisition (great games sell devices)
(2) Lock-In (spend creates switching costs)
20,000 Quality Apps Parity
Discovery & Merchandising Easy & trust worthy
Media
Music Lock-In (spend creates switching costs)
Movie rentals Engagement
TV show rentals Engagement
Browser
HTML5 + CSS3 Compliant Browser Parity
Information Finding
Search Utility
Carrier financial incentive via revenue share
Voice Search Cool demo
Maps (limited number of suppliers) Utility + parity
Navigation (limited number of suppliers) Utility + parity
Communication Cloud
Mail Utility + parity
Voice Transcription Diffentriated
PIM Services Utility + parity
Payments
One Click Buy (micro transactions) Parity + Frictionless commerce
Global (90+ markets) Utility + parity
Fraud Mgmt Utility + parity
Launch Marketing
$250M consumer marketing Consumer awareness.
Percieved momentum for developers
$50M App developer launch Studio compensation to seed app library and app competitions
Devices & Distribution
#1 and/or #2 Carrier in top 20 markets (first yr) Market coverage
3 to 4 OEM’s building 8 million devices (first yr) Consumer choice of mid to high-end devices
Developers, Developers, Developers!
Popular IDE App quality
Time to market
Developer happiness
Deep SDK Device access (e.g. camera, acceleramator)
UI (e.g. animation, controls)
Service access (e.g. maps, contacts, mails)
Enterprise
Security Parity
Employee device & app provisioning Parity

[1] Limited Network Effects: During the PC war application developers propelled Windows PC to its monopoly position – users adopted the OS with the widest range of applications and developers adopted the platform with the most users. In the mobile smartphone OS war the top 20,000 apps that matter will be replicated to the top five mobile os platforms in each market or region muting the possible network effects because the development costs are relatively low.

Behind Google’s Data Buying Binge

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Google used to be based on a simple premise.  The web is a big place, we help you find the relevant piece of information for your question and direct you there — as quickly as possible.  You don’t consume information on Google, you simply find it.  Users only spend 3.4% of their time on search engines.  This is changing.  Having the best algorithm is no longer enough.  Google is investing heavily to own the data across key vertical categories and slowly becoming a destination experience for consuming this data.  Unless you own and curate rich data-sets there are natural limits to both the search relevancy and experience you can provide.  Google is quickly adapting by buying access to vast and rich data sets. Let’s look at their recent buying binge:

  • Travel: Acquired ITA Software which aggregates flight routes and pricing information and enables advanced search capabilities on travel data.
  • Local: Attempted to purchase Yelp.com, and after that fell through they ramped investment to build their own local data set.  Additionally,  Google has been investing for years in map with StreetView and satellite imagery.
  • Metaweb (Freebase): Structured data of  people, places, and things.

When Google focuses on a category like local this is what happens to the search experience.  For a query like Delfina Pizzeria (an excellent pizza place in San Franciso) rather than linking to the best sources of information like Yelp, Zagat, SF Chronicle, etc. Google first pushes you towards Google Places. It currently includes a mix of their own content and other sources of licensed content.  What happens when they have their own pictures, reviews, and check-in data — do they really need to license all this other content from the likes of  Zagat and SF Chronicle.

I expect Google to complete the buying binge by acquiring companies with rich data sets across other highly monetizable categories:

  • Shopping: Amazon and eBay to a lesser extent are capturing significant percent of query share in a very lucrative area.  If users bypass Google and go directly to Amazon for their product queries this represents a serious threat to their business.  They need to acquire a company with a huge selection of product data — rich and structured product attribute (size, color), inventory availability, pricing and promotions, and user reviews.  I can’t think of one company (beyond Amazon) that has done this well at the scale Google would need.  This may require acquiring multiple companies to create this.
  • Real-Estate: Is somebody like Trulia next?

Practicing Focus the Apple Way

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

Today, Apple launched a whole slew of new and upgraded products today, here are the highlights:

  • New Magic trackpad  – this  is very cool as it brings full multi-touch to the desktop (review here)
  • 27 Inch LED Display (review here)
  • Upgrades to iMac line (review here)

A pretty significant product launch.  So, you would think with Apple passing on a big Steve Jobs press event at the very least they would swap the Apple.com homepage to promote the new products.  Not a chance.  They are laser focused on the iPhone.

How Enterprise Software Companies are Getting “Blue Starred”

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

In the movie Wall Street Gordon Gekko attempt s to buy-out and liquidate Blue Star Airlines in order to extract $75M from their over-funded pension.   Gordon Gekko sings the turn-around tune to  union leaders yet his true intentions to liquidate become apparent to all and the showdown between Gordon and his naïve protégé Bud Fox (his father is a union leader at Blue Star) begins.  After having dinner with an old friend from the enterprise software world I realized a form of liquidation is now hitting the enterprise software business.  These companies are getting “Blue Starred.”   Buyout firms are extracting value from enterprise software leaving business users with systems that barely work.

First, lets begin with some context on the enterprise software business.  During the golden years (nineties) of enterprise software – companies like Siebel, Peoplesoft, ePhipany and many more brought software from the back-office (order processing and billing) into the hands of sales reps, customer service, marketing, and human resources (commonly referred to as the front-office).  The license based enterprise software revenue model works like this.  They sell $1M worth of software licenses and then charge companies annual maintenance fees (approximately 20% of the original license cost) for patches and incremental versions of the software.   So, a $1M license software deal actually translated into $2M over five years ($200K annual maintenance fees times five years plus the original license deal of $1M.)   Once a customer installs the software they are effectively locked in for many years.  These maintenance revenue streams are highly profitable as they not paying sales commissions and support costs are spread across thousands of customers.

With that context, it’s pretty clear what buyout firms are doing.  Acquire an enterprise software company with a significant customer base, cut new product development, move support to a low-cost labor market, and milk the maintenance revenue stream.

Yes, this is part of the natural product lifecycle – these are companies on their death-bed.   But the unfortunate part of this is that users (customer service agents, payroll admin, and hiring managers) are stuck with barely usable (try using Oracle Applications) and now largely unsupported tools.

Given the improvements in user experience (Apple) and collaboration tools (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) over the past five years these older software tools are a massive productivity drain for millions of users.  There needs to be a better and faster way to flush out mostly defunct enterprise systems and migrate users quickly to something usable.  There is hope, companies like Yammer cleverly bypasses traditional IT purchasers and first hooks the people that matter most — the users.

Three Ways for Groupon to Start Building Defensibility

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

Riding Groupon’s recent success competitors are popping up practically daily  (see the competitor list here).  In the early days of commerce Amazon faced well funded competition from the likes of Pets.com, Buy.com, Furniture.com, and thousands of others.  Many of these are not around anymore and others are simply shells of of their former selves.  Amazon built up its defensives with broad product coverage  (tons of categories and the marketplace) and innovating in features and services like product reviews (hard to replicate) and Amazon Prime (customer lock-in).   So, what will Groupon do to quickly start establishing its defensibility?  Here are three ideas:

  1. Multiple Parallel Deals:  This is another way of saying broad offer selection. With only a deal or two a day per city (~50 or so cities) the activation energy a competitor needs to catch up is fairly small (sales force and some search marketing spend).  If they had more liquidity on the supply side (hundreds of deals per day per city) it would be very hard to create this kind of supply with a sales force.  To do this effectively they need to build a recommendation engine that ensures that I never see a deal for a pedicure.
  2. Turn Competitors into Sales Franchises: Local businesses don’t have the time or desire to transact with multiple group buying sites. Furthermore, Groupon’s competitor’s are starting to plateau, as this happens will seek new ways to generate incremental revenues.  Groupon can avoid a bloody fight with these competitors by turning them into a local sales franchise.  They bring deals to Groupon and in return get a cut of any deals sold. Of course, these local sales franchises have to use all the listings and contract management systems Groupon provides.
  3. Build Local Business Reviews:   For each deal many hundreds of people experience the service.  If 10% of these wrote a detailed review they could quickly become an excellent source of business reviews.  Today’s Groupon in San Jose is running a deal for Cindy’s Yoga (see here) that 792 people purchased.  If ten percent of purchasers wrote a review (or 79 reviews) Groupon would have 36 more reviews than Yelp’s listing for Cindy’s Yoga (see here).

Four Ways to Clean Up Software Feature Bloat

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

software feature bloatNo matter how bad a product feature may be removing it is 3x harder than putting it in in the first place.  Here are four ways to remove unwanted product features.

  1. Bury It First: Reduces usage to the point where it will make it less painful to eliminate.  Netflix tried removing a feature and customers complained so loudly they brought it back and buried it — see here for full details
  2. Throttle It:  Limit the capabilities of the product.  Many years ago HotJobs had a job listing product that recruiters abused by refreshing the job daily to make it appear like the job was in fact new today boosting the relevancy of the job listing. Rather than completely eliminate this product we initially throttled the number of times the recruiter could perform the refresh action and made it transparent to the jobseeker that the job listing had only been refreshed.
  3. Take It On the Chin:  If a small percentage of users are holding you back from innovating on behalf of a much larger percentage of users, kill the feature, communicate it and move forward.  Some innovative sites like Digg fell prey to a very vocal set of users who demanded the product not evolve.
  4. Replace It With Something Else:  When Facebook App Notifications were eliminated, they provided other ways for App developers to connect with users.  Nowhere near the same level of distribution but some alternatives…I hear the moans from Facebook App Developers.

Adapted from my answer on Quora.  Follow me on Quora here.