notes and views on products and people who make them

Chrome OS will succeed – in your bathroom

You may wonder what world do the pundits live in – it’s not the same one occupied by you and me:

[W]hat about my son who is in high school. By the time Chrome OS comes along in big numbers he’ll be in college. Why take a $1,000 computer to class? Couldn’t he do everything he needs to do on a low-cost computer that’s lightweight, replaceable, uses low power, and just uses the web? Absolutely!

I suppose if he pursued a degree in feminist studies, yeah, maybe a Google OS (read: online apps exclusively) could carry him towards it. Last time I heard, Mathematica wasn’t on the Web.

Scoble says that Google OS is NOT about killing Microsoft. He predicts a new range of utility computers you’ll put in the kitchen and the bathroom. But would you take that kind of device to college? Other than amuse you in the dorm bathroom?

Google wants to eliminate the need for desktop OS, or at least make it irrelevant. They can’t sell ads through desktop apps. But since Microsoft’s dominance on PCs isn’t any less absolute than it was 10 years ago, Google has to invent its own market to compete outside the browser.

Bathroom PCs: why not; for $50 or less, I’d take a couple. There, Google OS may have already won since there’s nobody else competing there. Displacing Windows on college students laptops? I don’t think so.

November 21, 2009 | Filed Under Rants, Web | 2 Comments 

The OS Opportunity – Long Gone

Every now and then we hear the Web is the new OS. But is it big enough, fast enough, smart enough?

To the extent that you can make do with a MacBook, Google Docs, and Twitter while sipping late in a hip geeky cafe, yes, your Use Cases are covered. Their list is still growing.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that the Web will indeed render the Operating System irrelevant, why talking the PC manufacturers into ditching Microsoft and building their own shit?

Extrapolating the (questionable so far) success of the cute little darling Litl, which is a utility gadget for browsing the web while shaving (screenshot #3 at the homepage), the writer at Daring Fireball says:

If a small startup can build the Litl, why couldn’t a big company like Dell or Sony? People today still love HP calculators made 30 or even 40 years ago. Has HP made anything this decade that anyone will remember fondly even five years from now? Inkjet printers?

If Palm can create WebOS for pocket-sized computers — replete with an email client, calendaring app, web browser, and SDK — why couldn’t these companies make something equivalent for full-size computers?

Indeed, the very same companies who grew big in the PC ecosystem precisely because it is an ecosystem built on ONE platform – Windows – should now abandon it and create their own, each of them?

That reminds be of the bizarre decision of Samsung to develop their own smartphone OS, Bada, and put it side-to-side with their Android offering. That Google pulled it off with Android is only a testament to the messy state of mobile operating systems, not a challenge to do the same on PCs.

It boils down to this:

  1. Either PC OS is irrelevant and Web will overtake everything, rendering billions of dollars invested in creating a brand new OS a wasted investment, or
  2. The desktop still matters, in which case good luck creating the partner infrastructure Microsoft has been building for the past 25 years or so.

Either way you are screwed. The OS wars are being re-fought on mobiles but there is no undoing the past quarter century of PC history.

November 19, 2009 | Filed Under Rants | 1 Comment 

The importance of being earnest

You can’t screw around and expect to make it BIG TIME.

What I’ve seen today at the WebExpo 2009 was just that: a somewhat serious attempt at delivering a talk, or a pitch, with hope that it’ll stick. And I liked all of them; after all, I wanted to learn from what they had to say. The trouble is, anybody can be “kind-of” successful after giving it some effort, but: if you’re about to make any effort at all, why don’t you give it your best? How about knocking some socks off?

Easier said than done, I readily admit.

What prompted me to blog this was the talk by Peldi about his story of bootstrapping a ’successful’ microISV. I put successful in quotes because Peldi is, of course, a mini-Microsoft in his own right; a wildly successful entrepreneur that we can’t really take any advice from without being misled. However, what was worth following and imitating and what could truly benefit every one of the hopefuls in the room was this: his passion and seriousness.

You could miss the seriousness because he was so funny but it was there. No screwing around; focus. Determination.

We in the tech business are easily distracted by the latest fad and acronym but clearly what counts isn’t just technical savvy but putting all things required to make it work together. Values, learning, passion, skills, you name, you’ve got to have it – and want to be good in it. It takes some serious work and concentration.

Passion glues it together. Not just wanting to ‘make it’ but actually wanting to do something great. Something valuable.

Bottom line for me was, testing and trying it out makes no sense. Dive in and do all you can; that’s what’s going to make the difference. A useful lesson indeed.

October 17, 2009 | Filed Under Enterpreneurship | 1 Comment 

Mobile 2.0 looks pretty darn sexy

Pretty cool presentation from Rudy de Waele about some of the upcoming trends in Mobile:

Mobile Social Contextual Applications & Services

The future can’t come fast enough.

May 4, 2009 | Filed Under General, Links and Quotes, Telco, Web | Comments Off 

The elusive Twitter business plan

Could it be true? Twitter is working on a paid plan, say some. Almost hard to believe, given the overall consensus that Twitter is never going to make a dime.

You know how it is with consensus, though – as soon as people reach it, someone proves them wrong.

Given the questionable (based on mixed reviews) direction Facebook has taken, should we expect “premium treatment” to be given by Twitter to its paying subscribers? Such as the ability to “tweet” into your stream based on your profile, interests, and activity so far? So far we can only speculate.

One thing is certain: there is already a lot of commercial activity going on Twitter; I get followed by at least 2-3 consultants every day. Twitter has to introduce some kind of system into the game or else I’m afraid its service will become another stinking ad channel where 99% of all content is pure, unadulterated crap.

March 25, 2009 | Filed Under Web | Comments Off 

Facebook: more relevant than TV, still a long way to go

I like Harley-Davidson motorbikes. I do not own one but like to look at them. With Facebook now integrating people and businesses into one content stream, I do hear a lot from Harley – being a “fan” of their page.

Specifically, I got plenty of post taken at SXSW where HD was present.

Harley-Davidson staff at SXSW

Harley-Davidson staff at SXSW

One could make the argument that since I pre-qualified as a person interested in Harley-Davidson bikes, their posts – not primarily commercial in nature – will be relevant to me. And to the extent that I care about this particular brand a lot more than, say, Ariel or Tide, they are. Harley can communicate with me in a way that is certainly more personalized than a random TV ad.

Why, then, do I have to fight the impulse to click the “X” mark above a post they made to get rid of it, anyway? And by doing so, banishing them from my newsfeed forthwith?

Their posts are not quite-relevant to me because I am not buying a bike NOW. They are not actionable. That is true for many updates coming from the people I know, but these are my friends; I let them in. Harley-Davidson is not my friend.

Advertising is most relevant when it’s part of the conversation going on in my head right now. And so for these messages to speak to me, they would have to come to me based on my action, an impulse that I would send, something along the lines, “it’s warm outside, sun is shining, pity I don’t have a bike”. THEN a post by Harley-Davidson would make a very good sense indeed.

Again: I would drive the conversation. I would decide what is relevant, where and when.

The direction Facebook has taken is certainly a good one, compared to the old ways of advertising. Hopefully the next step will involve taking the user’s initiative and intent into account, and responding in a way that is focused on what the person is thinking or doing at the time.

March 24, 2009 | Filed Under CRM | Comments Off 

Advertising – Be relevant to the person, not the medium

I cannot but agree with Russell Buckley that,

brand does not need to be relevant to mobile in order to successfully run a mobile advertising campaign

And I am wondering who says otherwise?

BUT – if the question were, does mobile advertising have to be relevant to its mobile recipient, we should get a different answer alright.

Given that mobile advertising is far from being a settled matter, there is still an opportunity to do it right – this time.

March 24, 2009 | Filed Under Links and Quotes, Telco | Comments Off 

Should operators support app developers?

There were no app stores not so long ago, and look at how many we have now!

Mobile Monday London

I wish I could have attended this week’s MoMo London event themed “What are Operators Doing to Support Developers and Innovation?” Simon Judge’s report suggests it was noteworthy. Things are definitely evolving for mobile applications; once only for geeks, operators can now push them towards your grandmother smoothly.

The question I am pondering is: is the operator’s store the natural place for apps to converge and descend upon the customers?

YES

It’s a perfect place for the operator’s existing customers – their subsidized handsets can have the app-store placed prominently in the menu, download / install / payment can use the operator’s well-oiled machinery, global reach in some cases, co-promotion, etc. It’s good for developers, too: they get to use some very cool services and APIs.

NO

Operators’ app stores are silos. They are designed to support the operators’ core business – data usage, messaging. Apps that have the potential to disturb said business are unlikely to get very far there (just as Apple is cleansing its store of apps threatening its business).

WHO ELSE?

If the choice is between a platform owner’s app store (Google, Apple, MS) or that of an operator (O2 Litmus, VF Betavine), then the end result shall be similar. What I’d like to see is some sort of P2P infrastructure that would allow app developers to connect directly with mobile customers. Yes there is one – the Web – but we’ll have to wait for phones with rich web experience to reach mainstream for that model to become viable.

PS (Mar 15, 2009): the “walled garden” analogy comes to mind.

March 11, 2009 | Filed Under Telco | Comments Off 

Bored by requirements analysis? Check out the new Playground blog!

[Public service announcement] Following up on our earlier promotion, I’m happy to reveal that Playground, the shiny new toy for fast-paced requirements analysis, has got its new blog: http://www.playground-hq.com/blog/

What will be there? Technical stuff, howtos, hints and tips on how to leverage Playground to set up your project’s scope effectively.

As for this place, I’ll occasionally promote a new release or a major milestone here but the day-to-day happenings are going to be covered there.

March 8, 2009 | Filed Under Me & You, But Mostly Me | Comments Off 

CRM 2.0 – dead by natural causes?

What should we expect from the mashup of CRM and social, user-driven tools?

Although I’ve been a promoter of “CRM 2.0″ myself, I am not surprised by Paul Greenberg’s analysis of the state of affairs. The money quote:

Have the vendors really kept up with the strategy in their desire to provide CRM 2.0 applications? Is this even something they need to do? [...] When marketing is removed and a cold hard look is taken at the applications out there with a view from the CRM 2.0 precipice, the answer is that as of now, there is very little that can be called true CRM 2.0.” [taken out of context, rather ruthlessly]

But that’s only true as long as we’re talking an integrated, full lifecycle solution that would perform all the operational, analytical, and also social functions.

Instead, there is:

  • the traditional CRM 1.0 toolkit, now with “social” flavor. Don’t let that mislead you; as Paul writes: “Oracle Sales Prospector, Sales Library etc. [...] are designed for sales person collaboration (and other appropriate parties) so that the changes of sales success are increased by whatever multiples they can be. But they are not built around external customer engagement but, instead a model for employees and perhaps partners.
  • the vast CRM 2.0 userland of ad-hoc, beta-quality, loosely coupled tools that customers people are using to communicate and trade both among themselves and with vendors: blogs, Twitter, uservoice, etc.

Will and should those two be integrated more closely?

I thought so. I don’t anymore: vendors’ interests are dramatically different from those of the (small ‘p’) people, and only companies are buying Oracle, anyway. And companies are going to “open up” to those tool that people use, one way or another. As Paul writes:

It doesn’t matter if the fully integrated suite of CRM 2.0 products has been produced by a vendor somewhere now, somehow. Not as long as the capacity to combine traditional CRM with social tools exists in a less than onerous way. Which it does.

This conclusion is well aligned with the direction that VRM gang took: forget companies for a while, and build the infrastructure that people can use to connect to companies in their preferred way.

Companies will follow. Eventually.

March 6, 2009 | Filed Under CRM, Links and Quotes | 3 Comments 

Next Page »