notes and views on crm, social media, and the human side of information technology

Make your own handset

This might be taking mass-customization a bit too far: OpenMoko is releasing CAD files of their phone case to anybody interested in … manufacturing their own cell phone. The home-use (?) 3-D printers are supposed to be $2500 or so but I suppose this won’t be a big thing until we collectively move to the Diamond Age.

Still, I totally adore this radical move, being a radical evangelist and all, and am holding my breath a bit. Up until very recently, the phone industry (and telco in general) has been fragmented and controlling & backward-facing as if it didn’t really want to live in the 21st century. Then came OpenMoko, missed a couple of deadlines, and Android came with its promise of an open platform, and now OpenMoko is taking the lead again and opening up what’s left of the phone (except perhaps the bits of proprietary hardware that might still be waiting for the right moment).

It might not be *the* thing mobile customer have been waiting for (until those 3d printers, nano-based, sit next to your espresso machine). But it’s one of those things that get you thinking: what’s next? What are these guys thinking? They sure as hell got my attention now.

March 5, 2008 | Filed Under Open Source | Leave a Comment 

Re: how well…, etc.

Hugh responded in the comments, and I feel obliged to add one last note.

Quoting from the (since updated) original post:

The “Microsoft vs Open Source” question doesn’t interest me so much. The question, “What/How does Microsoft have to do/change if it wishes to survive the next thirty years” interests me greatly. And not just Microsoft, either…

I’ll pretend I have a clue and offer the following observation:

Microsoft has a diverse portfolio. Some of its units, such as XBOX, have become almost independend brands, at least in the public perception. It’s quite likely that Microsoft in 2037 will bear little resemblance to how we know it today. Will operating systems still be as relevant as they’ve been so far? Or will they be as boring as any other infrastructure? Nobody gets excited about electricity anymore…

I think any big company that gets stuck in its business model is in danger of becoming irrelevant, and Microsoft knows that, and what they really should do is to increase competition among their divisions, either by actually splitting up or pretending to do so. The co-dependency of Windows and Office brands isn’t helping either one. Whether they’re internally thinking about it or even taking some steps I do not know. What I do know, however, is that Microsoft’s chief competitor isn’t Linux or Google: it’s their own weight, maturity, complacency. It’s tough to be a monopolist.

April 17, 2007 | Filed Under Open Source | Leave a Comment 

Re: how well does open source currently meet the needs of shareholders and ceo’s? (2)

ONE MORE THOUGHT on why I think Hugh McLeod has missed the boat this time.

Fact #1: ‘hacking something in your garage’ isn’t for startups anymore. Has it ever? You innovate or you go out of business.

Fact #2: businesses use software to breath, move, run, act. The agility of their software infrastructure determines their agility in the real world.

In that situation, you’d be foolish to trust anyone to be as agile as you need to be. As innovative as you must be. Changes come quickly and software vendors have too many balls in the air to keep track of your situation. Open Source weakens vendor dependency and empowers companies to respond to change with greater agility - because there are no secrets in the code. Anyone can take over if the original vendor can’t or won’t keep up with you.

That’s a value shareholders and CxOs should recognize.

April 17, 2007 | Filed Under Open Source | 2 Comments 

Re: how well does open source currently meet the needs of shareholders and ceo’s?

I DON’T ENJOY “PHILOSOPHICAL” DEBATES, and I wouldn’t jump into this one except that Hugh McLeod is a brilliant fellow and I wonder if I may be missing something.

He says:

If Open Source software is free, then why bother spending money on Microsoft Partner stuff? [...]

I know very little about software, so my hunch is that the reason Microsoft is able to make money, is simply that running a large business with 2000 people on the payroll requires very different ways of going about it, than just hacking together something in your garage. Open Source may be free [at least at first], but how well does it scale? How well does Open Source currently meet the needs of shareholders and CEOs?

You tell me. Anybody who has more insight than me [pro or anti Microsoft, I don't care], please feel free to leave a comment, Thanks.

I’m afraid the question is too general to inspire a meaningful discussion. What software are we talking about? Office? No comment necessary - Microsoft rules the game. Servers? Hey, doesn’t much of the web run on LAMP? I bet CEOs are quite happy about how their server farms do, even if they’ve never heard of Apache.

He’d need to get specific to even begin a conversation that would get us somewhere.

So forgive me if I pause now with a platitude (this being my answer to Hugh): Open Source isn’t about “hacking stuff in the garage”, it’s ultimately about transparency and freedom to configure the value chain the way your business needs it, and given how much businesses like to overstate their uniqueness, it’s no wonder they are adopting it wherever and whenever they can. There’s a thriving vendor market, and though there may be no Open Source billionaires just yet, that doesn’t mean the market isn’t real. It is.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

April 16, 2007 | Filed Under Open Source | Leave a Comment 

My search for the perfect Linux smartphone

OK I’M A GEEK. No surprise there. And I didn’t really need all those gadgets I got, like the oh-so-sexy Zaurus SL5500 that I’ve recently given to my wife. But I can’t find a cure for my affliction, and lately I’ve been looking for another time-waster: a Linux cellphone.

My reasons:

  • Philosophical: current market leaders (Symbian, Windows Mobile, and the rest) provide closed-source platform with limited options for user control. I believe open platforms ultimately bring more value to the customer, regardless of whether he feels he ought to be in control or not.
  • Practical: I have needs that are common (making and receiving calls, texting my pals, etc.) and less-so (for instance, logging into remote console to restart a server). You could argue that I could do the latter using another device, to which I say: the technology is mature enough so that I could do that with my phone, so why can’t I?

I don’t want a company to decide what I can and cannot do with my phone. And I want to install whatever application the phone’s hardware can handle regardless of whether it’s supposed to run on a phone or not.

This is about CRM 2.0, folks: the customer isn’t a passive recipient of whatever value businesses throw at him but an active participant in the value creation process. Read more

March 28, 2007 | Filed Under CRM, Open Source | Leave a Comment 

Linux vs Windows on the desktop, part MCLMXIII

Doc Searls and Abhijit Nadgouda point to a funny comment about Linux that sounds so dumb I have a strong feeling it’s actually a prank. Nah, the poster couldn’t have meant that seriously. Come on:

Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?

The article this comment belongs to isn’t a prank, though it certainly is a joke. Who has ever claimed that Linux will eventually displace Windows on the desktop? This kind of debate is getting tiresome. Maybe Linux isn’t going to dominate the desktop but that’s not the point: the question should be whether Linux is usable on its own, and then we could argue which OS has an edge and where. Plus, is this question going to be relevant five years from now? I don’t live in Firefox such yet, but damn, the webtop is growing stronger every day.

March 17, 2007 | Filed Under Open Source | Leave a Comment 

Open Source Processes

EVER NOTICED THIS IRONY? The office ghettoes are built from glass, like the one in Prague 4 where I find myself often: you can see through the walls and if had a spyglass, you could watch much of what’s going on inside. You would if there’s an element of order in this undecipherable chaos of people sitting, staring at computers, chatting in kitchenettes and seemingly doing nothing. And many times, there wouldn’t be one.

The inner workings of a company is hidden to you, an uninvolved bystander.

But, unless you’re role-playing after having seen too many Bond movies, would you even be interested in knowing what’s going on there? Who would benefit from opensourcing of processes?

We can standardise technology, and continue to do so. We can and should standardise processes, see what happens when we apply opensource thinking to service processes.

After all, it’s not the technology that will differentiate us. It’s not the process either, though there might be a short-term imbalance.

JP Rangaswami writes that companies have been poor at documenting their processes, so they would benefit from letting the sun shine on them so that they could be measured and improved. Makes sense. And I am all for making business more transparent and honest. The line I wouldn’t cross, and please let me take this farther than JP’s post goes, is that of boredom.

I as a customer don’t really need to know what different activities led to the delivery of the service I requested. Ideally, I wouldn’t even notice the process; it’s one of those things that best work unnoticed. What I usually want to know about a company is her character, her culture that’s influencing my relationship to her. Processes, technologies…? Yawn. I am not going to partake in this conversation.

Which leaves me wondering if companies should open their processes up to each other; subject them to a community examination.

And while I wouldn’t put too much value in processes themselves, they still are part of the company’s market advantage. They can be a trade secret, and if technologies are going open-source and innovations rendered obsolete in no time and people constantly on the move, what’s left to differentiate yourself from the competition? It can be a process, one that’s just a bit quicker, just a bit more agile than your next door’s rival.

(via iface thoughts)

Technorati Tags: , ,

March 12, 2007 | Filed Under Open Source | Leave a Comment 

What CRM Can Learn From Linux

THIS IS THE AGE OF “ME”. Call it Gen Y, the era of narcissists, whatever. The fact is that we expect the world to revolve around us in a way unimaginable to our fathers. And no, I am not going to issue a moral judgment here. I am part of the movement, too.

I want get things done my way.

For example, when I buy an MP3 player, I want to be able to get new music via any kind of online service, not just the one provided by the manufacturer or their partner. Don’t you? Vendor lock-in is so 20th century! Choice is the new mantra, and so if freedom.

Which is where Linux comes into the picture. Much of its allure comes from the fact that it lets you create and re-create a highly personalized value chain that corresponds to and answers to your particular needs. You get to be in control.

You.

You, the only person in the world that matters. Read more

March 9, 2007 | Filed Under CRM, Open Source | Leave a Comment