Jul

13

iPhone 3G MS Exchange sync pricing strategy

Filed Under business, entrepreneurship, marketing, mobile, product management, strategy | Leave a Comment

Unless someone knocked you out in a hockey fight last Friday and your consciousness has just returned, chances are that you have heard of this thing called the iPhone 3G launch. I’ve been going back and forth on my decision on whether to get it or not. There are 2 things that are holding me back from getting an iPhone 3G:

  1. MS Exchange synchronization pricing
  2. No tethering option

It’s a classic pricing strategy–their (AT&T’s) attempt to extract more value from the wireless consumer segment that well .. has more money to dispose. Not only have they hiked the price of the unlimited data plan by $10/month from $20 to $30, but they charge you an additional $15/mo if you want to synchronize with an Exchange Server.

I’m a price-sensitive customer *and* I’m a techie at heart, thus I simply balk at having to guarantee AT&T’s revenue for 2 whopping years merely to transfer a sequence of low and high electrical signals to some proprietary email server, as opposed to any other email server, or as opposed to just casually serving the web.

The techie in me knows that they’re simply charging more by discriminating against MS Exchange data from casual web surfing, or any non-Exchange email data.

From Wikipedia’s entry on Net Neutrality: Neutrality proponents also claim that telecom companies seek to impose the tiered service model more for the purpose of profiting from their control of the pipeline rather than for any demand for their content or services.

The entrepreneur in me knows that they are just playing it by the pricing strategy books. To that end, I say, all the more power to them. Maybe I won’t buy the phone, but seeing that they are so savvy and nickel and diming the segment I am in (the “tough” crowd), I’m considering buying their stock instead.

My second gripe is the inability to tether the iPhone 3G to a laptop (without hacking it). This point is important to me because when I travel with my laptop, and if I’m in a spot where I don’t have wifi access, I just need that option to tether my laptop to my mobile phone.

Maybe AT&T is worried about people starting to use the iPhone as a modem and thus cannibalizing revenues from their existing wifi hotspot sales. To that end, I feel like if I’m already putting up with the hike in price for monthly unlimited data, putting up with the extra monthly charge for their discriminating against MS Exchange data, it’s just simply un-polite to ding me again by forcing me to cough up even more for a separate wifi hotspot plan. Come on.

And I quote Bruce Scheier:

Anyone with wireless capability who can see my network can use it to access the internet. To me, it’s basic politeness. Providing internet access to guests is kind of like providing heat and electricity, or a hot cup of tea.

I can see how they might have justified this impoliteness though. Corporate users probably have their companies paying for the bills anyway, and corporations have much deeper pockets and can easily justify such a cost as a business expensive. However, this pricing model obviously neglects the average work-for-a-corporation-joe-but-this-is-an-out-of-pocket-expense.

All said, here’s a message from a randomly-selected passionate early-adopting techie from the price-sensitive “tough crowd” segment, to whoever green-lighted this pricing strategy. You guys suck, and I hope you enjoy this video.


How to Get Broke by Buying an iPhone

Jul

3

Hidden flaws in strategy (part un)

Filed Under business, entrepreneurship, product management, self improvement, strategy, things to remind myself, winds of change | Leave a Comment

The McKinsey Quarterly has an interesting piece titled “Hidden Flaws in Strategy”, authored by Charles Roxburgh. What I like about this article is that it forces one to think about your blind spot, and provide solutions on how to overcome your own bias. A blind spot is well, very self-explanatory, which is why I think that’s just all the more reason why people, especially those who do any kind of strategy, should read this well put together article.

I’ll sum up some of the key takeaways to me, but reading the original piece of McKinsey is highly recommended.

Here are the common strategy flaws.

Flaw 1: Overconfidence

Our brains are naturally wired to make us overconfidence. This can be a good thing, because otherwise no one in their right mind would want to launch a new startup. However, we hurt ourselves when we try to make accurate estimates. Given a test question like “How heavy is a fully laden 747?” where participants are asked to give an answer where they were 90% confident, most people would rather be precisely wrong than be vaguely right.

Lesson learned: Be skeptical of strategies premised on certainty, and (duh) give yourself some wiggle room.

Flaw 2: Mental Accounting

Richard Thaler, a theorist in behavioural finance named the concept of mental accounting, defined as “the inclination to categorize and treat money differently depending on where it comes from, where it is kept, and how it is spent.” Some examples of mental accounting in the boardroom:

  • imposing caps on core business while throwing money at a startup
  • writing off money spent with conveniently created categories such as “revenue-investment spend” or “strategic investment”

Lesson learned: Don’t be so quick to throw away “so what if we throw it away” money. Eval potential investment through the standard scrutiny process, regardless of how the money fell into your lap.

Flaw 3: Status quo bias

An experiment conducted by Samuelson and Zeckhauser discovered that when students were asked how they would invest a hypothetical inheritance of millions of dollars, they adopted a “let’s leave things where they are” approach. That is, if the inheritance was already in high-risk high-yield stocks, it would be left as is. If the inheritence was already in low-risk low-return bonds, it would also be left as is. They opted not to rebalance the allocation in this hypothetical portfolio, even if it wasn’t in accordance to their risk preference.

The explanation is that people are more concerned about the fear of loss more than they are excited by the prospect of getting more. That’s the status quo. That’s what makes entrepreneurs special–they are not the status quo.

The other explanation is the endowment bias. Thaler discovered in an experiment with Cornell students that they wouldn’t pay more than $2.75 for mug with a Cornell imprint, but if they were given one, they wouldn’t sell the same mug away for less than $5.25–did the free market suddenly decide that the same mug has more value when it was already in someone’s possession when the same mug (a brand new one available for purchase) would be worth less? I think not.

While conservatism can be a strategic asset, it is important to distinguish between a status-quo option that is genuinely the right thing to do vs. one that just “feels safe” because of our innate bias.
Read more

Jun

29

For-profit corps can change the world

Filed Under changing the world, entrepreneurship, regular reads, things to ponder about, things to remind myself | Leave a Comment

A common trait among forward-thinking Generation Y “millennials” are that they don’t just want to make money (who doesn’t?), but to also do good by giving back some how, by changing the world for the better, by actually making difference. For this group of young adults, they may have struggled with the question of “to work for a non-profit or for-profit?”

The lines between the for-profit and non-profit jobs are blurring, which means that the actual experience gained, and the job compensation, whichever your choice, is roughly the same. Thus, this question can be effectively boiled down to, “which path feels better?”, or “which as a larger touchy-feely” factor?

In light of all the large corporation scandals (wow, Wikipedia has a list here), it’s no wonder that the winner to the touchy-feely question is undoubtly, the non-profits. However, I do think, nay, believe that if executed properly, for-profits can make a larger and more lasting impact on the world.

This is exactly what Bill Gates has done, all “Microsoft is evil”  puns aside. From Anil’s blog:

Bill Gates has pulled off one of the greatest hacks in technology and business history, by turning Microsoft’s success into a force for social responsibility. Imagine imposing a tax on every corporation in the developed world, collecting $100 per white-collar worker per year, and then directing one third of the proceeds to curing AIDS and malaria. That, effectively, is what Bill Gates has done.

Now that, is powerful. Microsoft might as well be a sovereign multi-national government. I think this is a feat tough to pull by a non-profit–simply because it might involve some questionable tactics in business.

I’ve blogged here about a book by C. K. Prahalad, titled “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid“, which essentially concludes with proof that making profit is not mutually exclusive from helping the poor. Prahalad is a distinguished professor of strategy at the Univ. of Michigan.

May

26

Incremental improvements .. meh

Filed Under entrepreneurship, innovation, product management, startup, things to remind myself | Leave a Comment

As far as innovation goes, I prefer major disruptive innovations over incremental improvements (not to say the latter does not have it place, it does). As a keen observer of human behavior, I’m interested in understanding in general why people do they things they do, with a focus on human interaction with technology–such as factors that affect the adoption rates of new technology.

I long discovered (the painful way) during my time as an academic in computer science that just because one builds something super well, that by no means guarantee that “they will come”. In fact, my favourite quote then became, “So what if it doesn’t do anything? It was made with our new Triple Shielded Core Blowfish Encrypted Reduced Internal Resistance 26 Level On-Die Cache 512 1024bit Registers Supercharged Iso Bifurcated Krypton Gate Metal Oxide Semiconductor process …” (souped up version from something similar I read from a UNIX fortune cookie, but I digress).

Thus, I found this blog post by Andrew McAfee, a HBS faculty to be quite interesting. I’m going to summarize the key takeaways, although I highly recommend you read the original post.

Changing the status quo is extremely difficult and often leaders get “carried out on their shields” (from an awesome and inspiring Carly Fiorina talk about change and leadership at Stanford, that I’ve quoted her before here). Let’s examine one of the traits of the status quo:

We are loss averse. A $50 loss looms larger than a $50 gain. Loss aversion is virtually universal across people and contexts, and is not much affected by how much wealth one already has. Ample research has demonstrated that people find that a prospective loss of $x is about two to three times as painful as a prospective gain of $x is pleasurable.

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Makes sense, it takes a non-status quo person with a vision or be hungry enough to be prepared to lose $50 for the upshot of potentially gaining another $50. The willingness to feel fear and keep going forward distinguishes the living from the merely breathing :)

.. behavioral economist Richard Thaler has called the “endowment effect:” We value items in our possession more than prospective items that could be in our possession, especially if the prospective item is a proposed substitute.

If you’re introducing a mere replacement of an equal product, it’d better be .. uhh, just realize that you’re fighting an uphill against change. Make sure you have incentives for people to change.

As if all this weren’t enough, Gourville also highlights that the people developing new products are very dissimilar from the products’ prospective consumers. You don’t go work for TiVo (to use his example) if you don’t ‘get’ the potential of digital video recorders and think they’re a really good idea. And after working for the company for a while, having TiVo becomes part of your endowment; you think of things in comparison to TiVo, instead of in comparison to a VCR. Both of these factors make it harder for developers to see things as their target customers do.

Many techies suffer from this, falling in love with their own creation and failing to see that it could perhaps actually be fundamentally, how should I put this gently, a completely useless product. If it’s not solving a real person’s pain point that he/she is willing to pay for a solution, then monetization may be a challenge. Doesn’t matter how snappy the UI is, or the fact that you’ve just spent a month shaving off 10 CPU cycles on the algorithm that calculates the number of molecules in a can of soda, I highly doubt anyone would pay you to compute out the exact number of modules in a can of Mountain Dew just before they pop the can. I’m sure the algorithm is still very cool, though!

There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see
–Leonardo da Vinci

As an innovator, train yourself to see the things that you cannot see. Ok, so that’s admittedly difficult, so at least try to see the things that other people see that you don’t see.

This last point is one of the reasons why I strongly believe that techies should actually get out there (at least occasionally) to go talk to real human beings, such as the paying customers. Be aware of your own inherent bias and need to protect your “baby” (the product), but don’t forget that you are also creating value for someone else.

The bottom line is: if you’re developing something new, you’ll have an easier time if the benefits of the product surpasses the existing solution by (at least) a factor of 10.

May

1

Innovation lessons from Pixar

Filed Under changing the world, entrepreneurship, failure, fear, google, innovation, people i like, perseverance, things to remind myself | Leave a Comment

The McKinsey Quarterly has a really interesting piece on innovation at Pixar–the company who brought you Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Ratatouille. Keep in mind that Pixar was purchased by the Walt Disney Company from Steve Jobs, the turn around artist and saviour of Apple (Apple Computer, who brought you the iPod), whose company in turn have Eric Schmidt (the CEO of a small little company despised by the behemoth Microsoft) on their board of directors.

Google and Apple are both well known for being innovators in their respective core markets, and suffice to say that they both share some innovation DNA from the top–and Pixar, through its relationship with Steve Jobs would probably have benefited from some of the common DNA between the two. Here are some of the highlights of this article, in which Oscar-winning director Brad Bird was asked about how he managed innovation.

The first step in achieving the impossible is believing that the impossible can be achieved. There was a point during the making of The Incredibles where we had a company meeting. We have them about twice a year, and anybody can bring up concerns. Somebody raised their hand and said, “Is The Incredibles too ambitious?” Ed Catmull said, “I don’t know” and looked over at me. I just said, “No! If there’s one studio that needs to be doing stuff that is ‘too ambitious,’ it’s this one. You guys have had nothing but success. What do you do with it? You don’t play it safe—you do something that scares you, that’s at the edge of your capabilities, where you might fail. That’s what gets you up in the morning.”

Read more

Apr

24

SDSIC Integrated Product Management and Development - A Case Study

Filed Under business, entrepreneurship, marketing, people i like, product management, project management, san diego, startup, strategy | Leave a Comment

Recently, I’ve been really fortunate to have met so many amazing people, that I can just learn from through osmosis, merely by just hanging around them (the converse is also true, which is why I am careful to stay way from people I don’t want to model myself after). Two days ago, I attended a San Diego Software Industry Council (SDSIC) event on Product Management where a real world case study was presented by Alan Kiraly, CEO of Enterprise Informatics.

When I last took Rod Whitson’s class on product management at UCSD, I particularly liked the real world case studies that we went over. It was definitely a plus that Rod actually had real world experience to draw from. Likewise with Alan, who is also an industry veteran. The other thing I like about an actual face-to-face event is the people interaction, the stuff that you learn that nobody will actually write in a book.

Here’s a couple of things I picked up from Alan’s presentation.

A solidified and well defined business processes can be quite the competitive advantage. Alan talked about how Enterprise Informatics use their own product for their SOWs “lifecycle” management (eating your own dogfood == awesome!). What I particularly liked about this really manages decision making. Once an SOW is defined, if the time is not right, it can be thrown out in the “parking lot”. At a later time, if the opportunity arrises, the SOW can be picked up, dusted off a little, tweaked and be reused by putting it on the development cycle train.

The obvious value here is in saving time and resource in planning. Planning and strategizing stuff takes time and .. well, brain power! Too many times have I figured a whole plan for something, shelved it, and then later when I want to revisit it, I have to redefine the entire plan from scratch again.

Transparency is good. Ok, so nothing really ground shattering here, but it’s nice to hear about real world problems when transparency is not advocated. In a global and diverse organization, with people working across various continents and different timezones, synchronizing work and expectations can be a challenge. I can surely relate to that–my team at work, consist of folks in California, Australia, Israel, China, France, and the UK.
Read more

Apr

20

Y Combinator Startup School @ Stanford Univ. ‘08

Filed Under entrepreneurship, people i like, photos, silicon valley, stanford, startup | Leave a Comment

Jeff Bezos & me, Y Combinator Startup School @ Stanford

That’s Jeff Bezos, chairman and CEO of a small company called Amazon.com. And oh, the founder of a space company too.

At SUS, after each speech, the speaker usually has a 5-15 min Q&A session with the audience. The way Jeff handled his Q&A, and carried himself impressed me. He respectfully and politely provided a “good enough” answer when someone posed him the question in an attempt to pitch AWS head to head against Google App Engine.

What really impressed me though, was when someone asked him about some technical limitation imposed by the company on Amazon Web Services, an answer to which Jeff did not know, so he redirected the spotlight to one of his aides standing by the stage for an answer. The aide essentially gave a beat-around-the-bush type “politically correct” corporate cookie-cutter, investor-relations cover-your-ass type answer. Jeff cut the aide of in mid-sentence when he saw that the answer was practically rubbish, and said, “so basically, he’s not really answering your question” (referring to this aide) and apologized to the developer for not knowing the answer.

He then said the name of his aid so that the developer could follow up with his aide for a real answer. Jeff is obviously trying to woo developers to build on top of AWS. I tip my hat for his efforts to gain trust from the developer community. That burst of honesty, cutting through clutter .. was refreshing.

The videos at Y Combinator’s Startup School 2008 can be found here: http://omnisio.com/startupschool08

Picture taken at Kresge Auditorium, at Stanford University.

Fact: Did you know that Blue Origin does their computational fluid dynamics calculations on the AWS Elastic Compute Cloud? At first, I thought that was just corporate incest (and another sleazy marketing ploy) — but I was wrong. Blue Origin previously took 70 hours per calculation, and now they can get results in just 12 hours, quickly deploying (scaling up and scaling down) a massive fleet of servers! Talk about eating your own dogfood. Now that’s just plain good practice.

Update — Check out this video(s). In personal decisions, my methodical nature can confuse me. Some decisions are best made with the heart.

Apr

8

Lessons from the Warrior of the Light

Filed Under changing the world, entrepreneurship, execution, failure, fear, goal setting, passion, perseverance, quotes, regular reads, self improvement, startup, strategy, things to ponder about, things to remind myself, values | Leave a Comment

I’m definitely a fan of Paulo Coelho, the renowned Brazillian author. He has a unique way of teaching the lessons in life that he has learned through storytelling.

A few lessons from the Warrior of the Light.

Using one’s own madness

A warrior of the light studies very carefully the position he wishes to conquer.

However difficult his objective may be, there is always a way to overcome the obstacles. He verifies the alternative routes, sharpens his sword, and seeks to fill his heart with the perseverance necessary to face the challenge.

But, as he advances, the warrior realizes there are difficulties he had not foreseen at the outset.

If he waits for the ideal moment, he will never move from his position; he sees that a little madness is needed for the next step.

The warrior uses a little madness. Because - in war and in love - one cannot foresee everything.

Life is such that if you wait to gather 100% of every single detail before you can make a decision, others would have surpassed you. If you waited for the fog to clear, then what you see is what everyone else will also see. Given the perfect picture, anyone sane would make the same correct, best choice. This is exactly how *not* to beat the market.

CEOs often make decisions with incomplete data–and that takes a little madness. It’s about making decisions with the best information possible available at that time. Standing still through inaction is waiting to fail–and I’ll fail from action than inaction.

So when do you put yourself out there and wear your heart on your sleeve?
Read more

Mar

29

Technology and Changing the World: Trends roundup - March 29, 2008

Filed Under business, changing the world, entrepreneurship, microfinance, mobile, passion, poverty, regular reads, startup, technology, things to ponder about | Leave a Comment

This post consists of my “value-added” thoughts on David Kirkpatrick’s article on Fortune here.

Since I love all things technology and passionately believe that it wields the power to change the world, these numbers are just plain interesting to me. I’ve overlayed on the data some general technology trends on Web 2.0 startups, venture capital, microfinance and poverty, all cleverly slapped into one big fat blog post. Why? Because they’re all inter-connected, and I haven’t written anything all this week (been so darn busy lately!) Off we go.

Indonesia:
- 1 in 100 owns a PC
- 1 in 1,000 has broadband Internet
- 63 million cell phone subscribers, representing 27% of the population (of 234 million)
- Annual cell phone subscription growth rate: 36%

India:
- 166 million cell phone users
- Last year’s cell phone subscription growth rate was 84.5%

Switzerland:
- The Swiss have 85.1 PCs per 100 persons, beating the United States at 80.3 PCs per 100 persons

Global PC penetration is 12.9 for every 100 people. Room for growth? You bet. Many of PC owners are obviously in well developed countries, and not poor countries with lots of people. OLPC’s efforts to reach the billions at the BoP will move the needle here, if they succeed. Not forgetting the “middle” market, more of those who are neither rich nor poor will also buy computers and get on the internet. (Better start loading up on some PC stocks!) But wait, am I sure that the middle-class is not going to get poorer and not buy computers? Well the stats from Hans Rosling’s TED talk show that the overall trend here is that the world is slowly digging itself out of poverty, and I take comfort in that. Actually, read on below as I describe another trend that supports that.

Now, for some cell phone stats:

United States:
- 77.4 subscribers per 100 people
- Everywhere in Europe (except Turkey) exceeds penetration in US. Italy is at a whopping 135.1 cellphone subscribers per 100 persons.
- Hong Kong beats the US in penetration too, at 135.3

The global average is 41.6 per 100 people.

Cellphone usage growth in fast growing markets last year*:
- Peru: 57%
- Vietnam: 114%
- Pakistan: 170%
- Ukraine: 185%

*numbers might be fuzzy, but they show a general trend

What’s also important to note about this upward trend in adoption is that mobile phones were the crucial piece that first enabled the poor in Bangladesh to get out of poverty (see section on Village Phone). Women built business models around it and turned it into a source of income. These days, mobile phones are also playing another role in microfinance: enabling the transfer of money and information over, well, mobile phones! In poor countries, a brick-and-mortar bank branches with ATMs are hard to come by (ditto for computers and broadband), so mobile phones are serving this unmet need, facilitating microfinance and thus helping reduce poverty.

Other interesting stats:
- 1.3 billion of global population connected to the Internet, compound annual growth of 20.3% for past 8 years.
- Internet ad spending of $40 billion is only 6.6% of global total of $605 billion and is growing at 33%. (Ha, I should double down on this little company while I can!)

Data from 2008 Global Internet Snapshot compiled by Imran Khan, senior analyst at JP Morgan. (hmm, can anyone get me access to that full report?)

That’s why medium and big tech companies can weather the unfavorable US economy trend by going abroad. Fruit trees in your backyard not yielding? Then go after the greener pastures outside of your backyard too. It’s called diversifying. That’s the other thing I love about software is that it’s not a physical object–a computer scientist can create value with merely a laptop (and some coffee!) The cost of making that first software copy is the most expensive, then every other subsequent copy ad infinitum is basically free. This is just the nature of information economics, and has obviously served Microsoft very well. Actually, tiny tech startups can do this too — by leveraging the distribution power of this thing they call the internets.
Read more

Mar

10

Inveneo: The battle against information poverty

Filed Under changing the world, entrepreneurship, innovation, passion, startup, technology | Leave a Comment


While most of us in the well developed parts of the world battle attention poverty (I’ve come to peace with the fact that I will *never* be able to keep up with all of my RSS feeds!), we forget that this is actually a luxurious problem to have. Many in the underdeveloped world face the opposite problem: information poverty–the lack of access to information, which in turn means lack of access to knowledge and education, which really feeds back into the cycle of financial poverty.

As more people hop on the internet bandwagon in the developed world at rates that dwarf technology adoption in the poor countries, this will obviously further increase the gap between the rich and the poor–which we all know is a not a good thing. If you are unable to find food to eat or medicine for your baby, would you consider violence and theft? Decision making under those circumstances are difficult. The poor becomes an easy target for people with bad intentions; can you imagine someone walking up to you with a gun and saying, “Fight for me, and I’ll give you food.”

This digital divide is not a newly discovered problem, and is actually one of the initiatives of the World Economic Forum. I’m passionate about technology because I believe it’s an enabler for a better quality of life. I’m excited that I’m not the only one who thinks so, and there is a real startup with real products with that same vision (imagine that!).

Inveneo says it well in their mission page:

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can:

  • help save lives (rural healthcare and relief)
  • provide better economic opportunities (agriculture, market access)
  • help enforce human rights (monitoring/reporting)
  • offer a better future for children (education)

Read more