Archive for the ‘web 2.0’ Category

Morgan Stanley’s Mobile Internet Report Setup – pt. 1

Sunday, December 20th, 2009

The following screenshots are taken from a presentation deck of 92 slides. Some of the details are irrelevant to Web / mobile entrepreneurs & startups (e.g. carrier-side of things), and thus I save you the pain from having to read the whole thing. The Mobile Internet Report Setup is part 1 (of 3) of Morgan Stanley’s annual data dump covering the mobile + web industry.

(Click for larger image)

If you’re an entrepreneur in this space, now is the time to *not* fall asleep.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

Smartphone market share is growing globally.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

It’s the era of co-creation, nobody succeeds at it alone. A thriving 3rd-party application market place is key in a platform-play.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

Counterintuitively, Internet usage on smartphones does not grow linearly to shipments of handsets (it’s much greater).

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

The Facebook + Apple combo = poster child for the future of mobile + web apps. Apple focuses on the handset superiority (hardware, app distribution), while Facebook focuses on the application software layer, user experience .. which in this case the mobile app strategically complements it’s core app (the actual Facebook desktop Web site). Facebook focuses on the viral network effects of its app, which itself is also a platform.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

Facebook’s Web platform is also thriving.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

Old news, but voice revenues are dropping and data is becoming more and more valuable for end users, and to carriers (to compensate for voice revenues).

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

Smartphones do make a difference in enabling users to really consume the mobile Web and apps. Feature-phones just can’t handle it.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

Yet further proof that in this era, the democratized Internet will prevail. Iron-fisted dictatorships (*cough* Apple *cough*) will not win in the long run (my prediction anyways).

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

The rest of the world (ROW)’s mobile market usually lag what we see in Japan by a few years. Japan’s social networking trends shows us that social networking apps are increasingly being accessed from mobile at the expense of desktop.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

8 years. ROW lags Japan by 8 years.

Morgan Stanley - Mobile Internet Report Setup 2009

Stay tuned for my summary of the other two slide decks .. those are some 600+ and 400+ slides long.

Why do people participate in social Web 2.0 ?

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

So you’ve heard about Web 2.0 and you’re probably at least dabbling in it, but do you know why you’re doing it? If you’re a business owner, do you know why your customers/prospects participate in it? Do you know why you should also participate?If you’re in the midst of building a “social” strategy for your company, or trying to develop a social web application, you’ll find this useful.

I’m currently reading Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff. I highly recommend this book. Here’s their web site on the topic.

Why do people participate in the social web? There could be many reasons and it’s different for everybody, but here are the big buckets that Charlene and Josh suggests, and I certainly fit a few of these.

* Keeping up friendships. I’m on Facebook and I love it. I see it as a way to “scale” relationships in a way, because it’s so difficult to keep up with everybody, given your busy schedule or geographical distance.

* Making new friends. Dating sites are an obvious example, but there are plenty of other examples of people getting to know each other (in real life) without first getting introduced face-to-face. This definitely resonates with me. I first met my first online buddy Andy from Germany (while I was in Malaysia) over IRC – yeah, back in .. 1996 (+/- 2), and we’ve been real good friends ever since.

* Succumbing to social pressure from existing friends. This is largely true for the late majority and laggards – maybe the early majority. See technology adoption lifecycle. That’s right, if you’re laggard – that means you’re sloooow. Also see Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey A. Moore.

* Paying it forward. Having seeing and believing that a site is genuinely valuable/useful yourself first hand, you may be compelled to help out and contribute, however little, maybe it just that 1 click to pick 3.5 stars out of 5 stars on a review.

* The altruistic impulse. People do good in the offline world, surely this can be extended to the social web. We have microfinance to help people get out of poverty (See Wokai, Kiva), people writing software and giving them away for free (open source), and free advice online from everything ranging from motorcycle problems, to legal and medical advice.

* The prurient impulse. What Charlene and Josh describes as an endless parade of exhibitionism from people online that are fascinating, sexy, entertaining, and stupid. Kind of like picking up the TV remote and flipping the channels.

* The creative impulse. Not everyone is a professional programmer, writer, photographer, but the Web is a place for anybody to showcase their portfolio and get feedback, a form of payment for the creative mind.

* The validation impulse. People feel validated of their expertise when they help others online for free. Validation is a powerful driver for social networks; people put themselves out there and the community reassures them about their place in the world.

* The affinity impulse. Maybe your hockey league has a Facebook fan page, your favorite NHL team has a social network where all the fans unite, maybe the motorcycle gang you just joined organize events online; surely there’s a group of people who share a common interest with you that are actively engaging the group online. However odd, rare, niche an interest is, is not a problem. The long tail of the web almost guarantees you will find someone in the world who shares it with you. And it’s better t be alienated together as a group than individually as a person, but I digress.

I highly recommend it if you’re looking to leverage social Web 2.0 to help your business in some way. Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies

Sprinkling some Web 2.0 pixie dust on boring stuff

Monday, September 29th, 2008

Cisco’s acquisition lineup tells a story.

  • Webex for $3.2 Bil
  • Postpath for $215 Mil
  • Jabber (undisclosed sum)

Hmm .. what do these three have in common? Looks like Cisco is after the $34 Bil collaboration market, by beefing up its portfolio with unified communications, telepresence, and all sorts of Web 2.0-for Enterprise technologies so that people can cut down on physical travel.

Makes sense, given the weak economy and soaring gas prices – it’s costly to travel. Much like how dinosaurs went extinct and the smaller animals went on to dominate the earth because they were smaller, nimbler and able to adapt to the changing environment, Cisco is evolving.

Companies that rely on easy credit and on business models that require moving physical goods will probably find a tough time surviving. Cisco can help in the latter by cutting down on employee travel (ok-still no substitute for actually delivering parcels of stuff like Amazon), but for multi-national companies even small savings make a significant dent when multiplied.

Web 2.0 innovation is increasingly bottoms-up; that is, it’s first tested “in the wild” by consumers, then buffed up for corporations. That’s right, Web 2.0 is growing up and is punching holes through the corporate firewall.

Why am I writing about this? Oh, because I think it’s cool to watch the behemoth Cisco turn its big ship. We’ll see if they succeed in evolving fast enough.

A similar trajectory this reminds me of is British Telecom (BT).

Cisco = big company that makes the low level nuts and bolts for networking = boring.

BT = big telco which without, your cell phone might as well be a brick = equally boring.

Cisco with Web 2.0 = ooOOooh!

BT with Web 2.0 = aaAAaah!

Ok, on a more serious note, just as Cisco has a real strategy-so does BT. Just as Cisco is thinking how it can provide more value on top of its TCP/IP stack, BT is working to deliver more value through its pipeline – by being a channel for SaaS providers to reach BT’s SMB clients.

What BT has done so far:

  • Acquired Ribbit – $105 Mil
  • Partnered with Genius.com, branded as BT Smart Marketing
  • Announced a deal to sell NetSuite and SugarCRM

At the very least, Cisco and BT’s strategies to deliver value added services on top of their commoditizing products in an increasingly saturated market (Africa aside) makes for an interesting juxtaposition and business case study.

Oracle’s 20% price hike (rock) + Slumping economy (hard place) = where do you go?

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

A snip from an interview with Red Hat’s new chief exec:

Q: What’s your biggest surprise since starting at Red Hat?

A: I think I finally get the joke. I was a senior exec and, like every other senior exec, I had a huge IT budget. Mine was as large as Red Hat’s revenues last year. You sit there and say: “Why are my IT costs going up, but I’m getting less and less functionality?”

Every IT professional says the same thing: “My lights-on costs are going up. But — wait a minute — I bought a laptop, and it cost me half as much as it did three years ago, and my costs are going up?” I get the joke now.

If you look at the S&P 500, seven of the top 20 companies are tech and, other than Google, they’re not high-growth. But they’re just printing money because switching costs are so high. There’s this incredible amount of residual goodwill to Red Hat because we’re seen as an alternative to that. Oracle announced a 20-something percent price increase just as the economy starts heading south. How can you do that unless you’re pretty sure nobody can switch? High switching costs led to infrastructure cost creep. Once you get hooked, you can’t get off.

I chuckled as I read this. The switching cost problem sounds like the case between AT&T and Bell Atlantic in the 1980′s, which I coincidentally just recently blogged about recently.

Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.
— George Santayana, in his book The Life of Reason.

I think the comment about Oracle’s 20+% price increase is certainly good news for on-demand SaaS/cloud computing players – to disrupt the market. As companies start tightening their belts, the pay-per-drink model would inevitably look a lot more enticing.

Even when placed between a rock and a hard place (between the US economic slump and technology behemoths’ Oracle-style price increases), the numbers show that companies still can’t afford to cut back on technology spending. Technology is a business competitive advantage.

According to research firm Gartner, “It can be hard for a business to stay ahead if its technology is falling behind. That is one reason that despite an uncertain economy, worldwide information technology spending is on track to reach $3.4 trillion in 2008 — an 8 percent increase over 2007.”

PC sales (especially laptops) are surprisingly stronger than expected, according to S&P’s Equity Research. “The latest evidence came from the Aug. 19 earnings report from Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), which said unit shipments of PCs rose 20% from a year ago”

The bottom line is that businesses can’t afford to be without technology. And with such pricing pressures, online business apps are just much easier on the wallet. $50 per user/year for Google Apps, or $350 user/year MS Office.

Granted, Enterprise Web 2.0 still has a long way to go to fill the shoes of traditional on-premise apps, but I am confident that more innovation will come (I certainly plan on being a part of that innovation!), and SaaS/cloud computing/Enterprise Web 2.0′s benefits will be too good to ignore – and eventually, its benefits would exceed those from the traditional legacy on-premise apps.

From CNNMoney/Fortune: Merrill Lynch estimates that online business applications will grow to a $95 billion market within five years. The market for online office software is “wide open,” said Guy Creese, an IT analyst with the Burton Group.

“My lights-on costs are going up. But — wait a minute — I bought a laptop, and it cost me half as much as it did three years ago, and my costs are going up?”

Yeah. It doesn’t make sense.

Case study: Bell Atlantic and AT&T’s vendor lock-in battle

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

One of the reasons I really hesitated in getting the eyePhone is because among other things, I truly dreaded the 2-year mandatory contract. I hated the idea of guaranteeing someone a consistent revenue stream and possibly be locked-in to their demands should they raise their prices.

Case study: Bell Atlantic and AT&T vendor lock-in battle.

In the 80′s, Bell Atlantic spent $3 Bil on AT&T 5ESS switches for Bell’s telephone network. AT&T’s switches were much more superior to Northern Telecom and Siemens at that time.

However, Bell didn’t properly size the vendor lock-in.

The 5ESS switches ran an operating system proprietary to AT&T, so whenever Bell wanted upgrades or new features, it was pretty much at the mercy of AT&T’s pricing weather.

Case in point: Bell Atlantic wanted its systems the ability to identify toll-free “1-800″ calls. AT&T didn’t provide (of course they didn’t!) any documentation or API for Bell to develop this feature themselves, and quoted Bell $8 Mil for a software upgrade just to do that. Bell had no choice and bent over. Voice dialing? $10 Mil! (really)

This extortion was a fat consistent revenue stream for AT&T, and made up 30-40% of AT&T’s switch revenues. AT&T’s position was further solidified by using its proprietary OS to prevent others from developing compatible equipment that may cannibalize sales from AT&T’s product line.

Bell Atlantic could not just throw AT&T out because (1) the switches had a lifespan of over a decade (2) removing and installing was expensive (3) the used switches had low re-sale value, because nobody not already locked-in would want to be locked-in ;)

In other words, the switching costs were astronomous, and Bell was hurting real bad in the wallet. It sued AT&T in 1995 for monopoly.

Shifting gears. To draw a parallel, in many ways, traditional on-premise software vendors use such tactics to .. well, play their hand.

With SaaS, this problem goes away. The customer can switch vendors on a dime; without the safety net of a perpetual licensing scheme, vendors have to constantly prove themselves by continuously delivering innovation and value to their customers — or risk losing them to the competition.

A flat world combined with fierce competition to innovate can only mean more and better options to the consumer :)

Unlike traditional on-premise vendors, SaaS vendors can’t rely on their own product development “baggage” to milk a drying revenue stream.