I think I must be a geek because I like creating order (that doesn’t automatically mean that I’m a very orderly person, rather the opposite).

One of my first priorities in my new position was to orientate myself in the “order” of things, or rather to have a good view on what the process from customer generation to customer acquisition is (my interpretation of the lifeblood of every company).

So my questions, very formal, covered following three elements:

• what is the profile of a customer most valuable to our company?
• what are the USPs of our company for these customers?
• what is the process of converting potential customers into actual customers?

The answer was that there is no simple answer to the question, except that over time I would learn to understand what was possible or not.

It kind of follows the paradigm that the famous Harvard Business Review article called “The Knowledge-Creating Company” introduces, where experts possess a lot of tacit knowledge, which they use to do their job (Incidentally, the HBR-article is authored by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, who are the original protagonists of the Scrum approach).

In other words, over time, by accumulating experience, I would be able to develop a type of instinct regarding stuff like what a good customer is, what optimal solution is for him, and how the internal process works of customer conversion.

But the article takes it further (and is also my inspiration) in that from tacit or implicit you move to explicit knowledge, meaning that processes are documented and standardised. A kind of spiral forms, indicated in the picture below. This also reminds of Gerber’s franchise methodology in the E-Myth Revisited.

The question is what internal and environmental conditions have to exist for this spiral to function properly, and whether it can be applied universally to all company processes. I do not think so and would ague that in environments that are constantly changing, like global finance or when starting a company, making things too explicit undermines the speed-advantage that the tacit approach brings.

A little academic perhaps (you know me… ), but what do you think? What company processes typically need to be made explicit, and which are not served by this?

Vincent

Like

Unlike

My sentiments about online media aside (I think it’s despicable the way media-companies treat consumers, particularly outside of the US), it has always bothered me to use Last.fm for a number of reasons. Here they are:

1. Last.fm, apart from being happy to pull my listening data into their site, does not integrate with my listening habits Whats.O.Ever. My method for managing music, perhaps determined by owning an iPod, is entirely dominated by iTunes and the usage of the device itself.




2. Last.fm does not play on the road (let’s ignore the iPhone radio app and that eventually all devices will be connected to the internet)




3. Last.fm does not acknowledge that I give different stars (= degrees of love) to songs (instead I have to “love” a song manually).




4. Discovering new music through Last.fm’s radio does not easily lead me to purchase the actual song




5. One cherry on top is that Last.fm now wants to charge me for using the radio, even though I add to it by playing my songs.




6. A second cherry on top is that Last.fm is now, indirectly through CBS, giving information about what we listen to and who we are, to the RIAA, a US organisation that probably also shares that information with other international organisations.




7. The only use Last.fm seems to have is vanity, in the sense that you can see what songs I loved (when I love them) and I can make pretty graphics of my listening habits (makes for an interesting poster).

So, as of this week, I am deleting my Last.fm account.

That doesn’t change that I am a fervent listener of music and it also doesn’t change that I believe deeply in the concept of sharing music. I like finding nice tracks to play at parties and equally I like finding tracks for some of my friends that I can only connect to online. There is no legal service that allows me to do this. As a matter of fact, in the Netherlands, I should even be paying a licensing fee if I play music in public or for too many people at once!!!

In comes Drop.io, a file-sharing service that recently added Facebook Connect as a way to share stuff only with your friends. Drop.io fills the void that Last.fm leaves in the following ways:

1. It has an integrated player that is very elegant and can also be accessed and added to via many different devices.




2. I can restrict access to my files to my Facebook friends only (evil internet lawyers can get lost).




3. It’s free for using 100 MB storage and charges a very fair $10 per gigabyte per year.




4. Any loss in statistical “vanity” data can be compensated by using iTunes and starring / sorting your files accordingly.

That’s it. Of course I will not be sharing songs that are copyright protected (and, of course, if we’re not Facebook connected, you will never know for sure )

Vincent

Like

Unlike

My cofounder at Verteego Rupert and I met Michelle Greer in the line to the TechCrunch Party during last December’s crappy LeWeb Conference in Paris. Michelle was the sunshine of at-that-time very cloudy Paris for us: we could discuss blogs (see Michelle’s blog), Twitter (follow Michelle here), hot startups, online business models, web marketing, as well as music, France, the US, blablabla

Since then, Michelle being based in Austin, Texas, we’ve been keeping in touch and I couldn’t resist introduce you guys to Michelle Greer, a great professional as well as an amazing person. Plus, I’ve become lazy writing blogs just myself with me and I, so here Michelle goes:

- Hey Michelle, could you please introduce yourself?

My name is Michelle Greer and I am a web marketing strategist here in Austin, Texas.  I love good movies, traveling, funny people, skiing, tennis, yoga, and using the web to connect people.

Michelle Greer was interviewed by Jeremy, who didn’t get paid for it! Look, Tech IT Easy isn’t even mentioned in Michelle’s favorites…

Like

Unlike

I hate Windows Explorer and I hate Mac OS X Finder, but what I hate even more is when applications try to replace them by moving all the files into a new, more app-friendly structure. Plenty of examples on the Mac-side, I am, not sadly, no longer an expert on Windows software.

The problem with the Finder / Explorer is that, while they are perfectly suitable for storing and organising files, they are painfully lacking in presenting files in a way that a human or group of humans can understand. The problem / opportunity is also that Explorer/Finder is the standard in as far that every organisation uses it to organise their files. Replacing it by a information system that uses its own proprietary structure to organise files, people, and activities just adds to the learning curve, particularly if, as most experience shows, the software ends up not being that great and the company has to switch.

So, what I’m looking for is the following. An application that:

• works on Macs and PCs (The first is not an absolute prerequisite, it’s only because I work on a Mac)
• Better: is either web- or LAN-based (solves the cross-platform problem)
• acts as a front-end for the explorer, without actually changing the locations of files (except if a user wants it)
• allows users to:
  • sort files into “playlists,” again without changing the location of the files;
  • give long descriptions to files, not just available in a hidden “info” section;
  • assign files and tasks to groups and group-members;
  • assign due dates / sync with calendars;
  • etc. etc., you get the idea.
• Can certainly cost money, must be licensable on a company-basis, and must have a trial period of at least 3 months (it takes at least that long to deploy, adopt, and adapt it on an organisational level).

It’s such an obvious thing that such a software probably already exists. If you know of a good one, please let me know in the comments or per mail.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

First, what I love about business plans. I contains four elements very close to my heart: Writing, talking to people, innovation, and entrepreneurship. That is not to say that writing business plans is a fun activity that should be taken lightly. The crux of writing a business plan is that it needs to be executed upon. And that is where the complication arises.

One of my last freelance projects was amazing fun and in two ways very rewarding. Financially, because the investment that followed it, far exceeded the more than generous fee I was paid. Creatively, because my involvement lead to a lot of focus product- and strategy-wise, and we developed what I thought was a clear timeline as to the execution of the plan in different phases of product and market development.

But, as mentioned, writing a plan does not mean that it reflects the reality. I was reminded of this again, listening to a venture hacks podcast on “pitching hacks” (you can watch and listen to the presentation here). Business plans are worth squat, because a. there’s a lot of them, and b. the proportion that is executed upon is fairly small.

In theory, business-plans serve as a way to make the strategy of a young company explicit. Kind of like Gerber’s “Franchise manual” for startups in the E-Myth Revisited, it allows you to solidify what you do while you’re doing it. But, I don’t think it automatically leads to a (better or actual) business…

…

Those three dots is where I stopped writing some three weeks ago, and I have in the mean time developed my thoughts further on this. I think that the gist of good business planning is taking ownership of the project. And the single most important key-component of the business plan is the timeline section. And the single most important action as an entrepreneur is to already have at least 10-30% completed of that timeline.

In other words:

• if you’re an entrepreneur you should write your own business plan: you cannot outsource this!




• The most well-developed section of your plan should be your timeline: as conservative and realistic as possible!




• The best way to illustrate the value of your plan (and timeline) is to already be following it: actions scream much louder than written words!

If those three components are in place, I think that the world of business planning and entrepreneurship would be a much better place.

End braindump…

Vincent

Addentum: The problem of multiple agendas! I should also add that another complication is that plans are written with a singular vision in mind, perhaps alternative scenarios are included, but it still very often reflects a singular approach to “doing things.” But… many companies are composed of multiple people, who may or may not have multiple agendas. I still think it can belong to taking ownership of the idea, in the sense that the plan is worked on together and perfected until everyone agrees with it. But more often than not, the business function is delegated to certain individuals, meaning that this isn’t the case.

Like

Unlike

Working at a financial trust means that many companies that you meet make a bad first impression. Because they come in the shape of ca. 1-10 binders and unless you love handling paper, reading balance sheets and legal documents, and breathing dust, you just won’t like it much. Luckily, reading binders isn’t part of my job description, even though I do it because I want to understand how this business works from start to finish. But, to keep my sanity in check, I try to mix it up between a. doing the (boring) work, b. keeping the overview, and c. doing work that I love.

After writing my work-life balance post some weeks ago, I decided to do one thing from the start: I would keep track of all my professional activities in Excel. Another thing I did was to colour-code each activity and note down how much time I spend on it each day and week, in order to track patterns. I am now in week 7, meaning that I have some meaningful data about this.

While I’m not going to share this data with you because I think it’s entirely irrelevant to your life, I will share some lessons that I learned from my experience so far:

• Tracking you time requires a certain kind of discipline, as well as a kind of heuristic thinking: a. you need to continuously do it; b. you don’t need to be entirely precise on whether you spend 15 min. more or less on something (I track each 15 min. in my sheet). P.S. Nothing inspires you to keep such a list as much as being paid by the hour (which is how I started with this habit).
• Asking lot’s of questions is the single most useful thing to do if you want to improve your job-satisfaction: The last three weeks, I was busy analysing a number of companies through their documentation, in French. A complete Nightmare! However, spending just a few hours with someone that has been doing this for years, meant that I quickly learned what’s relevant and what isn’t.
• A person is only really efficient a few hours per day: OK, I should already know this as a freelance consultant who charges by the hour, and you probably know this too. But seriously, track your time during one week and you’ll know this is absolutely true.
• A person is more effective at doing the stuff he/she loves than the stuff he/she doesn’t: Again, kind of an obvious point, but I can see through my time-tracking that job-satisfaction goes down and procrastination goes up after just an hour or more spent on non-enjoyable activities. I, personally, hate admin work, but love anything involving creating or learning. Productivity adds more value to the company so try to find an alignment between the stuff that you love and projects for the company you work for. Outsource / delegate the stuff that you hate / dislike / makes you procrastinate more.
• Expect a 30% return on investment on a todo-list: Meaning that for every 10 items you write down, you’ll probably manage 3 in the short-term. With a few exceptions, I generally find that those todo’s that don’t get handled are usually not that important anyway / sort themselves out automatically / have a longer due-date. P.S. I finish every day composing thoughts about what needs to be done the next day(s).
• Pay attention to how you spend the rest of your time: Work isn’t life and life isn’t work. And how you spend you life will very much affect your work. Things to track include amount of sleep every day, exercise, diet, and learning. Regarding the latter, I keep track of the (study) books that I read, podcasts I listen to, and blog-posts I write. While diet, sleep, and exercise is relevant to productivity in the short-term (that day, that week, that month), learning affects the long-term. I think a good ratio is 10-20% of time that should be spent on the latter, of course mileage may vary.

That’s it for today, hope it added some value to your life and that it made you open an excel sheet to track your time. If you need a template for setting up your own schedule, drop a comment or send me a mail.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

Depending on where you stand, this is going to a long boring blog post or an interesting one. While I didn’t write much about it, my last consulting project as a freelancer was to help get a startup into the European Space Agency Incubator (ESI)… successfully, I’m happy to say. I wanted to write a post about how interesting it is, I think, to invest your time and money into space technology businesses, particularly because it’s about spinning space tech off to applications into the real world, but realised that this interview with Bruno Naulais, ESI network manager, would probably do the trick.

I conducted this interview in the summer of 2006, as part of my thesis. It was previously published on my personal blog, but it [the whole blog] has since disappeared into MySQL “does not compute” hell. Here goes.

The Interview

VvW: What is the ESA Incubator all about?

BN: It is actually called ESI, the European Space Incubator. It is part of a network, called ESINET, and consists of 35 incubators, spread across most of ESA member-states and some Eastern European countries (eg Ukraine, Bulgaria).

The ESI business-model, in a large part conceived through Niels Eldering’s thesis [a fellow Rotterdam School of Management graduate] and BN’s Business Plan, could be described as consisting of three dimensions. These are the start-ups, the stakeholders, and the supporting services.

1st Dimension: The start-up

The start-up is seen as a place where fertile (space) technology meets an individual or a team of people. They in turn go through an incubation process (at the ESI) and finally come out as a company to do business.

2nd Dimension: Stakeholders

This doesn’t apply to all incubators in the network, but in the Netherlands, the two main stakeholders are the ESA and the Dutch ministry of economic affairs (EZ). Both naturally want to promote employment, economic growth, and entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. Furthermore, ESA has the objective to improve the image of space in the eyes of the general public, of investors, and of businesses.

The latter is of particular importance, as space is still perceived as expensive, dominated by large players, and generally irrelevant to the lives of Earth’s citizens. What the incubator aims to do is to show to it’s stakeholders and to the general public, that space-technologies and space-systems can be benefited from in everyday life.

3rd Dimension: Support

This happens both through 3rd parties, something called Key Innovation Business Services (KIBS) and in-house. Through this, the aim is to prepare the start-up for doing business in the real world, and to receive further investment. The latter of course depends on the ambitions of the founder. Some are pretty limited in their targets. They only want to set up in their country, or perhaps the Benelux. Others want to go cross-continental or even global.

VvW: Exploring the “Support”-angle further, how does the ESI assist it’s starters in finding private financing?

BN: First, it is necessary to assess the type of start-up. Depending on the type of product/service and the market, an advice is given as to what the growth-strategy should be. This doesn’t always need to be angel or venture financing. In many cases, the advice is to consider a strategic partnership. In this case, there’s a larger company already active in the market/industry that the start-up is targeting, and has an interest in taking a stake in the company, with the option to acquire it at a later stage. This requires there to be a kind of fit between the partners. So far, the ESI has had two start-ups taking that option.

Then there is also the option for a joint venture, an equal partnership between two starters in ESINET, or a starter and an existing company. One ESI start-up has done that.

For private financing, like a business angel or venture capitalist, start-ups usually still have a way to go. Usually, they first attract financing from the 3 F’s: Friends, Fools, and Family. This can happen before or during the incubation-phase. More experienced investors usually require the company and idea to be more mature. With a proof of concept, you can attract a business angel. When you are ready to sell a commercial product, you can approach venture capitalists. There are some exceptions to this of course, but this is the way it usually works.

The aim is to ultimately have a core group of business angels that are allied with the incubator. To a degree, this is already the case with venture capitalists, of which a group is being made aware of the inner proceedings of the incubator-companies. The idea is that the start-up does not need to educate these people on space or their idea, the incubator is already doing that for them. And the incubator will basically give residing start-ups feedback on their stage of development and, depending on that, the availability of pots of business angel- or venture capital.

VvW: What are the advantages of a start-up approaching investors through the incubator, rather than going at it alone?

BN: To start, a venture capitalist can receive thousands of business-plans during a year. The aim is that ESI-plans land on top of that pile. This is because the ESI, and the ESA, provides a quality label to its’ residing startups, which manifests itself in four ways.

For one, there’s the quality of the work done at the ESA, their procedures and methodologies. The incubator tries to pass those on to the start-ups.

Second, there are the favourable statistics for technostarters residing in incubators. A survey from 2004 [which I still have to read] reports that ca. 87 % of start-ups in the incubation process are still alive after three years. For a standalone technostarter, this figure is much lower, between 20-30 %.

Third, there are the networking-aspects of the ESI. Business incubation does not work well as a standalone function, it has to be part of a network. In the case of the ESA, it is present in 17 countries, as well as active in non-member states, such as the US and Russia. This can be useful as a gateway for the start-up to expand or move to another country. It’s also good for cross-fertilisation—between different ESI-start-ups and -graduates, suppliers and customers, investors, and other companies. Through the ESINET-network, it is also easier to conduct international market-studies.

Last, but not least, there is the access to the ESA technology and resources (experts, labs, test centre, software tools, facilities, etc.).

VvW: Are there examples of venture capitalists investing in any of the ESI startups?

BN: Sure, there’s ThruVision, which received a substantial amount in two rounds of investment [note: I know the exact sum, but am not sure if I can make this public knowledge: I think it's public since it is mentioned on their web site; perhaps you should have a look (http://www.thruvision.com)]. This company has now graduated, i.e. no longer resides within the ESI.

VvW: From your experience with venture capitalists, how do they feel about the companies that are still in the incubation-/seed-stage?

BN: As was mentioned, they prefer more mature ideas to work with. The key-phrase here is “work with.” Venture capital really means two things, investment + support. Along with the investment, the venture capitalist wants to coach, put people in the right place—on the board, as a CEO. For the latter, most of the start-ups in the ESI-program are founded by someone with an engineering-background. A founder is typically someone that understands the technology and how to build a service or product on top of it.

A venture capitalist, on the other hand, looks at the team, the product/service, the market. He or she will look for people that can run the course, manage the growth. The preference then usually falls to someone with a track-record, who has experience doing that. In the case of ThruVision, the founder is now the technical director, and the CEO is someone with an impressive business-cv.

Another statistic from the European Venture Capital Association (EVCA): In something like 95 % of start-ups invested in by venture capitalists, the founder has been replaced as CEO.

VvW: Do venture capitalists also support the incubator itself in some ways?

BN: Not hands-on, no. They do provide access to a network of companies, investors, and people to work with, which wasn’t there before. There will be more, once the ESINET-fund is started.

VvW: What is the ESInet fund?

BN: First a little background. There is obviously a gap between early stage and growth. This was known from the start of the incubator. This is especially so when you talk about space. Investors look at the space-sector with skeptical eyes. They see it as a market for large players like Alcatel and Astrium. They see it as a niche-market. And when you think about satcom, there’s a lot of international competition from the terrestrial systems. The satcom has already lead to a few big-name and big-investment projects to go bankrupt, example of this are Iridium and GlobalStar.

Furthermore there’s a misunderstanding about what the utilization of space-technologies and -systems really means. Utilization means you are using something that already exits. You only need to adapt it to a non-space sector. This means testing, modification, and validation, something that doesn’t need to take years, rather months. Space-systems refer to satellite-technology, for which you don’t need to build the satellite, you need to be able to receive a signal and use it. For space-technologies, we are talking about transferring and adapting applications and materials used and developed for space to non-space sectors.

First investors need to get this picture. But even if a few of them understand, that doesn’t mean they have the needed expertise. Usually venture capitalists are experienced in certain areas like biotech, meditech, telecoms, etc. Space-related technology does not have that many corresponding VC-experts. So the thought was, if investors will be so hard to find, why not start our own fund?

And this is where the ESINET-fund comes from. Its fund managers don’t need to be convinced on potential business development from space systems and technologies (much) and there is funding for early stage ideas. ESA was convinced to sponsor the fund with 5 million Euros and recently selected a management company from 12 applicants to manage the fund and raise more. The target-size of the fund is 40-50 million Euros in total, to be completed by mid-2006. The ESI is responsible for the deal-flow. This will mostly come from ESI-startups, though if those do not fulfill the needed requirements, investment van occur into other ESA-“ventures.”

The fund-management company will act much like a venture capitalist as far as investing is concerned. It will be present during selection of start-ups and have a supporting role in the development of invested-in companies. And it will take shares in the companies it invests in.

VvW: What do you think the effect will be on other investors, to have this fund running?

BN: It’s always a nicer picture to have a fund tied to an incubator. Having a fund will hopefully attract other investors. Many venture capitalists like to invest in syndicated deals, meaning a group of investors spreading the risks between them. In investments, there’s also usually a leader and followers. It is hoped that the fund can fulfill a leading role in the process.

For business angels and the three F’s, there will always be space. For one, they invest much smaller sums, and second they provide the added value that they bring as people. Like many informal investors, business angels are often interested in a hands-on approach, to be involved in their start-ups, which will benefit entrepreneurs greatly.

VvW: What is the investment climate like in the Netherlands, compared to other European countries?

BN: The Netherlands is not so great for finding private capital, except for subsidies. Both the UK and Germany rank highly for private capital. France and Italy have good governmental support.

VvW: OK, back to your start-ups, what criteria do they need to fulfill to become part of the incubator?

BN: During the course of the incubation-phase, they are asked to prepare financial projections, including parameters like Net Present Value (NPV), Return on Investment (ROI), and other ratios. Templates are provided, if needed, and access to third parties that can help. Over the course of the incubation-phase, the incubator-staff tries to follow the evolution of the NPV. In the future, it is hoped that NPV will be calculated at the application-stage, before the start-up becomes part of the incubator. If that’s possible, of course.

Other than that, the number 1 criteria is the market. If they are not able to define it, they will not be accepted. Similarly, a market-study must be prepared.

VvW: How does the ESI feel about teams starting?

BN: Very supportive. On the whole there are both types, entrepreneurs starting solo and finding partners along the way. Or entrepreneurs that start in a team. Generally the incubator encourages partnerships between technologists and business-people. Investors invest in a team after all. The incubator also has good ties with MBA-programs to find people for start-ups.

VvW: Is the staff able to deal with all the demands of the incubator?

BN: The staff has broad knowledge about issues like legal and intellectual property matters. There are specialists that advise on strategy, market, technology, etc. But it is impossible to know everything in depth. For that the start-up can approach third-party specialists, of which they can get the contacts via the incubator.

VvW: Do you compete with other incubators?

BN: Not at all. In fact, collaboration is encouraged and projects are sent to others as well. Geography is also very important to entrepreneurs, they have a life, etc., so it’s not that feasible to draw them away from a more logical location-choice.

Note: If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to post a comment or mail me. If you are interested in applying to the incubation programme at the ESA also, check out this page and also don’t hesitate to ask me about my experiences of working with two tech-startups in the programme.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

If you want to hear some interesting perspectives on the hardware and software business and/or starting businesses in general, check out the Stanford entrepreneurial thought leader lectures held by Jeff Hawking, co-founder of Palm, and Steve Balmer, employee no. 30 & current CEO at Microsoft.

Jeff Hawking is also the author of “On Intelligence,” and describes his development-path of creating neuro-scientific solutions towards interfacing with technologies (which is, I think, the right perspective towards interface-design). He’s doing some pretty interesting things in the field, also through his foundation called Numenta, but I expect also through future hardware coming out (I’m not sure if he’s involved in the Palm Pre, but he was in the Foleo). He describes some crisis-moments in Palm’s past, including how to compete with Microsoft (the irony!). Very worth checking out and I love the title: “Inside the mind of a reluctant entrepreneur.”

Steve Balmer, what a character! I found him to be thoughtful and concise, whilst never forgetting to pimp the universe that is Microsoft and how that is important for startups… He shares a bunch of stories, like why he decided to drop out of Stanford and join Microsoft as employee no. 30, the current economy and its opportunities, the future of computing, and even makes a few jokes about (not mentioning) Vista.

I thoroughly enjoyed both lectures and think you will too.
Vincent

Like

Unlike

…We haven’t exchanged a single word with each other. I’m trying a new thing and my inspiration for this is a picture I took from the latest Wired “Mystery” edition.

Apart from it being a smart picture, what I found more interesting is how the effect was achieved. Note the amount of people that Mr. sampotts is following, ca. 50. Having previously followed over 200 (now shrunk down to ca. 35), it was impossible for me to “listen” to a single word people were saying. My only two pieces of salvation were if you @vincentvw’d me (in which case an rss-feed would catch it) or if I added you to Friendfeed, where you can set up friendlists and place (imaginary) friends from Twitter inside.

Twitter is badly designed for this kind of collaborative effort, unless you minimise the amount of people you follow or find workarounds. Even so, those workarounds mean that you cheat 80% of your “friends” as you just push them into a corner where you listen to them less or not at all. E.g. on Friendfeed, I “follow” ca. 300 people, but really only read about 5. I’m sure 90% of Friendfeed users do the same.

My method, for now, is to restrict myself to people whose blog I read or with whom I chat (hopefully) on a regular basis. In the future, perhaps I’ll add a few people that I want to talk to, we’ll see. But the ultimate aim is to get the same effect that sampotts has, that I can ask a question and get answers from the hive mind.

If you remember, that was my vision of Twitter the first time I wrote about it on Tech IT Easy, nearly two years ago. I hope I can regain some of that innocent utopian vision.

For now, the best way to get me to follow you, is to say (smart) things to me, via Twitter, mail, this blog, or in real life!

Vincent

Like

Unlike

I spent quite a lot of time evaluating smart-phones this last week, including having hands-on time with the Nokia E71, the Blackberry 8900, the iPhone & iPod Touch, with a firm eye on their capabilities as a mobile computer, more so than a mobile phone or a mobile entertainment device.

My conclusion: the iPhone (or respectively iPod Touch) are interesting insofar as interfaces are concerned that either require mouse-like interaction or that require no interaction whatsoever, e.g. listening to music. And it’s pretty consistent with my first post about the iTunes app store, where I wrote that developers should focus on developing games and other visual applications, rather than on typing-intensive apps.

Now I may be perfectly wrong about this and if you’re a long-time iPhone / iPod Touch user and are able to type long messages without a problem, please drop a comment.

There’s no denying that the Apple gadget (whichever version) is h.o.t. But I think it’s a matter of the software-features being over-hyped and people forgetting that the hardware isn’t mature yet.

• First of all: touch-keyboards, really? It just doesn’t seem precise enough for accurate typing.
• Second: 400 dollars/euros for 32GB of space seems way over-priced, more so because it’s also a video-device and increased video-quality also comes with (much) increased file-sizes. Add to this that streaming video from your Mac doesn’t seem possible, unless you employ one hack or the other.
• Thirdly, I think that the web2.0 hype of developing application after application after application has strongly spilled over to the iTunes appstore, which is one of the few digital venues to have some kind of business model, but it totally overshadows any hardware deficiencies the iPod and iPhone may have (and I mean that only in terms of typing and storage, as I think apps for gaming and other entertainment work perfectly fine).

My gut tells me that iPods are mainly for entertainment and not productivity and even so that there’s a better deal to be had waiting for at least another generation beyond this.

Once again, I’m very open to you (trying to) convincing me that I’m am completely and utterly wrong.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

Just read the Face Value in the Economist from a few weeks ago, on Shai Agassi, an Israeli entrepreneur and former SAP employee, who is developing an ‘electric infrastructure for cars’ business, called Better Place. The idea is that there will be hotspots across a region and for cars to be subsidised by the subscription that you buy.

After the financial marble that the Indian company Tata Motors has produced, a car that costs between $2,200 and $3,800, and having seen several other concept cars in that price-range from companies like Volkswagen, is it possible that we will approach a time where cars will essentially be free?

I’m more sceptical, I think it’s a sign of the times, a recession + oil-prices and availability + the rise of emerging economies + more abstractly, that whole global warming thing, and the resulting desperation, which is causing businesses to come up with alternative business models around personal transportation.

And if given a choice, I would prefer for a system like Vel’oh!, here in Luxembourg, where you simply borrow a bike and bring it back at a pre-determined parking-zone after you’re finished with it. That said, I do hear that they get stolen a lot over there in France…

Thoughts?
Vincent

Like

Unlike

I know I wrote about rebooting the entrepreneurial brainstorming sessions. I kind of prefer an informal style of ‘idea generation’ though… Today, the subject is literature, of which there arguably is way too much. Sometimes it’s nice to read a ‘thin book,’ like The One Minute Manager or even The Alchemist.

What those books have in common is that they give you lessons in a very compressed space. But it works, because rather than doing a dry, point-by-point summary of the content published in much longer books, they do so in story-format. The One Minute Manager is about a man trying to learn about management and he goes on a kind of exploratory adventure to uncover the secrets. According to the book there’s only really three elements to effective one-to-one management [there's another book in the series, I'm reading now, on one-to-many management also], but I won’t bore you with them. The only thing to note is that I REMEMBER the lessons in the book perfectly!

The Alchemist is not a management book, it’s a self-help book about finding happiness and the meaning to your life. It’s again about an adventure and you follow this kid across the desert. Very simple principles, clothed in the format of an entertaining and exciting story.

No wonder these two books are best-sellers!

These last decades have seen a tremendous rise on various fronts involving the mass-education of mankind. From MBAs, to millions of published books, to billions of informational websites, it’s understandably overwhelming. As a result, you now get books teaching you (supposedly) “MBAs in a nutshell”, you get websites that sell you books in audio-format. And you also get websites that sell you book summaries for the busy executive.

Having read several of these, I have to say that I’m not impressed. Sure, I can read Crossing the Chasm in 5 pages, but what have I actually learned? How do the lessons that I read in bullet-point format translate into a language that my brain understands and remembers?

The answer is, if you ask me, to start a business that translates (boring / long) books into shorter books and doing so in story-form. Nothing is as exciting to business-folk like me, than reading a Harvard Business Review case-study. Because, it’s a (nearly) living example. I place myself into the antagonist’s point of view and learn about the challenges he/she has to face!

So this is my first “entrepreneurial brainstorming” topic: start a business that translates longer books into shorter entertaining stories and sells them to executives!

What do you think?

Vincent

Like

Unlike

OK, admittedly I’ve gone a little Facebook-crazy, ever since I joined the service ca. 2 years ago. Not Twitter-crazy, as in adding millions of friends, but an infatuation based on real value, the ability to organise activities and communicate with long-lost friends. And definitely not as crazy as the future I envision for Facebook or what I call *real friend*-based social networking™.

Phase 1, five years from now: Real-time

Imagine Google talk’s new innovation, video chat through the webplayer. Also imagine perhaps the most annoying internet-phenomenon of all: “voyeur TV,” made most famous (to geeks) by the likes of Justin TV and other Lifecasters, not to mention Survivor and Big Brother.

Where I see Facebook going in just a few years, is that you tune into a profile and if your friend allows it, you see a live feed instead of a static picture. Already, when I met old friends in Maastricht a few weeks ago, I thought how cool it would be to track a person’s physicial changes real-time on Facebook, instead of seeing what they *want me to see*.

The flaw: most people aren’t that comfortable showing unfiltered feeds. The opportunity: everyday, we’re becoming more accepting of the lack of privacy that the internet provides. The reality: probably a mix of both, where users give consent and only operate the camera when they feel like it.

Phase 2, ten years from now: in your living room

Picture the two innovations that Apple has essentially made mainstream. One, a camera in every electronic device. Two, training users to abandon the keyboard, through the iPhone and now multi-touch gestures. Repeating something I wrote before: this video-review, where a journalist compares typing on the EEE PC vs. the iPhone, at insane speeds in an all-terain vehicle, was really eye-opening how well that “virtual” keyboard works on the iPhone. So much for my first post on the iPhone app-store, that “the iPhone is just for games“…

My vision of a connected society in 10+ years is not that we all become experts at typing. The PC has always been designed by and for geeky engineers and we’ve had to put up with it because there was simply no other choice. Instead, I see every TV, every device perhaps, internet-enabled, in which we manipulate by simple gestures, a shake perhaps, the push of a single button…

In the future, I see people turning on their TV and tuning into Facebook and chatting with their friends as if they came for afternoon tea.

Phase 3, twenty years later: holofriends

In “Avatar,” the new movie by James Cameron, 13 years in the waiting, the story is that people use avatars to explore strange new worlds. In the real world, James Cameron is developing technologies that can capture actors’ facial expressions to the nth degree, and offer a real time preview into how that would look like post-production. Take that together with ca. 2000 cinema screens in the US that have been converted to 3D and perhaps you see where my thinking is going. In a few decades, both the motion-capture technology and the 3D one will become affordable, already 3D filming is a matter of tying two HD-cameras together, and eventually 3D screens will come to our living rooms,… perhaps enabling us to see and interact with hologram friends from Facebook?

Imagine, jogging with a Facebook friend, having your mom “virtual hug” you after you were dumped, having virtual se… ok, now I’m going to far!

Phase 4, fifty years into the future: I’m alive, I’m alive!!!

In the future we will be able to speak to dead friends and family members. Morbid? Perhaps it’s better expressed as, in the future we will live forever, at least digital versions of us.

But perhaps the 300 MB sized data encompassing our brain, as envisioned in the Battlestar Galactica sequel, Caprica, isn’t quite so realistic. Instead, a $100 million Paul Allen foundation, called the Allen Institute for Brain Science, is using digital technology to slice, dice, and capture what our brains are made of. It’s quite sad, because so far they are finding that the data is so excessive and so “personal” (every brain is different!!!), that they don’t yet know when, if ever, they will have finished capturing the brain.

But what is certain is that, eventually, we will develop an understanding of what makes us tick, and perhaps, perhaps, develop technology to transfer our memories to a machine. And when that happens, what’s to stop people from signing up to live forever? And imagine the pressure then coming from friends and family members to experience those memories one last time, and again, and again. It would be the rebirth of a more morbid social network, finally.

Final thoughts

None of this has to be Facebook-powered of course. But there’s no denying that wherever the internet is going, it will be built on more interactions between people, between real people, not these quasi-friendships strangers make on Twitter, mostly for selling and customer support purposes. And right now, as far as those *real* relationships are concerned, Facebook is king.

The end… or the beginning?

Vincent

Like

Unlike

Bear in mind that by calling you cheapskates, I also call myself the same (plus, I’m Dutch…). Remember that I was the one raving about a €30 contract-less phone not too long ago, the Motorola Motophone (which I have since given to my mother, who hates it). Since moving to Luxembourg, less than a month ago, I’m shopping for a new phone and am considering the iPhone.

At the same time, do the math! To get the 16GB version, I have to shell over €99 + €50 per month for the next two years. That’s €1300 as a base price for the iPhone, not including the cost of getting hooked to paying such prices in the future.

Some other factors to consider:

• There’s is city-wide, free WiFi in Luxembourg (at least one good thing about this small city, apart from me being there )
• Skype was just released in the app-store, making calling on the iPod Touch + Wifi a viable option.
• Signing a 2 year contract seems like a big deal, considering I just started the job and still need to be able to keep it.
• The country of Luxembourg is so small, that I ‘ll be in international roaming mode before I know it (Mobile in Europe sucks, did you know that?)
• Taking a 32GB iPod Touch + a internet-less phone, would be ca. €400 + €30 per month = ok, €1120 for 2 years (bearing in mind that I usually NEVER take 2 year contracts on anything!)
• I already have an excellent portable camera, the IXUS 870 IS
• I also expect an upgraded iPhone to come around, hopefully within the next 6 months, but too long for me to wait.

So, it’s a tough decision for a cheapskate like me.

It’s taken me a long time to get to the point of wanting to use a touch-screen, which I considered an inferior typing solution, until… I watched this video. It’s amazing that this guy, sitting in a moving vehicle shaking like a bull on steroids, can type intelligible words on his iPhone, and nothing at all on a regular button-based keyboard.

Take that together with the iPhone OS 3, due to come out within the next 1-3 months, and it sounds like an interesting option. But €1300 for a phone? Man!

What do you say, cheapskates, buy or don’t buy?

Vincent

Like

Unlike

I started a new job recently, at a financial trust. Part of my job is, for now, to learn about the financial structuring of companies setting up in Luxembourg and wanting to expand internationally. I’m also in charge of marketing (whatever there is to be done in a company that generates most of its customers from word of mouth), and to continue on selected strategic consulting projects (a continuation of my previous (freelance) activity).

A basic administrative requirement of my job is to, of course, have an email-address, containing the domain of the company in it. It’s basic PR, when you contact a potential customer, to use a common domain-name, also increasing brand-recognition. But what about phone-numbers? I get my email-address and business-cards for free, but have to pay for most of my phone-costs myself, the reason being that it’s not really something that has to be associated with the business.

That would be different if the identifier that I used would be a branded one, representing the company I work for.

Today, I had to deal with a payment issue with my Dutch bank, Rabobank. Via their website, you can call them for free, using the very clear “Rabolijn” username on Skype. I would love for something similar to exist on phone, which would instantly identify me as such whenever I call someone.

When you think about it, seeing a number for strangers calling you really seems like something from the 20th century. We use digital mobile phones which communicate across digital communication channels. Already, it is certain that the internet of the next decade will be dominated by mobile communications. So, how hard is it to send a name + a number to another person’s phone, when you are calling them?

My thought is: not very hard.

Vincent

Like

Unlike