Tech IT Easy

Those of you who know me, also know that I am not a friend of Twitter. Not yet! But this medium for micro-publishing seems to grow and grow. Swiss blogger Nico Luchsinger has counted some 800.000 users. So there is quite a good track record and the only thing missing is the business model.

But a call for advertising is not really funny: In my opinion the short message like style of Twitter would suffer a lot from advertising. Twitter simply is not made for it, besides the fact that in a commercial consisting of one sentence there is not much to tell. So Twitter needs something very different. Why doesn’t a company like IBM buy Twitter? They could continue the service without any changes. In financial terms this idea looks quite stupid. Why to buy a business where there is no revenue stream at all? Well, first of all, Twitter is a brand. And a very well reputated one, too. A company buying Twitter would invest into branding and image.

But that’s not all: My german blogger friend Marcel Weiss reminded me of the fact, that Twitter is an open plattform offering an API for developers. And that’s where things start to get very interesting: Twitter as a market leader in its segment can be seen as an exchange place and not all services made along the API would have to be free.

One example: Imagine the “twittersphere” would be scanned by semantic software in order to obtain or extract clue words, ideas and trends from it. Who is talking on Twitter? It is a global elite that is far ahead concerning technology, social media and general information. So following Twitter is market research 2.0. The data mining could be used for trend reports or aggregated publishing on websites which would not be free of advertising. All this would not hurt or disturb the twittersphere. And my opinion, that services like Twitter never will be a sort of mass media, fits very will in our example. Twitter as a tool of a relativly small but focused user group creates a homogenous market segment worth watching. The value would be exactly the opposite of what it is for Facebook or MySpace.

Finally there is the question of prize and worth of Twitter. If we take the level of Facebook as a sort of benchmark we would end up with a prize of aproximately 300 million $ (calculated on the number of users). Ok, that’s a lot of money but it would not be expensive for one of the market leading companies in IT.

On Martin Koser’s blog I found the IT Flower, a presentation about enterprise software. Rod Boothby, the creator of this presentation (framework), did a very good job with it as the image of a flower is easy to memorize and helpful to explain (or discuss) different types of enterprise software and recent developments in the field.

The only thing on this framework I am not (yet) really comfortable with is the axis of “how work gets done“. To distinguish between structured processes and ad hoc processes is in itself ok. But being applied on the IT flower I ask myself, if for example blogs or wikis (appearing as “new productivity tools”) only fit for ad hoc processes. And all of us may find some examples in which Microsoft’s Office is used (or misused?) in structured processes (let’s only think of all those MS Access data bases used for regular controlling purposes).

But when we focus more on the horizontal axis of the framework the IT Flower really is a strong tool to make recent shifts in software development visible. Enterprise 2.0, as a term being introduced by Andrew McAfee (and not yet everywhere really accepted), is bringing a totally new dimension to organize work and to improve processes. Its main focus is on collaboration, but there is also a huge influence on established software (and its traditional use). That’s what the IT Flower makes obvious.

But even quoting Eric Schmidt (Google) and drawing an insightful flower about enterprise software can’t hide the fact that knowledge in companies about web 2.0 or enterprise 2.0 still is very low. What do you think?

Engadget recently published two articles about a product no one of us can buy: Festo’s new robotic arm, called Airic’s arm. In order to get an idea about the impact of this development I strongly recommend to watch the video on Festo’s website showing this arm and its almost natural movements. All those readers among you, that are familiar with IT and robotics but have never heard of Festo before, shouldn’ t wonder: The company is a world market leader in pneumatic and electromechanical systems. Founded in 1925 in Esslingen (near Stuttgart, Germany) Festo today is a very good example for german “Mittelstand” (midsize companies).

Airic’s arm is a work done in the research field of “bionics” where Festo aims to learn from nature. In their center for research and development called “bionic learning network” you will not only find Airic but also a robotic fish diving in a swimming pool or even more astonishing: the same fish but filled with helium gas and flying in the air. Festo’s approach to bionic research and robotics reflects a strategic shift from a core (traditional) competetiveness in mechanics (only) to the much broader view of mechatronics. Mechatronics brings together skills in software, electronics and mechanics.

But the main idea for this article was not to praise german companies but to reflect on future business models in robotics. Airic’s arm clearly shows that there are to be found (at least) two decisive elements in each robot: hardware and software. So if you want to have a robot that is not too clumsy in its appearance you might want to have it built with components made by Festo. On the other hand side: Where to take the best software from, including latest advances in AI (artificial intelligence)?

Up to now (industrial) robots are so highly specialized (and limited in their use) that the business model behind shows a lot of similarities with automobile industry. The manufacturer stands for the entire machine including its branding. Behind the scene there can be found many suppliers but customers (buyers) don’t care much about this. In advanced robotics things might get different: A highly sophisticated robot might get developped and built not following the automobile scheme but the one of IT industry. There we can find specialists for hardware and others who deliver the software necessary to run the computers. But a closer look on IT makes clear, that this distinction between hardware and software is not sort of a “peaceful natural law” but has more of a battlefield where market shifts and ruptures are likely to happen and where the boundaries are not always clear.

The IT market division in hardware and software was made possible through standards going back to the beginning of the PC era. Standards are (relatively) easy to set when there is only a small variety of types. But will this be likely in robotics? Marshall Brain recently showed us an example of japanese research work resulting in a wheeled and legged robot. So obviously we are likely to get (sooner or later) a huge variety of different robot types each needing carefully adopted software to run it sucessfully.

But although the variety of types might get endless one thing is for sure: In the long run software will dominate on this playground and manufacturers of robotic hardware might find themselves in an uncomfortable market position, comparable to the one in which suppliers of the automobile industry are stuck today. So in the exciting and emerging market of robotics companies like Festo should think big and embrace strategies that go beyond mechanics and mechatronics. Today, when robots play football, it looks like this. Tomorrow we should see Airic with arms and legs moving in a nearly human way. Then it will be time for software programmers to hurry up and companies having them on their payroll will be glad…

Peter Pesti, a student at Georgia Tech University wrote this roadmap to the 21st century. His document is really worth taking a closer look as he brought together predictions from many different (scientific) ressources, covering mostly the fields of technology, economics and climate conditions. The video on YouTube is a shorter version of his long list.

But do we have to believe what he is telling us? Especially about the audacious ideas for live at the end of 21st century?

1. The personal view: Having a personal view about the future is quite a difficult thing. We know things will change in the long run and scientific progress tends to emerge and make live easier. In addition to that many of us share the feeling, that scientific progress modifies our lives faster and with more intensity than in former times (centuries). This is the reason why I think we all should reflect about future from time to time. Ideas or roadmaps like the one from Peter Pesti can be a great help to see what might happen and to build up one’s own opinion.
2. The business view: Business is about markets and competition - and quite often very shortsighted (or should I say shortminded?). So in this field it might be good to reflect about a companies visions and long term strategies (if there are any!). My experience is, that many companies tend to predict future as a simple prolongation of trends that have occoured long ago. But mostly future is different from what companies thought it would be. That’s the reason, why there is so much failure and misunderstanding about market shifts and technological ruptures. So for business people reflecting (different) scenarios about future from time to time would be a good exercise.
3. The technological view: The roadmap makes quite clear that technology becomes more and more imporant. And Peter Pesti is not the only one to think so: Former IBM strategist and manager Irving Wladawsky-Berger in a recent blog post stressed the fact, that technical talent is more important than ever before, as it is increasingly permeating all aspects of business, society and our personal lives. So thinking about future for technologists should be “normal homework”.

One important remark has to be made about Peter Pesti’s roadmap: Two of his assumptions are of central relevance to the final outcome and both can be heavily discussed. The first is the occurrence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) sooner or later in 21st century and the second is this sort of possible transition of human intelligence and consciousness into a computational context (robotic, machinery, virtual life). If both will show up, 21st century will really be the begin of a totally new era. If not, well then changes won’t be that dramatic and life may continue to be relatively “human”.

This very special focus on AI as an important factor of technological development appears to me to be a specific hope for eternal life placed in a non-religious but scientific context. So far there is no proof, that AI will soon occour. The dreams and serious reflections about it are some 50 years old. Surprisingly there is no general debate about it in modern society.

So Peter Pesti’s roadmap to the 21st century is a very good starting point for personal thinking as well as for a more openminded business perspective about future, technology and modern society.

In recent years there has always been some suspicion about Google collecting data from its users and their search queries. Now the company startet a series of videos explaining basic privacy concepts on YouTube. The announcement was made on the official Google blog.

This might be an answer to a recent poll conducted by Hakia which came out with the result, that 62 % of searchers don’t trust search engines. Of course Hakia is a search engine, too. But this engine does not place cookies on the user’s computer (without permission) and they are the very first to do so. From the beginning Hakia had a different approach to privacy matters but for quite some time obviously this was not noticed by searchers. So their poll can be seen as a marketing effort to promote that search engine.

And promotion is an important crucial thing to Hakia, as their search engine is still left far behind by competitors like Google or Yahoo concerning market share. As to search results Hakia’s semantic approach doesn’t seem to be behind Google. But not being behind isn’t enough in the search industry: As long as Google delivers satisfying results all those worries about their data mining don’t really matter. Otherwise searchers would switch as there are lot’s of alternatives.

So Google’s well made Video should be a good help to keep the No. 1 position in the search market. Or what do you think about it?

For quite some years we already see the mobile web being promoted by carriers without a real breakthrough. The web on a mobile device so far meant an expensive service, in many cases a misfit of the content to be displayed on tiny screens and the lack of convincing (business) ideas for the web on the go.

This year things seem to change in many ways:

1. The market for portable navigation systems (especially in Germany) has grown since 3 years from the nearly non-existence to an estimated 1 billion euro business in 2007. This tremendous growth made companies like Nokia wake up and enter the market with their mobile phones (equipped with GPS). So from now on we will see an interesting contest between those stand alone navigation devices and mobile phones with GPS inbuilt. Older cellphones get help from the french startup BlueSky Positioning: They integrate GPS on the (normal) SIM card! So in my opinion it’s not difficult to forecast the market development in this field: Cellphones will gain the battle and navigation will be the breakthrough feature for the mobile web.
2. The Web 2.0 and its idea of social communities offers more and more applications for meeting oder making friends on the go. Most of them might fail sooner or later. But they will help a lot to establish the idea of web services especially designed for mobile devices. The Open Gardens Blog has some examples. In addition to that Geo Tagging is a growing business and one of its most prominent companies, Plazes, is located in Berlin. Mobile Tagging so far is very popular in Japan but still more or less unkown in Europe. Meanwhile Google is on the rush for Mobile Search. So in the past there was only browsing the “normal web”. Now we see more and more applications specially designed for the “mobile web” adressing needs for people on the way. Without doubt this will change people’s attitudes and habits.
3. In the longer run features like Mobile Gaming and Mobile Payment may also contribute significantly. So far only Mobile Gaming really is a (fast growing) market while solutions for Mobile Payment from PayPal or Google still wait for broader acceptance (Did you notice that Google seems to take part in nearly any of those new fields?).
4. Finally this article would not be complete without mentioning this week’s market launch of the iPhone. I am sure that the iPhone will alter the market of mobile phones a lot and bring an important shift from regarding mobile phones no longer as simple telephone devices (with some additional functions) but as multimedia machines that also can make telephone calls. Apple’s advertising strategy clearly shows how they want the iPhone to be used (although there will be no GPS on board).

But still we do have one major problem: Surfing the internet on a mobile device is (very) expensive compared to the fees for home computing. But here again the remedies are not far off: Apple’s famous iPhone counts on Wi-Fi and quite a few startup companies work on algorithms, that will be able to compress data into packages of bearable size. In Germany the market leading carriers, Vodafone and T-Mobile, started this month offering affordable flat-rate fees.

So in a few years time we might look back and declare 2007 as the real beginning of the mobile web and many mobile business models. But in the same time we also might (nervously) look forward to the start of the 4G mobile networks, that will bring us transmission capacities of 100 MB per second (or even more). And once again things will change dramatically. But that’s another story…