Archive Page 3

Things That Think

The first great wave of internet innovation was getting people online. That revolution is currently in full swing. The next wave of internet innovation will be getting all the other things in the world online (such as objects, places, etc). If you thought that first wave was great, just wait for this next one. Today the internet allows you to efficiently interact with documents all around the world. Imagine what the world will be like when you can interact with any thing in the world– and those things can interact with each other. This post attempts to describe what might be some opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to build such a future.

The business implications of this future, which many call the “Internet of Things“, are summarized quite cogently in a new McKinsey Quarterly article. In typical McKinsey style, the authors come up with a very helpful framework for understand the possibilities within the Internet of Things. They describe two general categories of applications:

  • Information and analysis (including tracking behavior, enhanced situational awareness, and sensor-driven analytics)
  • Automation and control (including process optimization, optimized resource consumption, and complex autonomous systems)

The article gives plenty of interesting examples of these applications, from smart jet engines that allow airlines to pay per unit of thrust, to smart farm equipment that uses satellite imagery to deliver just the right amount of water to each corner of a field, to smart data centers that efficiently balance load to reduce power consumption.

Although the article does a good job discussing the business implications, it doesn’t touch on the new business opportunities. If you just read the article quickly, you might go away thinking that each business will have the responsibility of implementing these smart systems themselves. Clearly, that is not realistic. The Internet of Things is going to be as transformative to the way businesses conduct operations as the spreadsheet was to the way businesses use personal computers. Just as it would have been silly for businesses to build Excel themselves, they are going to need a lot of help in taking advantage of the Internet of Things.

The way I see it, there will be three categories of startups that will be essential to helping businesses utilize the Internet of Things: The Sensors (to collect the data), The Plumbers (to transmit and integrate it), and The Miners (to analyze and act upon it).

The Sensors

To create an Internet of Things, all of these “things” need to have chips within then that allows them to sense their environment and transmit data over the network. Given current trends in semiconductor technology, it seems natural that these will be available as integrated systems-on-a-chip. Given the high capital costs to bring these to market, this is really Intel’s game to lose. It is going to be hard for new entrants to get the upper hand, although there may be some opportunities to grow from a niche, like Canesta is doing in building sensors that detect human gestures.

The Plumbers

This is where it gets interesting. Once all the “things” have sensors and networking, how can we organize the data streams that they will want to pass to each other? Who will provide the plumbing?

Idealists like me might hope for open data standards that allow for seamless sharing of data between all kinds of devices. But don’t bet on it. In recent years, the technology industry has shown that it is very slow to converge on data sharing standards. By the time they do, the game has already been won by a simpler (and closed) proprietary system. Take for example FOAF versus Facebook. FOAF has been around for a long time, but Facebook has won the war over the social graph.

Taking this example, what we can imagine is a Twitter or Facebook-like platform for devices. Instead of people “following/friending” each other and sharing various bits of information, this will be a platform for devices to “follow” one another and share various bits of information. Say you want to build a system that requires access to traffic information. Your system will be able to “follow” real-time streams from vehicles that provide exactly that information. There may even be a marketplace mechanism attached that lets you subscribe to those streams for a price. Let’s put all these concepts into a single buzzword-filled sentence: The Plumber for the Internet of Things will build an App Store for Following Device Feeds.

The Miners

Finally, to have tangible business value, companies are going to need to have simple ways of building systems that can analyze and act on this data once it has been collected. Today, that process is just far too complicated. Opportunities exist for startups to create software that vastly simplifies this process.

Let’s take the example of Wal-Mart, who has enormous database records that could potentially help the company with dynamic pricing. While I suspect that such systems already exist within Wal-Mart, I bet they took a very long time to build. They needed a small army of programmers to collect the data, a small army of statisticians to analyze it, and a small army of business economists to devise a robust set of pricing rules.

Ideally, what you’d like is for a non-technical pricing manager to be able to sit down and their desk and use simple visual software to model out their pricing rules. The inputs would come from the real-time stream of sensors. The model would express all the conditional logic. And the outputs would be the prices that are fed directly to the in-store digital price tags. Just like managers use spreadsheets to build financial models today, the managers of tomorrow will want to use software like this to build real-time business process logic. Once again, buzzword bingo: The Miner of the Internet of Things will build an Excel for Real-Time Business Operations.

All told, whether you are a Sensor, a Plumber, or a Miner, there are dozens of multi-billion dollar opportunities for entrepreneurs working in this space. The promise of the internet will only be fully realized once we build a future where ordinary things can think.

Apple Exercises the Patent “Nuclear Option”

In the war between the iPhone and Android, Apple exercised the “nuclear option” today by suing HTC, the maker of the Google Nexus One. After my old blackberry died a couple of months back, I bought an iPhone and never looked back. I think it is the most polished, powerful, and innovative handset out there. It has quite literally change the way I work and play. But Apple’s behavior today leaves me dismayed.

What is the likely outcome of Apple’s lawsuits? To put it simply, customers lose. Google and/or HTC are likely to file a countersuit alleging Apple infringes some of their patents. Given the prolific nature of patenting these days, it’s shouldn’t be hard to find some infringed patents. Eventually, all parties involved will settle with modest cross-licensing fees and not much will change.

But at what interim cost? The lawsuits will just add to the cost of the handsets. And more damagingly, the lawsuits will add a ton of uncertainty to the handset ecosystem. Designers won’t know which features they can and can’t build into their systems. All of this could have a chilling effect on handset innovation, not just at Google and HTC, but also at Apple. That will be bad for all of us.

The most frustrating part of this is that Apple has no need to engage in these heavy-handed tactics. They already enjoy incredible advantages when it comes to protecting their products. Their best-in-class App Store is a marketplace with natural barriers to entry. Their best-in-class brand keeps copycats at bay. And their best-in-class design and engineering continues to attract all of the top talent, enabling them to further their lead.

For the sake of innovation, let’s hope Apple’s lawsuit today is just posturing. By not forcing full litigation, they will serve their customers best.

How Google is Killing Open Source

Google (as a company) is one of the world’s most ardent supporters of open source software. Beyond creating Chrome and Android, Google also sponsors the Summer of Code and provides hosting for countless other open source projects on Google Code. But unfortunately, Google (as an advertising-supported business model) may actually be the open source movement’s worst enemy.

How? It’s simple. Through AdSense and other publisher programs, Google has created an ecosystem where the dominant business model on the web is to give away a product for free and monetize it through advertising. Consequently, most software(-as-a-service) on the internet is free. As web-based software becomes free, it takes the wind out of the sails of the open source movement. If you can use so much awesome software for free these days, it’s much harder to be passionate about open source.

Of course, the original point of the open source movement was not just to let everyone have software gratis. The point was to allow everybody the freedom to tinker with code. As Richard Stallman puts it, we should support open source software because it is “Free as in freedom, not free as in beer“. Preserving this freedom allows for code to have greater security, for data to have greater portability, and for systems to have greater customizability. In other words, there are a lot of reasons to love open source software beyond the unbeatable price.

Yet somewhere, we lost our way. Instead of these principles, it seems that people’s disgust for paying for expensive proprietary software is what truly gave the open source movement its passion and its urgency. Linux was to be the antidote to Windows. MySQL the antidote to Oracle. And the list goes on.

Now with most web-based software being free, that urgency is gone. When was the last time you heard a chorus of people demand open source versions of web software? Where are the vociferous calls for an open source Google, Facebook, or Twitter? People are readily willing to stifle their urge to tinker so long as they can get these services delivered for free.

Going forward, I do hope that companies will still honor the principles of software freedom by releasing more open source software, whenever appropriate. (Hopefully not just to commoditize competitors). But I fear that the golden days of open source are gone. The movement is dead… just another victim of Google’s success.

“Debating the Science” vs “Debating Science”

Thomas Friedman reports that Senator Lindsey Graham has become one of the first Republicans to indicate a willingness to advance climate change legislation. While we should all welcome Senator Graham’s change-of-mind, I am alarmed by his rationale. In essence, Senator Graham is jumping on the climate change bandwagon because he thinks it is good politics, not because he thinks it is sound science. He still maintains that “You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change….”

Let’s be clear: There is widespread consensus in the scientific community that human activity is catapulting us toward a climate calamity. As such, Senator Graham’s nonchalant dismissal of this consensus are highly irresponsible. Most damaging of all, ordinary citizens hear his words and they start wanting not just to “debate the science”, but rather to “debate science” itself. He gives fodder to those who seek to discredit the entire scientific method.

Just last week, for example, I was walking down the National Mall in D.C. when I overheard two young men discussing how they thought global warming was a complete fallacy. They truly believed that it was a left-wing conspiracy to avenge Al Gore’s loss of the presidency in the 2000 elections. To prove this conclusion, one of the men proudly observed, “Just look at all of the snow D.C. got this year!”

Really, I hold no malice towards my fellow citizens who think that global warming is not real. But hearing those two men dismiss a solid scientific consensus as a conspiracy really got me wondering: despite all the standard science classes they had to take in high school, how could they have such a low opinion of scientific conclusions?

My perspective is that while our nation’s science teachers do an excellent job at teaching the “facts” of science, they need to do a lot better at teaching the philosophy and methods underlying science. In other words, rather than just teach the “what” of science, they need to teach more of the “how”. If they did, more people would understand that science is based upon doubt, not faith. So when scientists reach a consensus, it is not to be taken lightly. And furthermore, it is to be expected that fringe scientists will emerge who think they can shatter the consensus. Although that fringe is almost always dead wrong, they will always exist because success in science is geared towards disproving the current dogma. Sadly, most climate change deniers just don’t understand that science works this way.

Most of us fluent in science forget that as a philosophy, science is radically different than most other realms of human epistemology. Religion, for example, is not based upon doubt. It is based upon faith. So when science is taught as a series of facts rather than a methodology, people can’t see how it is any different from religion. They expect scientists to be “priests” revealing the truth. And when they read reports of debate within the scientific community, they think scientists are in a confused state of disarray. They lose their “faith” in science, when in fact it is operating perfectly.

Therefore, I close with a simple message for Senator Graham: I’m glad that you are helping to advance meaningful legislation to solve the climate crisis. But while you are at it, also be sure to also double down on federal funding of science education. Scientific debate is too important to America’s future to let the existence of those debates erode the public’s respect for science itself.

The Accidental Entrepreneur

For the second day in a row, I’d like to weigh in on a contentious debate. The topic this time: Are great entrepreneurs born that way, or can they be made?

Vivek Wadhwa, a very insightful scholar on entrepreneurship, wrote a post on TechCrunch presenting data that he says shows that most successful entrepreneurs were not “born” with a desire to build companies. Instead, they stumbled onto this path later in life. From my own experience, and from my observations of many of my peers, I find his data and his conclusions to be spot-on.

From a policy standpoint, the reason this is so important is that the vast majority of America’s economic growth comes from new ventures. So if we can find out how to scale up the number of entrepreneurs, we can achieve much more vibrant economic growth. As Vivek notes, this is a primary goal of the Kauffman Foundation, who have put together a curriculum to teach entrepreneurial skills to would-be entrepreneurs.

But I want to look back one step in the pipeline: Even if we assume that entrepreneurial skills can be “taught”, and even if we assume that a suitable curriculum can be assembled, how do we make people interested in becoming entrepreneurs in the first place? The conventional wisdom is that capitalism already provides the proper incentives. After all, if you build a successful company, you are likely to become very wealthy. Isn’t that enough motivation?

In my view, people who are primarily after financial rewards are the most anemic entrepreneurs. Instead, most of the men and women who have built America’s greatest companies were not originally motivated by wealth creation. They were just having fun.

Examples of this principle abound. Larry Page and Sergey Brin didn’t build Google because they wanted to be rich. They built Google as part of their grad school research; their passion was data mining. In fact, they didn’t want to even build a company. They would have been happy just licensing the technology. Had Yahoo taken them up on the offer, there would be no Google at all. Going back further in history, Apple was able to market an “insanely great” computer because the Woz was a gigantic hardware geek and had already built a phenomenal product — just for fun. He simply loved the challenge of designing elegant circuits. For a more modern-day example, Facebook wasn’t originally conceived as a business either. Mark Zuckerberg and friends were simply combining two of their passions: hacking code and finding women to date. The result was Facebook. Once it was clear they had a hit on their hands, only then did they form a company.

In essence, all of these innovators were accidental entrepreneurs. They were having a blast following a passion, and only later decided to take the leap to entrepreneurship. Therefore, the big challenge in my mind is not whether or how to “teach” entrepreneurship, but rather how do we get people in our society to better follow their passions? How do we get people to choose a line of work because they find it fun? If we could celebrate a set of social values that places a preeminence on working for fun rather than for wealth, I think we’d see far more entrepreneurship in our country. That, in turn, would create far more prosperity.

« Previous PageNext Page »


Hello

Welcome to the blog of Samidh Chakrabarti, which revolves around the topic of innovation (from technology to entrepreneurship to policy), sprinkled with ample doses of et cetera.

Popular Posts

    Tweets @samidh

    Archives


    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.