Two of my interests are virtual worlds and enterprise collaboration. I attended an event recently that touched on both of these interests. Two University professors talked about their recently released book on collaborative learning in virtual worlds.
In the early days of education, the predominant model was a master/apprentice one which didn't scale as the population grew and as democracy became popular. So, the model switched to a declarative one. Now, with the advent of 3D virtual worlds such as Second Life, the apprentice model becomes scalable since there is no economic boundary to physical location anymore.
Other movement has indicated an increased interest in virtual worlds for the enterprise. SAIC, Inc. provides scientific, engineering, systems integration, and technical services and solutions to various branches of the U.S. military, agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense, the intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other U.S. government civil agencies, state and local government agencies, foreign governments, and customers in select commercial markets. They have recently acquired Forterra Systems, Inc. which provides a virtual world technology focused on enterprise training.
What do you think? Will virtual worlds ever mature beyond that of video games? Is there a legitimate use of virtual world technology in the enterprise? I'd be interested in your opinions.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Flat Enterprise Society
My company has a few collaboration products (Code-Roller and Cogenuity) so I often write about ECM because it is an exciting industry to be in these days.
Enterprise Collaboration is exciting in terms of growth but it is also exciting because its thought leaders have something interesting to say. Folks like Thomas Malone, Andrew McAfee, and Dion Hinchcliffe are doing a lot to advance modern corporate tribal thinking to greater levels of democratic culture.
Like any disruptive innovation, change is required in order to realize any benefits. Change has to come from both the board room and the water cooler in order for it to have any lasting effect. True change must come from above and below, from the executives and the rank-and-file. That turning point is what is usually called the watershed moment in the adoption curve of any paradigm shift.
That is why I got excited when I read this NY Times interview of the CEO of SunGard. Cristóbal Conde explains in day-to-day, boots-on-the-ground terms that any C level player can understand how the old ways of top down management simply won't scale in this modern age of global competition, cheaper communications, and the rising price of oil.
Conde does not come off as pompous. He talks about mistakes that he made before he understood the true value of collaboration. Other valid points that he makes include the fallacy of micro-management, the importance of intellectual curiosity, and the mental illness known as PowerPoint. Sounds provocative? Definitely give this one a read.
Enterprise Collaboration is exciting in terms of growth but it is also exciting because its thought leaders have something interesting to say. Folks like Thomas Malone, Andrew McAfee, and Dion Hinchcliffe are doing a lot to advance modern corporate tribal thinking to greater levels of democratic culture.
Like any disruptive innovation, change is required in order to realize any benefits. Change has to come from both the board room and the water cooler in order for it to have any lasting effect. True change must come from above and below, from the executives and the rank-and-file. That turning point is what is usually called the watershed moment in the adoption curve of any paradigm shift.
That is why I got excited when I read this NY Times interview of the CEO of SunGard. Cristóbal Conde explains in day-to-day, boots-on-the-ground terms that any C level player can understand how the old ways of top down management simply won't scale in this modern age of global competition, cheaper communications, and the rising price of oil.
Conde does not come off as pompous. He talks about mistakes that he made before he understood the true value of collaboration. Other valid points that he makes include the fallacy of micro-management, the importance of intellectual curiosity, and the mental illness known as PowerPoint. Sounds provocative? Definitely give this one a read.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
3D is the New Talkies
I just watched Avatar last night and it is now clear to me that 3D is the new talkies.
What are talkies, you ask? Whenever a disruptive innovation hits the movie industry and gains traction, it tends to take over the entire industry. This was the case back in the 20's when synchronized sound was added to film. This new type of movie was called a talkie since actor dialog was the new and most salient feature. It happened again in the 50's when color films became mainstream.
It's happening now with 3D in which the viewer uses a specially treated pair of glasses to watch films processed to work with those glasses such that the elements of the film appear to have depth.
It sometimes takes a while for a technology to go mainstream. The first color processing was invented in the 20's and an earlier wave of 3D movies from the 50's died out, primarily because of the more primitive polarization effects used then resulted in eye strain and headaches. That is not the case with modern 3D.
Just like with color, animation and remastering old favorites are early adopters.
Both movie industry equipment vendors and movie theaters are making investments in the technology.
A lot of big name directors are positioning for their first 3D releases. Other applications of the technology are also being explored.
I am already starting to see in video rental that the other side of the disk is the 3D version and half of the previews what I saw when I went to see Avatar were also in 3D.
I've seen the future and it appears to be 3D.
What are talkies, you ask? Whenever a disruptive innovation hits the movie industry and gains traction, it tends to take over the entire industry. This was the case back in the 20's when synchronized sound was added to film. This new type of movie was called a talkie since actor dialog was the new and most salient feature. It happened again in the 50's when color films became mainstream.
It's happening now with 3D in which the viewer uses a specially treated pair of glasses to watch films processed to work with those glasses such that the elements of the film appear to have depth.
It sometimes takes a while for a technology to go mainstream. The first color processing was invented in the 20's and an earlier wave of 3D movies from the 50's died out, primarily because of the more primitive polarization effects used then resulted in eye strain and headaches. That is not the case with modern 3D.
Just like with color, animation and remastering old favorites are early adopters.
Both movie industry equipment vendors and movie theaters are making investments in the technology.
A lot of big name directors are positioning for their first 3D releases. Other applications of the technology are also being explored.
I am already starting to see in video rental that the other side of the disk is the 3D version and half of the previews what I saw when I went to see Avatar were also in 3D.
I've seen the future and it appears to be 3D.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Pros and Cons to Open Source Business Models
I just read this NY Times article on Open Source as a Model for Business is Elusive which claims that successful open source companies have more societal and strategic value than financial and cites the effect that MySql is having on the EU's evaluation of Oracle's acquisition of Sun as an example. They worry that if Oracle acquires Sun, then they will kill MySql which is a low cost alternative to Oracle's database product.
The article lists the usual suspects in their case both for and against open source; Red Hat, XenSource, and Mozilla being the three top reference models.
They also show how open source companies are supported by large technology vendors with deep pockets in order to wage proxy wars with their competitors. Google with Mozilla and IBM with Linux against Microsoft are two examples cited. This is actually Oracle's defense against the EU's concerns in that Oracle claims that they will continue to support MySql in order to eat into Microsoft's Sql Server market.
It seems that the exit strategy for open source companies these days is in acquisition over going public. Witness the recent purchase of SpringSource by VMware in order to gain more control up the API virtualization stack as the corporate world turns towards cloud computing. The acquisition of XenSource by Citrix is another example.
Giga OM countered to this article with an article of their own with the claim that Open Source Business Models Aren't Dead End Streets. They cite Android, Acquia, and Cloudera as example companies.
The article lists the usual suspects in their case both for and against open source; Red Hat, XenSource, and Mozilla being the three top reference models.
They also show how open source companies are supported by large technology vendors with deep pockets in order to wage proxy wars with their competitors. Google with Mozilla and IBM with Linux against Microsoft are two examples cited. This is actually Oracle's defense against the EU's concerns in that Oracle claims that they will continue to support MySql in order to eat into Microsoft's Sql Server market.
It seems that the exit strategy for open source companies these days is in acquisition over going public. Witness the recent purchase of SpringSource by VMware in order to gain more control up the API virtualization stack as the corporate world turns towards cloud computing. The acquisition of XenSource by Citrix is another example.
Giga OM countered to this article with an article of their own with the claim that Open Source Business Models Aren't Dead End Streets. They cite Android, Acquia, and Cloudera as example companies.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Freemium Revisited
Earlier this year, I wrote about a WSJ article that covered the revenue model known as freemium which is a combination of free and premium. The idea is that you release a free version of your offering in order to capture a larger market share and depend on some segment of your market upgrading to a paid version.
I just read a NY Times article that used their coverage of a start-up that makes a product called Evernote to weigh in on the freemium topic.
I knew about Evernote back when it was just a freeware windows application that you could use to capture notes of various media types in one place that was searchable. Their biggest competition at that time was Microsoft's OneNote product which is now bundled with MS-Office and, frankly, I've never seen anyone use it.
Now, the windows app communicates with a centralized network which acts as a repository that you can access from multiple computers or share with others for the purposes of collaboration.
May I digress for a couple of paragraphs? A large part of my training as an engineer was in the black art of categorization. You learn to categorize things. You learn to categorize everything. The predilection to DnD is a natural one because engineers learn how to transform stuff. For example, software engineers learn how to transform specifications into working software. Transformations of that order are fancy sequences of simpler transformations. A simple transformation consists of the thing or things to be transformed (the operands) and the process by which the transformation is to be guided (the operator). The role of the engineer is to figure out that sequence of transformations and also which process to apply for each simple transformation. In engineer speak, this is called "finding the right tool for the job."
Because engineers are trained to categorize, they want a large toolbox with a wide variety of tools by which they can use to transform things. It gives them more choice, more freedom. Those who never received training on how to categorize see this as a liability instead of a benefit. They want only one choice of tool. They want a tool that does it all.
That is why I don't use Evernote. It is a single container by which you are supposed to put everything into. I doesn't appeal to me but I recognize that it does appeal to a very large number of people. How do you feel about it? Would you rather just open a document because you want to access it or would you like to choose which tool to open a document in because different tools have different specialties and you wish to pick the tool that is most conducive to the job at hand?
Anyway, back to freemium. What's really interesting about this NY Times article is that they put some numbers to the Evernote's take on the model. They currently have a half million active users. If you stay with the service for a year, then there's a four percent chance that you will subscribe at $5 per month. They claimed that they earned $79,000 in July which, according to their other figures, means that three percent of the total active user base subscribes. They project that this subscription rate could climb to as high as 22% which would yield a little over a half million on revenue per month.
They also claim that this will scale. They won't have to staff up further as more people subscribe. They claim that their current costs is nine cents per user per month and project a break-even date of January 2011.
Whether or not you believe these numbers, the freemium model is compelling and is most probably worth some exploration and consideration. I use it in my business where access to Code Roller (the community edition of a software development project life cycle management solution) is free for all (including my competition) but you have to pay if you want my company to develop the actual software being described by your project.
What is your take on the freemium revenue model? Is it an exciting way to gain market share or do the challenges of monetization and fear of commoditization of your product or service give you pause?
I just read a NY Times article that used their coverage of a start-up that makes a product called Evernote to weigh in on the freemium topic.
I knew about Evernote back when it was just a freeware windows application that you could use to capture notes of various media types in one place that was searchable. Their biggest competition at that time was Microsoft's OneNote product which is now bundled with MS-Office and, frankly, I've never seen anyone use it.
Now, the windows app communicates with a centralized network which acts as a repository that you can access from multiple computers or share with others for the purposes of collaboration.
May I digress for a couple of paragraphs? A large part of my training as an engineer was in the black art of categorization. You learn to categorize things. You learn to categorize everything. The predilection to DnD is a natural one because engineers learn how to transform stuff. For example, software engineers learn how to transform specifications into working software. Transformations of that order are fancy sequences of simpler transformations. A simple transformation consists of the thing or things to be transformed (the operands) and the process by which the transformation is to be guided (the operator). The role of the engineer is to figure out that sequence of transformations and also which process to apply for each simple transformation. In engineer speak, this is called "finding the right tool for the job."
Because engineers are trained to categorize, they want a large toolbox with a wide variety of tools by which they can use to transform things. It gives them more choice, more freedom. Those who never received training on how to categorize see this as a liability instead of a benefit. They want only one choice of tool. They want a tool that does it all.
That is why I don't use Evernote. It is a single container by which you are supposed to put everything into. I doesn't appeal to me but I recognize that it does appeal to a very large number of people. How do you feel about it? Would you rather just open a document because you want to access it or would you like to choose which tool to open a document in because different tools have different specialties and you wish to pick the tool that is most conducive to the job at hand?
Anyway, back to freemium. What's really interesting about this NY Times article is that they put some numbers to the Evernote's take on the model. They currently have a half million active users. If you stay with the service for a year, then there's a four percent chance that you will subscribe at $5 per month. They claimed that they earned $79,000 in July which, according to their other figures, means that three percent of the total active user base subscribes. They project that this subscription rate could climb to as high as 22% which would yield a little over a half million on revenue per month.
They also claim that this will scale. They won't have to staff up further as more people subscribe. They claim that their current costs is nine cents per user per month and project a break-even date of January 2011.
Whether or not you believe these numbers, the freemium model is compelling and is most probably worth some exploration and consideration. I use it in my business where access to Code Roller (the community edition of a software development project life cycle management solution) is free for all (including my competition) but you have to pay if you want my company to develop the actual software being described by your project.
What is your take on the freemium revenue model? Is it an exciting way to gain market share or do the challenges of monetization and fear of commoditization of your product or service give you pause?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Understanding Google Wave
In late May of this year, Google announced a new technology initiative of theirs called Google Wave. What is this technology about and why should anyone care?
Early reports painted the picture of Google Wave being a hybrid between instant messaging and email with an emphasis on conversant collaboration. Because of that observation, people just thought it was an email killer and Internet attention went elsewhere. After all, who is dissatisfied with email?
Since then, many Internet pundits have weighed in on the subject. Some claim that it is too complicated for rapid adoption. Others see it more as a platform for enterprise collaboration than as an email killer.
Google Wave is scheduled to expand its beta audience in about a month from now. Many sources are now skeptical about whether or not the technology is stable enough to take that step.
So, why should you care? Whether or not Google can make its commitment by the end of the week is immaterial to me. What is important is that if they can carry this off and deliver on the promise of Google Wave, then I believe Google Wave can be a dramatic game changing innovation to those web properties that thrive on user generated content.
But innovation is not always well received nor easy to accept. I will go into more details about this in a future post but what Google Wave empowers is real-time conversations across multiple web properties. Imagine a world where discussion threads are transformed into persistent chat rooms that cluster around a particular topic instead of belonging to a particular article or blog entry. Each web page devoted to that topic could share in the discussion yet the participants could also track the complete conversation in a web GUI that does look like email on steroids.
So, what's the problem? What's the big deal? This means that web properties are going to have to be ready to let go of some traffic away from their site in order to open their site up to more traffic from other sites. This philosophy runs counter to the current practice of stickiness where web sites do anything to capture and retain visitors to their site.
I'm a big advocate of sharing information online as a necessary step to fostering healthy and prosperous communities of practice so here's hoping that this wave is one that catches on. Stay tuned for more developments in September.
Early reports painted the picture of Google Wave being a hybrid between instant messaging and email with an emphasis on conversant collaboration. Because of that observation, people just thought it was an email killer and Internet attention went elsewhere. After all, who is dissatisfied with email?
Since then, many Internet pundits have weighed in on the subject. Some claim that it is too complicated for rapid adoption. Others see it more as a platform for enterprise collaboration than as an email killer.
Google Wave is scheduled to expand its beta audience in about a month from now. Many sources are now skeptical about whether or not the technology is stable enough to take that step.
So, why should you care? Whether or not Google can make its commitment by the end of the week is immaterial to me. What is important is that if they can carry this off and deliver on the promise of Google Wave, then I believe Google Wave can be a dramatic game changing innovation to those web properties that thrive on user generated content.
But innovation is not always well received nor easy to accept. I will go into more details about this in a future post but what Google Wave empowers is real-time conversations across multiple web properties. Imagine a world where discussion threads are transformed into persistent chat rooms that cluster around a particular topic instead of belonging to a particular article or blog entry. Each web page devoted to that topic could share in the discussion yet the participants could also track the complete conversation in a web GUI that does look like email on steroids.
So, what's the problem? What's the big deal? This means that web properties are going to have to be ready to let go of some traffic away from their site in order to open their site up to more traffic from other sites. This philosophy runs counter to the current practice of stickiness where web sites do anything to capture and retain visitors to their site.
I'm a big advocate of sharing information online as a necessary step to fostering healthy and prosperous communities of practice so here's hoping that this wave is one that catches on. Stay tuned for more developments in September.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Browser Wars Circa 2009
If you have any understanding of computer technology and you haven't been in a coma for the past twelve years, then you already know that there has been a very significant trend in software application development from windows based applications to web applications.
The drivers for this trend aren't very hard to comprehend. A traditional windows application incurs a lot more development costs in terms of installation and testing on the various different types of client computers (i.e. PCs) than the same app delivered as HTML over the web. While there have been impressive advancements in reducing windows application testing and deployment over the years, there is still a higher TCO for windows apps than for web apps.
Not that web apps will completely take over windows apps. Some areas, such as graphics manipulation, VoIP, and video capture, will most probably always be in the province of windows apps. At a minimum, you will always need a web browser running on the client machine as a windows app in order to get access to the web apps. Without the web browser, the web apps are useless.
This is nothing new to the major technology vendors. As competitors over gaining IT market share, they have known this for quite some time. Own the web browser and you own the web. That is why Microsoft aggressively went after Netscape back in the mid 90s. Netscape was the corporation that formed around the original inventors of the web browser. This competition between Netscape and Microsoft eventually led to Netscape being acquired by AOL in 1998. Round one of the browser wars goes to Microsoft.
But the founders of Netscape were not willing to give up so easily. Even as the company was being sold, they created a non-profit foundation devoted to the proposition that innovation on the Internet would thrive only if there was available a web browser that was not so directly controlled by any single vendor. This Mozilla Foundation eventually spun off a for profit subsidiary in order to gain the revenue needed to continue to provide a quality web browser.
This "phoenix from the ashes" strategy worked well. While continued development of Microsoft's web browser languished, the Mozilla browser (called Firefox) continued to enhance and innovate on the web browsing experience. Mozilla was able to do this because they used the open source model to keep their development costs low. Recently, there has been much speculation about the mass migration of web browsing from Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser to Firefox. Round two of the browser wars goes to Mozilla.
What about the other players in this war? Well, Apple has always had a place on the battlefield with their Safari browser. They don't have much in the way of market share, however. There's a few other minor players but their low market share numbers make it such that they are really not worth mentioning here. What is newsworthy is when Google announced their entry into this war with their web browser named Chrome. For one thing, a lot of the revenue for Mozilla comes from Google. The concern is that revenue stream will dry up now that Google and Mozilla are direct competitors.
Google Chrome currently doesn't have a lot of market share yet so why the concern about Chrome? Google is a big company with deep pockets. This coup has been tried before by another big company with deep pockets, Microsoft. Google is ratcheting up their marketing machine over Chrome.
There are also some noticeable difference between what Google has done with Chrome and what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. The biggest difference is that Chrome is based on open source.
Recently, the NY Times published a story on the latest turn of events in the web browser wars. The war is very lukewarm now. Not a hot war at all. Google will continue to fund Mozilla, at least until 2011. Google's funding accounts for over three fourths of Mozilla's revenues. Mozilla recently moved their physical office away from the main Google campus.
Why do you care? If you are a software vendor or IT shop that makes and publishes web applications, then you want to make sure your applications run smoothly in the most popular web browsers. If your web applications suddenly stop working, then you have a serious problem.
That is why industry watchers keep up with the web browser wars. They don't want to be caught by surprise by the threat of a web browser upgrade or patch that was purposely designed to destroy the competition.
The drivers for this trend aren't very hard to comprehend. A traditional windows application incurs a lot more development costs in terms of installation and testing on the various different types of client computers (i.e. PCs) than the same app delivered as HTML over the web. While there have been impressive advancements in reducing windows application testing and deployment over the years, there is still a higher TCO for windows apps than for web apps.
Not that web apps will completely take over windows apps. Some areas, such as graphics manipulation, VoIP, and video capture, will most probably always be in the province of windows apps. At a minimum, you will always need a web browser running on the client machine as a windows app in order to get access to the web apps. Without the web browser, the web apps are useless.
This is nothing new to the major technology vendors. As competitors over gaining IT market share, they have known this for quite some time. Own the web browser and you own the web. That is why Microsoft aggressively went after Netscape back in the mid 90s. Netscape was the corporation that formed around the original inventors of the web browser. This competition between Netscape and Microsoft eventually led to Netscape being acquired by AOL in 1998. Round one of the browser wars goes to Microsoft.
But the founders of Netscape were not willing to give up so easily. Even as the company was being sold, they created a non-profit foundation devoted to the proposition that innovation on the Internet would thrive only if there was available a web browser that was not so directly controlled by any single vendor. This Mozilla Foundation eventually spun off a for profit subsidiary in order to gain the revenue needed to continue to provide a quality web browser.
This "phoenix from the ashes" strategy worked well. While continued development of Microsoft's web browser languished, the Mozilla browser (called Firefox) continued to enhance and innovate on the web browsing experience. Mozilla was able to do this because they used the open source model to keep their development costs low. Recently, there has been much speculation about the mass migration of web browsing from Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser to Firefox. Round two of the browser wars goes to Mozilla.
What about the other players in this war? Well, Apple has always had a place on the battlefield with their Safari browser. They don't have much in the way of market share, however. There's a few other minor players but their low market share numbers make it such that they are really not worth mentioning here. What is newsworthy is when Google announced their entry into this war with their web browser named Chrome. For one thing, a lot of the revenue for Mozilla comes from Google. The concern is that revenue stream will dry up now that Google and Mozilla are direct competitors.
Google Chrome currently doesn't have a lot of market share yet so why the concern about Chrome? Google is a big company with deep pockets. This coup has been tried before by another big company with deep pockets, Microsoft. Google is ratcheting up their marketing machine over Chrome.
There are also some noticeable difference between what Google has done with Chrome and what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. The biggest difference is that Chrome is based on open source.
Recently, the NY Times published a story on the latest turn of events in the web browser wars. The war is very lukewarm now. Not a hot war at all. Google will continue to fund Mozilla, at least until 2011. Google's funding accounts for over three fourths of Mozilla's revenues. Mozilla recently moved their physical office away from the main Google campus.
Why do you care? If you are a software vendor or IT shop that makes and publishes web applications, then you want to make sure your applications run smoothly in the most popular web browsers. If your web applications suddenly stop working, then you have a serious problem.
That is why industry watchers keep up with the web browser wars. They don't want to be caught by surprise by the threat of a web browser upgrade or patch that was purposely designed to destroy the competition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
