Redefining what’s possible – Cisco and the Internet of things

Cisco Systems is making big bets on the internet of everything

“You might call us naïve, but we’re looking at changing the world,” Cisco CEO John Chambers told journalists at the Internet of Things World Forum in Barcelona yesterday.

That’s a big, hairy audacious goal which sounds feasible when the company estimates 50 billion devices will be connected to the net by the end of the decade in an industry worth 14 trillion dollars.

Given the size of the market there’s a concern that different standards will affect the industry.

One objective of Cisco holding its event in Barcelona was to start the process of creating standards around the connected devices as the company’s futurist, Dave Evans, pointed out that getting WiFi standards agreed early meant the technology was quickly accepted as users could be confident of their systems talking to each other.

Regardless of the standards adopted, the Internet of Things is already growing with industries from mining to logistics connecting their equipment. This is improving productivity and speeding up the supply chain.

The effects on industries promise to be huge.

Chambers’ message to CEOs was blunt, “by the time it’s obvious you have to move, it’s too late. Have the courage to think big. Have the courage to take risks.”

For Cisco the Internet of Things is probably not a risk at all, as the company that dominates the market for the equipment that is the plumbing of the net will almost certainly profit greatly from the adoption of connected equipment.

Other businesses won’t be in such a good position as their industries change and it’s worthwhile listening to Chambers’ advice.

Validating your market

Sometimes your competitors are your greatest marketing assets.

Last week I interviewed Anthony Foy, CEO of Workshare about his business and the growth in the online sharing and collaboration markets.

When researching Workshare the obvious message is the business can be best described as a Dropbox for enterprises.

It always pays to be cautious when comparing a business to a competitor as often the managers or founders don’t like mentioning marketplace rivals.

Frequently, it turns out the rival in the market helps you define what your service delivers.

A good example of this was a gay and lesbian dating service run by a pair of acquaintances.

Naturally the obvious comparison was with the Grindr app but the two founders – who we’ll call George and John – had completely different views about this.

George’s view was “don’t mention the G word” as Grindr was the feared rival while John’s view was that their opposition validated their market and actually made it easier for them to explain their business.

John’s view turns out to be that of Anthony Foy’s – that Dropbox actually makes it easier for Workshare to articulate its business.

Investors, customers and staff understand what Dropbox does so there’s no need to for Workshare to convince people there’s a demand for what they do or to explain exactly what their service does.

This has proved true for many successful businesses. Facebook needed Friendster and Myspace to prove the market for social media existed while Google had Yahoo! and Altavista to show there was a need for an online search engine.

Just because you aren’t first to the market doesn’t mean you won’t be successful. Sometimes your competitors are your greatest asset in helping the rest of the industry understand exactly what you do.

Pay Pal and the Modern Spice routes

PayPal trace the modern online spice routes with some important messages for retailers.

Online payments company PayPal has released a paper on the The Modern Spice Routes which describes the pattern of online trade across the US, Germany, UK, China, Brazil and Australia.

The results are a snapshot of how online commerce patterns are evolving.

PayPal commissioned the Nielsen Company to survey 6,000 online shoppers about their cross border online buying habits to determine some of the characteristics of global internet commerce.

What immediately stands out in the report is the United States’ dominance with 45% of global market share, China follows with 26%.

At the bottom of the pack is Australia with 16% and, surprisingly, Germany with 13%.

The US itself is an interesting study with the most preferred overseas shopping destination being the United Kingdom followed by China.

Why are people shopping online?

American respondents were overwhelming shopping overseas to access more variety, with 80% of respondents citing the reasons for shopping offshore being “more variety that cannot be found locally”.

Finding more variety was the key factor in all the markets. Even in countries like China and Australia were respondents cited saving money as their main reason for shopping internationally online, more diversity in offerings came a very close second.

That in itself show the opportunity for companies selling internationally  – be unique and don’t offer what can be found at the local WalMart or Tesco.

Illustrating this, the PayPal report cited Australia’s Black Milk clothing and Germany’s Hatshopping as two international success stories.

Intra-region trading

An understated point with the report is just what proportion of international shopping is of each country’s spend – in the United States’ case it is only 18% while in Australia it’s 35%.

Illustrating those internal trading patterns are the British and German figures that show online shopping in other European nations is substantial, so intra-EU trade is a considerable factor.

Similarly, the second popular destination, after the United States, for Chinese online shoppers is the Hong Kong SAR. In fact the Chinese statistics show that intra-Asian trade is just as substantial as EU commerce with Japan, Korea and Singapore all feature highly on the list of shopping destinations.

This illustrates a problem for Australia as it has neither the United States’ massive domestic market or a group of closely integrated neighbours and the high level of international online shopping indicates just how poorly local merchants are doing with their internet strategies.

Indeed, for Australia that the proportion of online shoppers buying overseas is so high should be a worry for local merchants.

Today’s modern trade of bulk carriers, courier companies and shipping containers is very different to the spice routes of Marco Polo’s day, the world is evolving around new trading patterns right now.

For businesses like Australia’s retailers those changed trade routes may not be kind to those who can’t change.

Lessons in crowdfunding from an unsuccessful Kickstarter campaign

Crowdfunding is in its early days and Moore’s Cloud founder Mark Pesce explains some of the lessons we have to learn about this new way of raising capital.

“I’d rather eat a bullet than do a Kickstarter campaign again,” says Moore’s Cloud founder Mark Pesce in the latest Decoding The New Economy video when asked about crowdfunding his project.

Moore’s cloud is an internet of things company that focuses on lighting, “we think it’s interesting and something that expresses emotion” Mark says.

With their first project, Moore’s Cloud looked to raise $700,000 to build their first project but fell well short of their target.

Falling short lead to Mark and his team executing a classic business pivot from a static lights to Holiday, a system of intelligent fairy lights.

“We took exactly the same technology and put it into a different form factor,” said Mark. “It’s as if we took the light and unwound it.”

The failure of the Kickstarter campaign gave the Moore’s Cloud founders an education on how crowdfunding works.

Customer focused from day one

An important aspect of crowdfunding is it’s very customer focused. From day one of the campaign, the venture has to devote resources on relations with those who’ve pledged a contribution.

Most startups don’t have those resources, or the time and skills, to deal with those relations.

“People say it’s a better way of getting investors. I would have to say ‘it’s not better, it’s different.'” Mark says about crowdfunding.

The psychology of investors

One of the differences is the psychology of investors. Mark was urged by the CEO of Indiegogo, Slava Rubin, to set a low target as participants like to back successful campaigns.

“There’s a whole bunch of psychology I didn’t understand going in,” says Mark. “If we’d had a goal of $200,000 we probably would have filled it in the first two weeks.”

“Once a campaign is fully funded, it tends to get overfunded.”

A truism of business is that banks will only lend to you when you don’t need the money and it strangely appears the same thing applies to crowdfunding.

We’re in the early days of crowdfunding and there’s more to be learned about the way it works and for which ventures the fund raising technique works best.

The experience of campaigns like Moore’s Cloud are part of how we’ll discover the nuances of crowdfunding and the psychology of the crowds that contribute.

For God’s sake get a website

Setting up a website is one of the easiest, and most important, things a new business should do.

The annual MYOB Business Monitor was released earlier this week with the depressing news that half of the Australian businesses surveyed didn’t have a basic website.

MYOB’s survey reinforced the finding of PayPal’s Digital Literacy Report a week earlier that found only 34% of Australian small businesses list their contact details online.

This is madness – over a decade ago consumers moved online and now with the mobile internet any business without a website is almost invisible in the marketplace.

What is really dispiriting about these reports is that listing with the various online services and setting up a website is not hard, at worst it should take half a day for a simple site and to complete Google Places, Facebook and Yellow Pages listings.

The easiest way to create a website is to setup a free Blogger page, it takes about twenty minutes and is more than adequate if you just need a site that lists your services, location, contact details and phone number.

While Blogger is good for the basics, it does run the risk of locking a growing business into Google’s walled garden which is why WordPress is the better alternative for more advanced companies or proprietors.

Most readers of this site already know how important an online presence is for any organisation, but it’s almost certain that everyone knows a business owner who doesn’t have a website.

If one of those business owners is someone close to you, then the best thing you can do for them is to sit down with them and setup their basic online presence.

Unless you think it’s time they went out of business. In which case you won’t have to wait long.

Venture capital investors as mentors

Early investors bring more than money to a young business

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman has a wonderful post on his blog detailing what he wished he knew when he first pitched his business to investors.

His seven myths of pitching are well worth reading whether you’re seeking capital from Silicon Valley venture capital firms, a sceptical bank manager or your mum and dad.

The first point is the most pertinent — a successful financing process results in a partnership that delivers benefits beyond just money.

Raising investor funds is only a step in the journey of creating a successful business, it is by no means the end point.

Hoffman’s point is something every business founder needs to keep in mind, those early investors are important mentors and their advice could prove to be more valuable than the money they bring to a venture.

What if you built a broadband network and nobody used it?

Broadband internet can only drive economic growth if society and business can embrace change

The assertion that internet connectivity drives economic growth is largely taken for granted although getting the maximum benefit from a broadband network investment may require more than stringing fibre cables or building wireless base stations.

A key document that supports the link between economic growth and broadband penetration is the International Telecommunication Union’s 2012 Impact of Broadband on the Economy report.

While the reports authors aren’t wholly convinced of the direct links between economic growth and broadband penetration, they do see a clear correlation between the two factors.

ITU Impact of broadband on the economy report 2012
ITU Impact of broadband on the economy report 2012

One of the areas that disturbed the ITU report editors were the business, government and cultural attitudes towards innovation.

The economic impact of broadband is higher when promotion of the technology is combined with stimulus of innovative businesses that are tied to new applications. In other words, the impact of broadband is neither automatic nor homogeneous across the economic system.

For South Korea, internet innovation is a problem as the New York Times reports. Restrictions on mapping technologies, curfews on school age children and the requirement for all South Koreans to use their real names on the net are all cited as factors in stifling local innovation.

In reading the New York Times article, it’s hard not to suspect the South Korean government is engaging in some digital protectionism, which is ironic seeing the benefits the country has reaped from globalised manufacturing over the last thirty years.

The problem for South Korea is that rolling out high speed broadband networks are of little use if local laws, culture or business practices impede adoption of the services. It’s as if the US or Germany built their high speed roads but insisted that cars have a flag waver walking in front of them.

Indeed it may well be that South Korea’s broadband networks are as useful to economic growth as Pyongyang’s broad boulevards just over the border.

Similar problems face other countries with Google’s high speed broadband network in the US so far not attracting the expected business take up and innovation, although it is early days yet and there are some encouraging signs among the Kansas City startup community.

In Australia, the troubled National Broadband Network has struggled to articulate the business uses for the service beyond 1990s mantras about remote workplaces and telehealth – much of the reason for that has been the failure of Australian businesses to think about how broadband can change their industries.

Like Japan’s bridges to nowhere, big infrastructure projects look good but the poorly planned ones – particularly those no-one knows how to use – are a spectacular waste of money.

Hopefully the fibre networks being rolled out won’t be a waste of money, but unless industries start using the web properly then much of the investment will be wasted.

Do business awards help companies?

Winning business awards are great for helping a company focus on its operations, but they aren’t necessarily great for growing an organisation.

The latest clip on The Decoding the New Economy YouTube channel is an interview of Cameron Wall of Melbourne’s C3 Business Solutions about business intelligence, data analytics and whether winning awards helps a company.

Cameron’s business has been a successful enterprise having grown to over a hundred employees since being founded seven years ago.

As a high growth business, the company was listed in the 2010 BRW Fast Starters list, interestingly though Cameron didn’t see a great deal of benefit from winning the accolade.

“I look at it as being a credential, just because you get the credentials it doesn’t necessarily mean you can charge a premium in the marketplace,” Cameron says. “It all helps in terms of recognition, but we haven’t been thrown anything as a result of the award.”

On the other hand the company has won the BRW Best Australian workplace three years in a row and Cameron has found this improved the business’ recruitment.

“Being in a service company you often hear ‘people are our greatest asset’, basically they are our only asset.” Cameron says, “Having a great place to work is really important for us.”

Cameron found that after winning the great place to work that the flow of resumes increased. “Some of the benefits of that were a lot of people applied to join C3 and it makes the recruitment process a lot easier.”

How business awards do help companies is in reviewing their operations and practices as Cameron explained, “using the great place to work process is a great way to understand if we’re trending upward, downward and where we’re going.”

“It was a difficult award to win, as you get probed by every angle.”

With the growth in data science, business analytics and Big Data companies like C3 are going to need good employees in the global race for talent. Having a reputation as fine place to work is a good way of winning the global race for talent.

Trophy image by RoyM through sxc.hu

Google, Facebook and the Silicon Valley paradox

The paradox of Silicon Valley is cloud and social media companies want us to use the products they won’t use themselves.

One of the great advertising campaigns of the 1980s featured entrepreneur and Remington Shaver CEO Victor Kiam telling the world “I liked the product so much I bought the company”.

The modern equivalent of Victor Kiam’s slogan is “eating your own dogfood” where businesses use their own products in day to day operations. It’s a great way of discovering weaknesses in your offerings.

One of the paradoxes of modern tech companies is how they don’t always eat their own dogfood when it comes to their business philosphies – they expect their customers to take risks and do things they deem unacceptable in their own businesses and social lives.

The best example of this are the social media services where founders and senior executives take great pains to hide their personal information, a phenomenon well illustrated by Mark Zuckerberg buying his neighbours’ houses to guarantee his privacy.

Just as noteworthy  are the policies of Google’s IT department, for past five years most tech evangelists – including myself – have been expounding the benefits of business trends like cloud computing and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies.

Now it turns out that Google doesn’t trust BYOD, Windows computers or the Cloud, as the company’s Chief Information Officer, Ben Fried tells All Things D of his reasoning of banning file storage service Dropbox;

The important thing to understand about Dropbox,” Fried said, “is that when your users use it in a corporate context, your corporate data is being held in someone else’s data center.”

This is exactly the objection made by IT departments around the world about using Google’s services. It certainly doesn’t help those Google resellers trying to sell cloud based applications.

Fried’s view of BYOD also echoes that of many conservative IT managers;

“We still want to buy you a corporate laptop, get the benefits of our corporate discounts, and so on. But even more importantly: Control,” Fried said. “We make sure we know how secure that machine is that we know and control, when it was patched, who else is using that computer, things like that that’s really important to us. I don’t believe in BYOD when it comes to the laptop yet.”

Despite these restrictions on Google’s users, Fried doesn’t see himself or his department as being controlling types.

“But the important part,” Fried said, “is that we view our role as empowerment, and not standard-setting or constraining or dictating or something like that. We define our role as an IT department in helping people get their work done better than they could without us. Empowerment means allowing people to develop the ways in which they can work best.”

Fine words indeed when you don’t let people use their own equipment or ask for a business case before you can use Microsoft Office or Apple iWork.

That Google doesn’t give its staff access to many cloud services while Facebook’s managers restrict their information on social media shows the paradox of Silicon Valley – they want us to use the products they won’t use themselves.

Back in the 1980s, Victor Kiam liked what he saw so much that he bought the company. You’d have to wonder if Victor would buy Google or Facebook today.

Building a business culture

Culture matters in an organisation. While a positive culture doesn’t guarantee success, it does make it more likely a company will survive its founders.

“How can you create a great organisation of people and be that mean a person?” Asks funds manager Julian Robertson about Apple founder Steve Jobs.

Robertson, who based the decision to sell his Apple shares on the details in Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, was largely ridiculed for his decision but the veteran investor has a very good point.

A company’s culture develops from the top – if the senior management are paranoid, rogues or thieves then those attributes will eventually percolate through the company.

The Tyco Lesson

During the 1990s I had the unfortunate experience of working for Tyco International at the time it was led by Dennis Kozlowski, a man listed by Time Magazine as one of the ten most crooked CEOs of all time, senior management’s attitude of treating the company’s funds as their own piggy bank was copied throughout the organisation.

Tyco suffered badly during that period and subsequent management has had to work hard to undo the influence of Kozlowski and his cronies’ poor leadership.

One organisation I’ve watched closely over the last few years has been Australia’s NBNCo, the state owned company set up to build the nation’s National Broadband Network.

In under four years of operation the company has developed a dysfunctional management culture that saw the project miss its targets by over 70%.

For the NBN, a hands off attitude by senior management allowed bureaucratic silos to develop in a relatively small and young organisation. Those silos then started perpetuating bad habits as managers hired their friends and ignored good management processes. A lack of process and management accountability have been the main reasons the company has failed to meet its targets.

Apple’s challenge

In Apple’s case, Jobs created a culture of fear and secrecy with the company going as far as creating its own secret police designed to intimidate staff. The entire company was beholden to, and evolved around, one man’s vision, ego and quirks.

While Jobs was ahead of the game, all was good for Apple shareholders but the risk was always that Jobs would make a major mistake or leave the company. It turned out to be the latter when Jobs passed away.

As with any company built in the image of its founder, Apple now struggles to adapting to life without Steve Jobs and his successors have to reinvent the company’s culture around a more collegiate management structure than an often not-so-benign dictatorship.

Microsoft are facing a similar transition as Steve Ballmer leaves the company. Like Apple, Microsoft is an immensely profitable facing a changing market at the very time they are transitioning to a new generation of leaders.

Leaders such as Steve Cook at Apple and Ballmer’s successors at Microsoft have a massive task in changing their company’s culture as they try to undo a generation of management habits and this is why Robertson’s reasoning about selling his stake makes sense.

Culture matters in an organisation. While a positive culture doesn’t guarantee success, it does make it more likely a company will survive its founders.

Intel and the upgrade cycle

Can the upgrade cycle save Microsoft and Intel as the computer market moves against the once dominant duo?

Once dominant PC industry duo Microsoft and Intel have had their positions shaken with the rise of cloud computing and smartphones. Can the PC upgrade cycle help them reclaim their fortunes?

In the early days of the PC industry, chips mattered. Twenty years ago the release of the Intel 486 CPU was big news and careers rose or fell depending on whether an IT manager chose DX-33 or SX-66 chips for the company’s fleet of desktops.

Today few people care enough to get passionate about what’s driving their smartphone or tablet computer.

Intel, who are currently promoting their new range of Central Processing Units, and Microsoft are in an interesting position as their traditional dominance in server, desktop and laptop computers is being challenged by the rise of smartphones and tablet devices.

For most of the 1990s and 2000s the two companies dominated the PC market so completely that the generic term for the sector was ‘Wintel’ – the combination of Windows and Intel.

A core part of the old Wintel business model was the four year upgrade cycle, that most computers would be replaced every three to five years giving Microsoft, Intel and the rest of the IT industry a ready made market for new equipment.

That business model was broken by Microsoft’s disastrous Vista operating system and never recovered as non Wintel portable devices and cloud computing services took away the need to upgrade a server, desktop or laptop computer every four years.

For Intel, matters weren’t helped by their powerful but energy hungry chips not being suitable for tablet computers and smartphones which further eroded their sales as the market moved to portable devices.

Despite those changes to the marketplace, Intel continue to focus on that four year cycle, at their media lunch in Sydney yesterday they emphasised the costs of running older technology.

They do have a point with their claims that servers older than four years deliver four percent of the computing power but consume 65% of the energy, making those antiquated systems far less efficient than newer equipment.

Unfortunately for Intel many businesses will be looking at outsourcing their servers to the cloud when the next technology refresh comes along, so the energy and efficiency arguments are a different matter.

On the desktop, things are somewhat different as most workers still prefer to work at a PC and Intel do have a case for upgrading both business and home systems.

Probably the biggest opportunity will be Microsoft’s pending retirement of Windows XP which will see a wave of business and home users who’ve been content with decade old computers looking at moving off systems that are no longer supported.

Another feature going for Intel and Microsoft are newer computer technologies such as touchscreens and Intel’s own wireless display technology, branded as Wi-Di, which older systems can’t support.

Whether this is enough to entice technology addled consumers and businesses across to new systems remains to be seen, but it’s a challenge for both Microsoft and Intel to reclaim their once dominant market positions.

Solomon Lew and Australia’s perfect storm

Australia’s retail leaders are helpless in the face of change they don’t understand, the rest of the nation faces the same problem.

One of Australia’s leading retailers, Solomon Lew, joined the conga line of business whiners this week with complaints that the recently departed Labor government had been bad for his industry.

Yesterday I posted an interview with Susan Olivier of Dassault Systemes about how the retail and fashion industries – Solomon Lew’s businesses – are being radically changed by technology and changing consumer behaviour.

Lew, along with most Australian retailers, has completely missed these changes and instead remained focused on their 1980s model of screwing down suppliers while charging customers high prices for poor goods and substandard service.

Now that 1980s business model has come to an end Lew and his other retailers like David Jones’ Paul Zahra, Myer’s Bernie Brookes and, most vocal of all, Gerry Harvey bleat about government taxes, high labour rates and almost anything else apart from the obvious factors they can fix themselves.

Bigger storms ahead

Along with the two factors Olivier identified, there’s two much bigger factors threatening Australian retail – the tapping out of the credit boom and the aging population.

The aging population is simple, consumer tastes are changing as the population ages and the need for conspicuous consumption and the latest fashions tapers off as one gets older. The demographic boom of the late Twentieth Century is over.

More immediate though is the tapping out of the credit boom, since the Global Financial Crisis Australians have swung around to be net savers which immediately pulls a large chunk out of the discretionary consumer spending pie which had kept the retail industry ticking along through the 1980s and 90s.

Another aspect is the end of the home ATM – while Australian Exceptionalists deny this happened down under, it certainly did as banks sought to ‘liberate’ the equity householder had locked in their properties. This too fuelled the credit boom.

Perversely we may be seeing the home ATM receiving a reprieve as Australian property prices accelerate from their already bubble-like levels, however that short term sugar hit for retailers and the economy is only creating bigger problems for the country’s merchants.

Funding an uncompetitive economy

Contrary to the bleating of Australian retailers, the biggest problem facing the sector is the nation’s high rents and property prices.

For consumers, those huge rents and huge mortgages take money that could otherwise be buying more consumer goods, at the same time retailers are being slugged by some of the highest rents in the world, pushing up their costs and reducing competitiveness.

That lack of competitiveness is affecting all parts of the Australian economy, particularly tourism, and the retail industry isn’t immune to those forces.

Anyone who visits an Australian eating establishment will have experienced this, personally I had another experience last night at a pub that charged $4 (3.70 US) for a soda water.

This wasn’t a trendy downtown bar but a pub in a lower middle class suburb with two overworked and under trained young bar staff. During the three hours there, our table of six was cleared once.

no-table-service-in-australian-business.jpg

Swiss prices coupled with service that would be barely acceptable in a 1970s outback Queensland roadhouse is not the formula for a successful economy.

The business challenge

Which brings us back to Solomon Lew’s whinge about the government, Sol handily overlooks the previous government’s  stimulus packages which kept the nation out of recession and put money straight into his and other retailers’ pockets.

There’s a lesson there for the Australian Labor Party that the tweedle-dum, tweedle-dumber strategy of offering near identical corporate and middle class welfare policies to the Liberal Party is not going to win you friends with the nation’s business sector and its entitled leaders.

For the incoming Liberal government, it is faced with the challenge of making Australia a competitive, high-cost economy along the lines of Japan, Switzerland or Germany.

It’s hard to be optimistic about the Abbott government meeting this challenge given the bulk of its ministers are holdovers from the previous Howard Liberal government that was largely responsible for Australia flunking the transition to being a high cost economy along with institutionalising a middle class welfare culture into Australian society.

Even if Abbott does genuinely attempt to address Australia’s lack of competitiveness, he can be sure he will get absolutely no help from the whingeing captains of the nation’s industries, as Solomon Lew has shown.

While Solomon Lew and the Australian managerial class struggle with their perfect storms of economic, demographic and technological change, the nation also faces those headwinds.

Hopefully for Australia there are capable leaders who can navigate those storm waiting to take the helm.