Investment | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

New York celebrates its entrepreneurs with Made in NY

New York City shows how cities and nations have to promote their economic strengths

Part of a thriving industrial hub is having the business and skills that support the sector. If you’ve got them, you need to tell the world you’re open for business.

Somebody who is doing this well is New York City’s Office of Media and Entertainment which runs the Made In NY program.

While much of the focus of the program is on attracting film production, Made in NY recently branched out into promoting the city’s tech community boasting successful businesses like video sharing site Vimeo, tutor matching service Tutorspree and stock photography supplier Shutterstock.

Towards the end of the Shutterstock clip one of the staff mentions ‘drop bears’ – a little bit of Sydney argot creeps into the story.

It’s the Sydney connection that makes the Made In NY campaign so bittersweet, I was involved in setting up the Digital Sydney project for the New South Wales government.

While Sydney doesn’t have the size of New York’s or London’s tech industries it does share the advantage of being one of the most diverse cities in the world. The work of organisations like ICE in Parramatta is important in realising some of that potential.

That potential is huge – having sizeable communities of East and South Asian language speakers gives Sydney a real opportunity in the Asian Century.

Unfortunately most of those communities live in Sydney’s West and while lip service is given to the needs of that region most economic development work focuses on corporate welfare for established interests and supporting inner city stuff that white folks like.

When I started at what was then the Department of State and Regional Development in 2009 I was told that many in the agency believed NSW stood for “North Sydney to Wooloomoolloo”, something that largely turned out to be true. The west of Sydney, like most of the state, took second place behind the wants of big business.

This is what’s encouraging about the Made In New York campaign, it promotes smaller business – although they all seem based in lower Manhattan staffed largely by a middle class monoculture, which seems to be a problem when you buy into hipster chic.

Hipster chic is one of New York’s strengths and that’s what every city and country needs to be doing in a global connected economy.

If you can’t define and articulate what it is you add to the economy, then you’re locked into the low value, small margin commodity end of the marketplace and that is a tough place to be.

The question for all of us, on a personal and a national basis, is do we want to be price taking commodity producers or do we want to develop the high value, growth business of the 21st Century.

New York City has made its choice, we have to make ours.

Going insane with government subsidies

Governments and taxpayers keep repeating the same failed strategies in attracting new industries.

Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

When it comes to funding the film industry it’s hard not to think that governments, and those who want a strong local film making communities, have all gone insane.

As discussed previously, the global producer incentive industry is a scam perpetuated by the major movie studios on gormless governments desperate for the glitz and glamour of having a Hollywood star or two come to town.

In Australia, governments are scratching around to raise change to attract a high profile Hollywood production once again – unsurprisingly to subsidise another remake of a fifty year old hit.

This is dressed up in the guise of helping build or maintain the local skill base or infrastructure. The water tank that’s expected to be used should the Aussies win the bid was built by the Queensland government in 2007 to attract aquatic themed movies, as the minister at the time said;

“As a result of having the water tank facility, the Government’s Pacific Film and Television Commission and Warner Roadshow Studios are currently in negotiations with a number of major studios requiring water tank facilities for their next major films.

“These projects under negotiation have an estimated value of $US370 million.”

Little of that money made it down under and the Gold Coast water tank stands largely unused as the Queensland and Federal governments failed to interest subsidy hungry movie producers.

When governments win those subsidised productions the local industry has brief sugar rush as providers struggle to find caterers, crew and extras required to film Superman XVIII or the fourth remake of Herbie The Love Bug. After a few months, the big producer folds their tent and moves on to the next city that spent millions attracting the studios’ favours.

Those involved in the big Hollywood production sadly go back to their day jobs and dreams of building careers in a vibrant local industry which has no chance of developing under the boom and bust cycle of major production attraction.

And so the cycle goes. At least today’s Sydney accountants can tell their kids how they once stood next to Keanu Reeves as an extra on The Matrix.

While Hollywood is the best organised at milking gullible governments, it isn’t just the film industry that pulls this scam off on taxpayers. If anything, the automobile manufacturers are probably the biggest beneficiary of government largess and produce more unloved bombs than the movie industry.

What’s particularly notable when governments announce huge licks of money for multinational corporations is just how small support is for the local industry in comparison.

A good example of this are the New South Wales film industry subsidies. The state’s Emerging Filmmakers Fund dispensed a grand $90,000 to local producers in 2012. This compares to the $6.6 million dollars spent by the state on attracting foreign productions.

Even that $6.6 million number has to be treated with caution as major productions can be subsidised from the state’s Investment Attraction Scheme – a $77 million slush fund put aside for attracting ‘footloose’ multinational business operations.

Generally payments from the IAS are ‘Commercial in Confidence’, or ‘Crooks in Collusion’ as some more cynical might put it, so it’s almost impossible for taxpayers to know how much has been lavished on attracting foreign businesses.

What is clear though is the government subsidies for foreign operators, not just in the film industry, dwarf the support given to local businesses.

During my short period working for the NSW Department of Trade and Investment more than one businessman asked me “why is your minister giving a slab of money to my overseas competitors rather than encouraging local businesses?”

It’s difficult to find a diplomatic answer that doesn’t imply that political and public service leaders are blinding the glamour and prestige of being associated with rich multinational corporations.

The real support local industries need is steady work producing products that play to their advantages, the sugar rushes of major movie productions or subsidised manufacturing only distort the market and may even damage the smaller local production companies as the wrong skillsets and infrastructure is built.

Done strategically as part of a broader, long term plan targeted subsidies to global industry leaders can work, but unfortunately few of the movie industry incentives or investment attraction schemes have that sort of thinking underlying them.

As budgets tighten with the deleveraging global economy, it’s going to be interesting to see how long governments can continue this sort of corporate welfare.

Film clapper image courtesy of Chrisgr through SXC.hu

Who will build the next Barnes and Noble?

The rise and fall of US bookseller Barnes & Noble shows describes the changes in our society and the urge to join online and real world communities.

As US bookseller Barnes and Noble shrinks its store network, Mark Athitakis has a tribute to the once ubiquitous chain in The New Republic.

Barnes and Noble was never popular among US independent booksellers because of the perception, probably true, that the chain drove locally owned stores out of business.

What it offered though was a safe, comfortable place for booklovers to gather in suburban shopping malls. As Mark points out, it created a community.

Its stores were designed to keep people parked for a while, for children’s story time, for coffee klatches, for sitting around and browsing. That was a business decision—more time spent in the store, more money spent when you left it—but it had a cultural effect. It brought literary culture to pockets of the country that lacked them.

In recent years that community moved to coffee shops, in the United States B&N’s role was taken by Starbucks, at the same time our reading habits changed and the business of selling books and magazines became tougher.

Now that community is changing again, as the online societies like blogs, Facebook and Twitter become important, the coffee shops have responded with free wi-fi which is a perfect example of how the online and offline world come together.

That need to create communities, either physically or online, is a driving human urge.

Online that role is being catered to with social media platforms and sites like food, mommy or tech blogs where like minded people can gather.

Down at the mall, Barnes and Noble catered for that need in the 1980s and Starbucks in the 1990s. What will follow them may be the next big success in the retail or hospitality industry.

Image courtesy of Brenda76 on SXC

Silicon Valley and the virtues of going private

Is the technology industry swinging back to investing in private businesses with solid cash flows?

Last week there were a pair of interesting stories about the tech industry’s investment models.

The biggest story was the rumours that PC manufacturer Dell may go back to being a private company and the other was Survey Monkey’s raising of $800 million through debt and private capital.

Not your usual VC play

Polling company Survey Monkey’s capital raising is notable because it’s very different to the standard VC equity models used by Silicon Valley companies of this size.

Adding to the unusual nature of Survey Monkey’s behaviour is the declaration that they have no intention of becoming a public company. By ruling out an obvious way for investors to cash out of the business, they are making a clear statement that those putting money into the venture are doing so for the long term.

That Survey Monkey is also taking on debt indicates management believe they are going to have the cash flow to service payments. Not playing to the Greater Fool business model makes the online polling company very different to most of its contemporaries in Silicon Valley.

Dell going private

Survey Monkey’s $800 million is dwarfed by Dell’s market cap of 22 billion dollars so the talk of the PC manufacturer buying out its stock market shareholders and becoming a private company is big news indeed.

The New York Times Dealbook has a close look at the of the idea of taking Dell private and comes to the conclusion it’s not likely to happen.

While there are challenges, there is merit to the idea. Richard Branson delisted Virgin from the London Stock Market in 1988 after becoming frustrated with the short term objectives of his shareholders and there’s a possibility of Michael Dell may feel the same way.

For Dell, the challenge lies in moving away from the commodity PC sector. The Dell Hell debacle showed the company’s management has struggled with the realities of the low margin computer market and things aren’t getting better.

Dell themselves are steadily moving away from PCs with bigger investments in services and other computer hardware sectors.

Project Ophelia, a USB stick sized computer running Google’s Android operating system was one of Dell’s announcements at the Consumer Electronics Show and could mark where the company is going in the post-PC environment.

Given portable and desktop PCs represent over half of Dell’s income moving away from those markets is going to be a major change in direction for the company.

A change is though what the company needs with revenues down 11% on last year which saw profits nearly halved.

Whether going private or staying public will allow Dell to recover its profitability remains to been seen, but management could probably do without the distraction of answering to stock markets while dealing with a complex, challenging task.

Both Dell and Survey Monkey are showing that there isn’t one path to raising funds for technology companies, in fact there’s plenty of businesses raising money privately without the razzamatazz of high profile venture capital investments.

It may well be though that we’re seeing private companies coming back into fashion as individual investors see the advantages in businesses with good cash flows rather then the hyped loss leaders which have dominated Silicon Valley’s headlines.

Image of Wall Street courtesy of Linder6580 on SXC.HU

Towards the post car society

Is the era of the automobile coming to an end as our society adapts to new technologies?

We don’t often think about it, but the design or our cities reflect the technologies of the day. Right now the way we live is built around the motor vehicle, but are we moving into a new era?

After a visit to Ford Australia’s Centre of Excellence For Design and Engineering, Neerav Bhatt has some thoughts on the role of the motor car in an era where people don’t have to travel to their workplaces.

One of Neerav’s points is that car use is falling among younger workers, a trend that’s happening across the western world.

Much of this is put down to the generations of Millennials and Gen-Ys being more interested in technology purchases rather than cars along with changing work patterns.

A more fundamental reason could be that we’re reaching the end of the motor car era.

If there is one technology that represents the Twentieth Century it is the motor car; the automobile has shaped our cities, our lifestyles and our culture.

However we are now in the Twenty-First Century.

The three eras of motoring

Roughly speaking, we could break the Twentieth Century’s love affair with the motor car into three phases; development, consolidation and dependency.

In the first period, the automotive industry was developing with thousands of manufacturers experimenting with the technology and production methods. At the same time governments were beginning to build road networks and communities were demanding improved links.

By the beginning of World War II, the motor car was an important part of life but ownership was largely restricted to affluent households and business.

Following World War II governments made huge investments in road networks and automobiles became cheaper to own.

This gave a generation a new taste of freedom as you could go anywhere with a tank of gas. It also changed the layout of our suburbs as people could now travel further to work, allowing them to move into bigger houses on the fringe of town.

As government investment was focused on road building, passenger train and tram networks were starved of capital with many cities abandoning their transit systems altogether.

Suburbs built in the early to mid Twentieth Century had evolved around trams and the legacy of that can still be seen today. However customers no longer wanted to fight for parking spots on crowded streets designed for horse drawn carriages and trams.

Responding to this developers started building supermarkets and shopping malls which became popular largely because they offered easier parking. Cheaper goods made available by improved logistics systems – another effect of the motor car – was the other main reason.

The beginning of dependency

With the advent of the 1970s oil shock, the role of the motor car turned from being a tool of liberation into one of dependency. The suburbs of the 1960s and 70s had been built around the assumption of universal car ownership and cheap fuel. When fuel ceased being cheap, then households budgets were affected.

Not coincidentally after the oil shock the reversal of ‘white flight’ – the movement of the middle classes to outer suburbs – started with the gentrification of inner suburbs that had been abandoned by the working class.

Through the 1970s and 80s the cost of owning a motor car became more expensive as governments stopped externalising the costs of maintaining roads and saw car use and petrol taxes as a revenue source.

At the same time the obvious effects of saturating society motor cars became obvious as roads increasingly became choked and planners began to realise that building more roads only attracted more traffic.

Times of decline

By the turn of the Twenty-first Century technology had also started to move away from centralised offices and factories. Today technologies like the internet and increasingly 3D printing mean that workers don’t have to commute vast distances. Automation also means many levels of management are no longer necessary.

Changing work patterns is also affecting incomes, with car ownership being expensive many employees – particularly young workers – don’t want to buy automobiles.

This all means that the era of the motor car is coming to an end, it’s not going to vanish quickly but the decline has started.

For business, this means the post World War II assumptions that saw the rise of the supermarket, shopping mall and big box discount store are no longer valid.

Some managers, most notably those of doomed department stores, won’t learn these lessons and will pass into history like the stagecoach companies.

Just as the end of the horse and carriage era saw the demise of buggy whip makers and blacksmiths, the rise of the motor car saw an unprecedented rise in wealth, employment and productivity. Not only were the lost jobs created elsewhere, but many more were created.

While the motor car isn’t going to disappear overnight, the decline has started and our society is adapting. For business and government leaders, the task is to understand those changes and adapt.

Image courtesy of a Norwegian motorway by Ayla87 through SXC

On being evil

Microsoft learn what its like to be the weakest kid on the block while Google consider a future of being evil.

“Don’t be evil” are the opening words of Google’s corporate code.

When it was framed in the late 1990s there was one company in particular everyone in the tech industry thought of when the word ‘evil’ was being used.

At the time Microsoft defined evil in the technology industry. The main reason was their crushing of real or potential competitors like Netscape, Java or the troubled IBM joint venture of OS/2.

Topping everything though was Microsoft’s tactic of fake error messages designed to scare customers away from the competing DR-DOS system in the early 1990s.

So it’s rather delicious that Microsoft seems to be getting a taste of its own medicine twenty years later as Google Maps returns an error message on Windows Phones.

This is particularly galling for Microsoft as Windows Phone is essential for the company’s resurgence and, as Apple have learned, maps are a critical feature for smart phone users.

It’s too early to accuse Google of having become evil as Microsoft did during their period of dominance as Tim Wu discusses in Why Does Everyone Think Google Beat The FTC but the search giant is flexing its muscles on many fronts.

For Microsoft, they are learning what life’s like when you’re not the toughest, meanest kid on the block.

Karma can be a real bitch.

Big data, mobile apps and smarter logistics – why Avis is buying Zipcar

Smartphone apps are more than just a funky way of getting information. The combination of big data, social media and mobile insights offer businesses deep market intelligence.

With no bad press over New Year’s Eve it looks like hire car service Uber avoided the surge pricing traps of 2011 and the good news continues for the online booking industry with the news that Avis is buying car sharing service Zipcar.

Assuming the acquisition isn’t another example of the greater fool investment model, Avis’ purchase of Zipcar makes good sense in expanding the hire car giant’s footprint into the share car business.

Regrettably Avis use the 1980s term “synergies” four times in their media release but it does seem the businesses are a good fit both in fleet sharing and improving both company’s services.

Zipcar’s technology is another asset which Avis can use, with the car sharing service’s ability to track vehicle locations meaning better fleet management for the hire car business.

Car sharing logistics

The logistics angle of car share services is something that’s been highlighted by Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick at various times, most recently at the service’s Sydney launch last November.

Another aspect of the car sharing and hire car booking services is their Big Data advantages which the online startups bring.

Historically, car hire companies have been reasonably good at gathering data on their customers with loyalty schemes, direct mailing and plugging into airline frequent flier programs. However they have been left behind by the Big Data boom in recent years.

Companies like Zipcar, Uber and taxi hailing apps like GoCatch have big data in their DNA, having been founded in the era of cloud computing and social media they have access to more information and a better ability to use the knowledge they gather.

Predicting the price surges

At Uber’s Sydney launch Kalanick described how Uber’s traffic volumes increase in San Francisco when the Giants win a game, the interesting thing is that the surge happens three hours before the match starts.

Insights like the traffic patterns around football games and holidays are gold to a high inventory business like hire car services. They are also important to the entire logistics industry.

This latter point is probably the most overlooked part of all with the current rush into social and mobile based apps – the market intelligence that these services gather.

While it’s tempting to dismiss that market intelligence as just monitoring who likes cats or cheeseburgers, the application of that data is transforming supermarkets, airlines and even concert venues.

Avis seem to have understood that it will be fascinating to see how they will use Zipcar’s data and whether their competitors will figure out the importance of what these services offer.

Is Facebook the new Microsoft?

Are the internet giants – Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon following the same path as Microsoft did in the 1990s?

One of the problems with dominating your field is that to find new growth opportunities involves becoming distracted with your core business and damaging your reputation. This is what hurt Microsoft over the last decade and now threatens the internet’s big four.

App.net CEO Dalton Caldwell wrote an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg describing how the social media giant is trying to wipe out competitors through bullying them into being acquired.

If a business doesn’t succumb to Facebook’s seduction, then they risk being wiped out by the social media giant setting up their own version of the product which they can push out to a billion subscribers.

Jason Calacanis explores this strategy with Facebook’s launch of Poke, designed to compete with the instant messaging service Snapchat.

In many ways this is the same model that Microsoft employed in the 1990s as it worked towards dominating the desktop computer market – bully innovators into selling to them and, if that fails, copy the product and crush the opposition.

It worked for Microsoft because they controlled the distribution channels through their tight relationships with computer manufacturers.

Microsoft created their own applications, or features in their products, which would be bundled onto Dell, Gateway or Compaq computers. Once users had functionality built into Windows or Microsoft Office then they didn’t have to buy a third party app.

Bundling network protocols destroyed the business models of LANtastic and Novell, in the browser wars Microsoft killed Netscape by putting Internet Explorer on the desktop and in the office suite predatory pricing killed WordPerfect and Lotus while resulting in acquisitions of companies like Visio.

This way of business cemented Microsoft’s domination of their desktop, office productivity and server markets at the turn of the century. It was a true river of gold that continues to flow today.

Unlike the personal computer software markets, bullying or buying your way into market dominance doesn’t work online as the barriers to entry that protected Microsoft from competitors are nonexistent on the web.

Both AOL and Yahoo! learned this the hard way as their acquisition sprees through the dot com boom didn’t prevent them from sliding into irrelevance.

A good example of how hard it is for the Internet giants to execute a plan for world domination is the rise and fall of Google’s Knol as described by Seth Godin, who thought his own Squidoo startup would be crushed by the Internet giant. It turned out not to be so.

For the web incumbents the fundamental problem are, as Jason says, that they are not focusing on their core businesses and they have plenty of Plan Bs as Seth Godin described.

The manager who fails with Knol or Poke moves onto another division with a pat on the back and a safe claim on their bonus. The startup founders on the other hand are fighting for survival.

All four of the Internet’s giants have similarities to Microsoft in the 1990s as every single one dominates its niche and wonders how to expand outside their core business – for Google, and possibly the other three, there’s the added problem of managerialism as a large cadre of managers worries more about maintaining privileges over competing in the marketplace.

Managerialism ended up crippling Microsoft and continues to do so today, whether Facebook and Google can avoid that fate remains to be seen.

A bigger problem for Facebook is losing trust – Microsoft’s conduct, particularly with WordPerfect and Netscape in the late 1990s made a generation of developers and entrepreneurs cautious about dealing with the company.

For many that suspicion remains and is one of the barriers the company now has to overcome in the smartphone and cloud computing markets where it is one of the crowd of scrappy challengers.

In the social and online worlds, collaboration is one of the keys to success. If Facebook, or any of the others, lose the trust of the community then they’ll become irrelevant a lot faster than WordPerfect or LANtastic did.

Becoming irrelevant is the real worry for Facebook’s tenured managers and their investors.

Reskilling the workforce

The 1980s management aim of reducing training costs is now affecting business, the next generation of leaders will be finding opportunities in today’s skills shortages.

One of the core objectives 1980s management philosophy is to shift costs and risks onto others. Staff training is one area that caught the brunt of the drive to slash expenses for short term gain, as a consequence we have a skills crisis with offers opportunities for savvy entrerpreneurs.

In Why Good People Can’t Get Jobs: Chasing After the ‘Purple Squirrel Wharton management professor Peter Cappelli discusses his recent book that looks at this problem.

Cappelli’s argument is that companies aren’t offering enough for the skills they desire, they often ask too much of candidates and they won’t train staff.

In Cappelli’s book, he claims that staff training has plummeted;

One of your chapters in the book is called “A Training Gap, Not a Skills Gap.” You have some figures showing that in 1979, young workers received an average of two and a half weeks of training per year. By 1991, only 17% of young employees reported getting any training during the previous year, and by last year, only 21% said they received training during the previous five years.

The predictable consequence of neglecting training for the last thirty years is we now face skills shortages and those responsible – the managers and business owners who refuse to train workers – are now demanding governments do something about it.

In many ways today’s skills shortages epitomise the short termism of 1980s thinking and how we now find society, and business, is struggling with the long term effects and costs.

Wherever there’s a problem there is opportunity and there’s a breed of businesses, training companies and workers who will be taking advantage of the failures of the previous generation of managers.

For those stuck in the 1980s mindset that training, like most staff expenses, is a cost and not an investment they are going to struggle in a world where adding value is more profitable than being the lowest cost provider.

The photo THE BEAD MAKER — Apprentice Watches the Master — A Rosary Shop in Old Meiji-Era Japan was posted to Flickr by Okinawa Soba.

Australia’s high cost quandary

Is property the answer to keeping Australia’s high cost economy afloat?

“Around the world our towncars are usually 30% more expensive than taxis, in Sydney it’s 20% as the cabs are pretty expensive,” said Travis Kalanick on launching the Sydney version of Uber’s hire care booking service.

It’s not just hire cars which are expensive in Sydney – the soaring cost of living in Australia is bourne out by Expatistan, a web site that crowdsources the cost of living in various cities.

Expatisan’s comparisons find Sydney up with Tokyo and London as the most expensive towns on earth.

That conclusion means Australian businesses, governments and policy makers have some important decisions ahead of them.

Cholesterol in the veins

High property prices have been the norm for two decades in Australia, the middle class welfare state that both political parties support gives tax and social security concessions to property owners while the banking system requires most business lending to be secured by property.

As a consequence, generations of Australians see property as the only path to financial success. If Bill Gates, or any of today’s entrepreneurial wizz-kids, had been born in Australia, they’d be encouraged to get a safe job and buy property than to take the risk of starting a new business.

The property obsession has another perverse effect in that it creates a short term outlook for Aussie business owners who have to consider getting, and paying off, a mortgage quickly to secure their financial foundations.

A few weeks ago a business owner was profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald, which some call the Sydney Morning Property Spruiker, who paid 1.1 million Aussie dollars (a million US) for a property in Redfern – which is Sydney’s Bronx.

That poor guy not only has a fat mortgage to pay off, but he has to pass those costs onto his customers. Just to pay the bank is a fat chunk out of his business before he pays his staff, landlord and the various other expenses before he can take his profits.

Having to pay the bank for living costs is the main reason why Aussie businesses don’t invest in capital equipment, which in turn makes them less competitive than overseas competitors.

One of the myths in Australian business is that competitiveness is solely due to labor costs, what the ideologues preaching this miss is that even if Aussie workers were paid a bowl of rice a day, Chinese and Mexican factories would still be more productive due to the investment in modern equipment.

For the sake the argument, we won’t even discuss German, Japanese or Swiss manufacturers who are still competitive despite Australian level cost structures.

This last point is what’s missed in much of the discussion about Australia’s economic future – apologists for Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens and the self congratulatory Canberra monoculture say that the high Aussie dollar is here to stay and mining will be driving the economy.

Should the mining sector stall, which currently seems to be the case, then housing development will pick up the slack according to the policy-makers’ groupthink.

That housing development is going to come at a high price, with Australian land and homes already among the world’s highest. Given Australia’s private sector debt is among the highest in the world already, it’s hard to see where the money will come from to fuel further property speculation.

Right now Australia has a serious problem in determining what the future will be for the country.

If the future is a high cost economy underpinned by massive property property prices, then the future has to lie in high value added sectors.

The question is ‘what sectors’? Australian business, governments and society in general seem to think that property speculation is the future.

Property speculation turned out not to be the future for Spain and it looks like China’s speculative boom is meeting its obvious end.

Australians are going to have to hope that it really is different down under and that young people and immigrants are prepared to spend huge amounts of money to keep the economy afloat.

If the policy makers are wrong, then the worry is that there is no Plan B.

Connecting the household to the internet of everything

The Internet of things comes alive with Australian startup Moore’s Cloud

The development of intelligent household appliances like lights is changing our lives in subtle ways, Australian startup Moore’s Cloud is a good example of how cheap computing, accessible internet and open applications are coming together.

One of the frontiers of technology right now is the internet of things, where machines connect directly to each other, cutting out the requirement for people to monitor them.

Good examples of these devices is the internet connected fridge – which was the poster child for pointless connectivity during tech wreck in the early 2000s but is now standard equipment in hotels, restaurants and hospitals where monitoring stock levels has become wholly automated.

Cheap hardware has driven this trend, as processor prices have tumbled it’s become cost effective to incorporate intelligent systems into almost every household device. Everything from the kettle to the washing machine now has some sort of CPU in it.

Moore’s Cloud is a good example of how the internet of machines is coming together. A simple cube shaped device has the electronic smarts to connect with other lights and be controlled by software apps.

Being able to create is important as the software interfaces – the APIs – are open which people to write programs that take advantage of the light’s features. A video from the Moore’s Cloud builders showcases twelve of the apps which have been developed so far which include weather forecasting, night lights and changing moods.

Having an ‘ecosystem’ of apps is now driving innovation in consumer electronics. The iPhone started the app revolution and now everything from stereo systems to lights are being controlled by them. Devices that don’t have open APIs are at risk of being left behind.

With systems being open to interested designers, anybody can create their own way of controlling device which opens the way for some innovative, left of field ideas.

In many respects, Moore’s Cloud is one of the early wave of smart features we’re going to see in the next generation of household appliances that will change how we use these tools.

The team behind Moore’s Cloud is still raising money for the project through Kickstarter, their campaign finishes this Friday. Hopefully they’ll meet their targets and take the project further.