Technology's Unintended Consequences

I recently had a conversation with a consultant the other day, who (about 6 weeks ago) had to immediately drop everything he was working on and temporarily relocate from New York to San Diego. to take care of his sick mother. Her condition required her to have constant care and family attention. Because of how he used technology, not only was he able to do this, but he began to look at his current approach to work in a different light.

The technologies he took advantage of were:
* laptop computer
* wireless Internet connection
* cell phone
* Skype
* office productivity suite

When I spoke w/him, he was sitting on the deck of his mother's house, over looking the pacific ocean. And he sounded pretty happy.

Other than Skype, everything I listed above has been available and people have been using them for a number of years. Technology becomes interesting to me when I look at how people and process interact w/technology. You start to see new possibilities that didn't exist before. Take my friend from above, for example, and let's go back 10 - 20 years:


20 years ago:

* laptop computers were concepts and the 386 desktop was leading edge

* wireless Internet connections did not exist for the mass market; Internet connectivity was still largely limited to academics, Geeks posting on a cryptic BBS somewhere...and then there was DARPA and the Department of Defense...

* cell phone technology existed, but only for a limited market and it was very expensive to use

* IP telephony was not available for the mass market

* office productivity suites largely didn't exist. Apple had some word processing and graphics capabilities available; Lotus Notes was the standard spreadsheet program for PCs, and Word Perfect (remember that one???) was one of the larger players int eh word processing space

Bottom line: he would not have been able to support his mother and maintain / increase his business; one or both would have had to materially suffer


10 years ago:

* laptop computers were becoming more widely available, but they were pretty homogeneous offerings, with a small set of features relative to desktop PCs; most laptops did not have the same "horsepower" (in terms of graphics acceleration, chip speeds, hard drive capacity, monitor visual acuity, etc.). Laptops were for "road warriors" who couldn't afford to be away from their computers

* the Internet was starting to move into the mainstream. America Online (now known a "AOL"
* see Trout & Ries' work on Positioning for some thoughts on that name change...). Netscape was a fledgling browser and not an Alliance w/anyone. America Online was going to bring the Internet to the masses

* cell phone technology became more wide spread; car phones (phones actually built into the arm rests or dashboards of cars) were a status symbol available only in high-end vehicles,m and as an expensive option. In my view, pagers were still more ubiquitous & cheaper than cell phones. So, your boss could push a button on your "electronic leash" but you still had to find a phone to respond back

* IP telephony was experimental technology, and only among the Geek inner-sanctum. Most of the people I knew who were using it were Chinese and Indian ex-pats who wanted to call their loved ones back in their home country

* office productivity suites were really starting to come into their own, as was the notion of bundling different software packages together in general. Microsoft Office had really established itself at this point, and along with some of their other products (do you remember Microsoft Works?), started defining the space and what the market would eventually demand / accept as "the Standard".

Bottom line: he probably could have made it work, it would have been very expensive, and he would have increased mobility relative to his predecessor of 10 years earlier.


Today, all of these technologies are taken for granted. Here's an interesting thought:

One of the next 5 presidents of the United States will most likely have played a Nintendo or Atari game system.

But that's for another blog...

New Blogger

I converted to the new version of Blogger yesterday and lost my latest post. I will have to re-type it next weekend, as I'll be on the road this week and I don't expect to have email access until the last half of the week, at the earliest.

Considering that means I won't have to lug around an extra 8 lbs. or so in laptop and gear, this is a good thing...

Liar's Poker - don't waste your money...

...you can waste your time and save your money by checking this out of your local library.

If you want to get an "inside view" of the inner workings of Wall Street during the excessive gyrations of the '80s, then read Den of Theives - that book is well written and well worth the money!

What turned me off about this book was the structure and the writing style. The first half of the book was essentially the author relating fortuitous circumstances that were the product of Serendipity. He was simply in the right place at the right time, had virutally no idea how he got there, felt out of place the whole time (even when he was raking in the Big Bucks in NY and London), and so now he thought he'd wwrite a book about it. I also got the sense that he was trying to assuage some guilt from his association at Salomon Brothers. He was there, he made a lot of money, good for him - get over it!

I was also pretty disappointed because the subject matter has A LOT more potential. I might have actually enjoyed it - had I not read Den of Theives 7 years earlier, and already had some idea of how things took place. But, if you can get it for $5 or less (including shipping), and you have little to no knowledge of what an investment banker's life is like (and you haven't also seen the movie Wall Street (which covers the same highlights in this book)), then it's probably worth it.

I did like the wrap up he did towards the end of the book, relating where he had heard everyone from the firm ended up...although that seemed a little rushed...

Convergence is NOT bullshit

Let me just say, for the record, that Chris and I see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but I've got to disagree with him on this one. We've even gone back and forth on this topic over several months. And even though I've wanted to I just haven't been able to blog about this one until now.

As with most general platitudes (which sound great to say, but upon further examination don't always hold water), one needs to first set the context of the remark. Seamus Blackley (one of the original creators of the Microsoft Xbox) was correct when he made his statement – in the context of what he was talking about.

The Xbox would NOT be a good all-in-one home media device (at least, not right out of the gate, when they had the conversation many years ago). I still don't think it's ready for prime time. Will Microsoft get there? Probably? Will the Xbox be the vehicle? Don't know. But, that converged functionality is coming; people want it and companies want to figure out how to deliver it. (In fact, I've got a few ideas of my own on how to do this...but that's a blog for another day...)

Here are some good examples of convergence (which I am summarizing to mean a successful combination of functionality and delivery vehicle):

- secure fax machine
- recent versions of smart phones & Blackberries (Treo 700P/W, the HTCs, etc.)
- SkyNet service (which got renamed to Flynet...hmmm) on Lufthansa (no, I'm not talking about this one; I'm talking about this one)
- roller skates and Heelies
- Reese's Peanut Butter Cups
- cable industry converging with the telephone industry into something new (i.e. - Comcast, SBC, Qwest, etc.)
- Youtube.com
- Amazon.com (internet, book store, supply chain and logistics expertise)
- (and yes, the swiss army knife)

...and there are more. The point is, by bringing together different functionality and vehicles with which to deliver it to defined markets, certain companies will gain advantages over their rivals, for some period of time. So, while I think this is also a good and cool example of convergence, ultimately market acceptance and business execution will determine how long that advantage remains.

The graphic that Chris posted depicting a toaster / coffee maker / bread baker is an example of “Convergence of Convenience”. The question is not, "Could you eat at The Palm with a Swiss Army knife and enjoy the experience (well, I could, but that's just me)?" Rather, the quesstion is, "Would you eat at The Palm with a Swiss Army knife and enjoy the experience"? Most people (the Contrarians among us aside) would say "No" to that experience.

Currently, I think most “smart cameras” and cell phones would fall into this category. Honestly, I see this type of innovation as "educational" more than anything else. "Let's show people what this technology can do, let's give it to them, and then let's step back. Many people knew they wanted a Walkman before Sony came out with one. And so you havethings like this and this.

No, most of these examples of convergence are not mind-blowingly earth shattering – but for a short period of time, they are market differentiating. And that is really the point. If a company can execute well with that tactic then they will have an advantage for some period of time. Other companies will try to copy them. Consumers / Markets will then vote with their dollars. They will also find unintended ways to leverage the new technology in ways the creators (probably) hadn't even considered when they created the original specifications. Of note:

- music sampling in rap and rock music
- tire swings
- coke bottle bird feeders
- camera phone to take picture of the license plates and damage to cars in a car crash
- other --> who knows?

And people in companies will have to innovate again. And the cycle will continue...and that's why Convergence is not Bullshit. Some additional food for thought...

"Let the Sun shine..."

As a follow up to yesterday's post, check this out: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061107/sec_ceo_blogs.html?.v=2

(and for you younger folks, the blog title is a double entendre):
- refernences that famous anthem by the 5th. Dimension
- a nod to the company profiled in the press release