Tuesday Sep 25, 2007
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from buraddo_bon. Make your own badge here.
Today's Page Hits: 12
Tuesday Sep 25, 2007
I have always been interested in the old addage that "the best solution is not always the most successful". This is always represented by some of the biggest battles for consumer success;
In recent times the emergence of Linux, opensource movement and concept of the "participation age" has made me think; Is success defined by people or product? Is ultimate success defined by how you deal with the people or the product? How will OSS develop over the coming years? What are the tipping points?
Now I have done my post-grad business studies and have read enough books to know most of this concept is not unique thought, but its a critical thought process as I apply the learnings to Open Source. The application to OSS may very well be unique.If you are a believer in the world of economics and the concept that markets shift to achieve efficiency in the absence of regulation etc.. A highly diplomatic person would vehemently argue that you need to deal with both.. Well, its my blog so I get to state my opinion and that is "People" wins over "Product".
Now the cynics would say "Thanks for stating the obvious!!", and there is truth there. But what can we learn from these various use cases. Can we create a catalog of drivers to stick in the model that be used as strategies when trying to enter the market with a new product, or even trying to get a project approved within the enterprise.
So Windows vs. Mac vs. Linux is the classic long running battle for the desktop which has existed for at least the last 20 years. I doubt that there are many people that would debate too strong that the technology design and execution of the Mac is superior to Windows or Linux across the complete range of consumer user requirements (Windows and Linux do have unique areas of strength). People would also recognize that Apple addresses the needs of the people in both the product and the marketing/advertising/sales etc.. So why does windows continue to dominate ?
Some ideas;1. Market entry - whether first or second, the dominant player enters the market at a good time and establishes rapid growth. Apple was blazing the path to the individual whereas MS rode the wave to the business.
2. Killer apps - the product/company addresses a specific function or need that was lacking in the incumbent or completely absent in the market. Apple really focussed on the individual, but the market was for the business $$. MS hit the people aspect at a business level.
3. Business model - a good business model can protect a company from having the "best" product or addressing all the people's needs.
So what about the long run ?
There is a natural tension however between the forces that protect a product that does not meet the needs of the people. Eventually balance will be restored. Either MS moves the product into a position to relieve this tension or the competitors will ride the wave of discontent and pounce.
$0.02
...or, you continue to innovate your product, out-execute your competition, anticipate the rise of new (non-traditional?) competitors, and not rest on your laurels. You give the market what it wants (MS Office) and lead them to things that they didn't realize they wanted (XBox & XBox Live, in the case of Microsoft).
Regarding Economics, I'm more aligned with Schumpeter and Galbraith than I am Keynes / Malthus / Ricardo. Technology - regardless of the specific implementation - impacts BOTH the Supply and Demand sides of the equation, and can effectively increase the size of the pie for everyone. Referencing a couple of your above examples:
- whether Beta or VHS, the market demanded the ability to record movies and TV shows, and there was value in that - even though many people would not / could not program their VCRs, and users generally took refuge in one camp or the other.
- Windows & MacOS both enabled users to access IT capability that was previously available to those who knew programming languages; the operating system enabled access to the programs. HTML / Hypertexting enabled users to "move around" the computer more easily and intuitively (better design).
"The Market" will use technology for the sake of the value that they perceive it having - regardless of the Engineers' design elegance or the intended use ascribed by the Product Managers.
An interesting question to consider is "What happens when the Operating System become irrelevant?" It could be argued that Google's moves over the last 24 months are the beginning of not having to worry about an operating system for the desktop ("It's all on the web, I don't need a particular (proprietary / closed) device to access the content...").
I think "the market" gets rid of non-value producing products / services. If you can't reformulate or invent new (and execute on that), you'll loose market share and the overall net worth of the firm will decrease. I think a Company's business model enables their market position, and supports a strategy. I submit that what protects it is it's ability to execute on their business plan. Microsoft and Apple took two very different approaches with similar technology and markets, and got two very different results.
(Good Post, Brad!)
Posted by Chris Kauza on November 07, 2007 at 10:19 PM PST #