Group items tagged

Mr. Joshi (the head of Hewlett-Packard's $24 billion printing empire) has spent years disputing the notion that people will print less as they do more on their hand-held devices. This week, he will see his ideas put into action as H.P. introduces a fleet of printers with Web access, their own e-mail addresses and touch screens. These products should open up new ways for people to print from Web services like Google Docs, and from smartphones and devices like the iPad from Apple. Mr. Joshi is going back to his roots as an engineer - as a young H.P. researcher, he figured out a way to make ink cartridges fire 45 million drops - and relying on new technologies, not slick marketing. But still, he will have to prove that customers will change their behavior and print more if given the right tools. That, Mr. Reitzes said, is crucial to how investors will evaluate the long-term prospects of H.P. "Investors are worried about printing," he said. "It's really important that they get this right." As the world's largest technology company, H.P. sells a wide variety of products but got much of its profit from printers and their pricey ink. More recently, H.P. has built up a large technology services arm as well, which has helped round out its business. But the printing division accounts for about a fifth of its revenue and a third of its profits. The new printers - which build on a limited experiment last year - will range in price from $99 to about $400. Every one will come with what H.P. executives billed as a breakthrough feature - its very own e-mail address. H.P.'s engineers hit on the e-mail address as an easy, familiar way for people to send print jobs to the Web-ready printers. You can, for example, take a photo with a phone, e-mail it to your printer's address and have the printout waiting for you at home. Or, you can share the printer's e-mail address with family and friends. This means that someone can buy Grandma a Web-ready printe

A few examples of companies using the web to get input from customers

Google has announced that it will soon bring an end to its online sales of its Nexus One handset. The company will still show off Android phones on its site, but purchases will be done the old-fashioned way: through mobile service providers. Google's direct sales model was an attempt to radically alter the business model for mobile handsets. Instead of buying a phone from a carrier, with a contract and a subsidized up-front cost, the company was hoping to cut out the network. Customers would buy the phone directly from Google, paying the full fee up-front, and then putting in a SIM of their choice. This, however, ignored the realities of the phone market, as the company soon discovered. Its approach to tech support-send an e-mail and maybe get an answer eventually-was always doomed to failure. Given how important phones are to our lives and our lifestyles, that was never going to be acceptable. Customers might not like calling call centers, but if there's one thing worse than being stuck on hold waiting for the muzak to end, it's not being stuck on hold at all, because there isn't even anyone to call. A month after launching the phone the company relented, giving its customers the ability to talk to someone. But this was not the only problem with its sales model. As it wrote in the announcement, "it's clear that many customers like a hands-on experience before buying a phone." A phone is something that people want to touch, to see how heavy it is, what it looks like in person, how good the screen is, if it fits nicely in their pocket-for many of us, the phone is an extension of ourselves, which is why we see so many different shapes and styles of handset on the market. So expecting people to be happy buying a handset that they cannot even touch, much less play around with, was a bridge too far.

The Tata Nano was thought to be a groundbreaking product, able to revolutionize carmaking both in the developing and in the developed world. Pity that nothing of the sort happened. Customer choice still remains difficult to foresee and - in this case - the product simply was not attractive to any customer segment

The article does not directly have to do with innovation, but provides an interesting perspective on the strategic challenges that luxury carmakers have when dealing with macro-trends such as an ageing customer base, emerging markets, downsizing (and low margins), etc.

Microsoft replies by giving up bundling. It's probably to let PC-makers force the choice on customers.

The shift to digital media requires a shift in business models. But, are customers willing to pay enough to cover the costs?

Analysts are starting to recognize that - maybe - operating systems for smartphones will follow a different story than in the past. Instead of a winner-take-all market based on standardization, diversity is likely to prevail. This because handset makers and telcos will try to push in that direction  - as long as this will not reduce customer utility - and because the real source of value (and potential locus of standardization) now sits in the web and in social networks. In this case, which device and which OS is going to be used is going to be irrelevant.

Flat pricing schemes for mobile internet are enticing customers to dramatically increase use of bandwidth. Interestingly enough, that is the axiom on which most operators have buidlt their mobile internet business models. Will this be sustainable in the long run?

What will paradigms for TV sets after HDTV is a bit of a question mark. On the one side, it might be 3D technology. On the other, it might be convergence with the Internet. TV-set makers are playing big bets on both possibilities, and convergence is of course dependent on the existence of content and software that can make it interesting in the eyes of customers. As is currently happening for smartphones, content need not be generated internally, but through app-store mechanisms. Will this strategy pay off?

Nokia has decided to place free mapping and navigation services on its smartphones. A reaction to Google's decision to do the same on Android-powered devices and a big blow to makers of dedicated devices such as Tomtom and Garmin. But this also implies a different business model that has yet to be defined. In the meanwhile, it certainly is good news for customers.

SAP, the dominant player in the corporate information systems industry, is apparently hitting a wall in face of radical innovation. First, the shift towards cloud computing seems to be very difficult to the company, although this slow transition could actually help its huge customer base move towards more modern systems without too many shock waves. Second, and probably more profound, SAP is finding it very difficult to change its internal routines and processes by embracing "agile" approaches to product development.

Talking about s-curves, we now have an s-curve that is not going up. The shfit from DVDs to online movies seemed to be a no-brainer because of evident advantages in the overall economics and convenience. However, the industry is getting tangled up in the issue of multiple and competing DRM standards and devices, and customers are sitting on the sidelines.

The new bet of Steve Jobs is to create a new need in the customers. iPad, in the middle between an iPhone and an iBook, is traying to create a new market and to change the relationship between men and computers.

Google on Tuesday said it will acquire Global IP Solutions Holding, which makes processing software for voice and video over IP, for $68.2 million. The deal means that Google will own the voice and video conferencing engine behind its competitors' instant messaging systems. Global IP Solutions (GIPS) provides best-in-class voice and video processing in IP communications. GIPS enables its customers to deliver unmatched quality, with a faster time to market and less risk than alternative solutions. Its customer list includes Nortel, Oracle, Samsung, WebEx, Yahoo!, AOL and other key players in the VoIP market. The purchase of GIPS comes a day before Google's I/O conference. Given Google's acquisition of Gizmo5 and its existing Google Voice service, the search giant appears to be collecting enough assets to give Skype and others competition on the consumer and business fronts. GIPS's software can also be layered into Google Apps in multiple areas as a business collaboration tool.

Now that all phone makers have left Symbian, Nokia is doing the only sensible thing, i.e. taking full control of the operating system, creating a stronger integration between hardware and software, possibly improving customer experience and quickening development

Innovation sometimes creates new and "hybrid" industries. In this case it is "nutraceuticals", a blend between food and pharma. Drivers are customer demand for a more healthy life, food companies looking for higher added-value products, and pharma companies finding it ever more difficult to find new drugs rewarding the huge R&D effort required

An interesting comment on the up and coming "cloud computing" paradigm. Pros and cons of this technology are clear, but the way with which these are weighted by customers strongly depends on their age. Which broadly means that the younger generation has definitely embraced this paradigm, even when dealing with corporate and mission-critical applications.

Now we understand what Nokia's CEO meant when he said the company had to "jump into the icy seas" in order to save itself. The "icy seas" in question has materialized as Microsoft's OS, It is ironical that it was Nokia that originally led the main handset makers away from Microsoft  and into the Symbian consortium for fear of becoming commoditized hardware makers. Now, years later, the company has been forced to make a dramatic U-turn. Why didn't Nokia choose Android? Probably because both Nokia and telcos - who are its main customers - fear a Google monopoly (or a Google-Apple duopoly) and don't feel threatened by a now weakened Microsoft. Moreover, the two companies are somewhat complementary, with Nokia having scale but lacking a competitive OS, and the opposite for Microsoft. But critics might wonder whether - in this fierce competition between ecosystems - it is wise to pick a weaker ally for fear of intra-ecosystem competition, and risk losing the battle between ecosystems. Moreover, Nokia will have to pay Microsoft for OS licences and not have exclusive rights, so that the risk of becoming commoditized is for real. Finally, the announcement was made today, but new products will not be ready for months (how different from Apple's approach to announcements!). In the meanwhile, Nokia's market share is likely to plunge significantly. A real jump in the icy seas  

In the past decades, most watchmakers have decided to source core parts from suppliers. This has led to the quasi-monopoly of the component manufacturer ETA, owned by the Swatch group. Now this strategy is backfiring, with ETA creating stricter conditions to its customers, the latter complaining about unfair business practices but fundamentally unable to find alternative strategies. As one executives states, "it's not ETA that has created a monopoly, but others, by not investing".