India is the only place in the world where you can find huge amounts of engineering graduate recruits. Companies from all over the world are flocking there not only for offshoring menial engineering work, but also for innovation and R&D centers working on important projects "end-to-end". This is not only because labor is available and relatively cheap, but also because this is the way to come up with the products needed by developing countries... which are the only ones where sales growth is likely to occur over the next years

Palm, once clear market leader in the "palmtop" segment clearly has lost ground in the shift to smartphones. Now it is attempting a revival, based on its web-oriented operating system. Will this be enough to fend off competing solutions from Apple, Microsoft, Nokia/Symbian and Google/Android? The answer depends on whether there something specific in Palm's business model, acting as differentiator and potentially as a source of competitive advantage.

Motorola is a bit of a maverick in the field of smartphones. Originally a supporter of Symbian, it then switched sides for Microsoft and is now firmly grounded in the Google Android camp. The problem is that it is not clear whether dominance in the industry will depend on the device, the operating system, or in the wider ecosystem (e.g. apps and services) that rotates around it, or in the integration between the three (provided that integration is an issue at all).

Another take on e-book readers. We definitely are in the fluid phase of innovation, with a flurry of competing alternatives coming out, sales growing, price slowly decreasing (but still far from the level acceptable for mass diffusion)... but absolutely no agreement on dominant design. Will it be black-and-white, or must we wait for color? Will it be dedicated readers or tablet PCs?

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?

2010 will probably be the year in which 3D television sets enter the market. Interesting that this up-and-coming technology will probably emerge before its predecessor (HDTV) becomes dominant, especially because the useful life of a TV set is longer than the lifeitme of its technology. Another interesting point is the standard that will emerge as a foundation for 3D TVs, whether it will be based on traditional colored eyeglasses, or (more costly) glass-less technology.

The battle for smartphones is no longer a Symbian / Nokia vs.Microsoft affair. The two real competitors appear to be Apple and Google. However, it is interesting to notice that their strategy is markedly different, and depends on the underlying business model of the two companies. Apple wants to use cheap Apps to bring users to its devices. Google wants to use Internet access to bring users to its search algorithms. In any case, it is interesting to notice that both firms base their competitive position on a mixture of openness (to achieve reach) and secrecy/closeness (to make money).

"Green" energy is a trickly field for innovation. Energy is a pure commodity, and the market will never choose green over carbon-based energy unless it is cheaper. But green technology will not get to that point of maturity unless government introduces subsidies and/or carbon taxes. True, this is a cost for today, but also a potential driver of economic growth for the near future and for even greater benefits further on. The problem - of course - is in balancing benefits and cost.

We all know stories of radical innovation becoming disruptive because incumbent cannot change their competencies and embrace the upcoming technology. Maybe not any more, given the fluidity of modern markets for technology. In fact, one of the main players of the e-paper industry, PVI, is in fact a subsidiary of a major Taiwanese paper mill, and has pursued an interesting strategy of partnership and acquisition in order to transition to the new technology.

After the "digital revolution" is a dominant design now established in digital photography? Apparently yes. Or maybe not, if a few of the innovations discussed in this article will actually be introduced to the market.

An interesting perspective on the smartphone business model. Given that success of an operating system is tightly connected to the availability of applications, what will happen if the cost of porting an app to different platforms is low? Will this reduce the economic reason to standardize and lead us to a world where a number of such platforms exist?

Success in business models often comes unexpected and generally is due to complementary products and services. For instance, the app store has been one of the main drivers behind the success of i-phones and has been widely imitated by other smartphone manufacturers. However, it appears that Apple hadn't viewed it as such an important element of its strategy at launch

Interesting perspective on one of the (possibly) disruptive innovations of the coming decade: e-paper. Some players are wondering about the time it will take to truly disrupt traditional books and, most of all, on what will the dominant design for products based on e-ink.

LCD-based devices are based on glass screens. Now an LCD supplier is developing plastic screens, allowing cheaper, lighter and more robust devices to be developed. This could be an interesting turning point for e-book readers, and is a nice example of the interplay between performance and diffusion. At the same time, it could become a disruptive element in the value chain, given greater bargaining power to the suppliers and taking it away from device manufacturers.

We know invenetion is not innovation. The implication - says commentator John Kay - is that while the former can be supported by through public R&D grants, these will not necessarily lead to innovation... and it is probably hopeless for a public entity to try and make the right bets on which will the winning innovations be. Finding the right intersection between technology opportunities and user needs is something that can better be left to markets.

Biomimicry is an interesting stream of innovation. Basically, scientists and product developers are using concepts from nature to solve problems, partially as a brainstroming exercise, and partially under the hypothesis that solutions shaped by millenia of evolution should work fairly well.

Interesting take the the news that space tourism is about to take off. The author's position is that the real business model by private companies will not (only) be to take wealthy people in orbit. Rather, it will be to take up the routinary and menial task of shuttling men and equipment to and from orbiting space stations in a more efficient way than governmental space agencies, with efficiency coming from competition. This will free up government agencies to pursue projects that are clearly beyond what private firms can do, i.e. going to the moon and Mars.

An introductory article on the radical innovation that is entering the field of energy distribution: the smart grid, that will use IT to optimize the balance between distributed production and demand.

e-books are an up-and-coming technology and there is a strong debate on the way they will affect the future of newspapers. The case is more complicated for magazines, that of course require color. An interesting case of the interplay between technology performance and user needs, leading (or not) to the enabling of a disruptive innovation.