Posts Tagged ‘openness’

Porous Companies

By Troed Sångberg | Published: February 28th, 2011

I recently tweeted that I love working at a big consumer facing company. I’ve been lucky in that in many of the places I’ve worked I’ve been able to interact directly with the people using what I’ve produced, but at the same time I feel that I’ve been unlucky in that I haven’t always been able to receive when they’ve wanted to reciprocate.

In my presentation series over the last few years a key recurrent theme has been what’s sometimes called “the gift economy” (and I recommend Tor Nørretranders’ excellent book The Generous Man on the subject). What we usually refer to as business, “the gold economy”, is only part of all the ways humans interact, and keep track of the value of those interactions.

Another part of my message has been the evolution of interaction from static, to search, to social. It’s very obvious that social is part of the gift economy, and vice versa. The concept of social currency captures this pretty accurately.

It’s not enough interacting one-way with everyone around you, your company and the products you create. As Eric von Hippel has shown, innovation tends to happen outside of your chosen four walls. That’s true also for the reputation based economy, the social currency, where the value of something kept behind closed doors would be less than if it’s made public. The observation of interest here being that this is true not only for things, but for the persons involved in creating those things as well.

The value of your employees increase the more they’re able to interact with everyone else. When their ideas are made visible they’re vetted and the social currency of both the employees and the ideas themselves are made part of the global knowledge economy. The alternative is for your employees and ideas to wither behind an iron curtain, unable to openly compete on equal terms.

I suggest porous companies, those that let ideas and their proponents be part of something bigger, are not only able to make better use of global knowledge but also to offer a more attractive workplace. Open Innovation is thus not only a buzzword affecting the way you do product development, but also part of the cost & benefits package you offer your employees.

When you have your next incredible idea, you’re going to talk to people whom you know do great stuff. If the great stuff I’ve done is locked inside a filing cabinet with our legal department, that won’t be me.

Let’s do porous.

[top]

From dumb to open, made for TV

By Troed Sångberg | Published: September 8th, 2010

In the mobile business it’s common to hear statements like “smartphone adoption happening faster than predicted”. In that specific case the fallacy is likely that of mistaking Internet devices and smartphones for the same thing, but the shift in itself is interesting. Consumers are moving en masse from devices that could mostly only do one or a few things well to open devices that satisfy our needs to connect.

I predict the same thing happening not only to the small screens in our pockets, but our big screens hanging on our walls. The thing we still call “TV”, which even with the latest sets that can connect to specific Internet services, is pretty non-smart.

Depending on where you live (and if you’re an early adopter), you’ve either upgraded once or twice over the last ten years. One move to flat screens and one to HDTV, or both upgrades at the same time. The industry is at the moment in the startup phase of another upgrade, to 3D.

I claim that 3D is not the next must-have feature, the one that will get consumers to upgrade their sets again. I claim openness – the same disruptive shift that is currently happening in the mobile industry – is about to happen to the TV industry as well. 3D will tag along, the actual device tech is not that much more expensive if you’re going through the early adopters once again, but it will not be in the driver’s seat.

Disruptive shifts are hard to predict, and they cause havoc in the market place. Established truths and important players might get switched around, and existing predictions get thrown off the mark. That is, the exact same thing as we’re currently seeing in what’s – in error – called the “smartphone bloodbath” by Tomi Ahonen (who is otherwise my first stop when I need numbers!).

Current predictions of the potential size of the 3D TV market are based on consumers reacting to the 3D proposition itself. If you throw complete openness in to the mix, where the big screens on our walls become as intelligent as the small screens in our pockets are becoming, I’d claim the size of that market – as well as the speed of its creation – is severely underestimated.

Openness will fuel the next TV upgrade cycle. It will, as usual, be quite disruptive.


PS: Don’t miss out on the additional discussion seen in the comments below!

[top]

It’s not about smartphones

By Troed Sångberg | Published: September 2nd, 2009

For a long time we (meaning manufacturers, analysts and marketing entities) have divided mobile phone devices up into two categories, so called feature phones and smartphones. There’s also been an implicit “budget” category consisting of feature phones with, less, features.

Since some time back, I’d claim this has changed. There are now devices on the market that are used in a different way, signifying a disruptive shift in what’s usually known as the mobile phone industry. The common denominator between the categories I just brought up is the word phone, while these new devices are seen as something else.

Enter well known usability expert Jakob Nielsen, whose research into mobile web experience divides the device market up into three categories instead; feature phones, smartphones and touch phones.

While touch phones as a name indeed describes most of these devices on the market today, most existing touch devices haven’t got the usability Nielsen is referring to and it’s also likely that other forms of navigation than strictly touch is possible. Thus, there ought to be a better name for them. I like MID, short for Mobile Internet Device, since I believe these new devices to have shifted the primary use case from being phones to being windows to the Internet.

The addition of a new category, where the dividing line is both the usability [of the web] as well as a new primary purpose [Internet, not phone calls] causes some change looking at the existing industry. These devices are still viewed from an analyst perspective as being smartphones, and thus we see interesting headlines on who sells the most smartphones on the market vs who makes the most money on these devices, without realising that it’s an apples vs oranges thing [slight pun intended].

I was one of the original designers of the Sony Ericsson P800, a device that with the tech available then (2002) could be seen as being one of the first to [try to] create this new experience, but they would still not be in the same category. Something else has changed.

Working at a mobile manufacturer, especially with research, means you sometimes find yourself using a device that might be a bit, ehrm, unstable. That recently happened to me, and I found myself in the pretty interesting situation of carrying a device that restarted itself in the middle of phone calls. All of them.

Still, I kept using the device – something I wouldn’t have done a few years ago. It turns out my primary purpose of carrying a small digital device with me is not about making phone calls any more, it’s about being connected to the Internet at large – in a way that is both easy to use and optimized for an Internet/web experience.

This also indicates another problem with naming them just touch phones, or touch devices. To be able to be a true window to the Internet means that I should be able to perform all the activities I’m used to, while mobile. Adding touch to what is otherwise a feature phone, or just using a smartphone, doesn’t give me the same experience since the device limits what I’m able to do, in one way or another (lack of third party applications, or restricted third party applications). Openness, is the last dividing factor.

These devices have an active aftermarket experience. I can count on – even expect – the Internet services I’m using to be reachable with excellent usability either through the web or through low-cost (even free) applications, produced by anyone with a minimum of creation and publishing effort.

Thus, a new category of devices has been born. They’re not smartphones, they’re something else. And we love them.




For more on how open source and openness will enable a shift in speed of innovation in the mobile arena, please come and listen to my presentation on the Future of Open Source in Mobile, at OSiM Amsterdam 15-16 of September

[top]