Technologic Utilities

When a need exists that isn't satisfied by an appropriately priced single product, consumers often cobble together several products. The solution is suboptimal, and usually strikes a balance between the core requirements and the difficulty of making everything work together. Said another way, the market size for product D (an integrated solution) is at least the intersection of all users of product A and B and C.

Consider the technology needs of the average consumer: an internet connection (and web browser), communication (email, phone), contact list management, calendaring, productivity software (Office), and file storage. Most people are probably using multiple vendors to satisfy those needs, and as a result are enduring the costs of duplicating data between platforms, making redundant communications, and occasionally losing their work.

Apple, Microsoft, and Google have all been working on this problem for some time, and their solutions are beginning to become really compelling. Consolidating onto MobileMe, Windows Live Mesh or Google Mobile can allow for ubiquitious, synchronized access to your utility computing data, equally available through your cell phone, computer, or any web browser. The data only really exists in one searchable location: a frequently backed-up, fault-tolerant super computing cluster with redundant internet connections. If you lost every electronic device you own, all you'd have to do is replace and resynchronize.

Is there a risk of being tied to a single vendor? Maybe, but I don't diversify my water or electrical utilities. And even after consolidating onto a platform, switching is possible, though admittedly about as convenient as switching any other utility. My own experience thus far as has been that the benefits far outweigh any reduction in choice.

"The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed."

The Four Stages of Strategic Thinking

The other day in class, Professor Homa introduced a progressive description of how companies respond to (or create) marketplace opportunities. It's a good benchmark against any proposed strategy, and begs the questions "What level are we functioning at?" and  "How can we move to the next level?".

-------------------
1.) Reactionary: Acknowledge & Respond
-Preserving the status quo, fighting to survive.

2.) Remedial: Understand and Conform
-Avoiding "dumb stuff", doing more of the same, but better.

3.) Resourceful: Identify and Capitalize
-Recognizing and taking advantage of natural opportunities.

4.) Revolutionary: Create and Exploit
-Changing the rules, controlling the gameboard. Earning sustained and extraordinary profits.
-------------------

It wasn't until his lecture that I really came to appreciate how being an MBA student is a lot like learning a new sport. Initially, the ball is hard to manage, the plays are complicated, and everything just seems to move so fast you occassionally collide with your own teammates. That's level one, and it's frustrating.

But after a while, the fundamentals become second nature, the gameplay makes sense, and the pace seems to slow down just enough that you can think a few plays ahead. There's an opportunity to function consistently at level three, and to make forays at level four.

And that's when things really get interesting.

Control Your Self

Charlie Stross gave a talk about the future just last year. (If you follow the link, don't be deterred by the length - roughly 85% of that page is just comments about the transcription.) To quote a friend of mine, it's about "the upcoming universal panopticon induced by ubiquitous storage".

At the risk of sounding too 1984, storage is cheap and cameras are everywhere. What isn't being volunteered can be recorded passively and indexed, and that information is being used. There may be some anonymity left for those whose name is not a unique identifier, but I suspect even that will be short lived.

Jeremy Hussell beat me to the right conclusion years ago: The best way to prevent the unintended disclosure or confusion of information is to be the primary authority. You are more than your brand, but at the same time your brand matters now more than ever. It can be defined on the internet, or it can be defined by it.

If it's not on here (or linked from here), it's not me; AmiableCoder.com is my online brand.