When you're dealing with a fairly small community (e.g., comedians, tech blogs), there's enough overlap that people can spot when one person uses another person's material.
For the entire web, it isn't likely people are going to notice. Photographers, graphic artists, and bloggers have found their material used without credit by websites and companies that they weren't aware of until they randomly stumbled upon them. So I think social mores work well when everyone knows everyone, or there are relatively few degrees of separation. But once you leave that circle, there's probably going to be little, if any, social pressure on the "borrowers" to give any credit or acknowledgments unless they are part of a culture where it is taboo to do that sort of thing and they risk their reputations in the process. And I think as "borrowing" becomes the norm in some groups, the issue of giving credit won't even occur to them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
I've been following the industry for 10 years (and on a less rigorous basis for 40 years -- back when the Whole Earth Catalog turned me on to low tech, efficient building techniques). The reason alternative energy technologies haven't taken over the market is that they aren't cheap enough and don't look like they will be cheap enough in the near future. There's a ton of research going on, but nothing that has dropped the price where it is competitive against fossil fuels without government subsidies. And since the subsidies have tended to be granted on a short term basis, the companies with money don't want to invest fully until they know the market will be supported.
And look at something like wind energy, which I am totally in favor of. The places the wind blows tend to be out the middle of nowhere. So to get that energy to where it is needed you either need transmission lines or storage mechanisms that can store the energy and then have it transmitted where it is needed. The two most likely storage devices are batteries and hydrogen (via electrolysis -- using the wind energy to break down water and then use the hydrogen directly as fuel or in fuel cells). A lot of pieces have to come together to make some energy technologies work in the marketplace.
The cheap solutions are being implemented. Those are things like more efficient buildings, smaller cars, etc. And they are being used, but it takes awhile for all of that to filter through the system.
I've looked at solar and wind on a home basis, but it still will take about 20-30 years at current rates to recover your investments. There are even proposals to have nuclear generators small enough to work on a block-by-block basis.
If anyone has some ideas how to revolutionize energy in the next ten years, there are a lot of people who are interested. My guess is that China will take the lead, and when there is need of big private money, it will come from the energy companies. Do I have a problem if China dominates the market for electric cars and for solar? No, if they get it done before anyone else. I'd like to see more done in the US and I vote accordingly. Alternative energy advocates always get my vote.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
I edited my post, but didn't cut-and-paste carefully enough. Here's how the second half should have read:
_______
BP's Gulf problem didn't disrupt our use of fossil fuels. Three Mile Island did discourage the building of more nuclear power plants, but the nuclear energy industry is starting to get a second look these days.
Everyone knows alternative energy will be adopted; it's just when. Biofuels look promising and people are building small plants for that and doing experiments on how to break down wastes and how to grow oil rich algae.
I follow all of it pretty closely. The National Renewal Energy Lab is based near Boulder so there are a lot of people working in the field around me. Big wind manufacturing plants in Colorado. Solar manufacturing startups here as well. Several projects involving efficient use of vehicles/motors here too. I don't think there is anything going on in green tech that we don't have happening here in some form. Plus overall Boulder and Colorado support renewal energy so everyone is looking for ideas/solutions. Tesla has a showroom in Boulder. The state provided such massive credits for the cars that people were essentially able to buy them at half price.
At the same time, there is a lot of natural gas drilling in the state. So Colorado is in the middle of fossil fuel discussions, too. And there is oil-rich shale here, so whenever that technology looks promising, fuel companies want to come here and work those deposits. Lots of coal mining in Wyoming.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
The point I was trying to make is that some technology IS going to crop up that will obsolete centralized energy production.
I got it. And my point is that the very same companies that invest in fossil fuels are investing in alternative energies. They see themselves as energy companies. Everyone is anticipating the switch to solar when the technology becomes cheap enough. No one will be caught unprepared for that.
Solar won't become a disruptive technology unless someone discovers something revolutionary overnight and can immediately make it available in the marketplace. Or unless something happens to the current energy systems which make them become horrendously expensive overnight.
BP's Gulf problem didn't disrupt our use of fossil fuels. Three Mile Island did discourage the building of more nuclear power plants, but the nuclear energy industry is starting to get a second look these days.
At the same time, there is a lot of natural gas drilling in the state. So Colorado is in the middle of fossil fuel discussions, too. And there is oil-rich shale here, so whenever that technology looks promising, fuel companies want to come here and work those deposits. Lots of coal mining in Wyoming.
Everyone knows alternative energy will be adopted; it's just when. Biofuels look promising and people are building small plants for that and doing experiments on how to break down wastes and how to grow oil rich algae.
I follow all of it pretty closely. The National Renewal Energy Lab is based near Boulder so there are a lot of people working in the field around me. Big wind manufacturing plants in Colorado. Solar manufacturing startups here as well. Several projects involving efficient use of vehicles/motors here too. I don't think there is anything going on in green tech that we don't have happening here in some form. Plus overall Boulder and Colorado support renewal energy so everyone is looking for ideas/solutions. Tesla has a showroom in Boulder. The state provided such massive credits for the cars that people were essentially able to buy them at half price.
How is this "connect with fans" any different than in the past?
It isn't. And it isn't any different from Zappos.
Most companies aren't all that good at customer management and most musicians won't be either.
You'll do a good job with it if that is your priority and if you assign enough resources to deliver. Zappos isn't the cheapest place to get shoes (which is why I don't use them). But some people are willing to pay a premium for free shipping and good service.
A local musician who plays cover songs but gives everyone who comes to the show a good time will have fans.
Re: Re: Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
The problem with disruption is that it's disruptive.
For that reason it might not be all that fair to say some companies missed disruptive innovation.
As for the music industry, I anticipate far more disruption, and everyone who is currently going to be disrupted disagrees with me. I think technology will push music creation down to the individual level. So everyone is going to be a creator and the idea of 1000 fans or tribes to support music makers is going to go away. Of course, every aspiring musician doesn't believe this. And every company that hopes to distribute music or sell music-related merchandise doesn't believe this.
But I think the technology to allow people to make their own music will be as disruptive as MP3 technology, home recording technology, file sharing, etc. And I think music will revert to localized experiences again. So if you can have fun in music with your neighbors, you'll have less incentive to pay to go to a concert.
Three reasons I think music will head this way:
1. People want to be their own rock stars.
2. The apps to make music are coming quickly and are cheap. The infrastructure is already there with mobile devices. No need to deal with licensing, or having to create a big site like YouTube or iTunes. It can be done at the grassroots level.
3. People don't have much money to spend. Expecting fans to spend money to support musicians when the fans don't have money isn't going to work.
"Stan," by Eminem is a powerful song because it captures the mentality of a fan who thinks that he and the singer can be friends. That's one of the challenges with fan management. Fans want that personal attention.
Stan (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In the video, Stan is bleaching his hair to look like Eminem. Then his girlfriend (played by Dido) tells Stan that he is taking his affection for Eminem too far, making Stan furious because she called him Stanley. Then in the first verse, Stan is writing to Eminem for the third time, hoping his hero will write back. Rain and thunder can be heard in the background throughout, as well as the sound of the pencil scratching onto the letter. He explains the level of his devotion ('I got a room full of your posters and your pictures, man') and maintains that Eminem 'must not have got 'em', his previous two letters. In addition, the song 'Old World Disorder' is referenced as the 'underground shit that you did with Skam.' Stan also reveals that his girlfriend is pregnant, and that he is going to name his daughter Bonnie (a reference to Eminem's song ''97 Bonnie and Clyde' from The Slim Shady LP), and empathizes about the suicide of a family member ('I read about your Uncle Ronnie too I'm sorry/I had a friend kill himself over some bitch who didn't want him')."
The challenge for anyone in the relationship building/management business is the time in takes to relate to the people who want your attention.
If you have people emailing you, they would like a response. If you want to build an online community, you need one or more people monitoring conversations, injecting new content, making sure bullies don't drown out the discussions, etc.
So the bigger your fan or customer base, the more staffers you need to hire to properly relate to your fans/customers without coming across as impersonal.
There's an art to it and many musicians and many companies don't have it down. But yes, there is a business model out there for musicians, artists, writers, newspapers, etc., to listen and converse with the people coming to them. And it requires a certain personality type (e.g., social, empathetic, perhaps funny) that not everyone, including musicians, has. I would even go so far as to say that the personality is more important than the music. If you can relate to your fans and make them feel important, they'll gravitate to you even if your music isn't especially distinctive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
How in that case does BP switch to renewables? Do they go into manufacturing of these items? highly unlikely its outside of their experience. Disruptive Technologies destroy old businesses, period, end, fin. Disruptive Technologies are about massive changes in efficiencies and the associated lowering of cost. No amount of laws or regulations ever stop efficiencies from prevailing, and old legacy players always get destroyed.
They are already invested in alternative technologies. His point was that his company wasn't sure yet when to drop out of fossil fuels.
I used to write about the alternative/clean tech industry in CO. I interviewed the head of an organization promoting a hydrogen economy. She said they were working with the auto companies. That surprised me because I thought of them as the enemy of green tech. She said no, that huge private companies were the only ones with the financial resources to make the necessary switch over to hydrogen cars, installing the necessary fuel pumps at stations, etc.
It made a lot of sense to me. BP is funding alternative energy companies. They just haven't abandoned oil yet.
I think you'll see the same thing happening with big international companies investing in China. They may see the US as the current market, with China being the primary market in the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
It failed because it had no interface, the only thing different from Apple is the interface that is what made all the difference that is what all the other players didn't see.
I'm not sure it could have been done much sooner. The technology wasn't there, or at least to do it for an affordable amount. Recently some Indian entrepreneurs say they can make a $35 tablet, but that has been met with a lot of skepticism.
I know Apple passed on the $500 computer years ago saying that they couldn't make a decent one for that price. So PC makers moved to fill that market instead.
My point in all of this is to say that I don't think companies necessarily pass on technology because they don't realize it will be disruptive. They may decide that even though it is coming, it's not something that fits their strategic plan at the moment. And they may feel that they can pick up on the technology at a later date, or even jump past it into the next generation of devices.
Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
Dozens of solutions spawned from that project from dozens of manufacturer's in Japan and they are selling that equipment to power a house right now for 10 thousand dollars, that industry in America is already behind the competition a decade or more.
I definitely think the US is falling behind in alternative and clean tech. But one of the big reasons is the artificially low price of fossil fuels. There won't be a market for alternative energy in this country until it gets too expensive to use fossil fuels or until there are incentives to make alternative energy more price competitive.
Boulder is doing everything it can to be forward thinking it terms of the alternative energy use here and yet some of the plans are criticized for not being cost effective now, even though they will likely be so in the future.
If you have some ideas as to how to make this country a leader in alternative/clean tech I'd love to hear them.
What do you do when you have consumers and tax payers who want the cheapest option now, the future be damned? How much of private and public R&D should be devoted to the future, even if it isn't profitable now?
I totally want to see the US focused on developing clean tech, but what do you do with a "drill baby drill" mentality?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
We could probably generate a lively discussion by looking at the combination of the myth of first mover advantage and how that factors into disruptive technologies.
I haven't started to do much research on the subject, but I will toss this out to start:
10-102: Demystifying Disruption: A New Model for Understanding and Predicting Disruptive Technologies: "The results of their analysis suggest that many aspects of the disruptive technologies theory are exaggerated. Though an entrant disrupting a well-funded, giant incumbent with a lower attack makes for a good story, such disruptions account for only a small fraction of all cases--for example, only 8% of all technology disruptions and 25% of all firm disruptions were caused by entrants using a lower attack. The hazard of disruption by incumbents is significantly higher than that by entrants. Further, technologies that adopt a lower attack are not cheaper than older technologies."
Re: Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
Roger showed me his tablet back in 1993 or 1994. The concept was there back then but it has taken until the iPad and Apple's technology and money to bring it into existence.
Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
The entertainment industry missed, in order, the World Wide Web writing it off as a fad (a mistake Microsoft came perilously close to making as well), ignored and abused their market after consolidating down to a few well connected companies, ignored the reality of falling CD sales long before what came next, then the mp3 format (as terrible sonically then as it is now), then for a while Napster, then Bittorrent which they have discovered isn't a product or company as much as it is a protocol, rediscovered P2P which has been around since Unix and other mainframe and mini computer platforms allowed it and which Hollywood has made great use of for its own purposes for years. It was one of the early adopters of bittorrent as well and was fine with it as long as it was used their way and they could clearly profit from it.
I don't think it was necessarily ignoring the market. Sometimes it has been about being unable to capitalize on the changes.
I am familiar with some of the developments in the entertainment industry, but I'm more familiar with the developments in the online news industry. In 1993-94 I was working part time at Apple's media research lab in Boulder. Knight Ridder had a research office down the hall. Steve Outing hadn't yet set up the online news mailing list, but it was coming in a couple of years. Apple sponsored OneNet, which was an early network and was working well, but Apple pulled funding in order to create eWorld, which wasn't successful.
I was in daily conversations about how to move news online. People were trying everything. There were projects uploading local sports news in real time. There were lots of restaurant review sites. There were online news archives. There were early experiments with hyperlocalization. Apple was having conferences about online community networks, and anyone who was involved in online networks was attending.
The problem with everything was that none of it was profitable and no one knew how long they would have to keep funding it. I think many people anticipated that news was going to shift online (this was 17 years ago), but turning it in a paying venture was something else. That's what's stopped a lot of projects early. People just ran out of money. And it was especially acute after the dotcom crash because both the VC money and the ad money disappeared. So we had one wave in 1993-94 with experimentation. Another wave during the dotcom boom. Another now another wave. The ideas are there, but profitability often isn't.
I'm not surprised that some established companies hesitate before pouring millions into projects which may never turn a profit. It's a lot easier to let someone else risk their time/money, and then buy them out. That doesn't always work either, but at least you can let lots of little companies experiment and then cherry pick the ones that look most promising.
Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
And research shows that the odds of success doing this is incredibly low.
Maybe I missed something, but I found this which seems to suggest that sometimes it makes sense to let the small companies proceed and then jump in.
Disruptive technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Even if a disruptive innovation is recognized, existing businesses are often reluctant to take advantage of it, since it would involve competing with their existing (and more profitable) technological approach. Christensen recommends that existing firms watch for these innovations, invest in small firms that might adopt these innovations, and continue to push technological demands in their core market so that performance stays above what disruptive technologies can achieve."
____
Also a few years ago I was at a presentation by a senior BP exec. He was asked about alternative technologies. He said his company was actively investing in them, but since the profitability of those technologies depended a lot of various incentives provided by government agencies, BP couldn't yet predict when to phase out fossil fuels and when to switch over to renewables. In other words, he said they were developing the technology, but the point at which they would fully make the switch depended on what was going to happen with legislation. They were hedging their bets. The time frame could be 10 years. It could be 40 years.
I think you see the same thing with Apple. They always seem to introduce an interim product while continuing to work on more advanced technology down the road. They sell the early adopters a product that still doesn't have all the bells and whistles, and then bring out better products 6 months to several years down the road.
Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
Another industry were you see the big companies letting the little companies take the risk is in beverages. Teas, fruit drinks, enhanced water. Those are usually launched by a smaller company which then gets bought out by Pepsi or Coke.
On the post: How Social Mores Can Deal With 'Unfair' Copying, Even In Absence Of Copyright
Small communities versus the entire world
For the entire web, it isn't likely people are going to notice. Photographers, graphic artists, and bloggers have found their material used without credit by websites and companies that they weren't aware of until they randomly stumbled upon them. So I think social mores work well when everyone knows everyone, or there are relatively few degrees of separation. But once you leave that circle, there's probably going to be little, if any, social pressure on the "borrowers" to give any credit or acknowledgments unless they are part of a culture where it is taboo to do that sort of thing and they risk their reputations in the process. And I think as "borrowing" becomes the norm in some groups, the issue of giving credit won't even occur to them.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
But this might be of interest:
How China Beat the U.S. and Became the New Green Tech Giant
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
And look at something like wind energy, which I am totally in favor of. The places the wind blows tend to be out the middle of nowhere. So to get that energy to where it is needed you either need transmission lines or storage mechanisms that can store the energy and then have it transmitted where it is needed. The two most likely storage devices are batteries and hydrogen (via electrolysis -- using the wind energy to break down water and then use the hydrogen directly as fuel or in fuel cells). A lot of pieces have to come together to make some energy technologies work in the marketplace.
The cheap solutions are being implemented. Those are things like more efficient buildings, smaller cars, etc. And they are being used, but it takes awhile for all of that to filter through the system.
I've looked at solar and wind on a home basis, but it still will take about 20-30 years at current rates to recover your investments. There are even proposals to have nuclear generators small enough to work on a block-by-block basis.
If anyone has some ideas how to revolutionize energy in the next ten years, there are a lot of people who are interested. My guess is that China will take the lead, and when there is need of big private money, it will come from the energy companies. Do I have a problem if China dominates the market for electric cars and for solar? No, if they get it done before anyone else. I'd like to see more done in the US and I vote accordingly. Alternative energy advocates always get my vote.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
_______
BP's Gulf problem didn't disrupt our use of fossil fuels. Three Mile Island did discourage the building of more nuclear power plants, but the nuclear energy industry is starting to get a second look these days.
Everyone knows alternative energy will be adopted; it's just when. Biofuels look promising and people are building small plants for that and doing experiments on how to break down wastes and how to grow oil rich algae.
I follow all of it pretty closely. The National Renewal Energy Lab is based near Boulder so there are a lot of people working in the field around me. Big wind manufacturing plants in Colorado. Solar manufacturing startups here as well. Several projects involving efficient use of vehicles/motors here too. I don't think there is anything going on in green tech that we don't have happening here in some form. Plus overall Boulder and Colorado support renewal energy so everyone is looking for ideas/solutions. Tesla has a showroom in Boulder. The state provided such massive credits for the cars that people were essentially able to buy them at half price.
At the same time, there is a lot of natural gas drilling in the state. So Colorado is in the middle of fossil fuel discussions, too. And there is oil-rich shale here, so whenever that technology looks promising, fuel companies want to come here and work those deposits. Lots of coal mining in Wyoming.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
I got it. And my point is that the very same companies that invest in fossil fuels are investing in alternative energies. They see themselves as energy companies. Everyone is anticipating the switch to solar when the technology becomes cheap enough. No one will be caught unprepared for that.
Solar won't become a disruptive technology unless someone discovers something revolutionary overnight and can immediately make it available in the marketplace. Or unless something happens to the current energy systems which make them become horrendously expensive overnight.
BP's Gulf problem didn't disrupt our use of fossil fuels. Three Mile Island did discourage the building of more nuclear power plants, but the nuclear energy industry is starting to get a second look these days.
At the same time, there is a lot of natural gas drilling in the state. So Colorado is in the middle of fossil fuel discussions, too. And there is oil-rich shale here, so whenever that technology looks promising, fuel companies want to come here and work those deposits. Lots of coal mining in Wyoming.
Everyone knows alternative energy will be adopted; it's just when. Biofuels look promising and people are building small plants for that and doing experiments on how to break down wastes and how to grow oil rich algae.
I follow all of it pretty closely. The National Renewal Energy Lab is based near Boulder so there are a lot of people working in the field around me. Big wind manufacturing plants in Colorado. Solar manufacturing startups here as well. Several projects involving efficient use of vehicles/motors here too. I don't think there is anything going on in green tech that we don't have happening here in some form. Plus overall Boulder and Colorado support renewal energy so everyone is looking for ideas/solutions. Tesla has a showroom in Boulder. The state provided such massive credits for the cars that people were essentially able to buy them at half price.
On the post: Connecting With Fans Is About More Than Getting People To Pay Attention To You
Re: Re: Customer management
It isn't. And it isn't any different from Zappos.
Most companies aren't all that good at customer management and most musicians won't be either.
You'll do a good job with it if that is your priority and if you assign enough resources to deliver. Zappos isn't the cheapest place to get shoes (which is why I don't use them). But some people are willing to pay a premium for free shipping and good service.
A local musician who plays cover songs but gives everyone who comes to the show a good time will have fans.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
For that reason it might not be all that fair to say some companies missed disruptive innovation.
As for the music industry, I anticipate far more disruption, and everyone who is currently going to be disrupted disagrees with me. I think technology will push music creation down to the individual level. So everyone is going to be a creator and the idea of 1000 fans or tribes to support music makers is going to go away. Of course, every aspiring musician doesn't believe this. And every company that hopes to distribute music or sell music-related merchandise doesn't believe this.
But I think the technology to allow people to make their own music will be as disruptive as MP3 technology, home recording technology, file sharing, etc. And I think music will revert to localized experiences again. So if you can have fun in music with your neighbors, you'll have less incentive to pay to go to a concert.
Three reasons I think music will head this way:
1. People want to be their own rock stars.
2. The apps to make music are coming quickly and are cheap. The infrastructure is already there with mobile devices. No need to deal with licensing, or having to create a big site like YouTube or iTunes. It can be done at the grassroots level.
3. People don't have much money to spend. Expecting fans to spend money to support musicians when the fans don't have money isn't going to work.
On the post: Connecting With Fans Is About More Than Getting People To Pay Attention To You
Re: Customer management
Stan (song) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In the video, Stan is bleaching his hair to look like Eminem. Then his girlfriend (played by Dido) tells Stan that he is taking his affection for Eminem too far, making Stan furious because she called him Stanley. Then in the first verse, Stan is writing to Eminem for the third time, hoping his hero will write back. Rain and thunder can be heard in the background throughout, as well as the sound of the pencil scratching onto the letter. He explains the level of his devotion ('I got a room full of your posters and your pictures, man') and maintains that Eminem 'must not have got 'em', his previous two letters. In addition, the song 'Old World Disorder' is referenced as the 'underground shit that you did with Skam.' Stan also reveals that his girlfriend is pregnant, and that he is going to name his daughter Bonnie (a reference to Eminem's song ''97 Bonnie and Clyde' from The Slim Shady LP), and empathizes about the suicide of a family member ('I read about your Uncle Ronnie too I'm sorry/I had a friend kill himself over some bitch who didn't want him')."
On the post: Connecting With Fans Is About More Than Getting People To Pay Attention To You
Customer management
If you have people emailing you, they would like a response. If you want to build an online community, you need one or more people monitoring conversations, injecting new content, making sure bullies don't drown out the discussions, etc.
So the bigger your fan or customer base, the more staffers you need to hire to properly relate to your fans/customers without coming across as impersonal.
There's an art to it and many musicians and many companies don't have it down. But yes, there is a business model out there for musicians, artists, writers, newspapers, etc., to listen and converse with the people coming to them. And it requires a certain personality type (e.g., social, empathetic, perhaps funny) that not everyone, including musicians, has. I would even go so far as to say that the personality is more important than the music. If you can relate to your fans and make them feel important, they'll gravitate to you even if your music isn't especially distinctive.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
BP: No plans to sell alternative-energy units - MarketWatch
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
They are already invested in alternative technologies. His point was that his company wasn't sure yet when to drop out of fossil fuels.
I used to write about the alternative/clean tech industry in CO. I interviewed the head of an organization promoting a hydrogen economy. She said they were working with the auto companies. That surprised me because I thought of them as the enemy of green tech. She said no, that huge private companies were the only ones with the financial resources to make the necessary switch over to hydrogen cars, installing the necessary fuel pumps at stations, etc.
It made a lot of sense to me. BP is funding alternative energy companies. They just haven't abandoned oil yet.
I think you'll see the same thing happening with big international companies investing in China. They may see the US as the current market, with China being the primary market in the future.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
The Long Fail: A Brief History of Unsuccessful Tablet Computers
A Short History of the Tablet Computer
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
I'm not sure it could have been done much sooner. The technology wasn't there, or at least to do it for an affordable amount. Recently some Indian entrepreneurs say they can make a $35 tablet, but that has been met with a lot of skepticism.
I know Apple passed on the $500 computer years ago saying that they couldn't make a decent one for that price. So PC makers moved to fill that market instead.
My point in all of this is to say that I don't think companies necessarily pass on technology because they don't realize it will be disruptive. They may decide that even though it is coming, it's not something that fits their strategic plan at the moment. And they may feel that they can pick up on the technology at a later date, or even jump past it into the next generation of devices.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
I definitely think the US is falling behind in alternative and clean tech. But one of the big reasons is the artificially low price of fossil fuels. There won't be a market for alternative energy in this country until it gets too expensive to use fossil fuels or until there are incentives to make alternative energy more price competitive.
Boulder is doing everything it can to be forward thinking it terms of the alternative energy use here and yet some of the plans are criticized for not being cost effective now, even though they will likely be so in the future.
If you have some ideas as to how to make this country a leader in alternative/clean tech I'd love to hear them.
What do you do when you have consumers and tax payers who want the cheapest option now, the future be damned? How much of private and public R&D should be devoted to the future, even if it isn't profitable now?
I totally want to see the US focused on developing clean tech, but what do you do with a "drill baby drill" mentality?
Please offer some ideas.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
I haven't started to do much research on the subject, but I will toss this out to start:
10-102: Demystifying Disruption: A New Model for Understanding and Predicting Disruptive Technologies: "The results of their analysis suggest that many aspects of the disruptive technologies theory are exaggerated. Though an entrant disrupting a well-funded, giant incumbent with a lower attack makes for a good story, such disruptions account for only a small fraction of all cases--for example, only 8% of all technology disruptions and 25% of all firm disruptions were caused by entrants using a lower attack. The hazard of disruption by incumbents is significantly higher than that by entrants. Further, technologies that adopt a lower attack are not cheaper than older technologies."
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
ROGER FIDLER AND HIS EARLY VISION OF THE NEWSPAPER TABLET
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: If we're talking huge disruption (Google) the incumbants miss it.
I don't think it was necessarily ignoring the market. Sometimes it has been about being unable to capitalize on the changes.
I am familiar with some of the developments in the entertainment industry, but I'm more familiar with the developments in the online news industry. In 1993-94 I was working part time at Apple's media research lab in Boulder. Knight Ridder had a research office down the hall. Steve Outing hadn't yet set up the online news mailing list, but it was coming in a couple of years. Apple sponsored OneNet, which was an early network and was working well, but Apple pulled funding in order to create eWorld, which wasn't successful.
I was in daily conversations about how to move news online. People were trying everything. There were projects uploading local sports news in real time. There were lots of restaurant review sites. There were online news archives. There were early experiments with hyperlocalization. Apple was having conferences about online community networks, and anyone who was involved in online networks was attending.
The problem with everything was that none of it was profitable and no one knew how long they would have to keep funding it. I think many people anticipated that news was going to shift online (this was 17 years ago), but turning it in a paying venture was something else. That's what's stopped a lot of projects early. People just ran out of money. And it was especially acute after the dotcom crash because both the VC money and the ad money disappeared. So we had one wave in 1993-94 with experimentation. Another wave during the dotcom boom. Another now another wave. The ideas are there, but profitability often isn't.
I'm not surprised that some established companies hesitate before pouring millions into projects which may never turn a profit. It's a lot easier to let someone else risk their time/money, and then buy them out. That doesn't always work either, but at least you can let lots of little companies experiment and then cherry pick the ones that look most promising.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
That's exactly what I said. The big companies let the small companies establish the market and then buy them.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
Maybe I missed something, but I found this which seems to suggest that sometimes it makes sense to let the small companies proceed and then jump in.
Disruptive technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Even if a disruptive innovation is recognized, existing businesses are often reluctant to take advantage of it, since it would involve competing with their existing (and more profitable) technological approach. Christensen recommends that existing firms watch for these innovations, invest in small firms that might adopt these innovations, and continue to push technological demands in their core market so that performance stays above what disruptive technologies can achieve."
____
Also a few years ago I was at a presentation by a senior BP exec. He was asked about alternative technologies. He said his company was actively investing in them, but since the profitability of those technologies depended a lot of various incentives provided by government agencies, BP couldn't yet predict when to phase out fossil fuels and when to switch over to renewables. In other words, he said they were developing the technology, but the point at which they would fully make the switch depended on what was going to happen with legislation. They were hedging their bets. The time frame could be 10 years. It could be 40 years.
I think you see the same thing with Apple. They always seem to introduce an interim product while continuing to work on more advanced technology down the road. They sell the early adopters a product that still doesn't have all the bells and whistles, and then bring out better products 6 months to several years down the road.
On the post: How Microsoft Missed The Disruptive Innovation In Paid Search
Re: They'll just let the little companies experiment and then come it
Next >>