The car as a new frontier for what’s left of Nokia?

Microsoft’s headline-grabbing acquisition of (most of) Nokia’s handset division dominated the airwaves this morning but among all the coverage was a piece from Techcrunch on the bit that Nokia is left with.

That is, somewhat clumsily, called HERE and it is a software business building on top of the maps division. This business is focused on providing in-car navigation solutions for cars, but also, and most importantly, on developing the integration between cars and mobile platforms in a branded and white label fashion.

This just could be a very rich space. Despite the obvious moves from IOS and Android to move into the car space, the reality in most vehicles (my Mercedes being a case in point) lags very far behind.

Potentially HERE could carve out a very lucrative future in providing the fiddly bits that make slowly-evolving cars work seamlessly with  the fast-moving consumer electronics that we all want to integrate with them.

Update

Read more on the connected car and what it means for platform providers and the cellcos in this thought-piece from Rethink.

ABC of metrics

I loved this passage in a talk given by Stijn Debrouwere who works at The Guardian:

The metrics you’ll need will depend on your business, but as a starting point I like Dave McClure’s list of five startup metrics for pirates:

  1. acquisition: finding new users
  2. activation: getting users to give your product a try
  3. retention: making sure those users stick around
  4. referral: have your loyal users invite others
  5. revenue: hopefully you get to make some money from all this

Acquisition, activation, retention, referral, revenue, or, as an acronym: aarrr! Those are usually the big five things you have to worry about.

As he says, the most important thing to remember is to be really specific about what you are trying to achieve. We are all drowning in data, so it’s refreshing to get back to basics once in a while.   

Advertising which goes with the flow

I was reading through an AOP presentation (Digital Landscape Report vol. 54) this week when I came across one slide which quite startled me. It was talking about the growth of mobile advertising at Facebook and Twitter.

The fact that stood out for me was that fully 18% of Facebook’s ad revenue was now from mobile advertising, up from 0% in under a year. And the proportion was expected to grow to 40% this year. Twitter already has more revenue from mobile.

[The figures come from eMarketer but sadly I can’t share them as they are behind a pay wall and our corporate subscription seems to have expired.]
There was a lot of negative talk about the prospects for mobile advertising but the fact is that customers of both sites seem to have taken the ads in their stride. 
In both Facebook and Twitter the ads take the form of posts which are placed in the news stream. They are clearly labelled – as “promoted tweets” on Twitter and “suggested posts” on Facebook – but they slot easily into the stream and don’t disrupt the reading experience. 
I’ve no idea whether these new ads have a better response rate than conventional banners, buttons, overlays and the rest – maybe someone can supply the data?  But somehow this seems like a much better approach to getting the message across than the increasingly desperate ways of interrupting the flow of concentration which seem to be very much the norm now online. 
The user experience of browsing through a “river” of feeds on Facebook or Twitter is not jarred of broken by the arrival of promoted/suggested content – you can take it or leave it just as you can the posts themselves (although using Facebook’s precise targeting the chances of relevance should be high.) 
If the response rates are acceptable  (particularly if the relevance targeting gets better and better) advertisers and the sites themselves should resist the temptation to try to make them stand out in the bad old ways. Comfortable co-existence, which has never been the case online, is by far the best long term solution. And the figures certainly seem to support this. 

Computer heal thyself

I’ve just read a long, passionate post on Marc Scott’s Coding2Learn blog lamenting the fact that kids can’t use computers. The hypothesis, simply put, is that far from being “digital natives” most kids simply don’t know their way round a computer or, indeed, a smart phone. This is not to say they don’t use them – but that they don’t know what to do when anything – even something quite basic – goes wrong.

Instinctively I had quite a bit of sympathy with the argument; knowing how to troubleshoot a wireless connection or an external monitor, for example, seems to me pretty useful basic stuff.

However, as I thought about it some more I became convinced that this kind of lament is really a symptom of a technology in transition. I can imagine a similar post being written (if the medium had existed) in the 60s or 70s bemoaning the fact that car drivers simply don’t understand the mechanics of what they are driving anymore. Motoring was a do-it-yourself activity for a long time – I remember as late as the 80s doing quite a bit of tinkering with spark plugs and the like to keep my cheap, old and unreliable cars on the road. It is now decades since I’ve known what to do looking into the bonnet of a modern car.

I suspect computer technology is going through just such a transition. Marc Scott’s suggestion for fixing the dearth of computer knowledge is, among other things, to get kids to use Linux computers which need a lot of configuration (which means learning a fair bit about the operating system). But I think he hints at the change that’s coming when he talks about mobile:

This ones tricky. iOS is a lost cause, unless you jail-break, and Android isn’t much better. I use Ubuntu-Touch, and it has possibilities. At least you feel like the mobile phone is yours. Okay, so I can’t use 3G, it crashes when I try to make phone calls and the device runs so hot that when in my jacket pocket it seconds as an excellent nipple-warmer, but I can see the potential.

That, surely, is the point. Computers should fade into the background and “just work”. As he says:

Technology affects our lives more than ever before. Our computers give us access to the food we eat and the clothes we wear. Our computers enable us to work, socialise and entertain ourselves. Our computers give us access to our utilities, our banks and our politics. Our computers allow criminals to interact with us, stealing our data, our money, our identities. Our computers are now used by our governments, monitoring our communications, our behaviours, our secrets.

That being so, we need technology that works when you switch it on, that monitors its own health and fixed itself when anything is awry, that protects us from crime and from being spied upon. We shouldn’t be expected to be able to dismantle computers or smart phones in order to make sure they are working properly.

It is faintly ridiculous that computers can develop glitches and then expect us to search the company’s knowledge bases for the solutions which we then need to manually implement. Why aren’t they self-diagnosing and self-healing using all that superfluous computing power? Partly, I guess, because there is still a lot of tinkerer’s pride and self-satisfaction finally solving these techno-riddles and hence not much consumer outrage at this situation. But this won’t wash for very much longer.

In the end, though it is fun (for some) to be able to tinker with their technology, much like old-car enthusiasts tinkering in their garages, these days are drawing to a close and ubiquitous computing that “just works”, monitors itself and corrects problems as they occur will become the standard, for better or worse.

 

 

A tale of two service cultures

In February I bought myself a Nexus 7, the 7-inch tablet made for Google by Asus. I bought it from Currys as, since the demise of Comet in November last year, this is just about the only electrical chain around.

My early experiences were good; I found the interface less polished than IOS (I’ve been an apple user now for at least seven years) but I liked the integration with Google’s product suite and some things, such as Google Now which predicts what you are going to need and gets it before you need it, were very impressive.

As far as the hardware goes, the build quality seemed good, but the battery life wasn’t a patch on my iPad 3 – that will go a week between charges with light usage; the Nexus seemed to need charging every two days.

And therein lay the problem. Sometime in the week of the 20th May the Nexus 7 ran out of power and when I came to recharge it nothing happened. It wouldn’t turn on at all. So on Saturday 25th I took it back to Currys expecting to get a free replacement. No such thing.

First off, I waited in line for a customer service rep to serve me. Despite the apparent abundance of staff in the Catford store, nobody seemed particularly keen on eye contact and I waited for 10 minutes before one of the staff reluctantly called me forward.

I was told they would need to send it back to Asus for repair. Fair enough. I filled in the form, left my telephone number and went home.

Three weeks later, getting a little concerned that I hadn’t heard anything, I called the number on the repair receipt only to be told that it could take up to six weeks to be returned.

A week later I received a call to say it had been returned to the shop and I duly collected it on June 18th. When I got it home I charged it up and set it up again (it had been returned to factory settings) and all seemed well, until a couple of days later it was again without charge. This time it would start up but then would promptly shut again with a message that I should connect the charger (which was in fact connected). Testing with another Android charger got the same result.

So back to Currys. And another wait in line for one of the numerous staff to decide they would have to serve me, which one eventually did. Now it has been sent off again (to Asus in Amsterdam, I’m informed) and I now face another up to six week delay before I get the device back again.  (Incidentally, while I was waiting there was a man returning a Dyson vacuum cleaner under a 30 day trial scheme advertised on Currys own website. He was told he couldn’t return it because it had been opened(!) Only when he showed them a print out of their own website offer was his money reluctantly refunded.)

I bought my Nexus in the first place to road-test Android as an alternative to IOS. So far the experiment isn’t going Android’s way.

Contrast this with my only real product problem with an Apple product. Three years ago my iPhone started to drop calls unexpectedly. I booked a Genius Bar appointment online and turned up at my allotted time in the Bluewater Apple store where my name flashed on the screen. I went up to the counter and explained the problem. The “genius” (as I suppose you call them) plugged the phone into some diagnostics and confirmed that was the problem and then promptly gave me a brand new replacement phone and offered to set it up for me. This, despite the fact that the phone was 18 months old at that stage and clearly out of warranty. I don’t know whether this is typical of Apple customer service but it left me impressed. And the contrast with my latest experience with Currys couldn’t be sharper.

Now there is effectively only one electrical superstore chain there is little incentive for things to change at Currys, but clearly there is an opening the market for a retailer to provide an offering based on knowledgable and service-oriented staff. One day maybe such competition will come.

The post-scarcity world

The number of articles which are now talking about the problem of work are increasing. Techcrunch cites many of them in a recent article  pointing out the productivity conundrum in the US; the economy is slowly bouncing back, but the jobs just aren’t coming back with growth as they usually do.

Henry Blodget points out “Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades.” The New York Times observes “The jobless rate remains far higher than it typically would be this far into a recovery,” quoting a factory owner: “Because it is automated, we won’t have to add a lot of employees with the upturn in the construction industry.”

There is a lot of doom and gloom around as I’ve written here centred on the rise of technology and its replacement of increasing numbers of jobs.

Even lawyers, financiers, and surgeons aren’t safe. The Economist observes “Intelligent machines have reached a new social frontier: knowledge workers are now in the eye of the storm … teachers, researchers and writers are next.” And in the City of London, arguably the world’s primary nexus of finance, “analysts expect [banking] job losses to keep on coming, as technology replaces jobs that people once did.”

The Techcrunch article is the first I’ve read, though, that points out the potential of all this automation.

..technology may be destroying jobs, but it’s also creating wealth; and as I’ve argued before, the endgame of all this wealth creation, some generations hence, isn’t a world of full employment. Instead it’s a post-scarcity world of no employment, as we understand the word. Fewer and fewer jobs coexisting with more and more wealth is exactly what you would expect on the road to that outcome. 

However, the conclusion isn’t the only one imaginable:

So the good news is, if you lose your job some years from now, with any luck the same technological advances that devour it will also have generated enough wealth that the government will pay you and your family a basic income while you’re unemployed. The bad news is that you’re not likely to get another long-term job–ever–and that basic income will probably be only just enough to scrape by on.

If we learn to adjust to less work maybe we will spread out what is there more evenly (though there isn’t much evidence of this happening yet) and eventually wean ourselves off work as we know it altogether. The utopian world of The Culture could yet come to pass.

MOOC road test

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales was quoted on the BBC today saying that traditional bricks and mortar universities would lose out if they didn’t find a convincing way to respond to the new wave of online courses (sometimes called MOOCs – massive online open courses).

“The really interesting challenge for big-brand universities is whether they are going to move into that space. If we thought of universities as normal businesses we would say, ‘Will they be able to adapt to the PC revolution?’ It’s that kind of question. Will Harvard or MIT, Oxford or Cambridge, be able to adapt? Or will Microsoft come out of nowhere? “It’s going to be really fascinating to see it unfold.”

 I must say I have been having very similar thoughts. A few weeks ago I signed up for an MOOC being hosted by Coursera and organised by Dan Ariely of Duke University. The course, on behavioural economics, is a real eye opener. It is six weeks long (I’m just entering the sixth and final week) and involves video lectures, in-video quizzes, recommended and compulsory reading assignments, reading quizzes and a writing assignment. There are also guest lecturer appearances on video (with some lecturers from some pretty impressive institutions) and a comprehensive set of forums where the thousands of participants can ask questions and offer mutual support. 

Flickr picture courtesy missy and the universe


Other innovations which I thought really interesting were the weekly session with Dan Ariely (one hour long video q&a) where he answered questions submitted by the students, and the chance to participate in behavioural experiments – either through questionnaires  or in one case an interactive online person to person version of the Ultimatum Game where I was matched at random with another fellow student.

So far, I have found it extremely rich and rewarding. It isn’t the same as a university experience, obviously, and the one clear disadvantage of MOOCs is their lack of ability to award credible qualifications which would (currently?) be acceptable to employers. However, this may change and in the future employers may actually be more impressed by self-motivated self-learners who accumulate credits from this kind of offering, perhaps even valuing them more than qualifications from at least some more conventional universities – who knows. 

However, I agree with Jimmy Wales that, based on my limited experience, the universities are going to have to adopt at least some of these techniques if they are not to be challenged by new players with much more powerful and relevant learning experiences. 

The second half of the chessboard

I’ve just come across a very interesting concept in a podcast of Peter Day interviewing Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, the authors of The Race Against the Machine

They mentioned the famous legend about the origin of chess: When the inventor of the game showed it to the emperor of India, the emperor was so impressed by the new game, that he said to the man: Name your reward.” The man responded that he was a humble man with simple wishes: “Give me one grain of rice for the first square of the chessboard, two grains for the next square, four for the next, eight for the next and so on for all 64 squares, with each square having double the number of grains as the square before.” The emperor agreed, amazed that the man had asked for such a small reward – or so he thought. After a week, his treasurer came back and informed him that the reward would add up to an astronomical sum, far greater than all the rice that could conceivably be produced in many many centuries. 

In fact, according to Wikipedia, the total number of grains would equal 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, which is “a much higher number than most people intuitively expect”.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee point out that the effect in the second half of the chessboard is much more dramatic than the first: in the 32nd square the amount of rice is still relatively manageable. But after that each square doubles an already large number and quickly this outstrips human intuition. 

Brynjolfsson and McAfee say this same effect is happening with technology. Moore’s Law says technology power will double every 18 months or so and the effect of this again gets very much more significant “in the second half of the chessboard”. They calculate that we’ve had around 32 “squares” of exponential growth in technology and that now the 18 month advances are very much more dramatic than previously and this effect will increase dramatically (dramatic squared, if you like!). 

This is the reason behind the really quite remarkable advances in computing and robotics which is having the effect described in their book. “How the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy”, as the subtitle puts it. 

Sensing context

Sensors are a real mega-trend. Modern smart phones are packed with sensors including cameras, compasses, GPS, accelerometers, ambient light sensors, gyroscopes and proximity sensors. The latest S4 phone from Samsung pushes the boundaries even more with the inclusion of temperature and humidity sensors, according to this article from The Verge. Samsung are using these sensors to power their new S Health app:

 The phone features a built-in pedometer for tracking the number of steps you take — or run — during the day, much like Fitbit’s line of devices. However, sensors in the phone also allow it to measure the ambient temperature and humidity of the room you’re, all of which feeds into the S Health app itself.

In fact health apps powered by sensors are an extremely hot category with the aforementioned Fitbit, Nike’s Fuelband  and the Jawbone Up competing to help us all get healthy by measuring everything we do and encouraging us to do more of the good stuff.

But the sensor mega-trend doesn’t stop there: it will usher in a new age of context, says Robert Scoble, who, together with Shel Israel, is writing a book on the subject (he describes it here.)  He has been doing research for this book for some time and has numerous video interviews with companies he believe are in the vanguard of this trend, including, for example, Plantronics, whose headsets now come packed with sensors.  A good example of the context trend can be seen with the way Google Now is trying to anticipate your needs by understanding the time of day and location, coupled with your calendar and providing useful information (such as weather for flight status) before you need to search for it.

The growing commercial relevance of context will guarantee the explosion in sensors and the data they produce continue at speed.

Data comes into its own

It is axiomatic that we are now drowning in data. Google’s chairman Eric Schmidt famously said we now create as much data is two days as we did from the dawn of humanity to 2003.  And there is now a big business in providing tools to help us deal with this avalanche.

But it turns out there is a big prize for companies that master their own data and put it at the heart of their decision-making. +Steve Lohr The New York Times recently reported on new research setting out to quantify the effect:

The data explosion is also an enormous opportunity. In a modern economy, information should be the prime asset — the raw material of new products and services, smarter decisions, competitive advantage for companies, and greater growth and productivity.

The central distinction, says the WSJ piece, is between decisions based mainly on “data and analysis” and on the traditional management arts of “experience and intuition.”

Those that adopted “data-driven decision making” achieved productivity that was 5 to 6 percent higher than could be explained by other factors, including how much the companies invested in technology.

But becoming a data-driven company is hard. Many organisations are built on the belief in the wisdom of the senior team and their “experts”. Experience and gut-instinct still hold a lot of sway. Take Apple – Steve Jobs’ profound intuition and almost supernatural sense of what makes a good product produced legendary results. Now he’s no longer there the risk is that the vacuum will be filled by people with less than superpowers and poor decisions will be taken (the maps fiasco may have been the first).

Contrast that with Google – the epitome of a data-driven company, perhaps. My favour supporting anecdote, which I have blogged about in the past,  is the story that the company doesn’t put down any paths until the grass between new campus buildings is worn down, thus ensuring the tarmac gets laid where the Googlers actually do walk. A great example of data-driven decision making in action.

by Jim Muttram