How to build a company

I spotted ReWork on my bookshelf yesterday and it reminded me how much I had enjoyed reading this thought-provoking account of 37 Signals’ business philosophy. That inspired me to see if I could find Jason Fried, the founder, talking about his approach and I found it here.

Here are some of the main points:

Don’t lose control of your growth. The key decision the company took was to limit the maximum price on customer could pay (initially $99 a month). This means the company has hundreds of thousands of customers, but none of them are so big that losing them would cause a ripple. Key to this is not to customise – one product, one code base.

Hire late not early. Many companies hire ahead of when they think they will need resources, especially if they have received funds from investors. This is a big mistake, Fried argues. Hiring early means there’s often not real work yet for the newcomer to do. That leads the company to make up work which is not important – a cardinal sin, in Fried’s philosophy. A related point: never hire for new type of position before you’ve had someone in the company try it first and fail. That way you know exactly what you need to get done and can hire appropriately.

Develop an audience. This is different from developing a fan base. An audience comes back to you time and time again. It takes time to build up, but once there is the most powerful way to get products out. Spend money on teaching and sharing, not marketing. 37 Signals has no salespeople: “We only want to have people who are building the product.”

Focus on the things which will stay the same. Most companies spend most time focussed on new things, innovations. But this piece of advice, from Jeff Bezos, the only investor in 37 Signals, was key. In Amazon’s case the things which will always stay the same are low price, good selection and great logistics. No matter what else changes, these fundamentals will hold true. In 37 Signals’ case the core unchanging things are simplicity, clarity and speed.

 

Old and new automative – a re-run of old and new media?

Tesla S

The battle between electric cars and traditional cars will follow the same lines as the battle between new and old media – here’s how.

The first reaction of old media to the arrival of the internet was to dismiss it as irrelevant.

Then, as the internet became more accepted traditional media companies dabbled, setting up websites but with the same content as you could get in old media – and often with real obstacles (like having to log in with the subscription number which was on the polythene wrapper you threw away).

Then, as the march of new media became ever-more serious they started buying internet companies so they could own some of the magic – think News International’s disastrous purchase of MySpace.

Only after many years, as the relentless economic logic continued to bite, did they start divesting the old titles and investing (buying or launching) in new online and mobile brands.

This was a very painful cycle and affected many well-know giants of old media  – think EMAP, for instance.

My belief is that this same cycle will happen with electric cars. I’d say we are just out of the first stage where the traditional car companies dismiss electric cars as irrelevant, niche and unlikely to catch on. Tesla, however, has challenged that view and we are moving into the second stage where traditional car companies are building and marketing their own electric cars.

First, they focussed on hybrids. These are like the old/new media bundles which traditional media companies were so keen to foist on their customers. Hybrids are cheaper to fill up than conventional cars, but they are more expensive to buy and being more complex than conventional cars will probably work out more expensive to service. Thus the car companies have something which they hope looks green but which doesn’t challenge the economic status quo – servicing is where the money is made in the car cycle.

But, as Tesla has shown, there is a future which is entirely electric – and it’s much simpler, much cheaper to run and doesn’t require anything like the same level of servicing – as there are many fewer moving parts.

Of course, currently the achilles heel of the electric car is the cost. But this is almost entirely driven by the cost of the batteries (which also provide less range than consumers would like). And battery technology is undergoing a surge of investment and there will be dramatic developments both in the efficiency and cost of batteries.

In media the economic differences between old and new were in production costs. Paper, ink and distribution were really significant costs which new media avoided entirely thus the cost disparity was startling. The revenue model, though, which was solid for old media (advertising and subscriptions) was much more problematic in new media – proliferation mean subscriptions were hard to establish and advertising rates were very, very low indeed, at least compared to paper.

So new media’s challenge was to innovate around the revenue model and once the innovation started to pay off effects on old media competitors could be profound. In the world of cars the revenue models are going to be pretty similar and at parity (at least until truly self-driving cars arrive). The cost model is where the battle is going to be fought – and won by the electric car industry.

At that stage the traditional car companies will be propelled into the next stage: they will start buying innovative  start-ups in order to own the magic. This is likely to be doomed to failure (again, think MySpace) because of the dynamic famously described by Clayton Christiansen in the Innovator’s Dilemma. Traditional car companies will continue to think like traditional car companies for years to come and they will kill the very innovation they seek to acquire.

Only after the snowball really starts rolling down the hill and the economic pain really starts piling up will we see the kind of changes we are finally starting to see in media. By then it may well be too late for some of the well-known brands which have been with us through the halcyon days of motoring.

At least, that was the likely scenario before Volkswagen was caught in a massive fraud aimed at skirting environmental controls. It seems pollution ceilings in the US (and maybe the EU) are now high enough that it’s making it hard to produce the performance without cheating. The legally-enforced remedy, when it comes, could well end up pushing conventional cars back just when advancements in electric cars continue pushing impressively forward.

It could be that when we look back at the history of the migration of the world to electric cars the Volkswagen moment is seen as the turning point.

 

The Apple Watch challenge

The real challenge for those developers currently making their Apple Watch apps is to focus on the only things that matter in thapple watche context of the Watch. This seems obvious, but it is much, much harder than it sounds. It will require a really deep understanding of what functions customers value in the iPhone app on which the Watch app is based. And it will need a profound understanding of the way in which the Watch itself is fitting into consumers’ lives – again difficult when these wearables are such a  new phenomenon.

To take an example. One of my current favourite apps on the Mac, iPhone and iPad is the Paprika recipe app. This is a clever app which allows you to search for and download recipies in a standard format which are then shared cross-platform. There are some neat functions like scaling – if you need to cook for more people just choose the amount to scale and the maths are done for you. Or timers – any time a specific time appears in the text it will be underlined and just clicking it will set an automatic timer to remind you when it’s time to move to the next step. Or shopping lists – the app can create a shopping list at the click of a button which can then be exported to Reminders on the iPhone.

The real question when the Watch app appears is what will be included. I think in this case they could do a lot worse than offer just one function: the timer. After all, you are around the iPad or iPhone when you are cooking using the app. The time when you really need the Watch is when you’ve left the kitchen to do other things while the timer is running. It the Watch app did only that it would be a great boon. If it tries to do much more it risks being so irritating that it won’t get installed.

There is a certain humility in being able to see your product through the eyes of consumers who necessarily don’t regard it as anywhere like as important as you do. Almost inevitably developers cram more and more functionality in because thinking these things up is how they spend their working lives. Paring down and focussing just on the very few things that are important in the context of a watch is the real challenge of developing for the Watch.

Electricity self-sufficiency

solar_panel_houses
Now here’s an idea: make it compulsory for all new buildings to be built with enough rooftop solar capacity to make them electricity-neutral throughout the year. At a stroke this would double the rate of growth of rooftop solar.

According to Government figures published in January 2014 there were around 500,000 rooftop installations of solar panels in the UK and given the speed with which they were being installed at least another 100,000 should have been added since.

The NHBC says there were just over 145,000 new homes built during 2014 and it looks likely the same or more will be built again this year (There have been calls for at least 300,000 homes to be built to ease the housing crisis). Adding solar to all those roofs could have a dramatic impact.

This is not a new idea. In 2012 Carlisle MP John Stevenson called on the Government to make it compulsory that all new-builds have solar panels, but to no effect.

Given the targets for emissions reduction set out in the Climate Change Act of 2008 simple measures like this should have appeal.

One potential issue is the added cost. However, a typical system costs between £5k and £8k and the average home in the UK now costs £272,000 so even assuming the whole sum was added to the price (unlikely given the economies of scale) that’s a hike of less than 3%. Given the fact that the panels effectively mean free electricity in the future any increased house price should be baked in for the future, too.

And it’s likely that the innovation spurred by all that activity will reduce costs in the future – solar costs have already plummeted as this chart illustrates nicely.

price-of-solar-power-drop-graph

 

 

Another concern is aesthetics, although this is again likely to be overblown. Firstly, what is aesthetically normal changes over time (think electricity pylons) so as panels become more widespread their acceptance will grow. Secondly, with a steady market housebuilders and architects are likely to compete to develop more visually appealing installations, which again should lead to a rapid increase in innovation and benefit the further acceleration of solar adoption.

The share of UK electricity generated through solar of all types (commercial and large scale included) was 1.25% according to Government figures but it is rising rapidly. Sensible interventions could supercharge the growth.

The radical potential of Blockchain

Niki WilesBlockchain, the technology which underpins Bitcoin has the potential to disrupt many large and powerful industries believes Niki Wiles.

Speaking to London Futurists in a session in London today Wiles, Lead Data Scientist for the London-based digital media agency, 360i said Blockchain solved some of the biggest problems with today’s centralised services.

Big disadvantages with centralised services such as lack of transparency, resilience, security and cost, would all be resolved if Blockchain technology was used.

The big problem which has traditionally mitigated against decentralised systems was the risk of double payment, he said.

The pseudononymous programmer or programmers Satoshi Nakamoto solved this with the Blockchain protocol in which everyone on the network effectively has a copy of every transaction in sequence and there is no central repository.

“Paying with Bitcoin is like shouting in a crowded room,” said Wiles. “All transactions are seen by all.”

Despite the fact that Bitcoin has taken most of the limelight he belives the underlying technology can disrupt basically any centralised system.

DNS allocation, currently the responsibility of the central ICANN organisation is one such example. Moving DNS allocation to a distributed system would defend websites against censorship as well as make DNS much less vulnerable to attack.

In fact he sees censorship-resistant communication as of the killer apps for Blockchain. There are already services like Bitmessage which offer decentralised P2P encryption.

Decentralising cloud storage and computing could bring real benefits too – more security, less downtime, lower cost. Storj.io, for example, aims to be many times cheaper than Dropbox while Zennet is hoping to do the same for computing resources. Because there are no ‘sysadmins’ they should be much more secure, too.

Blockchain should prove effective in the sharing economy he believes – La’Zooz, for example is Blockchain ridesharing.

Social networks could also migrate. Twister is a decentralised social network similar to, you guessed it, Twitter.

There is even a project called Bitnation looking to see what aspects of the state could be delivered on the platform.

There are many other example – decentralised energy networks powered by solar, p2p drone deliveries, decentralised smart contracts, the list goes on.

IBM is even working on Blockchain for powering the Internet of Things.

There are problems however. Blockchain technology is very resource hungry. It takes a lot of computing resources to run the encryption algorithms at the core of the technology and because the whole database is distributed it is very bandwidth-hungry, too.

As a example Bitcoin can currently only process seven transactions every second – hardly a rival for Visa yet.

However, Wiles believes Moore’s Law is on the side of Blockchain. “Decentralised systems are likely to become cheaper and more cost-effective.”

And when they do the financial industry is ripe for change. Blockchain’s strength in transparency and the automatic enforcement of rules could be a real game-changer in a global financial system which is riven with issues. “Financial audits could be done automatically, for example,” says Wiles. “Counterparty risk could be eliminated by all banks sharing one ledger based on Blockchain.”

And because the technology is fundamentally very cheap with very low transaction costs the world’s unbanked could find a solution with just their phones.

It could even lead to the formation of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations – as Wikipedia describes them  “corporations run without any human involvement under the control of an incorruptible set of business rules.”

Things are moving fast is the Blockchain world and in many directions. The next two or three years should show which of these directions is the most promising.

Can robots be moral beings?

In short, we can make robots which display altruistic behaviour but they aren’t moral agents because we create them, says Joanna Bryson from Bath University. And what’s more we should not pretend that they are. 

Speaking at a London Futurists session today she said the key difference between robots and children is that, although we can guide the development of children, ultimately they are free agents.  We make robots entirely so the can’t be said to have moral agency.

But there are powerful forces at work. We humans have an overwhelming urge to impute agency on all sorts of animate and inanimate objects – think dogs and cats, and stuffed rabbits.

Soldiers using the bomb disposal robots in Iraq got very attached to them and would rescue them and want them repaired rather than being replaced by a new robot.

But, she says, there are serious moral hazards involved in treating robots as morally responsible. “Governments and manufacturers are going to want the robots to be responsible so they don’t have to pay when things go wrong.” Take the “killer robots” which are very much in the news at the moment. It isn’t the robots that are the killers, she argues. It is the politicians who have ultimate responsibility for the cost/benefit trade-offs programmed into them. But that is not how it is likely to be portrayed if something goes wrong.

joanna brysonDespite the apparent attractiveness of developing AI robots in our image, Bryson argues it probably doesn’t make any sense to try to make robots more like us.

“All the things that are important to us are because of our evolution, because we are apes.” Not only does imputing our values to robots not make sense, it may even be counterproductive. “It may not make them any better.”

And she doesn’t worry about crossing some magic line where one minute we don’t have AI and the next minute we do – the so-called intelligence explosion.

Neither does she believe that just because of AI the world is suddenly in danger of being turned into a giant paperclip factory as Nick Bostrom has suggested, pointing out that we are already doing that to the world, albeit making more than just paperclips.

She believes things won’t be like that and AI is simply getting better all the time (there are already AIs that pass the Turing Test, she argues). She does think, though, that we need to consider carefully how we want to proceed – much as we did with nuclear and chemical weapons.

For that reason she was involved with an initiative sponsored by the EPSRC and the AHRC to update Asimov’s famous laws of robotics.
Principles for designers, builders and users of robots

  • Robots are multi-use tools. Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill or harm humans, except in the interests of national security.
  • Humans, not robots, are responsible agents. Robots should be designed; operated as far as is practicable to comply with existing laws & fundamental rights & freedoms, including privacy.
  • Robots are products. They should be designed using processes which assure their safety and security
  • Robots are manufactured artefacts. They should not be designed in a deceptive way to exploit vulnerable users; instead their machine nature should be transparent.
  • The person with legal responsibility for a robot should be attributed

Thoughts on The Watch

There are a couple of things that have occurred to me about Apple’s latest new product line. The first is that fashion and rapid technology upgrade cycles don’t really mix.

Thinking about the evolution of the iPhone (a product whose significance has been compared to the Apple Watch)

apple watcheach new iteration was thinner, more powerful, and larger than the one before. In the case of the watch, I very much doubt the screen will become larger – wrists aren’t going to get any larger any time soon (though I suppose we could get a widescreen version at some point!) but undoubtedly they will be thinner and more powerful. With technology doubling in power every 12 to 18 months it would be remarkable if they didn’t.

That will be OK for those who paid £300-£400 for their watches – Apple customers have shown themselves to be quite happy shelling out this kind of fee every couple of years for an upgrade. But what does this mean for those customers who paid £10,000 for a gold watch? Will they be happy with a watch which is thicker and less powerful that the current model? Especially when a few years down the line it probably won’t even run with the latest version of iOS.

This could lead to some very dissatisfied customers – unless Apple comes up with a way to overcome this. One way might be to offer a technology upgrade service. Send in your £10,000 watch and Apple will retrofit the latest innards, upgrading your family heirloom to the latest, greatest tech. There are all sorts of implications and challenges with this approach – logistical and manufacturing complexity, weakening the bond between this year’s shape and desirability and so on.

And I don’t think a trade-in will work – people current buy expensive watches to keep, not to exchange in two years.

The second observation is not so much that the launch of the watch is the first time online has been pushed ahead of the physical experience – though that is obviously true. It is that mobile was where Apple was most prepared and efficient. At 8.05am we were still waiting for the Apple online store to come back online (it was promising to be open for buisness at 8.01am). The iPhone app, though, was functioning smoothly and to plan. The combination of a physical Apple Store as a showcase for the physical product, and the Apple app as the way to purchase seems to be the ideal future for Apple. After I had bought via the app I was invited to take a survey of the experience by Apple which asked a large number of detailed questions about the online experience. It seems they are determined to get it very right.

Phases of Photography

I had an interesting day on Monday wandering round the Photography Show in the NEC in Birmingham. The thing that struck me was the scale of the change sweeping through.

Firstly, there were only two places where analogue photography was in evidence: on a standing selling “rare and unusual” film stock, and on the disabled photographers’ society stand where some of the second hand equipment harked from that era. Other than that everything was digital.

The core audience of the show seemed to be 40-60 year-old men with DSLRs with large, expensive lenses hanging from their necks. And the big flashy stands – Canon, Nikon etc – as well as the several equipment retailers were clearly catering to that audience.

But the next wave of change in photography was also evident in the stands selling drones and those showing off software solutions which automate much of the difficult stuff of photography.

So far, it seems to me, the digitisation of photography has mostly replicated what was available in analogue photography. In the next phase, though, it is what happens after the picture is taken that will make the difference. Already smartphones have powerful editing software which can radically change what was actually taken. And startups like Lytro are taking this trend one stage further. Their camera actually shoots at multiple focal lengths simultaneously. So the photo you shoot is only one of several possible perspectives. This means it’s what happens afterwards which is important. And when you view the picture you can choose what to see. This intrinsic interactivity makes the photograph truly digital.

One thing is for sure – photography is changing again and the role of the photographer with it.

Apple’s $10,000 watch

Apple is known for expensive technology. But for the extra money we have always received higher quality, better usability, superlative design. But with the announcement of a $10,000 solid gold watch today, I wonder if they have made a tactical mistake.

There is no way to argue that the watch itself (functionality, form, impact) is worth that amount of money. After all you can get exactly the same for under $400 – albeit in aluminium.

And, while buying an expensive mechanical watch is an investment is something with staying power – watches can be handed down across the generations – Apple’s version is going to be obsolete in a couple of years. It probably won’t even tell the time five or six years down the line when the software is updated.

Apple is the uncompromising, innovative guardians of good, user-let design is the model we have been used to. Apple as the flashy luxury brand pandering to the super-rich may not play quite as well.

Time will tell.

Ignoring the Elephant

Over the weekend I wrote a post called The Elephant in the Room where I talked about the tendency of journalists to ignore the issue of climate change when reporting energy stories. As if to prove the point Terry Macalister, the energy editor in this morning’s paper managed to write about Lord Browne’s plans to build a major energy company from scratch (using Russian money) without mentioning the Carbon Bubble. Given the palpable financial risks involved you might argue this is a journalistic failure.

by Jim Muttram