The Un-network Uncarrier

Note: The article is the first of a 3-part series which talks Facebook’s Telecom Infrastructure Partnership (TIP) initiative and the underlying motivation behind the same. The next two parts are focused on the options and approaches that Operators and vendors respectively should adopt in order not to suffer the same outcome as what happened in OCP.

When T-Mobile USA announced its latest results on July 19, 2017, CEO John Legere remarked with delight – “we have spent the past 4.5 years breaking industry rules and dashing the hopes and dreams of our competitors…”. The statement rung out true – in 2013 the stock hovered at a paltry USD 17.5 and now was close to USD 70 – with 17 straight quarters of acquiring more than a 1m customers per quarter. If anything – the “Un-carrier” has yet proven unstoppable. While this track record is remarkable, my hypothesis is that in the long term the “uncarrier” impact may seem puny compared to “un-network” impact which could potentially upend the entire Telecom industry – operators and vendors alike. If you are still wondering what I am referring to – then it is TIP, the open Telecom Infrastructure Initiative started by Facebook in 2016 which now counts more than 300 members.

The motivation for TIP came on the heels of the wildly successful Open Compute Project (OCP). OCP, whose members include Apple, Google and Microsoft heralded a new way to “white-box” a data center based upon freely available specifications and a set of contract vendors ready to implement based upon preset needs. It also heralded a new paradigm (now also seen in other industries) – you didn’t need to build and own it… to disrupt it (think Uber and Airbnb). And while many may falsely be led to believe the notion that this is primarily for developing countries in the light of the Facebook goal to connect the “un-connected”, I believe the impact will be for both – operators in developed and developing countries alike. There are a few underlying reasons here.

• A key ingredient in building a world class product is to have a razor sharp focus towards understanding (and potentially forecasting) your customer/ user needs. While operators do some bit of that, Facebook’s approach raises the bar to an altogether different level. And in this analysis – one thing is obvious (something which operators also are painfully aware of); people have a nearly insatiable quest for data. A majority of this data is in the form of video; unsurprisingly video has become a major focus across all Facebook products – be it Facebook Live, Messenger Video calling or Instagram. The major difference between the developing and developed world in this respect is the expectations of what data rates to expect, and the willingness (in many cases the ability) to pay for the same.
• In the 1^st world nations, 5G is not a pipe-dream anymore and has operators worried about the high costs associated in rolling out and maintaining such a network (not to forget the billions spent in license fees). In order to recoup this, there may be an impulse to increase prices – which could swing many ways; people grudgingly pay; consumers revolt resulting in margin pressure – and lastly – people simply use less data. The last option should worry any player in the video game; what if people elect to skip the video to save costs!
• Among the developing world, 5G may still be someway off, but here in the land of single digit ARPU’s, operators have a limited incentive for heavy investment given a marginal (or potentially negative ROI). On top of that there is a lack of available talent and heavy dependence on vendors – those whose primary revenue source comes from selling even more equipment and services; all increasing the end price to the consumer.

Facebook has it’s fingers in both these (advanced and developing market) pies and while its customers may be advertisers, its strength comes from the network effect created by its billion strong user base and it is essential to provide these with the best experience possible.

These users want great experiences, higher engagement and better interaction. Facebook also knows another relevant data point – that building, owning and operating a network is hard work, asset heavy and not as profitable. It has to look no further than Mountain View where Google has been scaling down its Fiber business. Truck rolls are frankly – not sexy.

It is not that operators were not aware of this issue, but traditionally lacked the knowhow needed to tackle this challenge which required deep hardware expertise. This changed with the arrival of “softwarization” of hardware in the form of network function virtualization. Operators were not software guru’s ….. but Facebook was. It recognized that by using this paradigm shift and leveraging its core software competencies it could potentially transform and potentially disrupt this market.

Operators could leverage the benefit of open source design to vastly drive down the costs of implementing their networks; vendors would no longer have the upper hand and disrupt the current paradigm of bundling software, hardware and services. Implementations could potentially result in a better user experience – with Facebook as one of the biggest beneficiaries. Rather than spend billions in connecting the world, it would support others to do so. In doing so, it would have access to infrastructure that it helped architect without owning any infrastructure. In short – it would be – the “un-network – uncarrier”.

Airbnb – towards creating multi-sided marketplaces

From its pole position on 888 Brannan Street Airbnb seems to be on an unstoppable quest towards an IPO, perhaps as soon as 2018. While there are rivals such as Homeaway and Priceline (the Economist had a nice summary in their latest edition), none has the scale, the “community feel” and user experience that Airbnb offers. Not surprising, coming from the fact that the firm’s founders were designers – not businessmen or engineers. However, competition is competition – and I thought it would be worthwhile speculating on what else they could do.
They have clearly not been been complacent; adding “experiences” to the website pushes it more towards a one stop shop for tourists. Firms such as GetYourGuide are clearly in the cross-hairs here since they may not always have the first customer touch-point that Airbnb possesses. In the long term, it could even usurp TripAdvisor – if travelers prefer to “hang out” on Airbnb’s community for all their travel needs. These tactics serve to improve and enhance the demand side of the business. However, as with all on-demand economy firms – Airbnb also needs to pander to the supply side; i.e. the owners who rent out their apartments, houses what have you to travelers. And this is specifically the area I would like to speculate upon.
In this context, I would daresay that a marketplace catering specifically to hosts would make perfect sense. This need not necessarily be a massive revenue generating business – more an approach to generate stickiness among hosts to the platform. Uber does this with its drivers – with both leasing and rental programs along with a host of other options such as fuel subsidies, special deals at tire facilities etc. In Airbnb’s case it would be firms such as Hostmaker who provide Airbnb cleaning services or Rinse, or firms that can supply replenishment goods (think Nespresso capsules and tea bags) on demand. Such services could be peer reviewed and ranked, with Airbnb using its partners such as Adyen to manage the payments.

A potential multi-sided marketplace

Such an approach offers benefits for all involved.
– It reduces the headache for the hosts – who can easily search and access a wide variety of servicing options at their fingertips, with services being self-regulated by the community. Quick turnaround means that the location is back on the market in a shorter time-frame, with a professional touch enabling a higher “asking” price. Such services would also be valued by the business community – one of my main reasons to favor hotels on business trips is the expectation of a “clean and serviced room” at the end of a long day (something that Airbnb is sorely lacking).
– It opens up new opportunities for on-demand services such as Rinse, who have been bleeding cash as they continue to spend their way to be visible; appearing on an Airbnb hosted marketplace instantaneously provides them with a large and receptive audience.
– And as for Airbnb – if executed well, it would simply mean a much stronger network – happier suppliers (hosts) and customers – …. and an IPO which would be a resounding success.

AI – rescuing the spectrum crunch (part 2)

Part 1 of this post was all about the reasons why DARPA was right when it assigned a Grand Challenge to try and tackle the looming spectrum crises. Today’s post is more about how this could be implemented while the concluding entry points to the implications to both operators and other players.

***********************************************************************

DARPA’s underlying hypothesis is that rather than an exclusive license for one entity, consumers are better off if all the nation’s spectrum was pooled together and dynamically allocated upon request. If this idea sounds new – well, it isn’t – i daresay this concept has been around for over 20+ years (side note: was quite happy to note that some of the awesome individuals such as Tom Rondeau with whom I had the pleasure to work with are still leading this flag). It’s just that advancements in technology have made this both technologically and economically feasible.

Cisco Techradar

How would this work?

• The wholesale case (likely scenario): Rather than licensing use of spectrum an operator would bid for spectrum in an open exchange on a dynamic basis – based upon immediate and short term forecast needs. This is not dissimilar to a real-time bidding platform for ads; The result would be similar to the uber model that we are now accustomed to – during periods of high demand, prices would be high – with those being passed on to the customer. Once spectrum was secured for a predefined duration could assign it to their users based upon need. The result would be that an operator could offer additional capacity to his premium customer base on demand; their higher ARPU offsetting the premium paid to access the spectrum.  This would alleviate the operator having to pay high upfront costs for spectrum, while adopting a pay as you go model. While there is a genuine concern that this may result in a lot of signalling overhead to manage this bidding exchange – these are the sort of issues that the challenge hopes to solve.
• The retail case (less likely): Where the end user device is able to request additional capacity and spectrum on the fly based upon his/ her needs and the willingness to pay. E.g. if a user would like to upgrade from regular to 4K HD video to watch a particular movie which his current plan does not serve, he could request this from his service provider at a premium. Once the movie is complete he could simply release the excess spectrum and/ or capacity for use by others. Why less likely – as you may have guessed, it is a lot more complex to implement in practice when scaled to an end user level. Maybe it is the end goal – but not likely in the short/ mid term time-frame.

Of course, steps should be taken to ensure that a basic service is available for all and is not subject to these pricing mechanisms. However, if done right it could herald a radical transformation in how we see and perceive the telecommunications industry as a whole – along with their underlying business models. Rather than exclusive access to spectrum, users could demand and receive “spectrum on demand” – the price being determined based upon current utilization of the network. Operators would not have exclusive license to this asset – but rather request and receive it on a collaborative basis based upon some set rules.

In my concluding post I will ponder on the impact of such an environment to the current players out there. Who would be most threatened by such a play and who would stand to gain………

Bonded Labor – the story of Greece

I am not an economist, neither a diplomat – at best, a keen observer and interpreter of events. This blog is meant for tech talk – but occasionally I feel brave enough to dive into the unknown. This is a story of bonded labor – one, if you come from a developing country such as India, Pakistan, or Africa you are well aware of. The details may be varied – but each story (and these are true!) have a common thread.

A historically disadvantaged family (either due to poverty, illiteracy or a host of other reasons) is forced to take a loan from a loan-shark. The reason may have been as frivolous as over-spending for a daughters wedding, an expense that some may consider stupid or even reckless. The loan-shark was well aware of the person’s financial condition when he provided the loan, but he still went ahead knowing that the family had no where else to go. The loan shark was educated, could have even guided the family towards a more prudent path – but why would he do that; there was no intrinsic motivation!

Once the event had past – the payback began… Whatever the family could do they did to pay back the loan. But soon the realization dawned on them; the loan could never be paid back. The loan-shark fully knew this as well – and demanded that all their possessions be held with him as a form of security. The family had no chance but to oblige, although the little they had in the form of a damaged hut was more of a depreciating asset; no where close to the value they could ask for it (a fact the loan-shark was aware of as well….).

Slowly but surely – the family became bonded laborers to the loan-shark. Nothing more than modern day slavery. When reading about Greece, I can’t but help think that this country is heading down the same path….

Of course there are differences – Greece’s problems were their own, a result of poor governance and political will, yet – the sophisticated creditors who are demanding their rightful dues, are the same creditors who gave them these loans, fully aware of the condition of Greece’s economy. When people refer to Greece as a “developed economy” I cringe – a land which produces the best olives, but not renowned for the olive oil (which is produced from Greek olives in Italy and other states) is more of a developing market and should be categorized as such.

Now the loan-sharks (i mean the creditors) are demanding the money back – but Greece has no way to pay. Its “assets” may be worth Euro 50bn on paper – but the EU would be kidding itself if it actually believes in this. Forcing austerity will force the Greece’s to reform their ways – while simultaneously pushing them, and future generations into deeper poverty.

I ask myself who is the winner from this – Syriza, for all its histrionics and referendum, having to turn back on its people only 2 days after they voted against it, or the EU – whom for all its terms and conditions is slowly coming to a realization that the they may never recover the money again (if the IMF findings provide any indication). But the loser is clear – the common man on the street, the one who may lose his life’s savings and be reduced to penury.

Do you kick them out of the Eurozone – sure, but the money will still not come back, and well Greece may need humanitarian support for its most vulnerable. What good would that be to anyone?

I think the answer lies in the middle; in providing Greece relief from a major portion of its debt on the condition that the EU has a bigger say in the restructuring of the country. This does two things – it points Greece towards the path of recovery, in a manner which avoids the excesses and policies of the Samaras’ and Tsipras’. Good governance provided by the German’s etc may be harsh, but if Greece would like to be part of the Eurozone it would be a price they would have to pay. On the other hand, debt relief would hopefully steer the economy away from further shrinking and provide a much needed fillip for businesses. Remember, only 60 odd years ago, Germany too was rescued in this fashion from the Americans and the British; circumstances may have been different, but the outcome was the same. The US helped shape German policies, rescued its industries and guided a crippled nation out from its nadir.

Like the loan-shark, until and unless he turns into a benevolent uncle educating his loan recipients on prudent financial practices, while simultaneously forgiving their loans, the poor indentured family will forever remain his slaves.

Google – and its misplaced MVNO approach…

In the past week, the Telco world has been abuzz with talks that Google was in talks with Hutchison Whampoa to negotiate a deal to end all roaming charges abroad. This comes on the heels of its announcement at MWC 2015 in Barcelona and additional news leaks that it had negotiated wholesale contracts with T-Mobile and Sprint to enter into the US market as an MVNO

I do hope that this is not all, because – if it is, then it certainly falls way short of expectations. Most people do not know this, but Google has had trials in the past for a similar service – most famously in Spain where it had a branded SIM card for its own employees, ostensibly to test the Nexus One. One may think that free roaming may be revolutionary but on second glance its simply an evolution of what T-Mobile USA pioneered within its “Un-carrier strategy“.

It boils down to two separate elements – negotiating the roaming fees and mobile termination rates (i.e. terminating on a normal phone – without a Google Voice/ Skype type application) for voice, and reducing roaming fees for data. For the former, one simply has to play the numbers game – determine what percentage of users will actually use and even abuse this facility. It comes down to human psychology, persuade a large majority of users to pay for the convenience of potentially using a service abroad without overage fees (and hoping that they do not actually need it) – somewhat like an insurance. This can be deduced using historical data based upon typical usage – although past experience has seen that offering a “flat rate” can change/ alter user behavior in ways that one cannot always predict. As T-Mobile now notes in its fine print: “not for extended international use; you must reside in the US and primary usage must occur in our US network“… and yes – if you were thinking, this note wasn’t there when it was initially launched.

The second is around high-speed data, and here things are more nuanced. Many operators all around the world are rolling out high speed LTE networks, and while there are already congestion issues in USA, this is more the exception rather than the rule. As a result – many of the networks are running “lightly loaded”. Easiest analogy is that of a train on a schedule; whether it has 10 passengers or 1000 – the train typically does run. You still have all the associated costs (especially power and maintenance) of running the network. So why not get some users, even at lower prices rather than have them shy away due to high roaming prices. It is a tempting call for many – but needs to be treated with caution. It does work as a viable tactic – a promotion, but not as a long term strategy. Mobile data usage has shown exponential growth and sees no signs of slowing down. Give it all away, then you simply low-ball and position to enter a death spiral in the mid term…. one which would be nearly impossible to get out off..

If Google achieves this, this wouldn’t be revolutionary – and potential price points would set it out of reach of the normal consumer. I was darn hoping that Google could democratize this – in a manner that it did and achieved with Android. Something for everyone… There are so many options, many different business and monetization models which could be used, and one that Google is the clear leader and has an impressive track record. Just going down the current route – doesn’t make it a leader, but more … a follower…. let us just hope that I am wrong, or this is just the start…. after all, rumors can be just that… rumors

The “Big” behind Big Data

These days a good deal of my time is spent in the area of “Big Data”; it may be the buzz word in the valley but has certainly found its echoes around the world. Many a times, I can only but agree with the caricature above – “Big Data” has become a catch all phrase, bastardized beyond comprehension for any application to sound sage like. Ask the common man on the street and you will hear zeta bytes, exa bytes and all the other exotic bytes being harnessed to tackle all problems, known and unknown to man.

So, I was decidedly curious to learn more and really see “how big – Big Data actually was”. A starting point was an annual report – that of Splunk, one of the larger and more recognized firms in this space. Annual reports are interesting creatures – in that they are an opportunity for the management to crow out on how awesome they have done while also throwing in actual numbers. Given that many of the other similar firms were private – Splunk would have to serve as a proxy in their stead. What caught my eye was the following note – “our customer base has increased from 450 customers at the end of fiscal 2008 to over 7000 customers in over 90 countries, including 70 of the Fortune 100 companies” coupled with another  note which indicated that no single entity provided over 10% of its revenue. Digging through Google for some more assorted data I came up with the approximate figure below – representing customer growth.

… and these do represent paying customers… Add the fact that reports predict that only around 30% of companies are currently using Big Data in some way, leads me to believe that we are only scratching the very tip of this iceberg (I daresay under 1%!). If Ericsson is to be believed that there will be 50 Bn connected  devices by 2020 – then Big Data and the companies that deal with it will certainly have a big… a BIG future.

Loyalty within the shared economy – examining profitable niches in Airbnb

Airbnb is all over the news in 2015. From winning the “best design” award at the Crunchies, raising a massive financing round valuing it at ~$20 bn to signing a partnering deal with Deutsche Telekom – one that would guarantee Airbnb front row presence on all DT Android devices in Europe. All one can say is that the company is certainly on a roll. Added to that a clear business model and constant (ever growing) revenue stream, it has all the hallmarks of a success story.

One area which it hasn’t fully tackled is the business travel space. This doesn’t mean that business travelers shun Airbnb, but from my own experience there is a massive potential out there to be exploited. Airbnb had its origins with two guys wanting to save some money – and till today it does just that. However, business travelers (and I am one of those) are an odd lot. Saving money is indeed important – that’s the reason large firms regularly negotiate deals with hotel chains (think Starwood, Hilton etc), but this is more a need of the firm rather than that of the traveler. Convenience is equally important; think complimentary served breakfast, happy hours at lounges, gyms and pressing service. Sure, sometimes it is “nice” to feel at home – but when you are working very hard – having stuff taken care of and being pampered is always welcome. And when it isn’t your money being spent – most travelers would just like to offload all this service to a hotel.

However, one critical element to woo the road warrior, is the loyalty program. Since American Airlines first introduced this way back in 1981 – this has been a standard across the hospitality industry. Who doesn’t love free stays, flights and all the goodies as a recognition for being a loyal customer. They may be getting more selective – and perhaps more difficult, but they are as popular as ever. Without these goodies – Airbnb perhaps will get a slice of the market, but may face an uphill battle getting the biggest chunk of what is a very lucrative and “repeat business” segment. What is interesting is that Uber (Airbnb’s “sharing economy” big brother) has recognized this and is testing this space. An additional partnership with Starwood could give it the oomph to really connect with business travelers.

This market is so large, and lucrative that an entity such as Airbnb simply cannot afford to ignore. Do so, and perhaps you will end up with a competitor in this space. Enter it with a strong proposition, then perhaps your next valuation may be closer to $50bn…. So, what could it do –

• Introduce a loyalty program of its own – can be based on points, stays, dollars spent; but introduce it – and do so now! Of course, it wouldn’t be easy with the host – after all, you would have to rent something without any direct compensation from the renter! You may loose a few, but if the majority choose to opt in – then you would immediately have a reach which matches the best in the industry.
• Add in additional amenities to enhance the experience – say a temporary membership to the nearby gym via a partnership with Classpass, or a “meals on wheels” service such as Munchery. The sharing economy does not have to be restricted only to staying. This could be either a paid service, or a freebie – maybe even linked to the “loyalty” of the customer.

Is this all easier said than done – sure it is; but isn’t that the hallmark of a great business? I love Airbnb – but without the additional goodies, I still hesitate to choose them over standard offerings.

The dynamic pricing game – where all is not 99c

Phil Libin the effervescent CEO at Evernote made headlines two days ago when he admitted that Evernote’s pricing strategy had been a bit arbitrary and a new pricing scheme for their premium offering would be launched come 2015. Although little was said about what the approach would be – I do hope it points to adopting a flexible pricing approach, and serve as a forerunner for pricing strategies to legions of firms down the road.

To put some context, many software providers (especially app companies) have adopted a one price fits all approach; i.e. if the price for the app is $5 per month in USA, the price is $5 per month in India. The argument has typically been one of these

1. Companies such as Apple do not practice price differentiation around the world, and yet they sell – so we should also be able to do the same
2. Adopting a one price fits all approach streamlines our go-to-markets and avoids gaming by users
3. It is unfair to users who would end up paying a premium for a product which can be sourced for a cheaper price elsewhere

From a first hand experience I believe that such attitudes have proven to be the one of the biggest stumbling blocks for firms to achieve global success. A good way to explain why is to pry apart these assertions.

• The Brand proposition argument – Although every firm would love (and some certainly do in a misguided manner) to believe that their firm has a premium niche such as Apple – harsh reality points in a different direction. There are only two brands who top $100 bn – and Apple is one of them; and no – unless you are Google, you are not the other! Even though your brand may be well known in your home of Silicon Valley, its awareness most likely diminishes with the same exponential loss as a mobile signal – its value in Moldova for example – may be close to zero. This simple truth is that there are only a handful of globally renowned brands (e.g. Apple, Samsung, BMW, Mercedes, Louis Vuitton etc) which can carry a large and constant premium around the world.
• The “avoid gaming” argument – this does have some merit, but needs to be considered in the grand scheme of things. Yes – this is indeed possible, but is typically limited to a small cross section of users who have foreign credit cards/ bank accounts etc. The vast majority are domestic users who are limited to their local accounts and app stores. The challenge here is to charge the same fee irrespective of the relative earning power in a country. While an Evernote could justify a $5 per month premium in USA (a place where the average mobile ARPU is close to $40), it is very hard to justify it in South East Asia (mobile ARPU close to $2) or even Eastern Europe (mobile ARPU close to $8). It then would simply limit the addressable market to a small fraction of its overall potential – and dangerously leave it open to other competitors to enter.

ARPU	$12.66	$2.46	$11.37	$9.20	$48.15	$23.88	$8.77
Region	MENA	APAC	Oceania	LatAm	USA	W.EU	E.EU

• The unfairness argument – also doesn’t hold true. The “Big Mac Index” stands testament to the fact that price discrimination is an important element of market positioning.

Even if you argue that you cannot buy a burger in one country to sell in another, the same holds for online software – take the example of Microsoft with its Office 365 software product, same product – different country – different price.

• That brings me back to the final point – $5 per month may sound like a good deal if you are a hard core user, but if you compare it with Microsoft Office 365 – which also retails at $5 per month, it is awfully hard to justify why one would pay the same for what is essentially a very good note taking tool.

Against this background, I do welcome the frank admission that this strategy is in need of an update, and also happy to hear that the premium path isn’t via silly advertisements. Phil brought up a good challenge with his 100 year start-up and delighted to know that he still is happy to pivot like one.  I do for sure hope that the other “one trick pony” start-ups learn from this and follow suit.

App overload!

One of the lovely things about my job is that I often get the opportunity to try out different products, and over the past couple of months I had the chance to try out both the Galaxy S4 and the iPhone 5C at once. My main focus with this post is not an evaluation of the OS, or phone capabilities – but the whole concept of App pre-installation. While the iPhone has kept its focus of a minimalistic design, the Galaxy was awash with their own apps.

 

There were apps for communication, app for media, their own app store and a few other “usability” enhancement apps for the lack of a better word. On top of that my installation had apps such as KaufDA etc; perhaps useful for a German speaker – but of limited interest to a native English speaker like me. These 3rd party firms have of course paid for the “benefit” of being pre-installed – hoping to have an edge over the whole challenge of app discovery. Since I didn’t have any need for the Samsung Apps – primary reason is that I am already comfortable with alternatives, and more importantly most of my contacts use these apps, my first reaction was to delete them instead of cluttering the space. This would allow me to get a fresh, clean look and then start with the apps that really mattered to me! Haha, good try – the moment I tried it, I received an update request – and voila, the damn apps were back again!

In doing this, and trying to have their own app store I believe Samsung is totally missing the point. Users don’t always use things because they are in front of them; why would I use ChatOn if all my friends are using WhatsApp? I get it that you want to move away only from selling devices, the competition is harsh and margins declining….. but this approach is more towards shooting yourself in the foot! Nonetheless, I did wonder if I was the odd man out – that these “self developed apps” did have significant traction and I was the fellow who had missed the boat. It was definitely a sigh of relief when I read the Wall Street Blog – “Samsung’s Apps are Ubiquitous but unloved” – which confirmed my hypothesis.

This calls for a bit of soul searching – should a firm such as Samsung invest in apps that no one uses, fill up scarce mobile real estate with crap or should it get out of this business altogether. Or are they some alternative areas to explore. My hypothesis lies in two areas

1. Samsung is more than just a phone company – and moving into apps that help connect and control other devices is an area which is definitely worth exploring. The apps then are not primarily money makers but serve to convince customers to stick within the whole Samsung eco-system. In adopting this path it may be beneficial to even partner with some other players offering complementary products. Such an app would not be “pushed” or “pre-installed”, but something that the customer himself installs because he finds the need for it. And when you have the need – you definitely use it!
2. The second area is to go more towards investigating better means of app discovery. If you (for any reason) need to have your apps – at least let the customer cherry pick what he finds appealing. This makes a happy customer – and well, a happy customer has a higher tendency to return. This is unfortunately not trivial, and there seem to be many options to do so – perhaps takes a bit of a study to figure out the best option for an OEM. However, if the bright guys at Samsung can crack that – that would be a goldmine to exploit (over and above what a Google can provide).

Whatever the path chosen, I do hope that the S5 and future versions of Samsung go away from App-mania, rather focus its attention on improving the overall customer experience!

Driven to succeed

Over the past months, I’ve had the good fortune to come across and interact with many founders within the startup scene. Some are established, well backed by VC’s and blazing a trail on the road towards (hopefully) far reaching success. Others are just about getting started, trying to manoeuvre initial hurdle between concept to prototype. In doing so I have come across some recurring elements which define the archetype of a successful entrepreneur. Although this certainly does not apply to all such individuals, it would be applicable to perhaps a broad segment of the populace.

First things – when I talk about successful founders, I mean successful in an economic sense, those who want to build something tangible, far greater and beyond the constraints of what a regular employee, or less successful founders may think and execute. Without further pottering, here are the traits in no particular order

• Well, I said it before – an inane ability to think and dream big. Think of firms such as Evernote, Softbank who are led by very charismatic individuals. As Phil Libin of Evernote put it – the “100 year old startup“. Here the plan is to establish a legacy – not just a company.
• Second – the ability and will to execute just the point above. For outsiders, many a time a startup appears as a 100m sprint; for insiders it appears more akin to a marathon – at best a 1km sprint. This is exhausting, gruelling and requires a steely eyed focus even during the most challenging times within a firm. This is difficult – and in some cases it can have horrible consequences as the suicide of Jody Sherman proved. And from what I realize, execution is key – perhaps 90% more relevant than that product itself. For that reason I do respect Rocket Internet; they seem to be able to take an idea (borrowed or original), setup a firm, launch a product – test it out and even close it down if early indicators are poor in less time than it takes many firms to launch a product.
• Third – to be supremely passionate and be able to sell your product. The best example I can give is from the CNN news article of the Oklahoma girl who blew the Girl Scout Cookie sales record. This is more to give an idea that not only a Steve Job can sell. But if you are determined, have the right attitude and are willing to tell each and everyone (even those you don’t know!) about how awesome your product is – then you are halfway there. If I can be blunt – be SHAMELESS! The other half is to continuously accept, and even demand feedback and use it to constantly improve your product – and your message. There are many founders who feel shy, or are content on selling you the features of the products. The great ones sell you a dream – on how it will make your life better, how it will solve the most challenging problems (including the ones you may never have known). Features can be copied – dreams… a bit more ethereal to replicate.
• Fourth – and perhaps quite difficult… in the formative years, to put the company ahead of most other things. I say most, because some aspects such as taking time off for your family & loved ones are not worth sacrificing…. ALL the time. However, among the folk I met, there was a clear understanding of where different priorities stood in their pecking order. Planned a weekend with your buddies, but the product release (which you scheduled) wasn’t ready…. your buddies go without you. This is NOT a 9 – 5 job; you are accountable not only for yourself but also your family; your employees and their families. If you are not willing to sacrifice, “have the Ramen while your peers eat Foie Gras” as one founder eloquently put it – think again of your decision to be a founder.
• Finally – have a good head on their necks understanding their capabilities and more importantly their limits. The best founders are those who are capable of pulling together a strong team and then motivating them to work as one coherent unit. There may be superstar Alpha males, but the best firms I have seen are those who work in close cooperation with their CEO working tireless to ensure that this spirit remains and flourishes.

I could list more, but these traits rank high; I see them as recurring themes – and from my chats, so do investors. This doesn’t mean that if you have these traits, you stand to succeed. Perhaps these could serve more as indicators to understand whether you want to go down this path; at the end of the valley of sweat and tears – do you really have the DNA to be a successful founder?