I Love My iPad Mini

So There is No Reason Why I Won't Like My iPad. Just Add A Camera.

by Idris Mootee

Some are comparing the iPad to Netbooks, but it is not a fair comparison. I don't like Netbooks myself. I used to have a Sony one 14 years ago. It was a very powerful mini notebook with a built-in camera (a first at that time). It costs me $2,300 when I purchased that from a now bankrupt computer store chain in San Jose. It was a good one except keyboard was too small and battery life short. According to the guy at a local Best Buy store, 8 out of 10 Netbooks sold are returned. I am sure that's not the case in Asia. I think many people have the wrong expectations, and are not aware of the limitations of Netbooks.

There was one kid working at Best Buy who asked me if I like the iPod Touch Jumbo, he was referring to iPad. I said I like the iPad mini (iPod Touch) that I have now, so I think I will like the iPad. The only disappointment for me is the lack of a camera, because I think if I carry that all the time and being able to use Skype is great plus. It doesn't add much to the cost. The camera needs to be in the front obviously. It is still a little heavy; adding 1.5 lbs to my Louis Vuitton briefcase is pushing it. No video output is a negative; the other Lenovo Ideapad I bought has an HDMI output. The Lenovo tablet is a pretty good one with robust design for business use. Even with many criticisms, iPad will be an isntant success. I guarantee you the iPad is not another Newton.

iPad preorders are pouring in. Investor Village's AAPL Sanity board (subscription needed) noted that iPad pre-orders dropped from an estimated 25,000 per hour on Friday, the first day of availability, to around 1,000 per hour over the weekend. For the three-day period, the cumulative total was estimated at 152,000. That's pretty good.

I think the iPad will open up opportunities for print media and help shape portable media experiences. I can't read magazines from my Blackberry of iPhone, but with the iPad, it is a different story. The iPad platform has more than enough screen real estate and resolution to build interesting media sharing and communication experiences. Of course we have choices of other manufacturers - Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, Lenovo, and almost everyone else, are all working iPad-like devices - in addition to those who have products in the market (such as Amazon).

Microsoft's Courier is an interesting one, currently in "late prototype" stage of development. At least they are not making the tablet mistake, the dual 7-inch screens are multitouch, and designed for writing, flicking and drawing with a stylus, in addition to fingers. There is a camera at the back too (sorry Apple). Currently, Microsoft is working on the user experience and showing design concepts to outside agencies. Microsoft's tablet heritage is digital ink-oriented, and this interface, while unlike anything we've seen before, clearly draws from that, its work with the Surface touch computer and even the Zune HD.

Sony is doing some catch-up although they are stuck with their paradigm of competitive advanatage. The Wall Street Journal reports that Sony is working on a device that's described as being part Netbook, part e-reader and part PlayStation Portable. Sources within the electronic giant also report that Sony is working on a "PlayStation Phone," which would be capable of downloading and playing PlayStation games. Sony needs help.


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Idris Mootee is the CEO of idea couture, a strategic innovation and experience design firm. He is the author of four books, tens of published articles, and a frequent speaker at business conferences and executive retreats.

Escaping the Internet Commodity Trap

by Rowan Gibson

The Internet is like a black hole that relentlessly sucks in, digitizes and democratizes content of every kind. While that may be generally good news for consumers (hey, look at all the great stuff we can now get for free), it has turned out to be unbelievably bad news for the content providers. Ask anyone in the print media business, or the music business, or the movie business. For at least the last decade, industries that primarily produce content have been struggling hard to find a viable new financial model in a world where internet users (particularly the young generation) don't expect to pay for anything they read, listen to, or watch. As one popular mantra puts it: "Content is no longer king". The fact is, content distribution is now king. Power has shifted to the content aggregators - think Google, YouTube, Digg.com or iTunes - and to new media platforms like Amazon's Kindle reader or the Apple iPad. So how exactly are content providers supposed to make money in an era of rampant digital commoditization? The only option they have left is to innovate like never before; to reinvent their industry business models before they become obsolete.

I remember talking to Kevin Kelly, co-founder of Wired magazine, back in 1995 about the future of the Web. He told me he viewed the Internet as a "planetary-sized copying machine" and added that "trying to stop copying on the Net is impossible." Indeed, within a week of my latest book "Innovation to the Core" being published in Chinese, there were at least two websites in China offering a digital version of the book for illegal download. Consumers clearly win - why buy the physical book when you can get the digital file for free? But in terms of book sales and royalties, the author (i.e. me!) and the publishers lose out entirely.

That's why the book publishing industry is feverishly exploring a variety of new business models. One option is to sell eBooks direct to customers, cutting out middlemen like distributors and retailers, and building a community around the books and authors. Since eBooks have a relatively low price tag, the hope is that consumers will be willing to pay for the genuine article (a la iTunes) rather than download an illegal copy, especially if it comes with social-media-enabled tools that help them discuss and share the book with others. Another option is to make the eBook itself a richer multimedia experience (with audio, video, hyperlinks and so forth) rather than just a text-based medium. Instead of embedding all of these media in a single digital file (which would still be relatively easy to copy and distribute illegally), publishers could give consumers a code when they purchase the book that offers exclusive access to a dynamic, integrated online application environment.

A similar challenge faces today's music business. Over the last decade, music labels, retailers, and the artists themselves have seen their revenues fall off a cliff in an era when teenagers can - and do - get all the music they want for free. Last year, 95% of music downloads were still from illegal file-sharing sites. And although Apple is now the world's biggest music retailer, its iTunes store has never been a massive revenue producer. Instead, it simply serves as a provider of low-cost content for the iPod, helping to drive sales of Apple's premium-priced music player. So far, the latest trend - cloud-based, streaming music sites like Spotify, Rhapsody and Pandora - has not been very helpful to the music industry either. Until now, these sites have employed a free-to-users, ad-supported model which doesn't generate much money for the labels or the artists. As an example, it's estimated that a million plays of Lady Gaga's popular song "Poker Face" on Spotify only earned her a paltry $167.

Frankly, I'm not too worried about the artists because most of them make their money these days on concert revenue and merchandising, not on the sale of recordings. And since people go to live concerts to hear artists performing songs they already know, it's actually in the artists' interests to have their music distributed as widely as possible, even if it's for free, in order to generate a lot of fans. Yet what about the music labels? How can they possibly compete against free downloads? Only by finding innovative new ways to add value. That's what MusicDNA is all about. It's a new digital file format that contains not just music but additional content such as lyrics, images and interesting info like interviews, tour schedules, or updates to the artists' social network pages. Anyone who downloads the file illegally would miss out on all these extras. So MusicDNA offers hope that the industry can open up new revenue streams. It may also point the way forward for Hollywood studios as they look for ways to battle illegal movie downloads.

Another victim of the Internet commodity trap has been the traditional news media industry. According to a new survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, more Americans now get their news from the Internet than from newspapers, and three-fourths say they primarily learn of news via updates on social media sites like Twitter. So as readers (closely followed by advertisers) make a mass exodus from print to digital media, 'The Press' as we know it seems to be going the way of the dinosaur. In the face of mounting bankruptcies, mass layoffs and plunging advertising sales, some publishers have already thrown in the towel. As an example, McGraw-Hill recently signaled their despair by selling off BusinessWeek at the bargain basement price of less than $5 million.

So is there any hope for this ailing industry? Some think it might still be possible to go back to the old 'paid content' model. Rupert Murdoch, illustrious media mogul of News Corporation, has been making headlines over the last year with his plans to erect a pay wall around his media. And, if it works, others will almost certainly follow. An analogy could be the advent of cable TV in the 1960s and 1970s. At first, very few believed that anyone would be willing to actually pay for TV shows and movies after spending decades watching them for free. But today the average household in North America pays about $50 a month for Pay-TV, so why shouldn't the same principle work for the Internet? There is also new hope on the horizon in the form of emerging digital media platforms like Kindle and Apple iPad, that promise to bring fresh revenues to the news industry by charging readers to access publications in an exciting new way.

Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, has co-founded a company called Journalism Online to help newspapers find new payment models. These range from micropayments - where readers pay for individual stories - to "freemium" models like the one used by the Financial Times, where readers can view 10 free pages every 30 days.

One of Rupert Murdoch's properties, The Wall Street Journal already charges readers US$119 a year for an online subscription. The WSJ is also experimenting with a new kind of media mix that takes it beyond the written word. Last September, its Digital Group rolled out News Hub, a twice-daily video news series. In January The Wall Street Journal Network delivered a record 5.5 million streams, with about a million or so views being generated by News Hub. This February the group launched Digits, a video series focused on technology which streams live each weekday, and plans are now in the works for several other original live series.

As whole industries see their traditional business models sucked into the Internet commodity trap, their only hope of escape has become radical innovation. For content providers of every stripe, success and survival in the future will be based on the ability to fundamentally rethink, re-imagine and reinvent themselves by innovating around who they serve, what they provide, how they provide it, how they make money, and how they differentiate from the rest. Stewart Brand's maxim may have famously stated that "information wants to be free", which is at the heart of utopian Internet democracy, but the cold reality is that every business has to make money. That means that whether you produce books, newspapers, magazines, music, movies or TV shows, somebody somewhere has to pay somehow. Figuring out who that could be - and how the financial model would work - is one the greatest business battles of our age.


Related Articles - "Content is No Longer King" - Part 1 - Part 2 - by Stephen Shapiro


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Rowan Gibson is widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on enterprise innovation. He is co-author of the bestseller "Innovation to the Core" and a much in-demand public speaker around the globe. On Twitter he is @RowanGibson.

Setting Expectations for White Space - Apple iPad

by Adam Hartung

It's easy to misunderstand White Space. About twenty years ago Apple launched the Newton. The company sold about 375,000 of the first commercial PDAs, but Apple's leadership thought the market wasn't really there - and decided instead to focus on growing Mac sales. Obviously, as Palm and other PDA makers demonstrated, there was a tremendous market for PDAs. Apple misread the feedback from White Space.

Look now at the recent iPad launch. Silicon Alley Insider headlined "Now That They've Seen Apple's iPad, Most People Don't Want One." The headline keys on the fact that after the launch the number of people who said they were not interested to buy doubled (26% to 52%). Wrong fact to grab onto.


Instead, look at the fact that the number who said they would buy one tripled, from 3% to 9%. This is incredible, and should excite Apple's management as well as employees, suppliers and shareholders.

Most people will see a new, innovative product and say "why would I want that? I already have this other thing and it works great." And that is what marketers should expect. Most people are just trying to 'Defend & Extend' what they regularly do, and thus all the want is a product that helps them do their thing a little easier, faster, better and cheaper. They want minor improvements - variations and derivatives of what they already have. Improvements that are immediate, without them doing anything new or different.

All new deeply innovative products start with customers who are under-served or unserved. And this is why it is so important they be launched in White Space. White Space teams aren't intended to develop the big, mass market of known customers looking for something new. White Space is about doing new things that bring in new customers, give new solutions that attract real growth. And White Space teams have to learn how the market is evolving, how they fit into the market shift and how their solution will advance the market in order to sell more.

For the iPad, the 3% to 9% shift in likely buyers is huge because it shows that the iPad is an offering that appeals to people who are not today well served by their existing PC, laptop, netbook, mobile phone, kindle or mix of these solutions. 9% of respondents are saying that they see the iPad and they see a solution for what they want to get done. And if 9% of potential buyers see this option, that is HUGE. By White Space standards, often there are only .5% or 1% or 2% of people who initially see how the new product fulfills their under-served needs.

Set expectations right for White Space. White Space is not for launching variation 4 of an existing product - targeted at existing customers. That's what the marketing and sales department can do fine, thank you very much. White Space is the team that finds the 3% (or in Apple's case 9%) of users that see value in this solution, then works with them to implement the product/solution in order to make sure it fulfills the market need and is priced to sell effectively while providing a profit to the company.

Apple understands this, you can be assured. Look at how successfully the Apple White Space teams found the underserved users that jumped all over the iPod and iTunes, the iTouch and then the iPhone. They got the product positioned and selling in a hurry. And now that Apple has that skill, the company is going to apply it to the iPad. If you understand this chart correctly, you understand that it bodes very, very good things for Apple.

And it tells you the importance of having White Space teams, setting their expectations correctly, and managing them for the kind of results that can turn your organization into the next Apple. It took Apple 10 years to reach this skill level. It did not happen overnight. Or with one product introduction. And it will take your organization a few years to build this skill. So, what are you waiting on?


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Adam Hartung, author of "Create Marketplace Disruption", is a Faculty and Board member of the Lake Forest Graduate School of Management, Managing Partner of Spark Partners, and writes for "Forbes" and the "Journal for Innovation Science."

What does Apple do when it all goes pear-shaped?

by Yann Cramer

Most CEOs would say that innovation is critical to their companies' success. Loads of people would like to exercise their creativity and innovate, but whether at the corporate or at the individual level, something holds everyone back: risk. "What if it all goes wrong?" This can be more or less marked depending on the degree of acceptance of trial-and-error as a learning process, but to some extent it exists in all cultures, countries and companies.

What can we do about it? There are process answers around framing the project and keeping it focused, rapid prototyping different versions of the product or piloting in the market. But most importantly there is a mindset answer which is both accept it and don't accept it.


Accept It

Forbes provides an interesting list of Apple failures: a few forgotten computers such as the Lisa, the Mac portable, the Taligent, the power mac G4 cube, and a raft of other products that most people may be surprised to hear about: the Newton PDA, the Quicktake digital camera, the Macintosh TV, the Pippin video-game console, the Motorola Rokr mobile phone/mp3 (Apple developed with Motorola).

For all its resounding successes from the Apple II to the iPhone, Apple has not been immune to failure. The difference that makes the difference is that they accept that there will be some failures along the way. They have a portfolio mindset: they continuously scan the environment, they identify potential opportunities, they try, they go for it. When it does not work they pull the plug decisively, but when it works: bingo!


Don't Accept It

Apple may have failed with the Newton, the Quicktake and the Rockr but they have remained true to their multi-media vision, they sticked to the strategic challenge they had set for themselves to get into the handheld market, and ultimately they found "the magic number" to succeed with the iPod and the iPhone.

Accepting failures does not mean accepting that these mark the end of the road. Too often, a company's response to a few innovation failures is to abandon the field and shift strategic priorities in another direction. As they do so, they actually reduce the relevance of what they have learned (or should have learned) from their failures, they land themselves in a new field where they need to learn everything, and their chances of success are actually lower than if they had sticked to their initial strategic priority.


So, accept that you will be thrown off-balance along the way, but don't accept being blown off-course.


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Yann Cramer is an innovation learner, practitioner, sharer, teacher. He's lived in France, Belgium and the UK, he's travelled six continents to create development opportunities with customers or suppliers, and run workshops on R&D and Marketing. He writes on www.innovToday.com and on twitter @innovToday.

Fantastically, Brilliantly, Insanely Amazing

by Kevin Roberts

One thing about the January 27th launch of the Apple iPad clashing with President Obama's first State of the Union address was that they both focused on Jobs.

And check out the awesome enthusiasm Steve Jobs and his team have for their new baby in this video!





A lot of hype and hyped-up criticism have accompanied the launch of the iPad. Nothing new there. Apple attracted lots of criticism with the launch of the iPod in 2001 (total sales: 220 million) and the iPhone in 2007 (total sales: 34 million). They centered on a perceived lack of functionality. So it's not surprising to hear gripes that iPad doesn't support HDMI or Flash graphics, or have a built-in camera.

The critics have missed the point. The iPad is not a netbook or scaled-down laptop. In fact, it is only a distant relative to the traditional PC or Mac. Instead, its lineage is the DVD player, the VCR, the television set, the radio, the newspaper, the telephone, the telegraph. It is not a workhorse loaded up with functions and hardware. It is a platform for story-telling, interactive, personal and immediate.

The story of human technology is the relentless advance in the direction of greater utility, connectivity, immediacy, affordability and flexibility. The iPad represents a quantum leap in that direction.

We want to communicate with each other, cheaply and easily. We want information where and when we need it. We want to be entertained and to entertain ourselves. We want to get closer to the people and the things we love. The iPad promises to do that. Technology that fails to serve that purpose is just a gadget, suitable for little more than collecting dust.

There's an interesting blog post in the NY Times predicting that the iPad will become an irresistible toy for children because kids will love the tactile nature of the device (they love to jab at things!), 'painting' software allows for mess-free splatter, it's an ideal distraction for car trips, and the screen offers endless story opportunities. I couldn't agree more, but the author could go even further: They are pretty compelling reasons for adults to get their hands on an iPad, too.

Related Articles:

• Radical Innovation of Meaning


• Apple's Hidden Disruptive Innovation


• Insights to Drive Apple iPad Success


• Will Apple Introduce the Innovation Expected From Google?

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Kevin Roberts is the CEO worldwide of The Lovemarks Company, Saatchi & Saatchi. For more information on Kevin, please go to www.saatchikevin.com. To see this blog at its original source, please go to www.krconnect.blogspot.com.

Apple's Hidden Disruptive Innovation

by Braden Kelley

People often think that disruptive innovation happens overnight, but often it happens one step at a time. Before the iPod was an innovation, Apple had to not only launch the device, but also the iTunes Store for music, and the Microsft Windows version of iTunes. Apple also expanded the iTunes Store to include audiobooks, movies, and television, but by then it had already become a mass-adopted disruptive innovation that has changed the music industry forever.

Apple then launched the iPhone and changed the power paradigm in the mobile industry around mobile applications publishing - resulting in the App Store.

Apple is about to do it again, but nobody is writing about it.

In retrospect I believe we will look back and point to January 27, 2010 as the day that Apple changed the power paradigm of mobile data plans and subsidies in the mobile industry.

Up until now, the mobile postpaid market has been defined by mobile phones subsidized in exchange for two-year contracts (at least in the United States), and mobile data plans that also often require a two-year contract. Even when Google announced the Nexus One as an unlocked device, T-Mobile (or any other carrier) is still going to charge you the same monthly cost as someone who bought the subsidized phone. Meanwhile, The carrier partner announced for the iPad, AT&T, has two regular 3G data plans:

1. $35 per month (200MB limit)
   
2. $60 per month (5GB monthly limit)

AT&T sells two 3G data cards - free or $49 - both requiring a two-year contract. But Apple yesterday announced that AT&T will provide 3G service to iPad users WITHOUT a two-year contract (or any contract for that matter). Pay as you go data access that is actually CHEAPER than their regular 3G data plans:

1. $15 per month (250MB limit)
   
2. $30 per month (unlimited)

To my knowledge, this is the first time (at least in the United States) where a carrier has given a cheaper price for service to a customer bringing an unlocked, unsubsidized device onto their network. This is of course how it should be, but still this is a watershed moment. If other carriers adopt this model with the iPad, then eventually some carrier may start to do this with other devices, and it may open the door for a different subsidy to emerge.

If carriers finally start to acknowledge that people who bring unsubsidized devices onto their network should pay less, then it opens the door for someone like Google to start paying people to use their device. Google could leverage their ad-serving platform and Google Checkout to launch a phone that effectively gets cheaper the more and longer you use it, regardless of which carrier you use and whether you're using pre-pay or postpaid (standard monthly service).

This is the innovation that I thought Google would launch with the Nexus One, but they didn't. Can Google now lean on T-Mobile and others more now to offer differentiated pricing for owners of unsubsidized devices?

The data plans offered by AT&T for the Apple iPad may have not seemed very interesting on January 27, 2010. But, I think looking backwards we may very well see this as a defining moment for the mobile industry.

Thank you Apple.


To see what I think of the Apple iPad, please go here.

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Insights to Drive Apple iPad Success

by Braden Kelley

Apple announced it's rumored tablet device yesterday and chose to call it the Apple iPad - a very strange and difficult choice. "iPad" is a trademark that is apparently at present owned by Fujitsu. Apple had a similar problem with the iPhone and Cisco, which they were able to resolve with a bit of cash. I suspect that Apple will have to get out their wallet again to make Fujitsu go away. But even more troubling for Apple is that "iPad" is also the name of a fictious product that was lampooned by Mad TV three years ago in a less than flattering video. This has sparked the kind of viral buzz that a new product lauch hopes to avoid - the kind that may cause prospective buyers to not take the device seriously.

The launch of the iPhone was a home run. People immediately got it and lined up around the block to get it when it first came out. The launch of the Apple iPad, like I said before the launch, will likely turn out to be much more like that of the iPod - a single followed by a few more singles to finally score a couple of years later. Why?

Well, Apple themsleves didn't exactly convince everyone that they know why the Apple iPad is a revolutionary device. Here is the tagline for the device:


"Our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price."


This would make you think that the Apple iPad is aimed at the tecno-lusting, uber-geek apple faithful who always want to be earliest of early adopters for any gadget from Apple. But from those people, the response to the device was a yawn. Those people are going to want the $829 version and that is a lot of cash for a piece a tecno-jewelry in this economy.

Will they buy a backlit-LCD iPad to use as an eReader or a portable DVD player? No, this group of consumers is not likely to do that either in the volume necessary to make the rumored 10 million first year unit sales. I'm not even sure there are 10 million of this consumer group out there. And if there are, they've probably already got an iPhone or an iPod touch or a Macbook Air that does pretty much anything that they might want to do on an Apple iPad.

Apple has definitely launched a solution in search of a problem. Apple's launch marketing shows that. In my mind the key question as to whether the iPad will be a success or not is this one:


"Do people want or need a fourth screen?


Most people already have three types of screens:

1. Large Screen (currently a television)
   
2. Personal Computer (Desktop, Laptop, or Netbook)
   
3. Mobile Phone (increasingly shifting to pocketable PC/phone devices)

Will the iPad realistically replace one of these? Probably not. Head-to-head it doesn't solve the relevant problem any better than the device in use. So it has to be a fourth screen - for most people. And, that is the way they've launched it. The iPad is a fourth screen for people who have lots of cash and can afford to have the iPad just laying around to pick up and use when their iPhone screen is too small and they can't be bothered to go boot up their computer. In the home it will probably be used most often when the Large Screen is already on. But that's a tiny market.

Apple doesn't know who this device is really for. But, when you're so focused on the technology and the design, somtimes you forget about the customer. Is the Apple iPad cool? Yes. Will Apple sell massive quantities of them in its first year? No. Will they eventually? Maybe.

For innovation to occur you must progress all the way from insight to adoption. Here is how I lay that out in my Innovation Moonshot framework:



For the iPad to become an innovation, Apple is going to spend probably 2-3 years in the Solution Education phase for the iPad (similar to the iPod):

• Getting it in customers hands
  
• Having them experience it
  
• Enhancing the device
  
• Finding ways to lower the price

$499 is a lot for a fourth screen. To do big numbers as a fourth screen, the iPad is going to have hit the $199-299 price point (or lower). I can't see Apple wanting to go there for a couple of years (if ever).

So, if Apple wants to sell large numbers of these, they might consider targeting non-customers in the primary screen market. These would be people who don't have a computer or have one but don't really want one. Let me explain. These are people like mother-in-law or my dad, who have no interest in computers or their complexity, but might want to do a bit of e-mail, get on the internet and look at some photos that people e-mail them or post online. For this group of non-customers, $499 isn't a bad price point because for them they would be buying one of their first three screens (probably their second or third). You can read more on this particular insight here.

But, if you're listening Apple, I've said it before and I'll say it again.


"People don't want a fourth screen. What they want to do is extend the screen they have in their pocket."


In the future as I see it, three screens will be too many. I've laid out my vision for the digital future before and I'll give a snapshot here again. If a hardware manufacturer would actually like to discuss my vision at length, please contact me. Here is my vision again:

What would be most valuable for people, what they really want, is an extensible, pocketable device that connect wirelessly to whatever input or output devices that they might need to fit the context of what they want to do. To keep it simple and Apple-specific, in one pocket you've got your iPhone, and in your other pocket you've got a larger screen with limited intelligence that folds in half and connects to your iPhone and can also transmit touch and gesture input for those times when you want a bigger screen. When you get to work you put your iPhone on the desk and it connects to your monitor, keyboard, and possibly even auxiliary storage and processing unit to augment the iPhone's onboard capabilities. Ooops! Time for a meeting, so I grab my iPhone, get to the conference room and wirelessly connect my iPhone to the in-room projector and do my presentation. On the bus home I can watch a movie or read a book, and when I get home I can connect my iPhone to the television and download a movie or watch something from my TV subscriptions. So why do I need to spend $800 for a fourth screen again?

Tell me Apple...


For some of my other articles on the Apple iPad written pre-launch, please go here.

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Apple Tablet Won't Be Runaway Success

by Braden Kelley

First we had incredible hype around Motorola's Droid and its sales so far have proven to be just okay. Then we had even more hype around Google's phone entry - the Nexus One - and its sales results so far have been meager.

So, now along comes Apple with its much-hyped (and only rumored) tablet innovation, which we expect to be announced on January 27, 2010 at a special media event in San Francisco.

There have been reports of Apple expecting to sell 10 million devices in the first year, and there have been rumors of a device price in the $800-1,000 range. If Apple's new device does in fact turn out to be a 3G tablet, and even if Verizon and/or AT&T (or possibly even Sprint/Clear for 4G) subsidize $300 of the cost like they do with smartphones, that would still be a $500-700 price tag with another $60 per month for data service.

Are 10 million people really going to be willing to spend between $1,000 and $1,500 in year one for a tablet device after probably buying a laptop, an HDTV, and maybe a smartphone in the last 24 months?



I don't think this will be the case. It took Apple over three years to sell 10 million iPods (Q4 2001 to Q4 2004). Three years! Apple took eighteen months to sell 10 million iPhones (2/3 of those coming in months 16-18 from iPhone 3G sales). People need to remember that even if someone launches an innovation into the marketplace, its sales don't take off immediately. Let's re-visit my definition of innovation:


"Innovation transforms the seeds of invention into a solution valued above every existing alternative."


It's that last bit (valued above every existing alternative) that will be a struggle for Apple's rumored tablet in the short term. Even if people think that the device is better in some ways than devices they already have, will people replace a smartphone with it? Will they trade their laptop in for it? Or will this be an additional device?

While the device will likely ultimately be successful, it won't set the world on fire out of the gate like people are expecting. It won't be another runaway success like the iPhone, say what you will. It won't exactly be the Newton, but its success will likely be more akin to that of the iPod.

It's a good thing too because cellular providers are going to need time to build out additional network capacity, and possibly to even acquire additional spectrum, before the whole world moves from fixed-line and WiFi computing to cellular-network-based computing.

While the smarter strategy would be to make the iPhone faster and more extensible (creating a true pocketable computer), if Apple does launch a tablet with incredibly innovative capabilities, it will probably take 18-24 months for Apple to sell 10 million of them. Apple will be held back by the speed of 4G network rollouts (currently expected between 2010-2012 depending on provider) and by competition from the iPhone 3GS, iPhone v4, Macbook Pro, and other computing and entertainment options.

Even if Apple's rumored tablet will take a while to catch on with consumers, it has already sent shock waves through the technology and publishing industries with every technology company under the sun rushing out either a new tablet computer or a new e-reader. Amazon is running scared. This week Amazon announced both better royalty terms for e-book authors and publishers, and new application development capabilities for the Kindle.

So, is Apple's stock overvalued?

Do you think I'm completely wrong?


Enjoy this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Apple, Nintendo, Innovation, and the CEO

by Braden Kelley

I came across this quote from Satoru Iwata, the president of Nintendo:


"My job is to find the potential in something that others can not see, to secretly pour our resources into them and turn them into hits before anyone else catches on,"


The quote was too long to fit in Twitter, so I thought I would share it here because I love the insight. This is the key to successful innovation captured in a single sentence. This quote also highlights one of the most important jobs of a CEO - to lead innovation:

1. To invest in the insights research and exploration necessary to identify the next innovations


2. To fund projects built on these insights (even though they may be risky)


3. To shield the exploration efforts of the company from its ongoing exploitation of current products, services, and markets


4. To build a balanced innovation portfolio


5. To build a tolerance for risk taking and individual project failure within the portfolio


6. To encourage collaboration and to serve as a bridge across silos


7. To be a champion for innovation both inside the company and externally amongst suppliers, partners, and even customers

The quote came from a Wall Street Journal article where the author implies that Mr. Iwata thinks that Nintendo and Apple aren't competitors. In my view, Mr. Iwata is either posturing so that the press doesn't hype the rivalry, or he is a bit blind because Apple most definitely views Nintendo as a competitor.

The real question though is who will dominate mobile gaming five years from now?

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Content is No Longer King (Part 2)

by Stephen Shapiro

In an earlier blog entry on content, readers provided a number of interesting comments. If you haven't already read that article (and the comments), you may want to do so in order to understand this new article.

Many did not agree with my point of view. And that is great. I only wanted to stimulate some conversation.

Let me first address some of the comments (and I appreciate the time that everyone took in writing comments). The comment is in italics with my response following.


"I wonder if the Kindle model requires a subsidy to offset the upfront cost of technology development and/or design manufacturing." Two thoughts come to mind. 1) No one has an issue paying $150 for an iPod even though the cost of the music is pretty much the same. 2) As new generations of eBook readers hit the market, prices will drop. Several are now on the market for under $200.


"The reason distribution appears to be the source of value isn't distribution itself but the monopolistic nature of new distribution channels." Indeed. And that's my point. Those who aggregate are the ones who create positions of power. The content creators are not the power players. And the individual publishers certainly aren't.


"If content was truly losing its ability to create value, Comcast would not try to purchase NBC - they might instead bid for Netflix or for a content delivery device company like Roku." Great point. The reason why I mentioned Comcast's acquisition of NBC was not to say that it was a good or bad move. I was only trying to point out that a few years ago, the networks were the ones doing the acquiring. Now the distributors are in a position to buy the content creators. It will be interesting to see what this Comcast deal does to Hulu.


"It's the publisher that is not essential anymore - the content creators are also becoming content publishers due to technology." Indeed, the publisher is now playing the role of middleman and is going away in many respects - or needs to play a very different role. As you suggest, content creators do have the option to go straight to the consumer now. And we are seeing a democratization of content. Having said that, content creators will still want to push their content to content aggregators - the source of the eyeballs. The reason why Google is so successful is that they are currently a significant player in how content is found.


Some interesting things have evolved in the past week since I wrote the first article. It appears that the big innovations are being developed by the content aggregators (not that that is surprising).

Google Digital Books: Google is offering eBooks on out of print books that are no longer subject to copyright restrictions. They scanned nearly 2 million books and will be offering them in digital form for about $8.

HP/Amazon paperback books: Soon after Google's announcement, HP and Amazon.com indicated that they will offer print on demand paperback books for these out of print books. A 250 page book from their library of 500,000 can be purchased for about $15. A single copy can be printed in a few minutes.

Book Pricing War: Wal-mart, in an effort to crush Amazon.com, is offering 10 new release books for $10. Well, that was until Amazon said they would offer those same books for $10, at which point Wal-Mart dropped the price to $9. Target joined the price-war, dropping the price to $8.99. This caused Wal-Mart to drop the price to $8.98. According to the WSJ, "The publishing industry is also watching warily to see if the price war will have lasting impact on book pricing and the contracts that publishers sign with authors."

BN Nook eBook Reader: Barnes and Noble, announced the release of their 'Nook' eBook, intended to take on Amazon.com's Kindle. One account says that the Nook is "closer to a printed book than its precursors in some respects, (in that it) allows users to lend their copies of electronic books to any friend who has installed Barnes & Noble's e-reader application on a mobile device or personal computer."

Comcast Premium Channel Streaming: Comcast announced that by end of the year, you will be able to watch popular cable television series such as HBO's "Entourage" and AMC's "Mad Men" on your computer without paying extra. They are reported to be the first cable TV operator to "unlock online access to a slate of valuable cable shows and movies, aiming to replicate what's available on television through video on demand."


Please don't get me wrong. Content is necessary. As an author, I sure hope there is value in what I do. Amazon.com, iTunes, Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, and Comcast would not exist without content. So yes, content is important. I just wonder if it is still king.


P.S. As an aside, Andrew Odlyzko published an article entitled "Content is Not King" where he contends (according to Wikipedia) that "1) the entertainment industry is a small industry compared with other industries, notably the telecommunications industry; 2) people are more interested in communication than entertainment; and 3) therefore that entertainment content is not the killer app for the Internet." I realize it is a different topic altogether, but it is interesting nonetheless.

---

Stephen Shapiro is the author of three books, a popular innovation speaker, and is the Chief Innovation Evangelist for Innocentive, the leader in Open Innovation.

Content is No Longer King

by Stephen Shapiro

We often hear that content is king. But I wonder if this is still true.

Let's take some very simple examples.

I am sure most of you know that the iPod was not a revolutionary invention. It was merely a new spin on the already existing MP3 player. The real innovation was the integration of the iPod with iTunes. This changed the game. Using this model, the distribution of content became as important as the creators (the musicians) and the publishers (the record labels). Apple is now one of the most powerful and profitable players in the music industry.

I now own an Amazon Kindle. I have to admit, I love it (I'll blog about that another time). But what strikes me is that we are seeing the same 'content distributor as king' dynamics unfold again. In the book business, the author's royalty is a pretty small slice of the pie. I should know because I just signed a two book deal with Penguin's Portfolio imprint.

Here are some illustrative figures for a printed book (kept very simple using made up, yet not far fetched numbers):

• An author can expect about 10% +/- of the retail price of the book. So if the book retails for $25, the author gets $2.50.


• The retailer expects roughly a 50% discount and then they sell it for whatever they can get. If they sell it for a 20% discount, they gross approximately 30% of the price of the book (about $7.50). Their profit is quite a bit less due to overhead costs.


• Finally the publisher gets the remaining 40% or so - about $10 a book. By the time the publisher has covered all of their costs, books that sell poorly can lose them money because they need to pay the editorial staff, the various designers, the printers, and the shipping companies.

As you can see, the creator of the content (the author) gets a small slice. The publisher of the content gets a small slice. And the distributor gets a small slice. The rest of the money is eaten up in various costs.

Enter in the digital age.

Book on Kindle sell for $9.99 as a rule (we'll make it $10 to keep it simple). Let's look at an illustrative breakdown now.

• The author gets 5% of the retail (eBooks typically get a lower royalty) - $0.50. As you can see, an author can make 80% less with a Kindle book.


• The publisher and Amazon split the rest in a way I am not privy to.


• The publisher's costs are lower because they don't need to pay for shipping and printing. They still incur the upfront design and editorial costs.


• Amazon's costs are close to zero. They only need to pay a small amount to Sprint to provide mobile services. No overhead (except maybe some computer servers). No distribution. No warehouses.

In this model, I want to be Amazon. Everything sold is nearly pure profit. The content creator (me) is definitely not the financial king in this model. The publisher does fine. But the distributor appears to be the one in charge.

This concept of distribution as king appears in all areas. I was speaking with a seasoned consultant from the retailing industry. He indicated that a few years ago, the power shifted from the manufacturers to the retailers. Wal-Mart has the lion's share of power in the industry and they now call the shots.

You could argue that Google has a similar position, although their financial model is a bit different (AdWords accounts for most of their profit). But like other distributors, they don't create content. Instead they aggregate content from a variety of sources into one distribution system.

I just read on Friday that Comcast may be buying a 51% stake in NBC from GE. This shows how the power is moving from the creators of the content (the writers) and the publishers of the content (NBC and their production staff) to the distributors of the content - Comcast.

Are you a content creator or you a content publisher? Does someone else control distribution? Or, are there new entrants who might control distribution? Beware. The current and future distributors/aggregators of your content could be one of the most serious threats to your business.

---

Stephen Shapiro is the author of three books, a popular innovation speaker, and is the Chief Innovation Evangelist for Innocentive, the leader in Open Innovation.

Managing Innovation is about Managing Change

by Braden Kelley

Innovation is about change. Companies that successfully innovate in a repeatable fashion have one thing in common - they are good at managing change. Now, change comes from many sources, but when it comes to innovation, the main sources are incremental innovation and disruptive innovation.

The small changes from incremental innovation often come from the realm of implementation, so the organization, customers, and other stakeholders can generally adapt. However, the large changes generated by disruptive innovation, often come from the imagination, and so these leaps forward for the business often disrupt not only the market but the internal workings of the organization as well - they also require a lot of explanation.

The change injected into organizations by innovation ebbs and flows across the whole organization's ecosystem:



Let's explore the change categories visualized in this framework using the Apple iPod as an example:

Changes for customers - Any disruptive innovation requires a company to imagine for the customer something they can then imagine for themselves. Go too far past your customers' ability to imagine how the new product or service solves a real problem in their lives, and your adoption will languish.

• Customers had to try and imagine Apple as more than a computer hardware manufacturer, and begin to see them as a company to trust for reliable consumer electronics. They also had to imagine what it might mean to download music digitally (without any physical media).

Changes for employees - Disruptive innovations often require employees do things in a new way, and that can be uncomfortable, even if it is only your employees imagining what you are going to ask them to help your customers imagine.

• Employees had to acquire lots of new knowledge and skills. Apple support employees had to learn to support a different, less-technical customer. Other employees had to learn how to effectively build partnerships in the music industry.

Changes for suppliers - Innovations that disrupt the status quo may require suppliers to work with you in new ways. Some disruptive innovations may require suppliers to make drastic changes akin to those they had to make to support just-in-time manufacturing.

• Apple had to work with suppliers to source components at the higher volumes and shorter lead times required for success in consumer electronics. This meant finding some new suppliers who could handle the new volumes and market requirements.

Changes in distribution - Often big innovations disrupt whole distribution channels and this can cause challenges for incumbent organizations (think Compaq and big box retailers versus Dell Direct).

• Going into consumer electronics meant that Apple had to build relationships with the big box stores including people like Target, Wal-mart, and Costco. They also had to build a completely new distribution system - iTunes - for distributing digital music.

Changes in marketing - New products and services (especially disruptive ones), can require marketing to find and build relationships with completely different types of customers and/or require marketing to speak to customers in a different way or to reach them through different channels.

• Marketing had to begin moving the brand from computing to lifestyle, including changing the company name from 'Apple Computer' to 'Apple' in 2007.
• Marketing also had to learn how to connect with mass market consumers, and help them imagine how this new hardware/software combination would enhance their life - no small task.

Changes in operations - In addition to changes in the supply chain, the organization may have to adapt to disruptive innovations by hiring different types of employees, re-training existing employees, accounting for revenue in a different way, or going about production in a new way.

• The Apple iPod was an experience sell, which highlighted the fact that Apple didn't really have a place where they could help customers experience their products. This led to the opening of Apple retail stores. Apple's finance and operations had to adapt to the change from low volume, high price items to high volume, low price items. Apple also had to build out a resource-intensive online operation that didn't exist before (lots of IT investment).

Note that the chart has arrows going in both directions, but not simultaneously. There is a push-pull relationship. At the beginning of the innovation process the satellites influence what the innovation will look like (new production capabilities, new suppliers, ideas from partners/suppliers, component innovations, new marketing methods, etc.). But as the innovation goes into final commercialization, the direction of the change becomes outwardly focused.

You can see that as an organization is imagining how to take their creative idea and transform it into a valuable innovation in the marketplace, they also should be imagining all of the changes that are going to be required and how they will implement them. This is no small feat, but with proper planning, organizational learning, and adaptation over time, any organization can improve its ability to cope with and even anticipate the change necessary to implement its next disruptive innovation.

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Will the Flip be Flipped by the iPod?

by Braden Kelley

Apple's September 9, 2009 media event came and went with what most might call a whimper. There was no highly anticipated Apple iTablet, and the event served to mostly refresh the iPod line.

Lost in the disappointment over the lack of an Apple tablet computer introduction was a small, but potentially huge change to the iPod Nano.

A lot of other authors have written about how great the Flip video camera is, and how it disrupted the video camera market by introducing a smaller, simpler video camera that was 'good enough' at recording video, but made it much easier to get video onto the PC and onto the Internet. Today at Office Depot I saw an 8gb Flip for $199.

Now, the 8gb iPod Nano is $149.

So the iPod Nano is cheaper and a lot smaller. The iPod Nano also has an FM radio, pedometer, voice memo capability, built in special effects, and this thing called iTunes you might have heard of. Want 16gb of storage instead? A 16gb iPod Nano is only $179 (still less than an 8gb Flip). And if you're a Mac user you've also got iMovie and iDVD to edit and burn the videos when get to the Mac. Oh, and you can post them to facebook and YouTube too.

The video quality of the sample videos look 'good enough' and with its cheaper price, smaller size, and wider solution set, I would expect iPod Nano sales to rise and Flip sales to fall.

Sorry Cisco. It looks like you bought into the cheap, simple video camera space a little too late. But then Cisco wins even if the iPod Nano beats out the Flip because they'll sell more networking gear, so they are happy either way.

What do you think?

---

Braden Kelley is the editor of Blogging Innovation and founder of Business Strategy Innovation, a consultancy focusing on innovation and marketing strategy. Braden is also @innovate on Twitter.

Innovating Through Downturns

While most individuals and organizations natural reaction to an economic downturn is fear and retrenchment, they also present a time of great opportunity.

Where would Microsoft be if they hadn't continued investing through the downturn of the early 90's?

• Microsoft may never have finished the hugely successful Windows 95.

Where would Apple be if they hadn't continued investing through the technology crash of 2001-2003?

• Apple may never have fully realized the promise of the iPod and subsequent iPhone.

When a recession arrives, great opportunity presents itself:

• The unemployment rate increases (more available workers)


• Interest rates drop (lower cost of capital)


• People become fearful of losing their jobs making it easier to recruit from companies reducing or eliminating their innovation investments (increased labor mobility)


• People are more open to moving if a spouse's job is eliminated or at risk (increased labor mobility)


• When a recession arrives, it is easier to acquire tax breaks or other incentives for expansion, new sites, etc. (lower investment costs)

So, if companies have positive cash flows or significant amounts of cash on their balance sheet, or promising ideas to invest in, then there is no better time to invest. Companies with the courage and financial capability to invest in innovation through a downturn, absolutely should.

In addition to all of the other benefits, there is no better opportunity to achieve competitive separation through continued investment in innovation.

It does, however, take a strong CEO and steady board to have the courage and conviction to make such an investment. Innovation is not a perfect science and requires a tolerance for failure and a long-term commitment.

In today's short-term Wall Street quarterly profit-driven corporate reality, investors' short-term outlook may be the biggest impediment of all. But, smart organizations will find strategic solutions to overcome this impediment.

Organizations should take the following strategic actions to maintain or expand their innovation initiatives, despite the current global economic downturn:

1. Secure the leadership flexibility capable of continuing to invest in innovation despite financial pressures


2. Identify resources that you would like to have had access to during good times, that you might now have access to such as:


• Labor in scarce specialties


• Affordable capital


• Scarce real estate


3. Increase competitive monitoring to identify opportunities that may be created in areas where the competition reduces previous innovation investment


4. Increase customer research to identify opportunities to refine your ability to deliver products and services that deliver increased customer value, ideally at lower cost


5. Improve your innovation processes to improve your ability to innovate more quickly and effectively than your competition


6. Improve your organizational agility to increase its flexibility to adapt to changes in market conditions caused by the downturn and to shift resources efficiently and with increased speed

Organizations that take these necessary strategic actions, will come out the other side stronger than the competition, stronger than ever before, and create opportunities to preserve or attain market leadership.

Happy innovating!

Following the Line to Innovation - Mobile Applications

I came across a queue reduction application for the iPhone and iPod Touch yesterday that was intriguing. The application isn't quite finished or certified for use yet by Apple and Starbucks, but from what I gather it works something like this:

1. User comes in range of a Starbucks WiFi Hotspot
2. Application recognizes the Starbucks WiFi Hotspot or user initiates application
3. Application engages the user interface portion of the application
4. Application makes a connection
5. Application prompts user to order a Starbucks beverage
6. Application user interface facilitates the selection and transmission of the drink order (including a list of saved favorites to speed the process)
7. Application connects to the user's iTunes account
8. Application deducts funds from the user's iTunes account
9. Application creates a visual barcode with the information necessary to register payment
10. User places iPhone or iPod Touch with visual barcode under a reader at the pickup counter
11. User collects their beverage
    

The visual barcode (semacode) and scanner portion of the system could be made unnecessary (or relegated to backup system status), by instead transmitting a payment confirmation to Starbuck's on-site systems directly via the WiFi connection. In the backup scenario, the visual barcode would serve as an electronic receipt to show proof of payment in case the systems in the store doesn't receive the systematic payment immediately.

Imagine the convenience of getting a block or two from your favorite Starbucks, connecting, clicking 'The Usual' and proceeding directly to the drink pickup counter instead of waiting in line to order and pay.

Of course there is no reason why companies like McDonald's or Cinemark couldn't create similar applications to eliminate some of the queueing from our lives. If people could order this easily with their phones then businesses could reduce staffing or reallocate resources from order taking and payment processing to more value-added activities like preparing food or beverage orders.

Apps like this could be extended to the Web through the introduction of a store number field or store locator mini-application or pulldown at the beginning of the application sequence. This would allow you to order out of range of the in-store WiFi over your cellular network or from your home or office internet connection.

Less time spent waiting in lines?

Oh what a beautiful world.

You Cannot Always Invent Your Way to Innovation

I'd like to start today with a quote from a NASA article in Fast Company - "But sometimes the better part of innovation, is not invention but effectiveness."

I've detailed my views before on how invention is not the same thing as innovation, but to build upon them and the quote above - sometimes progress or innovation is achieved by taking value out of a product or service. Southwest Airlines created innovation not by giving passengers more food, more legroom or more options, but fewer. Apple succeeded with the iPod, not by providing more capacity or more features, but by making the features they provided more beneficial than the competition.

People ultimately do not care whether a product or service is better at the tasks it is asked to perform, but whether it more effectively meets their needs. These are not the same thing, and in fact make success far more difficult.

A sponge may clean better than all other sponges at absorbing liquids, but if to do so it has to smell like a wet troll, it is ultimately not going to be the sponge most effective at meeting customers needs (or likely to make repeat visits to their shopping baskets). Success becomes more difficult because customers don't always surface their needs. Chances are your market research wouldn't have surfaced their need for a sponge not to smell like a wet troll. But if succeeding becomes more difficult when success is not purely a technology challenge, then this is a good thing for the truly committed, because difficulty creates opportunity.

So during the product development process, don't ask yourself "How can we make X do Y better than the competition?". Instead focus people's attention on asking "How can we better meet our customers' needs?". If you focus on the second question, the competition becomes almost irrelevant, and you will become better at creating products or services that are more likely to be valuable instead of merely useful, and that is where true innovation lies.

What do you think?

@innovate