Model-View-Controller as Business Pattern

I attended the AT&T Developer Summit (twitter feed) and the Consumer Electronics Show (twitter feed) this week.  An AT&T panelist (Scott Williams) observed that their business has changed from being a phone company to being a network and is changing again to become a software company.

The success of Twitter (under-rated in my opinion) and many other services has much more do with their APIs and an open, encouraging attitude toward end-user innovation (article by Steven Johnson from TIME).  If you think about it, there are then three types of “things” in the world:  devices that create, consume, transform, present data; services that transact, analyze, move, provide access to data; and, of course, the data itself.  What Mr. Williams’ comment means to me is that AT&T has gone through an exercise in unbundling itself and is now offering a variety of services to access the data that AT&T stores.

Not long ago this kind of unbundling would have been considered very dangerous.  But it does have a precedent in software design.  This decomposition should be very familiar as a model-view-controller architecture.

It occurred to me at CES that businesses could then be classified as to the degree to which they fit into a world where this marchitecture is commonplace.  That is, does XYZ’s ABC offering provide data, intelligence, connectivity, or access to them?  Or is the ABC offering an “all-in-one” system that can never be decoupled?

I’ll submit that offerings that do not fit into this model are fundamentally flawed and their market future limited.  Such an offering limits end-user innovation and cannot harness the broader power of the marketplace.  Offerings that to comply with this type of architecture will enjoy very long lives and far reaching applicability.  Consider how many Google Maps applications you’ve seen.

Let’s look at some examples:

Garmin makes excellent devices that create, consume, and present data.  That data is provided by Navteq and is accessed over M2M services from AT&T.  But none of the three are exclusively dependent on the others!  Garmin could access other map data and configure their devices to use other networks.  Likewise, Navteq’s data is also presented in other “devices” like MapQuest’s website.

Prior to Howard Stern’s renewal with SiriusXM, a subscriber was required to purchase a specific device (from SiriusXM) which only accesses data (that only originates from SiriusXM) over SiriusXM’s exclusive satellite network.  This is a very limiting model.  Note that now, SiriusXM have opened this up to offer all of their programming over the their streaming service over the internet.  This places them solidly in the role of a data provider while allowing for service and device independence.

Okay, I may have made my examples a bit simplistic to illustrate the idea, but I think this is a very powerful razor to filter business opportunities and develop strategic plans.  A review of the accessibility of an offering’s data–that is, what’s the API–would likely review market opportunities or vulnerabilities.

Finally, we shouldn’t forget to ensure that offerings are complete in the first use.  In many cases this may necessitate creation of multiple components that work in concert to create a complete offering.  However, replacement of the data, service, and device components should be anticipated eagerly as that is where the core offering will rise and you can focus on developing your strengths.

New Opportunities for Content Aggregation

Recent reports have predicted that cable MSOs and direct satellite service providers will loose about one-eighth of their subscribers in 2010.  [http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/30/technology/dropping_cable_tv/]  There are many devices and services available to facilitate this transition with the promise of shedding $100+/month service bills–and most seem to work reasonably well.  How long can this trend continue until the a la carte pricing for those services exceeds the MSO’s bill?  Is creating a multi-source-media-masala a task that mere mortals can master?  The threats to the big operators business have been widely reported, and their demise predicted.  [http://theweek.com/article/index/207507/cable-tvs-impending-death-4-signs]  However, I don’t buy it.  These are large companies with lots or resources ready to move on new opportunities, just like other giants such as AT&T have done.  Some changes in the offerings from Comcast and Direct are for sure, but what consumers really need is some type of personalized aggregations service.

Too many services/Too many transactions

How many disparate services will people pay for?  At a nominal $10/month for subscription services and approximately $2 – $3/hour for other content, how many $6.74 transactions are people willing to reconcile?  Plus all those small transactions take profit out of the provider’s pocket (good for Visa though!).  Apple figured that out and aggregates transactions and makes extensive use of stored value cards.

Television viewing is up: [http://www.multichannel.com/article/454664-Turner_Viewers_Watching_More_TV_In_2010.php]  147 hours per month on average.  So is viewing of content on other platforms.  Convenience of consumption usually drives increased consumption, and not all of those 147 hours are monetizable–almost half of those hours the TV is left on with no one watching.  [http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia012010nr.cfm]

All this should indicate that at $100, the monthly service bill is cheap.  It would be possible to pay far more for a la carte content and over the top services.

Future roll for Operators

Terrestrial based operators should have an easy time continuing to provide both base content and connectivity, whereas satellite operators may have challenges as it will be very difficult for them to provide interactive/request-based content.  However, both types will continue to see a future in providing the most compelling types of content–breaking news and live events (sports).  But will the live sports consumption experience be augmented above the broadcast, or will the broadcast be a component of the integrated experience?

Content awareness and promotion

When the main mode of video consumption is to watch all the episodes of  “True Blood” back to back in a small number of sittings from yoaur preferred vendor, how do consumers discover new content sources?    That is, when channel surfing becomes impossible and the Sunday night at 9:00 slot is no longer a “TV Appointment,” how do providers draw in new viewers and the corresponding revenue?

I think this is somewhat similar to publishing, where it is possible to consume printed matter from blogs, print magazines, newspapers, and electronic versions of all of these fluidly based on interests.  Here a rich system of promotion from Oprah’s book club, to the NYT book review, Amazon recommendations and other systems have grown to make would-be readers aware of the work and attract interest.    Such a system for video content needs to be developed as well.

I see a need for a service that can analyze a consumer’s likes and interests along with habits and aggregate content into a personalized feed for that consumer.  A combination of Google Reader convenience and TiVo recommendation intelligence.  Would viewers be willing to pay an intermediary aggregator to harvest interests from Hulu, Vudu, YouTube, HBO, etc.?  Would they be willing to do so my monetizing their eyeballs to relevant advertisers?  Would those services be willing to sell to aggregators and forego some subscriber revenue?  Could that usher in a service pricing race to the bottom? Or, wait-a-minute, isn’t this what the MSO’s were supposed to do?

Observations from Webinar on Mobile Devices

Followed a Webinar from ABI Research (http://www.abiresearch.com/home.jsp) on the future and convergence of Mobile Devices–handsets, netbooks, smartphones, etc.  I tweeted my thoughts during the Webinar–http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23mohands

My Top Takeaways:

• Netbook v Laptop wars:  likely to be good for consumer in terms of price, but will probably reinforce the split of desktop replacement and highly portable, with the more portable end being threatened by netbooks.  May be bad for consumer in terms of choice as the small, netbook format may become dominant and taking performance away from the highly portable laptop segment.
• Mobile Internet Devices could be the leading edge of personal area network enabled devices and special purpose “adapters” like headsets, Personal Navigational Devices, etc.  But, they won’t.  The US conusmer seems uninterested in MIDs and further the carriers have created too many rate plan barriers and are just plain too greedy in trying to force multi-line subscriptions.  This is blocking innovation.
• Future for Microsoft has never been brighter.  Windows XP is the dominant shipment on netbooks and Microsoft is all over enabling the battery management and instant-on features for a next gen (read 2010) netbook.  This fits most consumer needs.  Could Microsoft be the one innovating a netbook tether to a desktop in a WebOS connected way?  Could they also innovate with a Windows Mobile handset that tethers to the netbook?  I think that could be a very interesting idea that bypasses the carrier problems.

Also announced today was Sprint’s enhanced all you can eat and all the mobiles you can call plan.  Perhaps Sprint will be the innovator in creating one-pay sub plans.  TiVo and SiriusXM offer me these as alternatives to monthly.  When will the wireless carriers wise up?

Oh… I know… when they get their infrastructure aligned behind making money on data instead of just propping up failing ARPU.

Observations from Webinar on Wireless Trends and Directions

I followed a Webinar on Wireless Trends and Directions today and tweeted by observations during the event.  You can read the stream here:

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23modashbd

Here are my top observations.

1.  Rise of QMD (Quick Mobile Device — a text-centric device; less than a smartphone, but will full keyboard).  These devices are somewhat purpose built for Social Networking or other dedicated purposes.  I guess the Sidekick could be considered an early example and the Kindle a well developed special purpose device (and business model!).  These have the potential to really mess up operators revenue plans.  We already see data cannibalizing voice and social interaction could cannibalize general data services.  Operators could restructure their networks to make this effective for them.

2.  Virtual Personal Assistants and Voice interaction.  Very interesting trend and services could become interesting.  Unsure how increasing the degree to which we wander around talking to ourselves will be accepted socially.  But I suppose it’s better than walking into traffic looking at your CrackBerry in a PDA–Public Display of Addiction.

3.  Palm’s lasting legacy may be HTML5 and the recognition that browsing has moved to the small screen.  Web developers would do well to start considering mobile as the primary platform and not some bolt-on.  I know this will upset the flash crowd–but they’re prolly not my friend anyway after this.  Social Networks in particular need to heed this or loose their following fast.

Please post comments here or through twitter with hashtag #modashbd.

Wheat from Chaff: Abstracting the What/Why from a How

I’m sure you’ve run into this, I know I have.  Many times.  You get a requirements document or other request and it’s all about the solution rather than the problem.  What you want, what you NEED, as a competent technologist, to deliver the best solution is a statement about the problem to be solved.  You see it as your job to deliver creative and cost effective solutions.

I found a few good tools that can be used to help work from a candidate solution back to the problem.  I’ve used these both for personal analysis as well as part of structured meetings to help the solution recommenders work backwards to the problems.

The first is the famous Five Whys.  You’ve probably used this many times and it is one of those obvious codifications of basic human behavior that people are observed to use in the wild when seeking to understand a problem.  Start with the proposed product features and repeatedly ask WHY. 

Product Feature:  Wireless Network (WiFi) Interface

WHY does the product need WiFI?  So the customer doesn’t have to wire in the system.

WHY doesn’t the customer want to wire in the system?  So they can  move it around.

WHY is it a problem to move the system around if it’s wired?  Because they might have to pull wire to the new location and that expensive/troublesome and a constraint on consumption.

That seems like a satisfactory answer, but don’t stop!

WHY does the systems need a network interface?  To deliver updates.

WHY do updates need to be delivered over a network?  So we can update remotely and monitor the health of the system remotely.

AHA!  Two base requirements discovered:  Remote Updates and Remote Health Monitoring.

The second technique comes from The Innovator’s Guide to Growth.  Here the concept is that customers have “jobs to do” and that a successful product will help them do those jobs.  However when trying to discover those “jobs,” we often have to work from solutions the customer is using–perhaps even ones that have been cobbled together.  Frequently the people we’re meeting with may not think in terms of “jobs to be done” or problem statements or the terms we need for our art.  They think in their own terms, but can usually speak confidently about the tools they use.  Whether this is the case or we are starting from a candidate solution proposal, the solution can be decomposed to discover the “job to be done.”

Solution:  System with WiFi

What are the solutions capabilities?  Networking anywhere within the location.

What barriers does WiFi overcome?  Having to pull wire to new locations for the system.

What objectives can it address?  Portability of systems.

In what circumstances will WiFi be most effective?  Where the RF propagates well, wired grids are not prevalent, and systems need to move around.

For what jobs is the solution applicable?  Moving the system to new locations that lack wired networks but are within RF range.

The results here are not as concrete, but the nuances are valuable.  We’ve discovered not only the job the customer wants done, but also some constraints on even the proposed solution.  If we dug on this “job” a bit more, we’d probably discover additional contraints on doing the job that can lead to requirements–such as weight, mounting, power, etc.

Next time you get a stack of “how” passed to you, try finding the author and work through some of these techniques with them to get to the “what” and “why.”

Strategy in Three Steps: Promise, Principles + Tactics

Purists might argue that putting Tactics into strategy is incorrect.  However, I found this little nugget of wisdom in Chris Potts’ book fruITion.  I was so taken with it that I’ve begun using this simple tool and have been thrilled with the results.

First about the book:

fruITion is a wonderfully written allegorical text that chronicles the brief and brilliant development of an IT strategy and the trasformation of the CIO into a true business leader.  Potts has mastered the cluetrain ideal of writing in narrative and this makes for a most unusual IT or business book.  The strength of this approach is that the lessons and observations stay with you very readily.  Unlike other tomes where I am constanly looking up the good ideas again and again, I “internalized” the concepts from fruITion.  One of these concepts was this simple Promise, Principles, Tactics construction of strategy.

Now on to strategy and how I applied it:

Promise is the commitment that the individual/owner/project sponsor/whomever is responsible for the strategy (as Potts would say whomever is the strategy) makes to the company/business/organization/patron/etc.  This commitment is usually given in exchange for some consideration — like a budget or continued employment.

Principles are those ideas, mores, concepts, etc that guide the decision making and execution of the strategy.  These might concern themselves with how capital is accessed and used, labor, open source, partnerships, etc.  But these are themes and considerations, not necessarily yeses and noes.  They are the things you balance when considering options or next steps.

Tactics are threads that lead to Strategic Next Actions (see Sally McGhee — mebbe I’ll blog on that some day).  They are results to be achieved or things to do.  They are developed and considered in balance with the Principles.  These are the actions that you take to implement your Strategy.

Review, update, repeat.

Generation TXT

Inspired by a true story

Father to 11 year old daughter:  Call the Library and see if they are open, number is 555-READ

11 y.o.:  Dad, for the “R” do I hit the “7″ once or three times?

What does this mean for those providing public or publicly accessible services when dealing with Gen Y and, now, Gen TXT?  Of course the answer is simple — they have to use the new tools and many haven’t even set up useful or accessible websites yet. 

It seems that the IT Industry (my industry) hasn’t done these types of public services any favors.  Far too many public CIOs and IT Managers along with their executive management are overly concerned with review and approval cycles than they are with getting the word out.  Fortunately the fabric of the ambient, real-time web (Facebook, Twitter, etc) allows those who provide services to bypass the traditional hegemony.

San Francisco (where I work) recently started this type of a service, http://sftwitter.sfgov.org/twitter/.

The head librarian could regularly Tweet when the library gets major new arrivals and could even set up TweetLater to post when the libe opens and closes.  Then my friend could have asked his daughter to get on her iPhone and search twitter for when the library opens and to see if they’ve got the new John Hughes directors cut, boxed set in yet.

But here’s more…

Why is our phone system so tied to this quaint 7 digit nonsense?  Why can we type in hashtags or search phrases?  Most browsers now support some type of automatic-fall-back-to-search-when-you-horked-up-the-address type of feature.  Our phone system should too.  Perhaps some clever wireless carrier or virtual network operator will get wise to that idea and front search for us.  Then we can have a whole new area of Search Engine Optimization to worry about.

Future of interactivity — will open standards fall in the face of Flash?

Adobe (and before them Macromedia) have long had a vision of Flash everywhere — in mobile phones; on set top boxes; and, of course, computers.  I’ve never been a give fan of Flash, given its proprietary origins and I’ve had some truly terrible integration experiences with extremely high CPU load.  It seems to me that Flash suffers from many of the same problems that early versions of many interpreted languages (Java, PHP) have — poorly written code that the optimizer has a hard time figuring out.  Think of PHP before Zend or Java before Hotspot.  Where are these products for the Flash ecosystem?  Will Adobe allow their existence or foster their growth?

I had been thinking that Blu-ray and BDLive would lead us out of this morass with an open system for interactivity.  However, it seems that the title authors have been slow to leverage this technology.  Now I read recent announcements from Adobe, http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200904/042009FlashDigitalHome.html, that references many of the industry interests — content, distribution, silicon, software, operators — giving support for a Flash-based system that can be embedded in players (set top boxes, disc players).  I, like Cactus Jack, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner, don’t give too much credence to press release quotes as they lack any real commitment.  However, in this release, I find the support from Sigma Designs to be particularly telling.  If Sigma is going this route, that could dictate the universe for both packaged and electronically distributed media in terms of interaction.  Bye-bye freedom of choice and innovation.  This could be PostScript all over again.

Perhaps I’m a bit of a dinosaur with all this open source, free-as-in-freedom, ideology.  The time for religous wars about this stuff is long over and I stopped bleeding in six colors or any other way over a decade ago.  I’m on the lookout now for what the title developers do.  If BD’s start coming with Flash, I’ll tip my hat to the new revolution (thanks Pete).  But that supposes that BD’s continue to matter.  And that’s a topic for another day…

Book Review: ME 2.0 by Dan Schawbel — read the blog instead

Just finished reading ME 2.0, http://personalbrandingbook.com/.  As the Author says, it’s by a millennial for millennials — of which I am not one.  For someone who is about 20 years older than the author, I found the overall tone of the book that of discovering the obvious but intermixed with some great insights as to how it applies to the author personally and some tips and tricks on using the current generation of tools.  I would have preferred less personal narrative about how smart the author is and more study of general branding techniques — such as how to develop your personal brand, which I felt was covered rather thinly.  The book is bit more of a motivator and less of a cookbook or guide.

Weaknesses aside, I found several gems in the book.  One being a tip on setting privacy settings on Facebookthat I immediately used to help my daughter with her account.  I also read several passages to my kids to help them understand social networking better which the author presents very accurately and clearly.

Dan Schawbel is a very talented writer and the book is a quick read.  As you closer to the back though it bogs down in ever increasing branding of Dan Schawbel.  I started to feel a bit hoodwinked by the end — like the author wasn’t so much telling me about personal branding as he was showing me his personal brand.

That’s okay… overall the book helped rekindle my interest and use of social media and did give me some concrete tidbits to more formally think about and develop my personal brand.   Posting to this blog is part of it! 

Take the book on a weekend read or plane ride, but bring something else too as you’ll finish it quickly.  Read Dan Schawbel’s blog http://www.personalbrandingblog.wordpress.com/ or follow him on twitter — both of those resources are excellent resources on personal branding and will lead you to many more.

I passed the book along and am recommending it to my friends’ kids as the come out of college and don’t know what to do.  As for those older, my recommendation is to think about and work on your personal brand, but perhaps look for other resources.