The Google Future

Robert X. Cringely paints an intriguing picture of our future… well, perhaps we should call it Google’s future, since they own it:

Google will become our phone company, our cable company, our stereo system and our digital video recorder. Soon we won’t be able to live without Google, which will have marginalized the ISPs and assumed most of the market capitalization of all the service providers it has undermined — about $1 trillion in all — which places today’s $500 Google share price about eight times too low.

Possible? Definitely. Likely? Hmmm… hard to say. Scary? Yep.

Posted in Search | Comments Off on The Google Future

VRM & Microformats

Colin Henderson at BankWatch writes:

I had considered microformats might be a method of managing these interactions. Could the consumer requirement I have outlined be brokered by a Microformat? That’s the open question I have.

I agree. Microformats should definitely help with discovery, especially hand-in-hand with tagging. That basically comes from their use of semantic html. That means either of your options 1 or 2 could work, as a browser plugin, a Technorati-style spider & search, or perhaps a personal crawler/agent residing on your own machine.

However, I think the bigger win from microformats may be learning from their focus on generating community consensus. I agree with your assertion that no one tool can solve all the problems of VRM. However, that’s almost the same as saying no one online service can meet everyone’s needs. It is true. But in practice, the Internet, or more particularly, the shared protocols and formats of the Internet, allow any number of online services to emerge to fill market needs. This happens simultaneously at the network provider level (Earthlink), the server application level (Google), and the client application level (Firefox).

I think VRM can solve its challenges in a similar way. By creating a set of standard protocols and formats, we can enable a number of mechanisms for customer-centric vendor management.

In Colin’s own area, if there were a standardized format for people to submit loan requests—and that met the needs of banks—wouldn’t banks use VRM discovery/search/registry mechanisms to find and respond to those requests? After all, the requests are out there, practically free leads, just waiting to be serviced.

I think one key to VRM is the realization that no single format is sufficient. And I’m glad Colin highlighted that need. If we coordinate at the protocal and meta-format level, any number of request and response formats could be exchanged, allowing customers and vendors to find solutions to their problems. That’s the same way that HTML, http, MIME, SMTP, POP, and TCP/IP enable a wide range of unique, custom services.

The lesson for me from microformats is in realizing the need to find community consensus in particular subdomains. hCard works because people agree about what it means. That means one person’s hCard is interoperable with any hCard service. Similarly, I foresee community-based development of VRM standards that resolve domain-specific requirements as vendors and service providers join in to create solutions for that domain. Private formats are practically useless here, but formats shared across a community can be incredibly powerful. That’s one of the main values of microformats, and VRM can learn a lot from that experience and approach.

Posted in Vendor Relationship Management | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Shopatron redefines Vendor Relationships

Ed Stevens of Shopatron is re-intermediating retailers into the online sales process.

Re-intermediation? It seems to go against the grain of what the Internet means to markets. Distributors. Retailers. Middlemen. All these folks were supposed to be disintermediated, returning the customer and manufacturer to a mythical original state of grace: direct sales unfettered by intermediaries.

But for many—perhaps most—small to medium manufacturers, the retail distribution channel is the lifeblood of their business. Without access to shelves and salespeople, most manufacturers simply can’t cost-effectively reach as many customers. Retailers fill this niche, providing real value to both customers and the manufacturers. Everyone wins. Although the manufacturer gives up some profit to the retailer, they gain access to customers, a sales force in the real-world marketplace, and front-line customer support near to their customers. The increases in scale and market presence more than offset the per-unit loss of margin.

The Internet seemed to change all that. Dell, Amazon, and eBay don’t need any retailers. Hmm… actually, Amazon is a retailer and eBay isn’t a manufacturer either. And Dell was already a poster-child of the direct-to-customer, build-to-order paradigm well before the Internet. In fact, I believe that far more manufacturers have avoided or shut down their direct online sales efforts because of issues with channel conflict, than those who have succeeded.

I distinctly remember when Levi’s shut down their online store. It was horrible. I know exactly what type of Levi’s I want to buy. Why go to a store when I can just select the size & style online and have it shipped direct? But apparently Levi’s distribution channel proved more valuable and more effective than the online store. (Although today we find a store on Levi’s website, so they’ve overcome that blip.)
The consensus for a long time has been that these examples of yielding to channel conflict concerns were just momentary aberrations in an otherwise inexorable march to completely disintermediated markets.

Shopatron proves this perspective was wrong. Call it being blinded by the sheen from our rose colored glasses. The evangelist’s dilemma. The hubris of the “Long Boom.” Shopatron not only provides a solution to channel conflict, they do it while creating new value across the entire distribution chain.

Their system is remarkably simple. They host an online store for a manufacturer, such as Callaway or Brooks. The store is branded 100% as the manufacturer’s and visitors to the manufacturer’s website are seemlessly directed to the store as a way to purchase products. Customer orders are placed on a retailers-only bulletin board, with a fixed price for retailers to “bid” on the right to fulfill that order. Retailers who bid essentially say “Yes, I have that product in inventory and I’ll ship it at that fixed price.”

Once each day, Shopatron resolves all of these bids, sending them to the nearest retailer. That retailer boxes up the product and send it to the customer. The customer gets the product with local support, quickly, and with minimal shipping costs. The retailer gets a new customer and the profit from the sale.

In cases where no retailers want the bid, the manufacturer ships the product themselves. And because nobody wanted it, there is no channel conflict, just higher margins.

It’s incredibly elegant. In particular, it uses human involvement in the retailer selection/availability check to avoid the apparent need to have a real-time feed of all retailers’ inventories. The truth is that most retailers have poor inventory management systems, especially smaller and more specialized stores. But if you tell a retailer that you’ll be posting actual sales orders every day, with no price pressure, and all they have to do is accept the responsibility for delivery, you’ll find a lot of retailers are interested. All they need is a phone and Internet access, and suddenly they get more orders and new customers. It’s a no brainer.

It also turns out that it is equally powerful for the manufacturer. The types of people who buy from a manufacturer’s website are essentially convenience-driven shoppers. Those who are willing to put up with the hassle can always enter the product name or number into Froogle, BizRate, or Shopzilla to find the lowest price. But that’s a hassle. If you trust the brand, why not buy it directly from them? That means higher margin and lower returns. Also, the way Shopatron works, retailers have visibility into all manufacturers in the system. So, a new manufacturer joining the service today is immediately exposed to a ready and willing army of retailers. It’s a great way to acquire new distribution. In addition, the system itself increases manufacturers’ sales to the retailers in two ways. First, because the retailers must have the inventory in stock in order to bid, retailers carry more inventory. More inventory means they are able to sell more products, rather than losing sales when the warehouse runs empty.

Second, retailers get to see what’s hot in the marketplace on a daily basis. Rather than working in relative isolation, even small boutiques now have access to effectively real-time market trends. So when a new product starts to pick up sales, retailers quickly find out and can move to stock up and provide the hottest movers to their own customers. Again, more orders on what might otherwise be an inventory constrained product.

Finally, customers win too. They now have a way to buy on a brand basis, “direct” from the manufacturer, where before they would often be forced to find a reputable retailer on their own. And yes, the Shopatron system assure reputable retailers, giving manufacturers explicit control over which retailers do—or do not—meet their standards. Customers also have an introduction to their local retailer, who can then help with support issues or even provide additional, related services. They don’t need to interact with the retailer, but they can. As one jeweler likes to advertise, “Now you have a friend in the diamond business.” Now the customer has a local retailer who can help.

One of the more interesting ways that retailer can help is local pickup. Order from the manufacturer, pick it up locally. Cut out the shipping fees and perhaps save some time. Ed reports that according to Forrester Research, 31% of online sales are picked up locally. Wow. That’s huge. Shopatron offers a way for manufacturers to empower that directly, all with volunteer retailers and without real-time data feeds.

What strikes me particularly about Shopatron’s approach is how uniquely it re-frames the issues of Vendor Relationship Management. VRM is the reciprocal of CRM, Customer Relationship Management. It puts the customer in control of the Vendors, empowering people with information technology in the inverse of how CRM helps companies maximize their customer relationships.

The initial focus in VRM has been in two main areas. The first area is open marketspace vendor selection systems. Users specify what they want, using a personal digital RFP, and vendors bid on it in an open, secure, distributed marketspace.

The second area is the dissolution of vendor-centric data silos that prevent user control and choice. Because only NetFlix or Amazon have my transaction history, only they can offer customized recommendations. Because each doctor stores medical information independently, providers can’t offer customized services that leverage a patient’s entire medical situation… for example, by offering a single daily blister pack that combines all required medicines in one convenient place. VRM would open those data silos and give individuals a way to maintain their own silo for use and application anywhere.

Shopatron takes this in a new direction, revitalizing and creating new value in the retailer relationship. It’s a sort of three-way love triangle between the customer, the retailer, and the manufacturer. And unlike soap opera tragedies, this love affair works. Customers get simpler, ready access to manufacturer’s goods, retailers get more sales and customers, and manufacturers increase their sales and brand presence in both the retail and online worlds. It is an entirely new way to think about Vendor Relationship Management, particularly what relationship means in this context.

So, how are they doing? Amazingly well. In December 2006, they closed their 1 millionth order and as of this week in January 2007, they have 287 manufacturers and over 5,000 retailers. All without venture capital funding. Just a great idea, briliant execution, and tenacious, hard work.

Ed outlined his company’s approach this week at the Central Coast MIT Enterprise Forum. Always a great event. Props and thanks go out to them for introducing me to an amazing new company and an innovative leader in online vendor relationship management.

Thanks also to Ed for a great presentation and a great innovation. Best of luck with your ongoing success.

Posted in Vendor Relationship Management | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Pinocchio & Procedural Literacy

I love what Steve Yegge says here about designing great software. Here’s an excerpt (edited for brevity):

I think the most important principle in all of software design is this: Systems should never reboot.

If you design a system so that it never needs to reboot, then you will eventually, even if it’s by a very roundabout path, arrive at a system that will live forever.

I think the second most important design principle, really a corollary to the first, is that systems must be able to grow without rebooting.

Essential Features

Here are some of the properties shared by the best software systems in the world today.

First: every great system has a command shell. It is always an integral part of the system. It’s been there since the system was born. All existing command shells are crap, but they are an essential component of building the best software that can be built today.

Great systems also have advice. There’s no universally accepted name for this feature. Sometimes it’s called hooks, or filters, or aspect-oriented programming. Advice is a mini-framework that provides before, around, and after hooks by which you can programmatically modify the behavior of some action or function call in the system.

Moving right along, world-class software systems always have an extension language and a plug-in system — a way for programmers to extend the base functionality of the application. Sometimes plugins are called “mods”. It’s a way for your users to grow the system in ways the designer didn’t anticipate.

What other features do great software systems have?

I think one important element, at least today, is that they either have to be a killer app, or they need one. Every world-class software system is, by its very nature, a platform. If you have a command-shell, and an extension language with advice, and a plug-in architecture, then you’ve already got the makings of a platform. But you need to give users some reason for using it in the first place.

So software systems need a niche. Someday there may be a generic software system so powerful and well-designed that it’s the best system to use for literally everything. Maybe you’ll be the one to build it.

The last big feature I’ll enumerate today, and it’s just as important as the rest, is that great software systems are introspective. You can poke around and examine them at runtime, and ideally they poke around and examine themselves as well. At the very least they should have some basic health monitoring in place.

This is something we can work with. In no small way, Steve is talking about what it takes to bring software marionettes to life, to actually pull off the Pinocchio miracle in software.

Steve also slips in this gem, right in the middle of the article:

Note: most of these are features for programmers. Features for non-technical end-users don’t contribute to a system’s lifespan. In the fullness of time, I believe programming fluency will become as ubiquitous as literacy, so it won’t matter.

For those of you who haven’t caught this meme, it echoes Ken Perlin‘s Procedural Literacy advocacy (also discussed at GrandTextAuto, with props to A. J. Perlis‘ 1961 advocacy of the same idea). This concept is overdue for broader support.

Today we realize that nearly ubiquitous written-word literacy has changed the world in profound ways, touching nearly every aspect of the first world.

It is not so far fetched to imagine a world where widespread procedural literacy reshapes how we interact with the world around us, how we craft our communications with others, and indeed how we structure the systems that govern our society. That’s exactly what written-word literacy did, after all. Where would we be without public laws, books, street signs, public notices, newspapers, research publications, email, or the web? (Just to name a few high-value uses of modern written-word literacy.)

If everyone (or almost everyone) knew how to script their personal widgets to process and present openly available data streams, every individual would be an empowered knowledge worker in the truest sense, creating what they want, how they want it, when they want it, and fully able to pipe that value back into the rest of the community for even greater leverage.

Consider the introduction from Ken’s Polly experiment:

Some of us want to start an on-line world that kids can build, with creatures they can grow and play with together. But the kids will need to learn how to program to do really cool things. The (not so secret) agenda is for our society to achieve near-universal literacy in programming, sooner rather than later. After all, society once thought near-universal written literacy to be impossible, even nuts. That was back when “literacy” involved a small elite memorizing texts in a sacred language. In that context, people couldn’t see why you’d want everyone to read and write. We know better now.

Getting little kids to see the potential social relevance of programming is a first step, kind of a “Cat in the Hat” level. We also need to eventually extend to the “The role of the Female Protagonist; Shakespeare versus Virginia Wolfe” level, but first things first.

Here’s how Ken put it at the Academic Summit of the Game Developers Conference in 2003 (as reported by jane at GameGirlAdvance) :

Citizens who can make things, he said, would understand that they can affect the world; if we institute programming languages as part of the general education of all, we will be helping to guide a revolution in the way people think and act. Imagine if a child knew how procedural thinking worked – imagine if programming became like writing, like literacy, not a technical skill learned by engineers, but a fundamental language of self-expression naturally used by writers, artists, musicians, anyone. Way beyond open source, it was a manifesto for democratizing access to cultural participation at the most basic level.

In many ways, this is exactly what Steve is talking about, from the other side of the same coin. We need programs that have a clear, compelling purpose and support user-driven evolution. At the same time, we need users who can drive that evolution. Truly great software both empowers procedural literacy and depends on it.

We can see that today in some of the programs Steve highlights. My favorite in the list is Excel, which, as I mentioned in a previous post on User Programmers, puts fairly extensive programmability into the hands of average users. It has become the defacto knowledge worker tool in the corporate office, the accepted platform for collating, coordinating, analyzing, and presenting all kinds of business data. It has also trained a generation of managers how to think about numbers and algorithms.

We can also see this dynamic in comparing the efforts of microformats and RDF (or other formal semantic web technologies). Both systems are helping to bring semantic clarity to the world wide web, which should create a huge boost for machine-based automated services.

However, RDF is essentially written for machine-to-machine communication. Large systems are generally required before you have the economy of scale to invest in it. Microformats, in contrast, is written for people first and machines second, precisely because so much of the web is authored by individuals. That ocean of human-authored content would be more useful if it were semantically presented, and microformats makes that easy to do. By allowing regular web developers to write semantic html using a shared set of terminology, microformats significantly extends the procedural literacy that has already enabled so many average folks to build their own web pages. That’s what makes it so powerful.

So, if you are working on software today, ask yourself how you measure up against those features. Asking that simple question may result in better software, better users, and a better future.

Thanks, Steve.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Pinocchio & Procedural Literacy

Google Advocates VRM for medical data

Philipp Lenssen at Google Blogoscoped shares this quote from Google’s Vice President Adam Bosworth [excerpted from original transcript]:

So what can be done? We should start at the beginning. Let’s put the patients in charge of their health and medical information. Let’s build a system which puts the people who are sick in control. For every single medical and health-related event, let’s make sure that patients can effortlessly retrieve and share their information in its totality and then use it to ensure that they get the best quality of care possible. It is their health.

Amen! Bosworth is right on the money. In fact, this is one of the first use cases in the VRM conversation being led by Doc Searls.

So, a note to Philipp and Adam: Please join us at the January 25th VRM meeting in Redwood City, California. This is critical stuff.

Ammendment: Doc clarifies that this is a developers’ meeting. I don’t know if either Philipp or Adam would consider themselves developers… So, if not, send someone from the dev team instead.  Your input is appreciated.

Posted in Vendor Relationship Management | Tagged , | Comments Off on Google Advocates VRM for medical data

Apple iPhone, 911, GPS, and Apple’s walled garden

Doc Searls recently posted from CES with a complaint about the iPhone’s lack of GPS support:

My own first question was “Where’s the GPS?” Absence of that would be a deal-killer for me.

Well, good news and bad news. Since 2005, all cell phones have had to support a location based functionality for calls to 911:

Already in the works is E911. E(nhanced) 911 is a program mandated by the U. S. FCC (Federal Communications Commission). It requires the location of any cell phone used to call 911 can be determined to within 50 to 100 meters. The law takes effect at the start of 2005. That means cell phone manufacturers need to incorporate a GPS receiver in virtually every cell phone. A side benefit of this law is now we have the combination of a cell phone and GPS which is good for two additional uses: 1) driving directions in your automobile and; 2) the ability to use a cell phone as a handheld GPS for out-of-car purposes. source

So, unless Apple has found a way to skirt this law, the iPhone will support some GPS-style functionality. Since the usual cell phone location technology isn’t quite the same as GPS, it may not be GPS itself, but at the hardware layer, it will need to support a minimal location capability.

The bad news is that despite iPhone being OS X, it will apparently be a closed system, with no third-party applications! [See Apple VPs confirm no 3rd party iPhone apps] Of course, people don’t expect to be able to run third-party apps on their iPod. And only recently have we begun to see third party applications on our cell phone. But we do expect it on our full fledged operating system.

Even Doc expects it. His more detailed post at Linux Journal gushes about the possibilities of the iPhone:

It’s also a platform for software.

But then at CES I talked with Garmin folks about the universal connected utility of bluetooth GPS receivers. The iPhone does bluetooth. Nothing to stop anybody from making the iPhone display and otherwise add value to information from a bluetooth GPS receiver.

And will Apple prevent customers from using Skype to talk over wi-fi or EDGE? Not if Apple wants to make good on Steve’s description of the iPhone as ” a breakthrough Internet communications device”.

Knock what’s closed about the iPhone all you want; it’s still a computer with a mike, a screen, a speaker and a pile of other input and output openings that invite developments of many kinds. That’s why I think iPhone is going make the cell phone market a lot bigger. It will encourage participation by developers and customers that have until now been forced to cope with far less than they’ve wanted from the cell phone industry. And that includes all the legacy cell phone players with which Apple now partners or competes.

Markets are mashups. By vendors. By manufacturers. By developers. By customers large and small. And, most importantly, but the “long tail” Apple correctly called “the rest of us” long before 1984. That is, by customers and users. We haven’t been part of this market before, except as a source of noise and cash. Now we can start participating. The doors are opening. Some were already open. Tuesday’s news just brings that fact to light.

Best of all, Apple has raised the ceiling for conversation as well as development in the broad new category of personal telephony. Long before the iPhone comes out (it’s still months away), we can start talking about countless other devices we are now more encouraged than ever to invent or improve. We can talk about applications and services that no big company would ever invent, but will open the market to all kinds of opportunities.

The opportunities are indeed amazing, but only if Apple opens up the development pathway. For now, iPhone is only a platform for software development by Apple, Inc. With the sexiest phone on the market, Apple is likely to continue to play the walled garden game to capture 100% of a smaller, sexier market. That’s been their modus operandi from the beginning and is still the reason OS X has less than 6% market share (and that despite a 30% growth spurt in 2006).

Unfortunately, the iPhone will open a new convergence of computers and cell phones, built with Apple style, Apple panache, and locked into the Apple Walled Garden. Users craving a broader, open base of third party applications will be forced to wait for Microsoft to open up the market with a less appealling, less sexy, but more open ZunePhone sometime in the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Apple iPhone, 911, GPS, and Apple’s walled garden

Long tail of the atom business

So, while many of our compatriots are out blogging CES, I came across this video from Cornell’s Fab@Home project, on Slashdot:

holy_calamity writes “Two Carnegie Mellon researchers have designed an open source 3D printer that costs just $2,400. The self-assembly kit is part of what they call the Fab@Home project — they hope it will spark development of rapid prototyping for the consumer market in the same way the Altair 8800 did for personal computing in seventies.”

Very cool. One step closer to Neal Stephenon’s The Diamond Age, where disintermediation of the atom business is the crux of the world’s largest international military and cultural conflict. When you no longer have to go to the store or have a visit from the mailman to get your stuff, we will truly be exploring the longest tail of the atom business.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Long tail of the atom business

Blog it forward

Props to my good friend and longtime colleague Christian Gray for getting back on the blogging train after a few early starts. He opens this time with a bit of inspired invitation to go 10x, that is giving 10x value received into each contact we make, each relationship we have, everyone we know, unasked:

What if I was focused on providing 10x (x = to the value provided to me). This is a bit of a misnomer because I intend to provide this contribution without any reciprocation. I just know that it is the right way to operate. The more I think about it, the more I take this action and the more I share it with others causes a bit of a snowball effect. I’m already starting to see the results and the benefits are growing at an exponitial rate.

Have a great year and try a little 10x!

I couldn’t agree more. I’ve seen and felt that same sort of good Karma from lots of folks out there in the blogosphere, including Doc Searls, Noah Brier, Jim Bursch, VC Dan, and Steve Gillmor. Thanks to all of you for supporting my own blogging effort; here’s a bit of paying that forward in Christian’s direction.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Company XYZ Releases Google Killer

This post from Google Blogoscoped is just too funny to ignore.

Of course, SwitchBooks technology really is going to change everything. It is, after all, about “Complex Search,” which is so much more than just “Search.” 😉

Seriously, I think Google is a great target for the passionate entrepreneur. They’ve created a whole new industry and despite their mass assimilation of great talent, can’t possibly source all the great search innovations of the next decade. Game on, for all of us out trying to out-Google Google.

Posted in Search | Comments Off on Company XYZ Releases Google Killer

Most managers’ info searches are useless

Nancy Gohring at ComputerWorld reports:

Managers waste hours every day looking for information that often turns out to be useless, according to a report from consulting firm Accenture Ltd.In a survey of 1,000 middle managers at large companies in the U.S. and U.K., Accenture found that managers spend as much as two hours a day searching for information — and more than half of the data they find has no value to them.

That’s one hour, every day, wasted by middle managers because their searches are ineffective. What a mess.

Information is often more difficult to find because it’s scattered, respondents said. Fifty-seven percent of those polled said that having to go to numerous sources to collect information makes managing data difficult. On average, the managers said they go to three different sources to find certain types of information….

Managers often face additional challenges because they don’t save important data in a collaborative place. The majority of the managers surveyed said they store their most valuable information on their computers or in individual e-mail accounts, where others can’t access it, Accenture said. Only 16% of managers said they store valuable data in a collaborative workspace, like an intranet portal.

Just under half — 42% — of those surveyed said they accidentally use the wrong information at least once a week.

Of all the managers surveyed, IT workers are the least likely to say the information they find is valuable, and they spend the most time trying to find it. They dedicate nearly 30% of their time trying to find information.

Until companies streamline the way that workers store data, information will continue to be a burden to knowledge workers, Accenture said.

I agree. I’ll add that we also need to streamline the way knowledge workers discover and track information when searching.

The paradigm for search today is built around stimulus-response queries at search engines, but most users engage in search as part of a larger inquiry with an end goal that is more complex and subtle than the intermediate search queries.

Think about online search for competive analysis, market research, or due diligence. Or it could be more consumer-centric, like buying a home, planning a vacation or looking for a job. For each of these searches the user will visit multiple, different search providers, and they will–more or less successfully–keep track of results across many many different websites. Some people keep track in their heads. Others use bookmarks or just keep tabs open or even print web pages out and put them in manilla folders.

There are a few tools out there helping with this: Onfolio, Google Notebook, ScrapBook, and Kaboodle. Of these, none seem to recognize the fact that the user is actively searching.
If you know of any others in this space, please chime in. Or if you’ve tried any of those listed, let me know how you like them. I’d love to hear about what’s out there and what people think.

This is the problem we are working on at SwitchBook, but I’m sure there are more players out there than I’ve discovered so far.

Posted in Search | Comments Off on Most managers’ info searches are useless