Newer tech phenoms, such as Amazon and Google, operate along similar lines. They are product driven companies and their strategy flows from that. They see a problem they can fix, attack it with fervor and then figure out what the business opportunity is.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has always been a strategy driven company. Much like a chess grandmaster, it tries to see two or three moves ahead and then builds out the product portfolio to attack the market. While it doesn’t always excel in product leadership, it has remained a top player for more than a generation. Can it continue?
In a recent interview, tech guru Marc Andreessen noted that, although Beijing has great potential to be the next Silicon Valley, it probably never will be. Despite the great engineering talent and enormous market, its lack of openness is a serious liability.
While many might argue with Andreessen’s conclusions (it’s always hard to tell when he is offering genuine insight and when he is merely trying to be provocative), the questions he raises are important ones.
Why is it so hard to create another Silicon Valley? How should a society encourage innovation? Why are some places with great technical talent (like the former Soviet Union) seemingly unable to produce innovative firms? While there is no strict formula,there are some conditions that must be met for innovation to thrive.
Steve Jobs was the ultimate entrepreneur. As Walter Isaacson pointed out in his acclaimed biography, Jobs revolutionized seven industries and created the most valuable company in the world. We revere people like him, because they help create the future.
Yet, they do not do it alone. One fact that often gets lost is that the basic technologies that Apple products are built on (and those of all tech firms), from the chips, to the Internet, to GPS to the software protocols, were all supported or wholly developed by government programs.
As Bruce Upbin noted in a recent article in Forbes, while we like to think of daring venture capitalists and entrepreneurs taking all the risk, they are more akin to the “last mile,” building on top of technological infrastructure built by the government. In truth, public sector programs are often crucial to innovation in the private economy. Here are four:
Technology tends to run in cycles. Microsoft ruled the 90’s by building essential software for enterprises. Then Apple created a new device driven marketplace in which the consumer was king. What will drive the next decade?
While these things are always hard to predict with any specificity, much of the writing is already on the wall. Humanlike, no-touch interfaces will combine with a pervasive array of sensors and intelligent back-end systems to form a new Web of Things. Computing will become truly ubiquitous.
This new era of computing will be different than anything we’ve seen before. Technology will cease to be something we turn on and off, but will become an inextricable part of not only our environment, but ourselves. It is a future that is both utopian and dystopian (depending on your perspective), in that the human experience will change dramatically.
In 1995, nobody had even heard of Amazon, Google or Facebook, but they now dominate the business of technology. When you think about it, it’s pretty astounding how many startups have grown into massive global powerhouses since the Web went mainstream.
But if you thought that is where all of the action has been, you’d be wrong. There were also an untold number of organizations who completely transformed their enterprises to succeed in the digital world. E-commerce alone has become a trillion dollar business.
A lot of them were powered by IBM’s e-business initiative, led by Irving Wladawsky-Berger who explains that much of the IBM’s success came from recognizing that the Internet wasn’t just for startups, but that great value could be unlocked by transforming existing firms. Now IBM plans to do it again with its MobileFirst initiative. Here are 5 key points.
Big data is like Moneyball for geeks. The term itself is so innately exciting that it made the leap from neologism to buzzword in a heartbeat. Mostly, that’s a good thing, because it has undoubtedly increased enthusiasm and investment in a crucial area.
Unfortunately, all the hype also has a downside, because we are now in the midst of a big data bubble where everything and anything seems to be touted as having some kind of big data tie-in, which makes it hard to know what we’re talking really about.
In their book, Big Data, authors Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Ken Cukier define it as “things that one can do at a large scale that can’t be done at a small one” and that, I think, gets to the heart of the matter. Big data is not just a difference in scale, it’s a difference in kind and it demands that we make serious changes to how we think, manage and operate.
Ever since GE built the first industrial lab in 1900, research and development has been a highly secretive affair. Security protocols have been regarded almost as important as scientific ones. Industrial espionage has been pursued as zealously as the political kind.
Apple, arguably the world’s most innovative company, has become renowned for keeping its cards close to the vest and even “don’t be evil” Google has launched its own super-secret research center.
However, amidst the cloak and dagger a new open innovation trend has begun to take hold. The turning point was Henry Chesbrough’s 2003 book, Open Innovation, which coined the term and laid down basic principles. Since then the idea has gained steam and it’s becoming clear that open innovation initiatives are key to staying competitive.
In 1992, Francis Fukuyama published his book, The End of History in which he argued that, with the cold war over and liberal democracy triumphant, the major historical narrative dialectic of history was over.
He was, of course, somewhat mistaken. The world today looks much more like Samuel Huntington’s vision of The Clash of Civilizations than anything else. There doesn’t seem to be any less division and strife now than before.
However, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that something has fundamentally changed, albeit the shift is technological rather than cultural (a fact which Fukuyama himself alluded to in a later book). History, as we know it, is over not because we’ve figured it all out, but on the contrary because we’ve unleashed forces that render the future inscrutable.
History is, to a great extent, a tale of great powers: Athens vs. Sparta, Rome vs. Carthage, the Axis vs. the Allies and NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact. Great nations drive great events.
That is, until fairly recently. While North America and Europe struggle to return to prosperity, BBVA research predicts that 68% of global economic growth over the next decade will come from emerging markets.
So the greatest opportunities are likely to come from some of the most unlikely places. However, few executives are ready to deal with the challenges of the developing world. Cultural, governance and management challenges meet you at every turn and general business experience is often a poor guide. Here’s what you need to know.
Before the industrial revolution, people were valued for knowing a trade. However, when machines took over physical labor, those skills became devalued and most people either performed simple, repetitive tasks or managed those who did.
By the late 20th century, a knowledge economy began to take hold. Now, workers’ value lay not so much in their labor , but in specialized knowledge, much of which was inscrutable to their superiors. In order to thrive, enterprises had to become learning organizations.
Now, we are entering a new industrial revolution and machines are starting to take over cognitive tasks as well. Therefore, much like in the first industrial revolution, the role of humans is again being rapidly redefined. Organizations will have to change the way that they learn and managers’ primary task will be to design the curricula.
Or install manually
Copy and paste the following Google tag code onto every page of your website, immediately after the element. Don’t add more than one Google tag to each page.
, noted that the Apple founder revolutionized no less than 7 industries and went into particular detail about how Jobs was driven by products that were “sucky.” He would then transform the category by creating technology that was beautifully functional.
, Jobs revolutionized seven industries and created the most valuable company in the world. We revere people like him, because they help create the future.
, authors 
, which coined the term and laid down basic principles. Since then the idea has gained steam and it’s becoming clear that open innovation initiatives are key to staying competitive.
in which he argued that, with the cold war over and liberal democracy triumphant, the major historical narrative dialectic of history was over.
than anything else. There doesn’t seem to be any less division and strife now than before.
). History, as we know it, is over not because we’ve figured it all out, but on the contrary because we’ve unleashed forces that render the future inscrutable.
