Google Apps in the Enterprise

I found it interesting how Google wants to move its apps from the edge of its business model to the center. Before reading this article, I wouldn't have even though Google apps were on the edge of the business model, more like out in the parking lot and off the radar. I was not surprised to learn that for their enterprise apps, they currently hand the production consumer apps to the business division for use as the Enterprise apps. Problem is, this requires extensive rework. If they continue this model, their SaaS apps will have a hard time taking market share away from established competitors.

Microsoft will not lose the large volume licensing institutions that license thousands of copies of their enterprise software, including large public companies, government, and educational entities. Of course I don't believe Google is truly targeting them because all the shortcomings discussed in the article are too much for large enterprises to overcome, whether the shortcoming is real or just perceived by IT management. They will be more likely to lose low volume, basic computer users who just need word and/or excel and/or outlook. These are the home users and small businesses who are stuck purchasing a $350-$400 software package for each new employee who needs to use Word and/or Excel only.

One feature talked about that I don't believe is a desired feature is that GAPE offers concurrent collaboration on documents and Office doesn't. Working in small, large, educational, and government institutions I've never once had a need for that.

One thing not discussed at all in the article is the potential disruption to current workstation life cycles within companies. By moving the data processing off the desktop, the life cycle of a workstation could be greatly increased, decreasing IT costs for companies. Google could also be disrupting the PC market inadvertently.

Because I am an IT consultant and have access to users at various types of organizations, mostly smaller to medium sized businesses, I decided to call around today and investigate the type of interest these products might have over their current (MS Office) solutions. I was surprised by the fact that only one of the my clients was even aware that Google offered any apps. So right there, Google has an awareness problem in one potential market segment. After describing the product to my clients, there was definately some interest, not surprisingly by the people who pay the bills. They are consistently frustrated with purchasing even the Office Small Business because thay pay for products they don't use, or use extremely rarely. In addition, their company may only utilize 5%-10% of the features of the Office programs, so the idea of paying $50/user for the stripped down applications was intriguing to them. I was instructed by several of my clients to keep them abreast of updates for future consideration. One big selling point was the ability to leave documents on the server to be retrieved anywhere as long as there is an internet connection. For small business with several offices, this could save them thousands on site-to-site VPN and expensive network solutions.

Wharton Chapter 3 - Speciation of Technology

I found this chapter very interesting, especially with the comparisons to biology and genetics which I was extremely interested in high school and early college. Certain technologies evolve very similarly to groups of species that are separated by some type of divider, allowing each group to evolve independantly.

I was also intrigued with their concept of marketing products. They suggested finding markets for existing products, rather than creating products for a specific market. The latter concept which is held by many marketing types, is the classic textbook method of product development. It starts with the marketing department recognizing a need for a specific product, who then goes to Engineering to create the product and then pushes the completed product through the pre-determined channels. Often times, horizontal markets are completely missed, and if discovered, often times only by mistake. For technology companies, if they don't think of horizontal markets for their products, someone else likely will.

I think blogs are a good example of what the authors are talking about. I doubt whoever came up with the idea for blogging ever thought it would be a method for students to submit assignments to professors.

Wharton chapter 2

Of the 4 pitfalls mentioned in the Wharton book in chapter 2, I'd say the most common pitfall is delayed participation. However, I would argue that it is not always a pitfall, and in many cases the firm to delay participation, for whatever reason ends up being very successful. I think this pitfall needs some additional info to be completely true. The size of the company plays a big part in whether delaying entry is beneficial or disastrous. I would argue that a smaller company would suffer much more than larger company due to delays. Smaller companies are for the most part more agile, but have less resources. They need to take advantage of being small and nimble and jump into emerging technologies early if they plan to at all. They are usually able to make the first moves and get into the market during the early adopter phase which experiences tremendous growth.

A larger firm should be willing to sacrifice early entry and high profit margins to make sure the market is viable before it jumps in. In many cases, the resources available to the larger company allow it to become a market leader after a period of time. Google is a great example of this. Yahoo was the company to beat for years, and Google comes along and gets big enough that it can knock Yahoo off the top spot. In the technology sector more than anywhere, the company that was first to market doesn't tend to lead the market for a long period of time, as long as there are not tremendous barriers to entry as is the case for Microsoft and Cisco for example.

Hype Cycle for Emerging Tech

At first glance and read through, this article looks pretty spot on for almost all the technologies it talks about. One, however I have to disagree with. The timeline for Virtual Environments and Virtual Worlds seems off to me. 5-10 years just seems to long considering where that technology currenty is and how popular and accessible it is. The article talks about what limitations there are for a faster emergence, but I think they are missing some key points. The authors claim that barriers to this technology are the current network grid and also the expense of hardware necessary for the technology to be attractive to a wider audience.

I believe the emergence of more widespread wireless networks such as Clearwire and Meraki this hurdle may be cleared quicker than is expected. Cheaper internet solutions and options will be available to more people and will be deployed quicker than before.

The hardware hurdle is also something that I feel will be irrelevent soon. With the release of the Nintendo Wii, XBox360, and PS3, all platforms that utilize network connection for multiplayer games, this is an untapped market for virtual worlds like second life and other similar options. It is safe to assume that between a home PC and the 3 gaming platforms named above, most households in America and other developed nations have at least one of them, if not more. The improvements of cellular wireless technology also may pave the way for handheld PCs with the capability of participating in these worlds as well.

I would say 2-4 years is a more realistic outlook on the emergence of these technologies.

Thinking about tomorrow

The near future will bring us many small technological advances that will build upon current technologies and infiltrate more and more of our day to day life. They will change dramatically how and when we receive information, how we are presented with tv, movie, and music entertainment, and present challenges to keep personal information private. We will also likely see more products containint integrated technologies in one device, such as phone, digital entertainment, GPS, and tracking and shopping habits allowing for direct marketing.

Out of all the technologies mentioned in the WSJ article, I think the category that is wide open is how we shop. I think the more we use and rely on technology, the more effort companies will put forth trying to market over those mediums. Using data mining and customer behavior, targeted marketing will be greater than was even predicted in this article. We will be inundated with ads on our handhelds, video games, and other portable electronics that will work directly with implemented systems with larger retail and online outlets. There will be a push away from mass media advertising in favor of more directed advertising that should increase the net marketing contribution. Developing these systems and integrating them with the massive amounts of data out there will be the primary hurdle, but will be overcome due to benefits of a properly implemented system.

Managing emerging technologies

I wish the guy I bought the book from on Half.com would have shipped it on time. No Wharton book for me.