Digi-Tally: Through My Digital Viewfinder, Jan 21, 2015

This is still the week of the CES after-glow, and there’s a lot of reflection in the media about what we saw at CES. In a nutshell, and as summarised in the TWIT podcast, no tablets and more cars. Autonomous vehicles has been one of the areas that has moved forward quicker than most of us had anticipated and may have great positive externalities by way of enabling a sharing economy for transport. In much the same way as the word “television” has been redefined in the past decade, we may be entering a similarly transformative phase for ‘automobiles’. It may well be a reaffirmation of the name – a self driving car is after all truly auto-mobile. But increasingly we may start to see the car as a network, a node on a larger network, or a collection of smart (and inter-changeable) components. On the other hand the broader IOT examples keep mushrooming, and we’ll no doubt be exposed to weird and wonderful examples of the power of Internet of Things – from smart security to home automation, and from wearable health and wellness monitors to self managed environments.

It’s also been the week for spotlighting the great transition of technology eras – as we move from the PC & desktop era into the untethered, wireless, mobile and ubiquitous computing era, the struggles of Intel and IBM amongst the behemoths of the 90s and 00’s are sharply in focus. Intel shipped over 100m chips, but are still dramatically dependent on the shrinking PC market. They’ve made an entry into the wearables, tablets and sensors space (interestingly, by acquiring a Chinese firm), but the numbers are still small and analysts aren’t convinced yet. IBM have just announced a 11th straight quarter of declining revenues. The slowdown is precipitated by the hardware business, with the digital arms, including mobile, security and cloud showing strong growth but very low numbers. Overall, a 16% growth in “digital” is probably not good enough, and the combined weight of 27% is impressive, but you sense that the bits that are big aren’t growing fast enough and that the parts that are growing well, aren’t big enough, to actually create an overall positive outlook for IBM just yet. At Cognizant, we often speak about the shifts of the “S-curves” we are currently in between the Web era S-curve (dominated by fixed wireless and PCs) to a digital S-curve – dominated by ubiqutous, nano-computing and wireless connectivity. Intel and IBM’s challenges are symptomatic of the difficulty of transitioning success from one wave to the next. But to state the blindingly obvious, they will not be alone. How will your business make this jump?

I continue to believe that 2015 will be a year of digital infrastructure. Broadly speaking this should include cloud, middleware and security, for most large enterprises. Of these, security has been much in the spotlight of late, with Sony obviously being the most high-profile victim. But arguably, despite the political intrigue and the alleged involvement of North Korea, the hacking of the US Central Command should be more akward, geopolitically speaking. This list of famous hacks from The Telegraph has some fascinating nuggets. From the unintentional Morris worm (Morris is now a professor at MIT), to the Target and Sony Hacks of the last 12 months. Two trends stand out. The first is the increasingly political colour of the hacks – indicating that this is now a serious form of warfare or international espionage. The second is the simplicity of many of these hacks. DDOS, phishing, these aren’t particularly sophisticated attacks, but they indicate that as humans we often represent the threats and weak links in the security environments of our organisations.

The HBR carried this great example of the success of Nordstrom’s digital strategy. I think all success stories tend to get over-simplified to an impractical level, in our hunt to find an easy formula. Usually there are dozens, if not hundreds of things that need to go right for a major project to work well, and it only takes a few to not work well, for it to be a limited result or an outright failure. This is why we have many more failures than successes of course. So while I agree about the arguments in this piece, I would hesitate to consider this as a necessary and sufficient condition for digital success. Nordstrom’s strategy comprises of a focus on customer experience, and the extensive use of digital (SMACIT) tools across the length and breadth of the business, to effectively create a new business model. As always, both God and the devil lie in the details.

And what should we make about Google’s change of tack on Google glass? It was initially interpreted as Google pulling the plug on a venture with mixed success, which it has a history of doing. But it seems apparent now that Google are taking a leaf out of Apple’s book and going design-first. By handing this product to Tony Faddel, of Nest and iPod fame, Google seem to be acknowledging that the technology (which works) needs to be nested inside a highly usable, and ideally beautiful product. This is hardly a revelation but if this is indeed the thinking, then it’s wonderful to see Google, the spiritual home of engineers, acknowledge the role of design and user experience.

Also, at CES, there was much buzz about more wearables – watches from Sony and HTC, and other devices. Smart watches look like being the wearable de l’annee, but the hunt for the killer app is still on. Any guesses? What would you use a smart watch for? What problem could you solve? Or what wonderful new benefit could you imagine? Like many others now, I don’t wear a watch to being with, so it would have to be a compelling benefit to make me wear a watch again (one more device to manage!).

It would be remiss of to not mention this video from Ola Cabs in India which a colleague kindly sent me. It’s refreshing to see such a stark focus on user experience from an engineering point of view, rather than design alone. Anybody looking to build a product should see this.

And finally, on a lighter note, this set of maps, yet another example of the emotive power of data in our lives, my favourite is the first map, on second languages spoken in the boroughs of London. Amongst other things, it shows you the patterns of immigration and the abundance of Indian and Polish people in London. May be there needs to be a new alliance for the IPOs (people of Indian and Polish Origins) a microcosm of a geo-political shift, a trading block and a platform for cultural enrichment hitherto overlooked. I mean, all this technology, data and understanding should bring us closer, right?

Internet of Things – Hype & Hope

(I had the privilege of speaking about IOT at the Oxford Technology and Media forum yesterday. What follows is the gist of my session and some thoughts from the panel discussion)

The tech industry is often guilty of pushing technology solutions to consumer without focusing on the benefits, the emotions and simplicity. Invariably, businesses that get it, do better at selling tech to consumers. Apple are clearly the masters at it, but UK customers will know that after many years of ‘interactive television’ discussions, what customers bought were ‘sky plus’ and ‘red button services’. (The technology didn’t actually deliver on the promise, but that’s a different story).

So we come to the Internet of Things and I believe, we’ve swung to a different end of the pendulum. We’ve created a pithy, catchy phrase, something that everybody can relate to and not be daunted by the jargon. I would personally have preferred the internet of stuff (stuff is cooler than things). But the internet of things means (pardon the expression) bugger-all when it comes to actually buying, implementing or solving something.

Maybe I’m being harsh. It’s a catch-all word conveying a general wave of technologies much like “digital convergence” in the broadcast and comms space. But it’s a very loaded phrase and masks many layers of complexity that haven’t yet been resolved to the point where they can be implemented. Or even understood by the consumer.

The IOT includes communication between machines, between people and machines, and also between people and people via machines. It includes wearables, and all manners of sensors, and an ever increasing ocean of data, an implicit assumption of an economically viable, reliable and available network. And so far, very few standards.

After all, we’re all spoilt by the Internet – in the world of standards driven browsers, we only had to worry about the browser environment. The most complex questions in the early days of the web included ‘web safe’ colours. And later, pushing the limits of HTML. You never had to think about the OS, the device (are you viewing the website on a Dell or IBM laptop?) You didn’t have to think about whether the user was sitting or standing or walking around. And all you had to know was a URL, and the internet would find the website from over 50 million computers in a fraction of a second. Even transactions and ecommerce are now taken for granted. 

In the IOT world, all these are non-standard and have to be thought from scratch. What’s the user interface of a ‘thing’? If it’s a sensor on a coffee machine vs a door, how should we access the data, how can interact with the thing? The design challenge moves from an ‘interface’ design to an experience and even environment design. Who designs the experience of walking into a retail store which is armed with iBeacons or other sensors? Design challenge will range from fitting an antenna while managing heat dissipation, to figuring out how to retail product aesthetics while adding a bunch of tech.

Service design has been a term in vogue for a few months now, but is fundamental to the creation of IOT models. We must take a design centric view and build from there. That’s the only way we’ll get around to focusing on the right problems to solve, to ensure adoption.

As with all emerging technologies, we’re in the world of ‘compound change’ – where each layer builds on previous layers, and so it creates an exponential change curve, which is near impossible for us to predict, since we’re still very used to thinking in linear terms. What is intuitive to me, is that we’ll get entirely new companies dominating the IOT space, in the way that FB, LinkedIn and Twitter dominate the social sphere, and Google and Amazon dominate the web, Apple and Samsung dominate mobile devices and Microsoft and Intel dominated the Desktop world.

Because, this will take a whole new business model. It will shift value, destroy old models and create entirely new services. Most often, we think of new tech as better ways of doing what we do today. So the ‘better’ model leads us to thinking about how our fridge will tell us when it’s out of milk. Rather than ‘different’ models – perhaps our fridge telling us which of the foods we’re storing has the earliest use-by date, so we can modify our consumption appropriately. Or other more imaginative and useful behaviours.

Undoubtedly the way in which business models will evolve will involve adding layers of services to existing and new products. The value of the service will outstrip the value of the product. You may pay more for the service of tracking your weight and the feedback on your lifestyle and diet, than you do for the weighing scale itself. In fact asset ownership models may change, with companies willing to give you the asset for free in order to lock you into the service, or simply, follow an asset leasing model, which brings down your outlay but enables longer term revenue stream for the seller. Soon we should be able to view this information and services layer explicitly and this explicit-isation of the service and information layer may be one of the biggest sources of consumer value in the IOT. This would enable us to understand better the total cost of any product (say a sweater, or a vaccuum cleaner) and make different choices on that basis. It would also align value realisation with costs – imagine a washing machine which you lease and pay per use.

Although it’s tempting to consider just the things we acquire and own, there are all those things we use, which form the asset base for service delivery, from smart meters, to hotel rooms and railway stations to rented cars. These can all also follow the same principles of creating explicit service and information layers, so that maintenance, usage, and cost and value can all be tracked more easily. Then you have natural resource and public environments – weather, floods, pollution tracking, and more.

As has been noted, it is almost impossible to talk about IOT and emerging technology of any kind without talking about data, privacy and security. I used to think, like everybody else, about a data brokerage, or info-mediary. Now I think data-brokerage should be a feature built into every product. A data brokerage module will ensure that consumers data is stored, transacted and valued in a way that is fair to both sides, and in a transparent manner. Really, you can’t ask for more than that.

Undoubtedly the IOT is a big deal. We’re talking about billions of connected devices changing the way we live our everyday lives. The transformativer potential of this can barely be imagined. I just hope we use this to solve some of the bigger problems we face – the energy crisis, caring for an ageing population, getting supplies more efficiently to the needy, across the world. And not spending too much time debating whether our kettle should gossip with our washing machine.

The Internet Of My Things – A (Mostly) Consumer Perspective

So there’s been all this talk about the Internet of Things. What the heck is it? You may well be cautious. Especially since it’s currently perched at the peak of the Gartner Hype curve for 2014.
So I started thinking about this by listing all the ‘things’ I interact with. From my house & home to the trains I take and from the clothes I wear to the hotel room I might live in on my travel. Obviously you can get many levels in the hierarchy. The home is a complex construct, and comprises many sub-things. Example – rooms, walls, plumbing. Some of these, such as ‘heating’ may have further sub-components – radiators, boilers, etc.
The resultant picture looks something like this, at a very high level. Of course, this is hugely inadequate for detail, but you get the conceptual model.
IOT mythings
Then I started thinking about an appropriately benign and traditionally less intelligent ‘thing’ – like a window. Everybody has windows at home and they affect our everyday lives.  They have states (open/ shut), based on the environment and conditions. For example we associate safety, air-conditioning and sunlight with windows being open or closed, and based on the weather, time of day, etc.
So I drew this table of the different emotions and feelings we derive, the specific benefits they deliver, the activity or state associated with this and the conditions under which these states need to be enabled.

IOT state and benefits

At this point, I came to an important realisation. Products can be smart and controllable, they can even react to the environment, all without the help of the internet. For example, we have some Velux(TM) windows on the skylights. These windows come with a remote control, they can be opened and closed and they can also react to weather conditions and close if left open when it starts to rain. So they are actually smart, in some way, and possess the capability to communicate. They’re just not on the internet. The challenge of this model is that my ability to control these outcomes is limited to the pre-set automations and my being in close proximity – i.e. at home. (Disclaimer: I’m obviously referring to the specific models we have installed. Velux does not have any IOT proclamations on it’s website, but this is not to say that they don’t have or are planning to launch models that come with their own smart phone apps, which allow control of windows from anywhere.)
This excellent article by Michael Porter & James Heppelman posits that all products in future should have mechanical/ electrical components, but also software components and communication components. These 3 collectively make products smarter and ultimately evolve to product systems (e.g. home security) and then to a ‘system of systems’ model (e.g. connected homes) – which spans an entire problem domain, according to the authors. The kind of activities that we can perform on smart products evolves from monitoring, to control, optimisation and then to autonomy. Ultimately this leads, according to the authors about improved competitive performance via operational efficiencies and strategic positioning choices. Often, forcing the question ‘what business are we in?’
So for example the Velux windows we have installed, have a rain sensor, which allows them to automatically close if it starts to rain, they don’t have a sun-sensor, which allows them to re-open when the sun comes out again. Of course, I may not want them to open just because the sun is out. So it needs my intervention. I can only do this from home, currently, which is a constraint. Putting the Velux windows to one side, for all my windows, I would also like to be reminded if ground floor windows are left open at night or when I’m away. If I had pollen allergies, I would probably like to be alerted if the pollen count is too high, or have the windows close. I would like to be able to open all multiple windows or close them, even if I’m not at home, based on weather conditions. So you see, we have a need for state information (monitoring) as well as control. I might even have settings for ‘sunny day’ which applies a set of commands to all windows. This is the optimisation that the article above refers to. These control should extend to blinds (effectively these are a part of my window settings). This is where we consider windows as a product system, whereas currently, we tend to have completely different suppliers for these 2 products (windows and curtains/blinds). Any maker of smart windows must therefore consider blinds and curtains as a part of their product system.
Now, considering any smart and connected product, we could argue that they have sensors, which generate data, which are used by apps, which enable access and control of the product, and provide additional functions that ultimately deliver a benefit. The sensors are obviously on-board the device/ product. But the data generated could be anywhere, typically on a cloud, so that the apps and the access can take place through any connected control point (such as a mobile phone).
IOT data access function layers
This is where the internet of things really kicks in. In my previous example of the Velux window models which we have installed, the data, access, applications and controls all sit within a closed system involving the window and the remote control. You could argue therefore that a true IOT model requires a cloud based data and access model and an ability to use the data and control/ monitor the product from any device and application that is authorised.
Of course, everybody looking at the Internet of things should bear in mind Bruce Sterling’s SPIME model (derived from space + time). According to Sterling, the SPIME object has 6 facets: identification, location, data mining, computer aided design & construction, prototyping and lifecycle management. Using these, we can track the history of any object from concept to grave.
Stepping back a bit, the Internet of Things seems like a catch-all neologism to encapsulate a number of related concepts. It involves smart and connected products, multiple types of open and closed networks, robotics, cloud based access, decision analytics, and functions ranging from monitoring, control and optimisation. It can involve single products or groups of products. Many smart products today are autonomously capable of performing advanced functions which have nothing to do with the internet of anything. The Roomba vacuum cleaner is a great example of an exceptional product that doesn’t really need to connect to the Internet.
Most individual products also tend to ignore or be indifferent to the network effect, which kicks in when we consider multiple elements in the same network. For example, my windows may be rain-sensitive, but I might have other devices, products and appliances at home which may be influenced by the occurrence of rain. Does each product need to have it’s own rain sensor? In my IOT wish list, my smart windows can communicate to other appliances at home. So for example, the washing machine can run an extra spin cycle when it rains, so clothes dry in the same time, and conversely when it’s sunny, it can reduce the spin cycle to conserve energy. For this to happen, I need a network standard for my connected home network that multiple devices can connect to (i.e. my window can ‘talk’ to my washing machine). A problem that the DLNA among many others, has been seeking to solve for years.
The true value of the IOT thus seems to become clearer when we step into the details and away from buzzwords. Much like anything else really!  And the winners as always will be those businesses which are able to truly focus on design thinking, benefits and elegance of use, and marry great experiences with excellent engineering. And those companies who will be bold enough to rethink their business models and honestly answer the question ‘what business are we in?’ – allowing them to move from selling a product to delivering a composite service which may include a physical product. It might even mean changing the commercial model where the product is only ‘leased’ to the consumer who actually buys the service rather than acquire an asset.
Meanwhile I will dream about smart, connected windows which can deliver safety, sunshine, comfort to my home. As far as consumers are concerned, the I in IOT should really stand for ‘invisible technology’.

Can IOT Revive The Connected Homes Opportunity?

In 2011, I authored the Intellect (now TechUK) report on Connected Homes, for the UK. Among the key findings were (1) that while this is a massive opportunity, the inherent cross-industry environment creates a number of challenges, from standards, to service optimisation, to ownership; (2) that the infrastructure in most homes will need to be upgraded – with challenges to networks, physical infrastructure, and home equipment; and finally (3) a more pervasive level of connectivity may be required for essential services such as healthcare and education, so as not to exacerbate the digital divide. 

What did surprise me during the course of that research was the complete absence of any kind of linkage between property prices / value and home technology or connected services. Whether it was real estate brokers, property portals, or architects and developers, there were no real incentive to put in better infrastructure or technology, as there was no perceived value (i.e. reflected in a correspondingly higher price). 

As the population ages, and with a bigger challenge of care for the elderly, I fully expect this link to get established in future, and was happy to see at least one article commenting on the lack of connectivity in high value properties. Arguably, this is just anecdotal, and a one-off, but it’s a start! 

More excitingly, we are seeing a re-emergence of connected services with the rapid evolution of the sensor economy and the Internet of Things. 

At the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, in February, it was noteworthy that Telcos, especially the Asian ones, were deeply committed to the sensor economy. Having lost out on OTT services in the last spurt of innovation, Telcos seem to have recognised that expecting to get paid because of their structural role in the ecosystem is a bad strategy (notwithstanding the recent Netflix deal). This time around, elcos are participating more wholeheartedly in the service delivery. From smart t-shirts to track your heartbeat to birthing systems for farm animals, and from home-automation to education, a slew of services are now being provided from telcos which put the user at the core and keep the technology under the hood. NTT Docomo reported that they are now making over $10bn per year from non-traditional (Voice/ Text) services.

Cow BirthingIt’s not just telecoms, but a number of other businesses are now eyeing the home for connected services. Insurance companies, utility firms and technology majors such as Google (Nest, TV), Apple (TV) and others have their eye on your home. The Internet of Things has the potential to democratise a lot of these services, so that small, 3rd party companies can build simple and innovative solutions with access to devices and data. 

Personal and home technology will be the next battleground, therefore, and may be the connected home will finally become a reality. 



10 Talking Points From the Mobile World Congress

1. Wearables are evolving fast. 

Almost as visible as the new smartphones, was the Samsung Gear 2 smart watches.  There has been much talk about wearables, but this is a big step forward for a number of reasons. The device features are themselves noteworthy, for example the curved AMOLED 1.84 inch screen. But also the focus on healthcare and wellbeing is clearly taking on the market so far dominated by Fitbit and JawBone. The changeable straps provide a nod to fashion, and under the hood, it has a Tizen Operating system, which itself comes from a family tree of operating system innovation from Nokia, Intel, Samsung and the Linux foundation.

The programmability of the device will no doubt provide a slew of clever applications, which will take away the oh so onerous effort of taking your phone out to answer calls, check emails, or even do video calls. The Gear Neo 2 has a 2 MP camera and even a remote for your TV. 

It doesn’t stop there. We also saw t-shirts that can monitor heartbeats while you run, and smart gloves from Fujitsu with which you can point to things and using AR glasses, get more information about them. The Sony smartbands are certainly eye-catchinly stylish. 

But for me, the next wave of innovations will be the one to watch – when the open systems in wearable devices allow swarms of innovative developers to create entirely new ways to use wearables, in ways not even thought of yet. 


2. Ecosystem Conference 

Ginny Rometty, the IBM CEO, accurately called this an ‘ecosystem conference, more than a mobile conference’. Increasingly, it’s hard to separate the components. Cloud, Mobile, hardware and software, middle layer and front end tools, wearables, watchables, eatables, sensors, all the boundaries are getting blurry. Moreover, the value delivery is via the ecosystem, rather than any individual layer. 

This means that solutions thinking needs to span the ecosystem and not focus on any one layer alone. This in turn requires a number of related competencies to be brought together in one place. 

Seems like an obvious point but you’d be surprised how uncommon this common-sense is. 


3. Telcos in the services game

Telcos have been the perennial bridesmaids in the IP enabled world. All the value created by World Wide Web, VOIP, messaging, OTT TV and other innovations have stood on the shoulders of telecom networks, yet Telcos have seen little of the value. A part of the reason could well be that Telcos have wanted to get rewarded for being structural enablers, rather than end-service providers. 

The penny seems to have dropped, though as evidenced by the number of Telecom providers, especially in the APAC market, who have end user services built around innovative and mature smart systems. These are, importantly, not sold as technology but as services. NTT has a “Cow Birthing Service” built around monitoring body temperatures of pregnant animals, and alerting the right time for delivery. 


4. Old Media left behind?

Tucked between the presentation from Cisco and Shazaam, was a presentation from Bob Bakish, from Viacom. It was a very good presentation underpinned by a well thought-through content strategy, yet it felt like we were being dragged back into the past after being shown a vision of the future. 

I couldn’t put my finger on it for a while, and then it dawned on me. This was a good old-media presentation but it missed the transformation to services, analytics and interactive thinking which now characterises most successful and evolving digital media businesses of today, such as Netflix. 


5. Dealing with intelligent worlds 

It is no longer a big shout to suggest that the world is becoming more smart, programmable and intelligent. But perhaps our ability to deal with smarter environments is not yet developed to the extent required. This could impact privacy, security and many other areas. 

It could also make a difference to how well we’re able to extract the maximum value of our smart surroundings. Mark Zuckerberg spoke about the need to connect the whole planet, and called out the fact that many people don’t see the value of the Internet, so they don’t know why they should invest. Similarly, how many of us are really equipped to deal with a smart city or a smart environment in the optimal way? 


6. Yet another phone? 

Samsung switched strategies to launch the S5 at the MWC. There was also the wearables, and a few other interesting phones – the Yotaphone and the BlackPhone for starters. But there seems to be a level of fatigue with more marginal improvements. We’re going to need some truly disruptive innovation to get excited about smartphones again. 

The S5 has biometrics, the latest connectivity tools, and more megapixels than you can count on your fingers (16 to be precise). The most interesting feature of the S5 may be it’s power saving feature – when the phone is down to the last 10% energy, it has the option of switching to black and white and shutting down a lot of power consuming services, to extend the battery life by a few hours. 


7. Shazaam’s next trick. 

It could well be Shazaam that changes the TV advertising landscape going forward. Having solved the “what’s that song?” problem, and having turned it’s attentions to identifying television program, Shazaam is now offering a way of engaging with ads. When the app recognises the advertising, it offers ways in which you can engage with the ad – through a number of ways, over the phone. 

By ensuring that it is connected to the advertising on TV, there is a clear element of triggering the engagement. A number of questions will still need to be addressed, but by making it easier for consumers to engage, which is the problem Shazaam solves, this could be the way forward for interactive advertising. 


8. Innovation & Value 

There is much talk about innovation in the mobile environment in general, and especially at events like the MWC. But it’s harder to identify where the real value lies, versus where there is just an interesting app. Messaging may not be new and exciting, but continues to attract gravity defying valuations. What is innovative about mobile messaging in 2014? Yet, some 200 million (400 m if you go by Whatsapps December announcements) are using the service every month. 

The trick may be in simplicity. Whatsapp does not try to do anything apart from helping you message and talk to your friends and it doesn’t get in the way of the communication. Much like the early Twitter. The question of course is what happens now and how do you monitise this? 

Jan Koum, the founder suggested that Whatsapp will go after voice, with the same simplicity and customer focus. Who knows, may be video is next? Skype beware! 

Meanwhile other clever apps like CamMe (use a hand gesture to take better selfies) and Brewster (combine all your contacts), and Blippar (augmented reality using Google Glass and phone) made headlines. Their commercial value remains to be seen. 


9. Marginal innovation in payments 

I did go to the MWC hoping to get a glimpse of the future of payments. But I came back having witnessed only marginal innovations and the industry essentially shuffling it’s feet, waiting for a big move from somebody. 

That somebody might be Apple, who have over half a billion iTunes users with credit card information, an app to enable purchases through this environment (Apple Store App), about $150 bn in cash reserves, and some pending hardware patents for payment related areas. But of course this is not an MWC story, as Apple were only there in spirit. 


10. Architectures not clear yet 

John Chambers spoke about the critical need to get the architecture right, in the new world of digital services. The challenges is that as new technologies give rise to newer innovations and as sensors, wearables, mobile and web technologies collide to create new ideas, it’s quite hard to figure out what this architecture should be. Clearly something scalable, modular, service oriented, and capable of serving and receiving information from this array of end points is a must. And to bind all of this to some enterprise grade system of record. Easier said than done, methinks.