HatTip to Carl W. Meltup? Hyperinflation? Out of the recession? Dow up 70% from last year, but why is unemployment at 16.9%? 39.4 million Americans on food stamps, up 22.4% from a year ago.
I wonder what "facts" here are disputed.
Showing posts with label u.s.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label u.s.. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"U.S. TECH TRENDS FOR 2008"
So my op-ed went up on VentureBeat today, so check it out here. Thanks to Jill, my editor, for helping me refine this piece.
Also Matt Marshall, founder of VentureBeat, trimmed a bit of fat off my original article, so I decided to publish the whole thing here:
U.S. Tech Trends for 2008
A couple of months ago, my wife and I visited Seoul, South Korea—a trip that inspired me to come up with a list of technology predictions for 2008 and beyond. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve ventured to make such prognostications—and I didn’t really plan to do so now—but the land that brought us bottle service (with clubs there serving overpriced alcohol for more than 25 years), MMORPGs (massive multiplayer online role playing game), and paid online casual gaming serves as a good place for both spotting trends and thinking about those that are emerging back home. Hence my crystal-ball observations of what’s lurking on the immediate and not-so-immediate technology horizon—both the trends on their way here and those the United States will export to the rest of the world
Mobile videoconferencing reaches the states. If you’re a teen, the only thing better than gabbing on your cell with a friend would be gabbing on your cell with a bunch of friends—and seeing each of them on screen as you do so. In Korea kids are doing just this—videoconferencing as they speak to friends via mobile handsets—and loving it. Since kids are kids everywhere, we can expect to see a similar response in the United States, though we probably won’t see it happen before the end of 2008. Unlike Korea—which has the only commercial WiMAX networks in the world—the United States doesn’t have the Mobile WiMAX capabilities required to stream video at 8 megabits per second or greater (16 Mbps or greater for downloads). In this country, you’re lucky if your cable modem service gets 6 Mbps—and a range of 2 Mbps to 4 Mbps is far more typical. When mobile videoconferencing does become a reality here, how will it impact handset manufacturers? Can we expect to see larger mobile phones and bigger screens as a result? Only time will tell.
Virtual currencies warm up. Content is not the only driver for sustainable online communities; virtual economics play an important role as well, with virtual currency serving as an increasingly critical tool. Virtual goods already provide a viable business model in online worlds—with companies providing outlets in which players can convert in-game assets into real-world wealth (and vice-versa). Now, virtual goods are starting to find their way into every other area of the Net as well—only now it’s not just about generating revenue but about paying people (in virtual currency) for their eyeballs. Already used to grab users’ attention for online product launches and games, virtual currency (and virtual economies) could before long become a common feature in all online networks and worlds. As companies and services fight for users’ attention, we can expect to see more and more of them rewarding users with virtual coins or points that users can trade for cash or noncash goods and services. Worst-case scenario, we all turn into brain-dead mouse clickers obsessed with accumulating Yelp and Starwood points. Best-case scenario, we’re rewarded for our time and effort with healthy incentives.
Semantic Web begins to slowly gel. Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of the Web of the future—in which data itself becomes part of the Web and can be processed independently of application, platform, or domain—is finally becoming a reality … albeit slowly. Thus, in 2008, we can expect the various filtering, aggregating, and grouping efforts to continue as the Web 2.0 services that initially captured our attention (such as Radar Networks and Adaptive Blue) expand and evolve. Now, the questions become, how will data be organized—by advanced algorithms? Human-powered (no, not Mahalo)? And what format or tools will be used—tagging? Grouping? And finally, what do users want—friends’ feeds? Multimedia files? The latest books, photos, and gossip on Britney Spears? I believe we’ll see a couple of tangible and useful services take off next year (some of the stealth startups I’ll be writing about soon).
Location-based mobile services gain ground. According to Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker, 20 percent of mobile phones currently include the satellite-based navigation system Global Positioning System (GPS)—a number that’s expected to grow to 50 percent within five years. This means that at last a critical mass of end users has emerged for the location-based mobile services that take advantage of GPS. Thus, we can expect to see a surge of activity in this area. I can visualize it already—my weight soaring as In-N-Out pushes me a coupon every time I get within proximity of an outlet, my credit card bills soaring as Nordstrom’s and Macy’s send my wife sales notices and coupons. It will be horrible; I’ll be dragged to these places more often. Forget it, I hate location-based services already!
Interactive TV makes a comeback. This won’t be like watching Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson attempting a comeback—a one-time champ too old and worn out to rise to prominence again. Instead, it will be more like watching a boxer who debuted too early return and live up to his initial promise. This time around the infrastructure is actually cost-effective; the integration of the Internet and TV has created infinite collaborative possibilities; and new entrants (such as consumer electronics makers) are eyeing the market. Interactive TV won’t be a media champ; however, it will serve as an important secondary source for information, commerce, and social networking. Efforts such as Apple TV (which combines Internet content and television) represent the first step in Internet content being ported to millions of U.S. couch potatoes. With consumer electronics manufacturers eager to capture more of their customers’ mindshare, this represents a potential battleground for cable and satellite operators.
My trip to Korea made me appreciate our flat world—and the excitement it affords by allowing us to observe trends occurring across the globe and to witness the way technology bridges gaps in culture and human behavior. Watch for the trends I’ve spotlighted here to emerge in 2008 and beyond—and let me know what technology trends you see on the horizon.
Also Matt Marshall, founder of VentureBeat, trimmed a bit of fat off my original article, so I decided to publish the whole thing here:
U.S. Tech Trends for 2008
A couple of months ago, my wife and I visited Seoul, South Korea—a trip that inspired me to come up with a list of technology predictions for 2008 and beyond. It’s been a couple of years since I’ve ventured to make such prognostications—and I didn’t really plan to do so now—but the land that brought us bottle service (with clubs there serving overpriced alcohol for more than 25 years), MMORPGs (massive multiplayer online role playing game), and paid online casual gaming serves as a good place for both spotting trends and thinking about those that are emerging back home. Hence my crystal-ball observations of what’s lurking on the immediate and not-so-immediate technology horizon—both the trends on their way here and those the United States will export to the rest of the world
Mobile videoconferencing reaches the states. If you’re a teen, the only thing better than gabbing on your cell with a friend would be gabbing on your cell with a bunch of friends—and seeing each of them on screen as you do so. In Korea kids are doing just this—videoconferencing as they speak to friends via mobile handsets—and loving it. Since kids are kids everywhere, we can expect to see a similar response in the United States, though we probably won’t see it happen before the end of 2008. Unlike Korea—which has the only commercial WiMAX networks in the world—the United States doesn’t have the Mobile WiMAX capabilities required to stream video at 8 megabits per second or greater (16 Mbps or greater for downloads). In this country, you’re lucky if your cable modem service gets 6 Mbps—and a range of 2 Mbps to 4 Mbps is far more typical. When mobile videoconferencing does become a reality here, how will it impact handset manufacturers? Can we expect to see larger mobile phones and bigger screens as a result? Only time will tell.
Virtual currencies warm up. Content is not the only driver for sustainable online communities; virtual economics play an important role as well, with virtual currency serving as an increasingly critical tool. Virtual goods already provide a viable business model in online worlds—with companies providing outlets in which players can convert in-game assets into real-world wealth (and vice-versa). Now, virtual goods are starting to find their way into every other area of the Net as well—only now it’s not just about generating revenue but about paying people (in virtual currency) for their eyeballs. Already used to grab users’ attention for online product launches and games, virtual currency (and virtual economies) could before long become a common feature in all online networks and worlds. As companies and services fight for users’ attention, we can expect to see more and more of them rewarding users with virtual coins or points that users can trade for cash or noncash goods and services. Worst-case scenario, we all turn into brain-dead mouse clickers obsessed with accumulating Yelp and Starwood points. Best-case scenario, we’re rewarded for our time and effort with healthy incentives.
Semantic Web begins to slowly gel. Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of the Web of the future—in which data itself becomes part of the Web and can be processed independently of application, platform, or domain—is finally becoming a reality … albeit slowly. Thus, in 2008, we can expect the various filtering, aggregating, and grouping efforts to continue as the Web 2.0 services that initially captured our attention (such as Radar Networks and Adaptive Blue) expand and evolve. Now, the questions become, how will data be organized—by advanced algorithms? Human-powered (no, not Mahalo)? And what format or tools will be used—tagging? Grouping? And finally, what do users want—friends’ feeds? Multimedia files? The latest books, photos, and gossip on Britney Spears? I believe we’ll see a couple of tangible and useful services take off next year (some of the stealth startups I’ll be writing about soon).
Location-based mobile services gain ground. According to Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker, 20 percent of mobile phones currently include the satellite-based navigation system Global Positioning System (GPS)—a number that’s expected to grow to 50 percent within five years. This means that at last a critical mass of end users has emerged for the location-based mobile services that take advantage of GPS. Thus, we can expect to see a surge of activity in this area. I can visualize it already—my weight soaring as In-N-Out pushes me a coupon every time I get within proximity of an outlet, my credit card bills soaring as Nordstrom’s and Macy’s send my wife sales notices and coupons. It will be horrible; I’ll be dragged to these places more often. Forget it, I hate location-based services already!
Interactive TV makes a comeback. This won’t be like watching Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson attempting a comeback—a one-time champ too old and worn out to rise to prominence again. Instead, it will be more like watching a boxer who debuted too early return and live up to his initial promise. This time around the infrastructure is actually cost-effective; the integration of the Internet and TV has created infinite collaborative possibilities; and new entrants (such as consumer electronics makers) are eyeing the market. Interactive TV won’t be a media champ; however, it will serve as an important secondary source for information, commerce, and social networking. Efforts such as Apple TV (which combines Internet content and television) represent the first step in Internet content being ported to millions of U.S. couch potatoes. With consumer electronics manufacturers eager to capture more of their customers’ mindshare, this represents a potential battleground for cable and satellite operators.
My trip to Korea made me appreciate our flat world—and the excitement it affords by allowing us to observe trends occurring across the globe and to witness the way technology bridges gaps in culture and human behavior. Watch for the trends I’ve spotlighted here to emerge in 2008 and beyond—and let me know what technology trends you see on the horizon.
Monday, March 15, 2004
WILL CHINESE OR U.S. COMPANIES LOSE OUT IN THE END?
Intel and Broadcom's China Headaches... Fortune Cookie Crumble?
China's growing arrogance and protectionist measures are beginning to bring forth questions for certain companies and industries on how much should they actually invest into China, what will the return on their investment be, and whether it is worth it at this juncture and early stage of China' growth to build a signficant presence their market.
These questions and others might be easy for some companies, such as Dell, HP, and KFC. But Intel and Broadcom are encountering some hurdles towards success in China's market. The following are a couple articles with slighty different spins on the same story. News.com explains:
"The Chinese government has passed a law stating that, starting June 1, all Wi-Fi chips sold must comply with the Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) standard. The encryption algorithm was developed in China and is controlled by local Chinese companies." (full article)
TechWeb's Mobilepipeline headline reads, "China Tells Intel To Calm Down."
A little more sensational article, it quotes a Chinese official saying, "China is such a strategic market. I think Intel should calm down."
Overall, both articles reflect China's growing arrogance and long-term policy position to protect its domestic companies, and to rapidly acquire as much management know-how and technology from foreign companies. These are similar approaches that Japan and Korea have taken in targeted growth industries over the past decades. Japan and Korea in the early stages of their automobile markets completely blocked out foreign car-makers with high tariffs and policies allowing only a very minuscule presence.
In the wireless industry, Japan created their own standard, W-CDMA (Wide Band Code Division Multiple Access), with a similar intent as China, to protect their domestic market. In the end, the result hindered the long-term growth of their wireless companies. Korea went with Qualcomm's international accepted CDMA standard, and this resulted in their handset manufacturers' (e.g. Samsung, LG) effectively penetrating the U.S. and other global markets. The intent of China's economic policy makers are understood, but I don't know if it's the best approach for their nation and their corporations.
On the issue of forcing foreign companies, such as Intel and Broadcom, to create Wi-Fi joint ventures with one of the approved local WAPI standard companies creates a threat and loss potential (i.e. proprietary technology) that can scare off new entrants to the degree of preventing Chinese companies from obtaining what they want: management know-how and the transfer of technology.
Intel has already invest almost $1 billion into China, so they are going to work through this as much as they can. But for smaller companies and new entrants, it is a great concern.
The reality of the China market is that it is still like the Wild, Wild, West. The provinces are like cities dotted throughout the untamed West each with their own sheriffs and laws. Laws sometimes don't apply and even signed contracts don't mean much. I know of some Korean companies (favored technology partners with many Chinese companies) with signed agreements with wireless carriers and electronic manufacturers that have the most difficult time collecting their revenue or getting their domestic partners to execute on their contracts.
Korea is far more developed, but similar qualities can be seen and lessons learned for foreign partners new to Asia. When Costco initially entered the Korean market, it signed a joint venture with Shinsaegae, one of Korea's leading retailers. They created E-Mart, a Korean-style Costco, but then Shinsaegae broke the agreement (backstabbed) with Costco. Taking their know-how, but not paying the royalties. Costco re-entered the market on their own with some bitterness. Korea companies like to do and build things on their own and I have seen a similar quality in China. They will try to take and copy whatever they can get their hands on, and of course with the least amount of expenditure.
When Starbucks entered Korea a few years ago, it also signed with Shinsaegae as their domestic partner, but they came out with a favorable deal and Shinsaegae didn't. So I'm sure various industries and partners in China will also have numerous stories to tell.
So do U.S. and other foreign company take such risks to capture a piece of the China market, especially as more protectionist laws are created? How do they ensure their proprietary technologies will not be stolen and copied? How will China's legal system improve to protect foreign investors and partners? How long will China's corporate feifdoms continue?
The greater questions rest on China's policy-makers. Will this protectionist stance be better for Chinese companies or worse in the long-run? Will creating their own technology standards contain them to a domestic market of 235 million consumers, growing towards 1 billion, or allow them to dictate global standards? I really wonder how much thinking went into some of their policies and how many of them were dictated by the new rich in China.
Intel and Broadcom's China Headaches... Fortune Cookie Crumble?
China's growing arrogance and protectionist measures are beginning to bring forth questions for certain companies and industries on how much should they actually invest into China, what will the return on their investment be, and whether it is worth it at this juncture and early stage of China' growth to build a signficant presence their market.
These questions and others might be easy for some companies, such as Dell, HP, and KFC. But Intel and Broadcom are encountering some hurdles towards success in China's market. The following are a couple articles with slighty different spins on the same story. News.com explains:
"The Chinese government has passed a law stating that, starting June 1, all Wi-Fi chips sold must comply with the Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) standard. The encryption algorithm was developed in China and is controlled by local Chinese companies." (full article)
TechWeb's Mobilepipeline headline reads, "China Tells Intel To Calm Down."
A little more sensational article, it quotes a Chinese official saying, "China is such a strategic market. I think Intel should calm down."
Overall, both articles reflect China's growing arrogance and long-term policy position to protect its domestic companies, and to rapidly acquire as much management know-how and technology from foreign companies. These are similar approaches that Japan and Korea have taken in targeted growth industries over the past decades. Japan and Korea in the early stages of their automobile markets completely blocked out foreign car-makers with high tariffs and policies allowing only a very minuscule presence.
In the wireless industry, Japan created their own standard, W-CDMA (Wide Band Code Division Multiple Access), with a similar intent as China, to protect their domestic market. In the end, the result hindered the long-term growth of their wireless companies. Korea went with Qualcomm's international accepted CDMA standard, and this resulted in their handset manufacturers' (e.g. Samsung, LG) effectively penetrating the U.S. and other global markets. The intent of China's economic policy makers are understood, but I don't know if it's the best approach for their nation and their corporations.
On the issue of forcing foreign companies, such as Intel and Broadcom, to create Wi-Fi joint ventures with one of the approved local WAPI standard companies creates a threat and loss potential (i.e. proprietary technology) that can scare off new entrants to the degree of preventing Chinese companies from obtaining what they want: management know-how and the transfer of technology.
Intel has already invest almost $1 billion into China, so they are going to work through this as much as they can. But for smaller companies and new entrants, it is a great concern.
The reality of the China market is that it is still like the Wild, Wild, West. The provinces are like cities dotted throughout the untamed West each with their own sheriffs and laws. Laws sometimes don't apply and even signed contracts don't mean much. I know of some Korean companies (favored technology partners with many Chinese companies) with signed agreements with wireless carriers and electronic manufacturers that have the most difficult time collecting their revenue or getting their domestic partners to execute on their contracts.
Korea is far more developed, but similar qualities can be seen and lessons learned for foreign partners new to Asia. When Costco initially entered the Korean market, it signed a joint venture with Shinsaegae, one of Korea's leading retailers. They created E-Mart, a Korean-style Costco, but then Shinsaegae broke the agreement (backstabbed) with Costco. Taking their know-how, but not paying the royalties. Costco re-entered the market on their own with some bitterness. Korea companies like to do and build things on their own and I have seen a similar quality in China. They will try to take and copy whatever they can get their hands on, and of course with the least amount of expenditure.
When Starbucks entered Korea a few years ago, it also signed with Shinsaegae as their domestic partner, but they came out with a favorable deal and Shinsaegae didn't. So I'm sure various industries and partners in China will also have numerous stories to tell.
So do U.S. and other foreign company take such risks to capture a piece of the China market, especially as more protectionist laws are created? How do they ensure their proprietary technologies will not be stolen and copied? How will China's legal system improve to protect foreign investors and partners? How long will China's corporate feifdoms continue?
The greater questions rest on China's policy-makers. Will this protectionist stance be better for Chinese companies or worse in the long-run? Will creating their own technology standards contain them to a domestic market of 235 million consumers, growing towards 1 billion, or allow them to dictate global standards? I really wonder how much thinking went into some of their policies and how many of them were dictated by the new rich in China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)