Let’s look at photography (my hobby), arguably the most important purchasing-driver of computers (after the ability to access the internet) by consumers. Media management (yes, on the desktop) remains more than a Billion dollar market opportunity.

Case in point: new announcements of Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture tout enhanced interoperability with third party plugins to manage and edit your photographs. Don’t you feel good about that warm open-source-like karma of interoperability?

I don’t. Both vendors have deployed their next trick to customer imprisonment. And plenty of uninformed customers will fall for it. Here is why you shouldn’t:

1/ There is no need for an additional platform for photo management.
Photo editing capabilites of both applications are mediocre (no layer based editing, no advanced local editing etc.) and their asset management capabilities are little more than a replica of file system capabilities (even photographic attributes such as exposure, aperture and other attributes are maintained by the file-system metadata today). So, except for making nice photo albums and calendars, why else would you slug thousands of photographs in a proprietary asset management format that is less reliable than the underlying file-system and requires seperate backup and archiving strategies to maintain.

2/ Plugins have worked for years on file-system based photographs.
The announcement of the interoperability with plugins is really old news as those third party applications have been working with file-system based photographs for years. This is a platform on top of a platform, designed to milk more money out of customers and locks them into a proprietary technology stack. A prison with the windows open is still a prison.

3/ The operating system needs-to and will evolve faster.
The pace of meaningful innovation of the Personal Computer OS is deplorable. Microsoft has not made the PC operating system significantly smarter over the last ten years and that has opened the window of opportunity for Apple to surpass Microsoft in usability (rather than functionality). The ability to easily create and manage user-generated content such as, Photography and Video, has now become important adoption drivers to the platform, OS-vendors have yet to respond to. Photographic capabilities should be built-in (not priced-on). These days the unique media experience of the platform is the differentiation that sells the computer (since they all do internet quite well).

As a consumer, buying into seperate photography management siloes will cost you significant time and money (as the former CEO of a photo software company, researching the alternatives, I tried). My advice is to wait until an agile vendor steps up and turns media management into a core competency of the computing experience.

In the words of Ray Lane (partner at KPCB and former COO of Oracle) who once said customers are better off skipping some steps of innovation (in his case to skip client-server for three-tier internet architecture), I have just presented you with my reasoning to skip-over Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture. Not because I don’t like some of its functionality, but because it is strategically a dead-end street.

The next evolution of media management will soon eradicate the old one and deliver lasting differentiation to the vendor that owns it and provides a much, much better media experience to the consumer.

I am planning on having something to do with that.

Tags: Platform, Photography, Consumer, OS X, Operating System, Innovation, Integrity, Adobe, Microsoft, Apple

We communicate with each other using a common language and we obviously become more effective when we all understand that language. However, technology complicates our lives as each piece of technology we interact with requires us to learn a new (proprietary) language; a set of rules, technology grammar and a unique user-interface experience.

Think about it, when Larry King on national TV stumbles over his own URL (yes, language) and messes up http, semicolon and slash (or was it backslash), I can't help but think about the hell we put users through to use the internet. Only if you understand that language do you get to benefit from its capabilities. That's like forcing anyone that wants to vacation in Mexico to speak Spanish first. The Mexican tourist industry would grind to a halt.

It gets worse, for example, to make photographs look better, Photoshop (and now with Photoshop Express) and many other photo-editing applications deploy a language that requires users to understand the intricacies of color and light and apply that language in the right order.

Here is a synopsis of the skill level my mother-in-law would need to master in order to make her photographs look better: first increase the dynamic range using a histogram, then use curves to change the tonal values to your liking, apply the right white balance and improve saturation and vibrance. Indeed, what I just described is the introduction of yet another language to solve a pretty mundane problem.

To create a web page, we introduce yet another language, a compilation of HTML, Perl, Ajax and Flash usually contained within a desktop product with its own proprietary language. To write a book we wrestle with 90% of Microsoft Word's functionality and language we seldom use, trying to figure out how to create a table of contents. In Excel we use another language consisting of non-intuitive formulas (like sum() ) to derive values from other cells. Should I go on?

So why is it that we seem to get away with it - or are we? For one, lots of people make money understanding a computing language that fewer others do. Web designers don't always create better design, but they understand the language of design, and can implement it. So, web designers don't want you to know there are better ways to do this. Adobe is probably not in a hurry to remove the language and erode its premium market, it could have created much more democratization in the website creation process. Many times have designers, with corporate marketeers in tow, abjected the use of Rapidweaver, a tool that attempts to democratize web design (this site is built with it).

But we are fooling ourselves. The democratization of the internet requires that we make technology more accessible and easier to understand and implement. Only then will it reach real mass adoption.

We could easily build technology that figures out how to make the majority of images look better, or design a web page by drawing it - rather than programming, or have Word make recommendations for a table of contents when it discovers one.

The iPhone is a great example of how packaging existing technologies in a different way, can make people feel that they don't need to learn a new language to communicate with it. My 3 year old daughter uses it. Each of the individual technologies in the iPhone had been around for a while, Apple "just" packaged it so the language became intuitive.

But Apple is not the only vendor that can remove the computing language from the equation, others just need to pay attention to it.

So when you design products, pay attention to the removal of the language, fewer yet intuitive options - rather than more. After all, for thousands of years, we ourselves, have communicated in many other ways than verbal, the majority of our communication remains behavioral.

Innovation has become the art of packaging a flawless user experience, rather than a race to add features. The latter quickly becomes commoditized anyway.

Tags: Apple, IPhone, Experience, Microsoft, Adobe, Photography, Internet, Democracy, Communication, Innovation

Apple has just released Aperture 2.0 today. A nice product to manage your photographs has gotten even nicer. But -- there should not be a need for Aperture.

Digital asset management, which is the predominant function of applications like Aperture and Adobe Lightroom, should not need to exist, especially not if you are Apple. If Steve Jobs were to take his own media hub strategy serious, advanced asset management capabilities should be available right in the file-system, as a function of the OS. Asset management for photographs is why people buy computers today, so why still does a separate application need to deal with our most precious assets. Incremental revenues perhaps?

Today's proprietary photo management systems eat disk space like nothing else. Non-destructive editing is supported by making superfluous copies of originals (especially when using an external editor). The derivatives are usually many times larger in size than their originals (especially when stored in TIFF or PSD), which forces you to stock up on hard disk space. I will keep using LightZone as my main photo editor and save precious disk space by leaving my photographs right where they are. Can't wait till the operating system innovates and supports photographs natively.

Tags: Adobe, Photography, LightZone, Aperture, OS X, Asset Management

Bose is a great example of a company that delivers a unique experience. I have had a few after sales experiences with Bose and they've all been very positive and consistent. Most recently I purchased the new iPhone adapter for Bose's QuietComfort 2 Noise Canceling headphone, only to find out that the adapter didn't fit my QC2 headset. After a call into Bose, we found out that 2 versions of the QC2 exist and the adapter packaging did not specify this distinction.

Clearly I was an early adopter of their Noise Canceling technology (I also own the QC1) but they did not punish me for it. With a little bit of tugging they offered to replace my 4-year old headset with a brand new set for free. Gladly my new headset arrived before a 5 hour plane ride to the east coast. Another experience like this with Bose came when I moved from Europe to the US about 12 years ago, I wanted to exchange my 901 equalizer with a 110 volt one (so I did not need to down-convert my 220 volt european equalizer). Again, here Bose offered to replace the equalizer free of charge.

Whether you like the sound of Bose is your own decision, but the flexibility of this, still private company to balance earnings with a sincere interest in keeping its customers happy is admirable. More fundamentally, successful companies understand that building a lasting brand means they pay attention to customer retention. Apple is doing similar things by turning part of their retail store into a support center. Great businesses don't look at support as a cost center but as a way to satisfy customer experience and have them coming back for more.

Tags: Bose, Experience

My 3 year old daughter uses my iPhone to play music videos and YouTube videos and has not touched a PC (or better, a Mac) yet. With the same content available on either she's obviously seen me operate my Mac and looks over my shoulder now and then, but finds all the keys and even the "Magic-mouse" complicated. Clearly a usage experience is more important to her than shear processing power. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Nintendo anyone?

What I see in so many early business plans today is the old-fashioned notion of deep technology expertise, something most traditional investors still harp on. I see too many BMW engines being developed without attention being paid to the development of The Ultimate Driving Experience®. True, you can't build the driving experience without great engines, but BMW, like no other vendor understands that the total experience is the selling point. In the end, technology will become commoditized and its differentiation will be determined by the way it interacts with content, media, social network, end-users to create a well designed user experience.

Apple is another company that understands that focus on user experience very well. Its products are a piece of art, its function (to a novice) is at least competitive. Buying a Mac is an experience, and so is using it. A much better experience than buying a PC in every way. The box your Mac comes is even a work of art, the way it folds open, the new materials, everything builds to the experience. As a customer you feel special, owning an iPod with your name engrave on it and all your music in it. And that is what Apple customers are buying into: feeling special and appreciated. Attention paid to you!

Now every market segment has its own definition of user experience, so don't go do what Apple does before you understand how you can differentiate. But every software, service or content vendor should consider building a unique customer experience that in the end - sells more. It's a CEO level responsibility because it involves making sizable investments in complementary areas, not just a marketing ploy. The days of just selling a product are over.

Tags: BMW, Experience, Mac, Apple, Nintendo, IPhone

On a regular basis entrepreneurs approach me with jaw-dropping technology, wonderful to look at from an innovation perspective but many times hard to envision as a standalone sustainable profit center. So what technology makes a successful company?

Technology is becoming a commodity. Think about it from a macro-economic perspective. Information technology is the instrumentation, not the differentiation of customer businesses. World's largest retailer, Walmart does not rely on technology to be successful, technology was barely available when Walmart started. Walmart built an effective business model and, in-house continuous to shape technology to support the business model. No packaged apps, or technology silos here.

Technology companies do become successful when their technology drives, usually with incremental improvements, the evolution in a marketplace. Google is successful because it optimized the online advertising business model and increased its effectiveness. It's all about market principles, not technology (BTW: which average user can tell the difference between Google and Yahoo! search). eBay is successful because it empowers free-market principles and supports true meritocracy in the sale of goods.

Bottom line:
1) Investigate de-funct, constricted or outdated markets and build technology that improves the effectiveness of those markets.
2) Find capital from investors that understand the market and appreciate technology, not the other way around.

Market principles are seldom wrong, the instrumentation often is.

Tags: Entrepreneurs, Walmart, Google, Innovation, Evolution, Yahoo, Commodity, Capitalism, EBay

"Apple is going in a different direction than we want to go." That is the statement from a long term Apple customer (10+ years) we recently talked to. The Apple Store in Palo Alto has recently been revamped to where the iPod and its accessories seem to make up the majority of the new store layout. Media software has been tucked into a little corner in the back. Enterprise software for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME), like FileMaker Pro Server is virtually non-existent, "you can get that online" was the response from an Apple representative.

Did you know Apple is actually making more strides than ever in the enterprise business? Oracle, MySQL and a lot of other mission critical software now runs on OS X. Apple risks loosing SME foothold if it does not carefully balance advertising the iPod trojan horse with the reasons why it created the iPod, selling higher margin products. Enterprise software may not be bought in a retail store, but providing exposure and demo stations with enterprise and SME solutions are critical to changing a destructive perception. Or does Apple plan to open new Business Stores soon?

Tags: Apple, IPod, MySQL, Oracle, Small Business, OS X, Software, Retail

Apple switching to Intel is a move that stunned the faithful Mac community, yet most of us knew Mac OS X was derived from a dual core OS Steve Jobs had been running for a while at Next. Had we forgotten?

Did the success of the iPod blur our vision? But more important than the choice for Intel CPU's is the impact on the choice for other hardware components of the computer. The Mac derives its cool look, slim laptop design, unique features and true innovation from a primarily proprietary hardware design process. Low cost and commodity designs from mostly Intel, AMD, and other mass market producers still turns out computer bricks. Intel performance is good, instead of "Intel Inside" just add "Apple Everywhere Else".

Tags: Intel, IPod, Apple, OS X, Steve Jobs, AmD, Design

While attending Tony Perkins' Media 100 beer-and-burger bash at the Alpine Inn, I was confronted by another opinionist that questioned Oracle's foray in the Enterprise Collaboration business. Indeed, it has been a long road; Oracle*Mail, Oracle Office, Oracle Library, Oracle Documents, Oracle Workflow, Oracle InterOffice Suite, Oracle InterOffice, Oracle Collaboration Suite is the reincarnation Oracle's installed base has been hit up with since 1990. As the lead salesman (or should I say Director of Worldwide Marketing), more than 7 years ago for Oracle Office and InterOffice I learned a few important lessons that stuck with me forever.

For one, technology does not sell. Oracle's collaboration tools were then, and are now some of the best in the business.

Two, deliver a proposition to sales people that matches the vendor's existing business model. Incompatibility of business models is why 800-pound Gorillas can't buy themselves into new categories.

Three, commission sales people competitively to other proven product offerings. Don't let your weakest sales people hide behind selling the "impossible". Again, Oracle's technology is not the problem, incompatible business models is the real issue. I see a bright future for Oracle's Collaboration Suite as the software-as-a-service solution for customers who have bought into Salesforce.com's business model.

Now, Digital Asset Management, often erroneously merged into the Collaboration substrate, is a market category that Oracle needs to own and quickly. "Unstructured" data and corporate media management markets are currently growing at a clip of 45% a year, faster than RDBMS or ERP growth. If Oracle wants to be the database for all corporate data, digital asset management is the real opportunity, not only because it works best with Oracle's organic business model. I've got suggestions for Chuck (Rozwat and Phillips) of who to buy to get in quick.

Tags: Oracle, Media, Collaboration, Digital Asset Management, Business Model

With homeland security as a hot topic these days, LaserCard in Mountain View (NASDAQ: LCRD, formerly known as Drexler Technologies) quietly continues to ship millions of unique memory cards as the foundation for "Green" cards and National ID cards to US, Italian, and Canadian governments and others. In addition to its incredible resistance against wear and tear (we punched holes in it and it still read successfully) and unique security features, the LaserCard stores an impressive 2.8M of personal and biometric data. Fingerprints, retina scans, voice encoding or whatever becomes the prevalent set of biometric verifiers, can be combined with visual authentication to ensure the holder of the card is indeed the one presenting himself. All these attributes can be stored on the card and read offline without the need for centralized databases. So why is homeland security not using this card to it's fullest potential? Why does it waste time on privacy debates with regards to centralized storage? Why, four years after 911 are we still not able to verify a persons real identity?

Tags: LaserCard, Security, Homeland Security, Biometrics, IDentity