With the proliferation of the new iPhone, Mobile Applications as a viable VC investment category is dead.

Companies like Digital Chocolate (founded by software gaming pioneer Trip Hawkins) are now painfully aware of that. Recenty switching gears, it is debatable whether they can compete with the endless supply of a new free-market.

The future of many companies like Aeroprise, still basking in the glory of a proprietary Blackberry environment and tucked away in the enterprise mobile markets, will be severely threatened by standards-based technlogy running on any internet capable device, very soon.

The premium market of mobile applications protected by walled gardens has been changed to a free-market by Apple’s iPhone and the App Store. Macro-economics, discussed in this blog many times before, at work again.

Rather than single minded companies being able to protect their turf with a collection of proprietary applications (usually aimed at businesses), now individuals will start to create applications for other users. By the people, for the people. N/N :the airplane code for Steve Jobs’ Gulfstream. Get it already?

User-generated-content (one of those awkward Silicon Valley attempts of describing content that resides in a free marketplace) has a brand new companion, it is called: applications.

But these applications are no longer mobile applications, they are internet applications - that happen to run on a great mobile internet device. And they will run on many other internet devices, hard-wired or mobile. Think of them as the big brother of widgets, task oriented applications that remove the need to use a browser to benefit from the Internet. They target regular consumers, not internet savvy technologists and they self-configure, based on location and other user preferences.

So the investment model for mobile has changed dramatically and the recently announced $100M iFund (by top investment firm KPCB) and a similar one by BlackBerry - the vehicle of purportedly investing $1M per application vendor - makes no sense at all. Here is why:

1/ User-generated content does not provide a great foundation for large upside - let alone an acquisition or IPO that is priced to produce interesting VC returns.

2/ The value to the VC is in the “winner-takes-all” platform, not the content (albeit that produces great value and choice to the consumer). Apple, with the App Store platform for distributing applications using free-market principles (although still not perfect, check out our marketplace rules) will again walk away with the same benefits it reaped from the iTunes store, direct and halo.

3/ Application development is a very high cost business, especially in a highly competitive marketplace. The gaming industry wrapped in a slower transition from premium to free-market is finding that out too.

4/ Mobile used to be a proprietary, and protectable, path to the internet. No longer. The intelligence of the backend service, accessed through a mobile of hard-wired computing device is where the value is.

So, i suggest to rename the iFund in Software-As- A-Service fund, agnostic to access paradigm.

Nokia and Blackberry (RIM) will have to follow quickly. But they would need to start hiring people that understand macro-economics, not just technologists that create poor copies of Apple’s implementation.

All phones need to have a real operating system inside, and Roger McNamee’s investment in Palm may make sense in that way, but they better step it up quickly. Nokia is off playing with Symbian, Microsoft has its own concotion. All of them pretty much asleep at the macro-economic wheel.

Yet for individuals, on the supply and buy side, all this disruption leads to new opportunities that are derived from a meritocracy. Fantastic applications are being developed and used in massive numbers. The world is indeed flat after all.

Tags: Apple, Nokia, Blackberry, Free-market, Marketplace, Meritocracy, SaaS, Proprietary, Gaming, Funds, Wall-Street, ITunes

Photo-editing today is still an art form, a specialized and necessary art - and "endured" by prosumers. The great photography you see hanging on walls, on websites or in magazines, all have been edited digitally. Not necessarily to create some outrageous creative effect but because not a single camera accurately captures what your eyes see. Not since the invention of photography in 1870.

Camera vendors promise better results when their customers purchase a more expensive dSLR (digital Single Lens Reflex) camera, a better lens, a solid tripod, a new filter, and, while we’re selling: a new photo bag. Yet, none of those products do anything to change the fundamental difference between what your eyes see and what the camera produces. With a healthy growth of more than 60% worldwide in dSLR sales (according to new 2007 numbers from CIPA), most camera vendors are not in a hurry to out-innovate themselves as their current stance is feeding their business so well. So, the problem remains, camera output is far from ideal.

So today, the great results photographers strive for can really only be achieved through editing, reproducing what you tried to capture. That editing today happens primarily on the desktop (less than 10% of the whole photography market edits online) and by digital SLR users with a great sense of quality and aesthetics. Products are plentiful, such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Lightroom, Apple Aperture and my favorite: LightZone. Yet none of those products completely hide photographic complexity to its new users; the massive numbers of dSLR buyers that just want to create great photographs.

Photo-editing should work like a car, simply put the key in the ignition and drive (without having to worry about how the engine and the transmission works). The editing tool of the future should embed the photographic knowledge and make decisions or recommendations for you, rather than requiring its users to become proficient in the minutiae of color and light. Just like a car, photo editing should be able to go where others have gone before, enriching the experience of new users on a continuous basis. New editing techniques should be sharable through a language we all understand, a photograph. In short: edit "like-Mike" and me-too editing is born.

I believe photo-editing will move away from what it is today, a basket full of technology tools to a service through which the sharing of editing techniques will enable the new "language" of photo-editing. That dramatically simplified language will subsequently enable editing for the long-tail of the photography market, the massive market of point-and-shooters. New technologies such as Pixenate, Picnik, Adobe Photoshop Express already rush to deliver a new basket of tools for the consumer market. And many others will follow.

Today, plenty of opportunities remain in the prosumer editing space in which no vendor has amassed even close to 30% penetration. New editing capabilities are bound to drive the marketplace in which monetization of photographs and, eventually a free-market for photography can flourish.

What's left for the innovative camera vendor is to build a proprietary imaging pipeline that dramatically reduces the need to edit. With 90% of dSLR vendors using the same imaging pipeline (behind the sensor) the time is right to change the way a camera captures data before it reaches the sensor. In the same way your eyes do very smart tricks before light hits the retina.

Tags: IBM, Palo Alto, Apple, Blackberry, Amazon, Palm, IPhone, Experience, Design, Brand

Many times the question comes up, what exactly is Web 2.0? Although we are not great supporters of buzzwords that have little real meaning, we are - just this time - tempted to put our big-thinking in the mix.

We believe it describes a set of technologies to support the immense popularity and growth characteristics of free-markets.

Free markets have been in existence at least since 1637, when dutch growers imported Tulips from Turkey and engaged in heavy bidding wars with buyers at the onset of the flower markets. [In the interest of "full-disclosure"; I grew up in Holland].

The Dutch auction (also referred to as "The Essence of Fairness" with respect to IPO markets) was created when ample supply was met with equally impressive demand, and a unique trading mechanism was developed. Apart from the details of the trading options (which eBay has adopted), we want to focus here on the dynamics of the market that are so different from the technology industry in its current incarnation.

The technology industry (still in an immature state) has built success around companies that identify and carve out a one-to-many relationship with customers. Successful companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco etc. staved off early competition and now act as the single asset owner of the technology they sell to many customers, fearing little organic competition. We call them what they are; demi-cartels. A great position to be in and very profitable, but the technology market is about to get a shakeup, not dissimilar to what happened in the flower markets.

The creation and composition of technology assets, whether those assets are applications, databases, code or new media content, is emerging from the hands of specialists into the realm of a much broader set of providers.

Suddenly, the technology industry faces competition it has never seen before. And it is responding by changing its tactics [ technology taxonomy in motion], it has to. Oracle loses a big customer because it refuses to put up with fat margins, exorbitant pricing and 20% support fees and makes the switch to a little vendor called MySQL. New online capabilities enable Craigslist, where posting classified ads is free of charge, to hasten the demise of traditional newspaper classified advertising. MySpace takes the need for people to express themselves out of the hands of the specialists.

New many-to-many market models arise and dramatically impact the old rules of the game. New content establishes micro-celebrities that drive the popularity of a free-market technology platform. The Pareto principle is dead (well, not really - its amplitude will change).

So, Web 2.0 is a platform strategy (rather than a proprietary stack) that enables many-to-many relationships between buyers and sellers of electronic assets. When transparency and integrity are key objectives in the creation of these marketplaces, Web2.0, with whatever technologies that represents, actually has a chance of becoming a buzzword we can speak fondly about.

Tags: Blackberry, EBay, PDA, Motorola, Cingular, AT&T, CNN, Design

Recently I was asked to think about how to improve the phone features and functionality in an ever commoditizing "Terminal market" (an Ericsson acronym). There is a lot at stake here; lots of people buying phones, 2.2B of them to be exact, not enough of them buying the associated internet service.

Improve the specs and make it look good is the easy answer to that question. That is, if you are building a phone not a PDA. In a PDA you can pull technology, services and memory into a bulky enclosure and rely on nerdocrats to buy them; not a large market. So how do you build a phone that is just as smart and fits in the enclosure of a RAZR? Or smaller? Research shows that people buy cool looking phones, rather than bulky ones stuffed with functionality.

The answer in my view is services. Just as the power of the iPod stems from the iTunes library on your desktop connected to the iTunes store, phones should become re-play devices to services provided on the backend. The phone should be an iPod geared towards managing and replaying service data; contacts, calendar items, music, news are pushed out to it automatically, pictures are taken, stored and uploaded automatically to your section of the "store", ready to be shared and, yes, sold. Enabling free market principles to the content distributed by these services, completes the value chain and drives growth of the platform, regardless of phone.

Phone manufacturers need to learn how to build a value chain, not just a phone. Business innovation is just getting started.

Tags: Blackberry, Design, Microsoft, Apple