For more on this, check out this Bloomberg West video.

Simon Says

Monetizing your users irritates them. Users and customers should never be confused as one and the same. Facebook should survive, but I for one think that there are legitimate questions about its future growth.

A hefty price to pay? You betcha, but it’s a move that makes sense for Marissa Mayer et al.

Think about it. At present, there’s no way for consumers to take Yahoo! in different directions. There are no Yahoo! proper apps (read: Android, iOS, and Facebook). You really can’t create your own content on Yahoo! (read: Amazon, iTunes, Facebook, even Google Plus).

To be sure, Mayer still has her work cut out for her. One plank does not a platform make. It’s obvious to me, though, that she’s looked at the successful strategies of platform companies like the Gang of Four, Twitter, and others.

From my standpoint, the company’s problem is very simple.

Yahoo! has not really embraced platform thinking. Unlike Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and scores of others, Yahoo! doesn’t really encourage external innovation. Until the company does, I’m not betting on a turnaround. In other words, the problem isn’t inside Yahoo! It’s outside–and no internal policy shift can change that.

As I write in the book, building a platform isn’t easy, nor are results guaranteed. Success in this new age hinges not upon people being in the office. It’s about what happens outside of the office.

Big difference.

Finally, the size of the physical book will be increased from 5″ x 8″ to 5.5″ x 8.5″.

In its quest to kill Apple, has Google inadvertently empowered its rivals–and created new ones?

We know that Google has created a monster in Samsung. Giving away Android has certainly hurt Apple, but what are the other consequences of the move? Now add in Facebook Home. I’m wondering if Larry Page now thinks Android is too open?

In the book, I write about the notions of coopetition and frenemies. Nowhere is this more evident than how Android is playing out. 

Simon Says

In the Age of the Platform, understand that the competitive landscape changes very quickly. New threats emerge in the course of dealing with existing ones. Hurting one competitor may embolden and strengthen another.

There is no simple solution.

Feedback

What say you?

Well, it may start to cost you, at least according to an interesting piece on WallBlog. From the article:

High profile Facebook users are growing increasingly frustrated at what they see as the social network gaming the system in order to encourage people to pay to promote their content.

It kind of reminds me of the effect of Google algorithm changes on local businesses. Some have claimed that a simple tweak meant 50% declines in traffic.

Simon Says

In the Age of the Platform, nothing is guaranteed. Don’t push your users too hard. They may soon become ex-users.

As I’ve said before, Zuck should adopt the freemium model. I for one would pay a few bucks a month for such a valuable service.

It’s gratifying to see major publications run pieces on the central premise of your book nearly 18 months after it was published. It’s particularly hard staying ahead of the technology/business curve these days, what with nearly constant change taking place. With the exception of Groupon (covered in the chapter on emerging platforms), the book has held up extraordinarily well since its publication. 

Here’s to another 18 months of relevance and more people getting it.

What’s striking about Fast Company’s 2013 list of the world’s 50 most innovative companies is the relative absence of large, established firms. Instead the list is dominated by the big technology winners of the past 20 years that have built innovation into their DNA (Apple, Google, Amazon, Samsung, Microsoft), and a lot of smaller, newer start-ups. The main exceptions are Target, Coca Cola, Corning, Ford, and Nike (the company that topped the list).

Yes, we know about The Innovator’s Dilemma. However, that doesn’t explain the entire story.  Many mature companies believe (erroneously) that all innovation needs to take place under their own roofs. Not so. Embrace, platforms, APIs, SDKs, gamification, open innovation, and other new concepts and watch the innovation flourish.

Microsoft yesterday confirmed that a retail copy of Office 2013 is permanently tied to the first PC on which it’s installed, preventing customers from deleting the suite from one machine they own and installing it on another.

The move is a change from past Office end-user licensing agreements (EULAs), experts said, and is another way Microsoft is pushing customers, especially consumers, to opt for new “rent-not-own” subscription plans.

“That’s a substantial shift in Microsoft licensing,” said Daryl Ullman, co-founder and managing director of the Emerset Consulting Group, which specializes in helping companies negotiate software licensing deals. “Let’s be frank. This is not in the consumer’s best interest. They’re paying more than before, because they’re not getting the same benefits as before.”

This hardly seems user-friendly. So much for Microsoft as consumer advocate, right?

I doubt that Google will launch its own equivalent on the Scroogled campaign, but I’d argue that Microsoft’s own practices here are much more questionable than any bogus Gmail “reading” going on.

Note to Steve Ballmer: The consumer is king these days.

Or so Ballmer et. al would have you believe.

Bullocks!

To my knowledge, Google employees don’t read any Gmail messages. Rather, algorithms serve up ads to support free products. This is the essence of the freemium model.

Do the math on the number of emails sent. Does Google employ a team of monkeys reading these emails?

Simon Says

Come on, Ballmer. Innovate more and complain less. You might be better off.

Most Google smears come from Microsoft these days. Most Microsoft smears seem to be coming from Microsoft customer and users.