Just Google it........

As promised, a post on Google this time. Essentially, our Information Systems professor has asked us to blog on the 3 main issues one would consider if they were going to invest in Google. Google has had quite a journey over the last 11 years, it has gone from being an internet start-up to being possibly the world's most information-rich organisation to being the center of a political row between two of the world's biggest economies. However, in my opinion, the 3 most pertinent business related issues for Google are:

• The data privacy and censorship problems faced by Google. In the past, these problems have directly translated into relationship issues with governments.

• Google's battle with Apple. In the past, titanic battles such as this one have shaped the structure of the technology universe.

• Google's ability to continue with it's creative culture as it matures.

Over the past few years, every so often, Google has run into issues with governments and government bodies regarding it's data privacy and censorship policies. I believe how Google handles these conflicts and how it adapts its products to appease the fears of various governments will be one of the keys of Google's continues success. More fiascos such as the "China-gate" in Jan 2010 will certainly be detrimental to the long term profitability of the company as it will begin to restrict Google's market share in various economies. Over the last week, Google has gotten itself into some hot soup......firstly it admitted that it has snooped information transmitted over unencrypted networks for a period of 3 years and then it refused to return sensitive information it collected using Street View to the German Authorities. It will be interesting to see how Google deals with these problems as it may be a pre-curser for how google is going to handle data privacy and censorship issues in the future....

Over the last year or so, two technology behemoths have been preparing for battle. In August last year, Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, resigned from the Apple Board. A few months later Google launched the Nexus One Google phone, a product that is in direct competition with Apple's flagship product, the iPhone. In return Apple has made some strategic acquisitions (e.g. Quattro Wireless) aimed at claiming a share of the advertising pie. The two technology sub-sectors with the greatest appeal appear to be the smart-phone and the advertising market. If Google can conquer the Smart-Phone market, or if Apple can conquer the advertising market, Google or Apple could become the undisputed champion of the technology domain. So the stage is set for a gladiatorial fist-fight and I think the technology world is watching in anticipation.

Most technology companies are known to have flamboyant cultures, but I think in this regard, Google really stands out. Unlike the employees at Apple or Microsoft, Googlers have a free reign to pursue their passions in the company. It is this culture that enables Google to continue to attract top talent. Everyone knows about Google's 20% personal project initiative (employees can spend 20% of their time pursuing their own projects / interest). One other organizational trait that I find fascinating is that at Google, employees often interview their prospective manager !! Another fantastic organizational innovation is that at Google, technical employees can move up the ladder and can be compensated as well as (or better than) their business focused counterparts. This is a great structure as this prevents the technically gifted employees from being drawn to the business side. However, I have heard from my friends at google that there are people in the organization that are taking advantage of Google's laxness and the company culture is slowly changing as a result. Continued innovation is key to the continued success of Google and Google has to be able to foster innovation even with the new culture that is emerging in the company.

In summary I find Google a fascinating company but I would very carefully examine and contemplate the 3 issues above before I invest into the organization. (With a long term investment outlook).

Till next time - Caio.

I used the following sources for research:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10172146.stm

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:GOOG&fstype=ii

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8460129.stm

http://seekingalpha.com/article/207339-the-google-apple-race-can-google-buy-apple-competitiveness-can-apple-be-ad-giant?source=nasdaq20100527152556z_207339_sa&title=the-google--apple-race-can-google-buy-apple-competitiveness-can-apple-be-ad-giant

Brainstorming - Richard Branson style....

I came to IE with the intention of moving into Strategy Consulting and I viewed the Entrepreneurial Management subject as a subject that I had to do. While I am still 100% focused on Consulting (and I will write a post about the Consulting Club elections shortly), the Entrepreneurial Management subject has perhaps become my favourite subject. The idea here is to create a business, the better the business idea and the more realistic the business plan, the better your chances of getting a good grade.

In the MBA, we are divided into workgroups of 6 or 7 people. Each workgroup was given free reign on choosing whatever idea they wished. So we decided that each person in the group would come up with an idea and we would then discuss the merits of each idea and then choose the best one - little did we know this what an explosive cocktail our idea discussing method would be !!!

4 out of the 6 of us (including me) are reasonably similar in terms of personality. We are a bunch ambitious, driven, hard-headed and strong minded guys, and each of us fell in love with their own idea. And discussing the ideas caused a tremendous amount of friction in the team.......and the team meetings seemed to drag on forever as we discussed and re-discussed the merits of our ideas. Finally after about one and a half weeks of intense discussions we came to a semi-forced consensus. Pretty much because we had to. However, a couple of people in the group did not have belief in the idea and each criticism of the idea almost seemed like a personal attack on the idea's champion. This atmosphere of skepticism and lack of belief continued to be detrimental to the workings of the team, until last night........

Last night (Friday night) we decided to have a casual meeting on the topic at the pub "Lateral". We decided that despite the amount of time we have spent discussing/debating about ideas and the amount of time we spent working on the chosen idea the best of our options available was to start again. And this time we decided to come up with an idea "together". In my mind, this session was an outstanding success !!!! I reminded the group that Richard Branson came up with his first idea of the Virgin Business in a pub and wrote it down on a beer mat. Just like we were about to.

It was fascinating to see the group brainstorming about an idea together. I think we came up with some fantastic ideas. One person would mention a thought, someone would add to it, a third person would continue adding to it and eventually we would get the package of a strong idea....!!! We were working as one cohesive unit and we were leveraging on the strengths of each other - it was fascinating. At IE they said we will "Form, Storm, Norm and Perform"....Well we definitely had the Form and Storm.....and now we're Performing ....I'm delighted !!

I have come to view EM as a subject that pretty much ties together the concepts of all the different subjects. (In the 1st term we have 7 of them). We will be using concepts of quantitative analysis for forecasting sales and decision making, accounting for measuring profitability, marketing for understanding and reaching out to our customers, Organisational Systems for group cohesion and efficiency, Information Systems for making us visible and Economics for Market Sizing and testing demand. Im loving this.

I was extremely excited when I came home and I could not stop telling my housemate about what a fantastic session we had just had !!! Our pitch is due in less than a week - so I will let you know how our feasibility report and pitch presentation turns out.......but now its time to get back to the crunch...

By the way our next Information Systems assignment is to write a blog on Google, so you will be hearing for me pretty soon.

Till next time....

Hi, Im a PC......

Fasten your seatbelts, we're about to be taking off again..... This time we've been summoned to wax eloquently about the technology behemoth that is Microsoft by our charismatic Information Systems professor. By the way, we were requested to write this report without doing any specific research. So, here goes:

One of the most common phrases in today's business lexicon is "Change is the only constant in the world". Well, I think our friends at Microsoft would know all about that. A few years ago, from an outsider's point of view, it seemed as though Microsoft could do no wrong. The company and it's business environment seemed to be setup perfectly.

• In the operating systems space, the next competitor seemed lightyears behind. The windows juggernaut seemed to have conquered almost the entire market. Mac's OSX seemed to be reserved for freaks and the Linux / Unix Operating Systems seemed reserved for the nerds.

• Aside from the Operating Systems space, Microsoft's Internet Explorer was also by far the most utilized web browser on the planet.

• The Window's Mobile Operating System seemed to be on the cusp of becoming the next great technology invention. It seemed certain that we would all be carrying smart phones around that were powered by the big M.

• Of course, Microsoft's CEO was the richest person on earth and probably the most recognizable business tycoon in the world.

So, what happened ? How did this company, having attained the mystical throne of being the world's greatest technology company reach where it is today ? And where exactly is it today ?

In the cut-throat universe of technology, the moment you think about slowing down, the world around you changes so much that you're hardly able to recognize it. It seems to me as though Microsoft is a company that is finding it difficult to keep up with the pace of innovation set by it's rivals. Its rivals seem to be rapidly eating away it's lead in the various markets and in the eyes of the general public Microsoft now seems to be a slow moving organization wrapped up in red-tape.

I think Microsoft's road to here has been defined by the following:

• I believe that Apple has done a sensational job in catching up with Microsoft in the last 10 years or so. It appears that Apple was galvanized by the success of it's iPod and that it passed on this success to the other arms of it's business. In the student laptop market, my elementary research at IE shows that there are about as many Macs as there are PCs

• I also believe that Microsoft over-promised and under-delivered with Windows XP and that Windows Vista was a complete disaster for the business. The repeated delays in the release of Vista and the abundant issues in the final product desecrated the reputation of Microsoft.

• The appearance that Microsoft has been trying to emulate Apple in it's user interface has further damaged the reputation of the company.

So, where to from here ? Well, I think Microsoft might do well to take a look at the turnaround of another technology giant, IBM. Through the vision and leadership of a former McKinsey Consultant, Lou Grestner, IBM came back from near bankruptcy to once again being a revered global technology firm. To my knowledge IBM basically transitioned from being a company that sold servers and hardware to being one of the world's pre-eminent IT Services company. I certainly don't mean to say the state of Microsoft is anywhere near the state of IBM in the early 1990s, but perhaps Microsoft can take a leaf or two out of IBM's reinvention story.

On that note, I might love you and leave you but before I do, I am going to cave into temptation and post my favourite Mac vs PC ad:

Look me in the eyes

To me, this video is a constant source of inspiration:

"Square Square Square Square".......

Last weekend I was in Paris for the MBA Olympics and I have a few fantastic stories from that weekend that I would really like to blog about but before that I have a compelling urge to create a blog about four square and it's business model. (Ok - I admit, I need to write this blog as part of my Information Systems class).

For those that are not quite at the forefront of technological trends, four square is a new start-up technology company that enables users to "check-in" to locations and write reviews about locations. The locations can be restaurants, shops, bars, clubs or just general places of interest. The idea is that once a place has been checked-in and reviewed, people interested in viewing a review of a place can use four square to do so. People can use the application on mobile devices, hence people are able to view reviews for locations that are close to their current positions.

Four Square is typically a mobile application used on devices such as iPhones, Blackberrys, etc. However, the reviews generated from Check-Ins can be view online through the four square website. There are trends emerging that compensate frequent users with discounts in stores, bars and restaurants.

Basically, the major stakeholders involved in the four square's business sphere are:

1. End Users: This refers to the consumers that use the mobile four square application on their portable devices.
2. Customers: This will be the segment of the market that compensates four square for the services they provide. This is unlikely to be the end users. Once users are required to pay four square for using their services, the number of four square users is likely to decline.

At the moment, the value proposition provided to each of these groups is as follows:

Value for end users:

• End users are able to access customized information about places of interest close to their current location. If an end user wants to view the reviews of restaurants around a certain area, the user is able to do so while being on the move.
• Through the points structure currently setup on Four Square, users that gain a lot of points are awarded titles that implicitly give them bragging rights over their friends and peers. This is an incentive for users to continue using the application and "Checking In" at every possibility.
• A new trend has emerged where retailers, bar owners and restaurant owners are giving end users a direct financial benefit for their presence on four square. That is, a consumer with a four square title of "Mayor" is able to walk into a number of bars and is able to receive a first drink free, or a discount of some other kind.

Value for businesses:

• Business that provide goods and services to the end users of four square are able to benefit from the application by being able to gain data on their own customers. This data can be valuable for Goods and Services providers in making critical strategic decisions.
• Although not currently available, it is expected that four square will enable businesses to post customized advertisements on the mobile application. This will enable businesses to post specific advertisements to consumers through four square depending on the current location of the consumer.

Thus, it can be seen that four square can add value to two separate groups. However, the value that the application provides to end users does not seem to be compelling enough to justify a charge for using the application. If end users are forced to pay for using the application it is quite likely that they will seek to avoid using the application. However, since four square could help businesses increase their own revenue, it seems reasonable to charge the businesses.

At the moment, four square is still running on it's start up money, there are no major sources of revenue. However, four square might eventually be able to generate revenue from some of the following methods:

1. Four Square could charge businesses for placing advertisements on it's application. This is the most obvious method of generating revenue and this method is currently utilized by several applications designed for the iPhone.
2. Four Square could also charge businesses on a cost-per-checkin basis. This would be quite a unique charging model. In this model, an increase in the number of check-ins will increase the online visibility of the businesses. An increase in the online visibility of a business is likely to bring in a greater number of customers and this will also compensate four square accordingly.

Now, is four square the new golden child of the internet ? Well, that is a multi-million dollar question now, isn't it ? Personally I believe that four square needs to re-position it's offering in such a way that value delivered to end users is more compelling. At the moment, the odd free beer and some bragging rights do not seem enough of an incentive for the vast majority of people. While I feel that the localized search on places of interest is useful, four square is hardly the first application that tries to do this.

On the other hand, customized data on consumers is something that businesses in general would love to attain. In fact, I think they would be willing to pay good money to attain this data.

In conclusion, I feel that if four square is able to overcome some of it's early teething problems, it could very well be an extremely successful online business.

The download dilemma....

We were having a discussion in class about moral validity of MP3 downloads and it's impact on the music industry in general. There were a couple of people from the music industry in the class so we did get a bit of a "industry view". Essentially, there were 2 points of view:

1. Downloading of music from Peer to Peer networks is akin to stealing. Producers and artists should be compensated for their work. The general public, downloading music and other content from free sources is doing so on unethical and immoral grounds.
2. The current digital music distribution framework has been essential in providing a global voice to artists that would have been otherwise unknown. The large artists seem to be quite financially successful already. The producing companies need to re-invent their business models in order to adapt to the changing needs and usage patterns of the consumer.

Personally, I am in favor of the 2nd point of view. I believe that the producing companies need to adapt their ways of doing business and need to stop throwing their toys from their cots and crying foul. In my view success in business is intrinsically tied to one's ability to adapt to change (& lead the change process). In our time of existence, the rules of the game, whatever game, are constantly changing and they are changing at a faster rate than ever before.

The tactic of using corporate muscle to crush the free exchange of digital music is a knee-jerk reaction that has lasted a decade. I know it is quite cliche for me to post an online blog on the power and necessity for the free transfer of information. But one of my pet-peeves is watching bureaucracy and change-fobia stifle the road of the change agent.

Anyway, if you are still reading, my ramblings must have been somewhat interesting (even if they may be infuriating for some of you).

So till the next time something inspires me or grinds my gears - Caio.