Category: entrepreneurship

Singing for their supper

Posted on by Steve Sammartino

You may have noticed that there are a lot of ‘Older’ Rockstars coming out to perform in your country. Bands we thought we’d only hear on Golden Oldies radio stations and never see live again. Well they are all back playing live again….

…I’m guessing it’s not buy choice. The fact that it’s pretty hard to find a record store these days is a good indication that the royalty streams old rockstars lived on have dried up for good. It’s much harder for older music to be promoted on iTunes than it was in a store that could only carry 2000 albums – from the artists who always got played on the radio. Their industry has been disrupted to the point where they now have to sing for their supper. Actively earn a living, versus passively receiving cash for deeds of yesteryear. Hence the deluge of 1980’s rockstars now touring again.

At some point disruptive technology effects us all. As startup entrepreneurs we are often the the creators of the disruption. As successful business people in years to come, our revenue streams will ultimately be disrupted by the next iteration. What we must do is create a war chest of revenue streams once we make bank. And the best advice I’ve ever been given that is future proof is this:

Build businesses, then buy real estate.

Sure it might sound boring, but one thing for certain is that it’s hard to see technology disrupting the value of good real estate. At least in our life times.

twitter-follow-me13

Human evolution and technology

Posted on by Steve Sammartino

I’ve been wondering a lot lately about the speed of human evolution. Do humans evolve at a constant speed, or does our pace of evolution change dependent on our environment? What has the impact of technology been on human evolution? Especially given that this technology is created by us, for us. With the rate of technological change and power increasing exponentially, will it eventually leave humans behind or be the bastion of human dominance and longevity? There are of course juxtaposing views. I just thought I’d explore some of my own anthropological thoughts on this subject here and postulate a viewpoint.

Technology is becoming more human. Everything technology I see is replicating ultimately human functions, possibilities, senses and activations. My favourite and a recent example of this is the smart phone. If we think about the functions and features of the smart phone it’s easy to see the humanizing analogy. Firstly our phones can now see. The current model of the iPhone has an 8 megapixel camera, which is already about half as good as the human eyes acuity. By the way an 8 megapixel camera cost around $10,000 just 20 years ago, and now it is free in our phone so long as we sign up to a plan. Mind you, the iPhone also has eyes in the back of it’s head with the dual front and back camera. Something we wished we had since cave times and has entered common parlance. The phone can hear with it’s microphone, nothing new, until Siri came along and started translating voice and providing answers for us. Our phone knows where it is, via GPS and can recognise it’s surroundings using aggregate rich data from it’s eyes, ears, GPS and compass. And lastly, but probably most importantly, it has the smartest brain in the world. With web access, it knows everything we know as a species. It can access the collective intelligence of the entire world with a few finger swipes. With access to the web, it knows things like the current temperature in our location. It knows what the weather is like and can access live satellite data and tell us with closely accuracy when rain is on the way. A very very human thing for people to want to know and share. And if we don’t look this up on it’s ‘web brain’ our twitter stream from locals we follow will surely tweet visuals of the impending storms just like we saw in Sydney and Melbourne last week. It is also starting to mimic how we move and interact. Gesturing is quickly augmenting and replacing keystrokes. Codes is also starting to write itself.

We are the technology. I think that the rate of human evolution is actually increasing in speed. The speed of evolution has become so important to ultimate human survival (given impending environmental issues, unstable geopolitical environs) that we have had to innovate, and evolve in a new a different way. We are temporarily outsourcing our evolution – we are now evolving outside our bodies because the breeding and natural selection process is too elongated. Our latest method for evolving has been to change ourselves using our brain. Our only way of doing this quickly enough is creating new body parts outside of our body. A form of intellectual addendum or appendages. Which once these body parts have evolved enough – they will re-enter our bodies. I think that we have already seen some evidence of this. At a primary level with medical science creating human ‘replacement parts’ which we then install into our bodies when the original part fails. Which is a much quicker method than breading out people whose hips, knees and hearts (?) fail early in life. The other element of this that I am witnessing is the size of the machines – their constant reduction in size, and their closeness to us as humans. The computer has an interesting history if we think of it in evolutionary terms. It began very large, as big as a room. It was exclusive and only available to large military, industrial and educational institutions. But it (the computer) then multiplied and divided, becoming smaller and smarter. Eventually arriving on desktops, and on peoples laps.  Now it resides in our pockets. It’s constantly getting smaller and smarter. Closer to our bodies. Sometimes we even have an ear piece which injects it’s data directly into our human CPU’s. We too, send data into it. It also spends more time on our person. It no longer gets switched off, its heart beats 24 hours a day for us. The next steps I expect to continue this trend, for it to become smaller, closer to our body and eventually enter our bodies. Something people like Ray Kurzweil have been postulating for some time.

This had to happen. The complexity of data is too rich to digest and make sense of. Both our bodies and brains cannot cope. I think this is partly why we are seeing such a dramatic increase in mental illness. it’s just an internal code overload permeating in different types of human style 404 & syntax errors. It was the only way humans could evolve quickly enough in order to survive. Due to exponential change We had to evolve externally, initially. These tools, both mechanical and code related have become part of our evolutionary path. And just like all evolution it has happened without prior consent, knowledge or intention.

I feel as thought merger between human and machine is very close. I have never really believed that machines will turn against humans. Even if they became self aware. Self awareness for me has never been enough. They need to feel, believe and desire. Computational power beyond the human is only part the equation. They would need an emotional desire before any rivalry could occur in mind view. I feel that the machines entering our body is more likely. The final merger to end all mergers. The most important merger that humans have ever seen. it’s probably similar to when we left the water, or climbed down from the tree. Only different. But it wont be a day in time. An event, or even have a date. It’s already happened in some ways, and once it has become omnipresent we will only ever notice it in hindsight.

It makes me think that technology – and the next steps of web, smart phones and startups are beyond our own comprehension. It’s really important and probably much more radical than any of us could ever imagine. I just hope I’m around to be part of it, and that it moves us one step further to equal love, health and opportunity around the world.

twitter-follow-me13

The tender folly

Posted on by Steve Sammartino

Here’s the plan:

We’ll ask a bunch of companies to solve an important business problem for us.

It will be a big problem with large financial consequences.

We’ll give companies a written document on what we think we want.

We wont let any of the companies ask us more about what we want. They just get what is written.

We’ll have a deadline that is immovable. If a company is not inside it, they lose. Even if they are the best.

We wont meet with any of the people we will work with. We wont find out if we like each other.

We’ll only give these companies 1 hour to explain what they think we should do. Even if the project takes years.

We wont tell them the budget, or we’ll give an immovable budget. Either or.

We’ll get a purchasing person to run this thing. Not someone from the department who will work on the project.

We’ll keep certain secrets on the project in house until we choose a partner.

We will go through this process this every X years. Even if our current provider does this for us very well.

——

Sound silly? If it does, then maybe it is time we started re-thinking if we want to do business with anyone who believes in the tender process.

twitter-follow-me13

What I love about gifyo.com

Posted on by Steve Sammartino

I’ve recently been playing around with Rohan on a relatively new site called Gifyo. It’s such a simple idea it has the ‘why didn’t I think of that’ written all over it.

What it does: Gifyo is a social service that allows you to create animated gifs directly from your webcam. Simply capture, create, and share.

It’s like 3 seconds of filming, that makes an ‘Old School’ style gif. Which has a certain quaintness to it. It’s also very cool because it is so quick to do, and it makes people think about what might entertain other users. Just go to their home page and you can see how quickly this web service has caught on. Some other simple yet smart things it has done is create a live feed where every post gets a turn on the home page feed. Sure, this can only last while it is niche enough to feature everyone… but it sure is a good way of spreading the service – everyone loves a little bit of microfame.

We started a little #officedancing meme just for fun.

So for startup entrepreneurs it provides a couple of really cool lessons.

  1. Sometimes really small, in fact tiny ideas are the ones that catch on.
  2. People want to get attention, more than give it.
  3. Retro technology is big. It is fun and creates a sense of simplicity & nostalgia which is very human.
  4. If you love something, others might too. Don’t waste time thinking about it, build it and find out.

I can’t wait to hear my readers next fun, small and retro idea they have launched.

twitter-follow-me13

Home Made Advertising

Posted on by Steve Sammartino

Sometimes it is hard to make out if an advertisement is actually as it seems, or if it has been ‘gamed’. I came across one such advertisement recently. Chuck Testa had me in stitches (pun intended) with his Youtube advertisement that has now had over 7 million views. What is really cool, is the internet meme that has quickly developed on its coat tails. You can see many of the mashups here on youtube… and just for good measure I’ve posted my favourite below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJP1DphOWPs]

 

…and this Songify version…

 

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUVtfUWwF8]

 

The lesson for startups is simple. Have a crack at something funny to gain brand awareness. If it works you win. If it doesn’t, no one sees it anyway and you still win. Have a crack.

twitter-follow-me13

Bloggers will love themepivot.com

Posted on by Steve Sammartino

Local nice guy Ned had a very productive weekend. On Friday he pitched themepivot and the Melbourne Startup Weekend. On Sunday he had a very nice and workable site live and kicking. He also took first prize for his trouble.

Put simply, themepivot is great way to redesign your blog and make it better, easier.

I strongly recommend all you bloggers out that take a look. I’ve already got some changes on the way, which were just so easy to do, I did it when I only really intended to check the site out. It’s that easy.

Get on it.  Well done Ned and team.

twitter-follow-me13

Why Foxtel is Doomed

Posted on by Steve Sammartino

I am a Foxtel subscriber and every day I get that little bit closer to turning off my $100 per month payment. Not because it is too expensive, but because the value equation is getting worse, at a time when alternatives are becoming more attractive. Sure, their penetration in Australia might be growing, but we are on the precipice of disruptive change to Television, in a way that Foxtel must respond to if they want to survive. And their response needs to be before the impending disruption, or just like the music industry, they’ll be wondering what happened.

I’ll give a summary of the why, and then revert to the what they should do.

Why Foxtel is doomed

The primary reason is that their system is antiquated. The model they employ, is the same as the cable television model which emerged from the US in the late 1970’s. Yes it still exists, but it’s days are numbered. it has already happened to newspapers, it has happened to music, and TV is next. The belief that they can demand that consumers subscribe to content in a world of infinite content is foolish. The world is moving quickly from a pay to play – subscription model, to a ‘free and on demand’ model. The fact that Foxtel has access 35% of homes is irrelevant.  The real competition of Foxtel isn’t Free to Air TV, it’s the alternative web enabled screens in the home; laptops, desk tops, ipads, kindles and connected TV’s. Web enabled TV has already penetrated 17% of homes in Australia. With the dropping cost of screen & web technology, the future for Foxtel is bleak.

Foxtel is reducing what we get for the same price:

Only two years ago our $100 per month gave us the gold package. Every channel, 2 free new release movies per month, the IQ recording device and approx 30 on demand shows / movies. Without notice the same amount of money gave us ‘less’ incrementally. First they removed the 2 free movies – without notice. Then they slowly started reducing the number of on demand shows. As I write this it is down to a paltry 7 shows as of today. While everyone else is giving us more, Foxtel are giving less. Anyone would think Moore’s law works in the opposite direction the way they operate.

They don’t get on demand:

The great innovation on the web and entertainment deliver is on demand. Foxtel, still choose to schedule nearly everything that is available, save for a few movies and TV shows they are promoting (the 7 mentioned above). They expect us to work to their schedule. The world doesn’t world like that anymore. They need to wake up to this before most of their customers wake up to the fact that their are far cheaper and better alternatives available than Foxtel. (Including watching all USA TV on demand on Hulu via a proxy spinner.)

They don’t provide access content for purchase without subscription:

In their wisdom Foxtel has added a ‘movie library’ which is ‘on demand’. I thought – ‘Finally they are starting to get it.’ So when I attempted to watch an ‘old movie’ I was informed I had to; subscribe to get access. I thought I went into a time warp back to 1983 or something. It is not as though the movie was going to be free. I was happy to pay for it. But they also wanted me to pay for the right to have access. How stupid are these people, given that the tubes are already connected to me TV? Surely giving everyone access could and would increase revenue via people like me sitting down to watch an old movie. They have the system upside down. They have turned off their revenue tap. This is where they should be taking a lesson from iTunes. You can download whatever you like on demand for a rental fee. I’m really flummoxed by this. I think it is currently the worst media strategy in Australia by any company.

The NBN will hurt their business:

The imminent National Broad Band Network in Australia (NBN) is very bad news for Foxtel. It is basically putting the power of HD web live stream in every home. All that needs to happen is an on demand web enabled competitor to arrive and any one with half a clue will turn off their Foxtel. Not to mention the fact that Youtube HD will become a seriously viable TV option. (If you haven’t lately, you should check out the Youtube Movies, Youtube live Concerts and Documentary’s section – it’s growing daily as are brand content channels – no prizes for guessing their strategy is to win the screen in every lounge room).

Apple Television in coming:

It was reported that Steve Jobs last great disruption was coming to Television with the Apple TV. Not the Current Apple TV box, but  fully fledged in home Television screen connected to the web with levels of wizardry we can only imagine. One thing we don’t have to imagine is the depth of content that will be available from it’s existing iTunes store. All on demand, up to date and without subscription fees. When this comes – and it will, I am certain TV will never be the same again…. and Foxtel will be very model T Ford.

Connected TV is rapidly encroaching on Foxtel:

Foxtel is all about being connected to narrow cast content. Now that all TV’s sold are web enabled, we have access to everything we could imagine – Free. It’s a pretty compelling price point. The really important thing we must remember is that the price of technology is dropping. A connected Plasma 42″ TV is now as little as $500 to buy. With the user interface improving rapidly and many US streaming players arriving shortly (Hulu, Netflix, Startup XYZ) there is no space for the ‘monopoly like’ behaviour or pricing. For Newscorp it is newspapers all over again.

Users must pay for unwanted (unwatched) content:

The idea of having to buy packages is archaic. The idea of ‘Packages’ is a supply centric mantra from a time when the factory called the shots – much like travel agents did in the 1980′. But we now live in a user decides, mashup, self design commercial society. The idea that we can’t pay for the exact channels we choose (with volume discounts of course) is not design for users, just the owners. people don’t watch sport. They watch football, or boxing or surfing. people have specific needs, not generic ones. BBC viewers are different to Fox news viewers, so why treat them them same and ‘bundle them up? ‘ It’s an old method which is quite simply broken.

They’ve thrown their opportunity to be ‘platform oriented’:

Foxtel had their chance to own the distribution point of content on demand in Australian homes, and they let it go. They have tubes going into 35% of homes and every Foxtel discussion I have with anyone these days is around how poor the value equation is, and how they are poised to seek alternatives which they know are emerging. Their old world mentality is much like th music industry who were in love with their system, and not their customers. And this will be their downfall.

What Foxtel must do to survive:

Everything above and more.

But I honestly think it is too late. They may still exist, only via exclusive content like global sports properties. They’ve missed their chance and I have no doubt that disruptive internet technology will do to them the same thing it has done to many industry stalwarts. The most interesting fact is that, although I’m calling their game as over, the opportunity for startups in the space is still alive and kicking, which is ironic. It comes down to one basic fact, that companies who feed off legacy infrastructure almost always lose.