Friday, November 20, 2009

Videos from Real-Time CrunchUp SF

Real-time streams will fundamentally alter the way we communicate and interact with one another. At the Real-Time CrunchUp, held in San Francisco November 20th, some of the leading companies shared their views on real-time services and business models around that.

From RSS To Realtime:
A Conversation With Twitter COO Dick Costolo


Roundtable:
Filtering The Stream. Getting Rid of the Noise.

Chris Cox, VP of Product, Facebook
Amit Singhal, Google Fellow, Google
Loic Le Meur, CEO, Seesmic
Edo Segal, Investor/entrepreneur, Futurity Ventures,
Ken Moss, CEO, CrowdEye
Lili Cheng, GM of FUSE Labs, Microsoft
Bret Taylor, VP of Platform, Facebook,
Jason Hirschhorn, Chief Product Officer, MySpace
Jason Shellen, CEO, Thing Labs/Brizzly
Kimbal Musk, CEO, OneRiot
Ron Conway, Angel Investor

The Social Enterprise:
A Conversation With Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff


Where is The Stream Going?
Tomorrow's Killer Apps (DEMOS) Part 1

Justin Shaffer, Hot Potato
Loic Le Meur, Seesmic
Zachary Garbow, Qwisk
Rohit Khare & Salim Ismail, Knx.to
Evan Prodromou, StatusNet

Where is The Stream Going?
Tomorrow's Killer Apps (DEMOS) Part 2


Where Is The Stream Going?
Tomorrow’s Killer Apps (Demos) Part 3


Media Streams:
Are These The Ultimate Marketing Vehicles?

Ryan Amos, co-founder, DailyBooth
Sean Rad, CEO, Ad.ly
Jesse Engle, CEO, CoTweet
Robin Bechtel, Hollywood agent, Digital strategist for Britney Spears, Warner Bros. Records
Philip Nelson, SVP strategic development, NewTek

Geo Streams:
We Know Where You Are, Right Now


Where The Realtime Rubber Meets The Road:

Twitter reveals details about its business model

In this very interesting conversation with Dick Costolo, COO at Twitter, at the Real-Time CrunchUp Nov 20th, the company's business model is discussed, confirming that the deals with Microsoft and Google are bringing Twitter money. Costolo also answers questions about the newly turned-on Geolocation API and its possibilities.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

The business model of API’s

This is a guest post by Elias Bizannes, an expert in data portability and open standards, financial analyst at Vast.com and vice-chair of steering group at the Data Portability Project.


Application Programming Interfaces - better known in the technology industry as API's - have come out as one of the most significant innovations in information technology. What at first appears a geeky technical technique for developers to play with, is now evolving into something that will underpin our very society (assuming you accept information has, is, and will be the the crux of our society). This post explores the API and what it means for business.


What is it?
In very simple terms, an API is a set of instructions a service declares, that outsiders can use to interact with it. Google Maps has one of the most popular API's on the Internet and provides a good example of their power. Google hosts terabytes of data relating to its mapping technology, and it allows developers not affiliated with Google to build applications on top of Google's. For example, thousands of websites like the NYTimes.com have integrated Google's technology to enhance their own.

An example more familiar with ordinary consumers would be Facebook applications. Facebook allows developers through an API to create 'apps' that have become one of the main sources of entertainment on Facebook, the world's most popular social networking site. Facebook's API determines how developers can build apps that interact with Facebook and what commands they need to specify in order to pull out people's data stored in Facebook. It's a bit like a McDonald's franchise - you are allowed to use McDonald's branding, equipment and supplies, so long as you follow the rules in being a franchisee.

API's have become the centre of the mashup culture permeating the web. Different websites can interact with each other - using each others technology and data - to create innovative products.


What incentive do companies have in releasing an API?
That's the interesting question that I want to explore here. It's still early days in the world of API's, and a lot of companies seem to offer them for free - which seems counter-intuitive. But on closer inspection, it might not. Free or not, web businesses can create opportunity.

Free doesn't mean losing
An API that's free has the ability to generate real economic value for a new web service. For example, Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) has become a very real factor in business success now. Becoming the top result for the major search engines generates free marketing for new and established businesses.

In order for companies to boost their SEO rankings, one of the things they need to do is have a lot of other websites pointing links at them. And therein flags the value of an open API. By allowing other people to interact with your service and requiring some sort of attribution, it enables a business to boost their SEO dramatically.

Scarcity is how you generate value
One of the fundamental laws of economics, is that to create value, you need something to be scarce. (That's why cash is tightly controlled by governments.) Twitter, the world's most popular micro-blogging service, is famous for the applications that have been built on their API (with over 11,000 apps registered). And earlier this year, they really got some people's knickers in a knot when they decided to limit usage of the API.

Which is my eyes was sheer brilliance by the team at Twitter.


By making their API free, they've had hundreds of businesses build on top of it. Once popular, they could never just shut the API off and start charging access for it - but by introducing some scarcity, they've done two very important things: they are managing expectations for the future ability to charge additional access to the API and secondly, they are creating the ability to generate a market.

The first point is better known in the industry as the Freemium model. Its become one of the most popular and innovative revenue models in the last decade on the Internet. One where it's free for people to use a service, but they need to pay for the premium features. Companies get you hooked on the free stuff, and then make you want the upgrade.

The second point I raised about Twitter creating a market, is because they created an opportunity similar to the mass media approach. If an application dependent on the API needs better access to the data, they will need to pay for that access. Or why not pay someone else for the results they want?

Imagine several Twitter applications that every day calculate a metric - that eats their daily quota like no tomorrow - but given it's a repetitive standard task, doesn't require everyone having to do it. If the one application of say a dozen could generate the results, they could then sell it to the other 11 companies that want the same output. Or perhaps, Twitter could monitor applications generating the same requests and sell the results in bulk.

That's the mass media model: write once, distribute to many. And sure, developers can use up their credits within the limit...or they can instead pay $x per day to get the equivalent information pre-mapped out. By limiting the API, you create an economy based on requests (where value comes through scarcity) - either pay a premium API which gives high-end shops more flexibility or pay for shortcuts to pre-generated information.


API's are part of the information value chain
An economic concept I proposed a year ago (and am going to revise over the coming year with some fresh thought) is called the Information Value Chain. It takes an established economic theory that has dictated business in the industrial age, and applies it in the context of businesses that create products in information or computing utility.

With reference to my model, the API offers the ability for a company to specialise at one stage of the value chain. The processing of data can be a very intensive task, and require computational resources or raw human effort (like a librarian's taxonomy skills). Once this data is processed, a company can sell that output to other companies, who will generate information and knowledge that they in turn can sell.

I think this is one of the most promising opportunities for the newspaper industry. The New York Times last year announced a set of API's (their first one being campaign finance data), that allows people to access data about a variety of issues. Developers can then query this API, and generate unique information. It's an interesting move, because it's the computer scientists that might have found a future career path for journalists.

Journalists skills in accessing sources, determining significance of information, and conveying it effectively is being threatened with the democratisation of information that's occurred due to the Internet. But what the NY Times API reflects, is a new way of creating value - and it's taking more of a librarian approach. Rather than journalism become story-centric, their future may be one where it is data based, which is a lot more exciting than it sounds. Journalists yesterday were the custodians of information, and they can evolve that role to one of data instead. (Different data objects connected together, by definition, is what creates information.)

A private version of the semantic web and a solution for data portability
The semantic web is a vision by the inventor of the World Wide Web, which if fully implemented, will make the advances of the Internet today look like prehistory. (I've written about the semantic web before to give those new to the subject or skeptical.) But for those that do know of it, you probably are aware of one problem and less aware of another.

The obvious problem is that it's taking a hell of a long time to see the semantic web happen. The not so obvious problem, is that it's pushing for all data and information to be public. The advocacy of open data has merit, but by constantly pushing this line, it gives no incentive for companies to participate. Certainly, in the world of data portability, the issue of public availability of your identity information is scary stuff for consumers.

Enter the API.

API's offer the ability for companies to release data they have generated in a controlled way. It can create interoperability between different services in the same way the semantic web vision ultimately wants things to be, but because it's controlled, can overcome this barrier that all data needs to be open and freely accessible.

Concluding thoughts
This post only touches on the subject. But it hopefully makes you realise the opportunities created by this technology advance. It can help create value without needing to outlay cash; new monetisation opportunities for business; additional value in society due to specialisation; and the ability to bootstrap the more significant trends in the Web's evolution.


Relating posts:

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Business models turning products into platforms

Most products can be subdivided into smaller parts (modules) that can be independently created and then used in different systems for multiple uses. Classical examples of modular systems are complex products such as airplanes, cars and computers, comprising of many different subsystems. Technology and IP based business models take further steps breaking down each invention, algorithm or other valuable asset into the smallest possible components consisting of isolated, self-contained functional elements, to be used in different technology, products and systems for multiple uses.

What is a platform product?
A platform product can be seen as a product that enables one or more additional products or services to expand the platform product's capabilities and features such as functionality, performance or design. Digital examples are Microsoft's Windows, Google's Android platform, Facebook and Twitter, where application developers are able to develop software for users to chose, adding functionality not included in the original platform product. Some physical examples are cars, bicycles, SLR cameras or computers, with their spare parts, tuning kits, peripherals and other accessories. Increasingly physical components becomes connected and integrated with digital ones with fundamentally physical products such as houses or trucks becoming platforms for numerous of digital services for its owners, users, and other stakeholders.

Enabling flexibility and customization
Customers or users seldom want the same thing and have different price sensitivity and prioritizations for different features such as performance, design, portability or functionality of a product. At the same time few are those who are willing to pay for more things or functions than they need, unless they have to. Providing a product as a platform, it can be made more simple and flexible, often to a lower cost, enabling alternations and extensions into many different directions based on customer preferences. It might also enable upgrades and new features not yet discovered when the platform is being sold. Different components or modules can also be sold with different rights or license terms tied to them.

Platform compatibility
Different control mechanisms, such as trademarks, product design, design protection, patents and contracts are often used in combination to control the compatibility of a product platform from other companies' additional products. Depending on the competitive setting, the developed control position and chosen business strategy, the company offering both the product platform and extensions can either compete or be a monopolist in the market for platform products and/or additional products. Companies may for various reasons, such as decreasing the time of development or to provide bigger variety of additional products, chose to allow competition and allow customers to choose additional products offered by competing or complementary firms.

Closed, semi-open and open platforms
The product platform can be totally closed or totally open in many different ways such as "open for everyone to develop and sell additional products", "open for licensees signing away certain rights to develop and sell additional products", "additional products must be sold through the platform owner" or as with news platforms "open for everyone to comment", "open for registered users to comment" "open for adding of links" etc.

Ten years ago mobile phone operators wanted to provide all services to their subscribers themselves and the place to download games and ringtones was theirs. After only 8 months of operations the number of iPhone applications surpassed Windows mobile applications that had been developed for 9 years. Before the year end the iPhone app store is believed to have more than 100 000 applications, still the iPhone app store has only been semi-open and perhaps we will see an even faster development for the Google Android platform.

Actors playing multiple roles
Subdividing the value creation into smaller parts that can be independently created enables companies to focus on their core activities based on their core assets and capabilities, and use external actors to develop and provide the rest that is needed. In many cases this creates complex relationships where actors together build platforms or ecosystems of products and services, at the same time competing with their products and services. One example is Microsoft that provides the Windows platform for others to develop applications on, at the same time it competes in several application areas such as browsers and media players. Together Microsoft and external developers might compete against Apple's or Google's platforms and software applications. In technology and licensing intensive industries such as telecom each actor can any day be a supplier, buyer, competitor, partner and licensee.

Designing the value network
A key challenge for companies providing products as platforms is to design the value network surrounding the company and its value propositions. What role should the platform provider have in relation to external actors? With whom should you cooperate, how and under what terms? What are the external actors' incentives or disincentives to get a successful product platform to emerge? How do they look at your role in their business model? What are your value propositions towards the different actors that you need in your value network? How do your value propositions support customers' customers, suppliers' suppliers and partners' partners? What about your long term position in the value network?

Need for business model innovation
Think of all products that can be seen as platforms still controlled by one company where the speed of development could increase dramatically together with the available options for customers to customize and personalize the final product. This is not as much an engineering challenge as it is a business model challenge.

What products and services can be built and provided by others as add-ons to your platform product? What companies or other organizations make money or get benefits today based on your products and services? How could this be taken one step further...?

Further reading:

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Shanda Literature - An interesting business model for more than 800 000 authors

Shanda Literature, a subsidiary of Shanda Interactive Entertainment known for its online games, is an online publishing company based in Shanghai, with a very interesting business model.

More than 800 000 amateur authors have been providing around 50 million Chinese characters daily, to Shanda’s literature portals with around 500 million page views daily. Any writer can register with Shanda and post their works on any of its sites. Content is made available as Internet literature, mobile literature, traditional print, and Shanda has also its own E-Reader in development. Most known portals are Qidian, Jinjiang and Hongxiu, targeting different groups of readers with different types of content. Shanda Literature’s original online literature site Qidian has released more than 600 000 online novels.

Revenues are generated from micro transactions, advertising and for non-professional writers copyrights are acquired and licensed to other publishers, mobile, gaming, TV and film industries, with the great majority being from micro transactions. Readers can read the first half of a book for free and then, if they like the book, pay about 2-3 cents per 1000 characters, for the rest of the book. The total cost is about one-tenth of the paperback price to read a book online.

Revenues from micro transactions are shared 50/50 with the authors “that’s why writers in China can make a fortune” says Zhou Hongli, Chief Copyright Officer in the first video below.

The company that was founded in 2007 controls over 90% of China’s online-reading market, and generated $15 million in 2008 from a total readership of 25 million, and is still growing at 10 million new readers per year. It has received awards such as “China’s most promising enterprise”, “One of the ten best Internet brand names of China” and “China’s cutting edge media by Forbes”.

See the last 2 minutes in the video below:


Interview with Hou Xiaoquiang, CEO Shanda Literature. (noisy)

Related posts: