GILASTATE

Part of the problem of not living in Silicon Valley is that you miss out on some of the cooler applications of technology. While it isn’t new, I just recently came across the idea of unconferencecs. Now that I’ve heard of them, they make perfect sense and I am somewhat peeved this idea hadn’t occurred to me earlier. While the term is most associated with a particular form of conference “driven by the participants” rather than the more traditional guest speakers, this concept is an excellent example of the co-creation of value through an open approach. Instead of just having the conference presenters deliver a one-way stream of value, an unconference creates value through it’s attendees. The attendees actively participate in both structuring the conference itself as well as driving the session.

Certainly there is more risk in depending on the attendees than relying on a proven speaker, so the facilitation of an unconference is therefore key. Without some controls, I’m sure an unconference could devolve into chaos. Properly facilitated, however, I would be interested to see what a smart group of attendees could come up with when compared to a traditional session. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some really interesting discussions emerge from such a technique.

Have any of my readers been to an unconference? If so, let me know what you thought!

Steve Jobs recently announced Apple’s intention to support third party applications on the iPhone. It is great news that Apple is going to offer an SDK for the iPhone, but clearly the iPhone will not be an open source device. Jobs mentioned that the primary challenge of “opening” the iPhone is insuring that the device is secure against viruses and other malware. Of course, what this means is the Apple will maintain strict control of how third party applications can access the underlying OS and hardware. Time will tell how this will benefit iPhone users.

The technology industry has been talking about convergence since at least the 1984 break-up of AT&T. The idea of convergence is really more of a technically based term that has come to mean literally bringing together technologies that were once separate. AT&T has a whole microsite dedicated to discussing how they will integrate voice, video, conferencing, and messaging all over a single network (IP). Convergence is juxtaposed against the past where these service required their own special delivery technologies. Clearly, having once network/technology where you previously had several is probably better to some extent- think operations, training, and equipment costs.

For the most part, the communication technology wars are over. In the past we used to question the Internet’s ability to be a network for real time communication and rich media, but that time is long past. IP effectively won the last war. Sure, there are lots of yet to be determined standards and protocols, but it would be hard to argue that IP is anything but dominant.

So, if everything (communication-wise, anyway) is converging around IP, then what is next? My opinion is a that to truly progress, we have to move beyond considering technology convergence to considering how customer value is created through services. This next step requires a different perspective on what is the nature of customer value. This step views technologies as nothing more than containers for value. The true value comes from the needs that the technologies address through intelligent service design.

Sure, we have historically considered the source of customer value as being the technology itself. The problem with this approach is that it places limitations on what technology can accomplish. If we start with the customer needs first and then assemble the technologies to best meet these needs, we may find that many technologies and combinations of technologies can break out of what they have traditional been good at.  The only way for this to happen is to focus on the customer and not the technology.

Here is recent article talking about a new DoCoMo service “mash up” that integrates an exercise application with mobile phones. The phone uses various sensors to track activity, heart rate, body fat, and a host of other data points in order to provide for fitness tracking and recommendations. The phone also provides inspirational advice depending on the data collected.

This is another interesting application that departs from traditional notions of service delivery over mobile devices. While in this case, the application may be developed by DoCoMo and Mitsubishi, the opportunities for open source developments are even more intriguing. If the platform were open, there would be developers around the world developing amazing new uses for such devices. As an example of what’s possible, check out the Carman application for the N800. The developers of this application took advantage of the standard data port on my late model cars to develop a really slick application that can report on many different sensors that already exist in these cars. While it is not health related, it isn’t too hard to make the leap to body diagnostics.

Imagine the applications that could be developed with both general fitness and medical uses if such a device were available. 1984 fears not withstanding, a usable device in this market space could be quite a breakthrough.

UPDATE: Here is a new article talking about Google’s desire to develop the OS and not the hardware.  I think many of my thoughts are still valid as the OS is obviously a critical part of any phone. 

While it is impossible at this point to determine whether Google is actually developing their own phone or not, such a development would certainly have much to offer consumers and, in turn, Google. Ive spoken about the significant restrictions that most wireless providers have placed on their phones previously. These providers want to create a monopoly over the applications that use their network. From a simplistic business point of view, you can see the logic. For example, why let people use the music they currently own for ring tones when you can charge them $2.50 for virtually the same thing by enacting strict controls over the hardware functions.

The rumors on the GPhone are that it will be Linux based and be an open platform unlike the iPhone. For consumers, the benefits are obvious. An open platform would create a new outlet for open source developers. Such a platform would also allow firms with proprietary software to offer owners of such a phone. This is exactly the approach that Nokia is taking with the N800. Google may stand to benefit even more than Nokia, however.

Google’s core competencies center around information indexing and advertisement delivery. Nokia obviously is not even close in this regard. If Google created a phone that was optimized for their competencies, it would only serve to dramatically increase their advertising reach in the mobile market. Many in the start-up crowd are already taking about the yet to arrive mobile web as Web 3.0. And while I hate this moniker, I think there is far more potential for mobile applications that is being realized today.

But, what about all the open source developers that would be competing with Google on their own phone? Certainly, Google would want their search and mapping applications to be in an obvious, fixed location on the phone UI, but I think the rest of the platform being open would only benefit them. The open source community would add value to the GPhone by offering all of the “long tail” applications that appeal to a large number of consumers. The phone would actually become a platform for services versus a container exclusively for the applciations that Google develops or supports. Such a platform would allow users to address their specific needs which might result in the GPhone attracting a significant customer audience. And, assuming Google continues to offer robust information products, the GPhone would effectively allow Google to break out of the locked down cell phone market they are confined to today. Of course, this is not a simplistic business model and is not without risks. Only time will tell whether Google want to change the wireless game or continue supporting the providers’ application monopolies.