Everybody Hopes to Cross the Chasm…

You probably are familiar with the notion of “eras” of technology, including the certifiably historical observation that the market leaders in the era of mainframe computing were not the leaders of the minicomputer market that followed.

The leaders of the minicomputer business were not the leaders of the era of personal computing. And just about everybody now agrees we are in transition to another era of “Web,” “network based” or some other distributed form of computing architecture.

Then look at “moving pictures.” There was the era of “three big national networks.” Then there was cable. Now something else may be stirring. Then look at advertising. First there was only “local” media. Then we had “mass media.” Then media began to fragment. And now we have Google and search. Personal video recorders. Web portals.

Information technology used to follow a predictable pattern. Invention in the universities. Then diffusion to money center banks, then to enterprises, then to service providers. Now it is more like university invention, diffusion to consumers, then to service providers and lastly to enterprises, says Cisco General Manager Dan Scheinman.

The point is that every incumbent wants to cross the chasm and lead the next era. History argues against it. Which begs the obvious question. Will the leaders of today’s business be the leaders of tomorrow’s business?

To be sure, incumbents are spending like they want to succeed in the next era. Paul Silverstein,Credit Suisse analyst, points out that U.S. telecom capital spending this year will exceed spending of the boom year of 2000. Analysts at other firms say the same thing: telecom capex is at extremely robust levels.

WalMart is creating a video download site. Not because they expect to make so much money at it, but because they cannot afford to have the name “Apple iVideo” come to mind when any consumer decides they want to buy video content and download it.

Comcast would not be investing in user generated video and download to PC capabilities if it though its linear video model was safe. Neither would studios be so anxious to embrace digital delivery is they thought the current distribution model had secure legs.

In fact, the global IT industry would not be in such a headlong rush to secure a dominant place in the consumer electronics industry if business IT was still seen as the global driver of growth.

Then there’s the voice business. By 2010, 95 percent of enterprises will have integrated communications into their business apps, says Dar Shaw, Microsoft director. So think about that. Enterprise drives the bulk of carrier profit, and close to half the gross revenues for most tier one service providers.

And in a few short years, applications themselves will originate and terminate voice and text communications. Video won’t be far behind. Aside from data connections on both fixed and mobile networks, how much former communications will have shifted to some applications-based origination and termination?

And as Dan Creed, CopperCom executive says: “The only web-based service not available online for your telco customers are your own voice services.”

All of which points out a huge challenge for service providers used to selling “voice” as a recurring service: if any service—including voice—is available on any device, any time and anywhere, how is that to be done?

One hears a great deal of fear and loathing about Google and other application providers. In fact, lots of telco executives fear Google more than any cable company. Google and Yahoo! are the competition. Those are the trusted brands for the younger generation.

And while every service provider ought to be developing new applications running on any device, on any network, at any time, there’s a sheer limit to how much innovation any single provider can generate.

Look at it another way. In an era where application development and innovation gets easier and easier every day, the “gate” or “barrier” to innovation is human ingenuity. There are fewer and fewer regulatory, technological or market structure barriers.

So how many of the world’s supply of ingenious and talented human beings work at your enterprise? How many of the smart and clever people work in your whole industry segment?

You know the answer. Most of the creative, smart, talented people, with an actual grasp of what they really want to do, work and live someplace else.

Nobody will get very far on their own internal resources. And that means carriers and service providers have to find ways to open up what they do and work with all those other people. “Fighting Google” leads to a death spiral.

And that inevitably means loosely-coupled services that embrace the Web, even if those services cross over and interoperate with fixed and wireless networks. A smart service provider might create a couple, or maybe even as many as 10 interesting and rewarding applications.

No service provider is going to create scores to hundreds of services so interesting people will pay money for them. In fact, so long as large service providers insist they must concentrate on new services bought by “70 percent of their customer base,” we can almost predict they will develop but a few successful apps.

Think about the last couple of decades. What apps are bought and used by “70 percent” of tier one service provider customers? Wireless voice and voice mail. Throw in broadband access. SMS. Mobile data. Forget about 70 percent. How about 30 percent? And that’s being charitable.

Service providers need to learn to innovate “at Google speed,” as John Lazar, MetaSwitch CEO, puts it. That doesn’t mean the innovation will be mostly home grown. It mostly will come from external developers, and mostly from Web-based sources.

So fighting “Google” won’t work. “Not invented here” is a death wish.