re: 'infrastructure' and 'enterprise' markets
Paul,
<< Very quickly the difference that I see between 'infrastructure' and 'enterprise' markets is that the former is a 'build it and they will come' market. The carrier's must build out a complete infrastructure before they start marketing a product to the consumer. >>
Thanks for taking the time to explain your viewpoint on this.
I now understand what you are saying, but I an still having difficulty with what you characterize as an 'infrastructure' market, being distinct from an 'enterprise' market, although I have no problem distinguishing between 'wireless and telecom' as separate and distinct markets from the 'enterprise'.
Certainly these markets have differentiating characteristics, and consequently different implications for application of gorilla gaming theory, and to be sure Moore's thinking is understandably Silicon Valley centric, and Silicon Valley is hardly the hub of mobile wireless telephony.
So far as I am concerned discontinuous innovations dictate new infrastructure whether in the enterprise or wireless (or telecom) or wherever.
Obviously, the more discontinuous the innovation, the more infrastructure is required to support the innovation (and the less opportunnitty there is to "piggyback"), and to create whole product, and as a result some promising innovations never cross the chasm, or even make it into the chasm, because infrastructure demands are so complex. I am thinking of Artificial Intelligence in the eighties and PKI for IT/IS in the late nineties (which still holds promise for this decade as an enabler of e-commerce and m-commerce as well as IS).
As Moore points out in Chapter 2 of "The Gorilla Game", his investment strategy is based (in part) on the theory of market development developed in "Inside the Tornado" (and consequently on "Crossing the Chasm".
Moore uses Chapter 2 of "The Gorilla Game" to recap "tornado theory" and immediately introduces the subject of "discontinuous innovations" and he states that:
"From time to time technology breakthroughs enable an entirely different kind of offer - what is called a discontinuous innovation (examples: semiconductor, PC, spreadsheet, LAN, fax, relational database, web browser) ... To enjoy these benefits, however, users had to adopt new technologies and put in place new infrastructures that were incompatible with what were prevalent at the time ... [and for this reason] offers based on discontinuous innovations have a built-in delayed gratification period." - RFM, page 22 -
<< There is no chasm between the early adopters and the pragmatists because there is no way to 'know' what whole product is needed. I include in my definition of whole product service offerings attractive to the end user and a profitable business model. >>
In "Crossing the Chasm" Moore offers a classic example on page 21 of the revised edition of a prolonged chasm crossing related to the enterprise - client server computing for enterprise applications - and he discusses elements of the new infrastructure that had to develop and coalesce before client-server emerged as a viable software category:
"In 1987 it [client server computing for enterprise applications] was proclaimed by the Gartner Group as the enterprise architecture for the coming decade, and indeed every IT department genuflected in agreement. Every year there would be articles about breakthroughs ... but at the end of the day all that was sold was server-centric mainframe and minicomputer packages. It was not until 1992 - five years into the making - that client-server emerged as a viable software category, and it was not until 1995 - eight years later that it finally overtook its server-centric ancestor."
<< In enterprise markets, the chasm and bowling alley are periods to mature the technology and build out the whole product based on customer experience. >>
I think that the same applies to markets outside the enterprise.
Mobile wireless carriers (as an example) are using the the chasm and (in some cases) the bowling alley to migrate a voice-centric business model to a voice and data business model.
[Although Mike Buckley feels that wireless data is not yet in the chasm, I do - but thats another discussion].
<< Infrastructure markets, it seems to me, go right from the lab to being built. Look at the broadband market. There is still no 'whole product' in sight. >>
Again, using Mobile Wireless Carriers as an example, I would say that while there is no 'whole product' that you, Mike, or I, can reach out and touch, the 'whole product' exists on roadmaps (and in rudimentary form, in real life in Korea), and the carrier pragmatists have already made decisions to roll out infrastructure, and they are now rolling it out and that will enable 'whole product' to develop in what has obviously been a a supply side technology push from the outset.
The first bowling pin was taken out some time ago - SMS messaging - but that utilized circuit-switched data, and the discontinuities we are now dealing with involve packet-switched data and mobile-IP, and the discontinuity that will follow is the all-IP mobile wireless network.
Somewhere in there lies the discontinuous innovation we often discuss here - cdma - but at this point mobile wireless data is too early in the TALC to require the large pipe that cdma will eventually enable ....
... and we are still uncertain to what degree and how quickly we will need that large pipe ...
... which most certainly is not quite as quickly as we once envisioned ...
... which leads back to your statement 'build it and they will come' ... we hope!
Best,
- Eric - |
