Economics of Technology – Page 53

“Fun” and “Profits” as Motives for Entrepreneurship

(p. 184) After we started selling the boards to Paul Terrell–working day and night to get them to him on time–we had profits like I never imagined. Suddenly our little business was making more than I was making at HP. That wasn’t very much, admittedly. But still, it was a lot. We were building the boxes for $220 and selling them wholesale to Paul Terrell for $500.

And, of course, we didn’t need a ton of money to operate. I had a day job, so I looked at it as, Hey, cool. Extra money for pizza! As for Steve, he was living at home. I was twenty-five and he was only twenty-one at the time, so what expenses could we have, really? Apple didn’t have to make that much to sustain itself and be ongoing. We weren’t paying ourselves salaries or paying rent, after all. We didn’t have any patents to pay for. Or lawyers. It was a small-time business, and we weren’t worried that much about anything.
My dad, watching this, pointed out that we weren’t actually making money because we weren’t paying ourselves anything. But we didn’t care, we were having too much fun.

But note, only several pages later:

(p. 194) Like I said before, we needed money. Steve knew it and I knew it.

So by that summer of 1976, we started talking to potential money people about Apple, showing them the Apple II working in color in Steve’s garage.

Source:
Wozniak, Steve, and Gina Smith. iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.

More New Jobs Created Are Higher Skill Jobs

(p. A1) As unlikely as it would seem against this backdrop, manufacturers who want to expand find that hiring is not always easy. During the recession, domestic manufacturers appear to have accelerated the long-term move (p. A3) toward greater automation, laying off more of their lowest-skilled workers and replacing them with cheaper labor abroad.

Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints and demonstrate higher math proficiency than was previously required of the typical assembly line worker.
Makers of innovative products like advanced medical devices and wind turbines are among those growing quickly and looking to hire, and they too need higher skills.
. . .
Manufacturers who profess to being shorthanded say they have retooled the way they make products, calling for higher-skilled employees. “It’s not just what is being made,” said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “but to the degree that you make it at all, you make it differently.”
In a survey last year of 779 industrial companies by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte, the accounting and consulting firm, 32 percent of companies reported “moderate to serious” skills shortages. Sixty-three percent of life science companies, and 45 percent of energy firms cited such shortages.

For the full story, see:
MOTOKO RICH. “Jobs Go Begging as Gap is Exposed in Worker Skills.” The New York Times (Fri., July 1, 2010): A1 & A3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article is dated July 1, 2010 and has the title “Factory Jobs Return, but Employers Find Skills Shortage.”)

How HP Turned Down the Apple PC

Wozniak tells the story of how he offered to develop the PC within HP, but HP turned him down. The story seems highly compatible with the account of disruptive innovations given by Clayton Christensen.
Another aspect of the story is worth highlighting. Sometimes it is alleged, as e.g., with the Tucker auto story, that large incumbent corporations suppress innovations. But in this case, although HP did not want to develop the PC themselves, they did not try to keep Wozniak and Jobs from developing it on their own.

(p. 175) Before the partnership agreement was even inked, I realized something and told Steve. Because I worked at HP, I told him, everything I’d designed during the term of my employment contract belonged to HP.

Whether that upset Steve or not, I couldn’t tell. But it didn’t matter to me if he was upset about it. I believed it was my duty to tell HP about what I had designed while working for them. That was the right thing and the ethical thing. Plus, I really loved that company and I really did believe this was a product they should do. I knew that a guy named Miles Judd, three levels above me in the company structure, had managed an engineering group at an HP division in Colorado Springs that had developed a desktop computer.
It wasn’t like ours at all–it was aimed at scientists and engineers and it was really expensive–but it was programmable in BASIC.
I told my boss, Pete Dickinson, that I had designed an inexpensive desktop computer that could sell for under $800 and could run BASIC. He agreed to set up a meeting so I could talk Miles.
(p. 176) I remember going into the big conference room to meet Pete, his boss, Ed Heinsen, and Ed’s boss, Miles. I made my presentation and showed them my design.
“Okay,” Miles said after thinking about it for a couple of minutes. “There’s a problem you’ll have when you say you have output to a TV. What happens if it doesn’t look right on every TV? I mean, is it an RCA TV a Sears TV or an HP product that’s at fault?”
HP keeps a close eye on quality control, he told me. If HP couldn’t control what TV the customer was using, how could it make sure the customer had a good experience? More to the point, the division didn’t have the people or money to do a project like mine. So he turned it down.
I was disappointed, but I left it at that. Now I was free to enter into the Apple partnership with Steve and Ron. I kept my job, but after that I was officially moonlighting. Everybody I worked with knew about the computer board we were going to sell.
Over the next few months, Miles would keep coming up to me. He knew about BASIC-programmable computers because of his division out in Colorado, and even though they didn’t want my design, he said he was intrigued by the idea of having a machine so cheap that anyone could own one and program it. He kept telling me he’d been losing sleep ever since he heard the idea.
But looking back, I see he was right. How could HP do it? It couldn’t. This was nowhere near a complete and finished scientific engineer’s product. Everybody saw that smaller, cheaper computers were going to be a coming thing, but HP couldn’t justify it as a product. Not yet. Even if they had agreed, I see now that HP would’ve done it wrong anyway. I mean, when they finally did it in 1979, they did it wrong. That machine went nowhere.

Source:
Wozniak, Steve, and Gina Smith. iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.

The main Christensen book is:
Christensen, Clayton M., and Michael E. Raynor. The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

Smarter Info Technology Frees Workers from Routine and Creates Jobs

(p. A22) Smarter computing technology, experts say, ought to make the most skilled workers — in science, the arts and business — even more productive and prosperous by freeing them from routine tasks. Their prosperity translates to spending that creates jobs in stores, schools, gyms, construction and elsewhere.

Artificial intelligence, experts say, should also generate new jobs even as it displaces others. The smart machines of the future will need programming, servicing and upgrading — work done, perhaps, by a new class of digital technicians. The intelligent machines, experts add, will be specialists in a field, like the medical assistant project at Microsoft. They must be tailored with specialized software, perhaps igniting a new industry for artificial intelligence applications.
Of course, no one really knows just what artificial intelligence will mean for jobs and the economy, but the technology is marching ahead. “Its potential is far greater than simply substituting technology for human labor,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, an economist at the M.I.T Sloan School of Management.

For the full story, see:
STEVE LOHR. “Jobs Created and Displaced.” The New York Times (Fri., June 25, 2010): A22.
(Note: the date of the online version of the article was June 24, 2010.)

Low End Tech Upstart Moves Up-Market to Compete with Incumbents

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

The MediaTek example briefly mentioned below, seems a promising fit with Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovators.

(p. B7) TAIPEI–A little-known Taiwanese chip-design company is making waves in the cellphone business, grabbing market share from larger U.S. rivals and helping drive down phone prices for consumers.
. . .
While MediaTek isn’t known for cutting-edge innovation, it has been able to apply the nimble, cost-cutting approach of Taiwan’s contract manufacturers to the business of designing semiconductors, in which engineers use advanced software to lay out the microscopic circuits that make gadgets like cellphones function.
“MediaTek has brought down the cost significantly,” says Jessica Chang, an analyst at Credit Suisse Group AG, who says mobile-phone makers are increasingly drawn to MediaTek’s products because of their functionality and low cost.

For the full story, see
TING-I TSAI. “Taiwan Chip Firm Shakes Up Cellphone Business.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., APRIL 19, 2010): B7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

On Christensen’s theories, see:
Christensen, Clayton M., and Michael E. Raynor. The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

Porter Airlines Beats Incumbents in Serving High End Customers

“Robert Deluce set up Porter Airlines at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport in October 2006.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

Clayton Christensen explains why upstart entrepreneurs who move up-market to serve under-served customers, will almost always lose to motivated incumbents.
Apparently Robert Deluce has not read Christensen.

(p. B8) TORONTO–As a teenager, Robert Deluce learned to fly at this city’s small airport just outside the downtown on a Lake Ontario island.
Lately, the 59-year-old airline entrepreneur has been giving his own brand of flying lessons there in a dogfight with larger competitors over a lucrative flying niche: the high-margin business traveler.
n 2005, Mr. Deluce bought the airport’s ramshackle terminal and later kicked out an Air Canada regional partner named Jazz Air. Then, he set up Porter Airlines, which has become a hit with business fliers for its top-notch service and convenient location, a one-minute ferry ride from the downtown waterfront. Earlier this month, closely held Porter opened the first phase of a gleaming, 150,000-square-foot terminal that eventually will house two passenger lounges and 10 aircraft gates.
. . .
The new carrier’s mascot is a raccoon. “He’s mischievous and determined and pretty much always achieves his desired goal,” said Mr. Deluce, chuckling over breakfast at a Toronto hotel. “Air Canada and Jazz probably think he’s over-mischievous.”
. . .
In recent years, Toronto’s waterfront has been revitalized, with high-rise condos and parks replacing grain elevators and industrial warehouses. Air Canada’s partner Jazz and a predecessor, which had been flying to and from the downtown airport for years, reduced service even as the redevelopment was progressing. The airport’s traffic waned to 25,000 fliers in 2005 from 400,000 a year in the late 1980s.
Smelling opportunity, Mr. Deluce pounced, acquiring the old terminal and evicting Jazz. He raised C$126 million in start-up capital and placed a US$500 million order for 20 Canadian-built turboprop aircraft. With 70 seats, they are perfectly sized for the airport’s short, 4,000-foot runway. Porter took wing in October 2006.
His aggressive tactics as CEO have earned him both criticism and grudging respect. Brian Iler, chairman of CommunityAir, a Toronto citizens advocacy group that wants the airport shut because of noise issues and other concerns, gives Mr. Deluce his due. “Everything he has done, he’s managed to turn things his way,” Mr. Iler says. “It’s an amazing run of luck.”
. . .
Porter now flies to four U.S. destinations and seven other cities in Eastern Canada, with an eighth coming this month. It had its first month of profitability in June 2007 and paid out to its employee profit-sharing plan that year and in 2008, Mr. Deluce says. He won’t say whether Porter was profitable in 2009.
The new airline has attracted a following for its downtown location, competitive fares, leather seats with generous legroom and complimentary beer, wine and snacks. Female flight attendants wear retro pillbox hats and peplum jackets.
Christopher Sears, vice president of research for Montreal-based brokerage firm MacDougall, MacDougall & MacTier Inc., said he has flown Porter 30 to 40 times between Montreal and Toronto. Once he arrives in Toronto, he grabs a free shuttle to a hotel two blocks from his firm’s Toronto office.
“Porter has built up a lot of goodwill with me,” he says, vowing to stick with the company even if rivals break into the downtown airport.

For the full story, see
SUSAN CAREY. “Tiny Airline Flies Circles Around Its Rivals; Top-Notch Service, Proximity to Downtown Toronto Make Porter a Hit With High-Margin Business Travelers.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., MARCH 17, 2010): B8.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the slightly different title “Tiny Airline Flies Circles Around Rivals; Top-Notch Service, Proximity to Downtown Toronto Makes Porter a Hit With High-Margin Business Travelers.”)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

Wozniak Spent a Lot of Time Collecting Information Before Building a Project

(p. 160) My style with projects has always been to spend a lot of time getting ready to build it. Now that I saw my own computer could be a reality, I started collecting information on all the components and chips that might apply to a computer design.

I would drive to work in the morning–sometimes as early as 6:30 a.m.–and there, alone in the early morning, I would quickly read over engineering magazines and chip manuals. I’d study the specifications and timing diagrams of the chips I was interested in, like the $40 Motorola 6800 Myron had told me about. All the while, I’d be preparing the design in my head.

Source:
Wozniak, Steve, and Gina Smith. iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.

Government Financing Is Not Best Method to Finance Creativity

(p. B4) Government financing is not the best method to prod companies to be creative, said Edmund S. Phelps Jr., a professor of economics at Columbia University who won the Nobel Prize in 2006. But he said it could work.

He spoke at the forum about dwindling innovation in the United States economy. China, India and Brazil are catching up with innovative output, he said, but not Russia.
A high-technology start-up, he said, inherently runs more risk if it can present its product to only one potential buyer — the government — rather than to a range of customers, some of whom may want the product, he said.
“If Russian politicians see that their own prosperity, and that of their people, lies in a more arms-length relationship between the government and business, that would open a lot of possibilities,” he said.

For the full story, see:
ANDREW E. KRAMER. “Russia Plans to Promote Technology Innovations.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., February 4, 2010): B4.

Wozniak on the Motives and Rewards of Inventor and Innovator

(p. 147) The whole thing used forty-five chips, and Steve paid me half the seven hundred bucks he said they paid him for it. (They were paying us based on how few chips I could do it. in.) Later I found out he got paid a bit (p. 148) more for it–like a few thousand dollars–than he said at the time, but we were kids, you know. He got paid one amount, and told me he got paid another. He wasn’t honest with me, and I was hurt. But I didn’t make a big deal about it or anything.

Ethics always mattered to me, and I still don’t really understand why he would’ve gotten paid one thing and told me he’d gotten paid another. But, you know, people are different. And in no way do I regret the experience at Atari with Steve Jobs. He was my best friend and I still feel extremely linked with him. I wish him well. And it was a great project that was so fun. Anyway, in the long run of money–Steve and I ended up getting very comfortable money-wise from our work founding Apple just a few years later–it certainly didn’t add up to much.
Steve and I were the best of friends for a very, very long time. We had the same goals for a while. They jelled perfectly at forming Apple. But we were always different people, different people right from the start.
You know, it’s strange, hut right around the time I started working on what later became the Apple I board, this idea popped into my mind about two guys who die on the same day. One guy is really successful, and he’s spending all his time running companies, managing them, making sure they are profitable, and making sales goals all the time. And the other guy, all he does is lounge around, doesn’t have much money, really likes to tell jokes and follow gadgets and technology and other things he finds interesting in the world, and he just spends his life laughing.
In my head, the guy who’d rather laugh than control things is going to be the one who has the happier life. That’s just my opinion. I figure happiness is the most important thing in life, just how much you laugh. The guy whose head kind of floats, he’s so happy. That’s who I am, who I want to be and have always wanted to be.
(p. 149) And that’s why I never let stuff like what happened with Breakout bother me. Though you can disagree–you can even split from a relationship–you don’t have to hold it against the other. You’re just different. That’s the best way to live life and be happy
And I figured this all out even before Steve and I started Apple.

Source:
Wozniak, Steve, and Gina Smith. iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2006.

The ‘First Mover Advantage’ May Be a Disadvantage

During the dot.com era one of the rationalizations for dot.com firms to be losing money was that they had to be the ‘first mover’ that would grab the demand-side economies of scale arising from network effects.
For a variety of reasons, including the clarity of hindsight, the current consensus if that profitability is always worth worrying about, and being first is far from a guarantee of success.
On the other hand, if the authors quoted below are correct that everyone should be a “fast follower,” then who will ever make the first move?
Maybe the problem lies in the metrics of success. Maybe the main measure of success lies in moving an important project forward, rather than being the one who ends up best positioned to monetize the advance?
So, for example, maybe those who built Netscape should be proud of what they did, even though Internet Explorer ended up dominating the market.
(I use “maybe” a lot above, not out of some rhetorical pose of modesty, but because these are issues that I am really grappling with.)

(p. R4) One of the fiercest rivalries in the information-technology world has long been over platforms–products that link users in networks, like iTunes for online music or Windows for computer operating systems. It’s often a winner-take-all business; platform leaders can earn huge profits as they tend to dominate markets with few serious competitors.

A myth, however, has attached itself to the history of platforms: that each platform’s originator has the best chance of dominating its market for years to come.
The truth is, that is rarely the case.
Instead of there being an advantage to being first, we found the opposite to be true. Most owners of leading IT platforms today did not create the markets they now rule. In almost all of the industries we studied, the current platform leaders introduced their products after a different company had already established the market with a platform of its own.
Out of the 15 platform industries that we studied, 14 of the current leaders began as followers in a market created by a competitor’s platform. In only one market, for integrated business software, was the original platform creator still the leader–SAP AG. Five were fast followers, which we define as the second, third or fourth company to enter a market. The other nine were later followers.

For the full commentary, see:
GEZINUS J. HIDDING, JEFFREY R. WILLIAMS And JOHN J. SVIOKLA. “Technology; The IT Platform Principle: The First Shall Not Be First .” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., January 25, 2010): R4.