Tag Archives: samsung

5 Predictions for the IoT in 2017

The IoT continued its toddler-like growth and stumbles in 2016. Here are five trends to look for in 2017 as the IoT enters its adolescence and how to benefit from them.

1. Ecosystems begin to determine winners and losers

Previously these were nice in-the-future concerns; now they will really count. Filling out a whole product value proposition through partnerships has repeatedly proven its importance across B2B and enterprise software sectors. In the IoT, they will be even more critical.

As an example, the Industrial Internet Consortium (IIC) is driving the definition of platforms and test beds and should show results in 2017. In the meantime, expect some IoT companies to fail when they can’t gain traction.

If you’re developing IoT infrastructure or platforms, it’s time to get real, regarding building great partnerships, developer programs, tools, incentives and joint marketing programs. Without them, your platform may appear like an empty shopping mall.

If you’re a device manufacturer or application developer, it’s time to place your platform bets so you can focus your resources. If you’re implementing IoT-based systems, you’ve been through this before. Welcome to the next round of the industry’s favorite game, “choose your platform.” Make sure you also evaluate vendors based on their financial health, business models and customer service — not just technology. Learn more in Monetizing IoT: Show me the Money in the section “Ecosystems as the driver of value.”

See also: Insurance and the Internet of Things

2. Vendors get serious about experimenting with business models and monetization

This was a big theme at Gemalto’s recent LicensingLive conference and was further driven home by solution partners like Aria Systems. Tech won’t sell if it’s not packaged so that buyers want to buy. Look for innovation in business models and pricing, including subscription models, pay per use, recurring revenue, subsidization or replacement of hardware device revenues with service revenues, monetizing customer data and even pay-per-API call models. If you’re marketing whole solutions, be sure to avoid the “partial solution trap” as described in my article, The Internet of Things: Challenges and Opportunities.

3. Big Data gets “cloudier” (pun intended)

No doubt there will be a lot more data with billions of new connected devices. Not just text and numbers but also images, video and voice can all add significant monetization opportunities to different participants in the value chain. More devices mean more data, more potential uses and more cooks in the kitchen. This is a complex cluster of issues: Do not expect a resolution of ownership, privacy or value in 2017.

Instead, approach this by building a clear vision of what you want and don’t want with respect to data rights as you enter these discussions. And try to anticipate the genuine needs of your partners. Device manufacturers will likely have a going-in desire to own data produced by their devices; and apps developers, the data they handle; others may be okay with aggregated info. Buyers should make sure they understand what’s happening with their potentially sensitive data. We have already started to see partnerships and deals stall out over intense discussion on data ownership and rights.

4. You’ll need to prove your security, with privacy not far behind

2017 IoT systems are going to need to up their game. No one is going to stand for hacked doorlocks, video cameras or Mirai botnet/DDoS attacks via connected devices much longer. Similar events will come with very high price tags. So far, the IoT has dodged any major incidents with large losses suffered directly by end users.

We could see growth flatten if a major hack of thousands of end users occurs in 2017, especially if hardware devices are ruined or people get hurt. At that point, users will need to receive greater guarantees of security, privacy and integrity. This risk needs to be mitigated if the industry wants to avoid an “IoT winter.”

Vendors will need to invest more in security development and testing before deployment and offer assurances, possibly including insurance. Installers and integrators will need to ensure ecosystem integrity, and buyers will look for these guarantees. Just one flaw could be very expensive: Gartner believes that by 2018 20% of smart buildings will suffer digital vandalism through their HVAC, thermostats and even smart toilets.

5. Voice-powered, AI virtual assistants drive a next round of platform wars

Voice will become increasingly important to control IoT systems and computing infrastructure. Google Assistant, Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Cortana and Samsung’s Viv Labs acquisition underscore the importance of these new AI-assisted voice interfaces. They’ll be used across multiple devices like phones, PCs, tablets, cars, home appliances and other machinery. By 2020, Gartner believes smart agents will facilitate 40% of mobile interactions. This is the beginning of a new round of platform battles that you need to recognize, internalize and prepare for.

See also: How the ‘Internet of Things’ Affects Strategic Planning

What do you think? Email me with your predictions, comments or war stories.

You can find the original article here.

Matching Game for InsurTech, Insurers

What is it with InsurTech startups and insurance companies?

To any outsider, it’s very clear that InsurTechs and insurers make for very odd bedfellows. InsurTechs are quite ephemeral. They sprout up with the sweet rains of venture capital funding and die as their funding dries up. They are nimble and innovative. They aspire to be the next Google — ready to disrupt the establishment in the best “moon shot” tradition.

Insurers, on the other hand, tend to be corporate immortals, often measuring their tenure in centuries. Their processes appear fixed and hidebound, handed down from ages gone by. Their speed of innovation is positively glacial, and their customer proposition has “rock of Gibraltar” stability. Insurers are the very establishment that InsurTechs are seeking to disrupt.

Opposites attract — or so they say.

The fear of disruption

The insurance industry has seen an ever-growing demand for “creativity,” “disruption” and new digital technology since 2013. AXA was one of the first to declare its intent to become a digital insurer. In April 2014, the company established a lab in Silicon Valley and announced its tie-up with Facebook. At the time, everyone in the industry was waiting in trepidation for the market entry of the tech giants such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Samsung and Apple. The fear was that those companies would sweep away the traditional insurers in an Uber-like tech tsunami.

Well, the tide came in, but it was no tsunami. Google breathlessly launched into the motor insurance compare market in March 2015. Just a year later, it unceremoniously departed. The industry heaved a collective sigh of relief because there was little or no impact. Yet the tech giants linger and remain the insurance industry’s boogie man.

See also: An Eruption in Disruptive InsurTech?  

Follow the money

The presence of the tech giants has created a created a rush to fund new InsurTech startups. Many of the leading insurance firms have set up VC funds focused on InsurTech. AXA is, again, one of the more notable in this area, providing funding to the tune of €230 million over the last 18 months. VC funding for InsurTech startups has increased 250% year-on-year, from $750 million in 2014 to $2.65 billion in 2015. For insurers, they get financial rewards and get to be at the forefront of any industry disruption if the technology takes off.

But many insurers see the need not only to fund innovation but also to “do” innovation. Hence, we’ve seen a steady stream of insurers around the world establishing innovation labs, collaborative spaces, digital garages and centers for digital disruption. Time will tell if these are fundamental drivers of strategic change or are unmasked as simply “window dressing” for the market.

Widening the net

The InsurTech “boot camp” is another recent phenomenon that has opened up a wider range of innovative startups to the insurance industry. These camps are a cross between an accelerator program, a beauty pageant and a reality TV talent show. For the small price of some equity and the added incentive of some up-front “pocket money,” the InsurTechs get to rub shoulders and gain insights from industry mentors and leading insurers. These boot camps are quite grueling, as they extend over several months. Competition can be fierce, with the best of the best InsurTech teams pitted against each other. The participants get to hone their solution pitches, demos and financial plans for the gathered insurance brotherhood and their fellow InsurTechs. Yet some InsurTech teams are frustrated by the insurers’ lack of urgency and their naïve view of how much effort is really required to make an innovation alliance work.

See also: InsurTech Start-Ups: Friends or Foes? 

A new hope

All of this activity has not been lost on governments wanting to push a “clever economy” strategy, creating sovereign incubators for the development of new or exotic financial services products and business models. The Singapore and U.K. governments are leading exponents of this new way of thinking and have spawned a wave of innovation emulators from Australia to Germany. These innovation-friendly government policies generally encompass a mix of:

  • Seed funding for startups;
  • Provision of “collaborative” spaces;
  • Incentives for the establishment of innovation labs; and
  • Regulations fostering the flexibility/tolerance to try new things in public that may fail.

Breaking new ground, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has launched its own innovative boot camp: the Singapore FinTech Festival. It’s a coordinated way to accelerate innovation for the whole financial services industry, drawing on FinTech and InsurTech talent from around the world. Singapore is putting its money where its mouth is, funding a “Hackcelerator” competition as part of the festival. This competition will run 10 weeks, starting in September 2016, and it has more than $500,000 of funding and prizes to be shared — no equity required! All the teams need to do is be in the top-20 at solving at least one of 100 problem statements set by the organizers.

In a similar vein, Singapore insurer NTUC Income has announced its own InsurTech accelerator program. It’s offering funding of S$28,000 apiece for 12 top InsurTech startups. Again, no equity required. The program runs from January to March 2017.

If this trend continues, boot camps will be out of business — at least in their current, equity-gobbling format.

But where are the traditional insurance tech vendors?

In all this activity, where are the insurance legacy tech suppliers (LegTechs)? Many of the traditional consulting firms are doing quite well, tying up with some of the boot camps. But those vendors that were selling mainframe systems, software development services and the like, where are they? The answer for the most part is nowhere — the land of digital transformation. Perhaps it’s indicative of the level of mistrust between insurers and their LegTechs that insurers “go direct” to the innovation source. Perhaps it’s the fear that the innovation will too quickly be commoditized by these vendors and spread to insurers’ competitors. Whatever the case, LegTechs are being cut out of the conversation.

This is a big mistake.

LegTechs are better at partnering. They typically understand the innovation process and have a product mentality, which would really help package what InsurTechs have to offer. There is also an alignment on maximizing profit on technology with a common view of pervasively selling into the market. As a consequence, the LegTechs have a large, well-established, tech-savvy salesforce ready to carry the InsurTechs’ message to the market. This is one of the most decisive reasons why InsurTechs should partner with LegTechs. The final reason is that LegTechs are a goldmine of useful resources. They have an army of developers, lab space, sandpit environments, technology centers of excellence and distinguished engineers/architects with decades of experience — all of which would rapidly bring robust InsurTech products to market.

See also: InsurTech Boom Is Reshaping Market  

For LegTechs, there are also many attractions. Systematic partnering in this way would inject innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit they badly need. InsurTechs would provide an outlet for some of the LegTechs’ brilliant engineers, giving them an opportunity to dabble with the heady challenges of a startup while maintaining their security. This would definitely boost retention and attraction of this scarce talent pool. Finally, the LegTechs could get into new growth areas rather than stagnate on a declining commodity technology business.

The bottom line

Change is the only constant in an industry fiercely trying to catch lightning in a bottle. The lyrics from the Pokémon song are really quite apt for this current stage: “You teach me, and I teach you,” as I doubt we can “catch ‘em all.” We have a vision but have yet to stumble on the magic formula for repeatable innovative disruption. We hope we’ll find it in InsurTech’s perfect match. Or, perhaps, it has already happened but we just don’t know it. In any case, with boot camps, hackcelerators, insurers, VCs, governments and LegTechs all at hand, our visionary InsurTechs will soon deliver further breakthroughs. Let’s hope their beauty and passion rub off on an old industry.

This article originally appeared in InsurTech News.

The Insurance Renaissance, Part 3

This is Part 3 of a four-part series. Part 1 can be found here. Part 2 can be found here.

What if Leonardo Da Vinci had been alive to witness the digital revolution? Perhaps he would have been a sought-after consultant and speaker (after his start-up had gone public and his paintings were selling for millions)! Da Vinci was, according to historian Will Durant:

“The most fascinating figure of the Renaissance… [He] took fondly to mathematics, music and drawing. In order to draw well, he studied all things in nature with curiosity. Science and art, so remarkably united in his mind, had one origin — detailed observation.”

According to Da Vinci, a scientist should look at experience and observation before applying reason to any experiment. He uniquely had both a right brain and left brain perspective, the art and the science view, that looked at facts but then creatively used them to innovate — highlighting the power of observation. And Da Vinci’s observations are still with us today.

For insurers, the power of observation is no less important than it was during the Renaissance. In fact, observation’s power for change and growth, using nearly any measurement (e.g. dollars, longevity, capacity for change, lowered risk) would certainly far exceed its Renaissance power. Insurance’s pervasiveness and necessity (it underpins economies to enable them to grow) make it globally and individually life-altering.

If insurers wish to tap into the power of observation, in which direction should they look?

The simple answer is that they should look at trends. But to fully explore trends, it will help us to split them into subcategories, such as purchase trends, lifestyle trends, customer preferences and commercial/industrial trends.

Observing Purchase Trends

This is the most obvious of the trends, yet it may be one of the most overlooked trends. How do people buy? What differences are there between segments such as millennials, baby boomers and small business owners? This goes beyond, “Well, they seem to be using the internet and mobile phones.” Observing purchase trends takes everything into consideration — Where are people when they are using their mobile phone or other mobile device? Where are people when they realize they have the time, need and inclination to purchase insurance? Is there a cosmic moment when the right offer at the right time with the right channel yields a magical response?

See also: Data Science: Methods Matter (Part 2)

This kind of observation can certainly be informed by trends and disruption within other industries. For a quick example, consider how iTunes created a profitable shortcut in the music purchase process (as well as dispensing with a physical product, all of its delivery methods and costs). Then think about how Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, Pandora and SoundCloud have all dented iTunes demand and caused its prices to look exorbitant. The lesson for insurers is twofold: 1. Capitalize on opportunities to be in the right place at the right time with market targets, and 2. Be vigilant in price response, service response and capitalizing on the next idea.

Now that insurance is changing, it won’t stop. Perpetual observation, along with incubation and concept testing, will provide a foundation of market safety — if the organization is committed to acting on what it learns. This means continuous incubation and market testing of innovative products and services, likely outside of the normal insurance operations and systems structure — being creative and acting like a start-up.

Observing Lifestyle Trends

Insurance is so tightly bound to lives and lifestyles that it is imperative that insurers keep tabs on how lifestyles are changing. For example, in 2014, single adults in the U.S. began to outnumber married adults. How does that affect insurers with products that may seem to reward families with discounts and lower rates (i.e for multiple vehicles)? The sharing economy is also becoming mainstream, not only with services like Uber and Lyft, but also with shared office spaces, shared living arrangements and shared vacation residences growing in popularity. The sharing economy is all about the sharing of assets rather than ownership of them. Is it time for insurers to start thinking less in terms of insuring property owned or mortality and instead begin thinking in terms of insuring life experiences that may occur over short spaces of time, rather than for years? The rider in the Uber and the vacationer in the Airbnb may feel far more comfortable if they have the insurance for that specific time and need  — knowing that no matter where they are, and no matter what happens, they have access to insurance.

Once again, this requires direct observation and then using the observations to creatively rethink insurance. Demographic studies that account for the next three, five and 10 years can even help insurers predict lifestyle patterns before they become mainstream, capturing the opportunity early and gaining market share.

Observing Customer Preferences

Many newspapers are losing money or are fading away. Bookstores are closing. Large department stores are somewhat outmoded. Bricks and mortar retail outlets are struggling to stay relevant. Purchases of used goods have never been higher. Online purchases have never been higher. What does this tell us about consumer buying preferences? What does it mean to insurers?

The digital transformation of buying that is playing out is unprecedented. But does it mean agent sales aren’t the future or that un-tailored, high-volume products are no longer needed? The answer is no. In many cases, the answer is to increase an understanding of preferences at both a high level (market trending) and an individual level (preference trending). Preferences change frequently, so market analysis and segmentation underpinned by data and analytics play an important role in understanding where reality is at any one point in time. For observant insurers that care about growing their business, building an excellent customer experience and acting on a real knowledge of market trends and individual preferences will strengthen customer satisfaction and retention. It will also build loyalty among market segments that are changing or traditionally hard to keep.

See also: 3 Skills Needed for Customer Insight

Observing Commercial/Industrial Trends  

What do Samsung clothes dryers, FitBits and connected cars have in common? All of them have IoT sensors, all of them have digital connectivity to mobile devices and … they are all relevant to insurers.

When skateboarders started using GoPros (and posting videos to YouTube) and iPhones started locking themselves in cases of theft, insurers should have started paying attention. Drone technology, camera technology, GPS tracking, step measurement — all of these advances will play a role in insurer offerings, capabilities and services. But technological advancements are only the beginning of commercial trends that insurers can use. As commerce changes and as processes and products adapt, informed insurers will be able to support the changing needs of organizations. Start-up businesses and small businesses will be looking for ways to insure venture capital and other investments against loss. Drone and unmanned aircraft insurance needs will grow. Data protection and cyber security insurance needs will continue to grow.

The insurance Renaissance will change the needs of companies and individuals as they embrace new market trends, technologies and as they reshape their preferences. This will likely mean a decrease in demand for some traditional products such as auto insurance or individual life insurance. But, at the same time, it opens the door for new products that embrace the changes. Just look at companies like John Hancock with its Vitality product, as well as insurers providing risk avoidance services using IoT in their homes or those offering shared transportation insurance. For observant insurers that grasp the way financial and business models are changing, there will be excellent opportunities to supply innovative products and risk preventive services. The key will be in the observation.

Insurance is the economic foundation for economies, businesses, families and individuals, enabling them to operate or live life fully and with confidence. Our responsibility as an industry is to continually observe the changes that are happening inside and outside of the industries we serve, adapt to those changes with innovative products and services that meet changing customer needs, and do it with speed, capturing the opportunities unfolding before our eyes.

In my next post on the insurance Renaissance, we’ll see how re-envisioning financial and business models may be one of the ways that insurers can prepare for a new era of progress and success.

The Real Powerhouses in Silicon Valley

One of the most important lessons that Silicon Valley learned, that gives it a strategic advantage, is to think bigger than products and business models: It builds platforms.

The fastest-growing and most disruptive powerhouses in history — Google, Amazon, Uber, AirBnb and eBay—aren’t focused on selling products; they are building platforms.

The trend goes beyond tech.  Companies such as Walmart, Nike, John Deere, and GE are also building platforms for their industries. John Deere, for example, is building a hub for agricultural products.

Platforms are becoming increasingly important as all information becomes digitized; as everything becomes an information technology and entire industries get disrupted.

A platform isn’t a new concept; it is simply a way of building something that is open and inclusive and has a strategic focus. Think of the difference between a roadside store and a shopping center. The mall has many advantages in size and scale, and every store benefits from the marketing and promotion done by others.

See Also: Pursue Innovation or Transformation

They share infrastructure and costs. The mall owner could have tried to have it all by building one big store, but it would have missed out on the opportunities to collect rent from everyone and benefit from the diverse crowds that the tenants attract.

Platform businesses bring together producers and consumers in high-value exchanges in which the chief assets are information and interactions. These interactions are the creators of value, the sources of competitive advantage.

The power of platforms is explained in a new book, Platform Revolution: How Networked Markets are Transforming the Economy and How to Make Them Work for You, by Geoffrey Parker, Marshall Van Alstyne and Sangeet Choudary. The authors illustrate how Apple became the most profitable player in the mobile space with the iPhone by leveraging platforms.

As recently as 2007, Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson and LG collectively controlled 90% of the industry’s global profits. And then came the iPhone with its beautiful design and marketplaces — iTunes and the App store. With these, by 2015, the iPhone had grabbed 92% of global profits and left the others in the dust.

Nokia Shutterstock

Nokia and the others had classic strategic advantages that should have protected them: strong product differentiation, trusted brands, leading operating systems, excellent logistics, protective regulation, huge R&D budgets and massive scale.

But Apple imagined the iPhone and iOS as more than a product or a conduit for services. They were a way to connect participants in two-sided markets — app developers on one side and app users on the other.

These generated value for both groups and allowed Apple to charge a tax on each transaction. As the number of developers increased, so did the number of users. This created the “network effect” — a process in which the value snowballs as more production attracts more consumption and more consumption leads to more production.

By January 2015. the company’s App Store offered 1.4 million apps and had cumulatively generated $25 billion for developers.

Just as malls have linked consumers and merchants, newspapers have long linked subscribers and advertisers. What has changed is that technology has reduced the need to own infrastructure and assets and made it significantly cheaper to build and scale digital platforms.

Traditional businesses, called “pipelines” by Parker, Van Alstyne and Choudary, create value by controlling a linear series of processes. The inputs at one end of the value chain, materials provided by suppliers, undergo a series of transformations to make them worth more.

pipes

Apple’s handset business was a classic pipeline, but when combined with the App Store, the marketplace that connects developers with users, it became a platform. As a platform, it grew exponentially because of the network effects.

The authors say that the move from pipeline to platform involves three key shifts:

  1. From resource control to orchestration. In the pipeline world, the key assets are tangible — such as mines and real estate. With platforms, the value is in the intellectual property and community. The network generates the ideas and data — the most valuable of all assets in the digital economy.
  2. From internal optimization to external interaction. Pipeline businesses achieve efficiency by optimizing labor and processes. With platforms, the key is to facilitate greater interactions between producers and consumers. To improve effectiveness and efficiency, you must optimize the ecosystem itself.
  3. From the individual to the ecosystem. Rather than focusing on the value of a single customer as traditional businesses do, in the platform world it is all about expanding the total value of an expanding ecosystem in a circular, iterative and feedback-driven process. This means that the metrics for measuring success must themselves change.

But not every industry is ripe for platforms because the underlying technologies and regulations may not be there yet.

See Also: InsurTech: Golden Opportunity to Innovate

In a paper in Harvard Business Review on “transitional business platforms,” Kellogg School of Management professor Robert Wolcott illustrates the problems that Netflix founder Reed Hastings had in 1997 in building a platform.

Hastings had always wanted to provide on-demand video, but the technology infrastructure just wasn’t there when he needed it. So he started by building a DVDs-by-mail business — while he plotted a long-term strategy for today’s platform.

According to Wolcott, Uber has a strategic intent of providing self-driving cars, but while the technology evolves it is managing with human drivers. It has built a platform that enables rapid evolution as technologies, consumer behaviors and regulations change.

Building platforms requires a vision, but does not require predicting the future. What you need is to understand the opportunity to build the mall instead of the store and be flexible in how you get there. Remember that business models now triumph products—and platforms triumph business models.

Why I’m Skeptical on Apple’s Future

Facebook is releasing its virtual reality headset, Oculus. It is big, clunky and expensive, and it will cause nausea and other problems for its users. Within a few months of its release, we will declare our disappointment with virtual reality while Facebook will carefully listen to its users and develop improvements. Version No. 3 of Oculus, which will, most likely, come in 2018 or 2019, will be amazing. It will change the way we interact with each other on social media and take us into new worlds—much like the holodecks we saw in “Star Trek.”

This is how innovation happens now, innovation and elsewhere. You release a basic product and let the market tell you how to make it better. There is no time to get it perfect; your product may become obsolete before it is even released.

Apple has not figured this out yet. It maintains a fortress of secrecy, and its leaders dictate product features. When it releases a new technology, it goes to extremes to ensure elegant design and perfection. Steve Jobs was a true visionary, but he refused to listen to customers—believing he knew what they needed better than they did. He ruled with an iron fist and did not tolerate dissent of any type. At Apple, people in one division did not know what others in the company were developing.

Seven announcements Apple made in the March keynote

Jobs’ tactics worked very well for him, and he created the most valuable company in the world. But without Jobs, given the dramatic technology changes that are happening, Apple may have peaked. It is headed the way of IBM in the ’90s and Microsoft in the late 2000s. Consider that Apple’s last major innovation—the iPhone—was released in June 2007.

See Also: Apple v. FBI: Inevitable Conflicts on Tech

Since then, Apple has been tweaking its componentry, adding faster processors and more advanced sensors and releasing bigger and smaller forms—such as with the iPad and the Apple Watch. Even the announcements Apple made this month were uninspiring: smaller iPhones and iPads. All Apple seems to be doing is playing catch up with Samsung, which offers tablets and phones of many sizes and has better features. Apple has been also been copying products (such as Google Maps) but not doing it very well.

There was a time when technology enthusiasts like me felt compelled to buy every new product Apple released. We applauded every small, new feature and pretended it was revolutionary. We watched Steve Jobs’ product announcements with bated breath. However, now I would not even have bought the iPhone a few months ago unless T-Mobile included a large rebate to switch networks. There is nothing earth-shattering or compelling about Apple’s new phones—or, for that matter, any of the products it has released since 2007.

By now, Apple should have released some of the products we have heard rumors about: TV sets, virtual reality headsets and cars. Apple could also have added the functionality of products, such as Leap Motion and Kinect, with the iPhone functioning as a Minority Report motion detector and projector. Apple should be doing what Facebook is doing: putting out new products and letting the market judge them. And Apple should be doing moonshots like Google, which is toying with self-driving cars; Internet delivery via balloon, drone and microsatellite; and Google Glass. Yes, Apple might have failed with the first version—just as Google did with Glass—but that is simply a learning experience. The third version of Google Glass is also likely to be a killer product.

Instead of innovating, Apple has been launching frivolous lawsuits against competitors like Samsung. My colleague at Stanford Law School, Mark Lemley, estimated Apple had spent more than $1 billion in attorney and expert fees in its battle against Samsung. And this lawsuit netted Apple just $158,400, which, ironically, went to Samsung. Apple could have better spent its money on the acquisitions of companies that would give it a real edge.

Will Apple release some products later this year that will blow us away? I am skeptical. I expect we will only see more hype and more repackaging of tired old technologies.

Join Vivek Wadhwa for the Path To Transformation Symposium by registering here.