Tag Archives: steve jobs

15 Hurdles to Scaling for Driverless Cars

Will the future of driverless cars rhyme with the history of the Segway? The Segway personal transporter was also predicted to revolutionize transportation. Steve Jobs gushed that cities would be redesigned around the device. John Doerr said it would be bigger than the internet. The Segway worked technically but never lived up to its backers’ outsized hopes for market impact. Instead, the Segway was relegated to narrow market niches, like ferrying security guards, warehouse workers and sightseeing tours.

One could well imagine such a fate for driverless cars (a.k.a. AVs, for autonomous vehicles). The technology could work brilliantly and yet get relegated to narrow market niches, like predefined shuttle routes and slow-moving delivery drones.  Some narrow applications, like interstate highway portions of long-haul trucking, could be extremely valuable but nowhere near the atmospheric potential imagined by many—include me, as I described, for example, in “Google’s Driverless Car Is Worth Trillions.”

For AVs to revolutionize transportation, they must reach a high level of industrialization and adoption. They must enable, as a first step, robust, relatively inexpensive Uber-like services in urban and suburban areas. (The industry is coalescing around calling these types of services “transportation as a service,” or TaaS.) In the longer term, AVs must be robust enough to allow for personal ownership and challenge the pervasiveness of personally owned, human-driven cars.

See also: Where Are Driverless Cars Taking Industry?  

This disruptive potential (and therefore enormous value) is motivating hundreds of companies around the world, including some of the biggest and wealthiest, such as Alphabet, Apple, General Motors, Ford, Toyota and SoftBank, to invest many billions of dollars into developing AVs. The work is progressing, with some companies (and regulators) believing that their AVs are “good enough” for pilot testing of commercial AV TaaS services with real customers on public roads in multiple markets, including SingaporePhoenix and Quangzhou.

Will AVs turn out to be revolutionary? What factors might cause them to go the way of the Segway—and derail the hopes (and enormous investments) of those chasing after the bigger prize?

Getting AVs to work well enough is, of course, a non-negotiable prerequisite for future success. It is absolutely necessary but far from sufficient.

In this three-part series, I look beyond the questions of technical feasibility to explore other significant hurdles to the industrialization of AVs. These hurdles fall into four categories: scaling, trust, market viability and secondary effects.

Scaling. Building and proving an AV is a big first step. Scaling it into a fleet-based TaaS business operation is an even bigger step. Here are seven giant hurdles to industrialization related to scaling:

  1. Mass production
  2. Electric charging infrastructure
  3. Mapping
  4. Fleet management and operations
  5. Customer service and experience
  6. Security
  7. Rapid localization

Trust. It is not enough for developers and manufacturers to believe their AVs are good enough for widespread use, they must convince others. To do so, they must overcome three huge hurdles.

  1. Independent verification and validation
  2. Standardization and regulation
  3. Public acceptance

Market Viability. The next three hurdles deal with whether AV-enabled business models work in the short term and the long term, both in beating the competition and other opponents.

  1. Business viability
  2. Stakeholder resistance
  3. Private ownership

See also: Suddenly, Driverless Cars Hit Bumps  

Secondary Effects. We shape our AVs, and afterward our AVs reshape us, to paraphrase Winston Churchill. There will be much to love about the successful industrialization of driverless cars. But, as always is the case with large technology change, there could be huge negative secondary effects. Several possible negative consequences are already foreseeable and raising concern. They represent significant hurdles to industrialization unless successfully anticipated and ameliorated.

  1. Congestion
  2. Job loss

I’ll sketch out these hurdles in two more parts to come.

Where Silicon Valley Is Wrong on Innovation

Silicon Valley exemplifies the saying, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Very little has changed over the past decade, with the Valley still mired in myth and stale stereotype. Ask any older entrepreneurs or women who have tried to get financing; they will tell you of the walls they keep hitting. Speak to VCs, and you will realize they still consider themselves kings and kingmakers.

With China’s innovation centers nipping at the Valley’s heels, and with the innovation centers that Steve Case calls “the rest” on the rise, it is time to dispel some of Silicon Valley’s myths.

Myth 1: Only the young can innovate

The words of one Silicon Valley VC will stay with me always. He said: “People under 35 are the people who make change happen, and those over 45 basically die in terms of new ideas.” VCs are still looking for the next Mark Zuckerberg.

The bias persists despite clear evidence that the stereotype is wrong. My research in 2008 documented that the average and median age of successful technology company founders in the U.S. is 40. And several subsequent studies have made the same findings. Twice as many of these founders are older than 50 as are younger than 25; twice as many are over 60 as are under 20. The older, experienced entrepreneurs have the greatest chances of success.

Don’t forget that Marc Benioff was 35 when he founded Salesforce.com; Reid Hoffman 36 when he founded LinkedIn. Steve Jobs’s most significant innovations at Apple — the iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone and iPad — came after he was 45. Qualcomm was founded by Irwin Jacobs when he was 52 and by Andrew Viterbi when he was 50. The greatest entrepreneur today, transforming industries including transportation, energy and space, is Elon Musk; he is 47.

See also: Innovation: ‘Where Do We Start?’  

Myth 2: Entrepreneurs are born, not made

There is a perennial debate about who can be an entrepreneur. Jason Calacanis proudly proclaimed that successful entrepreneurs come from entrepreneurial families and start off running lemonade stands as kids. Fred Wilson blogged about being shocked when a professor told him you could teach people to be entrepreneurs. “I’ve been working with entrepreneurs for almost 25 years now,” he wrote, “and it is ingrained in my mind that someone is either born an entrepreneur or is not.”

Yet my teams at Duke and Harvard had documented that the majority, 52%, of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs were the first in their immediate families to start a business. Only a quarter of the sample we surveyed had caught the entrepreneurial bug when in college. Half hadn’t even thought about entrepreneurship even then.

Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Jan Koum didn’t come from entrepreneurial families. Their parents were dentists, academics, lawyers, factory workers or priests.

Anyone can be an entrepreneur, especially in this era of exponentially advancing technologies, in which a knowledge of diverse technologies is the greatest asset.

Myth 3: Higher education provides no advantage

Thiel made headlines in 2011 with his announcement that he would pay teenagers $100,000 to quit college and start businesses. He made big claims about how these dropouts would solve the problems of the world. Yet his foundation failed in that mission and quietly refocused its efforts and objectives to providing education and networking. As Wired reported, “Most (Thiel fellows) are now older than 20, and some have even graduated college. Instead of supplying bright young minds with the space and tools to think for themselves, as Thiel had originally envisioned, the fellowship ended up providing something potentially more valuable. It has given its recipients the one thing they most lacked at their tender ages: a network.”

This came as no surprise. Education and connections are essential to success. As our research at Duke and Harvard had shown, companies founded by college graduates have twice the sales and twice the employment of companies founded by others. What matters is that the entrepreneur complete a baseline of education; the field of education and ranking of the college don’t play a significant role in entrepreneurial success. Founder education reduces business-failure rates and increases profits, sales and employment.

Myth 4: Women can’t succeed in tech

Women-founded firms receive hardly any venture-capital investments, and women still face blatant discrimination in the technology field. Tech companies have promised to narrow the gap, but there has been insignificant progress.

This is despite the fact that, according to 2017 Census Bureau data, women earn more than two-thirds of all master’s degrees, three-quarters of professional degrees and 80% of doctoral degrees. Not only do girls surpass boys on reading and writing in almost every U.S. school district, they often outdo boys in math — particularly in racially diverse districts.

Earlier research by my team revealed there are also no real differences in success factors between men and women company founders: both sexes have exactly the same motivations, are of the same age when founding their startups, have similar levels of experience and equally enjoy the startup culture.

Other research has shown that women actually have the advantage: that women-led companies are more capital-efficient, and venture-backed companies run by a woman have 12% higher revenues, than others. First Round Capital found that companies in its portfolio with a woman founder performed 63% better than did companies with entirely male founding teams.

See also: Innovation — or Just Innovative Thinking?  

Myth 5: Venture capital is a prerequisite for innovation

Many would-be entrepreneurs believe they can’t start a company without VC funding. That reflected reality a few years ago, when capital costs for technology were in the millions of dollars. But it is no longer the case.

A $500 laptop has more computing power today than a Cray 2 supercomputer, costing $17.5 million, did in 1985. For storage, back then, you needed server farms and racks of hard disks, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and required air-conditioned data centers. Today, one can use cloud computing and cloud storage, costing practically nothing.

With the advances in robotics, artificial intelligence and 3D printing, the technologies are becoming cheaper, no longer requiring major capital outlays for their development. And if entrepreneurs develop new technologies that customers need or love, money will come to them, because venture capital always follows innovation.

Venture capital has become less relevant than ever to startup founders.

Copy and Steal: the Silicon Valley Way

In a videoconference hosted by Indian start-up website Inc42, I gave Indian entrepreneurs some advice that startled them. I said that instead of trying to invent things, they should copy and steal all the ideas they can from China, Silicon Valley and the rest of the world. A billion Indians coming online through inexpensive smartphones offer Indian entrepreneurs an opportunity to build a digital infrastructure that will transform the country. The best way of getting started on that is not to reinvent the wheel but to learn from the successes and failures of others.

Before Japan, Korea and China began to innovate, they were called copycat nations; their electronics and consumer products were knockoffs from the West. Silicon Valley succeeds because it excels in sharing ideas and building on the work of others. As Steve Jobs said in 1994, “Picasso had a saying, ‘Good artists copy, great artists steal,’ and we have you know always been shameless about stealing great ideas.” Almost every Apple product has features that were first developed by others; rarely do its technologies wholly originate within the company.

Mark Zuckerberg also built Facebook by taking pages from MySpace and Friendster, and he continues to copy products. Facebook Places is a replica of Foursquare; Messenger video imitates Skype; Facebook Stories is a clone of Snapchat; and Facebook Live combines the best features of Meerkat and Periscope. This is another one of Silicon Valley’s other secrets: If stealing doesn’t work, then buy the company.

See also: Time to Rethink Silicon Valley?

By the way, they don’t call this copying or stealing; it is “knowledge sharing.” Silicon Valley has very high rates of job-hopping, and top engineers rarely work at any one company for more than three years; they routinely join their competitors or start their own companies. As long as engineers don’t steal computer code or designs, they can build on the work they did before. Valley firms understand that collaborating and competing at the same time leads to success. This is even reflected in California’s unusual laws, which bar noncompetition agreements.

In most places, entrepreneurs hesitate to tell others what they are doing. Yet in Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs know that when they share an idea, they get important feedback. Both sides learn by exchanging ideas and developing new ones. So when you walk into a coffee shop in Palo Alto, those you ask will not hesitate to tell you their product-development plans.

Neither companies nor countries can succeed, however, merely by copying. They must move very fast and keep improving themselves and adapting to changing markets and technologies.

See also: 3 Technology Trends Worth Watching  

Apple became the most valuable company in the world because it didn’t hesitate to cannibalize its own technologies. Steve Jobs didn’t worry that the iPad would hurt the sales of its laptops or that the music player in the iPhone would eliminate the need to buy an iPod. The company moved forward quickly as competitors copied its designs.

Technology is now moving faster than ever and becoming affordable to all. Advances in artificial intelligence, computing, networks and sensors are making it possible to build new trillion-dollar industries and destroy old ones. The new technologies that once only the West had access to are now available everywhere. As the world’s entrepreneurs learn from one another, they will find opportunities to solve the problems of not only their own countries but the world. And we will all benefit in a big way from this.

The Key to Digital Innovation Success

More than a half century ago, Ted Levitt transformed the strategic marketing agenda by asking a seemingly simple question. In his classic Harvard Business Review article “Marketing Myopia,” Levitt declared that truly effective executives needed the courage, creativity and self-discipline to answer, “What business are we really in?”

Were railroads, he asked, in the railroad business or the transportation business? Are oil companies in the oil business or hydrocarbon or energy business? The distinctions aren’t subtle, Levitt argued, and they subverted how companies saw their futures. Marketing myopia blinded firms to both disruptive threats and innovation opportunities.

Levitt’s provocative question remains both potent and perceptive for marketers today. But my research in human capital investment and “network effects” suggests that it, too, needs a little visionary help. Increasingly, successful market leaders and innovators – the Amazons, Apples, Googles, Facebooks, Netflixs and Ubers– also ask, “Who do we want our customers to become?”

That question is as mission-critical for insurance and financial services innovators as for Silicon Valley startups. The digitally disruptive influence of platforms, algorithms and analytics comes not just from how they transform internal enterprise economics but from their combined abilities to transform customers and clients, as well. Successful innovators transform their customers.

See also: The 7 Colors of Digital Innovation  

The essential insight: Innovation isn’t just an investment in product enhancement or better customer experience; innovation is an investment in your customer’s future value. Simply put, innovation is an investment in the human capital, capabilities, competencies and creativity of one’s customers and clients.

This is as true for professional services and business-to-business industries as for consumer products and services companies.

History gives great credence to this “human capital” model of innovation. Henry Ford didn’t just facilitate “mass production,” he enabled the human capital of “driving.” George Eastman didn’t just create cheap cameras and films; Kodak created photographers. Sam Walton’s Walmart successfully deployed scale, satellite and supply chain superiority that transformed “typical” shoppers into higher-volume, one-stop, everyday-low-pricing customers.

Similarly, Steve Jobs didn’t merely “reinvent” personal computing and mobile telephony; he reinvented how people physically touched, stroked and talked to their devices. Google’s core technology breakthrough may appear to be “search,” but the success of the company’s algorithms and business model is contingent upon creating more than a billion smart “searchers” worldwide.

The essential economic takeaway is that sustainable innovation success doesn’t revolve simply around what innovations “do”; it builds on what they invite customers to become. Simply put, making customers better makes better customers.

Successful companies have a “vision of the customer future” that matters every bit as much as their products and services road maps.

Insurance, fintech and insurtech industries should be no different. The same digital innovation and transformation dynamics apply. That means financial services firms must go beyond the “faster, better, cheaper” innovation ethos to ask how their innovations will profitably transform customer behaviors, capabilities and expectations.

In other words, it’s not enough to answer Levitt’s question by declaring, “We’re in the auto/property/life insurance business.” The challenge comes from determining how insurance companies want their new products, innovative services and novel user experiences to transform their customers. How can insurance companies invest in their customers in ways that make them more valuable? Who are they asking their customers to become?

So when insurers innovate in ways that give customers and prospects new capabilities — like Progressive’s price-comparison tools and Snapshot vehicle-usage plug-ins or Allstate’s mobile-phone-enabled QuickFoto claims submission option — they’re not just solving problems but asking customers to engage in ways they never had before.

Who are these companies asking their customers to become? People who will comparison shop; allow themselves to be monitored in exchange for better prices and better service; collaboratively gather digital data to review and expedite claims. These are but the first generation of innovation investments that suggest tomorrow’s customers will do much more.

This is of a piece with how a Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg or Reed Hastings innovates to make their customers — not just their products — more valuable.

Today’s Web 2.0 “network effects” business model — where a service becomes more valuable the more people use it — are superb examples of how smart companies recognize that their own futures depend on how ingeniously they invest in the future capabilities of their customers. Their continuous innovation is contingent on their customers’ continuous improvement. Call it “customer kaizen.”

How rigorously and ruthlessly fintech, insurtech and insurance companies champion this innovation ethos will prove crucial to their success. Being in “the blockchain business” is radically and fundamentally different than asking who we want our blockchain users to become.

See also: ‘Digital’ Needs a Personal Touch  

Giving better, faster and cheaper advice on risk management via digital devices is different than fundamentally transforming how customers perceive and manage risk. It’s the difference between “transactional innovation” and innovation based on more sustainable relationships of mutual gain.

The insurance industry needs to transform its innovation mindset. Start thinking how innovations make customers and clients more valuable. If your innovations aren’t explicit, measurable investments in your customers’ futures, then you are taking a myopic view of your own.

Today’s strategic marketing and innovation challenge is how best to align “What business are we in?” with “Who do we want our customers to become?”

Innovation, Community and Timelessness

“A thing of beauty is a joy forever.”

This is the opening line of the very famous poem called Endymion by John Keats, published in the early 1800s.

While this line is intended to set up a beautiful story about timeless romance, the line itself in popular culture has been used in literature, movies, ads and general conversation to describe everything from nature to art to science and more.

Why? Because Keats did an awesome job of extracting the nuance of something that everyone can relate to — not just love, not just beauty, but timelessness. It’s human nature to want timelessness and sometimes even take it for granted.

Good innovators know when something is going to fail the timelessness test. However, great innovators look at what’s failed or failing and, like a priceless painting unrecognizable from years of dust, extract what’s timeless and work hard to put it into a modern context.

Let’s look at some of the most famous modern innovators and put a label on what timeless element they extracted and modernized.

  • Steve Jobs (Apple): 24/7 connection to what’s important
  • Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook): Social exchange and acceptance
  • Jeff Bezos (Amazon): Convenience and time-saving
  • Travis Kalanick (Uber): Anything on demand, including a job

Any company that is constantly looking at its products and their applicability to new consumers is practicing good innovation. However, those that can define the nugget of timelessness have a greater advantage.

See also: Innovation Challenge for Commercial Lines  

Recently, my colleagues and I have had the privilege of working with the American Fraternal Alliance, and we’re in the midst of an inspiring innovation initiative for what could be considered a dusty corner of the life insurance industry.

1. Why is it dusty?

For background, fraternal benefit societies are organizations of people who usually share a common ethnic, religious or vocational affiliation and may provide insurance to members, primarily life insurance. While this model dates back hundreds of years, the dustiness doesn’t come just from age. For starters, the practices and language used by these societies can conjure up outdated or inaccurate images because connotations of words and phrases change over time. More important, for some, there is a decline or weakening of the common bond that drew the group together in the first place, requiring it to be updated.

2. Why is it inspiring?

The insurance industry provides a valuable utility to the public, yet consumers today have a negative impression of the industry. Recent developments in healthcare don’t help that impression. Fraternals are a special kind of insurance organization that is required to give profits back to their communities; thereby, done right, they shift the focus naturally from what they offer to why they offer it.

3. What do they want to accomplish?

The American Fraternal Alliance members want to reposition the fraternal model into the modern day and help more consumers understand it. However, it’s not an exercise of logos and fonts or sexy models selling something. It’s about finding and extracting what’s timeless and then communicating that in the right way.

4. How did they start?

This group started with a small investment, to determine if there was an opportunity in the first place. What was found was very encouraging. While the awareness levels in the market were quite low as a starting point, when consumers intending to buy life insurance in the next two years were provided with a simple description of a fraternal, the overall impression was very positive. Then, when fraternals were described in a new way, overall positive impression went up by another 23 percentage points. Further, the interest level in buying from a fraternal was 70% when prospects were exposed to a new positioning message.

This is further validated by signals in the market. We see younger consumers favoring brands that give back to communities all around the world. In addition, the disruptors in insurance are leveraging new definitions of community as a selling point for peer-to-peer models.

See also: Examining Potential of Peer-to-Peer Insurers  

That’s not to say there isn’t a lot of work still to be done. However, the innovation lesson here for the life insurance industry may be that community is timeless, and modernizing it may mean more to the future of insurance than modernizing insurance itself. Extracting what community really means and working hard to deliver on that value is what will ultimately move the needle in a meaningful way. Fraternals, dustiness aside, are in a great position to do that.