I am in mid-30's and along the way I've made my own share of mistakes. Of course, in retrospect if I knew differently or better, I wouldn't have made those mistakes. A wise man once told me that a smart person would learn from others' mistakes, and it is so right. Come to think of it, I used to discount most proverbs and old sayings as whatever, but now I think they are true in general cases (perhaps more than 70% of time). They had become what they are from hundreds of years of observation, and I think that's pretty powerful.
So, I just wanted to warn people, especially those who may want to work for a local company in mother land (non-American descendants and/or 1.5 to 2nd, 3rd generations), about possible consequence of their action. If you plan to move there permanently, none of it would matter.
First and foremost, don't do it unless there is a good reason for it. Chances are you will be faced with vast corporate/local culture shock. Unless their culture could be considered positive or you are sure that you can spin it positively or you can be completely submerged in the culture and later plan to work for a company that targets the market, don't do it. In addition, if you want to come back and get another job, it would be hard to conduct phone and/or face-to-face interview from overseas.
Second, make sure it is a world-renown company where you are absolutely sure that skill sets and experiences can be viewed positively when moving back to US. Remember, how the company is perceived can be very different from views/experiences inside. It is crucial,
Third, if you really want an international exposure, go to an American company who is looking to send someone there so that you would at least be guaranteed a job in US. Like I said, it would be though to arrange and do phone and/or face-to-face interview from overseas, and you are likely to have to come back and start looking. It wouldn't apply if you have rich parents or uncle from whom you can live off for a while.
Remember. Always learn from others' mistakes.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
What makes a company great?
It was my junior year in college that I picked up this free issue of BusinessWeek. It had a special section about Silicon Valley, and reading it was like an epiphany. It was amazing to read about unconventional folks, mavericks, and renegades were truly shaping our world. They were because after the industrial age, we live in formation age and these companies were creating innovative software and hardware that were fueling and driving information age. I wanted to be one of them, creating a company that would change the world and perhaps make a lot of money on the side. But, I wasn't sure how I would go about doing it. I was naive and still trying to figure out my place in this relatively new world, having immigrated to US just about seven years ago.
Well, I had an opportunity to work for startups in the Silicon Valley, and it was during this time that I became fascinated with high-tech marketing, thanks to VP of Engineering at Caspian Networks who recommended Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm. He is now founder and CEO of Ethernet fabric company. Since then, I wanted to move onto product marketing area, but the opportunity didn't arise until 2004.
I had a chance to work for Samsung Electronics in Korea. It wasn't an easy decision. It took me three months to decide. I've heard some horror stories about harsh treatment from jealous colleagues and cultural shock experienced by Korean Americans who went to work for a company in their mother land. Also, they were going into a very tough market, router market where Cisco owns 70% market share in all segments and 95% in mid-range segment. Other big telecommunications companies like Nortel, Alcatel and Lucent tried to challenge Cisco, but all failed. What I liked about Samsung was that it had huge amount of cash. If Samsung were in the game to win, it was going to be a long battle that would require lots of cash.
But, what I faced was quite dismal. Samsung, a large company in all aspects with 200K+ employees worldwide, truly exhibited everything you could expect from a large company. Working there was living the words of Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma. And we are not even talking about a disruptive innovation. Actually, most of the leading Samsung products happen to be with sustaining technologies instead, like more dense memories or phones packed with more and more advanced features. Clayton Christensen's definition of disruptive technology is not radically different technology, but entirely different application of current or new technology targeting entirely different market.
I am a Korean American, and I am somewhat passionate about Korean companies. In the back of my mind, I thought my high-tech marketing knowledge with heavy experiences in data networking and in startups, I could make a real impact and be the real change agent at Samsung. It didn't happen, and I could spend another full post on why. At any rate, in the light of iPhone's huge initial success, selling out 500K units last week, I wondered how come no Korean company, with heavy chips on their shoulder and arrogance could not create such "iconic" product that people could get really passionate about. Other foreign companies have done it. Sony certainly has done it...., many times with Walkman, Playstation, etc. According to Tony Seba and in his book, Winners Take All, success of Apple's iPod could be attributed to creation of "whole product". iPod was only successful with iTune application and iTune store by providing users a complete digital music experience. iPhone might actually fail because of poor experience with AT&T. Wireless carrier matters a lot to create "whole product" of a cellular phone since poor cellular quality will hinder users from positive experience.
I think it's useless to exclaim R&D or technical strength if you cannot exploit it and lose in the market. To win in the market, you have to know the market. Peter Drucker once said that "The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer so well the product or service fits him and sells itself." Perhaps the problem with these Korean companies and why they have not been able to create an iconic product is that they do not know the market.
Well, I had an opportunity to work for startups in the Silicon Valley, and it was during this time that I became fascinated with high-tech marketing, thanks to VP of Engineering at Caspian Networks who recommended Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm. He is now founder and CEO of Ethernet fabric company. Since then, I wanted to move onto product marketing area, but the opportunity didn't arise until 2004.
I had a chance to work for Samsung Electronics in Korea. It wasn't an easy decision. It took me three months to decide. I've heard some horror stories about harsh treatment from jealous colleagues and cultural shock experienced by Korean Americans who went to work for a company in their mother land. Also, they were going into a very tough market, router market where Cisco owns 70% market share in all segments and 95% in mid-range segment. Other big telecommunications companies like Nortel, Alcatel and Lucent tried to challenge Cisco, but all failed. What I liked about Samsung was that it had huge amount of cash. If Samsung were in the game to win, it was going to be a long battle that would require lots of cash.
But, what I faced was quite dismal. Samsung, a large company in all aspects with 200K+ employees worldwide, truly exhibited everything you could expect from a large company. Working there was living the words of Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma. And we are not even talking about a disruptive innovation. Actually, most of the leading Samsung products happen to be with sustaining technologies instead, like more dense memories or phones packed with more and more advanced features. Clayton Christensen's definition of disruptive technology is not radically different technology, but entirely different application of current or new technology targeting entirely different market.
I am a Korean American, and I am somewhat passionate about Korean companies. In the back of my mind, I thought my high-tech marketing knowledge with heavy experiences in data networking and in startups, I could make a real impact and be the real change agent at Samsung. It didn't happen, and I could spend another full post on why. At any rate, in the light of iPhone's huge initial success, selling out 500K units last week, I wondered how come no Korean company, with heavy chips on their shoulder and arrogance could not create such "iconic" product that people could get really passionate about. Other foreign companies have done it. Sony certainly has done it...., many times with Walkman, Playstation, etc. According to Tony Seba and in his book, Winners Take All, success of Apple's iPod could be attributed to creation of "whole product". iPod was only successful with iTune application and iTune store by providing users a complete digital music experience. iPhone might actually fail because of poor experience with AT&T. Wireless carrier matters a lot to create "whole product" of a cellular phone since poor cellular quality will hinder users from positive experience.
I think it's useless to exclaim R&D or technical strength if you cannot exploit it and lose in the market. To win in the market, you have to know the market. Peter Drucker once said that "The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer so well the product or service fits him and sells itself." Perhaps the problem with these Korean companies and why they have not been able to create an iconic product is that they do not know the market.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Do you dare to predict the future?
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
"640k ought to be enough for anyone."
"What the hell is [a microprocessor] good for?"
"I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least ten years."
Software is the king
I wish someone had told me about it early, perhaps before going to college. I have been working for about 10 years now with most of experiences in data communications, and it's been pretty obvious to me that real value of a system resides in software, not in hardware. In the communication systems, what determines reliability is usually their OS and software in general. Hardware matter, too, but only up to certain point. And, it's relatively easy to reach a reasonably robust hardware product. The real art of creating value is really in software. I wish I have known this before. While I started my freshman year as a CS major, but later I changed to EE because I didn't like to spend too much time in front of a computer.
Anyhow, the two pillars of data communications industry is Cisco and Juniper. When Juniper first came out, its software took much different path from Cisco. Cisco's IOS used to be this humongous, non-modular piece of code and changes in the one part of IOS may easily break different part of IOS. It was somewhat synonymous to MS Windows OS, where the backward compatibility requirement has hindered it from introducing much better OS for a while. Also, their approach was similar where Cisco IOS would support any network protocols under the sun like DECnet and Appletalk, while Juniper only supported newer protocols. When a process within IOS fails or goes nuts, it would bring down the whole system, but not Juniper's OS - JunOS. It was definitely smaller, faster, more reliable and more resilient. But now Cisco's new OS called IOS XR is also modular SW, I think the playing field has leveled. Cisco is a big power house in networking which commands more than 60% market share in most of industries it has penetrated, and Juniper might forever remain as the number 2, niche player in the market (Crossing the Chasm).
Anyhow, when I look at new innovation or innovative companies popping up, it's not in L1 to L4 of OSI layer. It's usually in higher level. Look at all web 2.0, social networking and SaaS (software as a service) companies taking the market by storm. Some say it's bubble 2.0, but this time I think everyone including investors is careful about business models and revenue history/projection. Also, anything related with proprietary hardware like building ASICs takes too long and too much capital. Building software takes much less time and capital, and there are literally thousands ways to implement a feature, so it's really up to how well the software is structured for performance as well as scalability that would make a huge difference.
It also brings an interesting point, too. If you look at technology advancements in the last 100 years and last 20 years, the rate of advancement in last 20 years is very high. If this rate would continue, it's mind boggling to imagine what the next 10, 20 years will bring. That's also why benefits of proprietary and custom hardware such as ASIC or company like SUN might be in the big trouble. The system built with off-shelf components may run as fast and reliably as custom hardware. Again, the value will be on software. How well it is designed and written will make all the difference.
I have two kids of my own, and I don't know if I would want them to become engineers like me..., but if they want to, I would definitely ask them to go into software industry, not hardware. I suppose hindsight is always 20/20. Life's most valuable experiences are learned from mistakes.
Anyhow, the two pillars of data communications industry is Cisco and Juniper. When Juniper first came out, its software took much different path from Cisco. Cisco's IOS used to be this humongous, non-modular piece of code and changes in the one part of IOS may easily break different part of IOS. It was somewhat synonymous to MS Windows OS, where the backward compatibility requirement has hindered it from introducing much better OS for a while. Also, their approach was similar where Cisco IOS would support any network protocols under the sun like DECnet and Appletalk, while Juniper only supported newer protocols. When a process within IOS fails or goes nuts, it would bring down the whole system, but not Juniper's OS - JunOS. It was definitely smaller, faster, more reliable and more resilient. But now Cisco's new OS called IOS XR is also modular SW, I think the playing field has leveled. Cisco is a big power house in networking which commands more than 60% market share in most of industries it has penetrated, and Juniper might forever remain as the number 2, niche player in the market (Crossing the Chasm).
Anyhow, when I look at new innovation or innovative companies popping up, it's not in L1 to L4 of OSI layer. It's usually in higher level. Look at all web 2.0, social networking and SaaS (software as a service) companies taking the market by storm. Some say it's bubble 2.0, but this time I think everyone including investors is careful about business models and revenue history/projection. Also, anything related with proprietary hardware like building ASICs takes too long and too much capital. Building software takes much less time and capital, and there are literally thousands ways to implement a feature, so it's really up to how well the software is structured for performance as well as scalability that would make a huge difference.
It also brings an interesting point, too. If you look at technology advancements in the last 100 years and last 20 years, the rate of advancement in last 20 years is very high. If this rate would continue, it's mind boggling to imagine what the next 10, 20 years will bring. That's also why benefits of proprietary and custom hardware such as ASIC or company like SUN might be in the big trouble. The system built with off-shelf components may run as fast and reliably as custom hardware. Again, the value will be on software. How well it is designed and written will make all the difference.
I have two kids of my own, and I don't know if I would want them to become engineers like me..., but if they want to, I would definitely ask them to go into software industry, not hardware. I suppose hindsight is always 20/20. Life's most valuable experiences are learned from mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
