Infinite possibilities and power of parents

Paul Graham, a successful serial entrepreneur and my biggest idol, just published another thought-provoking essay - After Credentials.

Interestingly, he was referring to a New York Times article on Korean education system. Having grown up in Korea till 16, I had experienced it myself and am in complete agreement with him. I was an odd kid in Korea. I didn't like following those customary rules just because they had been practiced for many hundreds of years. I hated cramming and being judged by test scores. And it's so true that a college degree plays a large role in one's career and life in Korea. Since graduating from college is pretty much guaranteed, once you get in, you are set. Therefore, there is a lot of emphasis in GETTING in to a college, no matter what you major in. So, it's safe to say that most kids do not major in what they wanted.

Korea is a country RULED by large companies: Samsung, Hyundai, etc. They employ 100's of thousands of people and venture into all kinds of business, from cars to hospital, theme park, and consumer electronics. Working there means job security, so many college graduates want to work there. Thus, just like what Paul said, credential and pedigree matter A LOT. Also personal connections. It's sickening. 

It's one of the reasons why I like the US and the Silicon Valley. Like I mentioned about Obama, it's the land of infinite possibilities. I've worked at many start-ups, and I know that all of them were filled with people from all different backgrounds, and that included educational background. Once you leave your first job, you are judged on your skills, not where you went to school. It's so true for engineers and also sales folks. Even in the Silicon Valley, the larger a company is - like Intel and Cisco - the more your credential and pedigree matter. 

Raising two kids, I think about what values I bestow upon them. As an Asian, and perhaps the way I was raised, I highly value education and have been sending them to a private school. But as I also grow older, I wonder if it's so necessary. Of course education is important, but I am not sure if sending them to a private school is necessary. Because, there is so much more important than just learning - creativity, positive attitude, ingenuity, etc. I really want my kids to understand that there are a lot more things valuable than good grades. I want to encourage my kids to be entrepreneurial, try new things, and not be afraid of failures. Do your best and don't worry. I hope my parents could have taught me something different. I don't blame my parents at all, but I can't help but to imagine how things would have been different if I were taught different values. 

Mobile Security

From business to everyday users

In US, BlackBerry is often referred as CrackBerry, because of its addictive nature. The best way to gauge its popularity is by witnessing most business users checking their emails or sending messages on BlackBerry phones in airports or even in business meetings. Smartphone has been the weapon of choice for business users, who use it everyday including weekends to find contact information, check schedule, and read and send emails. Those functions were essential to conduct business on-the-go and enough to pay premium for the phone and the service. In addition, since most businesses use Microsoft Exchange for contact management, calendar and email, most smartphone vendors support integration with Microsoft Exchange. While Nokia has the highest market share (~39%) in worldwide smartphone market, US market is dominated by RIM (Research-In-Motion, manufacturer of BlackBerry phones) with about 40% market share followed by not so surprisingly Apple with about 30% market share. Market shares of Microsoft and Palm smartphones have been falling since early 2006, and the same trend continues.

Thanks to Apple’s iPhone, now the flood gate has opened. Prior to iPhone, a slick, trendy version of BlackBerry called Pearl and low-price PDA-type phones called Palm Centro had gained some popularity among non-business users. Introduction of slew of Google mobile applications – Gmail, Google Maps, Calendar, Google Search, and YouTube to name a few – also helped more and more everyday users to appreciate smartphones. Another catalyst was carrier’s introduction of unlimited data plan. But the real tsunami began with Apple iPhone. According to comScore’s report in October 2008, adoption of iPhone by low-income demographics increased 48% from June to August 2008. Interestingly enough, iPhone was a smartphone targeted for consumers, but with Microsoft Exchange integration support, more and more business users are adopting iPhone as welll. The following numbers regarding iPhone are quite staggering, considering that iPhone was introduced to the market only about one year ago.

• Best selling phone (6.89 million phones) in the US during Q3 2008 - not just in smartphone category. (Source: The NPD Group)
• Ranked number two in worldwide smartphone market with 17.3% market share and 523% Year-over-Year growth according to a report by Canalys.
• 300 million apps downloaded through App Store. (Source: Apple)
• Average of 2.2 million apps downloaded per day. (Source: Apple)
• More than 10,000 apps have been uploaded to App Store. (Source: Apple)

Table 1 - Worldwide smartphone market share

Another new entrant to the smartphone market with much anticipation was Google’s Android-based G1 smartphone. These two phones, iPhones and Android-based phones will be the center of smartphone revolution now and in the near future.

Openness wins, again

The major reason for explosive growth of iPhone could be attributed to the App Store. Yes, it looks good and multi-touch screen is revolutionizing the whole intuitive user interface movement, but the real drive is its openness. Before iPhone, most phones manufacturers guarded their phones like a walled garden. It has happened over and over before, where too many restrictions hindered true innovations. Users received whatever phone manufacturers or carriers decided to allow. But, iPhone provided a platform for developers to offer their software - for a profit if they wish - and more importantly gave users choices. Users decide what they want to download and/or buy. Developers have motivation to write good programs, better than other developer, so that their software could be purchased more and thus make more money. It’s truly a beautiful system and ingenious business model. The numbers I described above are clear evidence. If the rumor that Apple may introduce $99 version of iPhones before Christmas is true, it would be truly game-changing plan.

The whole premise behind Google’s Android-base G1 phone was also the openness. It’s even more open than iPhone since its operating system (Android) is open source and it does not have as stringent software review process as Apple. Starting December 5, Google is offering a development version of the G1 phone that is both SIM and hardware unlocked. It only costs $25 registration fee to register as a developer on Android Market, and pay $399 for the hardware. Google also plans to expand the territories that it’s available in, but initially it can be purchased in the US, UK, Germany, Japan, India, Canada, France, Taiwan, Spain, Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Poland, and Hungary. It’s a shame that most mobile-phone advanced country like Korea is not on the list. Korean mobile phone manufacturer had better wake up to the new mobile world, otherwise they may end up losing a lot of their market shares.

These two phones are shifting entire paradigm in not just smartphone market, but overall mobile phone market. As “Internet” generation grows up and adopt mobile behavior similar to that of desktop and Internet, demand for “open” mobile phones will grow stronger and stronger. It would not be too surprising that most of mobile phones in the future will follow Apple and Google’s model.

Open with care

Today’s smartphones do not deserve to be called phones. They are small computers and mobile phone capability. iPhone’s specification is better than even Playstation Portable (PSP).

Table 2 - Specifications of iPhone and PSP

And this is only the beginning. Be it mobile WiMAX or LTE, carriers will keep upgrading their networks to meet the demand and support faster bandwidth. Apple, other manufacturers of Android-based phone and incumbents will continue to push the envelope, developing better, faster, lighter and more powerful mobile devices. Does this sound familiar? Continuous improvement is no stranger to high tech world, but specifically it parallels laptops. When laptops first came out, they were much inferior to the desktops, as desktop PCs were to mini-computers much earlier. Nowadays, most laptops have become as powerful as desktops. And the day smartphones will be as powerful as laptops is just around the corner. They are not going to replace them, as we still have mainframes, mini-computers, desktops and laptops. They will all co-exist and serve specific roles.

The Internet opened the door to the world, where one can reach anywhere for instant access to any information he or she desires. Also, we have seen some who try to take advantage of the openness. In the dawn of desktops, malware then was limited to virus, and it had very limited way to distribute itself. With open network, where you can reach anyone, anyone can reach back to you. It doesn’t help to have vulnerable operating system and communication tools in the most desktops. Also, as opposed to hobby-like nature of virus writing in the beginning, financial gain is the main purpose of today’s perpetrators, and motivation to write good (?) and tenacious malware is much higher. Open network/system and free market are encouraging creative innovations not only in productivity but also in cybercrimes.

Mobile world is the next frontier (for cybercriminals)

There is a new report just published by Information Security Center of Georgia Tech, which predicts that mobile phones will be next target for botnets. It’s inevitable, as mobile phones are getting more powerful, faster Internet connection is possible and thus user behavior on mobile phone is shifting from voice communications to online communications. Previously, carriers charged users by number of SMS messages or amount of data used, but nowadays most carriers offer unlimited SMS and data plan at very attractive pricing points. The new rate plan in addition to the fact that mobile phones tend to be always on and often security is poor will make them even more attractive target for cybercriminals. The shifting user behavior makes similar “drive-by download” in mobile phones as in desktop possible. Also, another large difference between desktops and mobile phones is the sheer volume. There are estimated to be around three (3) billion mobile phones used worldwide, as opposed to about 800 million desktops. Apple and Google review the uploaded applications before publishing them to the public, but there is no guarantee that they will catch all of the malware.

With relatively low bandwidth, it’s hard to imagine mobile botnets launching massive DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks. At least not the bandwidth flooding attacks, but logical and protocol attacks are certainly possible since there are so many more mobile phones available than desktops. For example, SYN flooding is quite possible with mobile phones, since it works by sending many requests to a sever and depleting its “half-open” session table, which is able to handle only about 1024 entries. More than DDoS attacks, there is more possibility of fraud and privacy invasion. Malware on the mobile phone can access paid contents and charge to user’s mobile phone account. Since mobile phone stores phone numbers of owner’s contacts, SMS spamming or even personal data leaking is possible. In places like US and others where there is tighter integration between mobile phones and company’s internal resources, the possible damage of data leak is even greater. Also, since user’s location can be pin-pointed using GPS data, a cybercriminal can track certain users for stalking or other criminal purpose. I know certain some companies in Korea already do this, so it shouldn’t be completely inconceivable. There is already an application like FlexiSPY that is used to spy on user activity. After FlexiSPY is installed on a smartphone, it allows you to use the phone to read SMS, e-mail, and call logs from the smart phone from anywhere in the world. The Windows Mobile and Symbian versions even allow you to listen to actual phone calls being made with the smartphone and use the phone as a secret GPS tracker.

There is also no doubt that some cybercriminals will use these powerful smartphones as a tool to a cybercrime.

Seize the opportunity

So far, any serious, widespread malware has been unheard of. It’s because until just about a year ago before iPhone and Google’s Android phones, most phones operated in closed, walled-garden environment. But, as amazing success of iPhone shows, there is huge paradigm shift happening in the mobile phone market right now. I have mentioned several ways cybercriminals can benefit from compromised mobile phones, but if I can think of them, cybercriminals may already have thought of many more creative ways. It’s only a matter of time. There is a great opportunity for a security company to dominate mobile security market. There are already many anti-virus and SMS anti-spam programs are available for all popular mobile operating systems from companies like AirScanner, F-Secure Corp., McAfee Inc., Symantec Corp., SMobile Systems, Trend Micro Inc., and Sophos plc., but none of them is a clear leader yet. Many IT departments in US already have or are in the process of creating mobile security policy. Just as in desktops, they will require installation of security software (anti-virus, firewall, and/or encryption) on smartphnes and can restrict which software can be installed. So far, no major mobile security threats have been widely reported, so they are not on consumers’ radar yet. But, it will just take one outbreak for them to come to the realization. In addition to security software on smartphones, carriers or other 3rd-party vendor could also provide network-based, cloud security services by scanning all mobile data on network level.

For consumers and non-business users, they need to employ the same cautious behavior as in desktop environment. They should always be careful when downloading an application or clicking on a link. Just as in desktop, even with whatever mobile security software they have on the phone, they will not be able to catch everything. They should also create password to access the phones so that their information is relatively safe when stolen. But as in desktop, most users may choose convenience over security, which would be a great tragedy since they may become the source of a large outbreak.

In conclusion, it should come as no surprise that technology advance always comes with double-edged blade. While open smartphones promise another whole new level of productivity gain (or loss to some), they come with a quite strong warning label. But those who seize opportunity will reap great benefits.

Now is the best time to start a company

It may sound strange, but many people have expressed the same opinion.

NOW is the best time to start a company.

I was reading an article from the latest Wired magazine, "Back to the Garage: How Economic Turmoil Breeds Innovation" which gives an example of Tom Siebel who started Siebel Systems in 1993 when economy was faltering then. He was able to hire good software engineers relatively easily and cheaply. He also got an office space quite cheaply as well. It also reminded me of a conversation I had with my friend who is a VC partner (I consider him a friend, but I am not sure if he does). He said this is best time for VC to invest in a company as well. VCs do have money from funds they had raised before the meltdown. Because of downturn, valuation of a company would be lower.

I had the same opinion during the first Internet bubble burst. Historically those companies that survive the economic downturn usually come out as the winner. During the bubble, it was very difficult to find good engineers and sometime companies hired people who could barely type. But when the bubble bursted and companies either closed or laid off many people, the pool of available engineers grew. VCs certainly still had money then. I was quite certain even then that economic downturn would be the best time to start a company.

Due to my unemployment, I frequently visit FuckedStartups.com a lot. There are certainly many layoffs going on. This was all prompted by Sequia Capital's warning to their portfolio companies a few months ago. Where would all the laid off engineers go? I've been searching for a while, but no one is really hiring. Even those who are hiring are taking their sweet time interviewing many folks. However, Americans are quite ingenious. In these tough times, someone with a good idea will hook up with others in similar situation and start a company together.

It also reminds me of the notion of "Creative Destruction". History of Silicon Valley is filled with successful companies born during the bust time following boom time.

Me? I have more pressing need to support my family, so I am going for a full-time employment. I can't start a company when my family relies on me for financial needs. But, when my wife starts working, that would be a different story. Look out, world!

Founders at Work - Part 2

I have finished the book. I skipped some chapters that I didn't find interesting.

I had this belief before, but it was confirmed in the book. Most of successful startups are childrent of acccidental success. Most founders didn't set out to build these big empires. Most of them were quite surprised at their own success. How amazing.

There is also something that I can't let go. It's the role of chances and luck. In any given circumstances, we can make any number of decisions. I remember Sliding Doors, less well known movie with Gwyneth Paltrow. It was a sappy movie about fate of love. The movie diverges when Gwyneth misses a train and when she catches the same train. It comes together in a hospital, where two parallel universes converge.

Anyhow, right now where I am is the result of sequence of decisions I had made. Some major, some very minor. We make decision all the time. I am writing this essay instead of getting ready for bed. There are external factors that affect me, and I may or may not have caused it.... Also a decision I make would affect others. I wonder what may have happened if admission committee of University of Pennsylvania rejected and I had gone to Virginia Tech instead. Or if I decided to stick around at Topspin instead of going to Korea and working for Samsung. Or more recently I put off looking for a job to help the bank sell assets and IP of the last company - GigaFin Networks - so that the business would continue. And now I find myself in worst time to be without a job. I made the decision not knowing what would lay ahead. Is it just bad luck? What about writing this essay at this moment? Would someone read it just by chance that may cause whole different chain of actions tomorrow and in the future?

Bottom line is that you don't know. Just like many of the founders said that the reason why they were successful was because they didn't know any better. They were too naive to know how hard running a startup would be. And they didn't give up when perhaps they should have. Sometimes is ignorance is indeed bliss. You can't be paralyzed by past and what-ifs. Make whatever best decision you can make at the moment, and go for it!

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."

Future of advertisement

I was watching "CSI" and "Eleventh Hour" today, and I was amazed at product placement of iPhone. It also reminded me of the first season of "24" where I saw clear product placement of Cisco and Dell.

Today was rare. I don't watch much TV. I spend a lot of time online to watch TV shows (and video clips) on Hulu, Veoh, and YouTube. Why? It's purely convenience. I can watch it anytime at anywhere whenever I want. I guess I could have TiVO, but I am cheap.

A few weeks ago, I attended Bay Area K group's technical seminar on IPTV, and I am not quite convinced whether IPTV will be the future. Unless there are programs that clearly take advantage of two-way communications, I don't see the need for IPTV.

I don't know if video websites will ever take over cable or over-the-air market, but it's getting clear that new business model for TV advertisement will be required. One of them is obviously product placement, and I can't believe so many actors you see on TV are using iPhone! That's one great strategy. 

Founders at Work - Part 1

I've recently picked up a book called Founders at Work. I thought I've heard about it when I was trying out my start-up in 2006, but it has copyright date of 2007. It is a collection of interviews of founders at various (successful) start-ups.

There are definite similarities between all these successful founders.

1. Most of them were singles when they started companies.
   
2. They all started early, mostly around college period and sometimes in high school.
   
3. Because they started early, they were all inexperienced and naive. Yet, most of them got funding from VCs. That seems to contradict conventional belief that VCs bet on a jockey, not on a horse. Big difference? Working prototype. They all had products and prototype already working.
   
4. Most of them had gone through some tough times during the life of the start-up.
5. Their first idea rarely worked. Many have gone through multiple iteration of ideas to get it right.
   
6. Most had good partners and co-founders that supported each other in tough times. They all persevered, and made it at the end.
   
7. They all attributed a lot of their successes to luck. It's not that they didn't work hard and only waited for Lady Luck to smile at them. They worked really hard, and while things could have gone many different ways, some things just fell into place....by chance.
   

I haven't finished the book, but I have to wonder if I had given up my company way too early. There were many additional obstacles; like having to support the family and having no committed co-founder (my partner left in less than six months). Though, I don't regret having started a company. It was once-in-a-lifetime experience. Another thing the book said was that start-ups tend to require more than professional commitment from employees. People say you don't get in to business with friends, but start-ups do need friends because of its high emotional requirements.

Nevertheless, it's very interesting book. I wish I had read this book before I started my company.

Open, Closed and Whole Product

In previous entries, I have covered the rate of change in technology advances, peril of attempting to predict the future, and current trend in developments of cloud computing, data centers, and smart phones. A report by NPD says that iPhone 3G is now the best-selling smart phone (past BlackBerry’s and Palm Treo’s) and 2nd-best selling phone after Motorola Razr in US. The proliferation of new smart phones and the birth of whole new eco-system of applications developed by any programmers and available to all users present interesting security problems.

Mobile phones in general are now considered an essential item in one’s life. It’s hard to imagine what the world was like without them, not being able to connect to anyone at anytime from anywhere (even interrupting us at anytime). Most people nowadays cannot imagine what it was like before the Internet and mobile phones. Because of its portability and must-have status, the number of mobile phones vastly outnumbers any devices that connect to the Internet.

I can’t say for any other countries, but in US, smart phones are absolutely necessary in business because of its ability to access corporate emails and calendar. In fact, they are two major functions why millions of business users buy smart phones, which have become mandatory communications device for business users.

In addition to the vast volume of general mobile phones, smart phones are becoming more and more like small computers. With wide variety of applications available to download and install, new smart phone users enjoy the same freedom of choosing whichever application they’d like to use as those desktop users. As a rule of thumb, the technology advancement will continue and they may become as powerful as some laptops, as today’s laptops are as fast and powerful as desktop. It’s inevitable and just matter of time.

So, if you think about billions of laptop-like mobile devices with wide variety of Internet applications, any security professional will cringe. Infecting mobile devices with malicious code could result in devastating results. All the personal information stored on the laptop including address book and emails could be leaked. Someone could also tap into user’s location information through GPS and keep tracking the user for criminal purpose. Since they will become as powerful as some laptops, it’s entirely conceivable that some sort of P2P applications (good or bad) might be developed for mobile phones. As more advanced botnet uses encrypted P2P network rather than traditional IRC channels, the mobile botnet can be certainly created with P2P network as well.

Apple keeps tight control over applications developed for iPhone, but when the number of applications is increasing faster and faster, they won’t be able to keep the full control. However, restriction and control are not the answer. They will only limit innovations and may even kill the very technology and/or product it is trying to protect. Internet was able to flourish because it was open. While there are some parasites, the benefits of openness vastly outweigh negatives. There are numerous cases when open system/architecture triumphed over closed counterpart. Open system encourages competition, which in turn fosters innovations in the market. Then, how does one make money in such environment? It may not be easy, but it’s possible. Good example is Cisco. Most Cisco products are based on open standards, yet they command highest market share in most markets. Worse yet, they do not build the best or the fastest products in the industry. Slightly different, but similarly, Apple was able to come in to crowded MP3 player market and dominate in short period of time. There is no secret to make a MP3 player, as you can see in high number of MP3 manufacturers. How did Apple do it? Is it because it looks beautiful? Americans are quite practical folks. Knowledge of America might be limited to what they see on TV or movies for some, but most Americans are definitely not frivolous. It wasn’t because of its looks. Then, how did Apple succeed?

In marketing there is a concept of “Whole Product.” It’s not enough to win in the market with just main product. In order to complete user’s experience, you have to consider what user would go through from before the purchase to what afterwards. Apple iPod was successful because of iTune software and iTune store. In order to complete MP3 experience, a user would have to find a way to manage his music collection and a way to add more songs (either by ripping a CD or buying online). iTune software and store completed that, and they worked flawlessly with iPod. How about Cisco? Cisco’s “Whole Product” is Cisco product plus millions of professional service and technical support professionals either from Cisco or 3rd-party vendors. Cisco made it legitimate with its certification program so that their customers, if chose to seek outside help, can find quality professionals by checking their certificates. It’s this auxiliary knowledge base that is keeping Cisco in the top place. Because they are market leaders and have most customers, their position is reinforced by many other companies that build and offer additional auxiliary items/accessories and service for them such as cases, boom boxes, adapters for iPod or training centers, system/network integrators for Cisco.

So which way is right for mobile security? It’s a million dollar question, and also where incredibly attractive opportunity could be.

Danger of isolation

The release of Chrome solidifies the importance of web browser and decline of desktop in the future of computing. There is a new wave of computing revolution going on, and I am afraid Korea is being left behind in spite of its blindingly fast technology adoption. I believe here is where the difference lies: adoption vs. innovation.

Since the birth of the Internet, Software-as-a-service (SaaS) model has been attempted (remember those Application Service Providers in the early 2000’s?), but it truly gained momentum with rush of web 2.0 sites and also wild success of mega Internet companies like Google, Amazon, eBay, and etc. Since these companies needed to have massive processing power and deal with tremendous amount of data, they were early (commercial) adopters of high-performance computing. They wanted to monetize their expertise in running scalable data centers, and that’s how (commercial) cloud computing was born. Both Google and Amazon let a company or individual to run their web applications in their data centers and they charge only for resources used. This is especially good for web 2.0 start-up companies who cannot afford to run their own scalable data centers. Current cloud computing service isn’t perfect as demonstrated by outages from both companies. But, you can bet this is where the future of computing is headed. In turn this is also pushing development of products specifically targeting high-performance data centers, and both larger companies such as Cisco and Juniper and many start-up companies are jumping in the bandwagon.

This is also exactly why desktop and subsequently operating system is losing its significance. In other words, they both are going back to their basics, as they were meant to be. There is no reason for bloated OS. Actually some will even argue that OS is really just the kernel and anything else is application. It’s a religious war that I don’t want to get into. Nevertheless, it’s clear that as desktop applications move to the Internet (or cloud or somewhere remote accessible by URL or IP address), web browser becomes the window to all the applications. It doesn’t matter whether you use Windows OS, MAC OS, or Linux OS, all you need is a web browser. There will be some specific desktop markets that always need more processing power such as gaming and intensive computer graphics, and they will become only small fraction of entire desktop market.

This whole trend got me thinking about how come Korea wasn’t able to cash in on its technology achievements. Anyway you look, numbers are amazing: highest broadband penetration, highly advanced mobile phones, highest mobile Internet speed, and etc. But why doesn’t Korea lead rest of the world in Internet or mobile innovations? Why isn’t there a Korean company or innovation that everyone talks about as setting the trend for the future, changing status quo, and making significant differences in high-tech world? Why isn’t there a Korean people talk in the same breath as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Joy, Andy Bechtolsheim, Will Wright, etc.? Then I realized that it was because what we see on the surface is the result of fast adoption, not innovation. In addition, Korea is too isolated in terms of its technology reach. Concepts like Software-as-a-Service or cloud computing should have been initiated in Korea. Online gaming craze in Korea is well published even in US, but it’s a result of people spending tons of time playing games programmed and published elsewhere. Should fraction of these gamers have studied programming instead, we may have a different story. The social networking website was also pioneered in Korea. Cyworld was hugely popular and successful in Korea, but they failed to capitalize outside Korea. They tried much later, but it was too little, too late. A recent report shows that Facebook, a hugely popular social networking website in US, is growing the fastest outside US. I saw some report in Korea that complained Mozilla’s Firefox and Google’s Chrome do not display most of Korean websites correctly. It’s because most Korean websites were developed for Microsoft’s ASP.Net. This is certainly not Mozilla’s or Google’s faults, and they certainly should not change its code to support non-W3C standard web pages. Korean mobile manufacturers have been in mobile phone industry for a while, but they never have generated hype and loyal following like Apple had with iPhone (to be fair, it applies to all other mobile phone makers). Also, by opening of API and free SDK, and allowing users to buy and install any applications they wish, Apple is pushing mobile application development to whole another level. In addition, Google’s open-source based Android phone is sure to bring additional push for mobile application innovation. What’s interesting is while Apple has full control over its hardware, Google doesn’t. Google relies on others for hardware, and this is quite similar to Microsoft and cheap PC hardware alternatives to IBM PC and its OS. Mobile phone’s hardware is getting commoditized, as all electronic hardware goes through, and tremendous value is placed in OS and other software running on top. That’s why Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the most well-known VC in the Silicon Valley, has created $100 million iFund to invest in iPhone and iPod Touch applications. In addition, Research In Motion, the RBC and Thomson Reuters have invested in an $150 million venture investment fund, called the BlackBerry Partners Fund, to support developers of applications running primarily on the Blackberry.

In essence, I think Korea’s high-tech industry is not taking full advantage of its potential. One major part of the problem is the whole start-up environment, from investment community to engineers and marketing folks who are too isolated. When a start-up is started, it should look to US and Europe (and perhaps China) as its main markets, not Korea. Products should be architected and designed for more than just Korean market. The key to successful business outside Korea is to understand local business and consumer cultures, so Korean companies should not be shy of hiring someone outside Korea, and also tolerate other cultures or different way of thinking. Also, you need more personal investors willing to take very high risks and provide seed money. Successful entrepreneurs should be available to offer advice to those in need. Koreans are no doubt very smart on paper. What separates them and successful entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley are basically thought processes: creative problem solving, seeing beyond what’s obvious, thinking outside the box, etc. There is a reason why most innovations and value/wealth creation is still happening in the Silicon Valley. One of the reasons is general acceptance of immigrants and differences in cultures and thinking. Silicon Valley’s position may certainly change in the future, but so far I believe it is still here. I sincerely hope that Korea can take full advantage of its highly-educated, smart population and its technology achievements to start creating values outside Korea (but NOT with Government initiatives). She has the potential and just needs to spread her wings.

Whole Product

The concept of "Whole Product" has been well known. In order to complete user experience, you need additional products, features or services in addition to the main product. For Apple iPod, it was the iTune that managed music collection as well as vehicle to buy a song at $0.99 (as opposed to buying an entire album). Apple perfected the art with iPhone and its App Store.

Thinking back, Samsung made critical mistake when trying to enter enterprise networking market. Most companies buy Cisco products not only for their technology, but also support and professional services, which make up the whole product. Even though networking products are based on open standards (IETF), because enterprise network is complicated and mission critical, it's important to design it correctly and to receive immediate support when something goes wrong. Samsung wasn't willing to invest money in the support and services structure.

Along with iPhone, Google's Android phones will also have Application Marketplace, so it would be very interesting if the success can be replicated. I say it would, but we shall see. There is clear business model for Apple iPhone application developers (by charging for apps), but I don't see it for Android. I suppose they would have to give developers freedom to charge for an application. So far I think they are supposed to be free, but money could be very strong motivator, so Google should strongly consider it.

Mobile app - P2P or mesh

If mobile phones (more like smart phones) are becoming mini-computers, it is very conceivable that many things you run on desktop could be run on smart phones.

The major differences between the two are mobility, contraints and the volume. I was thinking about the last part. There are supposed to be around 3 billion mobile phones in the world, as opposed to some several hundred million PCs. Also most phones are on all the time, albeit in standby mode. If some applications are running all the time, battery wouldn't last long. If you consider all the phones worldwide, there will be millions phones on at one time.

If there is a way to tap on to each of those phones, combined productivity would be great. There is one sort of application that utilizes a great number of folks downloading at the same time, and it is BitTorrent. Can you imagine BitTorrent running on most smart phones......either streaming or downloading? You can easily max out network capacity...., and your other mobile applications would suffer. The idea of creating mesh network using mobile phones in proximity has been aroudn for a while. It could be doable, but what would be the purpose? Mobile P2P would be cool, but what useful thing can you do with it?

It brings me memory of using the first VoIP app. I was in college, and I remember using it in a dorm room..., and I can't remember the name of the app, but all I remember is that it really sucked and I was really disappointed. Like any new technology, I think the first batch would be more of "proof-of-concept". But, it's almost like evolution - that technology will improve, and at some point, environment will be ripe for the app(s).

I truly believe it's only matter of time that some sort of P2P or mesh networking. You know, that's why I think iPhone will lose to hundreds of gPhones. iPhone will kill those applications, but gPhone is for freedom. You can hack it. You can install any applications. You can probably even install modified OS. gPhone will spur much more innovations than iPhone. It's substance vs. style, and I'd go for substance (with style). :)

History repeats itself? iPhone and Apple Mac's

My current mobile contract is over in October. I set my mind to buy an iPhone next, but then T-Mobile's Android phone, G1 will be also available in October. That complicates things a little bit.

But one thing is for sure. I don't like G1. HTC and T-Mobile should've done better job at designing an aesthetic phone. It's fugly. I see it as a beta phone, and I hope Samsung or LG make much better Android phones. Then shall I wait till those phones are available? Next Android phone is most likely from Sprint, and I wouldn't buy it even if it's free (unless I can unlock it and use it in AT&T network!) because Sprint network sucks and the company will be extinct in a few (or several) years.

It also dawned to me that there are some similarities between different routes PC/Mac took and how Apple and Google are approaching mobile market. Apple iPhone is definitely vertically integrated. Apple controls the hardware, but lets 3rd-party software developers to publish their applications as long as Apple approves them (thus the similar to Mac). On the other hand, Google's Android is open-source and it relies on others to make platforms and anyone can develop software (thus similar to Microsoft and PC). Even in Google's case, I think they would need to screen some applications that might be borderline immoral - offensive, racist, unethical, or just plain wrong (wrong on whose standard? That could be a source for a debate). So, with such parallism, I have to wonder whether iPhone will suffer the same fate as old Mac did. While many phone manufacturers are coming up with different phones with different tastes (thus much broader appealing than iPhone), iPhone will be limited to designs that Apple can release.

In addition, as recent smart phones have demonstrated, future mobile phones will be just like mini computers. There will some mini computers for average folks, some for advanced, and some for ultra geeks who may even buy off-the-shelf-components and build their own. The key is to let hardware vendors package them differently and target different market segments. Google just provides OS and default search, many many 3rd-party developers offer their applications. This is what Microsoft wanted with its Windows Mobile OS, but Google is definitely crashing Microsoft's party. Who would win? I don't know about you, but I am going to bet on Google. Google (Android) will dominate smart phone OS in 3-5 years. Because it is open source, someone can easily build an affortable smart phone based on Android and create mini smart phone reveolution in developing nations, where cheap phones are dominant, but people will naturally want to move up to better, sophisticated phones. In other words, even in smart phone market, there will be different segments; more basic, cheaper to advanced, more expensive phones. Someone might even sell mobile phone kit(s) with different components.

One hurdle I could see is carriers. In many places, you are locked in to a carrier. This must change. It is hurting mobile innovations. Those fat cats must go. FCC must allow open competition. Google's bid for spectrum was more self-served, but open airwave would have spawned amazing innovations in mobile industry. In the end, perhaps, all telecom service providers (either wired or wireless) might become just pipe provider. They want to avoid that, thus make you lock-in or monopolize the market.

Again and again, the higher you go up on the value chain, more important it is. Content/software is the king - applications on PCs, OS in routers/switches, programming on cable network, etc.

Coming back to the original point, Apple had better be prepared to not repeat the history.

T-Mobile G1 (Dream)

T-Mobile's G1, much anticipated Google Android phone, was unveiled today. However, looking at the pictures, I can't believe how ugly it looks! I glimpsed a bit of screen shots, but I am not entirely convinced this would be a iPhone killer.... In addition, I am not hearing about customers dying to get their hands on it. Google/T-Mobile could have done better job marketing the phone... :(

Follow your dream?

Should you?

I had a conversation with someone who has been quite successful as a serial entrepreneur. Since I have a lot of spare time, I wanted to pick his brain and get some pointers what I could follow his footsteps. His brief answer was that he just had been lucky, right place at the right time. He also said there are some people who are cut out to be a leader, founder, and entrepreneur. And, most people are not. He said God (whichever god depends on your religion) has set out a path for everyone. People have different strengths, and he doesn't believe in working on improving weaknesses, but reinforcing strengths.

One of the books I like is Sun Tzu's The Art of War. One principle in the book says that the state head must know how to utilize his generals' strengths best. If a general is good at offense, he should be deployed in offensive position. And if a general is good at defense, then in defensive position. You can't blame a general for not doing his job if he was assigned with a job he cannot possibly do well. It makes total sense......

So, what if your dream is not in line with your strengths? Or what if your strengths are not enough to reach your dream? Books and TVs are full of stories about people following their dreams, persevere, and actually achieving them. How about others who have followed them but never made them? There are many athletes, both professional and Olympic, who in spite of their best effort do not make it at the top. What about those countless artists and musicians? When do you realize that perhaps your strengths are not in line with your dream or just not enough? What do you do? Then, is it about different levels or definitions of success? Should an athlete be satisfied with making it to the Olympic teams?

It's especially meaningful to me since I have two kids of my own. As a parent, I would tell them that they could be anything they want to be. Would I be setting them up for big disappointments? Shall I just tell them that there are different levels of successes, and they should set low goals? Jack Welch is famous for setting "stretch goals", which may not be applicable for kids, but I really ponder over the whole thing.

Dare to predict the future

Since the shutdown of the company I was working at previously, I have had some time to think about what I want to do. I still have the desire to start my own company, but it’s indeed getting harder and harder as I have certain family obligations. Next best thing is to join a startup, but there aren’t too many left standing in networking industry. As I have mentioned before, best case scenario would be to join a startup in web application space, but because I don’t have relevant prior experiences, it is tough. That leaves joining a well-established company in networking industry. While that’s good for supporting the family, it is bruising to my ambition and dream of starting a company of my own. However, life would not be worth living without a dream. We live one life, and I just refuse to accept that I will live the rest of my life as nobody in the sea of big corporations. Well, not exactly. My personality wouldn’t let me be nobody. I am too ambitious to be nobody in any company. Either I make a difference and become somebody or get the hell out. I think I've always enjoyed limelight - there is something about being a center of attention.

At any rate, I decided to examine history of technology innovations (as far back as I could remember), and see where the future innovations would happen. As people grow older, they tend to have “locked-in” view. I can feel that I already do that sometimes. But, it’s important to have open mind and views. I will let my imaginations go wild, and see where things might be headed in the future. This would be a good exercise.

I would divide Internet into two large areas: physical and logical (or Layer 1 to 4 and Layer 5 to 7 of OSI model). In physical side, you have telecommunications and data communications equipment that is responsible for delivering bits (zeroes and ones) from point A to point B. In Layer 1, most long hauls, WANs and LANs are either fiber or moving to fiber. To desktop is most likely to remain copper, and to laptop is most likely wireless (Wi-Fi variation). Long hauls use mostly SONET, the good-old, reliable SOB. DWDM stuffs much more information into single strand of fiber using different wavelengths. So, as long as you have fiber in the ground, DWDM or any other future boxes will be interested in stuffing more and more bits into the single strand of fiber. Similarly, Ethernet evolution map is pretty much intuitive, too: faster and faster. Also interesting thing is moving everything over IP. Storage used to be exclusively on fibre channel network, but with NAS and iSCSI, everything is accessible over IP without specialized network. There is even talk about implementing fibre channel over Ethernet. Actually, much more interesting things in physical side are happening in and around data centers. The need to have scalable data center is pushing for HPC environment where resources from multiple servers are pooled together. What’s happening now is like creating a humongous server with hundreds of CPUs and obscene amount of storage. With pre-partitioned storage, any number of CPUs can be instantly grouped together to perform certain jobs. For example, if there is sudden surge of demand for database processing, addition CPUs can be assigned to already existing database CPUs. It is like dynamic server virtualization. You can also imagine, with fast enough connection and fast enough storage like maybe Solid State Drives, that there could be separate “memory area network” in addition to “storage area network”. Thus you have three physically separate areas – CPU, memory and storage - being grouped dynamically on the fly and providing services to clients as needed. What provides physical connections for those three areas become quite interesting too…. Memory typically requires 50ns or less access speed, so I am not sure if current Ethernet switch can work. But, you could imagine some sort of box providing network connection to/from clients as well as between the three areas. That would be really neat… But the box needs to be as scalable as the computing resources. Also management would not be easy. There may be additional challenges I am not seeing right now, but I would believe that’s where most network, server, and storage vendors are heading.

In terms of physical side of mobile industry, it’s also pretty much predictable. Apple iPhone and Google Android are paving a new era of mobile networks. Service providers need to upgrade their equipment to deal with more and more data. Thanks to the two pioneers, mobile phones will be considered as mini-computers where consumers are free (as much as phone manufacturer lets them) to download and install applications.

Logical side is even more interesting than the physical side in both wired and wireless networks. Whether you use desktop or mobile phone, what you do with bits delivered via the network is where the true value resides. However, I must say that I am much more excited about mobile apps than desktop apps. The evolution of desktop apps seems quite predictable. For example, social networking websites could be considered as enhanced BBS. I remember when I first got my computer in high school, it came with 2400 baud modem and the only “online” activity would be through BBS. I exchanged games with others physically…using 5.25” floppy disks. You could choose which BBS to go and hang out. When I went to college, I used newsgroups and IRC as BBS. Then to Yahoo Groups, and now it’s Facebook. Truly remarkable development has been around software-as-a-service model. In most cases, big software vendors tended to target customers who leave most margins, i.e. Fortune 1000 companies. Small-to-Medium businesses usually get crippled version at discounted price, but in terms of productivity, it could be considered a lot more expensive. When you move apps to web, now you have different economies of scale, and distribution and pricing model. Just as the Internet made “Long Tail” possible, SaaS changes the whole software landscape and makes it attractive to SMBs (not that it wouldn’t be also attractive to larger companies, but they may not have compelling reason to jump).

Also, when you add mobility, you get a whole different set of software. Mobility means your location may change at any time. The obvious apps are the ones that tell you about things around you, whether you are looking for a restaurant, a friend, etc. There is also notion of instant social gaming, where you hook up with whoever is available and play a game together. Another one is instant access to information wherever you are. One app I saw lets user scan a barcode of a product and find review/rating information about it. Pretty clever. So what makes apps on mobile phone with high-speed internet connection a lot more interesting is location + instant access to information.

What could be possible? Where could things go from here? SaaS means both desktop and mobile phone could access the same application. So the SaaS should be able to accommodate information from/to both desktop and mobile phone. Will desktops become just another (immobile) terminal to apps? How about SaaS of SaaS? If apps are moving to web, and there might be a need for information exchange between two or more SaaS apps. Mashup for mobile apps. There is an idea! Another characteristic of mobile phone is it’s most likely to be with owner all the time. So, it could be use as tracking device…..could be as physical as distance travelled or expenses……or some sort of analysis based on accumulated data…..like when s/he is most likely to spend money, etc. I actually have envisioned a society without cash, since a lot of financial transactions already happen without me actually touching the money. Money gets deposited using direct deposit. I always use credit cards for purchases. I then pay for credit charges using online banking. I don’t need to touch the money, period. So, what if you add charging capability to the mobile phone? It’s already done in Asia and Europe, where you can pay for goods using your mobile phone. It’s just that mobile carriers are not credit card companies, but it should be possible perhaps through partnership. Then SaaS could keep track of most of expenses through the mobile phones and provide you with financial analysis. That could be possible.

Actually, it would be impossible to think of all the possible mobile SaaS right now….., but it gives good topic ideas. From today on, I am going to write about at least one mobile SaaS a day.

Just do it!

There are a few people at work I enjoy having conversation with, and one of them is a software engineer with a lot of interest in marketing and starting a company.

One day he and I had a discussion about high-tech marketing strategies. I gave examples and principles from books I have read like Crossing the Chasm, Inside the Tornado, and Innovator's Dilemma. But, he basically discarded them as garbage and they are all just after-the-facts, trying to explain what made companies successful. Hindsight is always 20-20, and it is easy to justify actions after success. I try very hard to make counter his points, but it didn't fly.

The truth is that he was right. None of the authors - neither Geoffrey Moore and Clayton Christensen - has ever run a successful company. Also, so many successful companies in the valley have been accidental success. Look no further than Google. Larry Page and Sergey Brin never wanted to start a company. After successful prototype, they just wanted to sell the technology. Nobody including Yahoo wanted to buy the technology. Everyone thought search market was mature enough with no room for new player. They sat on a $100,000 check made out to "Google, Inc." from Andy Bechtolsheim, mulling over whether to start a company or not. The same with Craig Newman from Craigslist.org, which is arguably one of the most visited websites in the world. He started out by managing a bunch of mailing lists, which was a pain and took a lot of his time. He wanted a better way to manage the mailing lists, and that's how Craigslist.org was born. Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook never intended to create a company of current Facebook. He just wanted to find a way to see who's who in his freshman class, and that's how Facebook started. Similar stories exist for other companies like eBay and Paypal. Have they all followed the strategies and tactics laid out in marketing books? I am not sure. But, it is surely easy to tell the world - after such huge success - why certain actions taken at the time were so brilliant. But, who knows at the time it was motivated entirely differently?

In addition, most successful start-ups happened to be started by engineers, not marketing-types. From HP to Cisco, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo, and Google, all of them were founded by engineers.

Guy Kawasaki from Garage Technology Ventures said that one common mistake an entrepreneur makes is writing a business plan first. Instead, he or she should start building service or product and starting selling them first. It's utmost important to get customer feedback as soon as possible. By incorporating customer feedback and improving service or product, the entrepreneur could build his/her business. If more capital is required for further growth, it's much easier to raise funding with proven business model.

So, to my fellow entrepreneurs, JUST DO IT!

Security: Tech's all-time top flop

InfoWorld recently ran a story about high-tech's all-time top 25 flops, and security took the honor of being the first place. The list included pretty familiar flops like IBM's OS/2, Apple's Newton, and IPv6. As someone who works in the security industry, the finding isn't all that surprising. It was actually pretty amusing, because my colleagues and I all knew security would in in that top 25. As in my previous blog entry, the number of malware is reaching an epidemic level and there are many variations of past and current malware including virus, worm and spyware.

It looks like the security industry has reached its limitation with current techniques.

Microsoft + Yahoo is a bad, bad move

Bad for Microsoft shareholders and probably good for Yahoo shareholders. 62% premium above Thursday's closing price is a good offer, and board of directors at Yahoo must consider it very seriously.

Why is it bad and why it wouldn't work? Let me count the ways...

1. Two mediocre companies - mediocre in terms of Internet world - will not create one better Internet company. Windows Live sucks. Yahoo has been losing its market share in search market and its new ad marketing system, Panama, hasn't made difference to Yahoo. I really can't see how the combined company will compete with companies like Google better.....

2. Mega merger rarely works. The reason why Cisco has been successful in M&A is because Cisco targets mostly small companies. There are a few exceptions, but it takes enormous amount of work to integrate large companies. It will take long time for Microsoft and Yahoo to work through integration, and competition will be far ahead of Micrsoft+Yahoo by then.

3. Microsoft has bullied its way into browser world by including internet explorer with its operating system, but these days, especially to web 2.0 companies and their web applications, browsers do not matter. Their applications are browser-agnostic in most part. Google returns the same result whether you have IE or Firefox or any other browser. Other Google services (or applications to an extent) will run the same whether on IE or Firefox or any other browser (if there is difference, it would be minimal). Furthermore, they are also OS-agnostic. Whether you run Linux, Solaris, or Windows, these web applications and web sites are made to run
the same no matter what OS and what browser you use. This is precisely why Microsoft should and is worried about Google and the whole slew of web 2.0 companies (look at Facebook and its huge list of applications - Facebook is already its own platform).

However, motivation is clear, and the proposed deal looks enticing to both Yahoo (for capital, financial and resource reasons) and Microsoft (for technology and market share gain reasons).... But I can't help but feeling that this will mark the time Microsoft finally jumps the shark......

Signature-based security is no longer effective

Dark Reading - sister site of Light Reading which had been source of much rumor and information when I was in networking market - has recently reported that malware is reaching epidemic level. It sites reports from two security firms, PandaLabs (research arm of anti-virus company, Panda Security) and AV-Test (an independent anti-virus software testing organization). Key statistics are the followings.

• Number of malware has increased 5 to 10 times in 2007
  
• Average of 3000 new variation of malware each day in 2007
  
• Approximately 72% of networks with more than 100 workstations and 23% of home users are currently infected with malware even with operative antivirus or other signature-based tools in place
• Approximately 5.5 million different malware files identified in 2007 - 5 times as greater than 2006
• 118,000 different malware files in 2 weeks of January in 2008

All these numbers indicate that signature-based approach to computer and network security is no longer effective and cannot scale. While signature-based solutions have worked fairly well so far, they have one fatal weakness; no known signature, no detection and thus no defense. And as the numbers show, the rate at which malware is created is clearly overwhelming signature-based security companies.

Pros and cons of outsourcing software development to India

So, I am winding down on my pursuit of the startup. I had to. My saving level is dangerously low, and I have a family to support.

And, this outsourcing to an Indian software company was a BIG mistake, too. What it came down to is the heart and soul put into the work. They will do a job to meet the spec, but as any software engineer knows, there are million ways to write a code, and these guys will write the minimum or take the shortest path to meet the spec. That doesn't mean they will think about efficiency or quality of the code. So, quality of the code is always questionable. But, again the biggest problem is that these guys will not go above and beyond. Just do the minimum to meet the spec and that's it.

When I told many people that I was going to outsource the coding, they thought I was crazy. It's core of my business, and you should never outsource something that's core to one's business. That's so true, because I just learned it hard way and also it is clearly said in the book I am currently reading, Living on the fault line by Geoffrey Moore. Well, actually at first, I didn't think the website was the core, but marketing strategy was, because writing a website is so trivial and anyone could do it. I wanted to do it cheaper and faster, and concentrate on good marketing so that I can attract critical mass of users. But, it was the core. In consumer website space, user experience is everything and the website that was built by this Indian outsourcing company - which by the way had developed other social networking sites before - had the worst user interface. So, I basically told them to stop the development since I want to cancel the project. Of course, they weren't happy about it, but there was really no point in going on. The website developed by them was so inferior to current competitors.

Recently I had to research open-source social networking platforms, and I was surprised to find so many. And, they all looked really good. I remember distinctly that I searched for such platform in October of 2006, and there really weren't much. I found a few that I'd have to buy, but no social networking.... Though, I am not sure if I would have time to develop the site myself even if I found a suitable open-source social networking platform. The learning curve would have been too steep. That was actually another reason I decided to use an outsourcing company....., but it turned out to be probably worse.

Ah, well.... You live and learn and move on.

Also, another thing that I learned was that most of the successful startups were founded by engineers and geeks, not by business or marketing people. I'd better go and hit programming books!

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.