What Are Ideas Worth?

I recall reading an article in a business magazine that talked about the real value being in the implementation of the idea, and not the idea itself. I agree with such an agreement in part, but also disagree with such an opinion to some extent.

If we’re talking about a start-up business, such an assessment of implementation far outweighing the value of an idea is reasonable; however, I would say such an assessment, when applied to a large corporation, does not hold up to an equal measure.

For instance, Microsoft has all of the needed resources to implement almost any imaginable idea that would be relevant to its business model and bottom line. Yet, it doesn’t have any meaningful ideas to implement that can help it catch up in important industries in which it is currently trailing other corporations (Search, Mobile, etc.)

Looking at Mobile, it is easy to see why an innovative idea could be very valuable in and of itself to corporations such as Microsoft – especially when Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia’s money losing handset business is taken into consideration.

In all actuality Microsoft’s Windows OS is what destroyed Nokia’s handset business in the first place, and I’m pretty sure Steve Ballmer’s $7.2 billion acquisition bid for a company that was bordering on the edge of bankruptcy, prior to his departure as CEO of Microsoft, was more of a sympathy play than a strategic business decision based on confidence.

The most telling revelation of Microsoft’s lack of meaningful ideas regarding mobile, is the fact that Microsoft is focusing on creating a Nokia phone(s) that runs on Android’s OS.

If a person had an idea that could help Microsoft succeed in turning Nokia’s misfortunes around, and make Nokia phones that run on Windows OS a contender in the mobile wars that are currently a two-party race (Android OS vs. Apple’s IOS), how much would such an idea be worth?

Aereo Vs. The Nation’s Largest Television Broadcasters…?

Aereo would never exist if the nation’s largest television broadcasters would’ve created a way for potential viewers to stream shows, et cetera as they aired in real time – especially since such broadcasters had sufficient capital to create a better user experience then what is currently offered by Aereo, the capability to enhance the impact of the commercials shown, and adding extra revenue to their bottom line.

I hope that the Supreme Court ultimately decides in favor of the broadcasters, because a decision in favor of Aereo would have a devastating impact of the future of broadcast television.

No matter how the case turns out, Aereo had made the broadcasters think about what their strategies will be going forward, because their current streaming services are insufficient.

Even though the broadcasters are competitors, it is my belief that they should partner in creating a streaming service that’s based on real time streaming of broadcast shows, because it shouldn’t be too difficult to create such a service in a way that’s beneficial to all of the broadcasters.

It’s not hard for a person in my predicament to visualize the functionality of a relevant / useful streaming service for broadcasters to use. Therefore, it stupefies me that the television broadcasters haven’t figured such out yet. If they had figured out such prior to Aereo’s creation, Aereo would’ve never been created. And if they would’ve figured such out after Aereo’s creation, Aereo would’ve went bankrupt.

Since disruptive innovation normally comes from the imagination of an individual(s) that’s slightly, or greatly removed from the industry that’s being impacted, I guess a company like Google, Amazon.com, Apple, or Microsoft will have to lead the way on this one.