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.

Microsoft … The Aging Elephant

In Fast Company’s November 2011 issue, I ran across the front page/feature article: “The Great Tech War of 2012. Apple, Facebook, Google, and Amazon, battle for the future of the innovation economy,” and I came to realize that Microsoft is content with being an aging elephant in the presence of lions, young and old.

I’m surprised at the length of time Microsoft has kept CEO Steve Ballmer at the helm of the company – especially since he hasn’t made any bold moves as CEO.

Microsoft’s failed attempt to purchasing Yahoo! Was a blessing in disguise – especially since they were able to take control of Yahoo!’s search engine in a favorable deal (partnership).

Instead of creating their own social network Microsoft has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into strengthening Facebook. And to boot, Microsoft spent billions of dollars to acquire Skype, and integrated Skype into Facebook’s network.

Maybe I’m wrong about Microsoft’s equity stake in Facebook, or maybe I’m right, in thinking that Microsoft should’ve invested all of those millions of dollars into creating their own social network.

Looking at the investment’s appreciation since the time of the initial investment to now, such an investment has been profitable. However, such a profit fails in comparison, to the value gained if Microsoft could’ve used such money invested to create a successful social network of their own.

Instead of pursuing a central social strategy that is in mouse, Microsoft has pretty much given up on a social strategy of its own, and has focused its attention on strengthening Facebook’s standing as the dominate social network.

Microsoft not only integrated Skype into Facebook, but has also tied Facebook’s data into its search engine results. Both instances show Microsoft’s short sighted view, when it comes to the overall importance that social connections will play in the future of business.

The boldest/smartest move CEO Ballmer could make would be to sell Microsoft’s equity stake in Facebook and to use its strengths (work force, cash, etc.) and social friendly businesses (Skype, Xbox Live, Bing, etc.) to create its own network.

I can understand how a person could come to believe that Facebook is too dominating to be overtaken. Yet, I know that Facebook has yet to deliver a game changing feature to sufficiently secure its number one position as the dominate social network. Therefore, the future of social networking is up for grabs.

If I had Microsoft’s resources I would be able to crush Facebook, and make its future history a reflection of Friendster’s and MySpace’s.

I applaud Google’s attempt at creating a viable social network (Google+) to compete with Facebook. But I’m in the belief that Google is to focused on search and mobile to adequately focus on social.

If Microsoft fails to pursue its own social network, it will miss out on the greatest business opportunity that currently exists.

The first thing I would do is create a killer feature that would give individuals a reason to sign up on a newly created network, and to make it addictive enough to keep returning. (Note: I already have a concept for such a feature).

I would also create/ build virtual mine malls as a physical/ bricks – and – mortar presence, where people could buy the latest electronics, play virtual arcades, and so forth.

I would also create areas where companies could test products and /or hand out samples, conduct surveys, etc. However, all of such activity would be done in a non-intrusive fashion.

Microsoft can remain an aging elephant by failing to take advantage of Facebook’s missteps. Or, on the contrary, Microsoft can rejuvenate its self by creating a disruptive/revolutionary social network, and return to its prime as the leader of the pack.