PBT Consulting

MOBIUS ONE THE SUV STRONG ENOUGH TO HANDLE AFRICA'S TOUGHEST ROADS, BUT FRILLS FREE, TO MAKE AFFORDABLE

 

Imagine a place where 2 million kilometers of roads have become virtually non-functionalafter decades  of poor maintenance and neglect. Fixing them will cost more than the entire region spends each year on its roads and, as a result, people pay 75 percent more for their daily goods. That's what it's like trying to get around and move products in Sub-Saharan Africa.

And that's also the environment for which Mobius One was born. The bare-bones SUV designed by Mobius Motors is the first of a new series of mass-market vehicles--rugged, safe and affordable for more rural Africans--that the Kenya-based company believes will serve as a vehicle for "local entrepreneurs to mobilize the developing world." Now on its second prototype, Mobius Motors is trying to create a viable alternative to the imported vehicles that rarely leave the cities for Africa's hinterlands where rugged transport is desperately needed.The problem is that vehicles in Africa tend to fall on one of two extremes: extremely expensive luxury SUVs or smaller and cheaper vehicles that can't traverse rugged terrain. At the same time, Africa does not have an indigenous industry to produce its own cars. In 2009, only about 416,000 vehicles, or 0.6% of global production, were built in Africa, according to the company. With initial cost estimates at about $10,000, Mobius hopes it will be able to serve that missing middle. The company's strategy: replace an emphasis on comfort and extras with pure functionality.

The car is the brainchild of Joel Jackson, a former management consultant who had spent his fair share of time waiting for treacherous and unreliable minivans or motorcycle rickshaws plying Africa's back roads. His idea was to "re-imagine" a vehicle for the African market: simple, cheap, and incredibly rugged. In essence, Mobius decided to reengineer the (now) luxury Land Rover by eliminating air conditioning, power steering, ABS, and even glass windows, while focusing investment on springs, shocks and wheels. Off-the-shelf systems such as engines, brakes, and steering are built around a a tubular steel frame to further reduce cost and maintenance. 

And the car has a second off-road purpose, says Jackson. "Mobius aims to empower transport entrepreneurs across Africa not just with more appropriate vehicles, but with the financing and business advice needed to operate a sustainable transport centric business," writes Jackson by email. For entrepreneurs, it's more than just a car, but a business on wheels. It could be used as a school bus, mobile medical center, or public transport. "Beyond selling more vehicles into an undeserved market, Mobius aims to empower latent entrepreneurial talent across Africa. We support entrepreneurial buyers with business advice and financing to use their Mobius cars to operate myriad transport services in their communities," he writes. "Our vision is a more connected, more mobile Africa."

 

While it won't be showing up on American roads anytime soon--something about the Western ambivalence for the utilitarian value proposition of such utilitarian vehicles --you will be available to pick one up in Kenya soon. It is scheduled to come in all the most popular colors of East Africa: white, silver, black, blue, red, and green.

Ever wonder how HUGE the continent of Africa is?  Check this.

[Click Image To Enlarge]

COMMENTARY:  Good roads are central to mobility, unfortunately Africa has some of the most degraded roads on earth. Our vehicle is designed specifically for these roads, unlike most other cars.  Erosion, rocks, pot holes and loose ground are all contributing factors in the degradation roads. Without proper maintenance, roads can quickly become impassable by most vehicles, especially after heavy rain which occurs semi-annually in countries like Kenya. 

The vast majority of vehicles in Africa today are imported from more developed countries such as Japan, UAE, India and China. These vehicles are designed for a very different demographic of predominantly urban consumers in relatively wealthy countries with good road infrastructure. In contrast, vehicles that are driven each day on Africa’s degraded roads are not built for their environment. Because these vehicles are not affordable or functional for most areas throughout the continent, transport entrepreneurs cannot operate ubiquitous and effective transport services and thus millions of transport end-users remain immobile.

Instead of targeting the bottom of the pyramid directly (i.e. selling vehicles to the extreme rural poor who cannot afford any capital outlay), Mobius Motors sells its products to the middle classes who then offer services to the bottom of the pyramid. This is a well tested method employed to deliver services within a sustainable market based structure, examples include maize mills, water taps as well as existing public transit vehicles such as auto rickshaws, minivans and motorbikes. Our vision is a transport platform that empowers local entrepreneurs to mobilise the developing world.

Annual transport expenditure in Africa is estimated at over $60bn, yet there is still no appropriate form of transport for the degraded roads that plague much of the continent.   Furthermore, transport spending by those at the bottom of the pyramid (annual household income less than $3,000) accounts for 39% of the African market (World Resources Institute). This demographic represents a vast market-based opportunity to provide affordable, practical and safe transportation for those that need it most. Solving a dire social problem with an even greater market opportunity.

While the majority of vehicle manufacturers do not target the poorest consumers, there are various companies such as Tata Motors and Mahindra & Mahindra in India who produce extremely economical vehicles. Critically however, they target emergingurban markets and thus simply offer more basic versions of traditional vehicles, retaining many of the aesthetics of a “developed world” vehicle, made affordable by reducing functionality (reducing carrying capacity, suspension, wheel size etc.).

Instead of accepting the developed world vehicle fundamentals, Mobius Motors is embracing a new set of fundamentals – safety, practicality and affordability – fit for the developing world of the future. This change directly undermines the primary customer purchase criteria of the existing automotive industry and thus is not currently adopted. While there are no other commercially viable producers of tubular steel frame vehicles in Africa, our primary competitors are Piaggio and Mahindra, both manufacturers of the auto rickshaw and our seconday competitors are Tata and Nissan, manufacturers of low cost vehicles imported into Africa.

Mobius core operations cover the design, manufacture, sale, and monitoring & evaluation of our vehicles.  Mobius utilizes off-the-shelf parts in all of our vehicles to heavily simplify operations.  The company strips out all non-essential components in the design of its cars to minimise both manufacturing costs and complexity. This is particularly crucial to conceptualise a vehicle that can be easily manufactured in Africa, for Africa. Indeed, localised manufacture is a key facet of our social business to stimulate employment and domestic economic growth.

Design includes all front-end activity to determine how the vehicle will look and perform. The company's highly iterative design process is based on ongoing customer feedback to create vehicles that address the needs of our target demographic and continue to reflect technology advances. The company work's with international designers and engineers to conceptualise and validate prototypes using computer aided design (CAD) and enable integration with appropriate off-the-shelf vehicle parts.

Mobius Motor's design methodology utilises tubular steel frames to construct low cost vehicles whilst focusing on key aspects of functionality such as vehicle handling, terrain coverage and storage - like any automotive company, vehicle safety is paramount. To ensure effective conversion to manufacture Mobius designs their vehicles around the equipment and skills available in-country. As the company transitions to factory level production over the next 4-6 years they intend to invest in more advanced facilities and develop human capital to produce progressively more refined vehicles.

Manufacture involves the end-to-end build of pre-defined designs. At this stage they cut, bend, notch and weld tubular steel pipes together to construct the frame and fabricate custom mountings to affix off-the-shelf parts. By utilising standard producer systems such as engines and breaks we eliminate the additional technology and complexity of full vehicle component construction and ensure easy maintenance based on already well understood parts. Manufacture also includes the assembly of parts onto the frame mountings to create a fully connected vehicle. The final stage in manufacture is finishing where aluminium sheets are shaped and attached onto the frame before painting.

Over the next two years Mobius will localise manufacturer using customised fixtures and standardised processes that local mechanics and engineers can use to consistently build high quality vehicles. Over the longer term (4-6 years) Mobius will transition to larger factories serving wider geographies in order to achieve economies of scale, further reducing vehicle price-point. At this stage we will also bulk import vehicle parts to further reduce costs.

Building The Mobius One From Scratch 

The Frame

A robust monocoque frame is the core of Mobius One.  1.5 to 2 inch tubular steel pipes is used to form a lower weight and higher strength integrated frame.  The united chasis/body effectively creates an in-built vehicle roll cage capable of withstanding high impact collisions. Mobius connects the powertrain and suspension systems directly onto the frame via custom fabricated mountings. To ensure rigidity and durability the company uses high strength MIG welds throughout the vehicle. 

Off-The-Shelf Parts

While the majority of vehicle manufacturers do not target the poorest consumers, there are various companies such as Tata Motors and Mahindra & Mahindra in India who produce extremely economical vehicles. Critically however, they target emergingurban markets and thus simply offer more basic versions of traditional vehicles, retaining many of the aesthetics of a “developed world” vehicle, made affordable by reducing functionality (reducing carrying capacity, suspension, wheel size etc.).

Instead of accepting the developed world vehicle fundamentals, Mobius is embracing a new set of fundamentals – safety, practicality and affordability – fit for the developing world of the future. This change directly undermines the primary customer purchase criteria of the existing automotive industry and thus is not currently adopted. While there are no other commercially viable producers of tubular steel frame vehicles in Africa, our primary competitors are Piaggio and Mahindra, both manufacturers of the auto rickshaw and our seconday competitors are Tata and Nissan, manufacturers of low cost vehicles imported into Africa.

To reduce costs and increase ease of maintainance the Mobius One use standard off-the-shelf systems in each vehicle. This includes engine, transmission, steering and breaks.  Each system is fitted onto the frame using custom fabricated mountings and tested thouroughly for fit quality and functionality.  Mobius One integrates the most cost effective and performance relevant systems together to create a vehicle more suited to the needs of the African consumer. 

Connecting Parts and Components To The Mobius One Frame

In the assembly of the Mobius One, each system is connected to the frame by designing, cutting, shaping and welding custom mountings. Fitting each part is a unique challenge.  System fitting also requires the interconnection of custom fabricated components with standard off-the-shelf parts. For example, connecting custom made pedals with standard vehicle break pipes to link up the break system. 

The Mobius One Aluminum Outer Body

Mobius One uses low weight aluminium sheets to form the outer skin of the vehicle. These can be easily shaped and fitted directly onto the frame.  Aluminium plates provide unique flexibility when shaping the same material to different designs. To waterproof the vehicle Mobius combines glass, canvas and metal plates to maximise visibility and minimise cost. After shaping the body panels they sand the metal and send the vehicle for painting. 

That's what I call a hell of a lot of work, but in Africa, native African's grow their crops, and build their homes, so building a car from the ground up seems like a lot of work, but that comes with the territory.  Hopefully, Mobius Motors will be able to develop complete ready-to-build kids for the do-it-yourselfer or work through local local shops to assxembly complete cars, or small dealers that will sell fully-assembled cars.

Courtesy of an article dated July 18, 2011 appearing in Fast Company

 

 

THE MOBILE DIGITAL LIFESTYLE IS IN FULL SWING: $190 BILLION WORTH OF TABLETS, SMARTPHONES AND E-READERS WILL BE SOLD IN 2011

Well, here's some good economic news. The Consumer Electronics Association is predicting the industry will have stronger-than-anticipated sales growth this year, thanks to tablets, smartphones and e-readers.

According to the CEA, the industry is expected to have more than $190 billion in shipment revenues in 2011, which represents a growth of 5.6% -- up from the 3.5% the group had forecast for the year in January. The group also projects 2012 revenues of $197 billion.

The robust forecast is led by sales of so-called "mobile connected devices," such as tablets, smartphones and e-readers.

• Tablets -- Were a virtually nonexistent category last year -- are projected to grow 157% this year, with more than 26.5 million units shipping and $14 billion in revenues.
• Smartphones - Will continue to be the primary revenue driver for the industry, with a projected 45% increase in unit shipments and $23 billion in revenue. 
• e-Readers - Are predicted to double, with more than 16.5 million units shipping, resulting in $1.8 billion in revenues.

Steve Koenig, the CEA's director of industry analysis, tells Marketing Daily.

"Virtually every product is being overshadowed by these mobile connected devices.  Those are the products that are in demand. There's a lot of value, and the utility of these devices -- especially for smartphones and tablets -- with [the availability of] apps, is infinite."

Even in the so-called mature categories, connectivity reigns king. Although digital display sales overall are expected to fall about 10% to $18.2 billion (about 88% of U.S. households currently own a digital television, according to the CEA, making it a fairly mature category), network-enabled displays are a strong spot, with an estimated 10.4 million displays expected to ship this year, Koenig says.

Koenig says.

"We think roughly one in three sets will be network-enabled, either with a port or embedded apps in them." 

Similarly, 3D televisions will see better-than-expected growth this year with about 3.6 million sets shipping, up from January's projected 1.9 million units. That increase, however, is less about consumer demand for the technology and more a reflection that more displays are incorporating it as a standard feature, Koenig says.

Koenig says. 

"We still think the real true market opportunity for 3D TV [is] still probably a year or two out.  It's all about the content, and there's more content coming this year, but it will take time to see when we hit the real critical mass for that content."

COMMENTARY:   The Mobile Digital Lifestyle is in full swing and cannot be stopped.  Steve Jobs saw it coming in 1997, and here we are.

Courtesy of an article dated July 19, 2011 appearing MediaPost Publications Marketing Daily

COMSCORE: GOOGLE+ NOW HAS 20 MILLION UNIQUE VISITORS, U.S. LEADS THE WAY FOLLOWED BY INDIA AND THE U.K.

When Google Inc. launched its Google+ social-networking site three weeks ago, executives handed out sailor hats to the hundreds of employees working on the project, symbolizing their year-long journey to that point.

So far, the sailing has been mostly smooth. On Wednesday, Web-traffic watcher comScore Inc. estimated Google+ has had 20 million unique visitors since its launch, including five million visitors from the U.S. A Google spokeswoman declined comment.

ComScore, whose estimates are based on a "global measurement panel" of two million Internet users, similar to the approach Nielsen uses to measure television ratings,doesn't have data on the number of minutes people spent on Google+.

Still, the growth of Google+ has impressed observers because access to it is by invitation only, meaning people can join only if a current member invites them. And the company hasn't yet marketed the service to the more than one billion monthly visitors who use its search engine, Gmail and other services.

Google+ lets people share comments, articles, photos and videos with various "circles" of friends or contacts, or they can share content publicly with any userwho wants to view their posts. Eventually, Google plans to incorporate features of Google+ in its other services, such as its YouTube video site.

"I've never seen anything grow this quickly," said Andrew Lipsman, vice president of industry analysis at comScore. The only other site that has accumulated as many new visitors in a short period of time is Twitter in 2009, he said, "but that happened over several months."

The new data follow comments by Google CEO Larry Page last week that Google+ had more than 10 million users.Mr. Page said Google+'s traction was evidence that there are "more opportunities for Google today than ever before."

Of course, Google has a long way to go to reach the scale of Facebook Inc., which has more than 750 million users, and Twitter Inc., which has more than 200 million registered accounts.

With Google+, Google is aiming to match rivals like Facebook, which used personal information posted by its members to create a multibillion-dollar advertising business that lets marketers target specific demographic groups or people with certain interests. Google also hopes the service can become a home for brands and celebrities.

The data Google obtains about people's interests could also help it change the way its Web-search engine works. Sites in its search results could potentially be ranked based on what users and their friends like or find useful, Google engineers have said.

In addition to adding numerous features over time, Google will eventually allow software developers to create "social" games and other applications that would run on top of Google+, similar to Facebook's successful "platform" for applications, people familiar with the matter have said.

Google+ also has unique technology, such as a "hangouts" feature, that lets people do "video chats" using their computer webcams, speaking to numerous friends simultaneously. The company plans to include Google+ in its suite of online software for businesses.

In an email to investors Tuesday, Barclays Capital equity researchers said that "given positive initial traction from users we believe Google is now better positioned to compete and integrate social cues across its products than before, which could drive increased relevancy in search going forward."

Even some privacy advocates who lambasted Buzz, Google's prior social-networking effort, have lauded Google+. "The product has been designed to make it easier to share with one group of your friends while retaining some measure of privacy with respect to your family, coworkers or other groups of friends," said Peter Eckersley, a senior technologist at privacy-advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an email.

But Mr. Eckersley added: "Google+ won't be as good for protecting your privacy against Google or against governments or lawyers with the power to compel Google to turn over your information."

Ben Hopper, a 29-year-old photographer in London who joined Google+ just after it launched, said "it feels a little empty right now" compared with Facebook, where he has more than 4,000 "friends." But he said that he "needs to be everywhere to show my photography," and if Google+ becomes integrated with Gmail, Google's email service, "for me it will have the upper hand."

COMMENTARY:   I'm impressed.  20 million Googler+'s in only three weeks.  Larry and Sergey must be high-fiving.  Zuck must be feeling the pressure.  I had a feeling that Google+ was going to take off right out of the gate.  Those who still believe Google+ is a one trick pony, you folks better think again.  The Facebook-killer has arrived.  

The graphical user interface is elegant, simple, minimalist, just the way I like it.  Very twitter-like in its simplicity.  I hope Google doesn't screw it all up now, by adding to many layers of complexity. Please keep it minimalist.  Now I need to find a way to import my Twitter followers.  If anyone knows of an app to do that, please let me know.  I am sure that Google software engineers are busy working on that or already have one.

Courtesy of an article dated July 22, 2011 appearing in The Wall Street Journal   

 

WHAT SHOULD APPLE DO WITH ITS HUGE $76 BILLION CASH HOARD? MY BOLD PREDICTION OF OCTOBER 2010 STILL HOLDS

Apple Inc.has built up a $76.2 billion cash hoard. Now the question is what the company intends to do with the money pile.

On Tuesday, the Cupertino, Calif., company disclosed cash, including short-term and long-term marketable securities, for the quarter ended June 25 increased 15.8% since March to $76.2 billion. That's more than the gross domestic product of 126 countries, including nations such as Ecuador, Bulgaria, Sri Lanka and Costa Rica, according to data from the World Bank.

[Click Image to Enlarge]

The gigantic sum on Wednesday prompted some investors to call for it to use some of the cash for dividend payouts. "If they can't find ways to use it to grow, they should be returning it to shareholders," said Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer of Solaris Asset Management, which owns Apple stock.

Asked to comment, an Apple spokesman referred to a long-standing policy as outlined by Chief Executive Steve Jobs last October. he said at the time. 

"We strongly believe that one or more very strategic opportunities may come along that we can take that we're in a unique position to take advantage of because of our strong cash position." 

The cash puts Apple at the head of a pack of large technology companies that have been stockpiling cash in recent years. Microsoft Corp., for example, has built up its cash levels to $60.9 billion, including equity and others investments as of March. Google Inc. has $39.1 billion and Cisco Systems Inc. $43.4 billion by a similar measure as of their latest reporting periods.

Many corporations have accumulated cash because of economic uncertainty over the last several years.

According to ratings agency Standard & Poor's, total cash and cash equivalents for the 500 largest U.S. companies by market capitalization was $963 billion at the end of the first quarter, up from $837 billion a year ago. The sums accrued by tech companies, which operate in sectors where industry trends can shift quickly, necessitating a bigger safety net.

Apple has amassed "just an enormous war chest of money," said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst for S&P.

Tech companies that build cash often walk a fine line with shareholders. They often shun dividends, which typically are associated with mature, slower-growing companies, preferring to view themselves as young and faster growing. Fast-growing companies often need cash to finance that growth.

Only recently, for instance, have tech titans Microsoft and Cisco finally made the switch and begun issuing cash dividends to shareholders.

Apple, however, continues to grow at astonishing rates, fueled by sales of its iPad tablet computer and iPhone smartphone. On Tuesday, the company said its fiscal third quarter revenue rose 82% from a year earlier. Its market capitalization was nearly $358 billion on Wednesday.

Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., said a share repurchase or dividend could help Apple attract investors managing value and growth and income funds.

Mr. Sacconaghi said. 

"We're talking about a level of cash that's preposterous by any metric."

Apple, which has no debt, could easily borrow money at low interest rates to make a large acquisition if it wanted, he said.

Apple tends to be conservative about its cash because of its history, in which the company almost failed for lack of cash in the 1990s before Mr. Jobs returned to the company that decade and put it on a growth track.

 

Aside from buying telecommunications-related patents from Nortel Networks for an undisclosed sum in late June, Apple has made no acquisitions this year. It has made small acquisitions in the past; its biggest was in April 2008 of semiconductor company P.A. Semi Inc. for an estimated $278 million.

Of course, some investors are fine with letting Apple sit on the cash. "It provides me enormous comfort that their balance sheet is so strong," said Mike Binger, a fund manager at Thrivent Asset Management, which owns Apple stocks. As far as he is concerned, "They have the flexibility to do whatever they want with it."

COMMENTARY:   Hoarding cash is not an Apple phenomenon.  US non-financial corporate cash balances have been climbing steadily since they bottomed at $400 billion during the financial meltdown of September 2008.  By October 31, 2010, non-financial corporate cash balance were $950 billion and climbing.

According to Capital IQ data for the 1st quarter ending March 31, 2011, from 376 nonfinancial S&P 500 companies, or about 91% of the nonfinancial companies in the S&P 500, aggregate cash and short-term investment balances total $1.023 trillion. That marks the second-consecutive quarter of cash balances of above $1 trillion, following the final quarter of 2010.

Three sectors--information technology, health care, and industrials--account for a large share of nonfinancial cash totals. Presently, these three sectors account for 67.3% of nonfinancial S&P 500 cash totals, compared with 67.2% in the final quarter of 2010. However, about 75% of the present sequential quarterly increase in cash totals (about $21 billion) was due to the increase in cash totals from the technology, health care, and industrials sectors.

According to an article in the New York Times, American multinational corporations have kept abroad more than $1 trillion worth of foreign earnings accumulated over the last five years, according to government data.  An article by David Kocieniewski in The Times noted that Microsoft has $29 billion offshore, Google has $17 billion and Apple has $12 billion.

Multinational companies say they could repatriate hundreds of billions in foreign profits and pump them into domestic investment and hiring, but only if Congress and the White House agree to cut the tax rate on those profits to 5.25 percent from 35 percent. They call their plan “the next stimulus.” Sounds more like extortion.

According to Federal Reserve data, companies in the United States have $2 trillion stashed in bank accounts, Treasury securities and other investment-ready assets. And this excludes cash held abroad by their foreign subsidiaries to avoid taxes.

U.S. financial institutions are also hoarding cash.  According to the Federal Reserve, at the end of April 2011, U.S. financial institutions held over $1.6 trillion in cash in excess of their reserve requirements.

There is plenty of cash, it's just that corporations are not spending it, preferring to save it for a "rainy day", pay dividends to their shareholders or are waiting for the right business investment opportunity.   US Banks are not lending either, because they are holding on to over 1 million foreclosed properties which they may need to writedown, and this time around, there is not going to be a second federal bank bailout, and are waiting for the housing industry and overall economy to show more positive signs of a full recovery.

At end of September 30, 2010, Apple ended the year with $51 billion cash, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said at the time that he was keeping his options open just in case the right business opportunity should arise. Nine months later, Apple now has $76 billion in cash, and many forecaster's believe that by the end of 2011, he could have as much as $100 billion in cash, because of the introduction of the iPhone 5 later this year, sales from filling a huge backlog of orders for the iPad 2, and yet to be announced new products. 

So what should Apple do with its huge $76 billion cash hoard? 

In a blog article dated March 28, 2011, I commented on Steve Job's Digital Hub Strategy, his grand vision for Apple, and undoubtedly the key reason for the company's stellar success.  Clues to what Steve is going to do with that $76 billion in cash lie there, but only Steve knows for sure.  

To get a better understanding of Steve Jobs, I highly recommend that you read "Inside Steve's Brain" by Leander Kahney and "The Innovation Secrets of Steve Jobs" by Carmine Gallo.

PREDICTION: In an earlier blog article dated October 20, 2010, I made a bold prediction what I thought Steve Jobs would do with the $51 billion in cash Apple had at the end of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010.  That prediction falls in line with Steve's Digital Hub Strategy, but only Steve knows for sure.  I still believe the any acquisition must become another "spoke" to the Digital Hub Strategy", and my above prediction, although very bold, still remains viable and a great fit to Jobs' digital strategy.  You will have to click on the above link to find out about my prediction.

To date, Steve has chosen not to spend any of that cash, at least on anything major, preferring to make very small acquisitions and strategic partnerships like the one he did to incorporate Twitter within its OS 5 operating system.

Courtesy of an article dated July 21, 2011 appearing in The Wall Street Journal 

LAWRENCE BERKELEY SCIENTISTS SAY WIND POWER REACHING TIPPING POINT, BECOMING MORE PRICE COMPETITIVE, 3 CENTS/KWH POSSIBLE

Lawrence Berkeley scientists take a closer look at wind’s 2010 patterns and see price competitiveness.

The numbers on wind’s year in 2010 are already in, but researchers at one of the nation’s premier laboratory facilities have found some important indicators of which way the wind is blowing by digging into them.

Ryan Wiser of the report he and U.S. Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory research partner Mark Bolinger wrote on numbers and trends said.

“The heart of this document is in tracking cost, price and performance trends.  We have very strong indications that wind project costs and wind project pricing are entering a steep decline phase, making wind steeply more economically competitive. Turbine pricing has declined substantially from a high of as much as $1500 per kilowatt down to $1200 per kilowatt or even a little bit south of that. That is very likely to turn into aggregate project price declines of an equivalent magnitude.”

Wind-generated electricity is also dropping in price due to “turbines that have scaled, especially in rotor diameter and to a lesser extent in hub height.” This produces turbines with higher capacity factors because they can better capture available wind. “Lower upfront costs and better project performance undoubtedly will lead to better project pricing,” Wiser said.

A drop in project price of twenty percent will surely impact wind’s competitiveness. Wiser said.

“The PPAs that people are pricing today in the best wind markets around the country are in the three cents per kilowatt-hour range. Wind is now back in a very competitively advantageous position despite the fact that dropping natural gas prices make that competition tougher than ever.”

Because local wind resources and energy alternatives vary, however, Wiser said. 

“We have to be a little bit careful about making broad statements about competitive positioning.”  

On the other hand, “larger rotor diameters in particular” and “improved turbines” overall, he went on, “make lower wind speed sites more economically attractive today.”

Wiser said. 

“Utilities will continue to be the largest purchasers of wind, and they have also begun to take ownership stakes of a pretty significant scale since the mid-2000s, which demonstrates the growing maturity of the technology.”

In the offshore wind sector, there was a lot of planning and development activity last year in both the private and public sectors, Wiser noted, singling out federal policy efforts. Offshore wind projects, he said, “are complicated to build. We haven’t built one in the U.S. before. They present technical challenges, cost challenges, permitting challenges, a whole variety of challenges. It takes a while to run through all of those processes, especially on the permitting side. We have a ways to go to get those projects to the finish line.”

Curtailment -- the turning off of turbines when the wind is blowing -- was a less serious problem last year. Wiser said.

“We’re making progress. Ultimately the answer is going to be more transmission and greater project integration.”

Wiser said. 

“Transmission is hard to build, but it is being built. The initial development of the competitive renewable energy zones (CREZs) in West Texas, is having an impact. In Texas, curtailment was a substantial factor but it was below what we saw in the previous year.”

Some say the obstacle to greater grid integration is cost. However, Wiser’s research found otherwise. “Integration costs for managing short-term variability of wind comes to less than a half-cent per kilowatt-hour. That represents ten percent or less of the cost of wind,” he said. “It’s not zero. But the number is certainly economically manageable, though technically challenging at times and requiring some attention.”

Greater grid integration can be achieved through “strategically using demand response kinds of options,” “working with other utilities in the region to try to share the imbalances that exist” and “really trying to forecast.”

Wiser believes system operators are doing,

“everything they can to manage reliability and well aware of the challenges and are actively seeking to manage variability just as they actively seek to manage variability in loads and forced outages of other generation sources. Wind is a different kind of resource, but it doesn’t impose challenges that system operators haven’t confronted to at least some extent in the past.”

Wiser’s report concludes more wind on the grid will require more balancing reserves in the form of fossil fuel generation. Some argue this will cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. “The emissions per kilowatt-hour of fossil generation output will increase a little bit,” Wiser said, but “you’re reducing the output of fossil fuel plants in aggregate because you’re increasing the output of wind. There is an emissions penalty,” he said, from the total reduction in emissions.

He said.

“I have seen some evidence that the emissions reductions benefits of wind may not be quite as high as some people might have expected because you need to operate the fossil plants in a more flexible fashion,  but I’ve seen no credible evidence to suggest that aggregate emissions would actually increase in a higher wind scenario.”

None of Wiser’s research belied the widely heralded 2010 installed capacity drop-off. The U.S. wind industry, Wiser concluded, remains on track to provide the U.S. with twenty percent of its power by 2030 -- but getting there "is going to be a big push.”

COMMENTARY:  It's impressive to see that wind turbines are finally reaching their economic tipping point, when the cost to acquire, construct, operate and transmit power from wind is becoming competitive with solar and fossil fuel energy generation.  And, it's worth it in the end to have a cleaner environment that is lower in carbon emissions and reduces our dependency on imported oil and coal.  Now, if we can keep those naturalists off our back, so that we can build more wind turbine farms, the better we will be.

Courtesy of an article dated July 21, 2011 appearing in GreenTechMedia

 

EMARKETER: EXECUTIVES STILL FAIL TO FOCUS ON SOCIAL MEDIA STRATEGY, ONLY 36% SAID IT WAS VITAL TO CO SUCCESS

Social media marketing has gained its place at the table. eMarketer estimates 80% of companies with at least 100 employees will use social networks for marketing this year, up from nearly three in four last year. By 2012, usage will be even greater, and, in turn, efforts are becoming more sophisticated.

Most companies now recognize a well crafted social media strategy is a vital part of the marketing mix. In fact, a study from Jive Software and Penn, Schoen & Berland found 78% of executives thought a social business strategy was somewhat or very important to the future success of their business.

Despite this realization, most executives are still only in the tentative stages of making social strategy a priority.

The survey of executives who have final say or significant input on social business strategy found that only 27% listed social business as a top strategic priority. Nearly half (47%) admitted a social plan was necessary but not a strategic priority and 19% said social business strategy was simply not necessary.

Meanwhile, executives were also not overly optimistic about their current social strategy efforts. Only 17% felt their social strategy was ahead of the curve. About four in 10 (42%) felt their social strategy was just keeping up and 33% felt they were behind.

A different study from Forbes Insights and Coremetrics showed a similar amount of enthusiasm for social strategy. Only 11% of US and UK executives surveyed at large businesses listed social media strategy as a leading priority in 2011—tied for last place with mobile marketing. Social media strategy will receive a small boost in 2012, though, with 19% of execs listing it as a leading marketing priority for the coming year.

Many companies may be using social media marketing, but those that choose not to focus on a social strategy risk falling behind the curve in integrating social media with their overall marketing goals. Recognizing the importance of strategy alone isn’t enough; companies should start implementing a plan.

COMMENTARY:  The findings that small businesses do not consider social media a top priority (17%) and how vital social media is to the success of their business (30%), coincides with what I have been reading and blogging.  Most small businesses neither have the time or resources to manage social media campaigns.  They barely have time to run their businesses, and generating business at the cash register is their top priority. 

I also found it interesting that the senior executives of large companies found social media somewhat important to the success of their company (43%) and that social media was necessary, but not a strategic priority (47%), again shows that they are moving cautiously in adopting social media.  Only about a third (36%) that social media was vital to the success of their company.  I would certainly like to know vital in what way.

Customer retention was the leading marketing priority (52%), while mobile was the lowest marketing priority (11%).  Too bad for mobile.

Courtesty of an article dated July 21, 2011 appearing in eMarketer 

 

BRIAN SOLIS' FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF GOOGLE+: "GOOGLE+ WILL NOT RUN CIRCLES AROUND FACEBOOK, BUT IT GETS A+1"

While there are already countless articles about Google+ and many more sharing up-to-the-minute statistics to emerge from the burgeoning network, I reserved my thoughts until now. I needed time to think about it.

Part FriendFeed, part Google Buzz, part Facebook, part Google.com and all of its properties, Google Plus represents a fresh approach to social engagement not seen at this level since the early days of Twitter. In the U.S., we have only a few top traditional TV networks, CBS, ABC, and NBC. In social networking, we now have a top three to compete for the online attention of not only Americans, but also the world–Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

The new Google is already gaining momentum. For instance, Google’s +1 button is reportedly being served 2.3 billion times a day. More than 1 billion items are shared and received per day in Google+ (or Google Plus). And, Google+ has also earned over 10 million active in a short time. While that number may seem trifling when compared to the likes of Facebook and Twitter, 10 million is nothing to wince at. In fact, in just a few short weeks, Google surpassed a milestone that took FourSquare two years to reach. Adoption only continues to soar despite its exclusivity.

The only way these 10 million people joined the network was because a select few were given the privilege to invite a small set of friends. This tactic only spurs the sharing of invitations like a secret password into a deliciously trendy speakeasy. With every gushing experience shared, demand mounts. During the weekend of its debut, over one-third of all Tweets were related to Google Plus. In fact, some predict that Google Plus will become the fastest of all social networks to hit 100 million users, a new metric that appears to represent the equivalent of 0 to 60 mph (or 0 to 100 kph) in the automotive industry.

Exclusivity only goes so far however. At someone point, Google either thrives on the experience it creates or it succumbs to an all too familiar outcome, abandonment.

Google’s Concentric Circles

For years it seemed that Google couldn’t grasp the human laws that govern social networking. The intentional and unintentional spectacles of exhilaration that launched Wave, Buzz and +1 showed the world that a culture of engineering is only part of the formula required for social networking. It would take a culture of sociology, ethnography and psychology to understand the dynamics of human behavior and package them into a meaningful service that real people would embrace. It would take a team of great minds such as Chris Messina and Paul Adams, a former user experience expert at Google to realize that to +1 Facebook or Twitter, would take a novel and human approach.

Adams’ presented a very basic yet powerful explanation for how human beings connect and share with one another using Facebook as an example of the limitations that exist today. In this case, Facebook, the most popular social network with 750 million users worldwide, encourages people to build one social graph with up to 5,000 friends. In turn, Facebook offers various levers and switches to divide the social graph into a series of dedicated communities through its Lists and Groups and products.

Here, technology does not imitate life. But, you probably don’t need a social scientist to tell you that this functionality does not mirror how you connect and communicate in the real world. To Facebook’s credit though, how people connect, discover, share and talk to one another helped people evolve as digital natives and will continue to do so.

In his presentation, Adams visualized exactly what any anthropologist or sociologist might tell you, people don’t build just one social graph in real life. They cultivate a core group of 4-to-6 communities (or interest graphs) where each is focused on an aspect of one’s life, from work to BFF’s to other specific interests. Some of these communities stand the test of time, some expand and contract as people come and go, and many are merely temporary, usually based on short-term projects or curiosity.

In a study of 3,000 randomly chosen Americans, most participants maintained a strong network of only four ties. The example Adams shared on Facebook was telling and representative of the challenge many face when “networking” online today.

One user, “Debbie” demonstrated the opportunity for a more seamless form of networking. As Paul would demonstrate, the benefit of circles was evident.

1. Debbie moved from Los Angeles to San Diego.
2. Debbie was still connected to a group of friends she made when she lived in Los Angeles.
3. Some of those friends worked as bartenders in a gay bar.
4. She now also maintains a network of new friends in San Diego, where she currently lives, in the same social graph.
5. Of course, she is still in contact with her family.

Debbie is also an active swimmer and trains ten-year-old kids in competitive swimming. She has friended other trainers and some of the kids in her class.

In this portrait, it’s immediately clear that Debbie maintains, at least conceptually, four distinct groups. What Debbie shares on Facebook, unless she’s carefully mixed her settings, will most likely reach everyone with whom she’s connected. In Adams’ example, picture of late night fun at the gay bar where she used to work were visible to her ten-year-old students simply because Debbie would Like or comment on them. As is, it’s too confusing. At the same time, consumers aren’t necessarily thinking about segmenting their online engagement. Users want control at their fingertips, not in the settings window, to share with the groups of people contextually linked to each update. This is where Facebook Groups and Lists can improve and also where Google Plus shines right out of the gate.

Seemingly scripted for TV, but very much rooted in reality, Paul, the would be father of Google Circles, has since left Google and moved to Facebook. This is an interesting move considering his research and methodology around digital networking. His book, Social Circles, is awaiting publishing while Google decides whether or not he is permitted to release it to the public.

Google Circles its Play

Google has done something that Facebook and Twitter have failed to do, make creating groups of friends visually pleasing and also fun. In the first few hours of logging in, I immediately started creating circles related to family, friends, work, and other top and temporary interests.

People are gushing at the ability to create Circles. Time will tell if people change their behavior enough that the Google differntiator truly becomes a value proposition. Even Google Circles do not carry out Paul’s original research. While Circles distinguish networks from nicheworks, they do not account for the separation between strong, weak, and temporary ties within  each group. There are still subgroups within every group that require distinction.

For example, in each group, we maintain tiers of contacts, those we trust, those we know, and those with whom we may or may not be acquainted. What we share in these nicheworks is different in the real world than it is online. To borrow Adams’ image from his Google presentation, some may not broadcast their address or phone number across an entire group, but they might for some. As is, Google Circles still assumes top line engagement even if it’s within a focused community.

Moving forward, Google Circles will need sub-circles if it is to mimic how we engage in the real world. The question is, will people embrace it or is it simply too much work? I often think about and study how online behavior affects offline self esteem and character. Even though we maintain circles in real life, we’ve been conditioned to seek simplicity in online engagement. Remember, many of the groups we create in real life are often temporary. To mimic this behavior online introduces complexity I’m not sure people are actively seeking. There may be greater value in mass peer-to-peer engagement for a majority of social updates. Having the ability to share exclusive content with a fixed subset of any community is helpful, but most likely representative of a minority of overall engagement. That’s just a hypothesis however. Again, time will tell.

What’s clear is that the elegance and ease of creating Circles is enough to get people talking. It may prove beneficial enough to generate demand for similar functionality within Facebook and perhaps Twitter. Keep in mind that Facebook employees are an elite squad of developers and thinkers. It acquired FriendFeed and also Beluga among many other services to improve, I assume, how people communicate with one another within their social and interest graphs. There is more to see from Facebook on this front.

The Human Algorithm

I’ve always believed that the social Web will give way to a socioeconomic hierarchy of sorts which I dubbed PeopleRank or People Rank (sorry TechCrunch, that was me.) The idea is that everyday people would complement the digital algorithms of the web to amplify content they find interesting or useful related to the context of their search or discovery. Even though Twitter offers its Retweet button and Facebook users can Like content to boost visibility within the network’s social stream, Google’s +1 introduces everyday people to the idea of flagging great content across the entire Web.

If you’re logged into Google, the results are curated based on the activity of your friends. At some point, +1 will apply a layer of PeopleRank to content and destinations similar to the way it does so today with PageRank. It represents a natural fusion of SEO and SMO. To counter this, Facebook must boost the discoverability of content without upsetting its delicate privacy balance.

Data Portability

Who owns your personal data in your social network today? The answer most of the time is the network. For years people and businesses have invested time, resources, and also money into cultivating the right network, curating valuable content, organizing special events, and bookmarking interesting commentary and destinations. At the moment, much of this content is locked away never to see the light of any other system. Google is taking a somewhat open approach allowing users to export their contacts and data. Today, Google is experimenting with a service called Google Takeout. This handy feature allows people to export a list of sites that they’ve +1’d.

Of course this is something that’s developing over time, but it is important. My friends over at DataPortability.org have been fighting this fight for quite some time. I believe that in the evolution of Google+ and Facebook, data portability will become paramount. It will take a concentration of user demand to move networks toward a more proactive and open approach.

Google Brand Pages

Due to overwhelming demand from businesses, Google+ will introduce an early version of its Brand Pages. Initially, Google removed business-related pages only to invite them into a test phase that will officially welcome a manageable stable of companies to test and help to improve the experience. Brands see this as a tremendous opportunity for direct-to-consumer engagement. On Facebook, some brands have earned more than 30 million Likes creating a dedicated brand network not yet seen in previous media.

For example, the Top 20 brands by the numbers on Facebook boast impressive audiences:

1. Coca Cola (31,762,653)
2. Disney (26,613,752)
3. Starbucks (23,574,606)
4. Oreo (21,864,091)
5. Red Bull (21,220,373)
6. Converse All Star (19,880,308)
7. Converse (18,977,840)
8. Skittles (18,386,827)
9. Playstation (16,245,633)
10. iTunes (15,862,234)
11. Pringles (14,765,300)
12. Victoria’s Secret(14,384,903)
13. Window’s Live Messenger (13,926,945)
14. Ferrero Rocher (11,676,898)
15. Monster Energy (11,492,620)
16. Nutella (10,696,260)
17. iPod (10,530,905)
18. Adidas Originals (10,433,947)
19. Xbox (10,388,218)
20. Dr Pepper (9,927,828)

Ford Motor Company was one of the first companies to build a page and in an impressive move, asked people what they expected from the company. Ford’s Scott Monty and team will then build a dedicated engagement strategy for Google+ that I would hope differs from its approach on Facebook and Twitter. Dell is working on expanding its renown social service model by bringing its team to where a customer’s attention is focused.  Google+ seems like a natural extension given its early momentum. When in doubt, ask. That’s just what Michael Dell did recently. And, over 800 people seemed to genuinely support the idea.

COMMENTARY:   The beauty of Circle's is in its simplicity.  Brian Solis took the time to carefully explain the differences between Google+ Circles and Facebook's Groups and Twitter's Lists with imagery, and noted that in the real world we don't organize our friends the same way.  That's definitely true.

Circles reflects the minimalist design philosophy of Andy Herzfeld, Google's graphical user interface designer who I just profiled in a previous blog post.  Andy, a former Apple alum, was strongly influenced by Steve Jobs, the Father of Minimalism, who believed in "less is more", keeping product design very simple so than anybody could use them.  That penchant for minimalism has been carried over into every Apple product to this day.    

I think four maybe five Circles should be more than sufficient to categorize your friends. I will call this the degree of "friendship", namely:  fans, close friends, family members, business associates, and one extra just in case.  Anymore than this and Google+ becomes less minimalist and more work, and I am sure Andy would tell you this.  In short, I don't see much use in creating more than 4 Circle's (Okay I will include one more).  This only complicates things. Social networking should be an enjoyable experience, not work.  But, I am sure there will be some people who will end up creating 10 to 12 Circles.

I appreciate the fact that Google provides unincumbered data portability.  Facebook did too, allowing third-party developers to develop apps to export their Facebook friends data for use on other sites. However, once it became known that Google+ users were exporting their Facebook data in masse, Zuck, blocked data exporting.  Obviously a defensive maneuver to irritate Google and keep users tied to Facebook.

I do like that Brian mentioned Google+'s +1 flagging feature to allow users to highlight outstanding content they want to share across the Internet ecosystem.  I love that very much, especially if you want to drive traffic to your site.

Brian failed to provide impressions concerning Google+'s other features:  Hangouts, Sparks, Huddle, and Instant Upload.  You can read about them in my blog post dated June 29, 2011.

I give Brian four stars for waiting longer than other social media guru's to provide his first impressions of Google+ through graphic visualizations, and his final grade of A + 1 is about right. Users have to be cognizant that Google+ is still in beta (just look how long Google Mail was in beta), so there are bound to be "minimalist" changes to improve the product, and I can hardly wait.  Go Andy.

Courtesy of an article dated July 19, 2011 appearing in Brian Solis Blog 

WHY GOOGLE'S ANDY HERTZFELD'S 'LESS IS MORE' MINIMALIST DESIGN PHILOSOPHY COULD MAKE GOOGLE+ A FACEBOOK-KILLER

Andy Hertzfeld, one of the interface designers on Google+, explains how they zigged where other networks zagged.

Google+! Everyone's doing it! No seriously: it went from zero users to zillions in a matter of days. Not bad for a me-too social network entering a space already inhabited by two 900-pound gorillas.

Granted, just because of its sheer size and ubiquity, Google would have had no trouble populating its new social network even if it totally sucked. But it doesn't. Why? Surprisingly well-wrought experience design, for one thing. I spoke to Andy Hertzfeld, a designer and software engineer at Google who helped spearhead G+'s user interface, to zero in on four things that are wrong with social networks that the Googlers made sure to get right.

1. They're a pain in the ass to set up

 

Between Foursquare, Quora, Color, Stellar, and the rest, the only sane answer to "hey, we're launching a new social network!" is to groan loudly. As much as we all love self-obsessing on the Internet, setting up yet another profile and set of preferences and photos and friends is a huge hassle -- even if you want to do it. Google knows this, which is why it made setting up Circles (G+'s analog to "friending" or "following") feel like fun, not like unpacking boxes in an empty house.

"We wanted to make a delightful experience that feels addicting."

Hertzfeld, who took the lead on designing the Circles interface said.

"We wanted to make a delightful experience that rewards people -- we wanted to make it feel addicting." 

Just like a video game, adding people to your Circles is a highly visual and physical process: you drag photos of people you know onto large, friendly-looking blue rings, which offer up springy, slot-machine-like animations when you let the mouse button go. (A tiny "+1" even pops out of the Circle and hovers in midair above it like a 1-UP in Super Mario Bros.) Hertzfeld says.

"You drop someone in, you want to do it again.  Categorization can easily become tedious, and fun animations help add a twinkle in the eye, some whimsy to the process."

2. Video isn't casual (yet)

 

The videochat feature replaces a phone-call-like experience with a much more passive model.

Videochatting may be everywhere now, but it still freaks a lot of people out because it's unnervingly intimate and the social norms for initiating contact still haven't been worked out. (Chatroulette, anyone?) Google+'s videochat feature, Hangouts, tries to make an end run around our skittishness by removing the phone-call-like experience and replacing it with a much more passive model where users can simply announce that they're "hanging out" and let others come to them.  Hertzfeld explains.

"The starting point for [designing] Hangouts is basic human nature: People love contact but they're shy about initiating it, especially with video." 

But that interface idea needed a tweak:  Even when joining passive "hangouts," users didn't like to suddenly appear onscreen with no warning -- especially to themselves.  He says. 

"You'd be shocked at how you look when your webcam turns on when joining the Hangout, and you'd want to run for cover.  We have a 'green room' now that's just for you, so you can get comfy, part your hair, whatever you want to do before before you're thrown into the full experience."

3. Sharing media takes too long

 

Every social network has a different procedure for getting your pictures and videos into a status update, but even a relatively streamlined one like Facebook still has an annoying bottleneck: waiting for the damn stuff to upload. The whole point of pictures -- and the whole appeal of sharing them -- is immediacy. So Google+ offers an option in its mobile app called "Instant Upload" which simply uploads the pics and videos from your smartphone the instant you capture them. (It also auto-connects to your Picasa albums, if you have any.) By the time you've decided that a moment is worth sharing, the stuff will already be there -- accessible instantly via a small but clear camera-shaped icon in the "Share what's new" textbox.

Hertzfeld says.  

"Larry Page, Google's co-founder and CEO] was a big proponent of streamlining that experience."

And don't worry about the Googleborg brainlessly mass-posting everything to your profile: the Instant Upload option isn't enabled by default, and even when it is, the insta-uploaded stuff isn't public. It's kept in a holding tank that only you can see, just so you can pull it out and share when (and if) you want to.

4. Privacy is paramount

 

Remember Buzz, and how it ended in privacy fiasco? Yeah, so does Google.

Remember Buzz, Google's first social-media experiment that ended up in a Bay of Pigs-esque privacy fiasco? Yeah, so does Google. Which is why G+ can sometimes seem like an almost anti-social network, with privacy controls and displays festooned everywhere you look. Not only can you selectively undershare to whatever granular level of privacy you like via Circles, G+ also lets you see behind the veil (sort of) for everyone who shares stuff with you: each post in your Stream (G+'s version of a Facebook Newsfeed) has a little text tag in a grey typeface saying "Public" or "Limited." That clues you in to the sharer's intention. Click on it, and G+ will show you exactly who else is seeing the message. That way, if you comment on the post, you can be sure even those words are only for the right eyes.

But with status updates and profiles being sliced and diced six ways from Sunday privacy-wise, it's probably easy to forget exactly who can see what when. So if you can't remember what Circle you put Joe Dudeguy into and what he can or can't see on your G+ profile page, simple: Just enter his name in a little text box called "View profile as..." and poof, you'll see exactly what Joe sees. No guessing. Hertzfeld says,

"We want to appeal to the mainstream user who has a low tolerance for complexity, and at the same time we have to respect privacy as strongly as possible. So every feature has privacy implications that we thought out. We would have done that anyway, but the Buzz experience elevated it."

Google+ probably won't be seriously threatening Facebook anytime soon, and Twitter is still different enough to maintain its dominance in certain specific use cases. But for a company that totally hosed its first foray into social networking not that long ago, Google has turned its fortunes around incredibly fast. "If you build it, they will come" doesn't work anymore for social networks. But if you build it right -- then, just maybe you've got a real shot.

COMMENTARY:  

Why Google+ Can Be A Winner -- Less is More

Google's trademark minimalism is present throughout Google+ and this is not mere coincidence.   Minimalism is a design style that says "less is more", and the idea of less is not often appreciated.   

Google+'s minimalist design is owed in no small measure to the design philosophy of Andy Herzfeld, Google+'s interface designer.  Herzfeld is a former Apple Computer alumnus and member of the original Apple Macintosh team.     

If there is such a thing as the "Father of Technology Design Minimalism", then Steve Jobs epitomizes that to a T.   Jobs is obsessed with simplifying product design, and enhancing the user experience, not complicating it.  Jobs wanted to design a personal computer than anybody could use.  Minimalism is what made the Macintosh so successful. Apple's Steve Jobs once told Wired. 

"Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks.  But of course, if you dig deeper, it's really how it works. The design of the Mac wasn't what it looked like, although that was part of it. Primarily, it was how it worked.  To design something really well, you have to get it.  You have to really grok what it's all about. It takes a passionate commitment to really thoroughly understand something, chew it up, not just quickly swallow it. Most people don't take the time to do that." 

Andy Herzfeld has been strongly influenced by Steve Jobs minimalist design philosophy, and this is reflected in the simplicity and graceful design of Google+, which makes the new social network a joy to use.  

Like Jobs, Larry Page is also schooled in minimalism, and this has been the foundation of the Google search engine since it was first introduced.  The Google homepage is a great example of minimualism, with just a few words and links and  Google search line, and that's it.   And, Larry Page makes sure it stays that way.

For a long time I have complained about the complicated and burdensome design of Facebook's graphical interface.  This is one of the principal reasons I avoid using Facebook.  Besides Facebook's numerous privacy violations, Facebook's UI is too user-unfriendly, cumbersome, complicated, difficult to setup, and nothing is transparent.  Facebook is built layer upon layer, and it doesn't seem to end.  

If Google+ becomes successful, it will be in no small measure to its minimalist design.  This is a refreshing concept which is sorely missing in all social networks.  LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, foursquare, all of them suffer from poor design.  In spite of this, they have all been successful, which is difficult to comprehend.  Google+ comes along and it just might upset the apple cart with its minimalist design concept to win over users who find those other social networks difficult to use.

I guess this another reason why I chose Twitter over Facebook.  The site is so simple to use, in spite of the 140 character limit on tweets.  It's a thing of beauty, and I hope Dick Costolo and Biz Stone keep it that way.

Google+ Strategy Moving Forward

In spite of its perceived "dark side" and "Do No Evil" mantra,  Google has something going for it--a minimalist design philosophy and software engineering culture that permeates throughout the company's numerous product offerings: Google Mail, Google Docs, Google Search, Google Search, Google Shopping, and the list goes on.  Minimalism has always been a trademark of Google's products.  It's what's "under the hood" that really counts, and that's where Google software engineers reign supreme.  

In spite of Google's software engineering prowess, the company has never really promoted its minimalist software design philosophy and user-friendliness.   Google+ presents a huge opportunity to do just that.  Google needs an advantage and its simple, graceful and minimalist graphical user interface offers a very powerful point of differentiation that it should take advantage of.

Like the "Do No Evil" mantra, Google+ needs a tagline of its own, something that it can be identified with, make users feel proud, and can rally around and promote.  Apple has "Think Different", Intel has "Intel Inside", Ajax has "Stronger Than Dirt", and so forth.  

Facebook has 700+million users and Google+ only has 10 million (at last count), so Google+ needs some kind of edge.  It needs something that akin to what Apple did with the infamous "Big Brother" TV commercial.  The evil guy appearing in the huge screen epitomized IBM, Apple's mortal enemy. Steve Jobs knew that the only way for the Mac to compete against IBM, was to caste IBM as "Evil". And the idea worked.  It attracted computer users that appreciated beautiful design and a simple to use graphical interface.

Right now I have dozens of Google+ taglines swimming in my head, so if a Google software engineer is reading this, pass on this idea to Larry Page.          

Andy Herzfeld Bio 

Andy Hertzfeld (born April 6, 1953) is a computer scientist who was a member of the original Apple Macintosh development team during the 1980s.  After buying an Apple II in January 1978, he went to work for Apple Computer  from August 1979 until March 1984, where he was a designer for the Macintosh system software. Since leaving Apple, he has co-founded three companies:  Radius in 1986, General Magic in 1990 and Eazel in 1999. In 2002, he helped Mitch Kapor promote open source software with the Open Source Applications Foundation. Hertzfeld joined Google in 2005 and was lead designer on Google+, introduced in 2011.

 Courtesy of an article dated July 19, 2011 appearing in Fast Company Design 

IAB MOBILE AD STUDY: 55% OF BUSINESSES SPEND LESS THAN $50K, 51% PLAN MOBILE ADS, $1.1 BIL TO BE SPENT ON MOBILE ADS IN 2011

When it comes to mobile advertising, just over half (51%) of brand marketers say they have built mobile into their ad strategy, either as part of wider campaigns or as a stand-alone effort. But mobile budgets are still small, with 55% spending less than $50,000 this year and only 7% planning to spend more than $300,000, according to asurvey of 300 top brand marketing executives commissioned by the Interactive Advertising Bureau and conducted by Ovum Consulting.

Still, dollars allocated to mobile are expected to increase. The "Marketer Perspectives on Mobile Advertising" report found that nearly three-quarters (72%) of marketers are looking to hike mobile ad spending in the next two years, and 35% will boost budgets by more than 50%.

Where's that money going?

• 83% are spending on a branded mobile site was the most common type of mobile advertising (83%). 
• 77% are using display advertising. 
• 50%+ have employed branded applications and SMS text advertising. 
• 40%+ have turned to mobile search, video, MMS (multimedia messaging service) and barcodes and mobile coupons.

When it comes to devices, about 60% of executives say smartphones as a high priority, and nearly one-third (31%) point to tablets as a key platform. Feature phones have not been bypassed completely:

• 22% said feature phones were a top priority, and marketers expect usage on regular smartphones to increase over the next two years. 
• 10% identified e-books as a top device for advertising. 
• 3% will use console connected games.

The report, whose findings were presented Monday at the IAB's "Mobile Marketplace" conference, also highlighted some of the hurdles facing mobile advertising. Among key obstacles to higher spending were device fragmentation, privacy issues and a lack of standardized metrics.

A majority also cited ad creative limitations as a drawback of the medium, which the study suggested could be partly a reflection that most of those surveyed don't use creative agencies for mobile advertising. But the vast majority (85%) of those marketers that are working with a creative agency on their mobile advertising objectives said these partnerships produced good results. Most were also reasonably satisfied with mobile advertising's ability to deliver:  

• 59% were impressed with mobile's ability to improve engagement. 
• 58% said mobile increased brand awareness. 
• 57% said mobile improved customer relationship marketing. 
• 54% said it helped drive sales. 

The Ovum mobile study for the IAB was conducted from April to June 2011 and involved U.S. organizations currently engaged in mobile advertising, from seven distinct verticals: travel, financial services, consumer packaged goods (CPG), retail, media and entertainment, hospitality and restaurants and automotive. It also encompassed four size-of-business categories (revenue less than $100m annual revenues, $100m-$500m annual revenues, $500m-$2 billion, and over $2 billion annual revenues) with local, regional and national ad focus.

According to a September 2010 study by e-Marketer, US mobile ad spending will grow from $743.1 million 2010 to $1.1 billion in 2011, and spending on mobile advertising will reach $2.5 billion by 2014.  Of course the economic recovery has something to do with this but, it is more likely attributable to the surge in smartphone sales from Apple and Google. Over 55 million people in the U.S. now own a smartphone and sales are continuing to grow. 

According to Gartner, Inc., worldwide mobile advertising revenue is forecast to reach $3.3 billion in 2011, more than double the $1.6 billion generated in 2010. Worldwide revenue will reach $20.6 billion by 2015, but not all types of mobile advertising will generate the same opportunity. Search and maps will deliver the highest revenue, while video/audio ads will see the fastest growth through 2015.

According to Strategic Analytics, the bulk of mobile advertising in 2011 will be spent on mobile web ads (48%) and search (28%). 

On Monday, IAB launched a formal call-for-entries to its new Rising Stars Mobile contest that will result in new IAB-endorsed mobile ad formats. Winning entrants "will be selected based on their potential to propel brand creativity on mobile devices at scale." The trade group kicked off its Rising Stars initiative last September with a contest to come up with new display ad formats. Submissions for the latest effort will be accepted until October 15. 

COMMENTARY:   The US mobile advertising spending projections do not surprise me given the rapid proliferation of mobile devices in the U.S.  Gartner's projection of $20.6 billion mobile advertising worldwide is quite aggressive, but this probably includes all mobile devices.

This wonderful graphic shows there are 228 million mobile phones of all types and 83.2 million are mobile web users. 

[Click Above Image to Enlarge]

According to eMarketer, the U.S. will have 73.3 million smartphone users by 2011, and 109.5 million users by 2015.

Courtesy of an article dated July 18, 2011 appearing in MediaPost Publications Online Media Daily

THE TEAM BEHIND THE VIRGIN GALACTIC AIRCRAFT UNVEILS THE MODEL 367 BIPOD, A HYBRID ELECTRIC FLYING CAR

 

Forget those gas-guzzling flying cars. Now you can drive and fly while saving lots of money on fuel.

Watch out, Terrafugia: Flying car competition is coming your way and it's much more efficient. The BiPod, developed by Scaled Composites founder Burt Rutan, is already taking test flights. And don't write this off as an aviation geek's pipe dream--Scaled Composites is the company behind Virgin Galactic's spacecraft and launch vehicles, including SpaceShipTwo and WhiteKnight Two. It's also a subsidiary of Northrup Grumman.

The hybrid flying car, dubbed Model 367 BiPod, went from preliminary design to inaugural flight (in March) in just four months, according to Aviation Week. The two-seater, which is designed to be driven like a car from the left cockpit and flown like a plan on the right, features two 450cc internal combustion engines, 15 kW motors on both the driving wheels and the motor-driven propellers, and lithium batteries that are recharged during flight. In aircraft mode, the BiPod can go 760 miles at 100 mph. As a car, the fiberglass and carbon fiber vehicle squeezes out 820 miles on a tank of gas and 35 miles in electric mode.

 

There aren't plans to commercially produce the BiPod quite yet; the model vehicle was built to measure outside interest in continued development. But the recent news that the Terrafugia Transition--another flying car--has been cleared for use by the U.S. National Highway Safety Administration means that other companies may be more interested in this kind of vehicle, simply because many of the legal hurdles have already been cleared.

Terrafugia's commercial model rolls off production lines next year. After that, a BiPod-like hybrid model may not be far behind.

COMMENTARY:   If the Model 367 BiPod hybrid electric flying car flew four months after production of a finished prototype, I would never underestimate Burt Rutan.  The guy is an absolute genius, and has designed dozens of aircraft over his career.   In a blog post dated May 9, 2011, I profiled Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo and WhiteKnight Two which will be flying non-astronauts into space sometime in 2012.  

Terrafugia Transition already has FAA and DOT approvals and has a waiting list of 70 to 100 customers with the means to buy one for $350,000.  Deliveries are scheduled for late 2012. Somehow, I don't think the Model 367 BiPod will be ready by that date.  

I checked out Scaled Composites website and this is what they said about the Model 367 BiPod hybrid electric flying car.

"The BIPOD program was conceived as a rapid, low-cost electric test-bed using as many COTS components as possible. During initial conceptual design studies, Scaled found that many of their propulsion system characteristics were well aligned with the drivetrain needs of a roadable vehicle and expanded the research program to include a “flying car” airframe. With the impending deadline of Rutan’s retirement, Scaled Composites pursued an aggressive schedule and successfully achieved first flight of the BIPOD vehicle within four months of beginning preliminary design. The entirely new design will operate as a high-performance airplane with STOL capabilities, 200 mph maximum speed, and 700 mile range or as a road commuter vehicle capable of freeway speeds, urban driving, and garage storage.

Rutan and his team took a novel approach to solving many of the design challenges associated with a roadable aircraft. Scaled placed a large emphasis on developing a configuration that was safe for ground operations, yet still efficient at high flight speeds. Accordingly, BIPOD’s twin fuselage configuration provides a low-drag enclosure for a robust, 4-wheeled chassis with two cockpits, while providing a protected storage location for the wings and tail surfaces during ground operations. Two internal combustion engines, one per fuselage, provide power to the rear wheels and to propellers located on the horizontal stabilizer. Lithium batteries in the nose provide additional energy for take-off and in the case of an engine emergency. The vehicle’s center of gravity is positioned for ground operation stability, while aircraft rotation is enabled by direct blowing of the horizontal stabilizer and by applying power to the rear wheels. The use of electric power transmission decouples engine location from propeller location without the need for mechanical shafts and gearboxes, enabling BIPOD’s unique geometry.

The vehicle performed well during initial ground and flight testing. The low center of gravity and wide track resulted in a stable, controllable road configuration both on the skid pad and at freeway speeds. Initial flight tests indicate that the vehicle is stable and controllable. Scaled is continuing to test and develop the BIPOD configuration and hybrid propulsion system, with the goal of using similar systems on future unique aircraft configurations. Despite the inherent inefficiencies associated with energy conversion steps, Scaled Composites believes hybrid systems may offer advantages for specific mission requirements, such as distributed propulsion, multi-mode operation, or energy recovery. Furthermore, the use of carbon fuels provides better energy density and a lower gross take-off weight for the same range when compared to electric-only vehicles. Ultimately, the BIPOD configuration will provide a unique propulsion system test bed in an operational flight vehicle, providing Scaled Composites experience with a number of different powerplants and associated systems."

The lithium batteries will only provide additional power during take-offs and in case of an engine emergency, so this is a bit disappointing. It does make you wonder why even bother with the lithium batteries since they will only be used for very short durations and add to the weight of the aircraft. Another thing I don't like is having two fuselage's, one for each passenger, and there is no room for storing things.  That makes for a very odd looking road vehicle. 

Courtesy of an article dated July 18, 2011 appearing in Fast Company