Xeni Jardin, co-editor of BoingBoing.net, was offering a review of the iPad when she set the bar for any technology company aiming to succeed in either the business or the consumer market.  She said:

“When the operating system gets out of the way, when the experience of a computing device is so seamless that you’re not aware of the operating system, all you’re aware of is the information or the experience or the enrichment that you’re after…that’s when you know you have really sweet design.”  She called that moment “magic.”

She may have been channeling Arthur C. Clarke, whose famous laws included this one: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Or she may have merely been channeling the frustration of consumers and business people alike who have grappled with voice mail or gotten lost in an interactive voice response menu or lost hours of work to a system crash.

Five years ago, the Gartner Group, a technology industry research firm, said that the next 10 years would be dominated by a handful of trends that included the “Consumerization of IT.”  More than predicting the rise of smartphones and wireless, remote access, the trend was painted as a danger for companies who resisted.

“As perceptive CIOs seek to transform their rigid, legacy-ridden infrastructures into agile, efficient, service-driven delivery mechanisms, they must adopt a pragmatic approach to managing the risk of consumer IT while embracing the benefits,” said Steve Prentice, vice president and research director at Gartner. “Otherwise, the CIOs risk being sidelined as the ‘enemy’ by their constituencies.”

Now that the smartphone has become ubitquitous (and been given netbook and iPad siblings), now that wireless, remote access has become the Mobile Web and settting aside the question of “who saw what when,” it is clear the market has moved in this direction.

IBM no longer sells software, hardware and services that can be mixed-and-matched, it promotes a smarter planet.  Cisco is not content to sell routers, it now enables a human network.  Even Oracle, born as smart but homely database software, is now complete.

Each in their own way is trying to create magic — letting the audience see the rabbit without worrying about the size of the hat. Companies that can will be rewarded.  Those that can’t will either get bought at a good price by those who can or fall away.

Share

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that “Companies are using fewer advisers for mergers and acquisitions than at any point since 2001, as they look to cut costs amid the downturn…”   It saves money, sure, but it also is more likely to surface acquisition candidates that are better known to the company.

It makes sense to stick closer to home, taking a classic strategic acquisition approach.  No need to throw long passes when the price of failure is heightened by economic uncertainty.   Cynics can argue that this follows an historical 20-or-so-year cycle that moves between this view and a “buy what you can” ethos.  That’s OK.  But it is clear that even if strategic acquisition — to more deeply serve the existing customers or fill a gap in products and services — is back in vogue, it is different, too.

The difference can be seen in the way we measure the benefits of any combination.  More than building deeper relationships with existing customers (as is the likely intent of the Oracle acquisition of Sun) or improving “vendor” relationships (hoped for in the deal between Microsoft and Publicis for Razorfish) or adding a new feature to an already strong platform (said to be behind the IBM deal for SPSS), what will determine the ultimate value of the deals is whether the market first believes and then sees that the new company can deliver.

Right now customers don’t trust many companies.  The ones they do trust are those that have a reputation for persistently meeting customers’ expectations.  Acquisitions made by that kind of company have the best chance to succeed quickly and over time.

Next Fifteen, a UK-based communications holding company, is one such trusted company.  When it bought New York-based M Booth & Associates to “build a global consumer agency,” it was not the companies’ people or intellectual capital or relationships as much as it was the market credibility of Next Fifteen, the acquirer, that signaled its likely success.  The expectation will give Next Fifteen more time to make it work, too.

Consider this reaction against the likelihood that the Oracle/Sun deal will yield customer benefits.  Or whether Microsoft and Publicis will be able to share Razorfish.  And if IBM will be able to create the smart analytics system it desires.    The answers are tied tightly to the market credibility of the acquiring companies.

Right now, I have one “yes,” one “no” and one “maybe.”

Share

Earlier this month, IBM made its official leap into cloud computing.  The news was no surprise, after all, in many respects “Cloud” is just a fresh label for what companies have been doing for years to increase capability while reducing costs.  More than a breakthrough, IBM’s announcement is more likely all about its competitive set.

Each of us is known by the company we keep, but companies can better promote their products and services by keeping the right competitive set.  Embedded in the New York Times report on the IBM move was this:

“Already, Amazon.com, Google and Salesforce.com, among others, offer cloud-based Web services to companies, including e-mail, computer storage and customer management software. But many big companies and government agencies have been reluctant to get on board because of traditional corporate-computing concerns like the security of data, reliability of service and regulatory compliance.”

In one context-setting paragraph, the company lines itself up against a specific set of competitors with high Q Ratings who it then suggests are not match for IBM’s market-accepted position as a leader in industrial-strength computing.  The result is a chance to create real separation in the mind of potential customers.

Morning after postscript

In a story about philanthropy in the New York Times was this comment:  “People are known philanthropically by the company they keep,” said Reynold Levy, the president of Lincoln Center and author of “Yours for the Asking: An Indispensable Guide to Fund-Raising and Management,” published last year. Being asked to join cultural boards is “as much a recognition of the status you’ve enjoyed as it is acquiring it,” Mr. Levy said.

Share