RSS

Tag Archives: YouTube

CODE_n13: Startup Contest @ CeBIT 2013 (Case Film)

Europe’s leading startup event CODE_n presented the 50 hottest startups from all over the globe. More than 250 startups from 35 countries applied to be part of the CODE_n Community live at CeBIT 2013. This video shows the highlights of five days full of entrepreneurial spirit and our 50 finalists which exhibited at CeBIT in hall 16!

Top

What do YouTube, Tumblr, Airbnb and Flickr all have in common? Each of these companies was founded by a designer.

„How do I get all of my favorite cookbooks into the nice, compact form of an iPad?“ This question inspired John Grøtting to found his own business. Caramelized is a smart cookbook for the iPad – amazingly compact and with intuitive kitchen aids integrated.

Caramelized - smart cookbook

Caramelized – smart cookbook

On Monday Caramelized, also a CODE_n12 finalist, published the news that they received a crowdfunding round on seedmatch. We were wondering about the story behind and how is the team handling the startup pressure? Caramelized CEO John was so kind to write a guest blog about his experience in this biz.

John Groetting - Founder and CEO of Caramelized

John Groetting – Founder and CEO of Caramelized

Have you ever bought a product and found yourself compelled to tell a friend about it? That company has definitely put lots of work into creating a product that has qualities that have motivated you to do advertising for them. And you gave them money for that. The better your product can excite your customer, the less you have to invest in advertising. Furthermore, the less you can spend on development, the more you need to invest in design.

Obviously, none of these companies would have worked without engineers, too. But, too often highly innovative technology teams struggle to find a problem for their solution.

What does great design bring to a startup?

1. Focus.

2. A memorable product.

I love the excitement of being in a startup. But, it is easy to drift off into a sense that you can conquer the world. That confidence that helped you take the risk of creating a startup tends to do that to you. But, if you have goals centered around consumer needs, then it becomes much easier to set priorities and to discuss them objectively.

In our team, we locked in on the notion that how we cook hasn’t innovated at the same pace that consumer electronics and computing has. So, our mission became to perfect the way that we cook. This is obviously a very lofty goal, which we very much intend on fulfilling. But, how could we avoid spending 10 years in development before releasing a product?

Think big but execute in well chosen steps!

I am a firm believer in creating big, hairy, audacious goals and then executing it tons of tiny steps. At each step, reevaluate the goals and adjust. Iterate frequently. This will also require rapid prototyping skills. When I say rapid, I mean within one hour. Most functionality can be prototyped and tested within one hour. We do tons of sketching on paper, creating storyboards in meetings. This is a great means of brainstorming. I can sketch out the flow through 5 to 6 steps of interaction in our interface within a couple of minutes. Then the team loves it, hates it or gives great ideas on how to improve it.

Reflection is a must for each feature!

Force everyone to fight for any new features. This will do three things. Firstly, it will prevent feature-bloat, which will create delays in delivering your product, which is already way beyond its completion date. It will make everyone deeply analyze each feature, making any features that come through the process much better. And, it helps you avoid having to remove that feature later, when you realize how unnecessary it was. It is so much easier to add a feature than to remove one. If you remove a feature, there will be those two or three customers who loved that feature and are being really noisy about its removal. You have enough well deserved stress. Don’t put that on your shoulders, too.

Priorize your effort

Your very first product doesn’t need to be feature rich. You want to create an MVP (“Minimum Viable Product”). Spend time defining what are the absolute fewest features that you could possible include in your product at launch. This is your MVP. You will probably have to do this two or three times. Each time reduce further. Resist the temptation to add. I know how hard it is. There is that big juicy feature that probably only adds a couple days to your effort, but will make it so much more yummy. Don’t. You want to get something out there and then gather feedback. With that feedback you can much more accurately prioritize your next steps.

Get Feedback from end-users

As part of this iterative process get as much feedback from your end-users as you can. We have a very thankful product and it was easy to get feedback. On Facebook I asked our 100+ fans if anyone wanted to join us in our test kitchen. I quickly got volunteers. I met a few people for lunch and showed them our app (sidenote: our app is a new platform for digital cookbooks. Think: iTunes for cooking) and asked them to pick out two recipes that they would like to cook. No instructions. That helped us to learn more about how people thought the app should be used. Then we set up an appointment where they would visit us and cook with our app. We brought the groceries. On the arranged date they came to our house. Again, no instructions. We were merely observers.

For my partners and I, this approach helped us be very objective about our pre-release product. We talked about how people used it, what their questions were and what seemed to be missing. It very much guided our priorities. From initial idea to product launch we took 24 months. The first 6 months I iterated on paper and built prototypes using PowerPoint. I was still working at another company, so my working time was usually 10pm to 1am. It was sufficient to get positive feedback from industry experts and to convince two amazingly talented friends to start a company with me. Then, my partner Jörn built a quick prototype on the iPad, so that we could see what it would look like on the device with real interaction. That was huge. Suddenly, it all seemed so real. For each feature that we wanted to add, I did lots of storyboards and designed the interface in Photoshop, once we settled on the interaction flow. This meant that Jörn was only adding features that had been iterated upon before programming. That saved so much time. I could do hundreds of variations in the time that it would take to program one variation.

As we built, we tested with users. Then at a certain point, we scrapped our code and started over. This iterative process is great for growing feature by feature. But, it will lead to a product that can’t be cleanly programmed. So, with this very robust “prototype”, Jörn re-architected the whole app. He knew what computing processes were slow and how we would want to scale the app. In a few weeks, we had a totally new code base. It looked exactly the same, but it was really zippy. Everything seemed to react better and it was much more stable. For Jörn, it was also easier to add new functionality.

Don’t underestimate the look and feel

The iterative process also gave me time to work out lots of little visual details that would make the overall app much more attractive. Don’t underestimate the affect of good visual design on sales. If your customers find your product attractive, then they will not only be more likely to purchase, but they will also be more likely to recommend it to others. This multiplies your customers very quickly. It taps into peoples’ emotional responses, rather than their purely rational responses.

If you have a designer on your team, they will be the advocate for the consumer, bringing in insights about their needs. This will lead to a product that will have the right features, rather than having lots of features. You can build tons of loyal fans with just one single feature that is amazingly executed. Focus. Get your customers excited. These same principals work for funding. We have decided to use the crowd funding platform Seedmatch, because we believe it is particularly well suited to a consumer-orientated product like ours.

Top

OSSI URCHS: “IN THE CASE OF GOOGLE, IT ALSO TOOK A FEW YEARS BEFORE THE BUSINESS MODEL IT SHAPED WAS TRULY UNDERSTOOD.”

The “Godfather of the Internet”, Ossi Urchs, spoke to us about the post-Facebook era, the end of Europe’s innovation-skeptic “citadel culture”, and why he believes that services like Foursquare are only just getting started.

Oliver Gassner: Hello Ossi, would you please introduce yourself to our readers?

Ossi Urchs: Ossi Urchs, Internet consultant since 1994, now with a focus on social media and mobile Internet.

OG: Recently you’ve blogged a few impressions of yourself as a young man, and it was apparent that your roots are in TV. How do you see the topic of TV these days?

OU: Fairly indifferently. When I discovered the web for myself in the early 90s, TV suddenly struck me as so old-school – a typical one-way medium – and I decided to focus my future work on the web, the new medium.

OG: Which web application, website or mobile app has influenced or changed your life the most in the past twelve months?

OU: That’s quite a question. Initially – before the web – it was e-mail. Then the web itself, then Google, Skype, Facebook, and the other “social” media on the web, especially YouTube. And that’s just the start. I’m convinced that the best is yet to come. If I take some time to think about it, I’m sure more examples will occur to me…

OG: And in the past twelve months? Was there a new Twitter? G+ is the Twitter/Facebook killer?

OU: I see G+ as one more step in the convergence of social media on the web with the social reality of everyday life. In a word: promising. But since it’s less a technological achievement than a change in communication culture, others can integrate such advances rapidly, and that goes a long way toward putting the advantage of G+ back into perspective.

OG: Don’t you think that Facebook’s changes tend to clutter the screen and irritate users? That’s how I see it, in any case.

OU: Not really. I love the new lists and the differentiated streams in which I’ve organized my “friends”. The design of user interface isn’t going to appeal to everyone (as with most American offerings). But that’s actually how it always goes: at first, users don’t like the new features at all, but everyone gets used to them quickly and no one says anything.

OG: How does a good idea differ from a true innovation?

OU: Its practical implementation and broad use.

OG: Can there be innovation without someone making money off of it? Or does one go hand-in-hand with the other?

OU: Unfortunately, it’s often the case that the real innovators earn the least from their work – at least in this country. The situation is quite different in the United States.

OG: Why is it that most internationally successful web and mobile applications currently come from the U.S. – and very few from Europe?

OU: Lol. Precisely because the United States has a culture of innovation, which is not surprising in a  country with a history of pioneering. By contrast, innovation is mostly seen as a threat to the established order in the “Fortress Europe”.

OG: Schumpeter explained that innovation always destroys something – and Europe apparently has not gotten used to that. So Germany is hostile to innovation – that’s something I’ve been hearing frequently in the last few weeks. How can we overcome that?

OU: Schumpeter never really gained traction here with his idea of ​​”creative destruction”. And that has its reasons – those just mentioned, and some that go further. I think that the “citadel culture” in Europe and Germany in particular will, or must, change as globalization progresses. If not, globalization will descend upon us like a storm…

OG: How will the mobility of the future differ from ours today?

OU: Essentially, in the degree of virtualization. While our mobility today is still largely physical, we will be relying on digital communication to a much greater degree in future.

OG: Have you forecast any developments in the past that then occurred just the way you predicted them?

OU: I think so. Back in the 90s, I was already arguing that the Internet was going to change the entire way we live, work, learn, and entertain ourselves from the ground up. And I think that’s exactly what has happened.

OG: Would you care to predict what the net’s next big thing will be?

OU: The combination of social media and mobility. Not only is it going to once again fundamentally change the way we live and work, it will also lead to a kind of convergence of the physical and digital world that we can only begin to anticipate and understand.

OG: Are you thinking of a particular service? Foursquare hasn’t really taken off yet, nor has Latitude.

OU: That’s because like their customers, they themselves have not yet understood the actual underlying business model: the wealth of combinatorics that arise between information and sales, between online and offline business, if you like. But I’m quite confident: in the case of Google, it also took a few years before the business model it shaped was truly understood. And that was not only true for the customers, but above all to the makers themselves.

OG: The 50 startups that make it into the finals of the CODE_n Global Innovation Contest will have the opportunity to present their companies in the CODE_n hall at CeBIT 2012. What kind of idea or business model do you think will attract the greatest attention there?

OU: At the moment I see the best opportunities for concepts based on the three pillars of web communication, “SoMoLo” – in other words, mobilizing social communication and enriching it with local information.

OG: What advice would you give to startups to get noticed at CeBIT?

OU: Offer special food and beverages (as opposed to the horrible trade fair catering). Create a peaceful oasis. And if all else fails, throw a booth party. And to stay on-topic, have a hands-on version of your product at the booth that visitors can test.

OG: Can you even still remember what life was like without a phone and the Internet in our pockets? Has life become better? Simpler? Or more complicated?

OU: I can remember it very well, especially in situations in which I’m thrown back into that way of life – and I am capable of enjoying it. That’s assuming an end is in sight (when on vacation, for example). Overall, life has become more complex in this regard, and at the same time also more convenient.

OG: And finally, two personal questions: iOS or Android? Facebook or Google+? And why?

OU: IOS, because I’m a confirmed Mac user – but mainly because it just works effortlessly. Steve understood that. And as for FB and G+: I use both, generally for different purposes.

OG: Thanks for the interview ;)

OU: My pleasure ;)

Top

GUNTER DUECK: “Steve Jobs had a kind of emotional intelligence – for machines”

In his years at IBM, the thinker and author Gunter Dueck earned the nickname “Wild Duck”. We spoke to him about IBM’s innovative power, the sense and nonsense of business plans for start-ups – and about Steve Jobs, of course, who unfortunately left us far too soon.

Oliver Gassner: Hello, Mr. Dueck!

Gunter Dueck: Hello.

OG: What do you consider to be the biggest development on the web or in mobile world over the past twelve months?

GD: Well, the constantly increasing hype about the iPad, which has a lot to do with the now cheap flash storage; now all we need is LTE (Long Term Evolution) everywhere…

OG: Will LTE-enabled tablets save the publishing houses, or is that wishful thinking?

GD: I think that many people now read on-screen. As a writer, people ask me almost daily to urge publishers toward eBooks. On the other hand, people no longer read that many books; I feel that quite clearly. Digital natives prefer a snappy speech on YouTube – something new is on the rise!

OG: Was Steve Jobs innovative? Or driven? Or a “good” manager from the “Wild Duck” perspective?

GD: Jobs gave a lot of thought to what enthusiastic people would want from a computer. That they don’t crash, that they are easy to use – stuff like that. He was the only one who didn’t make any compromises in this area. He had a kind of “emotional intelligence” – but for machines! And he definitely had a talent for attraction. Most techies don’t have it. They don’t comprehend it, and regard it with suspicion (because techies are usually verrrry introverted and tend to be embarrassed in front of audiences, for example). And since they don’t consider it to be quite kosher, they can hardly copy Jobs’ success – even though they read about it every day in the paper, while shaking their heads over it.

OG: Guy Kawasaki recently said that Apple was planned as a kind of anti-IBM back in the mid-80s. They also had that Orwell commercial back then. Has IBM and the rest of the IT world learned anything since then?

GD: Tough question. People always accuse IBM of having missed out on the “consumer front”. But IBM caters to enterprise customers, and understands them very well – in that segment the company is uncompromising and even attractive! It’s very hard, if not impossible, to have several such corporate souls. The critics don’t understand that point – that it’s too hard to be everything to everyone. Our political parties in Germany are trying that right now – what can I say?

OG: In that case, it was of course appropriate for IBM to sell its consumer division to Lenovo. To come back to Steve Jobs: in his “stay hungry, stay foolish” speech, he put his success down to the fact that he failed more than once: as a college dropout, and the first time around as the CEO of Apple. Both experiences opened new perspectives for him: calligraphy, design, Pixar and Toy Story. Is it still OK these days – for managers and regular people – to explore interesting sidelines and learn from mistakes?

GD: Mistakes! Ugh, don’t use that word in my presence! You have to see innovation as an exploration of the unknown, not as something you can do correctly or incorrectly according to a timetable. Personally, I ONLY learn while exploring! Enterprises today don’t understand that, and neither do lenders who expect start-ups to submit a business plan. These days, it’s best if I stay in the basement until I’m done exploring. Not that that would work for the pharmaceutical sector and the like…

OG: I’m aware of who I put that question to, and I find it reassuring that the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t do its research in the wild. What distinguishes a good idea from true innovation?

GD: An invention is not an innovation. Leonardo already had the idea for a flying machine (albeit some time after Icarus). But so what? You not only have to perfect the technology – you also have to build airports, set up an air traffic control system, invent luggage carousels, and get the whole system to work at a ticket price of €49. Taking that initial idea and adapting it to reality is innovation, so we can define innovation as the remaining 99.9 percent of the work.

OG: What would you require from a startup instead of a business plan before you would be willing to give them 100,000 or a million euros?

GD: I would study the new entrepreneur as if it were a job interview, and I’d ask myself a hundred times whether I trust him to handle it, whether he knows what to expect, and whether he has a realistic perspective. I’d want to be sure he’s a good innovator.

OG: Your output in terms of books and lectures is impressive. And you even used to hold down a “normal” job while working on them. What do you personally need to be creative?

GD: In life, I’ve often seen things going fundamentally wrong. And that’s when I need to take a stand. I can write well, and so that’s what I do – to disseminate “my idea” or “the truth”. Now it would also be good (as an innovation) to sell those truths so that they change our lives. I’m still working on that.

OG: Would you be willing to predict what the web’s next big thing will be? In Abschied vom Homo oeconomicus, your predictions regarding mobility were spot on.

GD: And those about China, India, wage dumping, burnout and 2.0 weren’t bad either, right? And now? China’s economy will catch up with the U.S. around 2015, and that’s not very far in the future. But the exact timing doesn’t matter: China will continue to grow for a long time, and the world will experience a new phase of growth that will encourage innovation. The direction: the internet will become the world’s “operating system”, followed by growth in new and specialized fields such as medical, bio-, genetic, solar, nano-, and other technologies.

OG: And finally, two fundamental questions: iOS or Android (or Blackberry)? Facebook or Google+? And why?

GD: I have a Blackberry because it’s the only device that supports IBM mail. So I haven’t yet had a choice. My Blackberry is fairly new, and now that I’m no longer with IBM, I’ll wait until LTE devices are available and then get myself an iPhone 6 or whatever. Or an Android, we’ll see. I’m not dogmatic – I choose according to the features I need. And to answer your other question, I have the feeling that Facebook is more friendly and appreciative, while Google+ tends to be sober and critical. So the choice is a question of your personality. That’s why the front between the two is so fundamentalist. I personally feel more comfortable with Google+ because criticism and tough arguments (and rudeness, unfortunately) benefit me more than being “liked”, although that’s also nice. I’m on both platforms.

OG: Thank you for your time, Mr. Dueck.

Top