Posts tagged Innovation
As an after thought to my last post on virtual goods, I published a comment discussing Eliminate Pro’s innovative play (or “experiment” says MTV Interactive) on Apple’s changes to the App Store to allow for in-app billing on certain items. It’s been a successful experiment. As of yesterday, the game has been downloaded 500,000 times so far at a rate of about 25,000 an hour, currently making it the top free app in iTunes (via TechCrunch).
After some successful digging, playing the game and reviewing Apple’s Developer Agreement. Some red flags were raised…
Eliminate Pro, a game developed by ng:moco, is an action-packed first person shooter (FPS) game that progresses very slowly. The game uses this tactic to charge impatient users to play and progress through the game at a faster pace. The game allows users to buy more battery packs or cases (Power Cells) through the In-App billing system. This allows users to recharge faster, compete to earn more “credits” so that they can upgrade their fighter’s armor, weapons and other items (virtual goods). Power cells are the currency of the game.
What I want to know is where Apple is drawing the line in the sand in terms of what is considered a virtual currency and what isn’t. As per Apple’s iPhone Developer Program License Agreement (the “Agreement”), Apple states:
Additional Restrictions 2.1 You may not use the In App Purchase API to enable an end user to set up a pre-paid account to be used for subsequent purchases of content, functionality, or services, or otherwise create balances or credits that end users can redeem or use to make purchases at a later time. 2.2 You may not enable end users to purchase Currency of any kind through the In App Purchase API, including but not limited to any Currency for exchange, gifting, redemption, transfer, trading or use in purchasing or obtaining anything within or outside of Your Application. "Currency" means any form of currency, point, credits, resources, content or other items or units recognized by a group of individuals or entities as representing a particular value and that can be transferred or circulated as a medium of exchange.
Specifically, item 2.2 of ‘Additional Restrictions’ within ‘Attachment 2′ of the Agreement raises some obvious questions about how Eliminate Pro got approved. Eliminate Pro uses Power Cells (the virtual good that they sell) to buy additional energy (a resource) that they can use in a game to earn credits, which are redeemable for weapons, armor and other inventory items.
This seems to be in direct violation to the Agreement. Unless, however, Apple is okay with allowing “indirect” forms of currencies to work (Buy Energy > Spend Energy for Time > Use Time to gain Credits > Use Credits to buy Virtual Goods (weapons, etc…)). Some clarity please?
It would be great if some people (Apple execs, developers, anyone) could weigh-in on this matter. What types of “economies” or “currencies” can be established while still being compliant with Apple’s policies?
Please share your perspective below.
Over the last week, I had the opportunity to start and finish Tina Seelig’s new book “What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20“. The book delivers a series of stories — among other things — each seemingly designed to teach a lesson or prove a point; a number of stories discuss very innovative and creative solutions people undertook to solve real-world problems and to create value. Together, these pearls of wisdom can inspire the uninspired, and give a gentle nudge to those needing a push to get going.
In her book, Tina discusses the Stanford Technology Ventures Program (“STVP“), and how it looks to create “T-shaped people” — described as having a depth of knowledge in at least one discipline and a breadth of knowledge in innovation and entrepreneurship. I think this is a fantastic approach, and that this recipe is the right combination to create truly successful entrepreneurs. It would be nice to see some Canadian schools taking that approach. She also discusses her class-turned-global innovation assignments, that have become the Global Innovation Tournament — I’m hoping to participate in a judging capacity for the Toronto contingent this year — but of course, I’d rather be in the competition itself. Maybe I’ll get a chance if I make it into the Stanford GSB next year!?
Later on in the book, Tina begins discussing risk profiles of entrepreneurs (I can relate closely with this), and I found it quite interesting to read that apparently most entrepreneurs don’t see themselves as big risk takers. Only after some reflection did I understand what she meant. To paraphrase her text, “After analyzing the landscape, building a great team, and putting together a detailed plan, [entrepreneurs] feel as though they have squeezed as much risk out of the venture as they can. In fact, they spend most of their efforts working to reduce the risks for their business.”
Wearing my VC hat, this actually makes a lot of sense. We, as VCs, constantly look at how well entrepreneurs de-risk their ventures and we calculate our willingness to invest by how well an entrepreneur has evaluated their market opportunity, filled their management team and advisory board(s) with competent and complimentary folks, and developed their technology to a stage where it can be demonstrable. Essentially, the reward that entrepreneurs can receive for successfully de-risking their venture is generally referred to as a better valuation from VCs, and consequently, higher equity ownerships for the entrepreneur(s) at the table.
I recommend this book to CEOs and decision makers that need to reignite their creativity as well as to students aspiring to do great things, but who are waiting for permission to do so from some authority figure. In this book, the author acts as an agent of empowerment to allow the reader the feeling that they should embrace their skills and capabilities, and act on their desires to create products, services and organizations that can change the world.
What have you envisioned that could change the world? I dare you to chase that opportunity.
Have you recently dropped everything to take on a new challenge? Share your story below! Was it worth it?
Yesterday I finished reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, and in the final hour of reading something sparked my attention:
Throughout history and despite relatively uniform intelligence across all of humankind, Diamond argues that widespread innovation had been limited to only certain countries in particular geographical contexts. He goes on to mention that innovation (as seen in those countries) was driven by the presence of higher population densities, close proximity to a number of neighbouring countries, and higher degrees of competitiveness between countries.
Naturally, I wondered, could this concept explain why so much technology innovation has led to an abundance of successful tech companies in the Bay Area, and to a lesser but still significant extent, the Greater Boston Area? On the flip-side, could this concept also explain why so many technology companies created in other regions have higher failure rates?
According to Diamond, innovation is driven by population densities of sorts. The Bay Area has one of the richest selections of successful and pioneering IT/internet/mobile technology entrepreneurs on the planet. As far as competitiveness, the US is the epidemy of a Capitalist nation, and competition is as fierce domestically as it is internationally (if not more fierce).
Note: As far as the Bay Area goes, I believe it remains at the apex of innovation due to its abundance of human capital, sharing of know-how, entrepreneurial culture, access to world-class research facilities/universities and venture capital financing. However, I do buy into the fact that proximate competition can help to turn good ideas into great ideas when the developers of the ideas have the ability to see and innovate on top of other very good ideas very quickly.
Although I don’t have the time and/or resources to explore this in further detail, I find this to be an interesting theoretical discussion about how a local geography can evolve in such a way that promotes rapid innovation in a particular niche. If you have an opinion on the matter, I invite you to please share it below.
In recent news, there have been two great discoveries – similar in theory, but very different in appearance and use – for delivering drugs. Both use remote control mechanisms, the first invention describes how a remote control pill can release its contents once it reaches the area at which the drugs need to be delivered (see:Remote-control Nanoparticles Deliver Drugs Directly Into Tumors). The second discovery takes place at the nano-level – here, Remote-control Nanoparticles Deliver Drugs Directly Into Tumors; the drugs are released by an electromagnetic field once the nanoparticles get in the vicinity of the tumorigenic cells. This therapy works well for attacking primary tumor sites; however, this therapy won’t be very robust when trying to eliminate metastatic colonies, or rogue cells that may have broken off from originating tumors. I am still bullish on an approach to cancer therapy that includes the programming of one’s own immune system to identify tumorigenic cells and destroy them.