The App store has been a major success for Apple, with Horace Dediu estimating that they produce $1.6bn in revenue per quarter. We are approaching the occasion of the 50 billionth worldwide app download, and to coincide Apple have updated their all-time charts for a number of territories.

They previously did this on the occasion of the 25 billionth app download, in March of last year. 25 billion apps downloaded in 14 months equates to an average of around 60m downloads a day (with Horace Dediu putting the current daily rate at around 70m).

Last time I took a look at some of the trends within the charts. I’ve repeated that here, with ten bullets below. All data correct (apart from any typos that slipped through) as of May 2^nd 2013.

• Stability: The majority of the top apps are holdovers from the previous list – 13 of the 50 paid apps are new, and 20 of the 50 free apps. I’ve counted YouTube and Google Maps as new apps, although different builds did exist previously
• Games still dominate: 17 of the top 25 paid apps on both iPhone and iPad are games
• But What’s App stands alone: What’s App is the most popular paid for iPhone app, and is the only paid-for social networking app fits in the list. Although existing downloads won’t be discounted, it will be interesting to see whether the mooted 69p a year fee will deter new users from downloading
• Franchises have emerged: Although there are exceptions, many of the top apps are from major companies and even those grassroots successes – Angry Birds, Draw Something – have been sucked up into either major merchandising and sequelitis, or bought out. Angry Birds is the poster-child for success, and Angry Birds Rio is the only title of theirs not to make the chart
• But it is still possible to break through: 4 Pics 1 Word has become this year’s Draw Something, and has made both the top iPad and iPhone free charts despite being out for less than 3 months
• Price homogeneity: The rise of in-app purchases as a legitimate – if controversial – revenue generator means that prices have dropped to around the 69p mark. Electronic Arts have heavily discounted their titles, including FIFA 13, to raise the user base and drive in-app purchases
• Few five star games: Inevitably, scale can lead to hype and disappointment and so only 3 of the 100 apps featured have 5 star ratings – Cut the Rope and Plants vs Zombies in iPhone, and The Room on iPad
• Free entertainment apps lag in score: Free music and entertainment apps score relatively lowly – with the exception of TV Catchup, the highest score is 3.5. YouTube trails with a score of 2, presumably due to complaints that the previous pre-installed app was removed (at Apple’s behest)
• Device differences remain: 12 free apps and 9 paid apps appear in both iPad and iPhone lists, but the differences point to how the devices remain distinct. The iPhone is a personal device used on the go for timely information; the iPad is a lean-back device, that can also be used for creation
• The future: How will the list differ when the next milestone (100 billion?) is reached? Will we see Vine or Snapchat enter the free charts? Will the next wave of franchise games prove more popular than the last? Will the TV companion app to beat all other companion apps truly emerge? I’m going to chicken out of making any predictions, but any or all of the above could happen

Pictures of the charts are below, and can be clicked on to expand into a more readable version.

sk

The speakers all had a slightly different perspectives, but there were several common threads running across the talks – notably muppets, memes and motherfather fruity language.

One major question was why we should be innovating at all. Lots of great stuff already exists, so why try and change things just for the sake of it? Well, on one hand, customers are constantly evolving their behaviours so innovation is required just to keep up with them. But also, and quite self-servingly, agencies are employed to be the smartest people in the room and so there is an implicit requirement to innovate in order to justify their hiring.

This can understandably be a problem, because if you are an agency specialising in x, then the answer to the business question will obviously be x, irrespective of what the question is. There can also be a tension between “innovation snobbery” and appreciation of the target audience: people in Cannes and Campaign magazine might appreciate the shiny new idea, but the general public may not.

For innovation to be effective, it needs to be beyond an idea. It should be about ends and not means. Innovations should affect our audience’s behaviours, and to do this we need to influence their motivations and opportunities.

To reflect that, innovation shouldn’t be limited to processes or environments, but to entire business models. It shouldn’t be about answering the how, but the what. And even beyond the what, the why: Why are we in this business? What are we trying to achieve? This requires investment, to fully appraise and understand the situation, and to experiment. Because innovation requires bets – strategic risks that may or may not pay off. But before that can happen, the role of innovation needs to be properly defined.

And coming up with a specific definition can be problematic. Innovation is such a wide and fuzzy topic that the disparity between theory and practice can be wide. Which is apt, as it facilitates creative experimentation to close the gap.

The talks were:

• Why innovative ≠ innovation by Pats McDonald of Isobar
• A talk by Anjali Ramachandran of PHD
• Resign Thinking by Antony Mayfield of Brilliant Noise
• A talk by Beeker Northam, a freelancer
• Innovation is a bet not an experiment by Phil Adams of Blonde
• Innovation = Uncertainty by Glyn Britton of Albion
• Mapping media innovation by Graeme Wood of LBi
• A talk by Nadya Powell of Dare

sk

Image credit: Neil Perkin

Important, but not necessary – and certainly not sufficient. Not all of the media hype cycles have come to pass – Second Life being an oft-cited example.

However, the likes of Myspace, Facebook and Twitter have seen mass media exposure prior to mass adoption. Twitter in particular has seen a big discrepancy between media coverage and actual usage. But while it remains in the minority, it continues to grow and I think it is safe to say it is part of the mainstream.

What differs between Second Life and the successful social networks? In addition to the profile among influencers (and I do think traditional media is an influencer), I’d argue that they are aspirational in that they can connect you to people you admire – whether your near friends or favourite celebrities or bands – with whom you can exchange social currency. It might be clouded by hindsight, but I recall the coverage of Second Life being more aloof, treating it more like a curio than a natural development of the internet.

In terms of social currency, TV remains central (e.g. one third of all tweets are about TV), and therefore developments with TV are always going to be treated with interest. Shazam is getting some good coverage at the moment, but nothing to the extent of Netflix. Netflix is still a relatively new proposition in the UK, but it’s original content strategy has meant that it has already pushed past Lovefilm in the media consciousness (I’m not sure about subscriptions). Could mainstream media coverage push Netflix into widespread adoption?

Now, traditional media will be covering Netflix with a note of caution, given concern of existing business models and the now infamous quote from Reed Hastings that “the goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us”. And there is no guarantee that future releases such as the upcoming Ricky Gervais project will receive the same volume of coverage as House of Cards. In fact that is probably likely, though I was surprised by the sheer scale of the coverage this time given a) their previous release Lilyhammer didn’t b) the model of pre-paying for and filming an entire series is – unlike in the US, where shows such as 30 Rock have reacted to response to the early episodes – well-established in the UK and c) it’s not as if series-stacking is a new phenomenon.

Unlike the social sites that can receive continuous coverage bolstered by specific events, Netflix is relying on several big bang launches scheduled across the year. This might make it more difficult to replicate, but a few early successes can set the template for subsequent releases, in the manner that Apple’s iLaunches do.

Without taking into account the other factors (audience benefit, price point etc), the volume of media coverage does put Netflix in a solid position to challenge the existing TV landscape, and break into the mainstream.

Now I’m not on Netflix yet, but could I be? Well, it would be a more cost-efficient process than building upon my DVD collection and given that I’m a big fan of Arrested Development (Netflix’s next release), then my reaction to any forthcoming trial offers would be “Come on!“.

sk

Top 5 Films

(Released in UK cinemas in 2012, which I have seen)

1. The Artist
2. Amour
3. The Imposter
4. The Cabin In The Woods
5. Beasts of the Southern Wild

Top 5 Albums

(Released in the UK in 2012, which I have heard. Links point to Spotify)

1. channel ORANGE by Frank Ocean
2. Celebration Rock by Japandroids
3. The Idler Wheel… by Fiona Apple
4. Bloom by Beach House
5. Put Your Back N 2 It by Perfume Genius

Top 5 Gigs

(That I attended in 2012)

1. M83 @ Somerset House
2. At The Drive-In @ Brixton Academy
3. Robyn @ Pitchfork Festival, Parc de Villette
4. Explosions In The Sky @ Brixton Academy
5. 65daysofstatic @ Highbury Garage

Top 5 TV series

(That I watched in 2012. Links point to IMDB)

1. Breaking Bad Series 3
2. Sherlock Series 2
3. Game of Thrones Series 2
4. The Hour Series 2
5. Community Series 1

Top 5 books

(That I read in 2012. Links point to Amazon)

1. A Song of Fire and Ice by George R.R. Martin
2. From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell
3. Wolf Hall by Hillary Mantel
4. The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
5. Netherland by Joseph O’Neill

Bring on 2013.

sk

Generally speaking, Twitter users prefer to follow personal accounts to branded accounts. 18 of the top 20 twenty Twitter accounts (as of end of November 2012) are personal accounts, with only YouTube and Twitter representing brands.

This isn’t surprising. Branded accounts retain the official corporate line. Personal accounts go beyond (or give the illusion of going beyond) the controlled publicity to see what an individual is really life; fans can follow their idols, and vicariously get a feel of what their lives are like.

With TV and radio programmes, there is also the issue of scheduling – celebrities live their lives 24/7 whereas programmes have a limited run. News is the exception to this – and this is borne out by accounts such as BBC Breaking have higher follower counts than individual reporters, who while prolific ultimately will work in shifts.

Does this mean brands should forego official accounts, and instead concentrate on a mixture of staff accounts and hired celebrity spokespeople? No. Branded accounts have a useful role to play, albeit perhaps not on the scale of celebrities. Examples of successful branded accounts include:

• The QI Elves: Interesting facts and trivia, and upcoming scheduling information, to complement the broadcast
• Waterstones: Quotes, offers, and information about book signings
• Betfair Poker: Mostly irreverent, comedic posts entertaining in their own right

These accounts work because they retain a consistent tone of voice that is coherent with the brand, but offer value in their own right.

However, brands can and should try to work alongside personal accounts, to tap into their legion of loyal followers to help amplify key messages.

Unfortunately, this isn’t without its dangers. The good, the bad and the ugly of Twitter personal accounts runs something like:

The Good:

• A picture of Barack and Michelle Obama after re-election is the most retweeted post of all time (817,00 and counting), highlighting the power of the personal touch
• One Direction updated their millions of followers about their appearances on Children in Need – this tweet from Harry Styles, which included their official account, was retweeted over 23,000 times
• Modern Family utilise Twitter’s curated pages to bring together their cast for live-tweeting, increasing the allure of the live broadcast (which helps advertising and ratings), and improving audience engagement with the content
• Question Time capitalised on the popularity of the Twitter conversation to introduce an Extra Guest account, to help further the debate around the hashtag #bbcqt

The Bad:

• Accuracy can not always be verified, as people such as Sally Bercow have found to their potential cost
• Enthusiastic tweeters may send out information that their employers would rather they didn’t, such as when Lewis Hamilton tweeted sensitive information around his telemetry
• Twitter can take control away from the brand or individual, so initiatives such as hashtags shouldn’t be encouraged when there is considerable ill-feeling, as Steven Gerrard and adidas found out
• Individuals tend to carry their phone with them all day, which means they have the potential to reach to Twitter when they are off-duty and inebriated. Huey Morgan had to apologise to his Radio 6 Music colleague Lauren Laverne after a drunken rant.

The Ugly:

• The asymmetric nature of Twitter means anyone can reply to anyone else – whether it is good or bad. There have been notable incidents of people leaving Twitter (such as Helen Skelton, who later returned) due to the abuse they received
• The opposite reaction is to retaliate. This is rarely for the better, as it can distract from the initial offensive incident – as Rihanna found out.
• A lot of abuse is hurtful, but in some instances it can border on illegality. The highest profile incident of the past few months was with regard to Tom Daley
• The internet doesn’t forget, and some individuals can often find past incidents repeatedly mentioned. He may not be the most repentant of individuals, but Chris Brown is often reminded of domestic abuse.

While there are many benefits, there are also many obstacles to using personal accounts. This doesn’t mean that brands shouldn’t seek to work with key individuals. But it does mean a lot of caution is required – both in ensuring editorial best practice is maintained, but also in ensuring that the individual’s well-being remains protected. Both of these can be achieved through up-front training and periodic reminders.

sk

PS This is my first time using the new WordPress post layout, heavily “inspired” by Tumblr. Once I got over the surprise, I realised I quite liked it.

My blog isn’t dead but it is less frequently updated – going from around twice-weekly to fortnightly to now around bi-monthly. I’m not alone, with many of the blogs I bookmark or subscribe to having become far less active. If I’d retained the same energy in blogging as I had several years ago I’d refresh my blogroll. But…

Is Clay Shirky’s utopian vision of cognitive surplus channelled not into consumption but in creation less likely to come true? It depends on definitions – creation is easier than ever. We can automate actions or post photos from our phone. Why expend more effort, when there is much media to be consumed. It is almost perverse not to want to consume media, given the surfeit of options available. I didn’t blog at all in August, because I felt my personal time was better spent catching up with box sets, reading epic fantasy novels, listening to re-formed bands,  playing computer games and getting caught up in the craze of sporting events, among many other media choices. My interests are unique to me, but I found more than enough things to occupy my attention.

Some of the reasons for my blogging less frequently are particular to me – such as an internal-facing job restricting the amount of interesting work-related things I can talk about. But there also seems to be broader trends that has reduced the prominence of blogging:

• Alternatives: Online participation is getting simpler and quicker – why construct a detailed blog when you can quickly update via Twitter, Instagram or Pinterest
• Aggregators: RSS never really took off (though I still use Google Reader) and Twitter links can get swallowed by the stream. In short, it is difficult for individual blogs to surface – instead it is far easier to write a column on a widely read website, whether it be Buzzfeed, Huffington Post or a more niche site.
• Tighter corporate policies: Corporations are now savvier to social media. They will have policies, and encourage employees to channel their energies into official destinations rather than personal ones. I don’t think it is coincidental that most of the blogs I read that remain vibrant are those written by either consultants or business owners.
• No more novelty: A blog is initially filled with things people have been waiting to say for ages. Eventually, we run out of things to say. And once the novelty wears off, we try less hard to think of something to say.
• The hive mind: We gravitate towards people who have similar interests or opinions to ourselves. In blogging, that means certain topics can become a flavour of the month, and it can become difficult to add to existing noise regarding a certain topic. I referenced Cognitive Surplus earlier. I’ve never read it. Nor have I read Predictably Irrational, Groundswell, How We Decide, Thinking Fast & Slow etc. I’ve never needed to – I’ve absorbed all of the key points multiple times over from blogs on the subjects.

Blogging won’t die, and this blog won’t die. As this post proves, occasionally there is the need to write something more considered or more verbose than a tweet. But the gaps between these needs arising are becoming longer.

A few years ago I purchased a URL and some storage, with the intention of self-hosting a personal website. I never got around to transferring this blog. Sadly, it appears like I never will…

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/helico/1568566210

Since then?

“U.S. tablet usage hits ‘critical mass,’ ComScore reports”

“iPods changed the media industry, iPhones ramped even faster; iPad growth leaves siblings in the dark” – Mary Meeker.

Tablets have been more successful than I envisaged.

However, we’re not quite in “mea culpa” territory yet. Comscore’s stat is among smartphone owners, not adults, while the iPad has benefited from iPod and iPhone’s introduction and success – from production and distribution mechanisms to consumer desire of the Apple brand. Also, just because last year saw x% growth doesn’t mean this year will see x% growth. And finally, semantically, people still don’t need an iPad. People just want one.

Tablets aren’t mainstream. Yet. Could they be?

Potentially, the main barrier to tablets becoming mainstream is category distinction. There is a dotted line going from the iPhone’s 3.5 inch screen to the Galaxy Note’s 5.3 inches to the Kindle Fire’s 7 inches to the iPad’s 9.8 inches to the Galaxy tab’s 10.1 inches. With the Asus Transformer Prime paving the way for touch-screen laptops, tablets could get squeezed between smartphones and next generation computers into oblivion. The battle could be less about size, and more about open vs closed ecosystems.

But if the tablet market stabilises at one or two form factors – say 7 and 10 inches – could it achieve mainstream success? Possibly, though I think game console ownership could be a useful comparison point in that tablet computers are desirable but not essential.

Their desirability stems from their usage occasions, which is the key component I overlooked in my 2010 post. Tablet use does not compete directly with phones (out and about) or computers (largely fixed location at home/office) – instead they are used primarily in the living room, bedroom and on holiday (Source). Why is that?

• Living rooms are a social space. The tablet is the most social device – it is tactile and better than either a mobile or laptop for showing and sharing
• Living rooms are dominated by the television. The tablet is the best device to switch out of standby and begin browsing or chatting – whether as a companion experience or independent to the viewing
• Living rooms are a place of relaxation. Casual gaming is now huge. Angry Birds on a tablet is a far better user experience than on a phone (particularly for the less dexterous), and casual games aren’t as visible on laptops
• Bedrooms are for preparing for sleep as well as sleeping. E-readers and tablets are fundamentally changing the book-reading industry (and potentially the newspaper and magazine industry, though I think this will be more difficult given that a book is a coherent narrative, and newspapers and magazines are great at editing disparate content)
• Holidays and travel in general require equipment that can do as much as possible in as little space as possible. A tablet is ideal.

All of these functions can be performed by phones, laptops or traditional media but the tablet hits the sweet spot. Hence penetration grows, and with the introduction of the Kindle Fire, Nexus 7, Surface etc it will continue to do so for a while yet. Though I’m still not certain tablets will become mass, they can certainly become mainstream.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pswansen/5680074913

There have been many debates about privacy and user data recently, not least given the rewriting of Google’s terms of service and questions over who is generating the value in Facebook’s IPO price.  I’ve tangentially been thinking about the legacy of data a result.

1. Can a person reinvent themselves in the social media era?

Human lives are wonderfully random and unpredictable, but within this unfortunate or regrettable things can happen. Structured data can maintain links between different stages of life (and death) – do we want that? And if we don’t, how can organisations that hold such data respond? Or indeed should they, given  the question-marks over data ownership.

On the first question, I remember reading a while back someone (though I can’t remember who) saying that Bob Dylan couldn’t exist in the 21st century, since people would quickly find out that Nowhere Boy was just Robert Zimmerman from Minnesota, and the mystique would be destroyed. To some extent, this has been borne out, with Lady Gaga still connected to Stefani Germanotta and Lana Del Ray to Lizzie Grant. Yet, despite the backlashes and meta commentary, the majority of people don’t seem to care about the past. The first viewing of Video Games on YouTube is day zero, as far as Lana Del Ray’s fans are concerned (Personally, I haven’t gotten further than the Lana Del Ray dancing Tumblr).

Yet, the stages of Lizzie Grant’s existence wouldn’t be so disconnected in a Facebook timeline. People would easily be able to browse the gradual (or not) evolution – even with a scorched earth policy some recorded activity will be outside of the individual’s control. Does this matter? In some instances, it does. There have been reported instances of companies demanding prospective employee’s Facebook passwords. The sheer idiocy of it makes it sound absurd, but it could potentially be destructive. A 22 year old graduate could have been on Facebook since he or she was 15 or 16. Facebook will keep a record of all that individual’s actions and misdemeanours through school, university and work, charting the progress of that person growing up – actions which could have otherwise been long since forgotten or disregarded. For instance, when I was 16 I thought that Significant Other was a better album than OK Computer. And that would just be the least of my concerns.

One could argue that people should have a mental filter in place when deciding what to put on the internet. This ignores the fact that you can’t control what other people put online about you (cf. Rick Santorum), but also that future-proofing social media is hardly at the forefront of people’s minds. Even anonymous tumblrs can be linked back to people’s Facebook or Linked In accounts, should the investigator be willing to try hard enough.

There is no specific answer I am trying to get to, or position I’m trying to achieve with the above line of thinking. It is merely an observation of the data trail our evolving personalities leave. Google Circles are hard enough to maintain when the information is static; longitudinal information over an extended period of time will be even more difficult.

2. What happens to someone’s data in the long-term?

Twitter, as many other services do, offer recommendations on who to connect with. This is a screenshot of a recent recommendation.

The middle account – Martin Skidmore – hasn’t been updated since July 21st 2011. Now, I’ve never met Martin Skidmore but I’ve heard of his name via friends of mine who have very nice things to say about him. I also know that he died last year.

Now Martin’s Twitter profile (as I assume his other profiles) has remained static. Is that right? Should we keep a person’s profile as it is, and enable others to interact with it (even with the potential of notifications suggesting you reconnect)? Or perhaps profiles should be frozen and turned into a shrine or memoriam (some final entries might be elegiac, but I suspect most would be fairly banal, and there is also the potential to be greeted with a suicide note) Or should these profiles be removed completely (deleting interactions with friends or contacts in the process)?

I don’t know the answer. It is a highly emotive issue, and people will have different opinions. It also opens the question over who has the right to decide – should there be a digital will? Though of course final wishes aren’t always observed, as with the case of Vladimir Nabokov and his final manuscript. And of course there are practical questions over how we deal with multiple accounts and fragmented online activity. Facebook might be the central point for most people, but there are also blogs, microblogs, social networks and website profiles all in existence, potentially all linked to the same email address. Should there be a responsibility on the email provider to track down all of these profiles, to allow the family to settle the affairs?

(I have a vague recollection of a service existing whereby if an account wasn’t accessed for a period of time then it would automatically notify everyone in the address book that the person was dead. However, I can’t recall where I heard of it, or what it was called).

The amount of information being put on the internet appears to be growing exponentially, with nodes linked together in many ways. Structurally, data trails are a mess. Do we need to reach a place where “we” (as bottom-up individuals, or top-down conglomerated organisations) start to clean and tidy this environment and avoid the equivalent of space debris harming our online experience? Or is it something we just accept, as the more things change the more we want things to stay the same?

sk

Image credit: Errr… there was about a 2 month gap between me drafting and publishing and I didn’t save the link. Apologies – if it is yours then let me know and I’ll credit accordingly

Data below is correct as of March 6th. Where apps are universal (ie they can be downloaded on both iPhones/iPods and iPads), I have included their reviews and rating within the iPhone charts as iPad cannot be split out (and the disparity in installed bases means it is safe to assume that the majority of actions relate to iPhones). Apple don’t release download figures, but news stories such as this one can help establish some benchmarks for estimates.

Click the images or open them in a new tab in order to make them more legible.

So what can we tell from these charts?

• Games dominate the paid-for charts: 42 of the 50 paid apps are games, but it doesn’t dominate the free charts to the same extent – although people pay for games, they are transitory and can be superseded by sequels or alternatives – unlike information-based apps
• Games are much better at encouraging ratings/reviews: Games have three times as many reviews/ratings as non-games: Demographics might play a factor (younger game players being more likely to rate) but many games also prompt people within apps to give reviews or ratings, as positive reviews are a major factor in deciding which app to download
• It helps to be early: Despite ever-increasing user bases, only 4 of the top 50 iPhone apps were released after 2010. Getting in early, and reaping the benefits of large numbers of reviews and ratings, provides a strong profile even among newer users
• Time sensitivity on iPhone is key: Nearly all of the top iPhone apps (outside of games/entertainment) are either time sensitive or impulse – social networks, news, weather, search etc.
• Three of the top 4 iPad apps are TV catch-up services, and another four of the top apps are news services. The tablet is living up to its reputation for lean-back media consumption
• But can the iPad also cater to business needs?  A quarter of the top Paid apps (including the number one app) are productivity or education based. This suggests the affluent, business-orientated user base are experimenting with using their iPads to replace other devices. Will this experimentation turn into habit?

sk

“Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled.” Howard Stevenson, Harvard Business School

This rather optimistic and aspirational definition was perfectly embodied by the three speakers. Each came from a slightly different angle, but their passion was evident. While I went into the event thinking that it was probably the least “relevant to my interests”, I came out it more inspired than I have been at the three previous events (which itself is a high benchmark). You don’t have to run your own company to apply the principles they were espousing.

Some of the most resonant quotes and thoughts I jotted down include:

David Hieatt (Howies, Hiut Jeans and the Do Lectures)

• “Artists and perfectionists want to sign their work” – such as Steve Jobs asking the Apple engineers to sign the motherboard of the Apple Macinstosh
• “Why is the wind in your sail” – it is the motivation for doing something
• “Quality is doing well in the recession” – buy less, buy better
• “Recognise luck and act upon it” – he wasn’t unlucky that he sold Howies to wrong people, but he was lucky that he lives in a town with a heritage of jeans expertise
• “You’ve got to love your product, and love your customer”
• “Hand-me downs have memories” – which is why his jeans have a history tag on jeans, which can store uploaded photos among other things

Toby Barnes (Mudlark and Playful)

• The internet has changed hobbies – they now have an audience
• We are not only sharing hobbies, but sharing the process via photos and blogs – this could be dangerous if we start to base things on what we think the general audience wants
• Instead, we should make something good for an audience of one and then scale that out – if one person likes something, it is likely that someone else will
• William Morris said that being a craftsman is all about hope – hoping the outcome will be good, or better than last time, or that someone will like it

Adil Abrar (Sidekick Studios)

• “Do something you love with the people you love”
• Head for the ditch – making a bad product is a good way to get honest feedback and improve a product (he thinks it is far better than a focus group – though Peter Kim would disagree on the notion of failure)
• Bring the crazy to the world – don’t stay on the fringes
• Vision changes, values do not – ideas can change, but your fundamental motivations stay the same (a semantic quibble, but I think execution would be a more apt word than vision)
• Solve problems that really matter – such as helping people who are dealing with mental health issues, as the excellent Buddy App does

Unfortunately I couldn’t stay for the unconference or the wrap-up, but the above gave many things to ponder about. Particularly around the question of why – which is the most powerful and most fundamental question, and also an extremely (and deceptively) difficult question to answer. These three entrepreneurs have discovered their reason why; we need to find ours.

sk