Author Archives: Yang Chung

Founders at Work – Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve recently picked up a book called Founders at Work. I thought I’ve heard about it when I was trying out my start-up in 2006, but it has copyright date of 2007. It is a collection of interviews of founders at various (successful) start-ups.

There are definite similarities between all these successful founders.

  1. Most of them were singles when they started companies.
  2. They all started early, mostly around college period and sometimes in high school.
  3. Because they started early, they were all inexperienced and naive. Yet, most of them got funding from VCs. That seems to contradict conventional belief that VCs bet on a jockey, not on a horse. Big difference? Working prototype. They all had products and prototype already working.
  4. Most of them had gone through some tough times during the life of the start-up.
  5. Their first idea rarely worked. Many have gone through multiple iteration of ideas to get it right.
  6. Most had good partners and co-founders that supported each other in tough times. They all persevered, and made it at the end.
  7. They all attributed a lot of their successes to luck. It’s not that they didn’t work hard and only waited for Lady Luck to smile at them. They worked really hard, and while things could have gone many different ways, some things just fell into place….by chance.

I haven’t finished the book, but I have to wonder if I had given up my company way too early. There were many additional obstacles; like having to support the family and having no committed co-founder (my partner left in less than six months). Though, I don’t regret having started a company. It was once-in-a-lifetime experience. Another thing the book said was that start-ups tend to require more than professional commitment from employees. People say you don’t get in to business with friends, but start-ups do need friends because of its high emotional requirements.

Nevertheless, it’s very interesting book. I wish I had read this book before I started my company.

Open, Closed and Whole Product

Posted on by
Reply

In previous entries, I have covered the rate of change in technology advances, peril of attempting to predict the future, and current trend in developments of cloud computing, data centers, and smart phones. A report by NPD says that iPhone 3G is now the best-selling smart phone (past BlackBerry’s and Palm Treo’s) and 2nd-best selling phone after Motorola Razr in US. The proliferation of new smart phones and the birth of whole new eco-system of applications developed by any programmers and available to all users present interesting security problems.

Mobile phones in general are now considered an essential item in one’s life. It’s hard to imagine what the world was like without them, not being able to connect to anyone at anytime from anywhere (even interrupting us at anytime). Most people nowadays cannot imagine what it was like before the Internet and mobile phones. Because of its portability and must-have status, the number of mobile phones vastly outnumbers any devices that connect to the Internet.

I can’t say for any other countries, but in US, smart phones are absolutely necessary in business because of its ability to access corporate emails and calendar. In fact, they are two major functions why millions of business users buy smart phones, which have become mandatory communications device for business users.

In addition to the vast volume of general mobile phones, smart phones are becoming more and more like small computers. With wide variety of applications available to download and install, new smart phone users enjoy the same freedom of choosing whichever application they’d like to use as those desktop users. As a rule of thumb, the technology advancement will continue and they may become as powerful as some laptops, as today’s laptops are as fast and powerful as desktop. It’s inevitable and just matter of time.

So, if you think about billions of laptop-like mobile devices with wide variety of Internet applications, any security professional will cringe. Infecting mobile devices with malicious code could result in devastating results. All the personal information stored on the laptop including address book and emails could be leaked. Someone could also tap into user’s location information through GPS and keep tracking the user for criminal purpose. Since they will become as powerful as some laptops, it’s entirely conceivable that some sort of P2P applications (good or bad) might be developed for mobile phones. As more advanced botnet uses encrypted P2P network rather than traditional IRC channels, the mobile botnet can be certainly created with P2P network as well.

Apple keeps tight control over applications developed for iPhone, but when the number of applications is increasing faster and faster, they won’t be able to keep the full control. However, restriction and control are not the answer. They will only limit innovations and may even kill the very technology and/or product it is trying to protect. Internet was able to flourish because it was open. While there are some parasites, the benefits of openness vastly outweigh negatives. There are numerous cases when open system/architecture triumphed over closed counterpart. Open system encourages competition, which in turn fosters innovations in the market. Then, how does one make money in such environment? It may not be easy, but it’s possible. Good example is Cisco. Most Cisco products are based on open standards, yet they command highest market share in most markets. Worse yet, they do not build the best or the fastest products in the industry. Slightly different, but similarly, Apple was able to come in to crowded MP3 player market and dominate in short period of time. There is no secret to make a MP3 player, as you can see in high number of MP3 manufacturers. How did Apple do it? Is it because it looks beautiful? Americans are quite practical folks. Knowledge of America might be limited to what they see on TV or movies for some, but most Americans are definitely not frivolous. It wasn’t because of its looks. Then, how did Apple succeed?

In marketing there is a concept of “Whole Product.” It’s not enough to win in the market with just main product. In order to complete user’s experience, you have to consider what user would go through from before the purchase to what afterwards. Apple iPod was successful because of iTune software and iTune store. In order to complete MP3 experience, a user would have to find a way to manage his music collection and a way to add more songs (either by ripping a CD or buying online). iTune software and store completed that, and they worked flawlessly with iPod. How about Cisco? Cisco’s “Whole Product” is Cisco product plus millions of professional service and technical support professionals either from Cisco or 3rd-party vendors. Cisco made it legitimate with its certification program so that their customers, if chose to seek outside help, can find quality professionals by checking their certificates. It’s this auxiliary knowledge base that is keeping Cisco in the top place. Because they are market leaders and have most customers, their position is reinforced by many other companies that build and offer additional auxiliary items/accessories and service for them such as cases, boom boxes, adapters for iPod or training centers, system/network integrators for Cisco.

So which way is right for mobile security? It’s a million dollar question, and also where incredibly attractive opportunity could be.

Danger of isolation

Posted on by
Reply

The release of Chrome solidifies the importance of web browser and decline of desktop in the future of computing. There is a new wave of computing revolution going on, and I am afraid Korea is being left behind in spite of its blindingly fast technology adoption. I believe here is where the difference lies: adoption vs. innovation.

Since the birth of the Internet, Software-as-a-service (SaaS) model has been attempted (remember those Application Service Providers in the early 2000’s?), but it truly gained momentum with rush of web 2.0 sites and also wild success of mega Internet companies like Google, Amazon, eBay, and etc. Since these companies needed to have massive processing power and deal with tremendous amount of data, they were early (commercial) adopters of high-performance computing. They wanted to monetize their expertise in running scalable data centers, and that’s how (commercial) cloud computing was born. Both Google and Amazon let a company or individual to run their web applications in their data centers and they charge only for resources used. This is especially good for web 2.0 start-up companies who cannot afford to run their own scalable data centers. Current cloud computing service isn’t perfect as demonstrated by outages from both companies. But, you can bet this is where the future of computing is headed. In turn this is also pushing development of products specifically targeting high-performance data centers, and both larger companies such as Cisco and Juniper and many start-up companies are jumping in the bandwagon.

This is also exactly why desktop and subsequently operating system is losing its significance. In other words, they both are going back to their basics, as they were meant to be. There is no reason for bloated OS. Actually some will even argue that OS is really just the kernel and anything else is application. It’s a religious war that I don’t want to get into. Nevertheless, it’s clear that as desktop applications move to the Internet (or cloud or somewhere remote accessible by URL or IP address), web browser becomes the window to all the applications. It doesn’t matter whether you use Windows OS, MAC OS, or Linux OS, all you need is a web browser. There will be some specific desktop markets that always need more processing power such as gaming and intensive computer graphics, and they will become only small fraction of entire desktop market.

This whole trend got me thinking about how come Korea wasn’t able to cash in on its technology achievements. Anyway you look, numbers are amazing: highest broadband penetration, highly advanced mobile phones, highest mobile Internet speed, and etc. But why doesn’t Korea lead rest of the world in Internet or mobile innovations? Why isn’t there a Korean company or innovation that everyone talks about as setting the trend for the future, changing status quo, and making significant differences in high-tech world? Why isn’t there a Korean people talk in the same breath as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Joy, Andy Bechtolsheim, Will Wright, etc.? Then I realized that it was because what we see on the surface is the result of fast adoption, not innovation. In addition, Korea is too isolated in terms of its technology reach. Concepts like Software-as-a-Service or cloud computing should have been initiated in Korea. Online gaming craze in Korea is well published even in US, but it’s a result of people spending tons of time playing games programmed and published elsewhere. Should fraction of these gamers have studied programming instead, we may have a different story. The social networking website was also pioneered in Korea. Cyworld was hugely popular and successful in Korea, but they failed to capitalize outside Korea. They tried much later, but it was too little, too late. A recent report shows that Facebook, a hugely popular social networking website in US, is growing the fastest outside US. I saw some report in Korea that complained Mozilla’s Firefox and Google’s Chrome do not display most of Korean websites correctly. It’s because most Korean websites were developed for Microsoft’s ASP.Net. This is certainly not Mozilla’s or Google’s faults, and they certainly should not change its code to support non-W3C standard web pages. Korean mobile manufacturers have been in mobile phone industry for a while, but they never have generated hype and loyal following like Apple had with iPhone (to be fair, it applies to all other mobile phone makers). Also, by opening of API and free SDK, and allowing users to buy and install any applications they wish, Apple is pushing mobile application development to whole another level. In addition, Google’s open-source based Android phone is sure to bring additional push for mobile application innovation. What’s interesting is while Apple has full control over its hardware, Google doesn’t. Google relies on others for hardware, and this is quite similar to Microsoft and cheap PC hardware alternatives to IBM PC and its OS. Mobile phone’s hardware is getting commoditized, as all electronic hardware goes through, and tremendous value is placed in OS and other software running on top. That’s why Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the most well-known VC in the Silicon Valley, has created $100 million iFund to invest in iPhone and iPod Touch applications. In addition, Research In Motion, the RBC and Thomson Reuters have invested in an $150 million venture investment fund, called the BlackBerry Partners Fund, to support developers of applications running primarily on the Blackberry.

In essence, I think Korea’s high-tech industry is not taking full advantage of its potential. One major part of the problem is the whole start-up environment, from investment community to engineers and marketing folks who are too isolated. When a start-up is started, it should look to US and Europe (and perhaps China) as its main markets, not Korea. Products should be architected and designed for more than just Korean market. The key to successful business outside Korea is to understand local business and consumer cultures, so Korean companies should not be shy of hiring someone outside Korea, and also tolerate other cultures or different way of thinking. Also, you need more personal investors willing to take very high risks and provide seed money. Successful entrepreneurs should be available to offer advice to those in need. Koreans are no doubt very smart on paper. What separates them and successful entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley are basically thought processes: creative problem solving, seeing beyond what’s obvious, thinking outside the box, etc. There is a reason why most innovations and value/wealth creation is still happening in the Silicon Valley. One of the reasons is general acceptance of immigrants and differences in cultures and thinking. Silicon Valley’s position may certainly change in the future, but so far I believe it is still here. I sincerely hope that Korea can take full advantage of its highly-educated, smart population and its technology achievements to start creating values outside Korea (but NOT with Government initiatives). She has the potential and just needs to spread her wings.

Whole Product

Posted on by
Reply

The concept of “Whole Product” has been well known. In order to complete user experience, you need additional products, features or services in addition to the main product. For Apple iPod, it was the iTune that managed music collection as well as vehicle to buy a song at $0.99 (as opposed to buying an entire album). Apple perfected the art with iPhone and its App Store.

Thinking back, Samsung made critical mistake when trying to enter enterprise networking market. Most companies buy Cisco products not only for their technology, but also support and professional services, which make up the whole product. Even though networking products are based on open standards (IETF), because enterprise network is complicated and mission critical, it’s important to design it correctly and to receive immediate support when something goes wrong. Samsung wasn’t willing to invest money in the support and services structure.
Along with iPhone, Google’s Android phones will also have Application Marketplace, so it would be very interesting if the success can be replicated. I say it would, but we shall see. There is clear business model for Apple iPhone application developers (by charging for apps), but I don’t see it for Android. I suppose they would have to give developers freedom to charge for an application. So far I think they are supposed to be free, but money could be very strong motivator, so Google should strongly consider it.

Mobile app – P2P or mesh

Posted on by
1

If mobile phones (more like smart phones) are becoming mini-computers, it is very conceivable that many things you run on desktop could be run on smart phones.

The major differences between the two are mobility, contraints and the volume. I was thinking about the last part. There are supposed to be around 3 billion mobile phones in the world, as opposed to some several hundred million PCs. Also most phones are on all the time, albeit in standby mode. If some applications are running all the time, battery wouldn’t last long. If you consider all the phones worldwide, there will be millions phones on at one time.
If there is a way to tap on to each of those phones, combined productivity would be great. There is one sort of application that utilizes a great number of folks downloading at the same time, and it is BitTorrent. Can you imagine BitTorrent running on most smart phones……either streaming or downloading? You can easily max out network capacity…., and your other mobile applications would suffer. The idea of creating mesh network using mobile phones in proximity has been aroudn for a while. It could be doable, but what would be the purpose? Mobile P2P would be cool, but what useful thing can you do with it?
It brings me memory of using the first VoIP app. I was in college, and I remember using it in a dorm room…, and I can’t remember the name of the app, but all I remember is that it really sucked and I was really disappointed. Like any new technology, I think the first batch would be more of “proof-of-concept”. But, it’s almost like evolution – that technology will improve, and at some point, environment will be ripe for the app(s).
I truly believe it’s only matter of time that some sort of P2P or mesh networking. You know, that’s why I think iPhone will lose to hundreds of gPhones. iPhone will kill those applications, but gPhone is for freedom. You can hack it. You can install any applications. You can probably even install modified OS. gPhone will spur much more innovations than iPhone. It’s substance vs. style, and I’d go for substance (with style). :)

History repeats itself? iPhone and Apple Mac’s

Posted on by
Reply

My current mobile contract is over in October. I set my mind to buy an iPhone next, but then T-Mobile’s Android phone, G1 will be also available in October. That complicates things a little bit.

But one thing is for sure. I don’t like G1. HTC and T-Mobile should’ve done better job at designing an aesthetic phone. It’s fugly. I see it as a beta phone, and I hope Samsung or LG make much better Android phones. Then shall I wait till those phones are available? Next Android phone is most likely from Sprint, and I wouldn’t buy it even if it’s free (unless I can unlock it and use it in AT&T network!) because Sprint network sucks and the company will be extinct in a few (or several) years.

It also dawned to me that there are some similarities between different routes PC/Mac took and how Apple and Google are approaching mobile market. Apple iPhone is definitely vertically integrated. Apple controls the hardware, but lets 3rd-party software developers to publish their applications as long as Apple approves them (thus the similar to Mac). On the other hand, Google’s Android is open-source and it relies on others to make platforms and anyone can develop software (thus similar to Microsoft and PC). Even in Google’s case, I think they would need to screen some applications that might be borderline immoral – offensive, racist, unethical, or just plain wrong (wrong on whose standard? That could be a source for a debate). So, with such parallism, I have to wonder whether iPhone will suffer the same fate as old Mac did. While many phone manufacturers are coming up with different phones with different tastes (thus much broader appealing than iPhone), iPhone will be limited to designs that Apple can release.

In addition, as recent smart phones have demonstrated, future mobile phones will be just like mini computers. There will some mini computers for average folks, some for advanced, and some for ultra geeks who may even buy off-the-shelf-components and build their own. The key is to let hardware vendors package them differently and target different market segments. Google just provides OS and default search, many many 3rd-party developers offer their applications. This is what Microsoft wanted with its Windows Mobile OS, but Google is definitely crashing Microsoft’s party. Who would win? I don’t know about you, but I am going to bet on Google. Google (Android) will dominate smart phone OS in 3-5 years. Because it is open source, someone can easily build an affortable smart phone based on Android and create mini smart phone reveolution in developing nations, where cheap phones are dominant, but people will naturally want to move up to better, sophisticated phones. In other words, even in smart phone market, there will be different segments; more basic, cheaper to advanced, more expensive phones. Someone might even sell mobile phone kit(s) with different components.

One hurdle I could see is carriers. In many places, you are locked in to a carrier. This must change. It is hurting mobile innovations. Those fat cats must go. FCC must allow open competition. Google’s bid for spectrum was more self-served, but open airwave would have spawned amazing innovations in mobile industry. In the end, perhaps, all telecom service providers (either wired or wireless) might become just pipe provider. They want to avoid that, thus make you lock-in or monopolize the market.

Again and again, the higher you go up on the value chain, more important it is. Content/software is the king – applications on PCs, OS in routers/switches, programming on cable network, etc.

Coming back to the original point, Apple had better be prepared to not repeat the history.

T-Mobile G1 (Dream)

Posted on by
Reply

T-Mobile’s G1, much anticipated Google Android phone, was unveiled today. However, looking at the pictures, I can’t believe how ugly it looks! I glimpsed a bit of screen shots, but I am not entirely convinced this would be a iPhone killer…. In addition, I am not hearing about customers dying to get their hands on it. Google/T-Mobile could have done better job marketing the phone… :(

Mobile app – translator

Posted on by
Reply

Here is another idea for a mobile app: translator.

In my last job, I had to travel abroad a lot for business. Luckily I was able to speak the local language, so it wasn’t a big deal to me, but some sort of translator would be cool. It doesn’t necessarily need Internet connection to work. Basic phrases could be downloaded with the app initially or downloaded before a trip. Since Wi-Fi (either open or paid) hotspots are available in many international cities, additional translation could be done easily. Ordering food or telling a cabbie where to go or asking for direction could be done so easily….. Perhaps, even local map, public transit map, points of interest with recommendations could be downloaded before so that the stay could be enjoyed better. Actually better yet, you use crowd wisdom to have other ex-pats recommend places to go, foods to eat, etc. Now it’s becoming more like a travel app with translator feature. And maybe work with local or international ad network to place small local-specific ads…..as revenue source.

Follow your dream?

Posted on by
Reply

Should you?

I had a conversation with someone who has been quite successful as a serial entrepreneur. Since I have a lot of spare time, I wanted to pick his brain and get some pointers what I could follow his footsteps. His brief answer was that he just had been lucky, right place at the right time. He also said there are some people who are cut out to be a leader, founder, and entrepreneur. And, most people are not. He said God (whichever god depends on your religion) has set out a path for everyone. People have different strengths, and he doesn’t believe in working on improving weaknesses, but reinforcing strengths.

One of the books I like is Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. One principle in the book says that the state head must know how to utilize his generals’ strengths best. If a general is good at offense, he should be deployed in offensive position. And if a general is good at defense, then in defensive position. You can’t blame a general for not doing his job if he was assigned with a job he cannot possibly do well. It makes total sense……

So, what if your dream is not in line with your strengths? Or what if your strengths are not enough to reach your dream? Books and TVs are full of stories about people following their dreams, persevere, and actually achieving them. How about others who have followed them but never made them? There are many athletes, both professional and Olympic, who in spite of their best effort do not make it at the top. What about those countless artists and musicians? When do you realize that perhaps your strengths are not in line with your dream or just not enough? What do you do? Then, is it about different levels or definitions of success? Should an athlete be satisfied with making it to the Olympic teams?

It’s especially meaningful to me since I have two kids of my own. As a parent, I would tell them that they could be anything they want to be. Would I be setting them up for big disappointments? Shall I just tell them that there are different levels of successes, and they should set low goals? Jack Welch is famous for setting “stretch goals”, which may not be applicable for kids, but I really ponder over the whole thing.

Dare to predict the future

Posted on by
Reply

Since the shutdown of the company I was working at previously, I have had some time to think about what I want to do. I still have the desire to start my own company, but it’s indeed getting harder and harder as I have certain family obligations. Next best thing is to join a startup, but there aren’t too many left standing in networking industry. As I have mentioned before, best case scenario would be to join a startup in web application space, but because I don’t have relevant prior experiences, it is tough. That leaves joining a well-established company in networking industry. While that’s good for supporting the family, it is bruising to my ambition and dream of starting a company of my own. However, life would not be worth living without a dream. We live one life, and I just refuse to accept that I will live the rest of my life as nobody in the sea of big corporations. Well, not exactly. My personality wouldn’t let me be nobody. I am too ambitious to be nobody in any company. Either I make a difference and become somebody or get the hell out. I think I’ve always enjoyed limelight – there is something about being a center of attention.

At any rate, I decided to examine history of technology innovations (as far back as I could remember), and see where the future innovations would happen. As people grow older, they tend to have “locked-in” view. I can feel that I already do that sometimes. But, it’s important to have open mind and views. I will let my imaginations go wild, and see where things might be headed in the future. This would be a good exercise.

I would divide Internet into two large areas: physical and logical (or Layer 1 to 4 and Layer 5 to 7 of OSI model). In physical side, you have telecommunications and data communications equipment that is responsible for delivering bits (zeroes and ones) from point A to point B. In Layer 1, most long hauls, WANs and LANs are either fiber or moving to fiber. To desktop is most likely to remain copper, and to laptop is most likely wireless (Wi-Fi variation). Long hauls use mostly SONET, the good-old, reliable SOB. DWDM stuffs much more information into single strand of fiber using different wavelengths. So, as long as you have fiber in the ground, DWDM or any other future boxes will be interested in stuffing more and more bits into the single strand of fiber. Similarly, Ethernet evolution map is pretty much intuitive, too: faster and faster. Also interesting thing is moving everything over IP. Storage used to be exclusively on fibre channel network, but with NAS and iSCSI, everything is accessible over IP without specialized network. There is even talk about implementing fibre channel over Ethernet. Actually, much more interesting things in physical side are happening in and around data centers. The need to have scalable data center is pushing for HPC environment where resources from multiple servers are pooled together. What’s happening now is like creating a humongous server with hundreds of CPUs and obscene amount of storage. With pre-partitioned storage, any number of CPUs can be instantly grouped together to perform certain jobs. For example, if there is sudden surge of demand for database processing, addition CPUs can be assigned to already existing database CPUs. It is like dynamic server virtualization. You can also imagine, with fast enough connection and fast enough storage like maybe Solid State Drives, that there could be separate “memory area network” in addition to “storage area network”. Thus you have three physically separate areas – CPU, memory and storage – being grouped dynamically on the fly and providing services to clients as needed. What provides physical connections for those three areas become quite interesting too…. Memory typically requires 50ns or less access speed, so I am not sure if current Ethernet switch can work. But, you could imagine some sort of box providing network connection to/from clients as well as between the three areas. That would be really neat… But the box needs to be as scalable as the computing resources. Also management would not be easy. There may be additional challenges I am not seeing right now, but I would believe that’s where most network, server, and storage vendors are heading.

In terms of physical side of mobile industry, it’s also pretty much predictable. Apple iPhone and Google Android are paving a new era of mobile networks. Service providers need to upgrade their equipment to deal with more and more data. Thanks to the two pioneers, mobile phones will be considered as mini-computers where consumers are free (as much as phone manufacturer lets them) to download and install applications.

Logical side is even more interesting than the physical side in both wired and wireless networks. Whether you use desktop or mobile phone, what you do with bits delivered via the network is where the true value resides. However, I must say that I am much more excited about mobile apps than desktop apps. The evolution of desktop apps seems quite predictable. For example, social networking websites could be considered as enhanced BBS. I remember when I first got my computer in high school, it came with 2400 baud modem and the only “online” activity would be through BBS. I exchanged games with others physically…using 5.25” floppy disks. You could choose which BBS to go and hang out. When I went to college, I used newsgroups and IRC as BBS. Then to Yahoo Groups, and now it’s Facebook. Truly remarkable development has been around software-as-a-service model. In most cases, big software vendors tended to target customers who leave most margins, i.e. Fortune 1000 companies. Small-to-Medium businesses usually get crippled version at discounted price, but in terms of productivity, it could be considered a lot more expensive. When you move apps to web, now you have different economies of scale, and distribution and pricing model. Just as the Internet made “Long Tail” possible, SaaS changes the whole software landscape and makes it attractive to SMBs (not that it wouldn’t be also attractive to larger companies, but they may not have compelling reason to jump).

Also, when you add mobility, you get a whole different set of software. Mobility means your location may change at any time. The obvious apps are the ones that tell you about things around you, whether you are looking for a restaurant, a friend, etc. There is also notion of instant social gaming, where you hook up with whoever is available and play a game together. Another one is instant access to information wherever you are. One app I saw lets user scan a barcode of a product and find review/rating information about it. Pretty clever. So what makes apps on mobile phone with high-speed internet connection a lot more interesting is location + instant access to information.

What could be possible? Where could things go from here? SaaS means both desktop and mobile phone could access the same application. So the SaaS should be able to accommodate information from/to both desktop and mobile phone. Will desktops become just another (immobile) terminal to apps? How about SaaS of SaaS? If apps are moving to web, and there might be a need for information exchange between two or more SaaS apps. Mashup for mobile apps. There is an idea! Another characteristic of mobile phone is it’s most likely to be with owner all the time. So, it could be use as tracking device…..could be as physical as distance travelled or expenses……or some sort of analysis based on accumulated data…..like when s/he is most likely to spend money, etc. I actually have envisioned a society without cash, since a lot of financial transactions already happen without me actually touching the money. Money gets deposited using direct deposit. I always use credit cards for purchases. I then pay for credit charges using online banking. I don’t need to touch the money, period. So, what if you add charging capability to the mobile phone? It’s already done in Asia and Europe, where you can pay for goods using your mobile phone. It’s just that mobile carriers are not credit card companies, but it should be possible perhaps through partnership. Then SaaS could keep track of most of expenses through the mobile phones and provide you with financial analysis. That could be possible.

Actually, it would be impossible to think of all the possible mobile SaaS right now….., but it gives good topic ideas. From today on, I am going to write about at least one mobile SaaS a day.