Can’t come up with the next Killer App? Don’t despair, prepare!

It seems that everywhere I look these days, I see despair over the demise of the killer app. Even some of my esteemed colleagues here at TMForum have observed, if not lamented, that there is no killer app. And while I agree with them, I see no reason to despair over this. The fact is, killer app or not, there is still opportunity out there for the savvy service provider who can understand the market  and craft an appropriate set  of solutions for it. But before we move on, let's look at some of the classic killer apps and review why recent killer apps seem to be fewer and farther between.
Here are some of the classic killer apps and platforms that they drove.

Computing
VisiCalc - Apple II
Lotus 1-2-3 - IBM PC
PageMaker - Macintosh
MS Office- Windows machines

Communications
Fax – fax machines
Voice messaging- answering machines
Mobile voice- cell phones
SMS- cell phones for younger people
Push to Talk- Nextel phones, SMR
WWW / Mosaic / HTML - Internet Access/ Broadband

Video games
Pong-Atari
Super Mario, Legend of Zelda- Nintendo NES
Sonic the Hedgehog- Sega Genesis
Tetris- Game Boy
Halo – XBOX

Quite a list- but since Visicalc would turn 30 next year,  the list might make you  feel a bit ancient.
I think there are 3 reasons why we in communications don't see killer apps much anymore (and why we beat ourselves up over it).

Reason 1- expectations of ubiquity

This is somewhat unique to industries that grew up as "utilities"; many people in communications seem to think that "it's not a killer app unless just about everyone has it". While this may be true of electricity, water and basic connectivity, it's not the case in other industries.  If you look at the computing applications, certainly not everyone was running spreadsheets or doing electronic publishing in the early years. It was really games and later the Web and that created a mass consumer market for PCs, and most of this happened more than a decade after VisiCalc debuted. Yet those early apps were considered 'killer'. If you look at game platforms, most didn't hit the mainstream until the third generation of platforms, and are still largely restricted to selected segments (though recently expanding thanks to innovation in the Nintendo Wii). Yet those games are considered 'killer' as well.

But in communications, it seems it's not a 'killer' unless everyone is using it. Again, I think we feel this way because our cornerstone product, voice, has been adopted by just about everyone who can get it. It has even been subsidized by some governments seeking universal service. New services and apps are just not that widespread or funded.  We need to tone down our expectations a bit, and understand that in the digital world it's 'different strokes for different folks". This is a major point of the LongTail , which describes the phenomenon of selling a large number of unique items in relatively small quantities.

Reason 2- platform evolution

Think about the definition of a killer app.  As Wikipedia puts it, "a killer app is an application so compelling that someone will buy the hardware or software components necessary to run it." This definition worked well in the age of sparse application sets, limited hardware devices and low market penetration (which aptly describes the early stage computing and game platform industries).  But since PCs have achieved mass market penetration and technological advances have made them so much more powerful, there are relatively few 'new' applications that require the purchase of new hardware. This is somewhat less true with gaming platforms, but as systems become much more powerful (e.g. the PS3), it will be less of a question of hardware capability than vendor partnerships.  So while there are many new apps, very few can meet the classical definition of 'killer'.

Of course, communicatons devices are following the trends of other devices, becoming more flexible and powerful, and platforms like the Blackberry have advanced the cause of apps like mobile email. So over time new comms apps won't necessarily require new hardware purchases either. Probably the best known example of a powerful, flexible platform is the iPhone, but it is hardly the only one, as many manufacturers are moving in this direction.  Now, I am not saying that users will not demand new devices at over time but as with computing platforms, performance increases will likely make changing devices less necessary over time. So again, rapid performance advancements in platforms will curtail the introduction of classically defined killer apps.

Reason 3- consumer attitudes

I may be in the minority, but I don't think most consumers go looking for killer apps, at least not in the classic definition of the term.  The hallmark of consumer marketing can be summed up in two words: simplicity and convenience, and in the age of the multi-application device, consumers will only pick up a new or additional platform if it is simpler, more convenient or maybe 'cooler' or less expensive. Why would you want to carry around a separate phone, mobile data device, audio/video player and PDA, when you can do it all on one device (like the IPhone)? So anything 'new' is going to have a much better chance of rapid adoption if it runs on a popular platform.

This phenomenon is evident across a range of consumers as well.  Although you couldn't classify him as a 'typical consumer' listen to Sundar Pichai, Google's vice president of product management, in a blog post announcing Chrome. "We search, chat, email and collaborate…. And in our spare time, we shop, bank, read news and keep in touch with friends..."  Killer app?  Or multiple applications on a single (software) platform? Sure he's a geek, but doesn't that sound like you? Throw in a little social networking, video and some games, subtract the banking and news, and it's probably pretty close to what your kids are doing. Maybe they got a few extra boxes, like a Sony PSP, but I am betting they would prefer a single one, or at least fewer function-specific devices.

So let's forget about pursuing the next killer app.   Instead, let's recognize that there are many different classes of consumers (or segments if you want to use market speak). And while there are some common services they are all need, they are not searching for the same thing or anxiously awaiting the next killer app.  Let's learn to understand the needs of these segments, and how they want acquire use and augment your services (hmm, perhaps this will be the topic of an upcoming blog).  Let's focus on flexible, open platforms, for both ourselves and the consumer, so that we can quickly deliver these services. Oh, and this time, let's figure out how to monetize the services.

Concerned about what to do with all that spare time you were investing in thinking about the next killer app? Well, how about seeking King Solomon's mines, Desoto's fountain of youth, or maybe just a leprechaun?  After all, your chances of finding them are only slightly less favorable than finding the next ubiquitous killer app.